When will religion be overteken by logic?

Look again....you proved my point.
...and have the non-religious moved to a secular religion?

 

what is a "secular religion"?

 

Maybe we each are seeing what we want to in those articles.

I don't know about those other countries, but that sure has happened in the USA. We have religious devotions to illogical environmentalist dogmas and political dogmas.

 

Yes, you certainly see what you want to see and those "dogmas" do not necessarily correlate to whether that person is religious or not. Your illogic is another person's logic.

 

Religious devotion to dogma is religious.

 

Evidently it does not occur to you that I might have visited other houses before I was 18.

Certain people would presumably find it convenient to define the phrase such that the sight of an unread Bible qualifies; but in case you've forgotten, your original contention was that 'the god you were born into is the "right" god', which, to the extent it is even marginally coherent, is nowhere close to being consistent with the facts presented, as everyone following the conversation can plainly see.

 

Again you are proving my point in that you were exposed to Christianity at the houses you visited. You were born in an area of the world where Christianity is predominant. Had you been born in Pakistan you’d have been exposed to the Koran.

 

No doubt I am, but whatever preposterous defintion of the phrase you obviously have in mind.

What you conveniently and consistently forget is that I was never exposed to the Bible before I was 18.

 

You continue to miss the point there are places beyond which science cannot now go and may never be able to go.

 

correction

 

You are right - Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were just as bad as Totalitarianism under Christianity at times.

 

But you were exposed to the bible because of where you were born. Again...had you been born in Pakistan you'd have been exposed to the Koran.
Also, you were expose to religion prior to 18 as you were instructed to PRAY at your grandmother's wake. You also stated, in an earlier post, that you were exposed to the bible before 18 so it seems you don't have your story straight.
The point is you were exposed to Christianity even at a young age.

 

you were certainly exposed to a red ass from your parents when you did not follow the applicable golden rules that the bible teaches however. everything has origin.

 

I see that you couldn't rise to the challenge in my reply which followed your above response.

 

There are times sir when speculation is as far as we can go for we lack the tools to gather facts and information before the big bang is one of those. Many if not most would like to go further in that direction but we simply lack the tools and technology to do so. Thus we are stuck with only speculation. And again in such a realm one person's speculation about that time is as good as another.

One other point if no one had faith in their ideas, did no believe in them no human progress scientific or other wise would ever occur. For if you do not believe your speculation would lead to something concrete why would you ever pursue it?

 

Presumably it shall ever remain so in your little fantasy world. After all, who's a better authority on my formative years than you?

And had you understood what you read, you'd know the instruction I received as to prayer was utterly worthless.

I said no such thing, and you bloody well know it.

 

Oh but you did...You were in fact exposed to the bible because you stated you opened it and pretended to spit in it. So you WERE in fact exposed to it.

 

I see your argument failed, so you resort to personal attacks instead?

I am saying the Sumerian texts came first, before the bible, the bible is based on the Sumerian texts.

I am not saying the Sumerian texts are true, they most likely are as fictional as the bible

the Sumerian texts are the oldest written religion, so it came first

 

you had never heard of the Christian version of God before 18? that is rare... you would almost have to be home schooled

 

When we're talking about before the big bang we're speculating.

There is a gigantic difference between speculation and belief. As I've mentioned, speculation is the beginning of science. Belief is the end of science, as belief is outside of science.

It's not unreasonable for scientists (or anyone else) to speculate concerning what is out there beyond our universe ("before", different dimensions, whatever). In science, that speculation is NOT belief. And, it CAN lead to hypotheses that can be tested, even with our limited technology of today - as seen by the search for ring patterns predicted by speculation concerning intersections of universes (which discovered no such rings after serious effort).

 

As for "proving or disproving God", there is no possibility of that.

Nothing we discover about how our universe works (or the larger environment that may contain this universe) will prove there is or is not a god. There is just no methodology for proving or disproving anything about god.

 

Again sir that's not the point I'm arguing. If you aren't speculating based on facts then the only you can speculate upon is what you believe.

Belief is no more the end of science than corned beef hash is the end of tin cans. In fact the very opposite is true.

 

Again, this is a technology limit that could be overcome - we're constantly improving on what we can observe, both in the small and in the large. Also, as I've pointed out it's not impossible that our current tools could find evidence concerning what is outside our universe.

It's not reasonable to suggest that all speculations concerning what's outside our universe are equal.

In religion, faith doesn't mean that. In religion, faith means you assume it is true - it is an end result, it is considered absolute and unassailable. Physical evidence may be totally ignored. Let's not use "faith" when discussing science, because there is nothing like that in science. "Believe" has similar problems, because in religion "believe in god" is an absolute, and end. Scientists don't "believe in" speculations.

Science starts with speculation. From there, scientists work to turn their speculations into testable hypotheses and then begin a rigorous testing process in order to determine the value of their speculation.

 

The "believe" of religion is not present in science. "I believe in the god of the bible" is not casual or assailable. It is an absolute. Once you believe, that's the end of the question - science isn't involved anymore. When you say you believe in god, I say "OK". That's the end of discussion on that! I doubt a scientist would ever use the word "believe" concerning science. Science doesn't have anything like that. Religion has "believe", science doesn't.

I don't mean to be overly critical here, but "facts" has some problems, too. In science, facts are individual documented observations - zero logic is involved. The best truth involving logic that science has to offer is its theories - collections of hypotheses that have undergone serious testing and review and are the best current explanation of how something works.

So, a scientist could well speculate concerning alternatives to existing theory, alternatives to the best "truth" known at the time - like Einstein did.

There isn't any limit on speculation.

 

The 'believe' in religion is no different than any other 'believe'. To believe is to accept as true that for which you have as of yet no direct evidence. Faith is the ability to act upon that belief. No one starts any task on this planet unless he believes in his heart of hearts that he can finish and has faith in his ability to do so.