First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Religion vs Science
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/7/07
mm…. Well once again we find a tide of hypocritical antireligious individuals who narrow mindedly cast aside any form of evidence that supports any religious idea or philosophy. I find it utterly hilarious that people point fingers at Christians and Jews saying that they are narrow minded, ignorant, or judgmental. I’ve been an Atheist in the past and even then I was completely against this stereotype. In my personal experience I think there are more atheists who refuse to accept something placed right before their eyes than Christians. Who are judgmental and ignorant. This thread is my evidence. Quotes like this:


123nasif wrote:

religion = bullshit


Are the quotes I love. Having these just proves that being agnostic or antireligious does not make you intellectual. In my opinion that’s a wildly ignorant, childish, tactless, and flat out stupid comment. I would die to defend your right to believe it, but I still think you’re an utter moron. And I’d die to defend my right to believe that too. (Actually, I probably wouldn’t die for something as silly as that, but you get my point! :P)

I also find this a bit ignorant, and I’m extremely disappointed in you Hokie.


HokiePokie wrote:

Science doesn't revolve around the beliefs of one that CANNOT be proven to exist, IE God. Beliefs such as that will most likely do bad for science really, when you become a scientist you NEED to know that you're religion may NOT be true, because that'll cause later problems. Seraph the book you got probably was from some Christian scientist who THINKS he/she found how God exists, but in actuality has invalid proof. I mean seriously science so far CANNOT prove a being such as that exists. Religion gives some morals, but most of them are just common sense things. And the others are pure crap. Seriously I do not need religious texts to tell me what's write or wrong, it's all in my common sense really.


First off there are many aspects of science that are completely theory and not at all fact. Yet, because we attach the word science, it must be true. Take for example the scientific explanation for the Big Bang. Personal I find it utterly absurd to think that a clash of matter and matter destroying antimatter could produce matter, as the science theorizes. Antimatter is a theoretical substance that in my opinion does not exist. But, it’s still science; moreover, look at evolution. Evolution is in fact a real thing. However, evolution as the source of life is a theory. A scientific theory, but one none the less. Thus the science of evolution being the creation of life revolves around beliefs and speculations that CANNOT be proven.

This being said I do believe that there is absolutely no proof for religion. It requires a slight deal of blind faith, no matter how you look at it. The problem is people these days frown upon such things as blind faith. Now me, I converted to Christianity when I felt I had experienced things that could only be explained through religion and not science.

Next, The book I mentioned was written by Paul Davie. You should read it. It’s not at all what you have in mind. You should also read The Theory of Everything.

As far as the moral thing goes that’s a stupid and ignorant statement in my opinion. Utter crap according to you, but other people may disagree. This is what I was talking about with my atheist statement. Some atheists are highly understanding and intellectual, but others simply lash out and attack things they disagree with. It’s the equivalent of America trying to tear down communism. Just because your personal morals clash with those preached in various faiths does not mean the latter set are crap.

See, in order to be anything other than an ignorant moron you NEED to know that your morals may not be right. Who’s to say what’s right and wrong except a deity? In order for someone to set law there must be someone higher than the ones that are being subjected to the law. This goes for right and wrong as well. If there is no God then frankly there is no difference between right and wrong because nothing has any real meaning. This is, of course, my opinion.


Joshuah wrote:

bloody idiots! why did they only discuss the empirical side of it. the professor could have easily countered with some Decartes (so could the first christian for that matter).

Is this really a philosophy class?! The professor is way too close minded to be any good at the subject! The whole point of a philosophical discussion is that you argue about something no need to get angry when someone else slaps a decent point in your face, and he was practically bullying the first kid (who was pretty shit)

Overall this is basic philosophy which you learn in like the first term of a philosophy course.



Anyway. my opinion on God.
No such person. Philosophy prooves it numerous times and philosophers who argue against it have failed to convince.

But faith has been around as long as humans and its part of our very core, to ignore it completely is stupid. Im a Substance Dualist ( wikipedia.org it!! ) so i believe theres more than just the body and the physical world. Despite one part of me refuting that possibility completely.
Philosophy only disproves the ideal of a traditional god so i say make your own ideal, doesnt matter if its true or not as long as it helps.

Shit ive rambled on far too long so as an apology and a reward for reading it (if you did you must have been REALLY bored!) heres a picture of some wolfs


First off I would like to thank you for a good laugh. Also for bringing an ice-breaker into this solemn topic. Typically you can cut the tension with a knife it’s so thick in such things as this. I agree with a lot of what you said, except I do believe in God.

Also, I must ask, how can philosophy prove anything? I mean, and this is coming from one that has studied modern and ancient philosophers alike, philosophy is not a science or religion. Now, philosophy is usually a part of a religion, but not at all a religion. It’s just a theory about how people should live life.

Now for that strange little note about animals and humans being about the same and equal. Okay, I’m sick of people acting like Humans are (biologically and evolutionarily speaking) bellow animals. We have the advantage here. We rule the world, we control animals; moreover, there are more than 6 billion of us! Sure each organism is unique, each creature an oddity, and all beings have their own advantages, but Humans stand with the most of these. (Except maybe bacteria. They kick our butts.)

Religiously speaking the thing that separates men from animal varies depending on the faith, but in the Christian and Jewish religion it’s the breath of God. God breath the breath of life into Humans but not animals.


happyxix wrote:

Science can prove theres no religion. So science wins.


That’s utterly false. In fact as we’ve gone through science and math we have discovered that there are strong supports for certain religions. Take for example the fact that, using math, one man proved that there is 97% chance that Jesus Christ came back from the dead.

To finish off I repeat: Religion and science are too approaches at the same thing. Humans fear the unknown so we cut at the dark with torches and light. We also fear the unknown. The metaphor is that we want to understand things. Religion and science both strive to explain things.

I’m a religious individual who aspires to show religion and science are often strong supporters. Sometimes they clash, but other times they don’t. From my studies, which are negligible compared to some, but profound compared to most, I’ve come to find that anytime the Christian bible and science clash one or the other is being misunderstood or misused. Typically the former.

Which leads me to complain: Too many religious people manipulate their religion to suit themselves. This is the spawn of the evil side of religion. This is where you find The Crusades and tyrannies like that of the Catholic Church during that time.

Anyway the study of time has created a logical necessity for some divine event, item, or entity. By the very laws of time herself there must by FACT be a beginning. Rather you like it or not it’s FACT. In order for there to be time something must exist outside of time.
Posted 7/7/07

kyocool wrote:

I strongly believe that religion is for people who are to weak to believe in themselves and need sometrhig they believe that is greater than themselves to explain how life is the way it is for that person and that there is ultimately a "plan" that will unfold for them instead of doing the reasonable and adult thing and accepting your own mistakes and choices and make your own way for yourself insteaf of wondering through life assuming a fictional higher being will make the way instead


Trevor (OP)



yup yup thank u exactly agreed religion is for idiots!

13802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/7/07
Antimatter exists just like black holes do, thru indirect observations, in accelerations tubes they use antimatter becuz if it collides with something other than the particle they r testing it is harmless absorbed into the wall of the tube, antimatter is used daily in medical brain scans and they r also created in high-speed collision.
When a particle has too many nuetrons it emits positrons to stablize it which is a form of radiation called beta +, beta - is where a neutron brekas down into an electron and proton
The question arises then, r we the only ones, if there really was a god, would he just create one viable planet...
and the idea of the big bang was becuz the universe is expanding therfore it had to expand from something, it may not be right but its better than some of the ideas out there... just cuz we cant see radiation do we not feel the reactions caused by it especially if u happen to grab a chuck of uranium, gravity is also present and we cant directly observe the field becuz our eyes cannot absorb the wavelengths that r outside our visible range which is tiny compared to the known lengths
2368 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/7/07
i think religion and science are two sides of the same coin, meaning they go hand in hand.
11277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Iloilo City, PH
Offline
Posted 7/7/07
I go to school in a catholic college... I've been called anti-christian for my beliefs what's wrong with saying "i have denounced religion for I don't believe in your image of god" I have my own beliefs but i don't force them upon others with threat of eternal damnation..
26851 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Few kilometres fr...
Offline
Posted 7/7/07
in perspective of christ and islam, i c relegion & science goes together. ppl who dont have any religion are using so many excuses to 'defend' themselves
10149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Home of SeaBiscuit
Offline
Posted 7/7/07
I'm directing this to SeraphAlford cause I don't wanna quote that long thing.

97% that Jesus came back to life? Its either he did or he didn't. Its like like 97% of Jesus came back to life like he is missing like a hand or a ear or something. I can pull random percentage outta no where too. Like 10% of monkeys knows Icelandic.

The point is no other major physicists or chemist agrees with that random statement. No math can even PROOVE that something is alive or dead. Unless that 97% is saying "outta 100 books 97 says jesus has been reborned and 3 said that he haven't"

The integral from bread to wine of 0 dx = jesus? I think not.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/7/07

happyxix wrote:

I'm directing this to SeraphAlford cause I don't wanna quote that long thing.

97% that Jesus came back to life? Its either he did or he didn't. Its like like 97% of Jesus came back to life like he is missing like a hand or a ear or something. I can pull random percentage outta no where too. Like 10% of monkeys knows Icelandic.

The point is no other major physicists or chemist agrees with that random statement. No math can even PROOVE that something is alive or dead. Unless that 97% is saying "outta 100 books 97 says jesus has been reborned and 3 said that he haven't"

The integral from bread to wine of 0 dx = jesus? I think not.


This is what we call ignorance.

It’s a mathematically proven fact, rather you like it or not.
2522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/7/07

SeraphAlford wrote:


happyxix wrote:

I'm directing this to SeraphAlford cause I don't wanna quote that long thing.

97% that Jesus came back to life? Its either he did or he didn't. Its like like 97% of Jesus came back to life like he is missing like a hand or a ear or something. I can pull random percentage outta no where too. Like 10% of monkeys knows Icelandic.

The point is no other major physicists or chemist agrees with that random statement. No math can even PROOVE that something is alive or dead. Unless that 97% is saying "outta 100 books 97 says jesus has been reborned and 3 said that he haven't"

The integral from bread to wine of 0 dx = jesus? I think not.


This is what we call ignorance.

It’s a mathematically proven fact, rather you like it or not.


One man proved that there is a 97% chance that Jesus was reborn?
That sounds like serious bullshit, I want some links or a little proof to what you said there. No offense intended.

Science and religion don't mix to well either, science is, for the most part, based off facts (Dont misunderstand, not all of it is, some of its completely theory), while religion is based, aswell for the most part, faith. Trying to prove there's a god is ultimately frivulous (I misspelled that). I will admit its possible that Jesus could have been reborn. Its possible for someone to die for a period of time and come back, (if you want links Ill scrounge 'em up), but most of religion is blind faith. And how can you really trust a bible thats been altered by many scribes over many years? I love the guidelines that religion sets, but I cant agree with anything else.
(Again sorry if this post is everywhere, listening to music still)
11277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Iloilo City, PH
Offline
Posted 7/7/07
what science and archeology proves is that jesus is just mithra repackaged and resold to billions world wide...
2522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/7/07
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13898997
The mathematical jesus for anyone whos interested.

This story also states that hes 97% certain that GOD raised him from the dead.
I dont see any proof without buying the book he published. Using variables for this is just stupid to be honest.
160 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F
Offline
Posted 7/7/07
Some people on here need to learn NOT to absorb everything they read. Just because facts are presented to you, it doesn't mean that it's correct. You should always be a critic when it comes to these kind of things.

I will repeat, SCIENCE and RELIGION are two different entities. You cannot mix one with the other.

There is nothing wrong in having faith/belief in a higher power. If it gives you more motivation, inspiration, strength, etc., then so be it.


Actraiser wrote:

This is one of those topics whose only real purpose is to get an argument going. Tempers fray, insults fly, and nobody is very happy about the opinions they see being tossed around.

So...I'll add to the tension :P

I'll go religion - I get a better feeling believing I'll be rewarded for the good I have done in my life vs being a rotting corpse. Makes me believe it all works out if not how you want, then at least how you deserve.


better feeling/reward vs rotting corpse

Your comparison has no correlation at all. That's great that you believe in religion so that you can be "rewarded" for the things you have done though. So your drive in assisting others would be the "reward".

I assist others because it makes me feel good that I have done something good for someone in need. I do not expect anything in return though.

Doesn't religion teach you to have a humble person? These kind acts should come from the heart, which I'm positive it does for you. "Heaven" is an extra reward for what you have done, right?

---------

Which brings me to another topic, thanking the lord for your meal. Never quite understood why you are thanking the lord for the food when it's (1) your parents or (2) yourself that puts that food on that plate.
24645 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / 横浜市
Offline
Posted 7/7/07
At Eros you almost stole my thunder but you didn't include the quote so I will.


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


From the mouth of Albert Einstein himself.

SeraphAlford hit the nail on the head. Science and religion are both ways to try and explains the unknowns we encounter everyday. Definitive proof of either doesn't exist. In many ways science is a religion; with the deity being logic. Both science and religion have their illogical holes.

2522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/7/07

tustah wrote:

Some people on here need to learn NOT to absorb everything they read. Just because facts are presented to you, it doesn't mean that it's correct. You should always be a critic when it comes to these kind of things.

I will repeat, SCIENCE and RELIGION are two different entities. You cannot mix one with the other.

There is nothing wrong in having faith/belief in a higher power. If it gives you more motivation, inspiration, strength, etc., then so be it.


Actraiser wrote:

This is one of those topics whose only real purpose is to get an argument going. Tempers fray, insults fly, and nobody is very happy about the opinions they see being tossed around.

So...I'll add to the tension :P

I'll go religion - I get a better feeling believing I'll be rewarded for the good I have done in my life vs being a rotting corpse. Makes me believe it all works out if not how you want, then at least how you deserve.


better feeling/reward vs rotting corpse

Your comparison has no correlation at all. That's great that you believe in religion so that you can be "rewarded" for the things you have done though. So your drive in assisting others would be the "reward".

I assist others because it makes me feel good that I have done something good for someone in need. I do not expect anything in return though.

Doesn't religion teach you to have a humble person? These kind acts should come from the heart, which I'm positive it does for you. "Heaven" is an extra reward for what you have done, right?

---------

Which brings me to another topic, thanking the lord for your meal. Never quite understood why you are thanking the lord for the food when it's (1) your parents or (2) yourself that puts that food on that plate.


That very last thing you said, Im pretty sure they do that because there happy to have to privelage to eat. And ActRaiser said they wanted to side with religion because they get a better feeling from religion than they do science.

Edited the last part because it seemed like a flame.

I cant help but feel like an ass after posting this. :l

Just a side note here, but I dont think this post was ever intended to be a heated philisopical debate. Just seemed like something that made Ichigo laugh to be honest.
(Not that I helped)
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 7/8/07

d_mythica wrote:

I'm a Christian and also a scientist. I feel science can be used to help show/explain a lot of what my religion tells you. obviously Christianity cannot ever accept evolution but evolution shouldn't have to be accepted. good old kent offers 1/2 a million to anyone with 1 piece of evidence for evolution and he hasn't gave away any money yet. so to me science (something you can prove is true in a lab) = good and religion (I'm talkin about my religion) = good its not a question of religion vs science. but religious science vs evolutionary science.


The Kent Hovind challenge is a crock of shit. The guy is a lying huckster on par with a circus showman and an amusement park carney. He's not a doctor and he probably doesn't even have the money to give away.

I'm not going to waste my time explaining it, but you can read about it here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

That site is also a gold mine for exploring anti-evolution christian propoganda.

Basically, science and religion do not and can not go hand in hand. Science is about using the scientific method (unbiased observation and analysis) to understand the world around us. It is asking a question, examining the known data, then formulating a theory to explain it. Theories aren't divine, nor do they pretend to be. They don't lay absolute claims, they just claim to be the best answer we have at the moment based on what we currently understand - which changes on a daily basis. Religion is the polar opposite. Then answer is given first, then data is either accepted or rejected based on how well it fits the answer - regardless of how legitimate. Whether it's locking Galileo away or fighting to keep evolution out of text books, religion does not go hand in hand with science.

Here is an excerpt from my blog summing up my oppinion on religion:


I think two quotes by Karl Marx can sum up my opinion on religion (all of them):

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand."

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."

The first quote was the original point behind religion. How else could primitive man make sense of the world? As time wore on, we understood more and more, but religion was still a necessity to deal with what it couldn't understand. Over time it's become obvious that just because an explanation can't be found doesn't mean that it is non-existent. For example, we understand exactly what lightening is now. However, primitive man did not and thus associated it with Zeus, Thor, or a myriad of other forgotten deities. Just because they were incapable of finding the natural explanation did not definitively make the supernatural true. Likewise with the mysteries that remain to us.

Another factor in the first quote is that science is very intimidating. Do you want to try to explain radiometric dating to the average person? Understanding any field of science thoroughly requires years of study, not something you can get from a few sentences. Simply attributing it all to the supernatural is much easier. No need to bother investigating, the bible says it's true, so good enough. Besides, there are some educated people who have found proof right? There you go. Anyways, If any problems arise, well I have FAITH. Faith isn't a virtue, it's idiocy. You have to really wonder about a religion that likens its followers to sheep. "Blessed is he that has not seen and believes." Wait a minute... blindly believe, unquestioningly and absolutely? That would really come in handy for...

...the point of the second quote. Religion is a tool for controlling the masses. The catholic church used to be masters of it, they could tell Kings how to rule their countries with the threat of hellfire. Look at the theocracy in the middle east. And look how religion was used to manipulate people here in the US for a war in Iraq for the sole intent of financial gain. The same story, told again and again.

But how can one have moral grounding without religion? The bottom line is we all rely on each other to survive. Strength in numbers. Virtually every religion involves a moral code that allow for proper communal living. By having a proper code of ethics we can not only function as a society, but also thrive and progress. Religion isn't necessary for that. One shouldn't require the threat of hellfire and damnation held over them to keep them peaceable with others.


As to the person who posted that quote by Einstein, someone correct me if I'm wrong here (which I may be since I' remembering this off the top of my head), but Einstein based his theory (at least in part) of the unchanging universe in the his belief in a Spinoza-esque "god," and this theory has pretty much been smashed to bits. So I would hardly consider a quote by Einstein regarding the existence of God as that remarkable. Also, his belief in god was very very different than those of the typical christian. (read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza

Religion is a black death that has been assaulting humanity for centuries. Pretty much every major religion (at least those that lay absolute claims like christianity and islam) have been disproved by science and history. But people still kill in the name of god, get elected to office by conjuring up religous images, and indoctrinate young and/or ignroant people to add to their numbers. Religion is impeding scientific progress (stem cell research in the US). How many thousands are dying in the middle east right now due to a clash of two religous ideologies?

Scientists - despite the "boogey-man" image religion has always tried to paint on them - aren't an aggressive lot. But I think it's high time a genuine war of information was laid seige on religion to end this madness that's destroying us as a people.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.