Comments on: Separation of Church and your face http://spaghettioh.com/separation-of-church-and-your-face Hand over your flesh, and a new world awaits you... Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:57:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jasper http://spaghettioh.com/separation-of-church-and-your-face/comment-page-1#comment-475 Jasper Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:30:10 +0000 http://spaghettioh.com/?p=1214#comment-475 I'm sorry but there is not one thing in this article that I can say that I agree with. Firstly, what bad name has science given itself? It's true that it can be used for both good and bad, but so can anything else. And if you mean because it tries to get in a pissing contest with religion (and really, are we grouping EVERY aspect of science together? When has Thermodynamics ever had anything bad to say about religion?)well...the only time I've seen "science" do that is in trying to not have falsehoods taught to children in school. Other than that its usually religion that whips out its dick and tries to 1 up "science". As for them being the same...no. They are very emphatically NOT the same. The only similarity I can see is that they both attempt to explain the world around us. The difference being that one is correct and one is not. Religion was great back in the day. The ground shakes and people don't know why. Religion steps in and says "Its the will of God!" and that was fine because it let people understand (if wrongly) the incomprehensible world around them. Today we know most earthquakes are caused by a build up and release of energy along plate boundries. This is fact. To go against it would be foolish. Religion can be good, but religion needs to stay in the realm of the spirit. The idea of God not being seperate from you is also a highly personal one. I don't feel that God is a part of me as I don't believe or disbelieve in a God/god's/whatever. I've also always thought that the presumption that many religions/religious people make that they know what God thinks or wants to be egotistical. To say you know what God does or is about, I mean we're talking about a being responsible for all of creation (take a moment to think about that, not just this planet, not just this solar system or even this galaxy...EVERYTHING), is just foolish. As for us not being evolved from "monkeys"...well your right in the words if not the spirit. Apes are much closer to us as far as evolution goes. I don't know a lot of people who are "freaked out" by the idea that we evolved from apes other than hardcore theists who have had a lifetime of indoctrination to tell them they should be. As for there being more than one species of Homo on the planet at once...what is that supposed to prove? There have been at least 13 different hominids of the genus Homo on the planet during the last 2.2 million years, often times more than one species was living at the same time. Evolution isn't a straight shot afair, its not this>that>the other. It branches, different things are tried, and if they don't work they disappear. As for monkeys being stupid, they are as smart as the needs of their envirionment dictate. If you look at a chimp aned a human you'll notice that the chimp is much stronger physically than we are. That was the evolutionary chance we took, we put all of our energy into a large brain, which allowed us to make up for our other shortcomings. It's evolution baby. I’m sorry but there is not one thing in this article that I can say that I agree with.

Firstly, what bad name has science given itself? It’s true that it can be used for both good and bad, but so can anything else. And if you mean because it tries to get in a pissing contest with religion (and really, are we grouping EVERY aspect of science together? When has Thermodynamics ever had anything bad to say about religion?)well...the only time I’ve seen "science" do that is in trying to not have falsehoods taught to children in school. Other than that its usually religion that whips out its dick and tries to 1 up "science".

As for them being the same...no. They are very emphatically NOT the same. The only similarity I can see is that they both attempt to explain the world around us. The difference being that one is correct and one is not. Religion was great back in the day. The ground shakes and people don’t know why. Religion steps in and says "Its the will of God!" and that was fine because it let people understand (if wrongly) the incomprehensible world around them. Today we know most earthquakes are caused by a build up and release of energy along plate boundries. This is fact. To go against it would be foolish. Religion can be good, but religion needs to stay in the realm of the spirit.

The idea of God not being seperate from you is also a highly personal one. I don’t feel that God is a part of me as I don’t believe or disbelieve in a God/god’s/whatever. I’ve also always thought that the presumption that many religions/religious people make that they know what God thinks or wants to be egotistical. To say you know what God does or is about, I mean we’re talking about a being responsible for all of creation (take a moment to think about that, not just this planet, not just this solar system or even this galaxy...EVERYTHING), is just foolish.

As for us not being evolved from "monkeys"...well your right in the words if not the spirit. Apes are much closer to us as far as evolution goes. I don’t know a lot of people who are "freaked out" by the idea that we evolved from apes other than hardcore theists who have had a lifetime of indoctrination to tell them they should be.

As for there being more than one species of Homo on the planet at once...what is that supposed to prove? There have been at least 13 different hominids of the genus Homo on the planet during the last 2.2 million years, often times more than one species was living at the same time. Evolution isn’t a straight shot afair, its not this>that>the other. It branches, different things are tried, and if they don’t work they disappear.

As for monkeys being stupid, they are as smart as the needs of their envirionment dictate. If you look at a chimp aned a human you’ll notice that the chimp is much stronger physically than we are. That was the evolutionary chance we took, we put all of our energy into a large brain, which allowed us to make up for our other shortcomings. It’s evolution baby.

]]> By: Ted http://spaghettioh.com/separation-of-church-and-your-face/comment-page-1#comment-474 Ted Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:01:53 +0000 http://spaghettioh.com/?p=1214#comment-474 "Separatism is what keeps minds in The Matrix." Actually it was the separatists that were those that escaped from the matrix; symbolically shown as either taking a red pill or a blue pill. Two paths, not one. Plus you have a weak argument against evolution. I don't get your point, the gist of the blog is that we all get along but you're denying the validity of monotheistic religions while also bashing the scientific evidence for evolution. The kind of faith you're pitching here is the kind found in religions such Buddhism, which is fine but restate your position. Also, there really is no "science" behind most religious claims, except pseudo-science which is often sought by the religion to try and justify it. There are scientific benefits from certain aspects of faith, but no basis behind supernatural claims. Likewise, there is no religion behind science. Science answers questions, and often those answers leave open larger questions. In the wake of those new questions, often new-age people will try and answer with some superficial explanation with no basis to science. Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive, but religion should not influence science or for that matter political policy. People have the right to believe what they wish, but it becomes a problem when beliefs contradict evidence. "Separatism is what keeps minds in The Matrix." Actually it was the separatists that were those that escaped from the matrix; symbolically shown as either taking a red pill or a blue pill. Two paths, not one. Plus you have a weak argument against evolution. I don’t get your point, the gist of the blog is that we all get along but you’re denying the validity of monotheistic religions while also bashing the scientific evidence for evolution. The kind of faith you’re pitching here is the kind found in religions such Buddhism, which is fine but restate your position.

Also, there really is no "science" behind most religious claims, except pseudo-science which is often sought by the religion to try and justify it. There are scientific benefits from certain aspects of faith, but no basis behind supernatural claims.
Likewise, there is no religion behind science. Science answers questions, and often those answers leave open larger questions. In the wake of those new questions, often new-age people will try and answer with some superficial explanation with no basis to science.

Science and religion don’t have to be mutually exclusive, but religion should not influence science or for that matter political policy. People have the right to believe what they wish, but it becomes a problem when beliefs contradict evidence.

]]>