religion. what is the point?

[JonMc]

im intrigued to know where religious intolerance comes from... you'd assume the christian faith would be all about being nice to your neighbor etc but it doesn't seem to work like, was something lost in translation?

Loads.

The earliest thing I remember striking me from my childhood was the Easter story and about how Mr Jesus told Mr Peter that he would deny him three times before the sun rose the next morning...but Hey! Jesus said, that's ok. You need to go on - this is my path and you need to stay alive to spread my word and to do good. From that beginning, cut to a church supposedly built on that concept but instead creates a cult that literally worships martyrdom.

I mean, how does that work?

 

[Lonz]

Technically we only know what we know cos we are told by someone, whether that be a scientist or a priest. You can extend that to the news, you could be getting told a pack of lies about what is going on every day in the world.

The news/priests etc. is one thing. That's not what science is though.

Loads.

The earliest thing I remember striking me from my childhood was the Easter story and about how Mr Jesus told Mr Peter that he would deny him three times before the sun rose the next morning...but Hey! Jesus said, that's ok. You need to go on - this is my path and you need to stay alive. From that beginning, cut to a church supposedly built on that concept but instead creates a cult that literally worships martyrdom.

I mean, how does that work?

Absolutely hated that perk on COD.

 

[dangermows]

The news/priests etc. is one thing. That's not what science is though.

It is to us. Unless you are in the labs/doing the tests etc it technically is.

 

[Lonz]

It is to us. Unless you are in the labs/doing the tests etc it technically is.

So you're saying things like peer reviewed journals could be plain bollocks and no one would be any the wiser?

 

[Ilios]

Technically we only know what we know cos we are told by someone, whether that be a scientist or a priest. You can extend that to the news, you could be getting told a pack of lies about what is going on every day in the world.

You can fact check a scientist though, and you can look at evidence and experiments yourself. A lot of people accept what science tells them of course, which is perfectly acceptable, as science is method and not a biased dogma. It is peer reviewed, and tested, and therefore trustworthy as the best knowledge we have. I don't need to believe a scientist to know that planes fly, cars drive, lights work etc. Science works, that's the difference

 

[WHD]

Technically we only know what we know cos we are told by someone, whether that be a scientist or a priest. You can extend that to the news, you could be getting told a pack of lies about what is going on every day in the world.

Experiments & evidence etc. can back up what a scientist says and it's much easier for a priest to lie to his congregation than a news channel to make up a major news story.

 

[Kent_Mackem]

Technically we only know what we know cos we are told by someone, whether that be a scientist or a priest. You can extend that to the news, you could be getting told a pack of lies about what is going on every day in the world.

That's not true. You can be told an apple in your hand will fall downwards not upwards when you drop it. You can then go on and verify that claim yourself. Science is just an extension of that, albeit with sometimes more expensive kit.

 

[dangermows]

So you're saying things like peer reviewed journals could be plain bollocks and no one would be any the wiser?

You could have a circle of people within the science world with their own agenda, yes. I dont think that by the way, but its possible. Same with the government or the police when wanting the public to believe something. Im sounding like @ProfessionalMackem here

Experiments & evidence etc. can back up what a scientist says and it's much easier for a priest to lie to his congregation than a news channel to make up a major news story.

It is, but unless i carry out the experiments myself you could get a few people together telling me what the experiments have told us, and id believe it, blindly.

That's not true. You can be told an apple in your hand will fall downwards not upwards when you drop it. You can then go on and verify that claim yourself. Science is just an extension of that, albeit with sometimes more expensive kit.

Yes, like I said, i can only know for sure the results of tests I can carry out myself.

You can fact check a scientist though, and you can look at evidence and experiments yourself. A lot of people accept what science tells them of course, which is perfectly acceptable, as science is method and not a biased dogma. It is peer reviewed, and tested, and therefore trustworthy as the best knowledge we have. I don't need to believe a scientist to know that planes fly, cars drive, lights work etc. Science works, that's the difference

You need scientists to tell you if flying in a plane is actually bad for your health or not though for example.

 

[Ilios]

You could have a circle of people within the science world with their own agenda, yes. I dont think that by the way, but its possible. Same with the government or the police when wanting the public to believe something. Im sounding like @ProfessionalMackem here

You couldn't though, because the whole method of science is to test hypotheses; if something becomes a 'theory' then it has an observed body of facts, has been successfully tested numerous times, and is hugely evidenced by all the information available. There cannot be little clubs of delusion, because they'd be revealed as false by other scientists and by biased methodology. Scientists can and do make false claims (often when trying operate from the presupposition of a God, ironically) but nobody takes that seriously, as it fails the scientific method.

 

[dangermows]

You couldn't though, because the whole method of science is to test hypotheses; if something becomes a 'theory' then it has an observed body of facts, has been successfully tested numerous times, and is hugely evidenced by all the information available. There cannot be little clubs of delusion, because they'd be revealed as false by other scientists and by biased methodology.

Worked for the police/government re Hillsborough for a canny few years mind.

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

Thousands of years ago in the early days of civilisation, it was a free-for-all.

Then religion came along and said "How about we are all nicer to our neighbours for a change and they'll be nicer to us?"

That bit's good I guess.

It's once you get to theism that you have a problem.

"I believe in a god controlling everything. To please him I'm going to worship him in these set ways"
"I also believe in that same god controlling everything. To please I'm going to worship him in these set ways"
"Wait that's different than the ways I'm worshipping him... die!!!!!"

This is the problem and the emergence of the written word simply reinforced the concepts and the power of that hierarchy within society. Theism was the politicisation of religion and it began that process around 10,000 years ago. The books became sacred in their own right and were even claimed to be divine. That just led to different interpretations and political conflict. That model spread throughout the ancient world but it's not the full story whether materialists like it or not.

 

[Lonz]

You couldn't though, because the whole method of science is to test hypotheses; if something becomes a 'theory' then it has an observed body of facts, has been successfully tested numerous times, and is hugely evidenced by all the information available. There cannot be little clubs of delusion, because they'd be revealed as false by other scientists and by biased methodology. Scientists can and do make false claims (often when trying operate from the presupposition of a God, ironically) but nobody takes that seriously, as it fails the scientific method.

This.

Worked for the police/government re Hillsborough for a canny few years mind.

That's back to the news, police and government. Nothing to do with science.

 

[dangermows]

This.


That's back to the news, police and government. Nothing to do with science.

Science got all the goodies like? The science world likes to make money for itself.

 

[Lonz]

Science got all the goodies like? The science world likes to make money for itself.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[dangermows]

What on earth are you talking about?

Looks after its own interests, like everyone else, so will tell you what it wants to. And you will be none the wiser.

 

[Lonz]

Looks after its own interests, like everyone else, so will tell you what it wants to. And you will be none the wiser.

Science is a methodology; a process. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say if you understand that.

 

[dangermows]

Science is a methodology; a process. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say if you understand that.

Back to my original point. You arent a scientist. And you arent carrying out the experiments. You arent testing the findings of those experiments either. So you are putting faith in what you are being told.

 

[Lonz]

Back to my original point. You arent a scientist. And you arent carrying out the experiments. You arent testing the findings of those experiments either. So you are putting faith in what you are being told.

That's an incomplete description of the process though. Nothing is ever accepted as being true unless results and evidence of the tests are peer reviewed, and repeatable. It's never just one individual spouting what he likes and what his interpretations are that gets believed across the board. Of course, you can have different opinions of what a set of data actually means, but then it wouldn't be accepted as true at that point anyway.

 

[Ilios]

Back to my original point. You arent a scientist. And you arent carrying out the experiments. You arent testing the findings of those experiments either. So you are putting faith in what you are being told.

There's no 'faith' involved in science, it is a methodology, and one that works over and over again. I take it you're happy to have 'faith' in the computer you're typing on, or the car you drive, or every time you switch on a light. It is an argument from ignorance that I stated earlier - 'I don't know something, therefore everything is equal in validity'. It is a fallacy.

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

Loads.

The earliest thing I remember striking me from my childhood was the Easter story and about how Mr Jesus told Mr Peter that he would deny him three times before the sun rose the next morning...but Hey! Jesus said, that's ok. You need to go on - this is my path and you need to stay alive to spread my word and to do good. From that beginning, cut to a church supposedly built on that concept but instead creates a cult that literally worships martyrdom.

I mean, how does that work?

Personally, I think the whole story was made up by Gentiles. I don't think Peter (whoever he really was) denied Jesus three times. I think the story is a construct and your conclusion about martyrdom correct. Paul mentions few of the disciples...Peter, John and James (the brother of Jesus) who is not later directly named among the twelve but appears out of nowhere. Paul also refers to a Cephas which also means rock but no-one else. Paul never refers to Peter's betrayal of Jesus nor that of Judas Iscariot. Considering his hostile, volatile attitude to the Jerusalem mission, it is remarkable that he never uses those allegations against them. Judas Iscariot = Judas the Sicarii = Judas the Zealot. He is said to the son of Simon Iscariot = Simon the Sicarii = Simon the Zealot who is also named as a disciple of Jesus and was probably his brother Simon. Simon the Zealot led the mission after the death of another brother of Jesus, James. Simon Peter, Simon Cephas, Simon Iscariot, Simon the Zealot and Simon the brother of Jesus were probably all the same person which would makes Judas Iscariot the nephew of Jesus. No wonder Paul never used those alleged betrayals in his vitriolic attack on the Jerusalem mission. They never happened.

How on earth the Gentiles turned the extensive murder of so many in Palestine by the Romans for sedition into a philosophy of martyrdom is astonishing and an indication of the Roman politicisation of what Josephus calls the Fourth Movement, which he also describes as a new movement.