Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 294
  1. #61
    Gay Chat Mod
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tallgrass prairie
    Posts
    6,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schopenhauer View Post
    What possible use does science hold besides satisfying artificial needs which are nothing more than the result of both culture and philosophical intrusion?
    Are you saying science is useless?

    "A weed is a plant that has mastered every survival skill except for learning how to grow in rows."


  2. #62
    Senior Chatterbox
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Verdrahtet
    Posts
    3,147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schopenhauer View Post
    What's the difference between needing science and needing religion?

    They're one in the same question-wise.

    No one needs either,

    What possible use does science hold besides satisfying artificial needs which are nothing more than the result of both culture and philosophical intrusion?

    In fact religion is far more natural than science.

    Science is just a concept that is about as pointless.
    i am not gonna approve or support this post.
    Science is far more important than religion for humans. Here you are saying "no one needs either" Haha think again!!

    Religion is far more natural, really ?!?!
    i have different thought ,sorry for that !!

    "science is based on proven facts", are you saying science is worthless ?!
    Gleich sucht sich, Gleich findet sich
    --

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Leominster, Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FRazier View Post
    i am not gonna approve or support this post.
    Science is far more important than religion for humans. Here you are saying "no one needs either" Haha think again!!

    Religion is far more natural, really ?!?!
    i have different thought ,sorry for that !!

    "science is based on proven facts", are you saying science is worthless ?!
    Yes, science is worthless.

    Religion is in more connection with human nature, not regarding the myth.
    Last edited by Schopenhauer; 04-08-2012 at 05:49 PM.

  4. #64
    Senior Chatterbox
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Verdrahtet
    Posts
    3,147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schopenhauer View Post
    Yes, science is worthless.

    Religion is in more connection with human nature, not regarding the myth.


    I have to say nothing..



    Gleich sucht sich, Gleich findet sich
    --

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Voice View Post
    This makes no sense. Religions (especially Christianity) have changed drastically throughout their history, always adapting to the demands of society.

    I have yet to meet a Christian who follows every moral law and code written in the Bible. All of them take from the Bible things they agree with--balancing them against morals that were instilled by the society in which they live.

    If you disagree, feel free to tell us about all the people you've stoned to death.
    The fact that Christians don’t stone people to death doesn’t prove your point, nor does it disprove Iamnothing’s point. Below I'll explain why.

    First of all, your remark is partly ad hominem and, even if you did prove your point, you would only prove that some person is acting inconsistently. Suppose Christianity says “You should do x” and at some later time some person claiming to be Christian does not do ‘x’. Does this show that Christianity has changed? No, it only shows that the person who does not do ‘x’ is not following Christianity at that point. Thus, to the degree that your response is ad hominem, you would not have shown that religion (Christian or non-) doesn’t provide an “anchor outside the natural realm to which their moral fiber is fixed”. All you would have shown is that some Christians don’t always act Christianly.

    Second, you claim not just that Christians don’t follow Christianity, but that religion (or Christianity) itself changes. But you haven’t given any evidence that it has. All you’ve done is go ad hominem: Christians today don’t stone people. But that doesn’t show that Christianity has changed. Maybe Christians should stone people today.

    However, let’s say that the religion itself changes and not just the religious persons adhering to it. Let’s say the reason Christians don’t stone people today is because Christianity says they shouldn’t (whereas it at one time said they should). Does this disprove the claim that, for instance, Christianity is “anchor outside the natural realm to which their moral fiber is fixed”? No.

    An ethical system can be non-arbitrary and objective and, thereby, provide an “anchor outside the natural realm to which their moral fiber is fixed” while also accommodating different cir***stances that call for different behavior at different times.

    Actually we would expect *some* sort of change in ethical application or ethical principle when a different set of facts apply to a situation. This only shows that the ethics are tied to the facts and are not some ideal imposed upon the facts.

    To put it briefly, Christianity teaches that people are no longer bound to the Mosaic law (where the command to stone is given) because it was given to a particular people in a particular time for a particular purpose (Gal. 3:24 etc.). Now that the purpose has been fulfilled (cf. entire book of Hebrews), the Mosaic law doesn’t apply. This doesn’t show Christianity is inconsistent, for reasons that should be obvious. It is not the moral law that has changed, but facts about the world have changed (Christ has come, we are not 700 B.C. Israelites living in a theocracy, etc.) that have made the applications of the moral inapplicable.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FRazier View Post
    i am not gonna approve or support this post.
    Science is far more important than religion for humans. Here you are saying "no one needs either" Haha think again!!

    Religion is far more natural, really ?!?!
    i have different thought ,sorry for that !!

    "science is based on proven facts", are you saying science is worthless ?!
    Even if we assume religion is false, a good case can still be made that religion is more important than science.

    Basically, "science" only helps us manipulate mater. In that sense, it's just another tool like a hammer or a gun. But in what sense is that important? It can't tell you how you *should* manipulate mater or how you should live or what is beautiful or if there is such a thing as beauty or right and wrong. It can't tell you what your purpose is or should be and it cannot give you purpose. Religion, however, claims to do all these things. Arguably, all these things (whether there is right or wrong) are far more important than the ability to invent a television or a bomb. Science can't tell you whether you should waste 6 hours a day watching soap operas or use the bomb to save lives or take lives.

    Ironically though, in today's Western society, science is sometimes treated as though it were a religion and it takes the place of religion and scientists are treated like the new priests. Whatever a scientist says, even if it's outside of their expertise in the field of science (e.g. politics), some people will treat the scientist's words like the gospel. But even then science isn't more important than religion, its simply treated as a new religion.

  7. #67
    Gay Chat Mod
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tallgrass prairie
    Posts
    6,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    Even if we assume religion is false, a good case can still be made that religion is more important than science.
    Poor comparison. Religion is an arbitrary concept of the human mind that does not need to be dictated by the laws of nature.

    Science is independent of the human mind. We learn about things by carrying out objective testing and analysis (sometimes theoretical analysis as well).

    We cannot dictate what we want science to be about, because science dictates us.

    We can, however, conform religion to be whatever we want it to be.

    "A weed is a plant that has mastered every survival skill except for learning how to grow in rows."


  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Tyson~ View Post
    Poor comparison. Religion is an arbitrary concept of the human mind that does not need to be dictated by the laws of nature.

    Science is independent of the human mind. We learn about things by carrying out objective testing and analysis (sometimes theoretical analysis as well).

    We cannot dictate what we want science to be about, because science dictates us.

    We can, however, conform religion to be whatever we want it to be.
    Again, I'm just going to go ahead and assume religion is false for the sake of argument. I don't think this is true, but I'm granting it because I think the point about science fails either way.

    Science is a set of methods we use to investigate the world. In what sense then is that independent of the mind? Maybe the world is independent of the mind, but the methods we use to investigate the world ("science") are conventions of the mind. If there were no minds, there would be no science. Is there science on mars? I think the answer is clearly no, because there is no one (no mind) to operate in the manner we label "scientific."

    But let's grant that science is independent of the mind and that science "dictates us". Does this show that science is more important than religion? I don't see how. Science can't even tell you what's important. You can't look under a microscope or through a telescope and see "importance" anywhere. You can't perform some test in a laboratory that places a quantifiable value on an oxygen molecule or the like. Science doesn't dictate to us importance. It doesn't dictate to us any values at all, including any idea that we should value science or value truth. The value you assign to science is not itself derived from science, rather it comes from a philosophy or a religion. And since it is your philosophy or your religion that gives value to science, you can't turn the scheme upside down and say science is more valuable than that which gives it value.

    Maybe the philosophy is false and maybe the religion is false, but that only means the value you assign to science is false too.

    Now aside from that (this is just an excursus, so to speak):

    I don't think you're correct about your portrayal of science as some objective thing that's out there that dictates facts to us. That's an old Baconian idealist view of science that no one (aside from the laymen and some philosophically naive scientists) holds to anymore. Fact is, science is much more subjective... this should come as no surprise since science is just a set of operations that scientists (subjects) perform. But Thomas Kuhn put it better and with greater illustration than I could when he said:

    "...history offers no support for so excessivelyBaconian a method. Boyle's experiments were not conceivable (and if conceivedwould have received another interpretation or none at all) until air wasrecognizes as an elastic fluid to which all the elaborate concepts ofhydrostatics could be applied. Coulomb's success depended upon his constructingspecial apparatus to measure the force between point charges. (Those who hadpreviously measured electrical forces using ordinary pan balances, etc., hadfound no consistent or simple regularity at all.) But that design, in turn,depended upon the previous recognition that every particle of electric fluidacts upon every other at a distance. It was for the force between suchparticles--the only force which might safely be assumed a simple function ofdistance--that coulomb was looking. Joule's experiments could also be used toillustrate how quantitative laws emerge through paradigmarticulation... No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientificdevelopment at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification bydirect comparison with nature… the act of judgment that leads scientists toreject a previously accepted theory is always based upon more than a comparisonof that theory with the world... [Counter-instances to a scientifictheory] can at best help to create a crisis or, more accurately, to reinforceone that is already very much in existence. By themselves they cannot and willnot falsify that philosophical theory, for its defenders will dowhat we have already seen scientists doing when confronted by anomaly. Theywill devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory inorder to eliminate any apparent conflict." (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)


    The point being, science isn't just an objective "out-there" process that, as you say, "dictates us." It's not as simple as that. It's not as simple as having a theory and comparing it to the world or allowing the world to dictate to you a theory. When Kuhn first made his case it came as a surprise (at least to those ignorant of the history and philosophy of science), but today it's widely recognized that the basics of Kuhn's argument is matter of fact. As the physicist Paul Davies put it a few years ago in an article from the New York Times: "science has its own faith-based beliefsystem... its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."

    Anyway, that's all beside the point. As I said, even if I grant your conception of science, I don't think it shows science to be more important than religion (even if it is false).

  9. #69
    Gay Chat Mod
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tallgrass prairie
    Posts
    6,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    Is there science on mars? I think the answer is clearly no, because there is no one (no mind) to operate in the manner we label "scientific."
    To have science on Mars, you need a human on Mars doing science-related stuff.



    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    But let's grant that science is independent of the mind and that science "dictates us". Does this show that science is more important than religion? I don't see how.
    Because science doesn't do bullshyt, it shows things as the way they are.



    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    Science can't even tell you what's important. You can't look under a microscope or through a telescope and see "importance" anywhere. You can't perform some test in a laboratory that places a quantifiable value on an oxygen molecule or the like. Science doesn't dictate to us importance. It doesn't dictate to us any values at all.
    This is where quantitative analysis comes in. There is also qualitative analysis.



    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    The value you assign to science is not itself derived from science, rather it comes from a philosophy or a religion. And since it is your philosophy or your religion that gives value to science, you can't turn the scheme upside down and say science is more valuable than that which gives it value.
    Most often science and religions are at odds with each other.



    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    Maybe the philosophy is false and maybe the religion is false.
    I highly doubt that philosophy can be false because it is the way humans think. For philosophy to be false...well that can't happen without human ceasing to have a conscious mind.



    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    Anyway, that's all beside the point. As I said, even if I grant your conception of science, I don't think it shows science to be more important than religion (even if it is false).
    Time and time again - no serious person dispute that science is held at a higher value then religion.
    Last edited by Tyson; 04-10-2012 at 09:30 AM.

    "A weed is a plant that has mastered every survival skill except for learning how to grow in rows."


  10. #70
    Senior Chatterbox
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Verdrahtet
    Posts
    3,147

    Default

    I can’t understand why religion is most important thanscience , i think science and religion clash on so many points that a personwould have to be dishonest to not to seethose in compatibilities. Sciecne and religion are not compatible at all.
    In general people turn a relatively simple issues into acomplex one.
    Here you’re saying science is a tool, how so ? I think itdepends on how others take it. If you take things as a burden then it’s hardfor you to live with.
    I think science describes the nature/ natural phenomena waymuch better than the religion . Here is what religion has to say:

    Quote Originally Posted by Schopenhauer View Post
    Yes, science is worthless.

    Religion is in more connection with human nature, not regarding the myth.
    “Earth is at thecenter of the universe”

    Bbook of genesis states that out planet was created threedays before the sun, moon and stars. The earth is also a universal referencepoint in that christ came here to walk among men.
    “Earth was flat”
    Some early religious scientist may have thought the earthwas flat, but certainly not the great explorers. Some bible critics haveclaimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers toangles standing at the “four corners” of the earth, not the sun, is doing themoving.
    “was there a big bang”
    Many think it was directed by GOD. Creationist maintain thatwhat really happened at the time of creation is that God spoke and earthappeared- he commanded and the headven stood firm. All the many stars are appeared suddenly andsupernaturally in space.....

    ....This clearly states that the religion is based upon people’s belief in super natural power which has nothing to do with proven facts.Science explains things on various levels on the other hand religion creates confusion.Religion works on same old beliefs but science keeps on modifying.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    Even if we assume religion is false, a good case can still be made that religion is more important than science.

    Basically, "science" only helps us manipulate mater. In that sense, it's just another tool like a hammer or a gun. But in what sense is that important? It can't tell you how you *should* manipulate mater or how you should live or what is beautiful or if there is such a thing as beauty or right and wrong. It can't tell you what your purpose is or should be and it cannot give you purpose. Religion, however, claims to do all these things. Arguably, all these things (whether there is right or wrong) are far more important than the ability to invent a television or a bomb. Science can't tell you whether you should waste 6 hours a day watching soap operas or use the bomb to save lives or take lives.

    Ironically though, in today's Western society, science is sometimes treated as though it were a religion and it takes the place of religion and scientists are treated like the new priests. Whatever a scientist says, even if it's outside of their expertise in the field of science (e.g. politics), some people will treat the scientist's words like the gospel. But even then science isn't more important than religion, its simply treated as a new religion.

    Religion florish in societies with low incomes , no welfarestate, poor education and absence of freedom and limited mobility. Because thaydescribes most of human history, religion has persisted , If the world ismoving away from those times , then there is no reason to hope that it willmove away from religion.
    I think people take religion as an excuse when they fail toprove things on scientic levels.
    Human may have aninnate tendency to invent supernatural explanations for things they don’t yetunderstand.Every time in history where we assumed that god acts in that gap ofour knowledge, we have been wrong , and there was a perfectly naturalexplaination.

    Science works on the basis of reasons and evidence whilereligion often appeals to faith.

    Gleich sucht sich, Gleich findet sich
    --

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Tyson~ View Post
    To have science on Mars, you need a human on Mars doing science-related stuff.
    That's exactly what I said: "no, because there is no one (no mind) to operate in the manner we label 'scientific.'" This supports the point I was making, that science is not independent of mind, it is a convention of thought.



    Because science doesn't do bullshyt, it shows things as the way they are.

    This doesn't show that science is more important than religion. For instance, suppose I have a rock in my hand. The rock isn't "bullshyt" is the rock more important than religion? Of course not. Religion has been and continues to be one of the main forces driving and shaping human history (even if you think it's bull). The rock in my hand has had no impact and played no important role in human history. Clearly, the fact that the rock is not "bullshyt" and religion is doesn't tell us that the rock is more important than religion. So you *still* fail to give any support to the claim.


    This is where quantitative analysis comes in. There is also qualitative analysis.

    Science can't do qualitative analysis in that sense. That's the point. It can only talk about quantities and values in terms of quantities. The only "qualitative" analysis science can do is to say that a carbon molecule is not a nitrogen molecule and the like.


    Most often science and religions are at odds with each other.

    Actually, there is no such thing as "science" in the sense of there being this monolithic discipline. There are scientific theories and some of these are said to conflict with religion. Is this "often" the case? Not from what I can see. I'll address FRazier's claims in a separate post. But let's assume you are talking about the methods of science. Are the methods of science at odds with religion? Not that I can see. If you think so, give us an argument.

    Even so, I could grant for the sake of argument that science and religion are "most often at odds with each other." Does this prove science is more important than religion? No. It might as well prove religion is more important than science.


    I highly doubt that philosophy can be false because it is the way humans think. For philosophy to be false...well that can't happen without human ceasing to have a conscious mind.

    For a philosophy to be false (there is no monolithic "philosophy" either) it doesn't require humans to stop having minds, it only requires them to have false thoughts on whatever the philosophy pertains to.


    Time and time again - no serious person dispute that science is held at a higher value then religion.
    On the contrary, I've showed in detail how no serious person on this forum has supported the claim that science is more important than religion. Neither you nor FRazier has been able to come up with a serious argument, as I've thoroughly demonstrated. Nor does it appear either of you have a very firm grasp "science" in its practice or methods, which would be ironic wouldn't it? The religious person is more well-read on the nature of science than the atheists trying to argue for science over religion?

  12. #72
    Gay Chat Mod
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tallgrass prairie
    Posts
    6,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    Religion has been and continues to be one of the main forces driving and shaping human history (even if you think it's bull). The rock in my hand has had no impact and played no important role in human history. Clearly, the fact that the rock is not "bullshyt" and religion is doesn't tell us that the rock is more important than religion. So you *still* fail to give any support to the claim.
    I don't dispute that religions has serve as one of the factors that drives and shape human history. With science intercepting it and steering the society on a different path, vice-versa.




    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    Science can't do qualitative analysis in that sense. That's the point. It can only talk about quantities and values in terms of quantities. The only "qualitative" analysis science can do is to say that a carbon molecule is not a nitrogen molecule and the like.
    What else do you want to know about the carbon atom?



    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    Are the methods of science at odds with religion? Not that I can see. If you think so, give us an argument.
    I never claimed that the methods of science are at odd with religions. But results from analysis tend to contradict most of the religious teaching and actions.
    A good example of science and religion being at odds is the witch hysteria in Salem in late 1600s.
    There were sudden rashes of hysteria about witches and warlocks walking among the living - causing people to go into convulsion, paralysis, and other odd behaviours.
    Because of that, about 50 people were hanged.
    As it turns out, the cause of this unsual event was most likely due to ergot poisoning in the wheat that people didn't know about.
    Religion claims one thing, science claims something else.



    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    For a philosophy to be false (there is no monolithic "philosophy" either) it doesn't require humans to stop having minds, it only requires them to have false thoughts on whatever the philosophy pertains to.
    I believe that to have false thoughts would still be a philosophy.
    Last edited by Tyson; 04-10-2012 at 10:59 AM.

    "A weed is a plant that has mastered every survival skill except for learning how to grow in rows."


  13. #73

    Default

    FRazier,

    After writing out my response to you and hitting "submit" I was taken to a word verification screen and then logged out and when I logged back in most of my reply was not saved. Rather than spend another 30 minutes rewriting I'll just post the part of my response that was saved.

    In short: even if we grant that science and religion are in conflict, it doesn't prove your thesis (I had responded to each of your claims, showing that only 1 of the things you mention could really be argued as a conflict... the rest are a myth, a misunderstanding, or the scientific theories were themselves proposed by religious persons (e.g. Big Bang)).

    I won't bother rewriting the rest of my response:

    Quote Originally Posted by FRazier View Post
    I can’t understand why religion is most important thanscience , i think science and religion clash on so many points that a personwould have to be dishonest to not to seethose in compatibilities. Sciecne and religion are not compatible at all.

    As I already pointed out to Tyson, even if "science and religion clash on so many points" that doesn't logically entail that science is more important than religion. It might just as well entail that religion is more important than science. Strange, isn't it, that you cast science as being based on reason and religion being based on faith... yet here I am, the religious person, apparently with a better grasp of logic and reasonable entailment than yourself? I'm not trying to be ****y, just trying to hint that maybe you should put away the cheap and false caricatures of religion and science.

    Here you’re saying science is a tool, how so ?
    I explained how so, twice. It's a method (tool) of investigating the material realm to help us manipulate it.

    Now below you have a bunch of assertions about what religion teaches vs. what science teaches. I could just ignore all of that, since none of it demonstrates science is more important than religion. But let me go ahead and remark on the claims since you went through the trouble of making them:

    “Earth is at thecenter of the universe”


    There is nothing religious about that claim. The idea that the earth was the center of the "universe" was started (as best we can tell) by Ptolemy on *scientific* grounds! And the Bible (the Christian and Jewish religious text) does not claim the earth is the center of the universe. It wasn't just religious people who thought earth was the center of the universe, in fact they only thought that it was because the science of their day told them it was. And they had scientific arguments to back up their claim.

    Of course those scientists are long dead and their arguments no longer count as good science. But at one time it was considered good science. Same with Newtonian physics. The atheist cosmologist Lawrence Krauss recently admitted in a radio interview that one day in the future his own concept of what science teaches us about the world may be proven false.



  14. #74
    Gay Chat Mod
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tallgrass prairie
    Posts
    6,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPanea View Post
    After writing out my response to you and hitting "submit" I was taken to a word verification screen and then logged out and when I logged back in most of my reply was not saved. Rather than spend another 30 minutes rewriting I'll just post the part of my response that was saved.
    I know the feeling, it can pisses anyone off

    I find it best to write it on notepad or a word document, then copying/pasting it into here.

    "A weed is a plant that has mastered every survival skill except for learning how to grow in rows."


  15. #75

    Default

    [QUOTE=~Tyson~;4513728]I don't dispute that religions has serve as one of the factors that drives and shape human history. With science intercepting it and steering the society on a different path, vice-versa.

    The way science shapes human history is not really different than the way metal-working or the printing press has shaped human history. Each (science, metal-working, printing press) have played important roles, but not more important roles than religion. These are all just tools that are put to use for one purpose or another and religion has and can provide the impetus as to how these tools will be used.


    What else do you want to know about the carbon atom?
    The point being that science only takes us to mundane facts that are insignificant in themselves. Just like putting ink on a paper in a printing press. It's how you use the facts that is significant. Religion operates at the level as to how we should and can use the facts. Science just helps inform us about that.


    results from analysis tend to contradict most of the religious teaching and actions.
    This is false. I won't bother asking you to prove your assertion, since showing that *most* religious teachings and actions are contradicted by science would be a monumental task that I'm sure you're not up to. But if you're ambitious be my guest. Otherwise, I'm satisfied to dismiss without argument what you have asserted without argument. (I went through each point of FRazier's claims, but most of my response got lost.)

    A good example of science and religion being at odds is the witch hysteria in Salem in late 1600s.
    There were sudden rashes of hysteria about witches and warlocks walking among the living - causing people to go into convulsion, paralysis, and other odd behaviours.
    Because of that, about 50 people were hanged.
    As it turns out, the cause of this unsual event was most likely due to ergot poisoning in the wheat that people didn't know about.
    Religion claims one thing, science claims something else.
    According to Dinesh D'Souza "fewer than twenty-five [people were killed in the Salem Witch Trials]. Nineteen were sentenced to death, and a few others died in captivity" (What's So Great About Christianity, 207). Of course the cause of the event is just speculation. There is no way to scientifically test it. But either way it doesn't matter. The example shows that some religious persons were rash. It doesn't show a conflict between religion per se and science per se.


    I believe that to have false thoughts would still be a philosophy.
    Right, a false philosophy... you seem a bit confused on this point. You said you doubt that philosophy can be false, because that would require no human thinking. Well, clearly you're mistaken. All that is required for a false philosophy is for someone philosophizing to have false thoughts.

  16. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FRazier View Post
    I can’t understand why religion is most important thanscience , i think science and religion clash on so many points that a personwould have to be dishonest to not to seethose in compatibilities. Sciecne and religion are not compatible at all.
    In general people turn a relatively simple issues into acomplex one.
    Here you’re saying science is a tool, how so ? I think itdepends on how others take it. If you take things as a burden then it’s hardfor you to live with.
    I think science describes the nature/ natural phenomena waymuch better than the religion . Here is what religion has to say:



    “Earth is at thecenter of the universe”

    Bbook of genesis states that out planet was created threedays before the sun, moon and stars. The earth is also a universal referencepoint in that christ came here to walk among men.
    “Earth was flat”
    Some early religious scientist may have thought the earthwas flat, but certainly not the great explorers. Some bible critics haveclaimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers toangles standing at the “four corners” of the earth, not the sun, is doing themoving.
    “was there a big bang”
    Many think it was directed by GOD. Creationist maintain thatwhat really happened at the time of creation is that God spoke and earthappeared- he commanded and the headven stood firm. All the many stars are appeared suddenly andsupernaturally in space.....

    ....This clearly states that the religion is based upon people’s belief in super natural power which has nothing to do with proven facts.Science explains things on various levels on the other hand religion creates confusion.Religion works on same old beliefs but science keeps on modifying.




    Religion florish in societies with low incomes , no welfarestate, poor education and absence of freedom and limited mobility. Because thaydescribes most of human history, religion has persisted , If the world ismoving away from those times , then there is no reason to hope that it willmove away from religion.
    I think people take religion as an excuse when they fail toprove things on scientic levels.
    Human may have aninnate tendency to invent supernatural explanations for things they don’t yetunderstand.Every time in history where we assumed that god acts in that gap ofour knowledge, we have been wrong , and there was a perfectly naturalexplaination.

    Science works on the basis of reasons and evidence whilereligion often appeals to faith.


    As I said, I don't want to go back and try to rewrite my response to you, but I will go ahead and "respond" with some quotes or links that I had originally provided since I can do that very quickly without trying to remember what I originally said.

    Where you said: Science works on the basis of reasons and evidence whilereligion often appeals to faith.

    I responded with two quotes from two scientists who are also atheists:

    Paul Davies (physicist) - "science has its own faith-based beliefsystem... its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."

    Massimo Piggliucci (geneticist/botanist) - "[New Atheists] seem to equate science with reason, yet another position that is abysmally simplistic from a philosophical perspective. Science is conducted through the application of reason to a particular type of problems and in particular ways. But reason can be applied to other problems in other ways. Philosophy, of course, is an example, as it makes progress through the analysis and dissection of concepts, not via empirical discoveries. Logic and mathematics are additional obvious examples: mathematical theorems are neither discovered nor proved by using scientific methods at all. Unless one wishes to conclude that math is not a rational enterprise, then one is forced to admit that science = reason is a bad equation. Indeed, even science itself is far from being an activity rooted in reason alone."

    Like I said, both of these men are atheists (perhaps Davies would call himself agnostic?) and are not trying to defend religion or to debase science... they are just trying to set the record straight since New Atheists have turned back to an Baconian Ideal of science that just isn't tenable.

    The other quote I gave was from the scientist Stephen Jay Gould, also an atheist, on the subject of the flat earth myth. He once wrote a paper debunking it and showing that it was really just a propaganda tactic to make religious people look bad. I'll just give you the link to Gould's paper: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS.../FlatEarth.pdf

    I also mentioned that the church father Augustine (c. 360 A.D.) mentions the earth being round in his book "The City of God." He doubts that people live on the other side of the earth, but he does not dispute the claim that the earth is round, nor does he say the Bible teaches it is flat.

    I also provided a link to a paper in the Scientific American on Big Bang Cosmology and how there is some trouble with it (after mentioning that the theory was started by a Christian)... but that was more an aside remark. Anyway, if you're interested: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...flation-summer

  17. #77
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    The Olde Towne
    Posts
    4,541

    Default

    How come every philosophical conversation of religion in existential terms turns to an over condenced, nearly scripted argument over the false dichotomy of science and religion in an epistomolgical context?


    Reallity is a void. Get over it. Stop trying to fill it with ideology (be it Science or religion).
    Last edited by Matteh MoO MoO; 04-11-2012 at 05:01 PM.

  18. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Leominster, Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FRazier View Post
    “Earth is at thecenter of the universe”
    Bbook of genesis states that out planet was created threedays before the sun, moon and stars. The earth is also a universal referencepoint in that christ came here to walk among men.
    “Earth was flat”
    Some early religious scientist may have thought the earthwas flat, but certainly not the great explorers. Some bible critics haveclaimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers toangles standing at the “four corners” of the earth, not the sun, is doing themoving.
    “was there a big bang”
    Many think it was directed by GOD. Creationist maintain thatwhat really happened at the time of creation is that God spoke and earthappeared- he commanded and the headven stood firm. All the many stars are appeared suddenly andsupernaturally in space.....

    ....This clearly states that the religion is based upon people’s belief in super natural power which has nothing to do with proven facts.Science explains things on various levels on the other hand religion creates confusion.Religion works on same old beliefs but science keeps on modifying.




    Religion florish in societies with low incomes , no welfarestate, poor education and absence of freedom and limited mobility. Because thaydescribes most of human history, religion has persisted , If the world ismoving away from those times , then there is no reason to hope that it willmove away from religion.
    I think people take religion as an excuse when they fail toprove things on scientic levels.
    Human may have aninnate tendency to invent supernatural explanations for things they don’t yetunderstand.Every time in history where we assumed that god acts in that gap ofour knowledge, we have been wrong , and there was a perfectly naturalexplaination.

    Science works on the basis of reasons and evidence whilereligion often appeals to faith.

    Why is any of those useful?

    Pointless trifles to satisfy the mind like a game of chess.

    By the way, science only provides truth from a scientific viewpoint.

    It's the same as religion.

  19. #79
    Intermediate Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In ny state.
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FRazier View Post
    I can’t understand why religion is most important thanscience , i think science and religion clash on so many points that a personwould have to be dishonest to not to seethose in compatibilities. Sciecne and religion are not compatible at all.
    In general people turn a relatively simple issues into acomplex one.
    Here you’re saying science is a tool, how so ? I think itdepends on how others take it. If you take things as a burden then it’s hardfor you to live with.
    I think science describes the nature/ natural phenomena waymuch better than the religion . Here is what religion has to say:



    “Earth is at thecenter of the universe”

    Bbook of genesis states that out planet was created threedays before the sun, moon and stars. The earth is also a universal referencepoint in that christ came here to walk among men.
    “Earth was flat”
    Some early religious scientist may have thought the earthwas flat, but certainly not the great explorers. Some bible critics haveclaimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers toangles standing at the “four corners” of the earth, not the sun, is doing themoving.
    “was there a big bang”
    Many think it was directed by GOD. Creationist maintain thatwhat really happened at the time of creation is that God spoke and earthappeared- he commanded and the headven stood firm. All the many stars are appeared suddenly andsupernaturally in space.....

    ....This clearly states that the religion is based upon people’s belief in super natural power which has nothing to do with proven facts.Science explains things on various levels on the other hand religion creates confusion.Religion works on same old beliefs but science keeps on modifying.




    Religion florish in societies with low incomes , no welfarestate, poor education and absence of freedom and limited mobility. Because thaydescribes most of human history, religion has persisted , If the world ismoving away from those times , then there is no reason to hope that it willmove away from religion.
    I think people take religion as an excuse when they fail toprove things on scientic levels.
    Human may have aninnate tendency to invent supernatural explanations for things they don’t yetunderstand.Every time in history where we assumed that god acts in that gap ofour knowledge, we have been wrong , and there was a perfectly naturalexplaination.

    Science works on the basis of reasons and evidence whilereligion often appeals to faith.

    Okay, I'll explain this the best way I can.
    Can science and christianity be united in any way? Yes it can.

    book of genesis states that out planet was created threedays before the sun, moon and stars
    No it doesn't, you have to read very carefully, and read other passage of scriptures to understand this.
    In verse 14 of chapter one, it states, "Let there be the great lights"
    And then there is another creation account in Job 38 verses 8 and 9, which states "
    "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place,
    When he says, he shut up the sea behind doors, wrapping it in thick darkness, this referrs to the atomosphere, the cloud layer, so it was dark on the face of the deep, before the 6 creation days, because the earth was coverd with this atmosphere that kept the sea in darkness, so when you read the first creation day, it says "Let there be light" it doesn't say that God made the light, doesn't say that God created the light, it says let the light be.......
    So it was as if, on creation DAY 1 God transformed the atmosphere of the earth so that the light that was outside of the earth, could pass through and come in. so on day 1, the atmosphere was no longer, opect, it was now translucent
    Then you get to day 4 and it says "Let there be the great lights, it doesn't say God made the great lights he just simply says, let them be
    Now this is when God transforms the atmosphere a second time, so the atmosphere was no longer translucent, it was now transparent.
    Now this was done, while God was hovering over the waters, so the point of view of the creator was within the earth and not on the outside, so that observers in the earth could get a clear view of the outside, and recieve light from the stars and sun. So this is what was said
    The atmosphere started off dark, it became translucent, then it became transparent.
    So this is what was stated....... And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
    Light, to mark seasons days and years, but for WHOM?
    For the animals that would be created on day 5,
    God created such an advanced organism, so complex, that it needed the sunlight, and the transparent atmosphere, for the days and seaons, so the animals could live and create it's cycle.
    Such as birds, birds need to know the seaons days and years.
    So God created everything perfect and nothing is wrong in scripture it's just interrupted wrong.


    The Start Of Creation.

  20. #80
    Gay Chat Mod
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tallgrass prairie
    Posts
    6,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ♣╠Ĵäķé╣♣ View Post
    Can science and christianity be united in any way? Yes it can.

    book of genesis states that out planet was created threedays before the sun, moon and stars
    No it doesn't, you have to read very carefully, and read other passage of scriptures to understand this.
    In verse 14 of chapter one, it states, "Let there be the great lights"
    And then there is another creation account in Job 38 verses 8 and 9, which states "
    "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place,
    When he says, he shut up the sea behind doors, wrapping it in thick darkness, this referrs to the atomosphere, the cloud layer, so it was dark on the face of the deep, before the 6 creation days, because the earth was coverd with this atmosphere that kept the sea in darkness, so when you read the first creation day, it says "Let there be light" it doesn't say that God made the light, doesn't say that God created the light, it says let the light be.......
    So it was as if, on creation DAY 1 God transformed the atmosphere of the earth so that the light that was outside of the earth, could pass through and come in. so on day 1, the atmosphere was no longer, opect, it was now translucent
    Then you get to day 4 and it says "Let there be the great lights, it doesn't say God made the great lights he just simply says, let them be
    Now this is when God transforms the atmosphere a second time, so the atmosphere was no longer translucent, it was now transparent.
    Now this was done, while God was hovering over the waters, so the point of view of the creator was within the earth and not on the outside, so that observers in the earth could get a clear view of the outside, and recieve light from the stars and sun. So this is what was said
    The atmosphere started off dark, it became translucent, then it became transparent.
    So this is what was stated....... And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
    Light, to mark seasons days and years, but for WHOM?
    For the animals that would be created on day 5,
    God created such an advanced organism, so complex, that it needed the sunlight, and the transparent atmosphere, for the days and seaons, so the animals could live and create it's cycle.
    Such as birds, birds need to know the seaons days and years.
    So God created everything perfect and nothing is wrong in scripture it's just interrupted wrong.
    How the heck is that science? That has nothing to do with science in the slightest

    "A weed is a plant that has mastered every survival skill except for learning how to grow in rows."


 

 
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
© 1999-2014 - #1 Chat Avenue - Free chat rooms for adults, gays, kids, singles, teens and more.
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 PM.