VoxOrion wrote:

FTN wrote:i could never figure out why people argue over religion. you're never going to turn a believer into a non-believer, or a non-believer into a believer, just by talking to them. i think either you believe, you don't, or you don't know, and it takes some kind of personal experience to make any kind of change to that. but i don't think it really even matters, to be honest.

I think religion debates can be pretty facinating and interesting if you start from common ground. Catholics and Protestants can have good debates, Christians and Jews to an extent, etc. But that requires that there is that common "we'll agree that the Bible is an authoratative source, there is a God" etc. I'm probably confusing an argument about religion with arguments about theology here anyway.

I've read some fantastic athiest vs. God believer debates as well, but they were governed by old-school non internet rules like trying to avoid logical fallacies and really being philosophical about the discussion. In other words, not likely from any of us, at least not on BSG.

You're a butt wipe.

VoxOrion wrote:

FTN wrote:i could never figure out why people argue over religion. you're never going to turn a believer into a non-believer, or a non-believer into a believer, just by talking to them. i think either you believe, you don't, or you don't know, and it takes some kind of personal experience to make any kind of change to that. but i don't think it really even matters, to be honest.

I think religion debates can be pretty facinating and interesting if you start from common ground. Catholics and Protestants can have good debates, Christians and Jews to an extent, etc. But that requires that there is that common "we'll agree that the Bible is an authoratative source, there is a God" etc. I'm probably confusing an argument about religion with arguments about theology here anyway.

I've read some fantastic athiest vs. God believer debates as well, but they were governed by old-school non internet rules like trying to avoid logical fallacies and really being philosophical about the discussion. In other words, not likely from any of us, at least not on BSG.

Plus, when you're having more sober discussions/following up on interesting reading, you do find some real nuggets. I remember exactly where I was when I read that the islamic creation myth has Allah imposing order on a chaotic universe, rather than God creating it out of nothing. I found that quite a mindblowing concept to be at the start of any religion, because it closely parallels a lot of empirical thinking, especially when you get onto Kant and the like. It's a very appealing concept, and it made me realise why some people find islamic beliefs so appealing.

with all the godless heathens, i'd expect more action on a sunday morning.

I'm a non-practicing Greek Orthodox.

I thought you practiced greek all the time




(ITS A JOKE! I KID BECAUSE I LOVE- IM NOT BEING MEAN!!)

Doll Is Mine wrote:I'm a non-practicing Greek Orthodox.

I hear the global recession has pushed the price of incense and beards right up, so I can see your problem.

So BBC4 have got this documentary on science and islam going presented by a half-iraqi professor of physics, and i never realised algebra was an arabian word, along with algorithm. Musta dropphed a hyphen somewhere along the way.

But more seriously, what is kind of interesting was his emphasis on the Caliphate's very catholic and inclusive approach to knowledge. The presenter was suggesting that this was in part down to mohammed telling his followers to seek out knowledge wherever they could, but he conceded that it was probably also down to the fact that they had a fucking huge empire to govern, so stuff like maths and working out the circumference of the earth so you could calculate which way mecca was are really important.

A lot of this isn't new. The Romans, like the Arabs, realised that loads of territory need a common language, otherwise running things is a pain, and so I'm sure they did a lot of translating too, just like the arabic tranlation movement. Christianity has a pretty good tradition of inscribing and copying works out to keep knowledge from disappearing when a library gets burned down. And loads of money from loads of territory means you can invest in R and D by paying people shedloads to bring you new books. Shit, they even built a huge measuring stick for the nile to try and work out a pattern to its flooding (although in that link it makes clear they just copied the idea from the egyptians and made it better).

Ultimately, at some point, I think folk can think about pursuing science without any kind of faith imperative, but it's useful to remember this as an example that the idea of religion and science coexisting is a pretty old one.

Anyhow, the book accompanying the series can be got here. I don't know how it compares to the tv, but a book should be wending it's way to the office shortly, so I'll give a heads up if it's any good.

dajafi wrote:Born Jewish, culturally Jewish (the guilt, the food), voted "agnostic," but I'm a little biased on the question: I want a Higher Power to exist, so maybe I'm better described as a Deist.

Substitute Jewish for Catholic and it's my exact thinking as well.

Vatican says there is no problem with Darwinand that it doesn't like the idea of intelligent design.

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, said that Darwin had been anticipated by St Augustine of Hippo. The 4th-century theologian had “never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish” and that forms of life had been transformed “slowly over time”. Aquinas had made similar observations in the Middle Ages, he added.

He said it was time that theologians as well as scientists grappled with the mysteries of genetic codes and “whether the diversification of life forms is the result of competition or cooperation between species”. As for the origins of Man, although we shared 97 per cent of our “genetic inheritance” with apes, the remaining 3 per cent “is what makes us unique”, including religion.

“I maintain that the idea of evolution has a place in Christian theology,” Professor Tanzella-Nitti added.

Yay!

That's a step in the right direction for the Church. Being anti-science is not really a sustainable position... it can back you into a corner.

Things I learned from my students that might not be true: South Park is an expression of Trey Parker's Lutheran faith.

Which leads to the question what is it about Lutherans and foul language?

The Vatican has been pro-Evolution for about 50 years now

more like vatican't

I wonder how many right-wing christian evangelicals in this country can wrap their brain around the fact that Jesus didn't actually speak english, followed Jewish customs, and probably looked more like this than the glorified anglican version found in most images. Part of me thinks that if they met this so-called Jesus today they would call Homeland Security ASAP.

That doesn't really look much different than most Jesus pictures I've seen other than shorter hair and beard.

Do those really look that different except that the first one is made to look all unkempt and in a more aggressive pose?

Putting Jesus in soft light doesn't seem that crazy to me.