The pointlesness of trying to support religion with science.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't know that there is no god, but I certainly don't believe there is.

[Santa_Claus]

When religion realised that they couldn't defeat science they co-opted it into gods great plan.

Apart from the loonies I don't think most religions claim that science is wrong, just that everything science discovers / proves is simply wot god did. So the more science explains the more wonderful god is because he must be even cleverer than they thought.

IMO science alone will never defeat religion - you need a dose of human cunning for that. Not just facts

and I would go further,that no real point in trying to (de)convert the religous (apart from for tactical reasons) - gotta learn from the Religions and go after the kids. and the sources of money.....and to do that need to invoke the rule of law - laws made by men for men, imperfections and all.

a) Grooming of Children (under 18) - a crime
b) Sexual Mutilation of Children, both sexes (under 18) - a crime
c) No tax concessions for religous organisations - and taxed fully like a business (if they receive any income).
d) all Churches / organisations to be licenced and regulated (and paid for from levies on the Churches)
e) all Churches / organisations to sign up to a declaration that Civil law has primacy over religous law / doctrines.
f) all Churches / organisations to sign up to a declaration covering the basic values of the host Society / Country. specifically including bum sex between blokes. and gays getting married in their church . Women's rights (including wearing WTF they want) and that drinking alcohol is good
g) members of the Congretations to also formally sign up (and therefore agree to e and f) to any Church / Organisation and get an ID number that can be included on official forms if the question is "what religion are you?". and maybe even a Govt administered test, like a driving licence. Just so folks know what they are signing up to.
h) no one under 18 can join a Church as a full member.

[Seth]

I see either utterly lame and sad misunderstandings/blatant distortions and lies from young earthers or I see quantum woo. I can sympathize more with the people who believe the woo, because what I've seen tends to be less weird than what real physicists talk about.

22 Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the LORD’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”

Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”

25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.

Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

30 Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which had been torn down. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” 32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs[a] of seed. 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”

34 “Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.

“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.

36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”

37.5 Then Elijah, the time-traveling religious icon salesman from 3442 said, sotto voce, into the micro-communicator implanted in his right mastoid "Okay Harry, fire up the Massive Irradiation Recirculating Automatic Causal Link Evaporator and give the rubes a show, I think we can sell all that Jehova stuff on this trip..."

38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The LORD—he is God! The LORD—he is God!”

[Seth]

When religion realised that they couldn't defeat science they co-opted it into gods great plan.

Apart from the loonies I don't think most religions claim that science is wrong, just that everything science discovers / proves is simply wot god did. So the more science explains the more wonderful god is because he must be even cleverer than they thought.

IMO science alone will never defeat religion - you need a dose of human cunning for that. Not just facts

and I would go further,that no real point in trying to (de)convert the religous (apart from for tactical reasons) - gotta learn from the Religions and go after the kids. and the sources of money.....and to do that need to invoke the rule of law - laws made by men for men, imperfections and all.

a) Grooming of Children (under 18) - a crime

What, you want kids to go to school and be seen in public with dirty, greasy matted hair and filthy clothes?

b) Sexual Mutilation of Children, both sexes (under 18) - a crime

Already a crime.

c) No tax concessions for religous organisations - and taxed fully like a business (if they receive any income).

Taxation of religion was historically the primary means of oppressing disfavored religious minorities. That's why civilized countries who believe in the right to freedom of religion eschew such taxation.

d) all Churches / organisations to be licenced and regulated (and paid for from levies on the Churches)

By whom and in what respect? How do you propose to "license and regulate" the private religious acts of individuals?

e) all Churches / organisations to sign up to a declaration that Civil law has primacy over religous law / doctrines.

Unnecessary, as civil law already has primacy, at least in the US.

f) all Churches / organisations to sign up to a declaration covering the basic values of the host Society / Country. specifically including bum sex between blokes. and gays getting married in their church . Women's rights (including wearing WTF they want) and that drinking alcohol is good

And an Inquisition presumably for those who refuse to worship the secular gay doctrine?

g) members of the Congretations to also formally sign up (and therefore agree to e and f) to any Church / Organisation and get an ID number that can be included on official forms if the question is "what religion are you?". and maybe even a Govt administered test, like a driving licence. Just so folks know what they are signing up to.

I'll agree to that if you agree to do the same for political affiliation and voting. Fail the test, no vote.

h) no one under 18 can join a Church as a full member.

What, exactly, does "join a Church" mean, anyway?

[Gallstones]

b) Sexual Mutilation of Children, both sexes (under 18) - a crime

Already a crime.

Oh, oh. This topic alone has become one of the longest running discussions ever.

[Seth]

b) Sexual Mutilation of Children, both sexes (under 18) - a crime

Already a crime.

Oh, oh. This topic alone has become one of the longest running discussions ever.

Well, for it to be "sexual mutilation" it would require that the intent of the mutilator be sexual, not religious, cultural or medical.

[Gallstones]

b) Sexual Mutilation of Children, both sexes (under 18) - a crime

Already a crime.

Oh, oh. This topic alone has become one of the longest running discussions ever.

Well, for it to be "sexual mutilation" it would require that the intent of the mutilator be sexual, not religious, cultural or medical.

Not.

Mutilation is mutilation regardless of how one justifies the doing of it. Religion is the most common motivation for genital mutilation--how about that, I change the terminology to genital from sexual?

So no.

[Seth]

b) Sexual Mutilation of Children, both sexes (under 18) - a crime

Already a crime.

Oh, oh. This topic alone has become one of the longest running discussions ever.

Well, for it to be "sexual mutilation" it would require that the intent of the mutilator be sexual, not religious, cultural or medical.

Not.

Mutilation is mutilation regardless of how one justifies the doing of it. Religion is the most common motivation for genital mutilation--how about that, I change the terminology to genital from sexual?

So no.

Well, yes, actually. Terminology is important, you see. If it's a religious motivation, it's not "sexual mutilation," and yes, changing the term to "genital mutilation" would lend an entirely different meaning, but that's not what was posted.

[Gallstones]

b) Sexual Mutilation of Children, both sexes (under 18) - a crime

Already a crime.

Oh, oh. This topic alone has become one of the longest running discussions ever.

Well, for it to be "sexual mutilation" it would require that the intent of the mutilator be sexual, not religious, cultural or medical.

Not.

Mutilation is mutilation regardless of how one justifies the doing of it. Religion is the most common motivation for genital mutilation--how about that, I change the terminology to genital from sexual?

So no.

Well, yes, actually. Terminology is important, you see. If it's a religious motivation, it's not "sexual mutilation," and yes, changing the term to "genital mutilation" would lend an entirely different meaning, but that's not what was posted.

It's what I posted.
And I coupled it with the statement that religion is the most common motivator for genital mutilation.

Do you think that excision of the labia and clitoris and the suturing closed of the vaginal opening ever occurs as a non sexual mutilation?
Is there ever a non-religious motivation for doing it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, yes, actually. Terminology is important, you see. If it's a religious motivation, it's not "sexual mutilation," and yes, changing the term to "genital mutilation" would lend an entirely different meaning, but that's not what was posted.

This ignores the fact that circumcision has sexual ramifications.

By this logic, there is a moral difference between sacrificing a virgin and murdering someone in the course of a robbery.

[Seth]

Well, yes, actually. Terminology is important, you see. If it's a religious motivation, it's not "sexual mutilation," and yes, changing the term to "genital mutilation" would lend an entirely different meaning, but that's not what was posted.

This ignores the fact that circumcision has sexual ramifications.

And health ramifications, if you ask physicians...both pro and con, or at least that was the state of the art of medical knowledge when I was an infant. Not to mention social ramifications.

In some cultures circumcision is a rite of passage for males, without which they cannot be full members of society. The same is true of infibulation and clitorectomy. In some of the cultures in which these are practiced, women who do not go through the ordeal will never be married, never have a family and will be social outcasts in their society. The same is true of many other body-modifying cultural memes, including putting rings on the neck, plates in the lips and ears, tattooing the body, raising scars on the body and suchlike.

It's easy to sit back from afar and judge the cultural practices of others, but the issue of unintended consequences of interfering, not to mention the morality and ethics of doing so are far from absolute in favor of western cultural interference.

By this logic, there is a moral difference between sacrificing a virgin and murdering someone in the course of a robbery.

False dilemma.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's easy to sit back from afar and judge the cultural practices of others, but the issue of unintended consequences of interfering, not to mention the morality and ethics of doing so are far from absolute in favor of western cultural interference.

So then you'll resign the act of judgment? I won't.

By this logic, there is a moral difference between sacrificing a virgin and murdering someone in the course of a robbery.

False dilemma.

I have not posed a dilemma. This is an analogy.

I agree with you that there is no dilemma: doing something so obnoxious simply to appease some supernatural power is horseshit.

[Seth]

It's easy to sit back from afar and judge the cultural practices of others, but the issue of unintended consequences of interfering, not to mention the morality and ethics of doing so are far from absolute in favor of western cultural interference.

So then you'll resign the act of judgment? I won't.

So, by what reasoning and upon what basis would you then justify imposing your morality and ethics on others?

By this logic, there is a moral difference between sacrificing a virgin and murdering someone in the course of a robbery.

False dilemma.

I have not posed a dilemma. This is an analogy.

No, you have posed a false dilemma and an inapt analogy. Body modification is not death.

I agree with you that there is no dilemma: doing something so obnoxious simply to appease some supernatural power is horseshit.

Unless such a supernatural power exists and demands it of you, on pain of far worse if you fail to comply. Or unless you believe that such a supernatural power exists and that far worse will happen to you if you fail to comply. Or unless your culture will reject you and make you an outcast, unable to participate in society or achieve the desires one has for one's life, based on the cultural memes one grows up with.

Can you say that body modification is objectively evil, or is it a subjective matter that depends on the particular situation of the person being modified?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, by what reasoning and upon what basis would you then justify imposing your morality and ethics on others?

You'll notice that I didn't say I would "impose" anything. A judgment is a thought, not a deed or fiat. Not sure how you made that leap of logic.

No, you have posed a false dilemma and an inapt analogy. Body modification is not death.

I didn't mention body modification. I compared two killings, both of which are to my mind unjust. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?

Unless such a supernatural power exists and demands it of you, on pain of far worse if you fail to comply. Or unless you believe that such a supernatural power exists and that far worse will happen to you if you fail to comply. Or unless your culture will reject you and make you an outcast, unable to participate in society or achieve the desires one has for one's life, based on the cultural memes one grows up with.

Yes, were such a being to be demonstrated. In the absence of such a demonstration, I stand by my opinion that toadying behavior is horseshit. I've been an atheist for 32 years and am not "an outcast, unable to participate in society", thanks. Life is a little more complex than such a monochromatic view would suggest.

If you believe, that's fine. I don't care so long as you keep your religion out of our Constitution.

Can you say that body modification is objectively evil, or is it a subjective matter that depends on the particular situation of the person being modified?

Again, this is irrelevant to my post, so I will ignore it.

[charlou]

Can you say that body modification is objectively evil, or is it a subjective matter that depends on the particular situation of the person being modified?

Objectively no more or less evil than imposing a tax on someone to "benefit others", I guess. That's not a dilemma, btw, just an analogy.