Exploring Science & Religion

[Tom]

Lock request please, I think the question has been answered.

I did not agree with the other thread being locked. This is a forum for discussion and debate. It is not the goal for a thread like this to reach a mutual agreement or for there to ever be a conclusion or "answer" to the question. I have to disagree with Suley because I don't believe the question "has been answered." It's not supposed to be answered.

The purpose of these threads is for continued discussion. Everyone can contribute, it is ridiculous to think that this should only be discussed until one view is deemed acceptable over the other.

Please keep this in mind when you discuss in this thread. This is for exercising our discussion and debate skills. Not for people to decide on an answer. There will never be a mutual agreement between science and religion. But, if you have an opinion, it's good to express your arguments for having such opinion.

And finally, keep Azure's statement in mind and play nice.

That's it. Discuss.

[Tom]

I am going to start by reposting my philosophical view on the matter from the original thread:



Do you think Religion is Made up?

Do you think Science Holds The Answer for Everything?

I Think Science doesnt know everything

Technically, religion is real, but its philosophies are made up--that is, they believe in things that have no evidence supporting them and insist that evidence should not be a factor in such belief. In other words, they embrace ignorance and the illogical.

Science does not have the answer for everything, but, it has never claimed to. Mind you, religion doesn't claim to have answers for everything, either. The difference is that science is based on observation, investigation, experimentation, analyzation, and documentation, whereas religion refuses to investigate its own claims.

The beautiful thing about science is that the knowledge gained from it can be backed up with evidence--proof--and it inherently allows for further gaining of new knowledge.



Sometimes Science can't Keep there Stories Straight...They say Something at one Minute...The Next Minute it could be something else!

There is a difference between scientific theory and scientific fact. Theories are constantly changing proposals that have yet to be proven. Once proven, through concrete scientific investigation, they become fact. Scientists never insist on anything unless they are proven to be fact; everything else is proposed--or suggested--based on available data.

Observation can only give us so much at a given time, so as new data becomes known to us, theories change and evolve into other theories. Which is better--to have an evolving theory based on incoming data or to have an unsubstantiated answer (which is actually just a baseless theory) which refuses to evolve despite new data?

The Universe is a remarkable thing, full of things to discover. Science is attempting to unravel these mysteries, which may be a slow process, but is worth it to arrive at a concrete conclusion.

Knowledge of the mechanics of the Universe is established through a process similar to basic algebra. Consider the following equation:
o + (d · ∞) + F = Universe
Solve for Universe.

Where "F" represents "Fact", "o" represents observation and "d∞" represents infinite discovery, we can deduct the definition of our Universe. From what we observe of the Universe, we can consider the limitless discoveries as they become available and relate them what we already know. It is not an absolute equation because the Universe is not absolute--at least, not yet.

Here is the difference between science and religion: Science does the math. Religion guesses the answer.

If you had to solve for "x" in a math problem such as:
x + 5 = 9
Would you just guess? Or would you do the math? Would you agree with saying that because "9" has a loop thingy and a tail that "x" must be "6" because it looks like "9"? Or would you deduct what you've learned from what you know and discover that "x" equals 4?

You wouldn't guess on a math quiz, why should you guess on something as important and substantial as the mechanics of the Universe?

To be blunt, just as guessing would make you fail your math quiz, guessing will fail at the question of existence. If you want to continue being wrong, then that's fine. For the believers in science, comfort does not come from knowing the answer, but, rather, in doing the math knowing that the answer will eventually be revealed.

To this degree, religion is lazy. I'd rather stick to science and do the work.

[Tecknic]

I prepose that Science and Religion settle this debate with... Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots!

[Chinomi]

I think no one can come up with a more stable argument than what Tom just said.

[Chris Nagy]

Slight logical flaw, though, Tom. Religion attempts to address the "why" aspect of existence, Science attempts to address the "how" aspect of existence. The two only collide because people seem to think that Religion invalidates Science or Science disproves Religion: the two aren't even working in the same area of the question.

All the science in the world won't tell you why we exist; at best, it can come up with the odds of all the necessary components finding themselves in the right conditions, the odds of a primordial soup giving rise to life, and generally just how improbable this whole little dance of life was. No amount of science can conclusively discount the possibility of God; and if you (a general you, not Tom specifically) take the leap yourself and decide that science does invalidate God, then you are, at best, guessing.

No amount of religious teachings will tell you how things happen; at best, it can attribute natural events to some sort of divine will (see: Old Testament,) or vaguely state that things happen for a reason without getting into the specifics of how exactly they happen. No amount of religion can fill the gap in learning that science provides us; prayers are no alternative to modern medicine, modern agricultural techniques, etc.

----Anyone who claims otherwise is missing a simple point: every disease that we find a cure for is still a disease that used to kill people. It doesn't suddenly stop killing people because God wills them to continue living, it stops because we find ways to make people resistant. By that same token, God didn't decide that those who died from the disease in the past were due to die, they simply didn't have the ability to survive it.

----It's harder to argue with the idea that when it is your time to die, it is your time to die, but still-- unless God is editting his lists to coincide with modern medicine, He doesn't play a big part in your survival. After all, He's mostly concerned with the afterlife. Prayers can help, not because they sway the Big Man up Above (who, being perfect, shouldn't have His decisions subject to change based on the wishes of a few imperfect creatures,) but because they can give a person hope. Hope (or the will to live,) for whatever reason, is a difficult to define yet integral part of battling illness.

Pitting Science against Religion is worse than a waste of time, it is detrimental to both. You end up with Christian Scientists who attempt to use Science to prove Religion: Science is hurt by the intentional perversion of data (if I want a certain result, I will get a certain result,) Religion is hurt because Scientifically-backed Religion undermines religious faith (believing something despite the absence of proof.)

Which brings me to the flaw mentioned above: because the two do not contradict one another (unless Religion tries to be Science,) it is not necessary to choose one over the other, nor is it applicable to compare the methods with which they view the world. You're comparing apples to abstract paintings, Tom.

Science, for all of its marvels, is not stable; major discoveries overturn things previously considered facts and truths, paradigm shifts are common throughout the various branches of science. The fruits of scientific exploration enrich our lives materially, but they do nothing to engage the spiritual side of man that most humans have to some degree.

Religion, for all of its inability to adapt, is stable; it has been around for millenia addressing human concerns of the spirit and the afterlife. Its currency, faith, is completely independent of proof and does not conflict with Science except when Science treads into Philosophy or tries to disprove Religion. Of course, all of the religious belief in the world isn't going to grow better crops or cure illnesses.

In summation, I've taken a very long time to say that the two are complimentary, not at odds with one another. Science and Religion do not cross one another-- adherents of Science and believers of Religion cross one another, and they do it because neither claims to see much value in the other, despite the fact that they take the contributions of each other for granted on a daily basis.

[Gabi Star]

This will probably just be the same thing being reiterated, but here's my rebuttle to "Science can't answer everything":

Scientists have never claimed to have all the answers. In fact, modern science is still in an infant stage. It just hasn't been around long enough for us to discover every twist and turn in our universe. That's asking an awful lot, don't you think? After all, the modern telescope has only been around a few hundred years, and the computer, only a few decades. With limited advances in technology, how the hell do you expect science to have advanced to answer every single one of your questions?

But here's the thing- it most likely CAN answer everything. It most likely has an explaination to everything you can throw. You just have to give it TIME. Modern man and his technology can only progress at such a rapid rate. And there are many natural things that are beyond human capacity. Does that mean that there is no mathematical or scientific explaination for it? No. It just means we have yet to find it.

Science deals with the forces of nature. Religion deals with matters of faith.

So why does science's statements change over time? Science welcomes change. That's called progression. As the studies in science mature, so do the theories that come out of it. As we learn more, we add more. And that induces change. That's normal.

It is NOT normal for something to go unquestioned and unchanged for thousands of years. In fact, most EVERYONE believes that scientific change is good.

If religious methods of explaination were still used today to describe nature, we would still believe:

• The earth is flat
• The universe is geocentric
• Lightening and thunder is caused by satan and demons
• Mental Illness is demonic possession
• Children should not receive medical inoculations because God expects a quota of children to die of disease (yes, the bible really says that).

Scientific advancement and changes in scientific theory shows us that these statements are false, although according to religion they are true.

Ran, Superchibi, I expect you to read this. I think even you will understand this one. :D

[Tom]

The problem is that despite trying to tell us "why" we exist, religion does tell us "how", as well. The most obvious answer to "how" is creationism--that is, God is the answer for everything. I'm not prepared to accept that or live my life by such a guess.

The only real purpose of religion is to teach people how to live. It gives them do's and dont's, which, in Christianity's example, can be somewhat sensible. However, books such as the Bible are severely outdated guidebooks for life and have been mistranslated as well as intentionally altered to meet political agenda. Therefore, you have to take everything with a grain of salt.

I am not religious at all, but I will say that for a lot of people, faith gives them hope and makes them feel good. As misguided and silly as I see this, it's fine as long as they aren't harming anyone else. What I do disagree with are people who twist religion to suit their own hateful ideals and use it to impose on others.

My own personal bottom line is to heed example but ultimately think for myself instead of dictating my life by superstitions and fairy tales. I don't need religion to make me happy--I can do that on my own.

[Kei]

Any crack pot, claiming to have seen god could have given their two cents in. It doesn't mean its totally true.

I remember a science teacher of mine stating that historical documents refered to Jesus in texts, though I can't tell you which ones, If he was right than the accounts of Jesus might be somewhat true. Most of the stories written in the bible are mostly fairy tales created to help us become nicer people and bring us closer to God.

The Bible is man-made so of course the writers are wrong about scientific things, they didn't have the scientific technology we have today. They were just trying to explain things the best they could.


(yes terrible arguement, you guys are really good at this :P)

Edit: I feel most of the rules the bible lists are complete bullshit. =3 But I follow some of them, because i feel it makes me a better person.

[Ran]

I did not agree with the other thread being locked. This is a forum for discussion and debate.

And finally, keep Azure's statement in mind and play nice.

That's it. Discuss.

I Agree ^^

~Ran

[Jackson Knewone]

Same here.

And on a side note, I heard a rumor that back when King James was a ruler that he changed the Bible stories around to fit him... but to me, I may be Catholic, but I don't care about that. I really think that people should stick to their on beliefs and wonder (not question) about others. And another thing, if Jesus Christ gave the right to do anything we want, then how come being a Homosexual is wrong? I mean, it's our choice to become one, right?

[Ran]

if Jesus Christ gave the right to do anything we want, then how come being a Homosexual is wrong? I mean, it's our choice to become one, right?

Yeah Its your Choice and All but to me it Doesnt seem right lol

~Ran

[Kevin Gillis]

if Jesus Christ gave the right to do anything we want, then how come being a Homosexual is wrong? I mean, it's our choice to become one, right?

It is not a choice to become gay at anytime... The only choice one has is to accept it or not. It is they way you are born. People just need to be open minded.


I remember a science teacher of mine stating that historical documents refered to Jesus in texts, though I can't tell you which ones, If he was right than the accounts of Jesus might be somewhat true. Most of the stories written in the bible are mostly fairy tales created to help us become nicer people and bring us closer to God.

Kei, as I said in the last thread, I was taught in my world history class that there once was a man named Jesus Christ. We was killed by the romans in Constantanoble for claiming to be the king of Jews. The rest of what happened is unclear of course, but to the Cathloics they claim to know what happened.

Tom, the only reason I requested a thread lock was because I thought the answer was already stated. It appears that everyone so far has massive proof for science being the over all winner. So, posting here kinda feels like kicking a puppy... Until someone can get some solid proof.

Chris, I don't have anything to say about your post... It is true and agreeable.

Ran, you are the biggest supporter of religion and have posted here twice. I'd still like to see what I have been asking in the first place. Proof of something. Putting faith behind a bunch of words can not compare to the actual facts that science has.

Now, I don't beleive in religion, but my roommate does, so when we talk about a subject like this, which we do often, he tells me things like why he beleives God exists and stuff like that. Basically it's the "just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist" type defence. He also told me that the reason that he does beleive in God is because he is one of the people who need to beleive in faith because it makes him that his life is not wasted. I will not say anything to prove him otherwise.

That is all I have for now... I'll reply again, if and when a valid arguement comes up.

[Tom]

Tom, the only reason I requested a thread lock was because I thought the answer was already stated. It appears that everyone so far has massive proof for science being the over all winner. So, posting here kinda feels like kicking a puppy... Until someone can get some solid proof.

Well, the purpose of threads like this is for ongoing discussion--not trying to find some answer. There is no winner and it's a little offensive to either side (in this case, religion) to declare that there is. Even proponents of science have differring opinions on the matter.

Furthermore, locking a thread just because there has been a majority supporting one side isn't fair to other people who haven't gotten a chance to find the thread and post their opinions--even if their opinions are the same as the majority--and especially if they are supporters of religion. That kind of locking is unnecessary and abusive.

Anyway, if anyone feels like they're wasting their time in this thread, they shouldn't check it. Otherwise, feel free to explore the topic and challenge anyone else, or even bring up a subtopic relating to the greater.

[Kevin Gillis]

Sorry, but I guess my brain stopped working... In the last thread I had also said something along the lines as Chris, but not in that much detail. Can't deny either one, and yet there is no real winner like you said. I do apologize, but in my defence, near the end it did turn into a crapfest.

EDIT:It'd also help if I had read your post better as well :/ Stupid brain...

Anyways, I didn't mean to take away the supporters of religion side away, but when they are coming up with links that lead to nowhere and other things without research it tends to make the thread less of a debate.

Sorry again... Brain tired.

[Ran]

Gillis etc You may find this Interesting http://www.christiananswers.net/q-dml/dml-y023.html

Gabi I read Your thing By the way

~Ran

[Moose]

Gillis etc You may find this Interesting http://www.christiananswers.net/q-dml/dml-y023.html


That's about the 20th time you linked to that site. Everyone keeps telling you to quote certain things from that site that directly relate to what people are talking about, or describe it in your own words, yet you still haven't, which makes me wonder if you really did read any of the other thread. No one is going to take you seriously if you don't take them seriously.

As far as my views go, I'm not sure if I'm ready to accept that there is no God, or afterlife, or anything like that. Even though science explains so much more than any relgion does, it's just too, I don't know, scary to think that ones life can end without any afterlife, just a blank void of darkness for eternity or something like that.

[Ran]

That's about the 20th time you linked to that site. Everyone keeps telling you to quote certain things from that site that directly relate to what people are talking about, or describe it in your own words, yet you still haven't, which makes me wonder if you really did read any of the other thread. No one is going to take you seriously if you don't take them seriously.

As far as my views go, I'm not sure if I'm ready to accept that there is no God, or afterlife, or anything like that. Even though science explains so much more than any relgion does, it's just too, I don't know, scary to think that ones life can end without any afterlife, just a blank void of darkness for eternity or something like that.

It Relates to what Jackson Knewone was talking about ^^ I dont just post the home page over and over. Its links in differant areas of the site. i post them it because it either involves the subject people are talking about etc


. And another thing, if Jesus Christ gave the right to do anything we want, then how come being a Homosexual is wrong? I mean, it's our choice to become one, right?

^ thats what he said and i posted a link concerning it


~Ran

[ig.]

Have always seen the universe for the dimensional honey jar that it is.

Have always seen existence as the nebulous abstract that it is.

Searches for answers for both are highly elusive but hardly exclusive. Solid mind and flowing heart and all.

[Steven Mane]

As a deep-rooted Christian, there's something that irks me that has been repeated over and over again: physical proof of God. My question: why do you need it? Why can't you accept that he's there and get on with it? Truth be told, if physical proof exists, it's subtle enough to not be seen AT ALL!!! There is no solid proof that God exists. But aren't we overthinking this entire idea? And besides, I've got enough proof from watching and reading true ghost stories to prove he is around. Or at least a spiritual world.

[Steven Mane]

I look at it like this:

As Christianity depicts it, God is everything -- all knowing, all powerful, etc. If this is true, then he created us with the intellectual capacity to experience everything there is to experience, and question everthing there is to question. If it was actually important for us to sit down, shut up, and not question anything, God would've removed the ability for free thought and choice.

On average, we have about 80 - 100 years of life. We were given the choice to do what we want with those years. If people want to argue there is no God, let them. After all: we were, apparently, given the opportunity to do so.

As for solid proof based on "ghost stories"... Apparently you've never seen the "MARY LOVES DICK!" video, have you? :P

Well, that shut me up. :whoops:

And no, no I haven't. :facefault

[Brenzie]

Not that I have that much to say regarding this subject - because I've had enough of debates and discussions with people in the past and recently about it - but when trying to find the right answers, one generally has no choice but to use the tools of science (proper argumentation, logic, facts, objectivity, etc.). Then one can find truth.
How does one NOT find truth? Well, lemme just say that when being subjective you might get some good sleep at night, but it sure as heck won't give you any truth. Or maybe it does, but you aren't sure because there's no proof supporting that so-called "truth".

In the end, there are always people rather believing in something (for their own good) than to actually research and find out certain things (which would only take them down). Believing feels good, and knowing the hard (opposing) truth doesn't. I have nothing against any side, but just believing in something.... nah. It takes a certain strength from anybody - not just religious people - to actually be able to search for and accept truth.
It shouldn't be about just science, or religion or whatever. It should be about truth-seeking, and science happens to be one who's getting at it.

I tend to think, though, that IF there's a God it is not the way religion generally puts it. If there's a God, then it must be nature itself. Nature, existence, the existence of existence, blah blah blah. Nature = God.
But feel free to critisize that :P

[Tom]

As a deep-rooted Christian, there's something that irks me that has been repeated over and over again: physical proof of God. My question: why do you need it? Why can't you accept that he's there and get on with it?

God is a human concept. He's just one of the many inventions of man's need to understand why we are here that have been created for as long as man has been conscious of himself. I see "God" as being the same as the Tooth Fairy or the Boogie Man--it's just make believe.

Personally, I never really seriously ask for proof because that's how insignificant I think he is, when placed in the span of world religion and history in general. I see the Christian concept of God, and the religion in general, as just another construct of culture and human society--both things which I have loved studying since I was in high school.

I take a great interest in religion (as a subject) and the humanities and, speaking for myself here, take an objective stance to things like God--not necessarily because I'm an athiest (which, I am), but because that's where my personal perspective as a student of these things has eventually placed me.

[Steven Mane]

God is a human concept. He's just one of the many inventions of man's need to understand why we are here that have been created for as long as man has been conscious of himself. I see "God" as being the same as the Tooth Fairy or the Boogie Man--it's just make believe.

Personally, I never really seriously ask for proof because that's how insignificant I think he is, when placed in the span of world religion and history in general. I see the Christian concept of God, and the religion in general, as just another construct of culture and human society--both things which I have loved studying since I was in high school.

I take a great interest in religion (as a subject) and the humanities and, speaking for myself here, take an objective stance to things like God--not necessarily because I'm an athiest (which, I am), but because that's where my personal perspective as a student of these things has eventually placed me.
Hmmm. An atheist who takes an interest to religion as a subject. That makes just as much sense as a vegetarian trying to learn everything he can about Harlan Sanders. It's enough to make me go "WHHHHAAAAA-???!!!"

Seriously though, religion is a great subject to study whether you're a believer or a nonbeliever. I've always had a personal interest in Greek and Roman Mythology. So, I guess it's about the same.

[Steven Mane]

On the contrary, many atheists arm themselves with ammunition to slap down any arguements from pro-religious people :P It's not uncommon at all -- if you're going argue, inform yourself so you don't look like a few people in the last thread (and even in this thread).

However, I view atheism, in itself, as a belief structure that 'tries too hard'... You know... kind of like the 'scenesters' of the religious world. "Ugh, Jesus is SOOO mainstream now guys FUCK CHRISTIANITY FUCK THE NORM!!" -- it's kind of funny, really. It seems to be a heavily opposing side to Christianity, specifically, as most atheists will say "I don't believe in God" -- a Christian concept -- rather than "I don't believe in Allah/Ganesh/Shiva/etc"
The enemy of Christianity: Wiccan. The term "nonbeliever" applies to any non-Christian, or a Christian that fell off the wagon. But, my church HATES pagans with a passion.

[Tom]

Hmmm. An atheist who takes an interest to religion as a subject. That makes just as much sense as a vegetarian trying to learn everything he can about Harlan Sanders. It's enough to make me go "WHHHHAAAAA-???!!!"

Seriously though, religion is a great subject to study whether you're a believer or a nonbeliever. I've always had a personal interest in Greek and Roman Mythology. So, I guess it's about the same.

Well, just because I don't believe in a supreme being doesn't mean I can't take an interest in philosophies that do. Besides, not all religions dictate a belief in a deity. Technically, being atheist gives me the objectivity that helps a great deal in learning about religion. I think it would be a bit weird to be a devout Catholic and want to study other religions. It's less about God and more about my interest in human culture in general, and religion just happens to play a big part in that. I think it's important to understand what makes humanity unique; religion, cultures, politics, society, morality, etc.


The enemy of Christianity: Wiccan. The term "nonbeliever" applies to any non-Christian, or a Christian that fell off the wagon. But, my church HATES pagans with a passion.

Your church doesn't sound very Christian. Which, I think, is a big problem with a lot of Christians and many Christian communities in general. It's very rare that you find a Christian truly trying to live their lives the way Jesus tought people to live.

[Steven Mane]

Well, just because I don't believe in a supreme being doesn't mean I can't take an interest in philosophies that do. Besides, not all religions dictate a belief in a deity. It's less about God and more about my interest in human culture in general, and religion just happens to play a big part in that. I think it's important to understand what makes humanity unique; religion, cultures, politics, society, morality, etc.



Your church doesn't sound very Christian. Which, I think, is a big problem with a lot of Christians and many Christian communities in general. It's very rare that you find a Christian truly trying to live their lives the way Jesus tought people to live.
Yes. I think it can be more accurately described as "cult".

To me, you're the kind of person I'd like to sit with at a coffee house and eat a sandwich while discussing things like this. Just a personal observation.

[Steven Mane]

Very nicely done.

[Brenzie]

Can Science prove morality? Can sitting down and thinking about a computer when you're on the verge of death comfort you more than praying? Can Science prove the meaning of life? Can Science tells you the "meaning" of something? Can Science explain "hope" and "faith"?
"Can science prove morality? Can science give comfort? Can science prove the meaning of life? Can science this, can science that?" All your questions: I fail to see the logic in asking them and how they properly connect to my quoted text, but please, if you can, enlighten me.
Science doesn't have to "prove" morality: morality is just there. Science doesn't give comfort, yet when in a tight life-threatening situation it can be very useful. Science could not PROVE (- that word is again wrongly used -) but EXPLAIN the meaning of life, in the future if not now. lol, "Prove the meaning of life." I wouldn't know how to react to that, because I wouldn't even understand the exact assignment in the first place. "What is the meaning of life?" and then to explain with proper argumentation would be more like it. Hope and faith can also be explained by science.


Likewise, I don't expect religion to explain why the sky is blue, or the explain the rotation of the planets, and so forth....
Suddenly you use the word 'explain' instead of 'prove'. And also: neither your or my or anybody else's expectations are relevant. We just need to take a look and see what's there for what it is and nothing else :)
Anyway, in here you basically state the inability of science to explain those matters as if those matters are reserved for religion only to explain. Why?


Nobody is "winning" as both topics make up an aspect of human nature. If you want to explain why the sky is blue, then sure, Science is the way to go. However, if you've lost everything you hold dear, and you've been reduced to a leper with nothing to live for, chances are you're not picking up a Stephen Hawking book any time soon...
It's true that science can explain such things better than religion and that religion has a greater ability to comfort, but I don't see the point in talking about "winning". Basic point made is that when searching for truth (which is an overall beauty and noble pursuit in itself) religion isn't going to give that, whereas science has a greater chance of providing it.
And even if you've lost everything you hold dear, science could most likely be useful due to its practicality. Believing probably won't give you any resourceful capabilities :P while science could indeed, and consequentially give you comfort even.

[Tom]

While we're talking about comfort in religion/science....

I personally don't find comfort in either. I don't love science for its comforts, but for its knowledge and its discovery. And I have no place for any religion in my life, so it can't give me much comfort, either. Although I think exploring the possibilities of an afterlife can be fun, I ultimately don't believe there is one, which doesn't bother me, so I really don't despair over it and thus have no need to believe in something to give me hope.


Can Science prove morality? Can sitting down and thinking about a computer when you're on the verge of death comfort you more than praying? Can Science prove the meaning of life? Can Science tells you the "meaning" of something? Can Science explain "hope" and "faith"?

These are some good questions which I thought would be fun to give my own insight on.

I don't think "morality" is really a concept to be proven, but rather, defined. As far as my own ethics and morals go, I don't look to religion for what I find to be "right" and "wrong."

I do acknowledge that a big purpose of religion is to provide moral and ethical structure for society. Historically, society is usually built around a common religion--it defines overall codes of conduct for the people. A lot of western societies are, not surprisingly, built around Christian morals--don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your partner, etc.

Personally, I tend to agree with many of these morals, even though I'm not religious. All of the basic morals in our culture today have been introduced from some form of religion, and if they're not they're borrowed from some other culture, but I ultimately decide for myself what I think are right and wrong--and only after some serious thinking on the matter. Killing for example, is something I am against, not because God says it's wrong, but because I wouldn't want it done to myself. Golden rule sort of stuff.

I think, as people, we take the moral foundation we grow up with and eventually start making our own decisions on "right" and "wrong", and also for new situations that haven't been addressed by things like religion.

On the subject of being on my deathbed.... As I said before, religion doesn't have a place in my life, so I would find praying pointless. It's a pretty black and white situation in my mind... I can hope that I'll pull through and that's about all I'd really think of it. But my take on this kind of goes hand in hand with the "science/meaning of life" thing.

I tend to think in the now, not concerned with things like afterlife or divine judgement. Life makes me happy, I like being alive. I like being here and being able to learn and do things and meet other people. Because I don't believe in "the next life", it makes my existence now really important to me. The finality of death is what makes my life worth living the best I can. It's sort of the "you'll never get a second chance" mentality.

Anyway, just my thoughts on some of these things.

[Gabi Star]

'Explain' and 'prove' are synonymous.

They are not synonymous at all, Nikkita. While I can "explain" the idea of creationism, that does not "prove" that it happened.

To explain is to make a concept clear.

To prove is to provide truth and genuineness using evidence.


Can Science prove morality?

Nothing can prove morality. Morality is not a natural phenomenon. It is mearly a concept. It is also a relative concept. It is subjective. Just like nothing can prove what art is, nothing can prove morals.

Morality is relative from person to person. Every society upholds different morays. For instance, in America, it would break a moray to partake in a sexual orgy. On the other hand, if you look back to Ancient Rome, sexual orgies were considered a high-class social events. These two morays both exist(ed), but directly contradict one another. This proves that morality is subjective and relative.


Hmmm. An atheist who takes an interest to religion as a subject. That makes just as much sense as a vegetarian trying to learn everything he can about Harlan Sanders. It's enough to make me go "WHHHHAAAAA-???!!!"

Clearly your concept on an "atheist" is biased. First of all, regardless of what Tom personally believes, the term "Atheist" only means a lack of belief in a higher power. That does not mean that they are not religious or spiritual. For instance, Buddhists are generally Atheists because they have no diety.

Second, you'll find that many atheist, myself included, are interested in religion. And not because we like to be "armed" to fight believers, which Nikkita will have you believe. It is because, regardless about whether or not we believe it, religion and philosophy is still beautiful and fascinating.

For instance, do you or any of your christian friends have an interest in learning about Greek and Roman Mythology? I bet quite a few people do. When I was a Christian, I still loved to learn about Zeus and Athena and Hera and so on. Your personal beliefs do not dictate what you find interesting. YOU define that, not the label someone slaps on you.

Edit: But you already know that^


I wonder how many people in this thread, with the exception of Tom, have actually researched (both ends of the spectrum) this topic before spouting their opinion?

I'm actually somewhat offended by this statement. Why undermind everyone else? If you went back and read the other threads, you'd know that there are many of posters here who are well-informed on both sides. In fact, there are more posters who are educated on the topics that are posting in these threads than not.

[Tom]

I think if people care enough to debate it, they've already acknowledged and made it a part of their life.

I think it depends on how you interpret someone saying it. For instance, when I said (in an earlier post) that religion has no place in my life, what I meant was that I do not subscribe to one, do not live my life according to one and don't adjust my lifestyle for one.

But I can also see someone saying it and completely meaning that they disagree with religion, do their best to ignore religion and refuse to discuss or acknowledge religion in any way at all, ever. :E To be clear, that's totally not what I meant when I said it. lol

--------------------------------------------------

As for atheism.... I once asked my boyfriend if he identified as atheist or agnostic (just so everyone knows, he's atheist, but that's not where I'm going with this). One of the things he said was how he almost doesn't want to call himself atheist because it has such bad stigma attached to it and I agree.

It's not uncommon for you to tell someone you're an atheist and them to automatically assume you're a crazy, immoral, anti-god, anti-religion nazi. "What? You believe in God?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?! DON'T YOU KNOW HOW FOOLISH THAT IS? I AM GOING TO PHYSICALLY HARM YOU NOW."

It's kind of like when someone says they're a vegan. I am guilty of wanting to run and take cover whenever someone tells me they're a vegan, because I have met so many militant vegans that scream at you and tell you how evil you are because you're eating yogurt.

But, like atheists, not all vegans are total nuts over their beliefs.

When I tell someone I'm an atheist, my only real agenda by doing so is to let them know that I don't believe in a god figure... and probably only because they asked. O_O

[Brenzie]

Brenzie,

'Explain' and 'prove' are synonymous.

Try again.

Tom,

I'm going home now, I'll get back to this in an hour :) Good post, though.
Is that supposed to be some kind of argument? lol. Well, since it's already addressed by someone else, I don't need to anymore, heh.

I'd like to point you to the fact that your general conduct in this thread is very arrogant and aggressive. And it seems as if you favour Tom over anyone else. Is it that you actually go into this thread for some kind of personal reason or reasons instead of actually debating (and finding out the truth for as far as possible)?
Your behaviour has shown your incapability to properly debate/discuss. That includes illogical thinking and quick convenient stepbacks to ensure the personal feeling of safety that you're right and others wrong. Also, when debating/discussing your opinions have less truth value than objectivity or no relevant truth value at all. Why? Because it's exactly that which it is: an opinion; totally subjective.
You didn't even properly respond to my text but merely typed a few useless words and didn't even take the time to put some argumentation in. And even though you've responded to other quoted texts of people, you still haven't properly responded to mine, and I doubt you will even do so with this one, let alone read it carefully.
Is that your idea of debating? If so, we're done until you respond normally :)



I personally don't find comfort in either. I don't love science for its comforts, but for its knowledge and its discovery.
Isn't it that those two reasons you give would/could actually give you comfort in some sense?

[Tom]

Isn't it that those two reasons you give would/could actually give you comfort in some sense?

It depends on what I'm seeking comfort for. I don't really find comfort in knowledge as much as I do satisfaction and not so much in discovery as I do delight.

If I was insecure about something and certain knowledge could remedy that, then I suppose comfort would be a result of acquiring said knowledge. As it is, though, I don't use science to validate my existence, only explain it.

Anyway, finding "comfort" in something is always unique to a situation. If you're not worried about something, then there's really no security necessary for you to seek for it.

[Matt Cruea]

People need to not mind Nikkita. She can be really smart sometimes, but her debating skills leave a lot to be desired.

As for this thread, eh, it's like science vs. magic, and really, that's a war no one can win.

[Tom]

Gotcha -- now, if you did find a religion that completely enthralled you, and agreed with your values (or you agreed with their beliefs/etc), would you join?

Ehh.. ultimately, no, I don't think I would. I'm sure there has been, already is, or, there will be, a religion out there that I will/would have/do agree with on all of its levels, but I just don't see a personal need to have to "belong" to a group/something like that. I like having my own set ideals and moral code that I don't have to label/define according to, or associate with, a larger, organized body.


As for this thread, eh, it's like science vs. magic, and really, that's a war no one can win.

This thread really isn't about which is superior or correct. It's about the differences between scientific reasoning and what science can provide and religious reasoning and what religion in general can provide as well as the need for either in your life. "Versus" in this thread's case is used in a comparitive sense and not an opposing sense.

Anyway, I changed the thread title to reflect this.

[Matt Cruea]

Kind of like your moderating skills. :)

Yeah, I don't really do much aside from close and move threads.

Though I suppose that's better than empty ideas! : O

Tom: I understand and was moreso making a funny reference to an iParty from a few days ago. Inside jokes and all that. If I were to seriously talk about this issue, it would be about how neither truly affects my life in any direct fashion, and I'm fine with that.

[Tom]

Yeah, I don't really do much aside from close and move threads.

Though I suppose that's better than empty ideas! : O

Tom: I understand and was moreso making a funny reference to an iParty from a few days ago. Inside jokes and all that.

Cybernetic Catholics vs Barney!

[Kevin Gillis]

Actually Tom, it was Robo Christians vs Robo Vampires >.>

[Brenzie]

People need to not mind Nikkita. She can be really smart sometimes, but her debatings skills leave a lot to be desired.

As for this thread, eh, it's like science vs. magic, and really, that's a war no one can win.
Who? lol. Oh, her. I'd already forgotten. Well... "a lot to be desired"; that would be an understatement. She just can't accept the truth, especially the case when she's wrong :) Her later response shows even more stupidity based on emotion. It's just another fool to add to my list.
Nothing personal to her, just stating the facts.



This thread really isn't about which is superior or correct. It's about the differences between scientific reasoning and what science can provide and religious reasoning and what religion in general can provide as well as the need for either in your life. "Versus" in this thread's case is used in a comparitive sense and not an opposing sense.
Hm, I recall certain history books now. Something in the sense of the Church being against Science. That may not apply in this day and age perhaps (or necessarily for this thread), or maybe it still does (but personally I don't care so much about that).

But let's bring in the subject about what good religion has brought us anyway. We could even include politics (and general history here). Science cannot (yet?) prove or disprove the existence of God for instance, but it sure as heck brought a lot more good than evil, compared to religion. It's brought truth while religion, well... PROBABLY LIES :D
But I tend to think that if we look a bit further, as in... a factor or parameter "above" both science and religion, it all boils down to human society and its flaws.
Science has been much used for evil and so has religion been used for the same reason. But it's all done by humans for as far as we can tell. Politics for instance have made "good use" of religion as a device for social control, just like science was used (and is still being used) for destruction, war, etc.


To get to what you were saying about what they provide us or anybody:

Science: provides logic to explain nature/physics/etc.; also provides useful applications for society; provides useful applications for politics for they are usually in control of the military regarding weapons (but also it could be about science used for encryption and other "sensitive" protection methods used by politics - heck, even throw in social control methods regarding the use of fear).

Religion: doesn't provide logic to explain nature but faith/belief; hardly provides useful applications for society; man can use it for social control; man can even use it for fear and the likes (like in the past).
Can't think of anything else at the moment, but I think you all know what I'm getting at. It's the human who uses either science or religion (or both) to provide itself with whatever it wants or needs to.


Tom, the comparitive sense you speak of I can understand regarding this thread. But in the general sense in the end, wouldn't you say that IF we had to ascertain which one is "superior" or "correct" the award'd go to science?

[Kevin Gillis]

Tom, the comparitive sense you speak of I can understand regarding this thread. But in the general sense in the end, wouldn't you say that IF we had to ascertain which one is "superior" or "correct" the award'd go to science?

You aren't getting are you? Tom has stated several times that this isn't a choice of who wins or loses. As they both have there goods and bads. You come along into a thread pushing for what I tried to do in the previous thread, which was have an overall winner.

Even if we had to choose, the debate would still go on. Have you thought that people might like to beleive in god for the sake of having somewhere to go when you die? Or maybe the fact that someone is watching over them, protecting them from evil. If knowing that someone, no matter who you are or what you've done is still willing to love you welcome you into a place where you may live on after death. Sounds nice doesn't it? Sometimes that all people need to get on with their life.

After talking with Chris, your last post was about Science and Religion being tools controlled by man to control other men. Sure, it could be that way, but why would science need to control people? They show the proof of what they find. The only control is religion and that has already been used several times.


But let's bring in the subject about what good religion has brought us anyway. We could even include politics (and general history here). Science cannot (yet?) prove or disprove the existence of God for instance, but it sure as heck brought a lot more good than evil, compared to religion. It's brought truth while religion, well... PROBABLY LIES

You know the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? It also works if you use truth instead of beauty. You say that religion lies, but in fact, they are telling the truth from what they beleive in and are not telling lies. You may want to rephrase that.

Again from when Chris and I were talking, without religion, there'd be no science. It also works opposite as well. It's all in just what you, the reader, beleive in. You may want to remember that for the future

[Tom]

Science cannot (yet?) prove or disprove the existence of God for instance, but it sure as heck brought a lot more good than evil, compared to religion.

I don't think anyone can truly say which of the two (science and religion) has brought us more good or more evil. "Evil", ultimately, is subjective. Plus, it's not really science itself or religion itself that brings about evil (if we could define evil absolutely)--it's the people that subscribe to either that create such things through them (or, in the name of them).

People will pretty much find a way to be asses no matter what is available.

[Kevin Gillis]

I'd like to also add to what Tom said.

History is written by the winners of war. Which why we all think nazi's are bad. If the Germans won the war, would we not think the opposite if he won? Good and bad is also determined from who says it... What could be good for others like science could be bad for other who believe in religion.

[Steven Mane]

And I am also sure that if it WAS proven that God didn't exist, the world would end. There's some equation that's supposed to prove it, but my guess is it's nothing more than one of these:

Equation that proves girls are evil:

Time = money

Girls need time to do stuff.

And since money is the square root of all evil, girls = evil.

Makes you wanna laugh. Ha.

[Kevin Gillis]

Are you saying that science needs to prove that god actually exists? That's kinda weird coming from someone who believes in god.

Also... you 'joke' is old and not funny... Wasn't funny the first time I heard it either.

[Steven Mane]

Are you saying that science needs to prove that god actually exists? That's kinda weird cominf from someone who believes in god.

Also... you 'joke' is old and not funny... Wasn't funny the first time I heard it either.
No, I'm saying science needs to prove He DOESN'T exist. As much as many people hate to admit it, scientists haven't done it yet.

And I was being sarcastic with the "Makes you wanna laugh. Ha." comment. Obviously, sarcasm is not readily available to text. This is why I prefer phone conversations.

[Kevin Gillis]

This is why I prefer phone conversations.

Creepy much?

[Steven Mane]

Creepy much?
You know, you're like the fourth person who said this to me since I've been here. I get it. I'm creepy. But I'm telling the truth.

[Kevin Gillis]

At least you admit it... Now the healing can start. How about posting on topic for a change?

[Gabi Star]

No, I'm saying science needs to prove He DOESN'T exist. As much as many people hate to admit it, scientists haven't done it yet.

Science cannot and will never prove that god existance or lack there of. It is impossible. The concept of god is a philosophy, not a theory. If it cannot be falsifiable, then it cannot be tested. If it cannot be tested, it can not be proven or disproven.

Also, science doesn't have an agenda. They don't NEED to disprove anything. Science doesn't find a problem and seek a solution; thats religions job. Science merely finds evidence and draws direct conclusions. As we discover more, we conclude more.

Religion, on the other hand, seems to form more and more ideas on things we know less and less about. Reverse logic, no?

[Steven Mane]

At least you admit it... Now the healing can start. How about posting on topic for a change?
*cough* pot calling the kettle black! *cough*

And as Gabi so clearly proved, we are at a stalemate in the age old topic of science versus religion. Neither can prove the other wrong. The only way to find out is death. All respects all, all have different ideas. Please continue.

[Gabi Star]

And as Gabi so clearly proved, we are at a stalemate in the age old topic of science versus religion. Neither can prove the other wrong. The only way to find out is death. All respects all, all have different ideas. Please continue.


....Um, no? Thats not what I said at all. If you had a basic grasp of science, you would know that any statement that is falsifiable is dismissed as bullshit.

[Kevin Gillis]

No, I'm saying science needs to prove He DOESN'T exist. As much as many people hate to admit it, scientists haven't done it yet.

Science has done that already. The fact that science is around proves that god doesn't exist. As a believer in science, I'd rather see the proof than hear it.


Science merely finds evidence and draws direct conclusions. As we discover more, we conclude more.

Science doesn't draw direct conclusion whenever we find something new. They create theories and test them. Whichever seem most likely is then what they define as the truth. Which is why it changes so often as new thoeries arise, such as pluto not being a planet anymore.

[Steven Mane]

....Um, no? Thats not what I said at all. If you had a basic grasp of science, you would know that any statement that is falsifiable is dismissed as bullshit.

If it cannot be falsifiable, then it cannot be tested.

You're contradicting yourself.

[Gabi Star]

You're contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not. I'm reiterating. You're an idiot. Learn to read.

[Gabi Star]

Science has done that already. The fact that science is around proves that god doesn't exist. As a believer in science, I'd rather see the proof than hear it.

Please show me evidence that God does not exist? You cannot prove it. God is not falsifiable. God is the ultimate paradox. He cannot be proven nor disproven. But that also makes the concept of god something completely different than science. It makes the idea of god something untouchable. It makes it simply a philosophy. Science dismisses philosophies, but it doesn't attempt to disprove them.


Science doesn't draw direct conclusion whenever we find something new. They create theories and test them. Whichever seem most likely is then what they define as the truth. Which is why it changes so often as new thoeries arise, such as pluto not being a planet anymore.

Theories come out of conclusions. Theories are after these ideas are tested. Theories are the results of tests, not the other way around.

Pluto being a planet was never a theory. Actually, if you look in the science world, most scientists never accepted Pluto as a planet.

[Steven Mane]

No, I'm not. I'm reiterating. You're an idiot. Learn to read.
Originally Posted by Gabi Star http://voiceactingalliance.com/board/vaanew/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://voiceactingalliance.com/board/showthread.php?p=244015#post244015)
....Um, no? Thats not what I said at all. If you had a basic grasp of science, you would know that any statement that is falsifiable is dismissed as bullshit.


Originally Posted by Gabi Star
If it cannot be falsifiable, then it cannot be tested.

No. You learn how to write. You wrote "if it's falsifiable, it's bull." Then you wrote, "if it can't be falsifiable, it can't be tested." So, taking into account what you wrote earlier, if God can't be tested, He can't be falsified.

[Gabi Star]

No. You learn how to write. You wrote "if it's falsifiable, it's bull." Then you wrote, "if it can't be falsifiable, it can't be tested." So, taking into account what you wrote earlier, if God can't be tested, He can't be falsified.

Do you know what the term "falsifiable" means? I don't think you do, or this wouldn't be such a difficult concept for you.

[Tom]

Tom, the comparitive sense you speak of I can understand regarding this thread. But in the general sense in the end, wouldn't you say that IF we had to ascertain which one is "superior" or "correct" the award'd go to science?
That depends on what factors you define as "superior". Also, because science and religion are not actively trying to answer one specific question, neither can really be "correct". Also, science is method while religion is theory. They function differently and are not competing with each other towards a particular goal and therefore neither can be correct or incorrect about a nonexisting situation.


Again from when Chris and I were talking, without religion, there'd be no science.
I have already discussed this with Suley, but I want to give my input in the thread as well. Science and religion are both products of man's desire to understand the universe. Neither, as their individual selves, contributes to or comes from the other. Neither compliments the other in their lone states. It's like cheese and yogurt--both are products of milk, but neither needs the other to exist.


And I am also sure that if it WAS proven that God didn't exist, the world would end.
I don't see how or why that would happen as a result.


No, I'm saying science needs to prove He DOESN'T exist. As much as many people hate to admit it, scientists haven't done it yet.
That's like saying that science has to prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist.

Theories are there to be proven, not disproven. If they were already proven, they wouldn't be theories. Deities are theories, not fact, and thus must be proven before they are to be accepted as fact.


And as Gabi so clearly proved, we are at a stalemate in the age old topic of science versus religion. Neither can prove the other wrong. The only way to find out is death. All respects all, all have different ideas. Please continue.
Science and religion are not at odds with each other--neither can win because there is nothing to win.


No. You learn how to write. You wrote "if it's falsifiable, it's bull." Then you wrote, "if it can't be falsifiable, it can't be tested." So, taking into account what you wrote earlier, if God can't be tested, He can't be falsified.
I fail to see your point. Gabi never said God was bullshit.

[Steven Mane]

Do you know what the term "falsifiable" means? I don't think you do, or this wouldn't be such a difficult concept for you.

Well, it wasn't what I thought it was. Hm. So you were meaning "meaningless".

[Kevin Gillis]

Gabi, there is no evidence that god exists. Which is why I said that. If religion was meant to be the only thing we should believe, then god would not have created science in the first place. I think Tom said it better when he brought me to justice on AIM.

[Gabi Star]

Okay, if I'm looking at a forest, I see a forest. I don't see no goddamn trees. Unfortunately, a lot of people who are posting are tree-seekers. Thus, its hard for me to communicate.

I'm not into the "if ____, then ____" sinerio because its not scientifically plausable. For instance, Suley said " If religion was meant to be the only thing we should believe, then god would not have created science in the first place". I think you have a different definintion of science than I do. Science is the language of explaining nature. If god creates anything natural along with the human ability to comprehend, science exists. God would have either had to have made nothing at all or no human conciousness for there to be a lack of science.

[Steven Mane]

Yes, but what is the definition of a forest?

And another thing: God didn't create science. Man created science. God created Man.

Enough with the deep stuff, this is all going over my head. I'm going to stick with voice acting.

[Tom]

God created Man.
Theory.

I need to make this at least 10 characters long.

[Kevin Gillis]

To me, science tells me how things were created. Whenever a question that can't be answered by using science, such as, 'Why is the sky blue?' or 'Where did people come from?' such answers are usually because God wanted it that way.

Science has more of a detailed explaination. Such as, where did people come from. The answer of course would be because we evolved into what we are now. We know this because of the facts that have been dug up.

Understand it now?(I don't mean to sound mean)

[Matt Cruea]

No, I'm saying science needs to prove He DOESN'T exist. As much as many people hate to admit it, scientists haven't done it yet.

That's ridiculous and you're ridiculous for saying it.


Gabi, there is no evidence that god exists. Which is why I said that. If religion was meant to be the only thing we should believe, then god would not have created science in the first place. I think Tom said it better when he brought me to justice on AIM.

There is evidence for the existence of a superior being, however that evidence is not necessarily factual or true, due to the lack of concrete historical documentation and the lack of, you know, an office building for me to go visit said superior being at.


Theory.

I need to make this at least 10 characters long.

Incorrect. A theory can be tested.

This thread is so boring. Why is there an argument here?

Science is awesome because it can help us learn more about our world, however it is not awesome because it is most certainly not infallible and can lead to morality issues and danger.

Religion is awesome because it help us learn more about ourselves, however it is not awesome because it is most certainly not infallible and can lead to persecution and danger.

[Tom]

Incorrect. A theory can be tested.

Science is awesome because it can help us learn more about our world, however it is not awesome because it is most certainly not infallible and can lead to morality issues and danger.

Religion is awesome because it help us learn more about ourselves, however it is not awesome because it is most certainly not infallibel and can lead to persecution and danger.

Not all theories can be tested. In science, an accepted theory must be testable, but in general usage, a "theory" can merely be conjecture, a guess, and does not need basis in existing fact or definable reality.

Also, "awesome" is subjective. Since we're being anal about words. :P


an office building for me to go visit said superior being at.
If God did have an office... I wonder what kind of plaques he would have hanging up.

[Gabi Star]

Yes, but what is the definition of a forest?

Please stop with your pseudo-intellectual challenges. You lack depth. It shows.



To me, science tells me how things were created

Science does far more than answer how things came to be. Its more like... science answers how things work. For instance, the science of how things were created in the big... BIG picture is called Cosmology. But there are other sciences that have nothing to do with origins. Pathology, Psychology, most studies in Biology, ect.

Although science is really good at explaining how we came to be, I think science goes above and beyond that.

[Kevin Gillis]

Most of what you described was science... same shit different pile.

I didn't explain enough I guess.

[Tony]

... and these debates are examples of why the two camps may never reconcile. Differing first principles, kids. You cannot have a logical, rational argument that comes to any sort of mutually agreeable conclusion when you have differing first principles. To a religious person, their god exists. There's no question about it, and no proof is needed. You can't argue with faith. Faith can be questioned, but that has to come from within the believer. So, you end up with situations like we saw with Redneck Genius, where one thinks that the existence of a god is a given, and that if you're going to disagree, you have to disprove that existence first. Those who put more credence in science than religion want the existence of a god to be proven to them. Unfortunately, such popular arguments such as the seemingly intelligent fashion in which creatures evolve into increasingly complex beings, even in the face of entropy, are flawed because they only serve to question the current scientific theory. Very often, I see religious advocates try to throw out all of the research done into our origins just because one or two things are wrong with the theory.
Like Cruea touched on earlier, this is the first principle that differs: fallibility. For religion to work (as written), it must be infallible. For science to work, it must be fallible. Now, there are people who sort of split the difference and argue that a god is the "why" and that science is the "how." This tends to happen in Christian religions that take the bible in context. It could lead to a possible conclusion of "God created man; evolution is how He did it." The partial fallibility introduced to these religions is what lets them evolve over time into a form that will still serve their believers, even when we know a whole lot more than we do now. However, religions that take the attitude that what is written is completely infallible will either have to eventually take a step and admit that maybe something written thousands of years ago could be wrong, or risk being forced to the sidelines because of absurdity.
There's a good chance we will never know what exactly happens when we die. In that, religion will always have a role to comfort and support its believers. However, to explain things that happen in the realm of conscious existence, current science seems to have an edge over books written thousands of years ago.

EDIT: Now that I read over everything, it seems like CNagy already made my argument, and more eloquently, in fact. Oh well.

[Ran]

Actually Tom, it was Robo Christians vs Robo Vampires >.>


Oh No...Not The Robo Stuff *Was In That Iparty:sweat*




Yes, but what is the definition of a forest?

And another thing: God didn't create science. Man created science. God created Man.

Enough with the deep stuff, this is all going over my head. I'm going to stick with voice acting.


Good One :)

Anywayz If People want to Argue, Dont.

Its a Debate

Yes Yes I see Tom changed the Topic Title I just Hope This Thread doeesnt go Insane

~Ran

[Gabi Star]

You people can't define the word forest? A forest is an naturally occuring abundant growth of trees over a given area.

And you cannot argue that God created man when your only evidence is a book that told you so.

[Matt Cruea]

And you cannot argue that God created man when your only evidence is a book that told you so.

Why not? Let's say that I'm a mildly religious person, and I gave you all sorts of reasons why I think my God exists. Look at cellular structure, it just SCREAMS clockmaker hypothesis, doesn't it? Look at time. Sure, it's a manmade notion, but the fact that it's so mathematical just tells me there's some sort of intelligence behind it all. And so on and so on.

The problem with "debates" such as these is that between science and religion, there are very few things we like to call "valid points." It's all subjective.

[Ran]

And you cannot argue that God created man when your only evidence is a book that told you so.

I Believe That God Did That Gabi

Everyone Has differant Beliefs (Geez...How many Times have I said that??)

~Ran

[Matt Cruea]

I Believe That God Did That Gabi

Everyone Has differant Beliefs (Geez...How many Times have I said that??)

~Ran

Ah, but beliefs are neither proof nor evidence of fact.

[ig.]

It's a shame that the topic has turned from discussion towards a kind of empty debate. I was going to drop some wonderful discourse on faith-based intellectualism on y'all, but it seems too many parties are interested in having a god-off. It's far too much fun to try to stop.

[Matt Cruea]

It's a shame that the topic has turned from discussion towards a kind of empty debate. I was going to drop some wonderful discourse on faith-based intellectualism on y'all, but it seems too many parties are interested in having a god-off. It's far too much fun to try to stop.

I'm just fighting everyone.

[Tom]

Scientific-Religious Conflict:

Abrahamic religion tells us that man was created in God's own image. Biology tells us that males and females have respective sexual organs for which to reproduce with together. God has no need for such anatomy as he does not reproduce. If a God exists, is it genderless? If it is, then are we truly etched from its image?

______________________________



And you cannot argue that God created man when your only evidence is a book that told you so.Why not? Look at cellular structure, it just SCREAMS clockmaker hypothesis, doesn't it? Look at time. Sure, it's a manmade notion, but the fact that it's so mathematical just tells me there's some sort of intelligence behind it all. And so on and so on.

Because there is no evidence supporting the authenticity of the book's claims, its authors' credibility or the accuracy of its translators.

The two examples you gave do not support the book, but rather, are new arguments entirely. Intricacy and intelligence are relative to the observer--and so is time, which is not mathematical, but perceptual.


The problem with "debates" such as these is that between science and religion, there are very few things we like to call "valid points." It's all subjective.

Actually, it's not all subjective. The methods of science are objective, while the needs of religion are subjective. In all truth, science is not threatened by religion, but religion is threatened by science--and that is not because of people, but because of the nature of the two entities.

The real problem is when people use religion to challenge science, which doesn't work. Science is quite capable of challenging religion (not disprove it), but religious faith is simply not meant or designed to overcome science, so the trouble comes when people stop differentiating between the purposes of religion and science, respectively, in their lives and start pitting the chess piece against the chess board.

Religious people need to keep their philosophical faith (religion) separate from what is logical, inevitable reality (science). Non-religious people need to remember that not everyone is willing to give up mental securities such as faith.

This thread, however, is open to anyone who wants to join, so if they post in it, they can or will be challenged, regardless of any productive outcome. I don't come back to this thread hoping to win people over to my side anyway. :P I come back because I love arguments.

[Gabi Star]

Everyone Has differant Beliefs (Geez...How many Times have I said that??)


If that is your only stance, then why are you posting here? This is for debate, which you have not done yet despite your numerous posts.

[Edwyn]

Throwing some peanuts from the peanut gallery, but since when has Christianity come to represent the sum total of the experience that mere mortals such as we term "religion"? I see some people saying "God this" and "God that", but where's mah main man Allah? Where's mah Buddha, Brahman, Yahweh and Loki, the All-Father? And then there are religions which don't even HAVE a canonical deity figure(s), whose teachings are based on the stuff that came out of a mere mortals' pen. And I ain't talking Scientology here.

[Gabi Star]

Well, Edwyn, that's a seriously overlooked subject in these threads. But you also have to keep in mind that this particular debate actually sparked between Ran, Chibisomething, Redneck Genius, Nikkita, Tom, and myself. And the basis of the arguement was the idiology of the Christian afterlife.

But I agree with you. Although it's repetative to fight about the fundimental beliefs between Allah, God the Father, and Yahweh (being they are all the same person), you have to agree that to take on all the different religions and study their beliefs to be discussed would be very extensive.

I'm all for it, but I don't think much would be up for debate. Those who would study it would be the skeptics, the agnostics, the atheists, the humanists. But I doubt people like Redneck Genius and Ran who have strong religious beliefs will look into any other religion but Christianity.

[Ran]

Despite Christianity what do you Guys think of other religions?

Well This Threads called Exploring Science & Religion so.....It counts for Any religion ^^

~Ran

[Brenzie]

You aren't getting are you? Tom has stated several times that this isn't a choice of who wins or loses. As they both have there goods and bads. You come along into a thread pushing for what I tried to do in the previous thread, which was have an overall winner.

Even if we had to choose, the debate would still go on. Have you thought that people might like to beleive in god for the sake of having somewhere to go when you die? Or maybe the fact that someone is watching over them, protecting them from evil. If knowing that someone, no matter who you are or what you've done is still willing to love you welcome you into a place where you may live on after death. Sounds nice doesn't it? Sometimes that all people need to get on with their life.

After talking with Chris, your last post was about Science and Religion being tools controlled by man to control other men. Sure, it could be that way, but why would science need to control people? They show the proof of what they find. The only control is religion and that has already been used several times.



You know the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? It also works if you use truth instead of beauty. You say that religion lies, but in fact, they are telling the truth from what they beleive in and are not telling lies. You may want to rephrase that.

Again from when Chris and I were talking, without religion, there'd be no science. It also works opposite as well. It's all in just what you, the reader, beleive in. You may want to remember that for the future
I detect fallacy in your words. First, why should we care at all who's saying anything whether it's me, Tom, you, or whoever else? It's not about the person, but about what's being said. And I have already "agreed" that both have their good things and bad things. And also, I've "agreed" that it's not about who wins or loses, so I see no point in you raising this again.

And I'm not even telling anybody to "choose" but just be reasonable. Don't choose but just look at it and be as objective as possible. Yes, I have thought of people who want to believe to feel better; haven't you read my words?

The question you pose: why would science need to control people? No: as you repeated my words, in that same context I took your question from, I will do so again saying <i>man</i> uses science and controls others as it has been in the past as well.

<i>"You say that religion lies, but in fact, they are telling the truth from what they beleive in and are not telling lies. You may want to rephrase that."</i>
Okay, I'll rephrase it for you. If they are "telling the truth from what they believe in" then they're POSSIBLY not telling lies, but one thing's for sure and that's that they AREN'T SURE but simply expecting people to irrationally believe in what they say. And the probability that they aren't sure is what - very high?

[Ran]

Despite Christianity what do you Guys think of other religions?

Well This Threads called Exploring Science & Religion so.....It counts for Any religion ^^

~Ran

:)

Does Anyone Belive In Another Religion? or Do they want to Discuss Another Religion.

What Do you Guys Think?

~Ran

[Steven Mane]

Here's what I believe in in general. There was more than one son of God. Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha. All were great prophets who believed in different religions and are admired all around the world. The reason I'm Christian, however, is Jesus Christ's sacrifice for all of mankind. All were pretty much the same, only Jesus was crucified for his beliefs. Mohammed can't say that. Buddha can't say that.

Although, I hate anti-Semites because they keep saying "Jews killed my Lord." No, the Jews did not kill the Lord. Satan did.

[Maeko]

Reading this whole topic is too much to digest, but I did read a few of your replies. I agree with what CNagy wrote earlier about how Science states the how & that religion answers the why . Ultimately religion is man made. There is no real hard evidence that all of these various religions in the world have god(s) that existed on this earth.