NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a manufactured conflict. There is no good reason for this fight. The level of hatred and insult created from this conflict is amazing. If you believe the new religion, Science, then all well and good. If you believe the old religions then fine. Why do both groups find it necessary to prove their superiority.
I am a Protestant who is completely comfortable with science. It is amazing and fun stuff and what it revels to me again and again is simply how God did things. If many religious people looked at it that way they would be much more comfortable. Those who practice faith in science should stop thinking themselves so superior to there "less enlightened" bretheren.
Damn, I sound like somekinda long hair peace love hippy with this post.

goaway hippie :p :fluffle:

Science is not a religion.

That is all.

Science is not a religion.

That is all.

It is a religion, the modern religion. At its core it must exist on faith because the fundamental building blocks of science have yet to be proven. If, in the future they are proven, then it will cease to be a faith. But for now, it is faith based so it is a religion. Religion does not require a diety.

There is a good reason for this fight. Religion is a crutch for ignorance. It is what fills the void created by a lack of understanding science.

It is a religion, the modern religion. At its core it must exist on faith because the fundamental building blocks of science have yet to be proven. If, in the future they are proven, then it will cease to be a faith. But for now, it is faith based so it is a religion. Religion does not require a diety.

That is simplistic, and false.

As both a theist and a scientist, I can say with certainty that science is not a religion. Certainly, there are dogmatic people within scientific institutions, but ultimately, even the most obnoxious scientist can be demonstrated to be either right or wrong. Religion can make no such claims.

In other words, scientific hypotheses can be tested, and either validated or tossed out. Religious "hypotheses" are untestable.

As both a theist and a scientist, I can say with certainty that science is not a religion. Certainly, there are dogmatic people within scientific institutions, but ultimately, even the most obnoxious scientist can be demonstrated to be either right or wrong. Religion can make no such claims.

In other words, scientific hypotheses can be tested, and either validated or tossed out. Religious "hypotheses" are untestable.

Scientists worship the god of data and logic in their temples, research facilities and laboratories. Much of what they believe cannot be proven with certainty right now. Some can be, but not all, so they require faith in their methods and ideas. religion.

Why does this get people so worked up? Why are science only people so troubled and upset about things like this. I just isn't that important.

Scientists worship the god of data and logic in their temples, research facilities and laboratories. Much of what they believe cannot be proven with certainty right now. Some can be, but not all, so they require faith in their methods and ideas. religion.

Science has these things called "theories" that "fit the known facts." Theories, are theories, not facts. We collect data, analyze the data, observe the situation and create a theory that fits the data we have collected so far. As new data is collected the theories change to take into account the new information.

There is no "belief" or "faith" in Science. There is "this is our current theory, 100 years from now it will be different because we'll know more, but this is the best we can do for now."

Science tells us how, based on what we know so far.

Religion tells us why, based on faith.

There's a difference between a faith in Jesus being born immaculately to save the human race from sins and a faith that one is half of two. They both may be "faiths", but to compare them as being similar is ludicrous.

Scientists worship the god of data and logic in their temples, research facilities and laboratories. Much of what they believe cannot be proven with certainty right now. Some can be, but not all, so they require faith in their methods and ideas. religion.

Why does this get people so worked up? Why are science only people so troubled and upset about things like this. I just isn't that important.

Are you a scientist? Heck, science has been my field for quite a few years now. I assure you, there are no "temples" for science. Experiments are tightly controlled, must be based on actual observation, and be replicated several times before they can even begin to be considered valid, as opposed to religious precepts, which require little or no tangible evidence.

"Faith in methods"? What on Earth does that mean? Granted, I think one has to suspend disbelief at some point with just about everything, but I'm willing to trust that if my senses say something's there, and other people's senses say it's there, and independent analysis shows that it's there, I'm willing to say it's there. How can independent, unbiased, repeated observation of a phenomenon be even remotely compared to theistic revelation? And yes, I happen to be a supporter of some forms of theistic revelation - just not in science.

So why do you post about this if "it's not important", anyway?

Scientists worship the god of data and logic in their temples, research facilities and laboratories. Much of what they believe cannot be proven with certainty right now. Some can be, but not all, so they require faith in their methods and ideas. religion.

Why does this get people so worked up? Why are science only people so troubled and upset about things like this. I just isn't that important.

If you're a scientist and you can't prove your work then I think you'd find there are a large number of people that would consider you to not be a scientist at all.

When you say "Much of what they believe cannot be proven with certainty right now" would you care to actually name specifics?

I'd recommend taking a refresher course in scientific methodology before continuing to spread this opinion to other people. Sorry 31, but this sounds like little more than a personal opinion you've concocted using your own idea of how science works rather than something based in hard, factual evidence.

This is a manufactured conflict. There is no good reason for this fight. The level of hatred and insult created from this conflict is amazing. If you believe the new religion, Science, then all well and good. If you believe the old religions then fine. Why do both groups find it necessary to prove their superiority.

Um, perhaps because science isn't a religion? If all your religion does is attempt to explain the universe, then it's not much use.

Science has these things called "theories" that "fit the known facts." Theories, are theories, not facts. We collect data, analyze the data, observe the situation and create a theory that fits the data we have collected so far. As new data is collected the theories change to take into account the new information.

There is no "belief" or "faith" in Science. There is "this is our current theory, 100 years from now it will be different because we'll know more, but this is the best we can do for now."

Science tells us how, based on what we know so far.

Religion tells us why, based on faith.

All of science is faith. It may be well founded faith, it may be faith based on a heck of a lot of evidence but it is faith at its core. Now, I know you don't believe this but would it really bother you if it were true? I just don't see any reason why my argument that it is faith should bother people. Who cares if it is or not? Faith, not faith, it would still be the same thing it is.

I am a bit shocked no really religious people have spoken up yet. Only the science people.

Many science-only people don't want to be associated with religions... period. Saying that science is a religion, to them, is like me saying that Christianity is simply an enormous fraudulent religion perpetrated over hundreds of years for the benefit of those in control of the religion.

What is at issue here, most certainly, is the advancement of the world. I do not think religion is a bad thing - if you feel like you need religion to function, be my guest, many of my friends are religious and I have no problems with them. However, identifying science as a religion is patently wrong. Science does not claim to know anything to absolute certainty, and only states its theories, unlike religion, which does claim to know everything. If someone does tell you with absolute certainty that they do know something, consider the person you are talking to, and consider what I have just said. Chances are, this person you have talked to has taken the information on faith, and has made it a religious acceptance of their own, but that is not what science is about.

On the other hand, there is Creationism, which rather than being a science is an offshoot of a mainstream religion. Creationism claims that God made the world in 7 days, simply because the bible says so. Not only does it claim this, it claims that there is absolutely no error within its teachings, and that its teachings may never be proven wrong. There is no, as far as I know, scientific methodology behind this claim, and the defences that I have heard for this rest on what science does not know - which is rather funny considering that science as we know it has only existed for 300-some years.

Science does no such thing. Take the THEORY of Evolution as an example. It is a theory that creatures evolve over time, which has been seen to happen. Is it required that you accept this on faith? No, it's not, because you can, if you wish, go out and study it yourself. It is the same thing with all scientific fields. If you seriously question the procedures, or the result of scientific experiments performed by others, then you are fully welcome to perform these own experiments yourself, and see the results for yourself.

Well, of course it is my opinion. Don't want a refresher course on scientific method, I am not worked up enough over the subject to bother. Just thought it would be interesting to see people's opinions about it. It's fun but not important enough to become upset about.

All of science is faith. It may be well founded faith, it may be faith based on a heck of a lot of evidence but it is faith at its core. Now, I know you don't believe this but would it really bother you if it were true? I just don't see any reason why my argument that it is faith should bother people. Who cares if it is or not? Faith, not faith, it would still be the same thing it is.

Faith, requires belief. Science isn't supposed to actually believe in anything. It is only supposed to say "Well, may last series of experiments said that the DNA contains the Human genetic code. It might not anymore so lets test it again."

Science has no beliefs or faiths, it only has "this what we think we know, and it might all be wrong, so lets go down to the pub, if its still there, and drink a beer, if the thing we call beer is still called beer and if what we call beer will still drown our sorrows away, if our sorrows are still with us when we reach the pub to drink the beer, that may or may not be the beer we ..... and on and on and on.

IE you say something as dumb as "much of what science believes can't be proven." No, science does not believe it. Science says "this is what we think may be the answer because it fits what we know so far. It might not really be the correct answer though, so we keep on gathering information, data and make new theories."

Cheers.

Science is just what really is. or what is thought to be real. it is what makes things up. there is no question on wither science is there or not. It is there. it is true. or else ther would be absolutely nothing. Religion is something that is founded around something else that is there because of science. I know a little deep for some people to think of.

Oh, and it would bother me if Science was based on faith. Because you see Science says its not based on faith. If it were based on faith than its answers and its theories couldn't be trusted at all, by anyone.

So yes, it would bother me.

Science is just what really is. or what is thought to be real. it is what makes things up. there is no question on wither science is there or not. It is there. it is true. or else ther would be absolutely nothing. Religion is something that is founded around something else that is there because of science. I know a little deep for some people to think of.


Are you on crack?

Based on your view of science, Newton would be right and we could kiss relativity and Einstein's discoveries goodbye.

Science never claims anything to be true. It just says "this should be right, since this is what we know so far."

Does anyone claim to know exactly how the inside of the earth works? No. For all we know it could be a monkey pushing out bags of heated Kool Aid.

Science is just what really is. or what is thought to be real. it is what makes things up. there is no question on wither science is there or not. It is there. it is true. or else ther would be absolutely nothing.

Science is the study of the world around us. It is not the world around us. And it is not true. I have yet to meet a scientist who would say that science is truth.

Religion is something that is founded around something else that is there because of science. I know a little deep for some people to think of.

No it is not deep. It is patently simplistic and utterly shallow. It is the dumbass quasi-intellectuals like yourself that piss off everyone for thinking your little foolish thoughts are "deep."

Oh, and it would bother me if Science was based on faith. Because you see Science says its not based on faith. If it were based on faith than its answers and its theories couldn't be trusted at all, by anyone.

So yes, it would bother me.

Why? It would change absolutely nothing about what science had to say. How could you become bothered when nothing concrete would actually changed? Simply changing the langauge applied to science, it is faith or relgion or whatever, would change nothing as to how it is done and what it produces.

Why? It would change absolutely nothing about what science had to say. How could you become bothered when nothing concrete would actually changed? Simply changing the langauge applied to science, it is faith or relgion or whatever, would change nothing as to how it is done and what it produces.

Why? It would change absolutely nothing about what science had to say. How could you become bothered when nothing concrete would actually changed? Simply changing the langauge applied to science, it is faith or relgion or whatever, would change nothing as to how it is done and what it produces.

If faith became a part of science everything would change. That is why. Just because you're an idiot who thinks faith exists inscience and thus becuase you believe its already there you don't think saying it was based on faith would change anything.

The reality of the situation is that faith is not involved in science. Involving it would change everything in science, how it is done and what it produces.

Why? It would change absolutely nothing about what science had to say. How could you become bothered when nothing concrete would actually changed? Simply changing the langauge applied to science, it is faith or relgion or whatever, would change nothing as to how it is done and what it produces.

"Simply" changing words associated with science can turn a truth into a falsehood. Frankly, as many have said, science has nothing to do with faith. Certainly one can investigate something scientifically from a position of "I think that [x] happens", but only if [x] is testable. Then it's either validated or refuted. Nothing religious about the process whatsoever.

Why change the definitions of things when the current definitions work just fine?

If faith became a part of science everything would change. That is why. Just because you're an idiot who thinks faith exists inscience and thus becuase you believe its already there you don't think saying it was based on faith would change anything.

The reality of the situation is that faith is not involved in science. Involving it would change everything in science, how it is done and what it produces.

I'm an idiot? You're not a very friendly person are you? Why do you feel the need to insult? Are you really this threatened by one person having an idea? Calm down dude, my opinion ain't gonna change a thing, I know that and am perfectly happy with that. You shouldn't get so worked up over it.

All of science is faith. It may be well founded faith, it may be faith based on a heck of a lot of evidence but it is faith at its core. Now, I know you don't believe this but would it really bother you if it were true? I just don't see any reason why my argument that it is faith should bother people. Who cares if it is or not? Faith, not faith, it would still be the same thing it is.

I am a bit shocked no really religious people have spoken up yet. Only the science people.
All of existence is faith. What's your point? All of existence is religion?

"Simply" changing words associated with science can turn a truth into a falsehood. Frankly, as many have said, science has nothing to do with faith. Certainly one can investigate something scientifically from a position of "I think that [x] happens", but only if [x] is testable. Then it's either validated or refuted. Nothing religious about the process whatsoever.

Why change the definitions of things when the current definitions work just fine?

Words only have the power to make reality if you let them. If I call you a nazi it does not make you a nazi. So if I say science is faith nothing really changes except a bunch of people begin to loose their tempers.

Faith, requires belief. Science isn't supposed to actually believe in anything. It is only supposed to say "Well, may last series of experiments said that the DNA contains the Human genetic code. It might not anymore so lets test it again."

Science has no beliefs or faiths, it only has "this what we think we know, and it might all be wrong, so lets go down to the pub, if its still there, and drink a beer, if the thing we call beer is still called beer and if what we call beer will still drown our sorrows away, if our sorrows are still with us when we reach the pub to drink the beer, that may or may not be the beer we ..... and on and on and on.

IE you say something as dumb as "much of what science believes can't be proven." No, science does not believe it. Science says "this is what we think may be the answer because it fits what we know so far. It might not really be the correct answer though, so we keep on gathering information, data and make new theories."

Cheers.
Everything that a consciousness is involved with requires some degree of belief. We either accept the evidence of our senses of not.

Words only have the power to make reality if you let them. If I call you a nazi it does not make you a nazi. So if I say science is faith nothing really changes except a bunch of people begin to loose their tempers.

Alot changes. Faith is based on ideas that can't be proven, nor do people need them to be proven, thats the whole idea of faith and why it works for people. People believe in it whithout question.

Saying that faith and science are the same would be saying that people should believe in science blindly without any proof. but thats the whole basis of science... offering the best explanation avalable with concrete evidence.

Plus, don't get so easily offended. You should have known people would get a little heated over a topic like this. People have some very STRONG opinions regarding stuff like this.

If faith became a part of science everything would change. That is why. Just because you're an idiot who thinks faith exists inscience and thus becuase you believe its already there you don't think saying it was based on faith would change anything.

The reality of the situation is that faith is not involved in science. Involving it would change everything in science, how it is done and what it produces.
I disagree entirely. That still doesn't make science anything approaching a religion.

All of science is faith. It may be well founded faith, it may be faith based on a heck of a lot of evidence but it is faith at its core. Now, I know you don't believe this but would it really bother you if it were true? I just don't see any reason why my argument that it is faith should bother people. Who cares if it is or not? Faith, not faith, it would still be the same thing it is.

I am a bit shocked no really religious people have spoken up yet. Only the science people.

I'm a Deist and you've had someone else state they were both a Theist and a scientist.

I guess we're not "really religious" enough for you? Care to quantify what you mean by "really religious"?

If this all "doesn't really matter" then why the hell did you post this crap in the first place? Why do you feel the need to constantly defend your point of view? If it didn't really matter, you would have posted the original post and left it at that, right? Because it doesn't really matter.

I disagree entirely. That still doesn't make science anything approaching a religion.

soooooo, your agreeing?

I'm an idiot?

Yes you are.

You're not a very friendly person are you?

No I'm not.

Why do you feel the need to insult?

Because you're an idiot. I see it as a statement of observed fact, not an insult.

Are you really this threatened by one person having an idea?

You must really have a hyped up sense of importance if you think you having a foolish idea is threatening.

Calm down dude, my opinion ain't gonna change a thing, I know that and am perfectly happy with that. You shouldn't get so worked up over it.

I'm worked up about it? Er uh, what kind of meds are you taking? You're having some nice hallucinations.

Everything that a consciousness is involved with requires some degree of belief. We either accept the evidence of our senses of not.

No really? Thank you for stating the obvious. Do you want a cookie as well?

All of existence is faith. What's your point? All of existence is religion?

Heh, I was just about to say the same thing. :P

Really, think about it. You cannot make any statements about reality without making assumptions that certain things are true. Science assumes that reasoning and observation are reliable ways of finding truth, and that if something contradicts reason, then it must be false. On the other hand, Christianity assumes that the Bible is the most reliable way of finding truth, and that if reason contradicts it, then reason must be wrong.

soooooo, your agreeing?
Faith does not a religion make.

I disagree entirely. That still doesn't make science anything approaching a religion.

The "faith" that we believe our senses isn't even part of science. That "faith" is "what we know, and that may change." We will likely always be handicapped with what we can experience through our senses, and with the possibility that our senses are lying to us. But that’s fine because it is part of the "this is what we know, and it may be wrong" bit.

Cheers.

Just to add into the mix, there is a pretty substantial percentage within the academic study of religion that do consider science a cultural phemoneon almost identical to religion, if it cannot be called one itself.

So while those who associate themselves as scientific might not like to admit it, it is a cosmological system which answers existential questions so...yes, it is a religion.

Faith does not a religion make.

Say what??

No really? Thank you for stating the obvious. Do you want a cookie as well?
Mmmm, cookies.

I'm a Deist and you've had someone else state they were both a Theist and a scientist.

I guess we're not "really religious" enough for you? Care to quantify what you mean by "really religious"?

If this all "doesn't really matter" then why the hell did you post this crap in the first place? Why do you feel the need to constantly defend your point of view? If it didn't really matter, you would have posted the original post and left it at that, right? Because it doesn't really matter.

umm, how to answer. I never want to judge how religious a person is, so yes I guess you and everyone is religious enough for me. I don't want people to be more religious or less religious.
I made the thread originally because it seemed interesting to me and I thought maybe to other people. It seemed it was a bit interesting but not for the reason I intended.
I didn't think about science people becoming upset that I said I thought they were another religion. The thread argument was supposed to be that science and religion should not be fighting with each other. I guess my original post should have been more clear on that and not bothered with the whole science as faith thing because that diverted from my desired point.
Hell, we can't always be perfect and always state things perfectly. I just don't understand the high level of hostility over this.
It doesn't matter but it was interesting.
Geez, sorry I wasted so many people's time with my stupid thread.

Heh, I was just about to say the same thing. :P

Really, think about it. You cannot make any statements about reality without making assumptions that certain things are true. Science assumes that reasoning and observation are reliable ways of finding truth, and that if something contradicts reason, then it must be false. On the other hand, Christianity assumes that the Bible is the most reliable way of finding truth, and that if reason contradicts it, then reason must be wrong.
Bingo.

The assumptions you make, you'd better be sure of.

Heh, I was just about to say the same thing. :P

Really, think about it. You cannot make any statements about reality without making assumptions that certain things are true. Science assumes that reasoning and observation are reliable ways of finding truth, and that if something contradicts reason, then it must be false. On the other hand, Christianity assumes that the Bible is the most reliable way of finding truth, and that if reason contradicts it, then reason must be wrong.

I believe you meant to say.

Science assumes that reasoning and observation are reliable ways of finding truth, and that if something contradicts [b]observation[b/]Then it must be false.

Observation is the square in Science. If something contradicts reason but is observed. Reason is wrong.

The "faith" that we believe our senses isn't even part of science. That "faith" is "what we know, and that may change." We will likely always be handicapped with what we can experience through our senses, and with the possibility that our senses are lying to us. But that’s fine because it is part of the "this is what we know, and it may be wrong" bit.

Cheers.
So, no science defines what we perceive with our senses?

I believe you meant to say.

Science assumes that reasoning and observation are reliable ways of finding truth, and that if something contradicts [b]observation[b/]Then it must be false.

Observation is the square in Science. If something contradicts reason but is observed. Reason is wrong.

Thanks for the correction. =)

Say what??
If all your religion is is faith in something, then it's not very useful.

...I didn't think about science people becoming upset that I said I thought they were another religion. The thread argument was supposed to be that science and religion should not be fighting with each other. I guess my original post should have been more clear on that and not bothered with the whole science as faith thing because that diverted from my desired point.
Hell, we can't always be perfect and always state things perfectly. I just don't understand the high level of hostility over this...

I can't say this for sure, but I'd guess that people defending science like it because it has concrete evidence to back it up, while faith has almost nothing to back it up nad I know Im going to regret saying this, but i think alot of what religion is based on is bull.

So, no science defines what we perceive with our senses?

Ultimately yes.

I can't say this for sure, but I'd guess that people defending science like it because it has concrete evidence to back it up, while faith has almost nothing to back it up nad I know Im going to regret saying this, but i think alot of what religion is based on is bull.
It is based on myth, which most people today consider to be equivalent to a lie, and so "bull" is not inappropriate.

umm, how to answer. I never want to judge how religious a person is, so yes I guess you and everyone is religious enough for me. I don't want people to be more religious or less religious.
I made the thread originally because it seemed interesting to me and I thought maybe to other people. It seemed it was a bit interesting but not for the reason I intended.
I didn't think about science people becoming upset that I said I thought they were another religion. The thread argument was supposed to be that science and religion should not be fighting with each other. I guess my original post should have been more clear on that and not bothered with the whole science as faith thing because that diverted from my desired point.
Hell, we can't always be perfect and always state things perfectly. I just don't understand the high level of hostility over this.
It doesn't matter but it was interesting.
Geez, sorry I wasted so many people's time with my stupid thread.

I would agree. The conflict between Science and Religion is mainly manufactured. IMO, mainly by the religious side because Science is often seen as a threat.

If all your religion is is faith in something, then it's not very useful.

I'd say that faith in something is the defining element of religion. The thing that you have faith in is what determines all other elements of a religion.

Ultimately yes.
So the whole field of perceptual science is just a lark? *disappointed*

I would agree. The conflict between Science and Religion is mainly manufactured. IMO, mainly by the religious side because Science is often seen as a threat.

My god! We agree! This science/religious conflict has always been troubling to me. I am a christian and I enjoyed science but never enough to really get deeply into it. More a popular science-PBS science watcher. I have never seen a reason for the two to be in conflict. And now I have to go because my wife wants to buy a table. ja matta.

I would agree. The conflict between Science and Religion is mainly manufactured. IMO, mainly by the religious side because Science is often seen as a threat.

Way back when, people assumed rain and snow was caused by the gods. Science has beaten that idea and many like it to all hell. I suppose its only a matter of time (assuming we don't destroy ourselves by that time) that we disprove most of religion. I think religion should stop trying to shove all these beliefs and princples down our throats. The only thing i think religion has going for it is the morals it teaches.

I'd say that faith in something is the defining element of religion. The thing that you have faith in is what determines all other elements of a religion.
Okay, touche. Ultimately, I consider religion to be a sort of faith in myself.

Way back when, people assumed rain and snow was caused by the gods. Science has beaten that idea and many like it to all hell. I suppose its only a matter of time (assuming we don't destroy ourselves by that time) that we disprove most of religion. I think religion should stop trying to shove all these beliefs and princples down our throats. The only thing i think religion has going for it is the morals it teaches.

Actually, science has not, and can not, disprove the idea that weather is caused by supernatural beings. Sure, science can describe how weather takes place, and the natural force behind it, but who's to say that there isn't a god who is using those natural forces to create rain and snow?

Originally Posted by Salvondia
I would agree. The conflict between Science and Religion is mainly manufactured. IMO, mainly by the religious side because Science is often seen as a threat.
My god! We agree! This science/religious conflict has always been troubling to me. I am a christian and I enjoyed science but never enough to really get deeply into it. More a popular science-PBS science watcher. I have never seen a reason for the two to be in conflict. And now I have to go because my wife wants to buy a table. ja matta.
But ultimately the debate exists because people take religion literally.

If religion is something that must necessarily be real, then it only has the power to affect things in the real world. If we accept that it affects us spirtually, then it is not real.

Actually, science has not, and can not, disprove the idea that weather is caused by supernatural beings. Sure, science can describe how weather takes place, and the natural force behind it, but who's to say that there isn't a god who is using those natural forces to create rain and snow?
Weather is not caused by supernatural beings. Okay, there, it's said.

Religion is not about weather-causing beings.

But ultimately the debate exists because people take religion literally.

If religion is something that must necessarily be real, then it only has the power to affect things in the real world. If we accept that it affects us spirtually, then it is not real.

Are you saying that the spiritual realm is not real? If so, then once again it's a matter of assumptions. You assume that there is no spiritual realm because you cannot observe it, and I assume that there is because I believe that God has told us through the Bible. However, the majority of people throughout history have believed that there is a spiritual realm, so the burden of proof lies on you to show that there is not one.

Actually, science has not, and can not, disprove the idea that weather is caused by supernatural beings. Sure, science can describe how weather takes place, and the natural force behind it, but who's to say that there isn't a god who is using those natural forces to create rain and snow?

I really don't feel like going there, but my point was that throughout the history of mankind, we have a tendancy to blame anything we can't understand or explain on a higher force or god or whatever.

Are you saying that the spiritual realm is not real? If so, then once again it's a matter of assumptions. You assume that there is no spiritual realm because you cannot observe it, and I assume that there is because I believe that God has told us through the Bible. However, the majority of people throughout history have believed that there is a spiritual realm, so the burden of proof lies on you to show that there is not one.

Theres only one problem... The bible is man-made

Are you saying that the spiritual realm is not real? If so, then once again it's a matter of assumptions. You assume that there is no spiritual realm because you cannot observe it, and I assume that there is because I believe that God has told us through the Bible. However, the majority of people throughout history have believed that there is a spiritual realm, so the burden of proof lies on you to show that there is not one.
Absolutely. Things "of the mind" are not real. This does not diminish them in importance, in any way.

Mathematics is "of the mind." Logic of "of the mind." Love is "of the mind."

There is a spiritual realm, entirely of the mind. It exists.

This is a manufactured conflict. There is no good reason for this fight. The level of hatred and insult created from this conflict is amazing. If you believe the new religion, Science, then all well and good. If you believe the old religions then fine. Why do both groups find it necessary to prove their superiority.
I am a Protestant who is completely comfortable with science. It is amazing and fun stuff and what it revels to me again and again is simply how God did things. If many religious people looked at it that way they would be much more comfortable. Those who practice faith in science should stop thinking themselves so superior to there "less enlightened" bretheren.
Damn, I sound like somekinda long hair peace love hippy with this post.

I feel much the same way. I don't think that Religion and Science need to be at odds. Science is merely there to explain a "how" or a "what" in life. Peoples' "why"s are fairly independent of this. People who do beleive in a religion need to examine scientific evidence and critically consider how it fits into their belief system.

I feel science neither destroys nor supports faith on its own. Its effects on individuals' beliefs are entirely decided by those individuals. One person looks at the vastness of space and sees God; another looks at the vastness of space and sees none. It is not the understanding of the vastness of space that determines peoples' interpretation of this understanding. People determine that themselves.

Theres only one problem... The bible is man-made
..and your point is?

Absolutely. Things "of the mind" are not real. This does not diminish them in importance, in any way.

Mathematics is "of the mind." Logic of "of the mind." Love is "of the mind."

There is a spiritual realm, entirely of the mind. It exists.

Umm, Logic and love maybe, but Im going to have to fight you on mathmatics

..and your point is?

How can god tell us anything through something WE made?

So the whole field of perceptual science is just a lark? *disappointed*

No the entire field of perceptual science is not a lark.

Ultimately though everything we see, hear and otherwise observe could all be wrong. It is possible that we haven't seen reality, if oh so incredibly unlikely. So ultimately Science is a description of what we have perceived.

For example, even though we can stand here and look up into the stars in the present. Science can tells us that our perception is wrong because it took thousands upon thousands of years for the light from some of those stars to reach us. What we observe is actually a multitude of stars, all of them, at different points in time. Indeed when I look at the two speakers on my desk they're both at a different point in time because one is just a bit further away from me than other.

Science can tell us our direct observation is wrong, but it is telling us that based on another observation it has made about how our eyes work. And of course all this gets tagged with the fact that all of this could be wrong because everything we've observed could be wrong. There ends up being no real point in acknowledging that last bit because if we were to act as if our perceptions were wrong we wouldn’t really be able to do anything at all.

Umm, Logic and love maybe, but Im going to have to fight you on mathmatics
Welcome to it, my friend. I've been down this road with others.

Can I pick up "2+2=4" and put it in my pocket?

Absolutely. Things "of the mind" are not real. This does not diminish them in importance, in any way.

Mathematics is "of the mind." Logic of "of the mind." Love is "of the mind."

There is a spiritual realm, entirely of the mind. It exists.

So something that exists is not real? Isn't the definition of real something which has existence?

"Theres only one problem... The bible is man-made"

This is where my point about the rain and gods comes in. The Bible may have been written down by men, but I believe that it was inspired by God, and I don't think you can disprove that.

How can god tell us anything through something WE made?
By... telling us?

No the entire field of perceptual science is not a lark.

Ultimately though everything we see, hear and otherwise observe could all be wrong. It is possible that we haven't seen reality, if oh so incredibly unlikely. So ultimately Science is a description of what we have perceived.

For example, even though we can stand here and look up into the stars in the present. Science can tells us that our perception is wrong because it took thousands upon thousands of years for the light from some of those stars to reach us. What we observe is actually a multitude of stars, all of them, at different points in time. Indeed when I look at the two speakers on my desk they're both at a different point in time because one is just a bit further away from me than other.

Science can tell us our direct observation is wrong, but it is telling us that based on another observation it has made about how our eyes work. And of course all this gets tagged with the fact that all of this could be wrong because everything we've observed could be wrong. There ends up being no real point in acknowledging that last bit because if we were to act as if our perceptions were wrong we wouldn’t really be able to do anything at all.
That it may be wrong doesn't mean it's not a study.

This is where my point about the rain and gods comes in. The Bible may have been written down by men, but I believe that it was inspired by God, and I don't think you can disprove that.

In science burden of proof is on the person making the hypothesis. :p

In religion burden of proof is on the one saying you're wrong. That’s a good way to sum up the difference actually.

By... telling us?

...ok lemme get this straight. God told us everything through a book that WE wrote. If thats the case I am so lost.

That it may be wrong doesn't mean it's not a study.

er uh, I said its not a study? :confused:

So something that exists is not real? Isn't the definition of real something which has existence?

"Theres only one problem... The bible is man-made"

This is where my point about the rain and gods comes in. The Bible may have been written down by men, but I believe that it was inspired by God, and I don't think you can disprove that.
Well, I've been through a whole discussion about this in a thread called "Existence and Reality". My position (shared by others) is that something's existence is not real unless we, as a consciousness, know about it. If no one knows about it, it's not a real thing but an imagined one.

I cannot disprove that it was inspired by God, and I believe that people are inspired by god (little "g"). However, disproving is not a logical necessity.

...ok lemme get this straight. God told us everything through a book that WE wrote. If thats the case I am so lost.
So, you're saying that God cannot tell man anything..? Even what to write?

LMAO

I have been reading this, and I am just laughing my @$$ off. This topic has been debated for centuries, and everything you all have said, has been said millions of times before, with no other result than angry persons. Nothing good can come of this.

Welcome to it, my friend. I've been down this road with others.

Can I pick up "2+2=4" and put it in my pocket?

I wasn't saying that math isn't an abstract concept. But.. actually to be honest i completely forget what i was trying to say at all :confused:

...ok lemme get this straight. God told us everything through a book that WE wrote. If thats the case I am so lost.

Just because men wrote it doesn't mean that it wasn't inspired of God or of real events which teach us of God. That's what those that believe in the Bible contend.

LMAO

I have been reading this, and I am just laughing my @$$ off. This topic has been debated for centuries, and everything you all have said, has been said millions of times before, with no other result than angry persons. Nothing good can come of this.

Not true, Im not angry at all. I take great enjoyment out of debating this topic.

er uh, I said its not a study? :confused:
Okay... :confused:
Then I can only assume you're not aware of the field of study called Perceptual Science?

Well, I've been through a whole discussion about this in a thread called "Existence and Reality". My position (shared by others) is that something's existence is not real unless we, as a consciousness, know about it. If no one knows about it, it's not a real thing but an imagined one.

You are so utterly wrong. But I don't want to argue about it so I won't tell you why you are wrong. But you most definitely are.

It is a religion, the modern religion. At its core it must exist on faith because the fundamental building blocks of science have yet to be proven. If, in the future they are proven, then it will cease to be a faith. But for now, it is faith based so it is a religion. Religion does not require a diety.
You have a point there. If science had conclusively proven itself, not only would it be able to beat the backboards off of other faiths, it would be able to solve the mysteries of the universe. Ultimately, after all, that is what any faith is about.

LMAO

I have been reading this, and I am just laughing my @$$ off. This topic has been debated for centuries, and everything you all have said, has been said millions of times before, with no other result than angry persons. Nothing good can come of this.

Even if we don't reach a conclusion, which I doubt we will, it's still a good way to sharpen the mind and maybe get a little closer to the Truth. I'd say that getting closer to the Truth is a good thing, wouldn't you?

This thread is proving interesting reading (even if the personal insults are, quite frankly, more than a little juvenile). Have to comment on this from page 1 though:-

On the other hand, there is Creationism, which rather than being a science is an offshoot of a mainstream religion. Creationism claims that God made the world in 7 days, simply because the bible says so. Not only does it claim this, it claims that there is absolutely no error within its teachings, and that its teachings may never be proven wrong. There is no, as far as I know, scientific methodology behind this claim, and the defences that I have heard for this rest on what science does not know - which is rather funny considering that science as we know it has only existed for 300-some years.

I am an Engineering student (who dabbled in ethics, psychology, and astrophysics as side modules), and a practicing Catholic.

I assume the above quote was sayingthe same, but allow me to clarify - Creationism is a steaming pile of turd, based on ignorance and deceit.

Ignorance - the Bible wasn't written the way you read it nowdays, and to understand it, you have to look at it in a historical and linguistic context. Easy example to demonstrate. A Creationist will have you believe that Jesus fasted for 40 days, and 40 nights, and that the rains for Noahs Ark were also literally 40 days and 40 nights - because the Bible says so. Wrong. Utterly. Remember we're reading the interpretation of a translation of a translation of an interpretation, of a ...etc here. "40 days and 40 nights" is an old Jewish way of saying "for a long time". Proven. Historical. Fact. You think these things over 40 days and nights every time is because our Creator has a thing for the number? :p Such use of phrasing occurs in many cultures - Medieval English stories normally involve journeys of walking for "a day, and a week, and a month, and a year and a day", with the phrase repeated, as a way of saying "went on a long journey". Hell, how often do you say "I'll be 5 minutes" when you actually mean you won't be long?

Deciet - shorter bit for this. Many Creationists, including the more prominant, and those with real, genuine scientific backgrounds, such as Duane T. Gish, lie. How? They like to say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution being possible, and thus all Darwinian theory is wrong, and the Bible is literally correct again. A central tennant of Creationism is the total unacceptance of evolution. And if the Second Law of Thermodynamics was what they say, then it'd be true. But they lie.

Second Law of Thermodynamics
In a closed system, all things tend towards entropy.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - according to a Creationist
All things tend towards entropy.


Only four words difference, but the World of difference in effect. Under the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the proper version, evolution is possible. Without those four words, it isn't. People, with scientific knowledge, deliberately lie to peddle their own brand of ignorant crap. And it makes my blood boil to see them tarnish my faith like that.



Sorry to post a rant, rather than join the debate, but as you can tell, I hate Creationists.

LMAO

I have been reading this, and I am just laughing my @$$ off. This topic has been debated for centuries, and everything you all have said, has been said millions of times before, with no other result than angry persons. Nothing good can come of this.
Go us!

There is always good that can come from a meeting of minds.

Just because men wrote it doesn't mean that it wasn't inspired of God r of real events whih teach us of God. That's what those that believe in the Bible contend.

What real even teaches us about god? And quite frankly the bible was "inspired" thousands of years ago. and obviously (simply by reading this thread) that inspiration is beginning to be doubted because it was so long ago. Why hasn't god done anything to inspire us recently.

Just because men wrote it doesn't mean that it wasn't inspired of God r of real events whih teach us of God. That's what those that believe in the Bible contend.
The catchphrase is divine inspiration. There is, of course, a problem with divine inspiration: it's not only impossible to prove, it's impossible to gather evidence for; indeed, it's impossible to experience unless you're the one inspired. Therefore we have absolutely no idea whether (Moses, Saint Matthew, Aleister Crowley, Joseph Smith, you name it) was actually divinely inspired or not.

Okay... :confused:
Then I can only assume you're not aware of the field of study called Perceptual Science?

Yes I'm aware of it. What I am saying is that ultimately everything would end up coming down to if your senses are telling the truth in the first place. If they're not telling the truth than no matter how hard we try, we're wrong. Especially if we were to try and study our perceptions because we'd be studying based on the lies that our perception is presenting to us in the first place.

As I said before, I think the entire concept of "are our senses telling us the truth" is trivial and unimportant anyway because if they are lying to us than we could never know that because we experience the world through them.

You are so utterly wrong. But I don't want to argue about it so I won't tell you why you are wrong. But you most definitely are.
That's good to know. I don't believe you for a second, since it contradicts my understanding of reality, but it's good to know.

!

all i have to say is SCIENCE RULES AND RELIGION SUCKS RELIGION IS SOMETHING MADE UP BY SOME DUMBASS TO GET SOMEONE TO FOLLOW HIM LETS TAKE GOD WHO THE HELL IS GOD I NEVER MET THE GUY SO Y SHOULD I WORSHIP HIM LIKE HE IS MY FATHER THAT IS ALL A BUNCH OF CRAP SCIENCE IS THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN STUDYIED MANY TIMES TO MAKE IT TRUE :headbang: :upyours:

You have a point there. If science had conclusively proven itself, not only would it be able to beat the backboards off of other faiths, it would be able to solve the mysteries of the universe. Ultimately, after all, that is what any faith is about.
Faith is not enough. A religion depends on what you have faith in...

all i have to say is SCIENCE RULES AND RELIGION SUCKS RELIGION IS SOMETHING MADE UP BY SOME DUMBASS TO GET SOMEONE TO FOLLOW HIM LETS TAKE GOD WHO THE HELL IS GOD I NEVER MET THE GUY SO Y SHOULD I WORSHIP HIM LIKE HE IS MY FATHER THAT IS ALL A BUNCH OF CRAP SCIENCE I THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN STUDYIED MANY TIMES TO MAKE IT TRUE :headbang: :upyours:

Go back to school, please.

This thread is proving interesting reading (even if the personal insults are, quite frankly, more than a little juvenile). Have to comment on this from page 1 though:-



I am an Engineering student (who dabbled in ethics, psychology, and astrophysics as side modules), and a practicing Catholic.

I assume the above quote was sayingthe same, but allow me to clarify - Creationism is a steaming pile of turd, based on ignorance and deceit.

Ignorance - the Bible wasn't written the way you read it nowdays, and to understand it, you have to look at it in a historical and linguistic context. Easy example to demonstrate. A Creationist will have you believe that Jesus fasted for 40 days, and 40 nights, and that the rains for Noahs Ark were also literally 40 days and 40 nights - because the Bible says so. Wrong. Utterly. Remember we're reading the interpretation of a translation of a translation of an interpretation, of a ...etc here. "40 days and 40 nights" is an old Jewish way of saying "for a long time". Proven. Historical. Fact. You think these things over 40 days and nights every time is because our Creator has a thing for the number? :p Such use of phrasing occurs in many cultures - Medieval English stories normally involve journeys of walking for "a day, and a week, and a month, and a year and a day", with the phrase repeated, as a way of saying "went on a long journey". Hell, how often do you say "I'll be 5 minutes" when you actually mean you won't be long?

Deciet - shorter bit for this. Many Creationists, including the more prominant, and those with real, genuine scientific backgrounds, such as Duane T. Gish, lie. How? They like to say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution being possible, and thus all Darwinian theory is wrong, and the Bible is literally correct again. A central tennant of Creationism is the total unacceptance of evolution. And if the Second Law of Thermodynamics was what they say, then it'd be true. But they lie.

Second Law of Thermodynamics
In a closed system, all things tend towards entropy.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - according to a Creationist
All things tend towards entropy.


Only four words difference, but the World of difference in effect. Under the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the proper version, evolution is possible. Without those four words, it isn't. People, with scientific knowledge, deliberately lie to peddle their own brand of ignorant crap. And it makes my blood boil to see them tarnish my faith like that.



Sorry to post a rant, rather than join the debate, but as you can tell, I hate Creationists.

Two points:

-You are completely and totally correct.

-Your hate is useless and counterproductive.

all i have to say is SCIENCE RULES AND RELIGION SUCKS RELIGION IS SOMETHING MADE UP BY SOME DUMBASS TO GET SOMEONE TO FOLLOW HIM LETS TAKE GOD WHO THE HELL IS GOD I NEVER MET THE GUY SO Y SHOULD I WORSHIP HIM LIKE HE IS MY FATHER THAT IS ALL A BUNCH OF CRAP SCIENCE IS THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN STUDYIED MANY TIMES TO MAKE IT TRUE :headbang: :upyours:
You are an excellent example of the value of spirituality, and how lacking it can negatively effect someone's energy. Take, for example, your anger. Any Buddhist or Jesuit monk could train you very effectively to contain that anger and channel it towards productive means. It is important to realize that we are all essentially selfish beings, and that there is a good reason behind any major decision like conversion to a religion; some people have nothing to believe in or need comfort, but for many, it's a resource for self-training. Please, go calm down and read up on religion before slandering it like this.

The catchphrase is divine inspiration. There is, of course, a problem with divine inspiration: it's not only impossible to prove, it's impossible to gather evidence for; indeed, it's impossible to experience unless you're the one inspired. Therefore we have absolutely no idea whether (Moses, Saint Matthew, Aleister Crowley, Joseph Smith, you name it) was actually divinely inspired or not.
But "divine inspiration" doesn't have to be proven. What has to be proven is the positive assertion that there was no divine inspiration. And since all inspiration is subjective, there is no way to prove this.

This is a cop-out answer, and one many Biblicists have adopted. It is not my position. My position is much more insidious: it says that the spark of divinity is within us (all of us) and to speak with it we only need to be open to hearing it.

Evil! Evil! Evil!

Go me!

Faith is not enough. A religion depends on what you have faith in...
Details? I'm not sure what you mean...

You are an excellent example of the value of spirituality, and how lacking it can negatively effect someone's energy. Take, for example, your anger. Any Buddhist or Jesuit monk could train you very effectively to contain that anger and channel it towards productive means. It is important to realize that we are all essentially selfish beings, and that there is a good reason behind any major decision like conversion to a religion; some people have nothing to believe in or need comfort, but for many, it's a resource for self-training. Please, go calm down and read up on religion before slandering it like this.

You are right and wrong. Religion isn't whithout its negative effects. In the history of the world, more people have died trying to either protect their relgious beliefs, spread their religious beliefs, or just fighting people who had opposing beliefs as theres than any other reason. Even today, relgious extremests can't keep their noses out of other peoples business (*hack* *Cough* *BUSH* *HACK* *Cough*)

Ignorance - the Bible wasn't written the way you read it nowdays, and to understand it, you have to look at it in a historical and linguistic context. Easy example to demonstrate. A Creationist will have you believe that Jesus fasted for 40 days, and 40 nights, and that the rains for Noahs Ark were also literally 40 days and 40 nights - because the Bible says so. Wrong. Utterly. Remember we're reading the interpretation of a translation of a translation of an interpretation, of a ...etc here. "40 days and 40 nights" is an old Jewish way of saying "for a long time". Proven. Historical. Fact. You think these things over 40 days and nights every time is because our Creator has a thing for the number? Such use of phrasing occurs in many cultures - Medieval English stories normally involve journeys of walking for "a day, and a week, and a month, and a year and a day", with the phrase repeated, as a way of saying "went on a long journey". Hell, how often do you say "I'll be 5 minutes" when you actually mean you won't be long?

Ok then, the Bible uses some figurative language, but how does that disprove creationism?

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't hate me for my beliefs, thank you. :P

What real even teaches us about god? And quite frankly the bible was "inspired" thousands of years ago. and obviously (simply by reading this thread) that inspiration is beginning to be doubted because it was so long ago. Why hasn't god done anything to inspire us recently.
Well, there is Bah'a'i... (http://www.bahai.org/)

it's impossible to gather evidence for; indeed, it's impossible to experience unless you're the one inspired...
Well, now, that would be experiencing 100% and so reducing the impossibility to zero.

Well, there is Bah'a'i... (http://www.bahai.org/)

Im not familiar with it

You are right and wrong. Religion isn't whithout its negative effects. In the history of the world, more people have died trying to either protect their relgious beliefs, spread their religious beliefs, or just fighting people who had opposing beliefs as theres than any other reason. Even today, relgious extremests can't keep their noses out of other peoples business (*hack* *Cough* *BUSH* *HACK* *Cough*)

Sir, wars are not caused by religion (at least not usually), but by human greed, hate, and ignorance.

Yes I'm aware of it. What I am saying is that ultimately everything would end up coming down to if your senses are telling the truth in the first place. If they're not telling the truth than no matter how hard we try, we're wrong. Especially if we were to try and study our perceptions because we'd be studying based on the lies that our perception is presenting to us in the first place.

As I said before, I think the entire concept of "are our senses telling us the truth" is trivial and unimportant anyway because if they are lying to us than we could never know that because we experience the world through them.
Hence, the science...............?

Sir, wars are not caused by religion (at least not usually), but by human greed, hate, and ignorance.

Read a history text book, more wars have been fought over religious reasons than any other reason in the history of the world. So much for the 5th commandment (or whichever one says thow shalt not murder)

SCIENCE IS THE TRUTH THAT HAS BEEN STUDYIED MANY TIMES TO MAKE IT TRUE
Bingo.

Sir, wars are not caused by religion (at least not usually), but by human greed, hate, and ignorance.

And by the way, Im 17. you dont have to call me sir

"Even if we don't reach a conclusion, which I doubt we will, it's still a good way to sharpen the mind and maybe get a little closer to the Truth. I'd say that getting closer to the Truth is a good thing, wouldn't you?"

My job as a paranormal psychologist is to break the barriers between science and religion. I do not believe in God, but I believe in the unknown. Contradictory, yes, I know, but finding the truth may never come.

If there will ever be proof that ONE religion is true, imagine the effects of that. Would world governments allow such a thing to happen? I think not. Why? Because, would you want one group of people to be correct, when all others would be wrong, and maybe so angry that there would be riots, war, and the ultimate downfall of human civilization? Interesting.

As far as the bible is concerned, the bible has always been subject to personal opinion. It was written over many years, by many people. Did all of those people have the same EXACT opinion of what God 'supposedly' told them?

First, science cannot be used to prove a negative. Thus, "proving the non-existence of God" or "proving the lack of divine intervention" do not meet the criteria to be considered scientific in the first place. Second, despite being religious, I see no objective evidence that would compel a person to believe that deities exist. Third and finally, the only claims that science makes are where the preponderance of the evidence leads us. Hence, Newtonian mechanics got updated by Einstein, who had a more complete understanding of how things work. That's what science is all about.

I hope I don't have to go into great detail as to how religion is nothing like what I've written above.

Read a history text book, more wars have been fought over religious reasons than any other reason in the history of the world. So much for the 5th commandment (or whichever one says thow shalt not )

If I were you, I'd phrase that as "more wars have been done in the Name of religion than in the name of any other thing." I could go out and kill someone in the name of Islam right now, but would that mean that I killed him because of Islam? Often, people just use religion as an excuse for their own misdeeds, but that doesn't mean that the religion is bad, it means that the person is bad.

And "sir" is just a term of respect. After seeing your posts, I have respect for you, so I addressed you accordingly. =)

Sir, wars are not caused by religion (at least not usually), but by human greed, hate, and ignorance.
This may just be me, based on my life experience and my current concept of religion, and on all that I have learned in more than 40 years of life, but I can sincerely and honestly state that I highly approve of your gratutious use of the word, "Sir."

Well, there is Bah'a'i... (http://www.bahai.org/)
Yes! Good point. Bah'a'i is a beautiful thing: a religion that advocates as its central points equality, love, togetherness, and the unity and relativity of religious truths. They also believe that religion is and can be absolutely in sync with science, a view fairly unique to the official policies of religions.

My job as a paranormal psychologist is to break the barriers between science and religion. I do not believe in God, but I believe in the unknown. Contradictory, yes, I know, but finding the truth may never come.
I may be leaving myself open to criticism, but I highly doubt that that is *anywhere* in your job description.

here is the difference between science and religion:

in science, when the theory and the facts do not agree, the theory is thrown out.

in religion, when the theory and the facts do not agree, the facts are thrown out.


it has been shown time and time again that liquid water cannot support the weight of a grown man.

however, this fact does not stop the religious nuts from passing off that particular fable as 'fact'

Yes! Good point. Bah'a'i is a beautiful thing: a religion that advocates as its central points equality, love, togetherness, and the unity and relativity of religious truths. They also believe that religion is and can be absolutely in sync with science, a view fairly unique to the official policies of religions.
Well, I just wanted to make the point that it was modern. I wasn't aware that there was any "official policy" regarding religions.

here is the difference between science and religion:

in science, when the theory and the facts do not agree, the theory is thrown out.

in religion, when the theory and the facts do not agree, the facts are thrown out.


it has been shown time and time again that liquid water cannot support the weight of a grown man.

however, this fact does not stop the religious nuts from passing off that particular fable as 'fact'
This is a response to a literalist's view of religion. There are people who recognize the metaphor (and other trope) in what they read in the Bible.

If I were you, I'd phrase that as "more wars have been done in the Name of religion than in the name of any other thing." I could go out and kill someone in the name of Islam right now, but would that mean that I killed him because of Islam? Often, people just use religion as an excuse for their own misdeeds, but that doesn't mean that the religion is bad, it means that the person is bad.

And "sir" is just a term of respect. After seeing your posts, I have respect for you, so I addressed you accordingly. =)

As much as I hate religion, I never said it was bad. From a moral standpoint, I think religious does alot for society. But I started that whole bit in response to Matokogothicka's post:

You are an excellent example of the value of spirituality, and how lacking it can negatively effect someone's energy. Take, for example, your anger. Any Buddhist or Jesuit monk could train you very effectively to contain that anger and channel it towards productive means. It is important to realize that we are all essentially selfish beings, and that there is a good reason behind any major decision like conversion to a religion; some people have nothing to believe in or need comfort, but for many, it's a resource for self-training. Please, go calm down and read up on religion before slandering it like this.

My whole point was that even if religion does alot, it isn't without negative effects. particularly i was talking about relgious extremists.

and thank you sir :D

Ignorance - the Bible wasn't written the way you read it nowdays, and to understand it, you have to look at it in a historical and linguistic context. Easy example to demonstrate. A Creationist will have you believe that Jesus fasted for 40 days, and 40 nights, and that the rains for Noahs Ark were also literally 40 days and 40 nights - because the Bible says so. Wrong. Utterly. Remember we're reading the interpretation of a translation of a translation of an interpretation, of a ...etc here. "40 days and 40 nights" is an old Jewish way of saying "for a long time". Proven. Historical. Fact. You think these things over 40 days and nights every time is because our Creator has a thing for the number? Such use of phrasing occurs in many cultures - Medieval English stories normally involve journeys of walking for "a day, and a week, and a month, and a year and a day", with the phrase repeated, as a way of saying "went on a long journey". Hell, how often do you say "I'll be 5 minutes" when you actually mean you won't be long?

Ok then, the Bible uses some figurative language, but how does that disprove creationism?

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't hate me for my beliefs, thank you. :P

A note to say I'll get back to you on that one, as it's 3.30 am here in the UK right now, and I could use some sleep!

Also, I think hate may have too strong for your average Creationist, but I do have serious issues with the lying part - see my second point - and those who spread them knowing they are lying. This (*warning* huge, sweeping generalisation) means there are two types of Creationist. Those who lie deliberately - and thus are exploiting those who don't have said scientific knowledge, and those who know no better, and are thus being the victims of misinformation.

I can't really leave it on that note without backingup my points, but it will have to wait for now - bed time!

"I may be leaving myself open to criticism, but I highly doubt that that is *anywhere* in your job description."

Funny. I did not know you knew what I do for a living? You seem adept at knowing other people's job descriptions.

I deal alot with linking an art of science (psychology) with an art of human faith/belief (Paranormal).

As much as I hate religion, I never said it was bad. From a moral standpoint, I think religious does alot for society. But I started that whole bit in response to Matokogothicka's post:



My whole point was that even if religion does alot, it isn't without negative effects. particularly i was talking about relgious extremists.

and thank you sir :D
But I'll thank you, sir, to realise that its negative effects are dependent upon what people do with it, and not the religion itself. :)

Science and religion can both be true, but in different ways. Science explains how things occur from the standpoint of the philosophical concepts that make up the scientific method. If you use the scientific method, science works. Religion can still be true since it isn't necessarily literal. Unlike science, religion can deal with nonmaterial things like morality and meaning. Science can't tell us what is moral, but religion can.

Ultimately, everything is based on some kind of unproven assumption. You can't prove that the kind of scenario in The Matrix isn't what we are in or that the connection between cause and effect isn't just a coincidence that has been going on for ages. You can argue that they are unlikely, but you can't actually disprove them. As a result, you must have at least some faith to get around the world or you would be too busy worrying if the door will open this time if you turn the knob.

But I'll thank you, sir, to realise that its negative effects are dependent upon what people do with it, and not the religion itself. :)

I guess its almost a whole nother belief in what to think. Obviously u can put full blame on the religious psychos who do whatever they do that annoys or kills everyone else. So ill take my point away from war for a second. Here in America all the religious nuts are against gay marriage and what not because its said its wrong in the bible. My opinion on this is that if u thinkg its wrong, fine. Go be happy thinking its wrong, don't go inforcing your beliefs onto other purposes. Im not saying you should rule out the human factor in such instances, but you can't ignore the religious role in it either. All Im trying to say in all of this is that religion, although may do alot of good, can also have the potential to cause alot of bad.

"I may be leaving myself open to criticism, but I highly doubt that that is *anywhere* in your job description."

Funny. I did not know you knew what I do for a living? You seem adept at knowing other people's job descriptions.

I deal alot with linking an art of science (psychology) with an art of human faith/belief (Paranormal).
My bad... I could have sworn you said, "My job as a paranormal psychologist..."

Oh well.

I was only saying, as a person experienced in writing job descriptions, that I doubt that that is a part of your job desciption, but if I am wrong, your employers have a lot to answer for.

Closing thoughts for the evening - Science isn't what you can prove, it's what you can't disprove.

All a guessing game in the end :D



And a vastly truncated statemet of personal beliefs:

There are three main fields of human thinking - Science, Religion (including Spirituality), and Philosophy. All are seeking reason, and the face of God. They are using different methods to ask the same fundamental questions.

None have all the answers, but none have none either. Only understanding of all three can lead us anywhere. (Hows that for a new Holy Trinity! :p)

Science and religion can both be true, but in different ways. Science explains how things occur from the standpoint of the philosophical concepts that make up the scientific method. If you use the scientific method, science works. Religion can still be true since it isn't necessarily literal. Unlike science, religion can deal with nonmaterial things like morality and meaning. Science can't tell us what is moral, but religion can.
That is so right; and meaning is everything.

Ultimately, everything is based on some kind of unproven assumption. You can't prove that the kind of scenario in The Matrix isn't what we are in or that the connection between cause and effect isn't just a coincidence that has been going on for ages. You can argue that they are unlikely, but you can't actually disprove them. As a result, you must have at least some faith to get around the world or you would be too busy worrying if the door will open this time if you turn the knob.
Back up.. is this some Merovingian reference? The guy who ultimately entirely failed to demonstrate what it was he was claiming?

I guess its almost a whole nother belief in what to think. Obviously u can put full blame on the religious psychos who do whatever they do that annoys or kills everyone else. So ill take my point away from war for a second. Here in America all the religious nuts are against gay marriage and what not because its said its wrong in the bible. My opinion on this is that if u thinkg its wrong, fine. Go be happy thinking its wrong, don't go inforcing your beliefs onto other purposes. Im not saying you should rule out the human factor in such instances, but you can't ignore the religious role in it either. All Im trying to say in all of this is that religion, although may do alot of good, can also have the potential to cause alot of bad.
All I'm trying to say is that it's not religion, but what ones does with it.

All I'm trying to say is that it's not religion, but what ones does with it.

I suppose we could quarrel back and forth aimlessly about how much religion is responsible. In the end its simply a difference in opinion.

I suppose we could quarrel back and forth aimlessly about how much religion is responsible. In the end its simply a difference in opinion.

Well, I am personally of the opinion that if religion was removed as a factor people would still find plenty of reasons to kill each other and go to war. Several of the less pleasant countries in recent memory (USSR, China, North Korea) have been officially atheist after all. Religion is a factor in wars, but hardly the only one or even the most prominent one probably, "religious" wars tended to involve gaining money, land, and power as well after all.

As for the main topic of the thread, I would have to agree religion and science work on different principles ultimately. Really no reason they should come into conflict, because science will never be able to disprove the existence of some sort of higher being.

On a totally unrelated note, am I the only one who finds it somewhat annoying when people use the term religion to refer to Christianity? It bugs me when I say I am not Christian, and people immediately ask "why don't you believe in religion." I do believe in religion, just not yours! How mildly annoying people can be at times.

Hence, the science...............?

You might want to finish that sentence because right now it is meaningless.

I suppose we could quarrel back and forth aimlessly about how much religion is responsible. In the end its simply a difference in opinion.
Again, that depends on what one does with their opinion (and how many share it).

Originally Posted by Salvondia
Yes I'm aware of it. What I am saying is that ultimately everything would end up coming down to if your senses are telling the truth in the first place. If they're not telling the truth than no matter how hard we try, we're wrong. Especially if we were to try and study our perceptions because we'd be studying based on the lies that our perception is presenting to us in the first place.

As I said before, I think the entire concept of "are our senses telling us the truth" is trivial and unimportant anyway because if they are lying to us than we could never know that because we experience the world through them.
Originally Posted by Willamena
Hence, the science...............?
You might want to finish that sentence because right now it is meaningless.
I'm sorry. I thought when scientists studied a thing that it was a science. Am I wrong?

It's not unimportant to the scientists studying it. I personally don't believe they are lying to us. Do you?

I'm sorry. I thought when scientists studied a thing that it was a science. Am I wrong?

Uh, no. And seeing since I have never disagreed with that statement I'll just conclude you are trying to be an ass.

It's not unimportant to the scientists studying it.

They are studying how our senses physically work. They are not studying "what if our senses are all lying to us." The two things are incredibly different.

Uh, no. And seeing since I have never disagreed with that statement I'll just conclude you are trying to be an ass.
Alright.. How is it meaningless, then, in context?

They are studying how our senses physically work. They are not studying "what if our senses are all lying to us." The two things are incredibly different.
D'uh.

If our senses work, physically, then they are not lying to us.

Alright.. How is it meaningless, then, in context?

The statement

Hence, the science...............?

Is still meaningless.

This statement ...[continued below]

I'm sorry. I thought when scientists studied a thing that it was a science. Am I wrong?

Is just you attempting to be an ass because I never said anything that contradicts it.

And just to clairfy for your apparently small mind. The “that” in this quote

Uh, no. And seeing since I have never disagreed with that statement I'll just conclude you are trying to be an ass.

Referred to the statement it quoted, ie

'm sorry. I thought when scientists studied a thing that it was a science. Am I wrong?

If our senses work, physically, then they are not lying to us.

Sit down and think for a moment. Now look at your screen. If every e on your screen was displayed as a b would you know? If it had always been displayed as a b would you know? If everywhere you had ever seen an e you had seen a b instead would you know?

My statement is that if our senses lie to us, than there is no way to study the reality of anything, including our senses. Until you address that I'll just call you a dumbass.

Nice thread, but you got the name wrong. I think you meant to type religion > science.

Its alright, we all make typos.

This is a manufactured conflict. There is no good reason for this fight. The level of hatred and insult created from this conflict is amazing. If you believe the new religion, Science, then all well and good. If you believe the old religions then fine. Why do both groups find it necessary to prove their superiority.
I am a Protestant who is completely comfortable with science. It is amazing and fun stuff and what it revels to me again and again is simply how God did things. If many religious people looked at it that way they would be much more comfortable. Those who practice faith in science should stop thinking themselves so superior to there "less enlightened" bretheren.
Damn, I sound like somekinda long hair peace love hippy with this post.

That's what Jesus was, wasn't he??

I think that was a very well put idea.

Nice thread, but you got the name wrong. I think you meant to type religion > science.

Its alright, we all make typos.

Error 404:

The funny you were looking for could not be found.

The statement

Is still meaningless.

This statement ...[continued below]

Is just you attempting to be an ass because I never said anything that contradicts it.

And just to clairfy for your apparently small mind. The “that” in this quote

Referred to the statement it quoted, ie
Well, since you insist on not viewing what I said in context, I'll just ignore you being an ass.

Sit down and think for a moment. Now look at your screen. If every e on your screen was displayed as a b would you know? If it had always been displayed as a b would you know? If everywhere you had ever seen an e you had seen a b instead would you know?

My statement is that if our senses lie to us, than there is no way to study the reality of anything, including our senses. Until you address that I'll just call you a dumbass.
If every e on my screen was displayed as a b, I'd see:
If bvbry b on my scbbn was displaybd as a b, so, yes, I'd know. If it has always been displayed as such, I'd have traded my monitor in years ago.

If you implying that I somehow had elementary school education that differed from all other North Americans, then there is a possibility that I would have not noticed the difference until now. A small possibility, but still a possibility.

Our senses do not lie to us.

Well, since you insist on not viewing what I said in context, I'll just ignore you being an ass.

What you said didn't make sense in context. Nor does it make sense now because you have made no attempt to explain it.


If every e on my screen was displayed as a b, I'd see:
If bvbry b on my scbbn was displaybd as a b, so, yes, I'd know. If it has always been displayed as such, I'd have traded my monitor in years ago.

And you claim I am not reading posts in context? Why don't you try dealing with

If everywhere you had ever seen an e you had seen a b instead would you know?

This time.

If you implying that I somehow had elementary school education that differed from all other North Americans, then there is a possibility that I would have not noticed the difference until now. A small possibility, but still a possibility.

Why thank you for being a dumbass.

We'll make this simpler for you.

If everyone who ever looked at the color we call green saw the color we call blue and vice versa would anyone ever know? No. If all of our senses lied to all of us we would never know. If we attempted to study our senses we’d be studying what we observe with our senses, and if our senses lie to us we’d be studying lies and not reality.

Our senses do not lie to us.

No really? Did I ever say they did? Did I say I find this entire concept stupid and ridiculous? Yes. Go fuck a damned tree.

If bvbry b on my scbbn was displaybd as a b

The proper way of writing that would have been

If bvbry e on my scrbbn was displaybd as an b.

You wouldn't know. Because it would have always been like that your entire life.

Salvondia:

I believe I understand what you're attempting to explain. I've often wondered the same thing myself, that if there was some way in which to switch or transfer your consciousness to another mind - would everything appear exactly the same?

As you said, I look at a colour which we'll call "blue". Now, I look at it and say "Hey, it's blue" and you look at it and say "Hey, you're right - it is blue". However, if we could do this brain swap I might realise that you see my blue as what I'd consider a yellow and you realise that what I see as blue is your orange.

However, regardless of this we've both pointed at it and said "It is blue" so what we can determine is that whatever we experience may not be the same but it is constant. If it wasn't constant, we'd look at this "blue" object and I'd say "Look, it's green!" and you'd say "It is not! It's very obviously lavender!".

And anyone that says that our senses cannot be deceived has never been tripping. I haven't as such... but I've suffered some unpleasant hallucinations as a side effect of a painkiller I was given once. In fact, you only need to look at visual illusions to realise how easily our senses are fooled because our brain takes certain "shortcuts".

Working on the assumption that I'm not some bodiless conscience floating in a void and everything I experience is of my own creation, I cannot say that what we experience is identical it is constant... or that there is a commonality to our existence. The fact that we are able to communicate with one another also suggests that there is some commonality despite the way in which we might filter the information.

Does that make sense?

We'll make this simpler for you.

If everyone who ever looked at the color we call green saw the color we call blue and vice versa would anyone ever know? No. If all of our senses lied to all of us we would never know. If we attempted to study our senses we’d be studying what we observe with our senses, and if our senses lie to us we’d be studying lies and not reality.
Um, the colour "green" is green because we call it green. If everyone called green blue and blue green, then green would be blue and blue would be green. :rolleyes:

My statement is that if our senses lie to us...
Our senses do not lie
No really? Did I ever say they did?
I never said you said they did.

Working on the assumption that I'm not some bodiless conscience floating in a void and everything I experience is of my own creation, I cannot say that what we experience is identical it is constant... or that there is a commonality to our existence. The fact that we are able to communicate with one another also suggests that there is some commonality despite the way in which we might filter the information.

Does that make sense?

Actually, I think someone once calculated that the probablity of one person being a bodiless conscience imagining everything is much higher than the probablity of everything coming into existance. The problem is, there's no way to tell if this is true which of us are imaginations and which one of us is the real person, so really we mustn't talk about it in case the person accidentally stops imagining. I just hope no-one here is the real person in case they stop imagining after they read this.

Ok, I'm back.

Too bad the topic was closed. :p

Now, i am curious if there are any weird folks around here who actually believe that Creation/Deluge stuff. If yes, this is going to be fun. :D

i come here and theres no one religeouse left...? that a scam i was look ing forward to an argument