how bout a topic that a lot of ppl can relate to? did "God" really create the earth? or was is just a form of evolution from super nova? was adam and eve who were really the first humans? or were we monkeys to begin with that evolved to a human state? ok... so sum facts could be false both on science and religion... i mean, wut it seems to me... ppl believe in religion just by reading the bible... but then again, the bible is just a book. ppl could possibly just be reading sum stories made by a fictional writer in the past. or maybe not. science does give in a lot of facts, but then they are pretty hard to understand them... for example.... err..... like a goldfish! scientists say that the goldfish has a bad memory... but how the hell would they know that? they cant speak to a fish!! or even know wut runs in their minds. okay... so the goldfish isnt really a good example on how the world is created... but still, it does give a point that scientist sumtmes dont really know anything. so in everyone's opinion... wut do u think it is? was it a "God" that created the world and all of mankind? or was it evolution?
science vs. religion
there are a lot of topics like this one, but i tend to believe they aren't mutually exclusive.[/url]
I don't believe in God, and i don't believe in science.
Scienc Motive to don't believe: The planets before the big bang can stay in that minusculous place for 1 seg, then, how the where created?
Religious: I believe that god can't down in the world and say: "I will create a planet called earth".
Scienc Motive to don't believe: The planets before the big bang can stay in that minusculous place for 1 seg, then, how the where created?
Religious: I believe that god can't down in the world and say: "I will create a planet called earth".
I believe that science can solve anything that happens.
Besides in history we are tought that religon was made to explain the unexplainable. An example of this would be the reasons for a flood or earthquake. Since people didn't know why they happened they said the god(s) is/are angry.
Besides in history we are tought that religon was made to explain the unexplainable. An example of this would be the reasons for a flood or earthquake. Since people didn't know why they happened they said the god(s) is/are angry.
Religion is a man made moral standard and nothing else.
I dont believe that God created the earth. There's way too much evidence to prove otherwise.
I can't believe some people in America are actually trying to bring "intelligent design" teaching to school. Their argument is that darwins theory cannot be absolutely proved, so they think it's right to teach intelligent design too.
The only problem is that Darwins theory has massive evidence behind it, years of study that anyone can look up, whereas intelligent design has no basis on reality at all. There's no proof to back it up. It's just made up.
Just because some religious fanatics can't get to graps with the theory of evolution, they say it's too complicated to have evolved, as Darwin suggested. I'd like to see them contradict darwins evidence first, and if they can do that, which I doubt, then they could bring forward THEIR evidence, the thing their theory is based on. There is none. Only the statement that the nature is so complicated it has to be designed by an intelligent being.
Yeah, ever heard of an intelligent being called Mother Nature?
I can't believe some people in America are actually trying to bring "intelligent design" teaching to school. Their argument is that darwins theory cannot be absolutely proved, so they think it's right to teach intelligent design too.
The only problem is that Darwins theory has massive evidence behind it, years of study that anyone can look up, whereas intelligent design has no basis on reality at all. There's no proof to back it up. It's just made up.
Just because some religious fanatics can't get to graps with the theory of evolution, they say it's too complicated to have evolved, as Darwin suggested. I'd like to see them contradict darwins evidence first, and if they can do that, which I doubt, then they could bring forward THEIR evidence, the thing their theory is based on. There is none. Only the statement that the nature is so complicated it has to be designed by an intelligent being.
Yeah, ever heard of an intelligent being called Mother Nature?
what you really have to ask yourself is, who made all these religions? and how did man came to know about god? and if there are Aliens then do they also have the same gods or different gods? i tend to believe that no god created what we have now...i really believe what science tells is true
I agree that religion is to explain the unexplainable, which can now be explained with science. But I still think that there can be room for religion. It just needs to be updated from a 2000+ year old one.
Hey, if you like this topic, or any other philisophical debates, check out my website! (Please help, I need traffic)
..:: Start Something ::..
Hey, if you like this topic, or any other philisophical debates, check out my website! (Please help, I need traffic)
..:: Start Something ::..
| Quote: |
| darwins theory |
This says it all THEORY! A theory is something not proven yet!
Charles him self said that evolution was a theory. And there is no physical prof. All living creatures re-produce after thier kind. nothing is half of one kind and half of another. Nothing was created by chance! All living things on earth serve a purpose. Even salt water helps keep the earth warm. that in it self proves design.
| Quote: |
| whereas intelligent design has no basis on reality at all |
History, Geology, Not to mention that there is more historical writings that back up the Bible than any other writings.
Science will not accept design because it is to simple for them.
Science states that the earth just happened.
I will accept design over accident any time.
Here's my take on everything, it does seem Religion is "made-up", but that doesn't mean there isn't a god, infact I believe there is some sort of entity overlooking the universe, although at the same time I think evolution may also be true...
If any of you have ever played SimEarth, the users or players view would be similar to the "Gods" (in my mind), pushing things to see what happens, like a big curious all powerful cat.
If any of you have ever played SimEarth, the users or players view would be similar to the "Gods" (in my mind), pushing things to see what happens, like a big curious all powerful cat.
Religion is man standard.
Science is the future.
Religion is Relative
-depends on pope, people, priest, ... etc. who determine it ? who standardise it ? who's correct ? who knows ?
Science is the future.
Religion is Relative
-depends on pope, people, priest, ... etc. who determine it ? who standardise it ? who's correct ? who knows ?
| meretyping wrote: |
| there are a lot of topics like this one, but i tend to believe they aren't mutually exclusive.[/url] |
Yes. They can co-exist quite easily if you make concessions or compromises in some areas.
| mike4652 wrote: | ||
This says it all THEORY! A theory is something not proven yet! Charles him self said that evolution was a theory. And there is no physical prof. All living creatures re-produce after thier kind. nothing is half of one kind and half of another. Nothing was created by chance! All living things on earth serve a purpose. Even salt water helps keep the earth warm. that in it self proves design. |
Yeah, with that logic, everything EVER is a theory. I can't prove that you actually exist, so perhaps I'll just pretend that you don't that I'm the center of the universe, and that the only thing that is real is my dreams.
The whole idea of a scientific theory is that it is accepted to be true, even though it can't be proven. Things like gravity, the Earth's rotation, and evolution all cannot be proven, but they are the only LOGICAL explanation.
Religion defies all logic. Creationism is a guess, a purely dogmatic response to the idea that mankind could exist without a god.
I agree with what was said before, religion is a moral code. The problem is that it is a moral code that promotes inequity, intolerance, and hatred for outsiders. Sure, it's great for those inside the religion, but look at the fundies that we've got here in america, and compare them to the fundies across the seas. Same deal.
another thing that i must point out that seems odd to me... God created the world, right? so if he did why the hell would he create other gods and make some commandment sayin hat ppl should only respect him only? that's almost like saying that a guy is not gay but prefers the company of men. (no offense, just an example)
| Raijenki wrote: |
| I don't believe in God, and i don't believe in science.
: |
Milk just came thru my nose. (I'm glad I wasn't eating a cookie or something!)
Whether you believe in science or not, it DOES exist.
"i don't believe in science." LMAO!
| Quote: |
| sci·ence
n. 1. 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. 3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science. 3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience. |
Blueknot: Science isn't man-made? Science isn't relative? (ask Einstein)
haha,
to me , science is a language.
it's a tool, ya a man-made tool that you use to advance our self.
religion, is too a man-made one to restrain ourself.
to me , science is a language.
it's a tool, ya a man-made tool that you use to advance our self.
religion, is too a man-made one to restrain ourself.
l believe God created us all, and l believe this not because l've been preached to my whole life, or that l have a need for something to fill the "gap" l believe because His power is shown to me, and l have witnessed miracles first hand. And this on top of the fact that, when you read the Bible, you will see it say things that science goes against, then a few years later, science will say they were wrong and this is right.
Every day l feel the awesome power of my God, so that is why l know He exists beyond a shadow of a doubt!
Every day l feel the awesome power of my God, so that is why l know He exists beyond a shadow of a doubt!
"A theory is something not proven yet!"
Noq quite true. A theory is just a fancy word for an explanation. It acn be a proven theory or an unproven theory or something in between.
Noq quite true. A theory is just a fancy word for an explanation. It acn be a proven theory or an unproven theory or something in between.
I believe in god. God is the supreme power. Everything is created by nature and I believe that nature is god. I think science is just a bit of exploration of the wonderful creations of nature.
Take a look at the following two sayings
A priest: the world has been created by the lord
A scientist: This has been ny the nebular hypothesis which says...........BLAH........ BLAH .......
Since, I am none of these so i say it must be somewhere between as in Chemistry there are resonating structres of some compounds like Nitrogen dioxide, Ammonia..
______________________________________________________________
A priest: the world has been created by the lord
A scientist: This has been ny the nebular hypothesis which says...........BLAH........ BLAH .......
Since, I am none of these so i say it must be somewhere between as in Chemistry there are resonating structres of some compounds like Nitrogen dioxide, Ammonia..
______________________________________________________________
DID u READ your SCIENCE book PROPERLY.......
The problem with religion vs. science is this that religion can be disproven by scientific means. In fact, this has been going on almost continuously since Galileo, but the Catholic church and others have managed to pretend that this is not the case. Unfortunately, science can also be "disproven" by religious means -- mainly by saying "God HAS to exist because I believe in him"). Scientists, being scientific, will not accept that religious argument, and religious people, being religious, will not accept the scientific argument.
So the two are forever doomed to disagree since they are not even working in the same framework of reality. If you like, they are in the same X-Y coordinates, but are on different Z planes entirely. It looks like they're meeting, from above, but that's just not the case. This is why people who call themselves "religious scientists".
So the two are forever doomed to disagree since they are not even working in the same framework of reality. If you like, they are in the same X-Y coordinates, but are on different Z planes entirely. It looks like they're meeting, from above, but that's just not the case. This is why people who call themselves "religious scientists".
I believe that science and religion can become one, it just that on our planet, human just have too many opinions and disagree too much (off course if that isn't the case, this wouldn't be life or earth, but something quite impossible to imagine or some place far far too boring, variety is life, vabirant is colourful life)
I believe god created the earth, but he dislike explaining things as clear as scientish, (obviously otherwise someone might know it all and try and become god themseleve)
I think everyone should read Angels & Demon by Dan Brown, I know it fictional, but just read it, it makes alot of sence.
The big bang was create out of nothing, so was this universe, the only question that left from scienist is what was before the big bang. I don't like to question too much about creation, because what would we do if all questions were answers and all problem were solve? these questions are here to keep us going, by not answering them, we have something to do. beside making money.
science, help imporve life, if uses correctly (as we can see where science has brought human today), religion give us a center to a good moral life, if follow correctly and if we understand it correctly (religion, incorrect understand could lead to major crisis, as we seen in the past)
anyway, the major problem is because they don't work together, that what devide people appart (I guest they are destine to be yin yang)
I believe god created the earth, but he dislike explaining things as clear as scientish, (obviously otherwise someone might know it all and try and become god themseleve)
I think everyone should read Angels & Demon by Dan Brown, I know it fictional, but just read it, it makes alot of sence.
The big bang was create out of nothing, so was this universe, the only question that left from scienist is what was before the big bang. I don't like to question too much about creation, because what would we do if all questions were answers and all problem were solve? these questions are here to keep us going, by not answering them, we have something to do. beside making money.
science, help imporve life, if uses correctly (as we can see where science has brought human today), religion give us a center to a good moral life, if follow correctly and if we understand it correctly (religion, incorrect understand could lead to major crisis, as we seen in the past)
anyway, the major problem is because they don't work together, that what devide people appart (I guest they are destine to be yin yang)
| Quote: |
| A theory is just a fancy word for an explanation. |
Theory also means to guess.
And that is what the theory of evolution is a guess with no proof.
| mike4652 wrote: |
|
Theory also means to guess. |
Actually, it's more of an educated guess.
| Quote: |
|
And that is what the theory of evolution is a guess with no proof. |
Evolution, in this context, is how life in general changes over time. There is little doubt that life on earth has changed over time. It is believed that 99% of all the species that have lived on earth, are now extinct.
Extinction of a species is one way in which life evolves. The theory that evolution occurs within populations of life forms on earth is well supported: Scientists measure gene frequencies and protein structures in a group of organisms, and then see how those frequencies and structures change over time.
There's enough proof to rename it the fact of evolution. It's not only what really happened, it's happening still. If the origin of life (ie. not the development or variation) is what the question is about, that is more hazy. God creating the Earth is not necessarily at odds with evolution of species. It's not my belief, but god whipping a batch of primordial soup a few billion years ago could explain the beginning of evolution of species just as god's "creation" of the Big Bang could explain the origin of the cosmos.
It's a lot more than one scientist's beliefs. It's generations of people's evidence that we should believe. Or should we instead believe someone who spends their entire life trying to debunk evolutionary theory because it contradicts a belief system based on nothing but generations of people's belief in that system? There just ain't no evidence to support the 7-day theory (or is it 6 plus a day of rest...much needed after fitting billions of years worth of work into less than a week).
| Quote: |
| There just ain't no evidence to support the 7-day theory |
But we will try to get folks to believe that the world just showed up one day, or a big explosion started the ball rolling. But as long as science says it it is true.
Devine creation gives purpose for life and all creation. Science places it all on chance not purpose.
| Quote: |
| but how the hell would they know that? they cant speak to a fish!! |
They actually have done this through intense study of the brain structure, you don't need to talk to a fish. You use something called experimentation. Scientists have had the brain's main areas mapped out for quite awhile, and you can easily see what parts of the brain are used at certain times. There are all sorts of brain scanning techniques out there that aid in this sort of research.
| Quote: |
| Theory also means to guess. |
Sorry dude, a theory is FAR from a guess.
| Quote: |
| Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory". |
Theories-to-be are tested over and over and over again before they are proclaimed theories.
The generally accepted idea in science is that a theory is accepted until a better one comes up. The better one should explain things the old couldn't, while still being able to explain observations the old theory could explain. The idea is that way you'll be getting closer to reality with each new theory.
I'm not taking a stand in this discussion - for a change - this is just information. I find it interesting though how S3nd K3ys speaks of 'beliefs'. Apparently science is a matter of believing just as religion is. In relation to my previous post: science can be a form of religion just as well. It's putting your faith in human knowledge. Then the question remains where religions originate from - from man? Believers will deny. But believers in science will also deny that it was man that created everything they research. For example it's not human intelligence that created the elements like H, O, C, I etc. but they only discovered and analysed it.
edit: typo
Last edited by Arnie on Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:56 am; edited 1 time in total
I'm not taking a stand in this discussion - for a change
- this is just information. I find it interesting though how S3nd K3ys speaks of 'beliefs'. Apparently science is a matter of believing just as religion is. In relation to my previous post: science can be a form of religion just as well. It's putting your faith in human knowledge. Then the question remains where religions originate from - from man? Believers will deny. But believers in science will also deny that it was man that created everything they research. For example it's not human intelligence that created the elements like H, O, C, I etc. but they only discovered and analysed it.
edit: typo
Last edited by Arnie on Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Belief in science is resultant from mans unquenchable quest for the search
of answers.
the bare truth is that religion encompasses science but not vice versa.
of answers.
the bare truth is that religion encompasses science but not vice versa.
This subject is getting too instense and it like 2am in the morning and I just finish updating stuff, so I'm off to bed.
Although, I like to point out, I don't like how this place is moving around, why do scientist & religious have to battle?????
why can't they support each other, and who said evolution aint real? sure it a fancy word, that means change, if things don't chances why are things are like they are now? if chance don't happen, how you compare history and present?????
never mind, off to bed, talk tomorrow, when head is clear
Although, I like to point out, I don't like how this place is moving around, why do scientist & religious have to battle?????
why can't they support each other, and who said evolution aint real? sure it a fancy word, that means change, if things don't chances why are things are like they are now? if chance don't happen, how you compare history and present?????
never mind, off to bed, talk tomorrow, when head is clear
| peetter wrote: |
| I dont believe that God created the earth. There's way too much evidence to prove otherwise.
I can't believe some people in America are actually trying to bring "intelligent design" teaching to school. Their argument is that darwins theory cannot be absolutely proved, so they think it's right to teach intelligent design too. The only problem is that Darwins theory has massive evidence behind it, years of study that anyone can look up, whereas intelligent design has no basis on reality at all. There's no proof to back it up. It's just made up.
Just because some religious fanatics can't get to graps with the theory of evolution, they say it's too complicated to have evolved, as Darwin suggested. I'd like to see them contradict darwins evidence first, and if they can do that, which I doubt, then they could bring forward THEIR evidence, the thing their theory is based on. There is none. Only the statement that the nature is so complicated it has to be designed by an intelligent being. Yeah, ever heard of an intelligent being called Mother Nature? |
What about Darwin ?
Seems you got a lot of lobbys in NA . They also seems to be very powerfull .
Science is man's understanding of the world.
Religion is a way of life from God.
You might think that Religion is man made, that is your opinion
But to those who believe it, it’s a word from God.
Though in Religion God has tried explaining to man about the working (science) of this world.
God does not need to explain everything and has set a test to man to seek out knowledge.
Those who try to compare science with Religion are fools or ignorant.
These people don’t really understand anything. Just because you don’t believe in a Religion, you use science as a weapon to destroy ones belief in God.
Religion is a way of life from God.
You might think that Religion is man made, that is your opinion
But to those who believe it, it’s a word from God.
Though in Religion God has tried explaining to man about the working (science) of this world.
God does not need to explain everything and has set a test to man to seek out knowledge.
Those who try to compare science with Religion are fools or ignorant.
These people don’t really understand anything. Just because you don’t believe in a Religion, you use science as a weapon to destroy ones belief in God.
| jinn666 wrote: |
| Science is man's understanding of the world.
Religion is a way of life from God. You might think that Religion is man made, that is your opinion But to those who believe it, it’s a word from God. Though in Religion God has tried explaining to man about the working (science) of this world. God does not need to explain everything and has set a test to man to seek out knowledge. Those who try to compare science with Religion are fools or ignorant. These people don’t really understand anything. Just because you don’t believe in a Religion, you use science as a weapon to destroy ones belief in God. |
well said neightbour, hiya, me from london too, thought I'm not anywhere near london at the mom
the things is, those who think they can uses science as a weapon to dissovle others belief in the god, is like a test of indugence, if those are easily destoryed of belief, let them be, they weren't such strong believers in the first place, and if they meant to follow god, they'll do so one day, with or without the help of understanding the world in the way of science
I am Catholic, but science has definately got me going, at it is hard to think of how both ways can be possible. On the topic on how the universe came to be, its somethig we will never really understand.
| hangnhu wrote: |
| those who think they can uses science as a weapon to dissovle others belief in the god, |
Huh?
A weapon to disprove God?
First of all I seriously doubt that's the sole intention of science. Secondly, it wouldn't be a matter of disproving it, as it is already UNPROVABLE. Therefore it would be up to you (or science) to PROVE it.
The question is: who defines what proof is? If science dictates the rules for proof to be correct, it's like a self-fulfilling prohecy.
| Arnie wrote: |
| The question is: who defines what proof is? If science dictates the rules for proof to be correct, it's like a self-fulfilling prohecy. |
Are you going to make up your own rules for physics?
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| Are you going to make up your own rules for physics? |
That's a wonderfull idea!
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
That's a wonderfull idea! |
Yeah, it's a great idea, in theory.
Yes S3nd, man made it's own rules for physics. Man made science. Of course man took those rules from what they observe, but that doesn't mean man's thinking and observing is so perfect it can totally grasp and analyze flawlessly. Man-made physics laws aren't complete and perfect. The theory of generatio spontanea was also considered scientifically correct because people saw dirty laundry and rats coming out of them.
The point is though, scientifical laws and regulations don't have to be the judging standard. That's why demanding a scientific proof of religion is exactly like (see it as a mirror) demanding a religious proof of science. In that example science should be proven to be correct by religious standards instead of vice-versa. Now who decides which standard is higher? Who decides what should be judged by what? There's the nuance I tried to express in a small posting for a change:
So who decides which standard is higher? I think every individual does so for himself. That's what I meant with this:
Spare me the ironic? btw, I'm not taking a stand in this discussion. As you can see I'm only giving some neutral thoughts about what's said. But for defenders of science that may look like I'm taking stand with religion and vice-versa. Anyway there's no need to me to show how ridiculous you find my thoughts. Thanks for the respect
The point is though, scientifical laws and regulations don't have to be the judging standard. That's why demanding a scientific proof of religion is exactly like (see it as a mirror) demanding a religious proof of science. In that example science should be proven to be correct by religious standards instead of vice-versa. Now who decides which standard is higher? Who decides what should be judged by what? There's the nuance I tried to express in a small posting for a change:
| Quote: |
| The question is: who defines what proof is? |
| Quote: |
| Apparently science is a matter of believing just as religion is. [..] Science can be a form of religion just as well. It's putting your faith in human knowledge. |
Spare me the ironic?
btw, I'm not taking a stand in this discussion. As you can see I'm only giving some neutral thoughts about what's said. But for defenders of science that may look like I'm taking stand with religion and vice-versa. Anyway there's no need to me to show how ridiculous you find my thoughts. Thanks for the respect| Arnie wrote: |
| Yes S3nd, man made it's own rules for physics. Man made science. Of course they took them from nature, but that doesn't mean man's thinking is so perfect it can totally grasp and analyze what he sees.
|
If by 'made it's own rules' you mean applied it's own terms to the rules, then yes, you're correct.
BUT... the rules governing the properties of things like gravity, light, energy, material properties, fusion and others, are not something that can be 'changed' or 'made up', as you put it.
| Quote: |
| Acceleration due to gravity g 9.806 65 m/s2
Earth mass ME 5.973 70(76) x 1024 kg electron charge magnitude e 1.602 177 33(49) x 10-19 C = gravitational constant GN 6.672 59(85) x 10-11 m3/(kg s2) = speed of light in vacuum c 299 792 458 m/s |
| Arnie wrote: |
| Man-made physics laws aren't complete and perfect. |
Last edited by Arnie on Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:01 am; edited 1 time in total
| Arnie wrote: | ||
|
After at least 3 edits...
I will agree with you.
Heh, I reread it and thought I should clarify it
This topic can really be dangerous and prone to flame wars if not properly handled.
As for myself, science and religion can be explained and proven as co-existant, if properly searched. I myself, am a Creationist. I would not delve more into this for I know that some may take advantage of this topic to start flames.
However, we must also realize for a certain fact that Science itself must be a form of knowledge that must be proven. For this, I can say that many of those people who call themselves scientists, only made theories (still unproven) which they make as evidence to attack religion (more specifically Creation). For one thing, Theory and Science is not equal and same. Theory is unproven (hypothetical and intelligent guess), while Science is proven (based on systematized body of knowledge and proven facts).
So to call religion only a fiction or theory when in fact many of those being taught in Science in itself are theories, is completely baseless.
I respect everyone's ideas about this matter. However, probing more into this topic in this forum may result in flaming and hate threads.
If anyone wants to talk about this, and want to know more of my ideas, you can PM me.
As for myself, science and religion can be explained and proven as co-existant, if properly searched. I myself, am a Creationist. I would not delve more into this for I know that some may take advantage of this topic to start flames.
However, we must also realize for a certain fact that Science itself must be a form of knowledge that must be proven. For this, I can say that many of those people who call themselves scientists, only made theories (still unproven) which they make as evidence to attack religion (more specifically Creation). For one thing, Theory and Science is not equal and same. Theory is unproven (hypothetical and intelligent guess), while Science is proven (based on systematized body of knowledge and proven facts).
So to call religion only a fiction or theory when in fact many of those being taught in Science in itself are theories, is completely baseless.
I respect everyone's ideas about this matter. However, probing more into this topic in this forum may result in flaming and hate threads.
If anyone wants to talk about this, and want to know more of my ideas, you can PM me.
| THE11thROCK™ wrote: |
| ..
However, we must also realize for a certain fact that Science itself must be a form of knowledge that must be proven. |
Actually, science is often based on 'disproving' something as opposed to 'proving' something.
IOW, the ability to disprove something is often easier than the ability to prove it.
If you know the definition of science, you should know that it is a systematic body of knowledge that must be proven. Proven, which means there must be scientific process and evidence. In case of theories, it still is not proven.
Science tends to disprove itself only if something more factual (like a new discovery) comes up.
Science tends to disprove itself only if something more factual (like a new discovery) comes up.
| THE11thROCK™ wrote: |
| If you know the definition of science, you should know that it is a systematic body of knowledge that must be proven. Proven, which means there must be scientific process and evidence. In case of theories, it still is not proven.
Science tends to disprove itself only if something more factual (like a new discovery) comes up. |
Science is also dynamic in that it changes as these 'proofs' emerge. It's not 'set in stone' as some would think.
I am believed the science, other partly believes half suspicion.
| Quote: |
| Science is also dynamic in that it changes as these 'proofs' emerge. It's not 'set in stone' as some would think. |
Only if those "Proofs" emerge, as you say, can it be called Science. Otherwise, any unproven claims should still be treated as hypothesis or more so, an inference.
People who are religious are deluded. Why do they insist on believing on a deity that they never see? Heaven is what you make it, so don't rely on Gods and Temples to give you what you want. You make your own destiny, and only you determine the quality of your life.
Religion causes people to do some pretty horrible things, because humans as a whole are a relatively young species and are scared of the unknown. Science is still young, but soon it will be able to solve everything. With knowledge at our finger tips, it is only natural we will evolve into a more enlightened society.
Religion causes people to do some pretty horrible things, because humans as a whole are a relatively young species and are scared of the unknown. Science is still young, but soon it will be able to solve everything. With knowledge at our finger tips, it is only natural we will evolve into a more enlightened society.
I think that if you believe in a religion that does not agree with PROVEN science, you are a nut. Not to name any names.
I think god is just a figure we created to point out our faults and our good points and so that we can strive towards a goal to be better (evolve), but if you think about it we are a bit stupid, we pray to god for others poeples luck etc etc but what we really do is pray so that we can go to heaven (if you believe in heaven and hell) so mostly poeple only pray for themselves to feel better. thats why i think a real god can not exist and if he did wouln't it just be a live form with differend abillity's because we can say now that things like creating live with our thoughs are impossible but we can only say this because we havent experienced other wise so dont get me wrong but isnt science an explanation to god? Poeple believe in god simple because the can't comprehent everything and thats why they come up with science and god withs may be right but on the other hand can be completly wrong because we are limited by our own way of thinking.
I think the bible is the biggest selling fiction book... ever! I mean, if dinosaurs came before humans, why, according to the bible is Adam and Eve the first things to walk the earth. Also, it has a page 666... If they were that religious they'd skip that page. ^_^ These are only my views... Feel free not to listen to me. I'm only young ^_^
I am completely non religious, although there will always be something science can't prove or always some questions sciences can never answer like, how did we come to exist?
its so sad that to many pips here dont believe in GOD...
You should always put science before religion, because you can build upon science. You can't build anything useful upon religion.
And science can answer EVERYTHING. You just have to think hard enough.
my world religions teacher stated to the class that "religion" is just a way to get by life... i mean... u gotta believe in something to get through life? right? but then again... my belief in religion isnt really on it's highest priority, i believe in myself more. i cant just rely on miracles hoping for them to actually happen.
| otiscom wrote: |
| Religion is a man made moral standard and nothing else. |
I cant agree with this enough,
religion is merely created by man to make others abide by thier standards,way of life as well as law.
| blackstripes wrote: |
| my world religions teacher stated to the class that "religion" is just a way to get by life... i mean... u gotta believe in something to get through life? right? but then again... my belief in religion isnt really on it's highest priority, i believe in myself more. i cant just rely on miracles hoping for them to actually happen. |
You don't have to believe in anything, I think to get by, but by having a religion, you have some focal point to life. It doesn't have to that great an effect, and it shouldn't effect science either, if two was put together correctly. If you don't actually believe in anything, I can't imagine how it is you get by, or whether you actually just waiting to die, believing in science and getting by, that like believing everything is possible, so that some good hopes too
I just have to say that it has been the study of science that led me to the conviction that there [/i]is a God.
Science answers a lot of questions, but it only leads to more questions:
[list=][i]why do organic molecules always form predictably, geometrically?[/list]
[list=]How does a stem cell know what to differentiate into[/list]
[list=]How can a black hole suck everything into itself, and spew everything out, at the same time...[/list][/list]
And so on, ad infinitum.
We can explain how things work a lot of the time. But something, someOne had to have made it so in the first place.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. They complete one another.
It is truly heartbreaking to me that christian and scientific communities have been unable to embrace this most important fact in their search for truth.
Science answers a lot of questions, but it only leads to more questions:
- [list=]life is more than the sum of it's parts... what fills them out
[list=][i]why do organic molecules always form predictably, geometrically?[/list]
[list=]How does a stem cell know what to differentiate into[/list]
[list=]How can a black hole suck everything into itself, and spew everything out, at the same time...[/list][/list]
And so on, ad infinitum.
We can explain how things work a lot of the time. But something, someOne had to have made it so in the first place.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. They complete one another.
It is truly heartbreaking to me that christian and scientific communities have been unable to embrace this most important fact in their search for truth.
Usually I avoid these type of debates, but I've always enjoyed reading other people's point of views and understanding their justification.
So which is it? Religion or Science? Did God, or whatever diety you worship, create us, or are we the result of some primordal ooze that decided to get up one day and learn to dance?
Talk! Discuss! Mingle people!!
Food for thought! Bring back sporks!!
So which is it? Religion or Science? Did God, or whatever diety you worship, create us, or are we the result of some primordal ooze that decided to get up one day and learn to dance?
Talk! Discuss! Mingle people!!
Food for thought! Bring back sporks!!
Oh dear, not another one of these .
I believe in God, and I have witnessed His work, meaning I've recieved healing for things, I've seen other people healed for things and I've also healed someone (through God).
I also believe in young earth Creationism and I take Genesis literally. Every time I get into an Evolution/Creation debate it only reinforces my beliefs as I see more and more holes in the theory of Evolution.
.
I believe in God, and I have witnessed His work, meaning I've recieved healing for things, I've seen other people healed for things and I've also healed someone (through God).
I also believe in young earth Creationism and I take Genesis literally. Every time I get into an Evolution/Creation debate it only reinforces my beliefs as I see more and more holes in the theory of Evolution.
I dont believe in some kind of god. I have got al lot of friends who do. It leads to interesting discussions at some points. Some say we can't go to a restaurant at sunday because you are not allowed to work on sunday en therefore not allowed to let somebody alse work for you.
I still believe in the scientific part, but it's isn't really clear how it happened exactly. Although theories about the "big bang" are the most realistic in my opninion.
I still believe in the scientific part, but it's isn't really clear how it happened exactly. Although theories about the "big bang" are the most realistic in my opninion.
Read Epicure's letters
Then you will understand my opinion concerning God.
Then you will understand my opinion concerning God.
I don't really like the title of this forum : Religion OR Science...
I think you can't possibly think of one without the other. The world we know today is trying to answer another question :
"How can we accomodate scientific knowledge with the subjectivity of a belief in one or more religion".
Personnaly, i believe that as long as the mystery of death is solved, religion will always exist. Religion allows believers not to fear the end of a life through different scientifically unprooven solutions :
- ressurection
- reincarnation
Now science will never be able to explain life after death, thus, there will always be poeple believing in religions and mass suicide sects.
My 2 cents
I think you can't possibly think of one without the other. The world we know today is trying to answer another question :
"How can we accomodate scientific knowledge with the subjectivity of a belief in one or more religion".
Personnaly, i believe that as long as the mystery of death is solved, religion will always exist. Religion allows believers not to fear the end of a life through different scientifically unprooven solutions :
- ressurection
- reincarnation
Now science will never be able to explain life after death, thus, there will always be poeple believing in religions and mass suicide sects.
My 2 cents
Well you know what I think?
If there is a god that exists, he created us to think about this question.
If it is science... who created science? Who created the one who did it?
I don't believe in a kind of god like some people here... I think it's just our imagination's invention...
If there is a god that exists, he created us to think about this question.
If it is science... who created science? Who created the one who did it?
I don't believe in a kind of god like some people here... I think it's just our imagination's invention...
Hmm, I think there is no such thing as a god who created the world. I believe in the big bang and I think, short said, that people 'created god' with their own minds and not vice versa. Back in the old days (like around Christ) humans couldn't explain a lot of things of mother nature so they attributed it to an unknown 'something' they called god. That's in short how I think of it.
euh for me is very diificult to take a position for this debate.GOD or science.anywhere in the science, more thing can't explicate and this things is explicate in religion for example "the big bang".
IMHO, god is just a bit of imagination. Just look at all the different religions out there.
SCIENCE IS MAD. EVERY DAY THEY DISCOVER THAT THEY ARE WRONG.
SO THE MOST CONSTANT THING IN EARTH IS THAT THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND THAT MOUHAMMED IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH
SO THE MOST CONSTANT THING IN EARTH IS THAT THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND THAT MOUHAMMED IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH
I dont believe in God, but i belive in superior. I belive in ghousts, vampires (but only when i watch some good film with them)......... I think that we becamed from some kind of animmal but not from monkey. I'm maybe crazy, but that is what i think. There is some other world where are we going when we die bout it is not heven on paradeise. (sorry for spelling)
I agree the title of this is not the best, science is very much a religion. In science nothing is proven. Ever. You can ask any top level scientist and they well tell you that science doesn't prove anything they just believe it, and hypothesize things. They don't call it the big bang theory and the theory of evolution for nothing. Its called a theory because its a belief, just as much as creation, and intelligent design.
Anyway I am a biologist, a scientist. I still believe in creationism as explained in the bible, it as good an explanation as any other theory. Even the scientists that specialize in studying the big bang theory and things like that don't know what caused it, and how or why it happened.
As for the whole evolution debate, there is no way in hell that life was formed just by the chance that some chemicals, arranged them self in the right formation and then life just appeared. It is much more likely that there is a higher power that arranged these chemicals perfectly to create life.
Microevolution exists, but this does not in any way show how some random chemicals just sayed "hey lets organize ourselves in the perfect arrangement so that we become alive".
So there you go there's my opinion
Anyway I am a biologist, a scientist. I still believe in creationism as explained in the bible, it as good an explanation as any other theory. Even the scientists that specialize in studying the big bang theory and things like that don't know what caused it, and how or why it happened.
As for the whole evolution debate, there is no way in hell that life was formed just by the chance that some chemicals, arranged them self in the right formation and then life just appeared. It is much more likely that there is a higher power that arranged these chemicals perfectly to create life.
Microevolution exists, but this does not in any way show how some random chemicals just sayed "hey lets organize ourselves in the perfect arrangement so that we become alive".
So there you go there's my opinion
I don't really believe in god... God is for me a reason to live... But I don't think the science is best 
Personally, I don't believe in God. Nor that he can do any sort of "healing" or grant prayers, any of that bull. I used to be a Christian, I used to pray, go to church, all that stupid stuff. But after a while, I became an atheist. God never answered my prayers. And those of you that say he has, you're lying. All it was was a coincidence.
Kestrel - I'm not lying when I say I've had answered prayers. I've had many more unanswered prayers too. Your problem is that you gave up. I have healed people, I have experienced healings and I have seen other people healed of things. That's just the tip of the iceberg. You can call me a liar if you want, but why would I lie to support my belief? If I didn't truly believe God was real from the things that I have experienced then I would simply stop believing, but as yet I have plenty of reason to continue believing.
| coolclay wrote: |
| I agree the title of this is not the best, science is very much a religion. In science nothing is proven. Ever. You can ask any top level scientist and they well tell you that science doesn't prove anything they just believe it, and hypothesize things. They don't call it the big bang theory and the theory of evolution for nothing. Its called a theory because its a belief, just as much as creation, and intelligent design. |
I think it depends on how you define "religion". If you want to make your own definition, then sure, science is a religion. Other wise, science certainly does not hold itself under the constraints of a belief in a supernatural power. Science involves facts and possible solutions. Creationism is a possible solution, but certainly not based on proven facts. In fact, creationism takes all that science is used to prove, throws it out the window and says "listen, it's very simple; something we cannot see, taste, touch, hear or feel and that has some supreme power that guides everything we cannot understand created all of this so stop searching for a logical solution." Basically, religion is an imaginary story (maybe true, maybe not, no one KNOWS) which is told to people by people who believe in it as TRUTH, thus perpetuating an unfounded belief as something to live by.
| coolclay wrote: |
| Anyway I am a biologist, a scientist. I still believe in creationism as explained in the bible, it as good an explanation as any other theory. Even the scientists that specialize in studying the big bang theory and things like that don't know what caused it, and how or why it happened. |
Calling yourself a scientist, I cannot see how you can say that creationism is as good a theory as evolution. I hardly see how you can consider creationism a theory at all. It's true that both ideas are not completely proven, evolution has much more logical reasoning and research behind it than creationism, and to put them on the same level is to discredit everything evolution tries to explain with that logical reasoning, whereas Creationism is simply an unfounded idea that is based on an imaginary idea. I say it's imaginary because all anyone has to go on to explain creationism is solely their imagination.
| coolclay wrote: |
| As for the whole evolution debate, there is no way in hell that life was formed just by the chance that some chemicals, arranged them self in the right formation and then life just appeared. It is much more likely that there is a higher power that arranged these chemicals perfectly to create life.
Microevolution exists, but this does not in any way show how some random chemicals just sayed "hey lets organize ourselves in the perfect arrangement so that we become alive". So there you go there's my opinion |
You know what? I don't think some random chemicals "just sayed 'hey lets orgainze ourselves in the perfect arrangement so taht we become alive". It took billions of years for them to "become alive". I think your explanation of evolution is much more true to the beliefs of creationism, where some supernatural power just made that decision over cornchips and coca-cola one afternoon. You say "there is no way in hell that life was formed by the chance that some chemicals arranged themselves in the right formation and then life just appeared" ? Replace "the chance" with "God" and you've got yourself the explanation for creationism, that life "just appeared". Well you're stretching things because you're saying that life "Just appeared" when we see life developing constantly.
I'm not even sure what to say, you don't sound much like a scientist to any degree, just another believer who wishes to immediately disregard the undeniable logic of science and carbon dating and fossils and race differentiation. What's more, I can basically say I'm God, and as much as I know you would hate to believe it, I can say that I'm God without proof of any kind, in a completely illogical fashion. THis is the basis for creationism and religion.
| David_Pardy wrote: |
| Kestrel - I'm not lying when I say I've had answered prayers. I've had many more unanswered prayers too. Your problem is that you gave up. I have healed people, I have experienced healings and I have seen other people healed of things. That's just the tip of the iceberg. You can call me a liar if you want, but why would I lie to support my belief? If I didn't truly believe God was real from the things that I have experienced then I would simply stop believing, but as yet I have plenty of reason to continue believing. |
Perhaps this healing has nothing to do with God. Why do you not believe that this healing is the power of positive thinking and the potential of the human brain. We are resiliant creatures. Is as if (and this is NOT directed to you, I'm not assuming I know who you are) that most middle class, American Christians believe that such small problems they face, most of them financial (ha) are solved by some ultimate power of God when there are people in third-world countries who don't believe in God and fight to survive every day, no doubt having 10 times the survival skills that the said Christians have. It just makes me die with internal amusement.
Scientists are guessing. Prehistoric, evolution are some of the words that have nothing to do with religion. In the bible they said dinosaurs and man were created at the same time. But people have their beliefs and i'll have mine. In that case I believe in religion, God created everything and that's all there is to it.
aw...i kind hate both but if I have to choose one I gotta choose science cuz i'mma be a nurse when I grew up. what ya think?
| David_Pardy wrote: |
| Kestrel - I'm not lying when I say I've had answered prayers. I've had many more unanswered prayers too. Your problem is that you gave up. I have healed people, I have experienced healings and I have seen other people healed of things. That's just the tip of the iceberg. You can call me a liar if you want, but why would I lie to support my belief? If I didn't truly believe God was real from the things that I have experienced then I would simply stop believing, but as yet I have plenty of reason to continue believing. |
As I said, COINCIDENCE. "God" didn't do this. These things just happened to happen in your life after you've asked for them, possibly because you're more motivated to accomplish them, or see them in a different way. Just because you got something you prayed for doesn't mean this was an act of God.
But it doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't from God either.
When you treat science as a replacement of religion, there you have a problem. If you believe science is allmighty, and that it can answer every aspect of life, then you are utterly wrong.
Take it for example, there are still (many) bugs on the 'evolution theory'. Do you still think that a giraffe got a long neck because it needed to reach higher leaves and/ or got exposed to radiation and got genes mixed up? Or if you really believe you come from a monkey, that's a poor vision you have of yourself. I believe God created humankind as perfectly as it can get, and actually it has devolved over time.
Take it for example, there are still (many) bugs on the 'evolution theory'. Do you still think that a giraffe got a long neck because it needed to reach higher leaves and/ or got exposed to radiation and got genes mixed up? Or if you really believe you come from a monkey, that's a poor vision you have of yourself. I believe God created humankind as perfectly as it can get, and actually it has devolved over time.
I don't believe whole-heartly in either. Science can't explain everything, though it may try, and most religions have been editted by man over the ages to fit their desires.... Go fencesitters! lol
a.Bird - there are actually more people in third world countries turning to Christ and millions of those people are recieving physical healings because unlike people in the Western world, they aren't skeptical of their beliefs because of worrying about what their peers think. They are seeing these things happen because they expect them to.
Kestrel - I'm sorry, but my leg growing an inch longer and my back being straightened from scolliosus does not just happen by coincidence. They were healed in an instant. I healed my girlfriend's knee, in two stages over two days, she'd had a problem for a few years related to an accident she'd had while rock-climbing. I have seen many other people be healed. Saying this is all coincidence is just ignorance, you gave up on God, therefore you don't see these things. You are obviously not happy and you actually sound like quite an angry person - maybe instead of blaming God for not answering your prayers, you should instead turn to Him and ask Him to take your hand?
You see.. You know you're getting things right, when everything is going wrong. Satan sees you as a threat, therefore he throws up temptations both for yourself and for other people who you interact with, although those who are weaker spiritually (or not a believer at all) are more likely to give into any temptation and in many cases temptations affect more than just the person who falls.
I've doubted my beliefs in the past, many times. God has shown me time and time again that He is most certainly real. Please don't try and think that I'm just a blind fanboy, because I'm not. I'm where I am today because God has brought me here, I know He's real and that is why I'm writting this message to you tonight.
Kestrel - I'm sorry, but my leg growing an inch longer and my back being straightened from scolliosus does not just happen by coincidence. They were healed in an instant. I healed my girlfriend's knee, in two stages over two days, she'd had a problem for a few years related to an accident she'd had while rock-climbing. I have seen many other people be healed. Saying this is all coincidence is just ignorance, you gave up on God, therefore you don't see these things. You are obviously not happy and you actually sound like quite an angry person - maybe instead of blaming God for not answering your prayers, you should instead turn to Him and ask Him to take your hand?
You see.. You know you're getting things right, when everything is going wrong. Satan sees you as a threat, therefore he throws up temptations both for yourself and for other people who you interact with, although those who are weaker spiritually (or not a believer at all) are more likely to give into any temptation and in many cases temptations affect more than just the person who falls.
I've doubted my beliefs in the past, many times. God has shown me time and time again that He is most certainly real. Please don't try and think that I'm just a blind fanboy, because I'm not. I'm where I am today because God has brought me here, I know He's real and that is why I'm writting this message to you tonight.
| David_Pardy wrote: |
| I'm where I am today because God has brought me here, I know He's real and that is why I'm writting this message to you tonight. |
How do you know he's real? Because he supposedly "healed" you and your girlfriend? Yeah, whatever. Do you have proof of this? No. You can't prove anything in the world. Everything that someone believes or disbelieves is ambition.
And you say I'm an angry person? Well, yeah I'm angry. Christians and many other religions that believe there is one "almighty power" try to push their way of thinking onto others. Right now in our school there is a "prayer circle" trying to "get Satan out of our school." This pisses me off to no end. There is no Satan. How the hell can you get rid of something that's not there? They say they're trying to change people's way of thinking (the Satanists). But there are no Satanists in our school. They just want some excuse to bring attention to a debated topic. They want some reason to be able to pray in school, as it is illegal to pray in school (like at a convication or something along those lines).
Anyhow, I'm done discussing this topic with you.
| Kestrel wrote: |
| Right now in our school there is a "prayer circle" trying to "get Satan out of our school." |
You were kidding, right?
I can already imagine the what might happen next.
| Physics exam wrote: |
| Question: Why does the earth attract us?
Answer: Because God wants us to walk on the ground. |
why is it that those who line up in these types of debates only see black and white? both sides. Any scientist worth his salt is NOT an atheist. Atheism implies that you have evidence that a god does not exist. This is a statement that is fundamentally flawed. One cannot have evidence for something that does not exist. It's negative data and is therefore uninterpretable. If one cannot find any evidence to prove the existence of something, then one MUST withold their conclusions until they obtain key pieces of evidence (one way or the other). Therefore, one can be religious and be scientific AT THE SAME TIME, without being inconsistent with either facet of their life. think about it.
| illini319 wrote: |
| Atheism implies that you have evidence that a god does not exist. |
That's not true. Atheism implies that you believe there is no god. Just like religious people believe that there is a god.
| Bondings wrote: | ||
You were kidding, right? |
Actually, no, I'm serious. There's a group of about 10-20 kids from grades 7-12 in this thing.
I had a hard time reading this topic to the end because I have a hard time taking this topic particularly seriously anymore. When I was fifteen this seemed like an important question to me and I spent the next ten years reading philosophy, psychology and religious texts of various kinds. In the end I'm left with the same kinds of questions that I started with and nothing to show for the effort but a lot of rhetoric for justifying whatever beliefs or prejudices I had to begin with.
Unless you accept the doctrine of blind faith, which is antithetical to everything I value about human nature, then you have to accept that certain questions are unanswerable by human beings given our current intelligence and modes of understanding the world.
Language is a closed self-referential system and as a tool for examining the world it only works with things we can observe. We simply can't accurately label experiences that exist outside of our closed system. There is no universally observable phenomena that we can point to and label and so we end up attempting to draw analogies to experiences that occur within our sphere of understanding. In order for someone to attain knowledge of god or religion they must first accept these undefinable analogous labels which can never really represent the thing that they attempt to signify. Any kind of accurate knowledge about God or religion is impossible without blind faith. Philosophy is useful insofar as it allows us to question the nature of our experience but any answer derived from philosophy requires faith in a theory in order to solidify it into a dogma. "I think therefore I am"? Bah humbug! I think therefore I think I am. Science? As has been previously mentioned science works on the theory of the null hypothesis, (as I believe it's called? any scientists able to verify this?) which states that the theory that we accept as true is just the one that we aren't able to disprove yet. Science at least is rigorous in that it is always open to the possibility that it is wrong.
I believe that it is human nature to explore and attempt to understand our world and I believe that this is a noble thing and whatever tools people employ in order to attempt this I can only say the best of luck to them. For myself these days I find more genuine exploration in art and literature than in any of the traditional methods of asking the big questions about the meaning of life.
What do I Know though? I'm not arrogant enough to ask anyone to adopt my belief systems. Live and let live. Go with whatever does it for you just don't take it too seriously.
Last edited by hades9366 on Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:29 am; edited 1 time in total
Unless you accept the doctrine of blind faith, which is antithetical to everything I value about human nature, then you have to accept that certain questions are unanswerable by human beings given our current intelligence and modes of understanding the world.
Language is a closed self-referential system and as a tool for examining the world it only works with things we can observe. We simply can't accurately label experiences that exist outside of our closed system. There is no universally observable phenomena that we can point to and label and so we end up attempting to draw analogies to experiences that occur within our sphere of understanding. In order for someone to attain knowledge of god or religion they must first accept these undefinable analogous labels which can never really represent the thing that they attempt to signify. Any kind of accurate knowledge about God or religion is impossible without blind faith. Philosophy is useful insofar as it allows us to question the nature of our experience but any answer derived from philosophy requires faith in a theory in order to solidify it into a dogma. "I think therefore I am"? Bah humbug! I think therefore I think I am. Science? As has been previously mentioned science works on the theory of the null hypothesis, (as I believe it's called? any scientists able to verify this?) which states that the theory that we accept as true is just the one that we aren't able to disprove yet. Science at least is rigorous in that it is always open to the possibility that it is wrong.
I believe that it is human nature to explore and attempt to understand our world and I believe that this is a noble thing and whatever tools people employ in order to attempt this I can only say the best of luck to them. For myself these days I find more genuine exploration in art and literature than in any of the traditional methods of asking the big questions about the meaning of life.
What do I Know though? I'm not arrogant enough to ask anyone to adopt my belief systems. Live and let live. Go with whatever does it for you just don't take it too seriously.
Last edited by hades9366 on Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:29 am; edited 1 time in total
| Bondings wrote: | ||
That's not true. Atheism implies that you believe there is no god. Just like religious people believe that there is a god. |
Atheists believe there is no god, implying that... god does not exist. Of course, I cannot discount those who believe in a God, but are atheistic (i.e. acknowledging that a god exists; but choosing not to believe in it).
| hades9366 wrote: |
| Science at least is rigorous in that it is always open to the possibility that it is wrong. |
In an ideal world, this would be true... Religion and science are based on different belief structures. And as such, neither likes it when their structure is questioned. The raging debate over intelligent design is a perfect example of how science can also be blinded. Without getting into intelligent design, it is basically just a theory that attempts to blend some scientific facts within a theological framework. Sort of, replacing the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty with the 'god principle.'
The complexities of life are still not fully explained by science; that chance alone cannot explain life. The vast majority of scientists would then contend that these complexities will ultimately be discerned and the outcome will not include an intelligent designer. In science, we call this bias. AND bias, in the idealized sense, should NEVER be part of the scientific pursuit as it causes the investigator to expect evidence that would support the initial hypothesis and potentially ignore (miss, rationalize, exclude....) other evidence that could support different explanations.
The simple fact is that we do not understand life's complexity. If you decide to pursue this noble goal by science then go for it. It's a long, potentially ruinous, path that theoretically will yield the final answer. But for everyone's sake, do NOT delude yourself in thinking that you know parts of the grand answer (i.e. that god cannot be in the equation), because that would be greatest assumption of all.
| illini319 wrote: | ||||
Atheists believe there is no god, implying that... god does not exist. Of course, I cannot discount those who believe in a God, but are atheistic (i.e. acknowledging that a god exists; but choosing not to believe in it). |
Sure, atheism implies that there is no god. But like you said in the first place, you believe that "Atheism implies that you have evidence that a god does not exist."
We don't say we have evidence. Most of us (one of them being me) just say that there is no proof that there IS a god, so we choose to believe that there isn't one.
Very interesting view points in this thread I myself am a spiritualist, but I do not, however, belong to any religion. As far as creationism goes, I can't say that I subscribe to it, however the creation of the universe tends to be a very abstract concept, and its difficult to argue either way conclusively. One thing I do believe is that the Christian God exists, although I do not agree with him on many subjects (or more correctly, his followers). I also do not believe him to be the only god, or to be all-powerful.
My cent. Sorry I couldn't spare the other penny
I myself am a spiritualist, but I do not, however, belong to any religion. As far as creationism goes, I can't say that I subscribe to it, however the creation of the universe tends to be a very abstract concept, and its difficult to argue either way conclusively. One thing I do believe is that the Christian God exists, although I do not agree with him on many subjects (or more correctly, his followers). I also do not believe him to be the only god, or to be all-powerful.
My cent. Sorry I couldn't spare the other penny
I agree with CoolClay.
I am a Christian, and an aspiring scientist (aka still in school.) I believe that religion and science can work together very well. Provided that you relate science to religion, and religion to science.
I have a theory in the works about the Creation, Fall of man, and the decay of matter. Just for starters, what we think of as physical constants are not in fact constant. You can experimentally prove that they are slowing down. Taking the speed of light into consideration, There have been studys that suggest that the speed of light is on an exponential decline, where it is approaching a constant but never achieving it. On an exponential curve there is a point where the constant would be infinatly large, or fast. This relates back to the Bible at this point: Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Meaning the light was instantanous, and then at the fall of mankind, decay had an effect on this physical constant, dropping it at an infinatly fast rate and it has slowly been approaching 3 * 10^8 ever since.
Not sure that makes any sense in words, its much easier to draw and then draw the corresponding timelines and graphs. Hope that its somewhat understandable.
I am a Christian, and an aspiring scientist (aka still in school.) I believe that religion and science can work together very well. Provided that you relate science to religion, and religion to science.
I have a theory in the works about the Creation, Fall of man, and the decay of matter. Just for starters, what we think of as physical constants are not in fact constant. You can experimentally prove that they are slowing down. Taking the speed of light into consideration, There have been studys that suggest that the speed of light is on an exponential decline, where it is approaching a constant but never achieving it. On an exponential curve there is a point where the constant would be infinatly large, or fast. This relates back to the Bible at this point: Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Meaning the light was instantanous, and then at the fall of mankind, decay had an effect on this physical constant, dropping it at an infinatly fast rate and it has slowly been approaching 3 * 10^8 ever since.
Not sure that makes any sense in words, its much easier to draw and then draw the corresponding timelines and graphs. Hope that its somewhat understandable.
| Kestrel wrote: | ||||||
Sure, atheism implies that there is no god. But like you said in the first place, you believe that "Atheism implies that you have evidence that a god does not exist." We don't say we have evidence. Most of us (one of them being me) just say that there is no proof that there IS a god, so we choose to believe that there isn't one. |
This is all just semantic banter. As you say, many atheists say that there is no proof that there IS a god. therefore you conclude that there isn't one. In either case, you come back to my point. And that is that you have made a premature conclusion. There is no proof that there is a god. There is no proof that there isn't a god. THERE IS NO PROOF. Therefore... the whole thing is uninterpretable. One cannot make a truly justified conclusion one way or the other because proof is lacking. If you consider yourself a rational scientist who lives and dies by empirical evidence, then the question of a higher being cannot and must not be concluded for further proof (either way) is required. Being an atheist implies that you have already made a choice (conclusion).
quote from David_Pardy
your right its not coincidence, its something called DNA that tells your cells what to do, like growing for instance. Also there is scientific proof that people can grow several inches in a night but I dont have time to look it up at the moment.
also this is a quote I found on http://www.quotationspage.com/ but I dont remember who said it.
so yeah im science in general.
| Quote: |
| Kestrel - I'm sorry, but my leg growing an inch longer and my back being straightened from scolliosus does not just happen by coincidence. They were healed in an instant. |
your right its not coincidence, its something called DNA that tells your cells what to do, like growing for instance. Also there is scientific proof that people can grow several inches in a night but I dont have time to look it up at the moment.
also this is a quote I found on http://www.quotationspage.com/ but I dont remember who said it.
| Quote: |
| Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction. |
so yeah im science in general.
Nice try, Reaper.
I know what I've seen. If this wasn't God, then you would see it happening to people every single day, not just when they're prayed for. People would be able to think really hard and convince their bodies to heal themselves.
It doesn't work like that, sorry. Here's an idea: Next time you try and scrape your knee or something, try and will it to heal. It's not going to happen. If your mind can't quickly heal a bit of scraped skin, how can it develop a relatively large portion of bone and muscle within seconds?
Just for information, EVERYBODY will 'grow' a few CM every night because gravity is no longer compressing your body and it will relax and stretch. Measure your height in the morning and evening and you will see a difference every day.
I know what I've seen. If this wasn't God, then you would see it happening to people every single day, not just when they're prayed for. People would be able to think really hard and convince their bodies to heal themselves.
It doesn't work like that, sorry. Here's an idea: Next time you try and scrape your knee or something, try and will it to heal. It's not going to happen. If your mind can't quickly heal a bit of scraped skin, how can it develop a relatively large portion of bone and muscle within seconds?
Just for information, EVERYBODY will 'grow' a few CM every night because gravity is no longer compressing your body and it will relax and stretch. Measure your height in the morning and evening and you will see a difference every day.
What you have to do with the fact, whether GOD exist or not. GOD has nothing to do with morals or life.
You say, there is a supreme GOD, we should worship, if we want HIS favour. Is it a good system. In this case a good person will remain without support of GOD, because he do not worship GOD. On the other side a mean bad person will get favour of GOD, because he worship GOD.
Now you will say, that GOD only support good person. In this case, why should we worship GOD, if we can get his favour only by our good works?
And why you think, that GOD exist. Was there a moment, when GOd meet you and said, "Hello, I am GOD."
You believe in GOD, because bible says, there is GOD. But after all bible was written by human being. Bible says, Jesus was son God, He arised again after his death and a lot of stupid things. Do you believe in these things, and still think, that you are human?
You say, there is a supreme GOD, we should worship, if we want HIS favour. Is it a good system. In this case a good person will remain without support of GOD, because he do not worship GOD. On the other side a mean bad person will get favour of GOD, because he worship GOD.
Now you will say, that GOD only support good person. In this case, why should we worship GOD, if we can get his favour only by our good works?
And why you think, that GOD exist. Was there a moment, when GOd meet you and said, "Hello, I am GOD."
You believe in GOD, because bible says, there is GOD. But after all bible was written by human being. Bible says, Jesus was son God, He arised again after his death and a lot of stupid things. Do you believe in these things, and still think, that you are human?
The bible was written by men, but FOR God.
I have experienced God in so many ways, and even without the things I have experienced it is so obvious that God is real just by looking at the world He created - all it takes is a look at a sunset.
The point is that ALL men are sinners. In God's eyes, we are equal in our sin because to God, ALL sin is equal. The severity of sin makes a difference only to us here on Earth as we pay the consequences of our sin on whatever level is necessary - the point is that if we sin, we're a sinner. None of us are good, although we can try to be good, we are still sinning in some form.
God knows this, and that is why we recieve salvation if we make the CHOICE to accept God's salvation. Those who truly respect God and want to please Him will do their utmost best to avoid sinning and to witness to others - this is my goal and it is the goal of many other Christians. None of us are perfect, the closer we come to God the more we realise we've fallen short of the mark. I don't consider myself better than anyone else because I follow God, but at least I know that I will be with God when I die, or when He sends Jesus to renew the Earth.
I have experienced God in so many ways, and even without the things I have experienced it is so obvious that God is real just by looking at the world He created - all it takes is a look at a sunset.
The point is that ALL men are sinners. In God's eyes, we are equal in our sin because to God, ALL sin is equal. The severity of sin makes a difference only to us here on Earth as we pay the consequences of our sin on whatever level is necessary - the point is that if we sin, we're a sinner. None of us are good, although we can try to be good, we are still sinning in some form.
God knows this, and that is why we recieve salvation if we make the CHOICE to accept God's salvation. Those who truly respect God and want to please Him will do their utmost best to avoid sinning and to witness to others - this is my goal and it is the goal of many other Christians. None of us are perfect, the closer we come to God the more we realise we've fallen short of the mark. I don't consider myself better than anyone else because I follow God, but at least I know that I will be with God when I die, or when He sends Jesus to renew the Earth.
Answer this then. If god does as you say really does exist, Has he been a good guardian and protector of our world? War, destruction of the earths natural resources are some of the things this "God" lets happen on a regular basis.
Also if all sin is equal in his eyes I guess you wouldn't care if he sends a mass murderer or adolf hitler instead of "Jesus," this also applys to the concept of heaven and hell because if he judges everyones "Sins" the same then he would send everyone to heaven or hell, but not both.
Also if all sin is equal in his eyes I guess you wouldn't care if he sends a mass murderer or adolf hitler instead of "Jesus," this also applys to the concept of heaven and hell because if he judges everyones "Sins" the same then he would send everyone to heaven or hell, but not both.
| Reaper wrote: |
| Answer this then. If god does as you say really does exist, Has he been a good guardian and protector of our world? War, destruction of the earths natural resources are some of the things this "God" lets happen on a regular basis.
Also if all sin is equal in his eyes I guess you wouldn't care if he sends a mass murderer or adolf hitler instead of "Jesus," this also applys to the concept of heaven and hell because if he judges everyones "Sins" the same then he would send everyone to heaven or hell, but not both. |
I agree completely with you. Moreover, The bible is just a book. Christian people should dedicate to behave properly first and then, when they are the best people in the world, the most generous etc, I think it's then when they can jugde other's people behaviour.
Don't you think so??
Lena.
God is a scientist with a strage sense of humor.
| David_Pardy wrote: |
| The bible was written by men, but FOR God.
I have experienced God in so many ways, and even without the things I have experienced it is so obvious that God is real just by looking at the world He created - all it takes is a look at a sunset. The point is that ALL men are sinners. In God's eyes, we are equal in our sin because to God, ALL sin is equal. The severity of sin makes a difference only to us here on Earth as we pay the consequences of our sin on whatever level is necessary - the point is that if we sin, we're a sinner. None of us are good, although we can try to be good, we are still sinning in some form. God knows this, and that is why we recieve salvation if we make the CHOICE to accept God's salvation. Those who truly respect God and want to please Him will do their utmost best to avoid sinning and to witness to others - this is my goal and it is the goal of many other Christians. None of us are perfect, the closer we come to God the more we realise we've fallen short of the mark. I don't consider myself better than anyone else because I follow God, but at least I know that I will be with God when I die, or when He sends Jesus to renew the Earth. |
You mean, there is no meaning of morals. You will be supported by GOD, if you worship him. It does not matter for GOD, if you are mass killer like Hitler or Laden. If it is the truth, then Hitler and Laden has protected their seats in heaven, because they have killed people for there religion.
| nam_siddharth wrote: | ||
You mean, there is no meaning of morals. You will be supported by GOD, if you worship him. It does not matter for GOD, if you are mass killer like Hitler or Laden. If it is the truth, then Hitler and Laden has protected their seats in heaven, because they have killed people for there religion. |
Hitler didn't kill for his religion. He was trying to exterminate the Jews and make a perfect race.
I think that this will be a never ending question. I dont think there is anyway to prove eather idea. Personaly though.. I belive in evolution, based on the scientific facts and that fact that im not a religious man..
Aaron
AaronI think that we all belong to God. He's the greatest men(?) or spirit in the world and decisions are depend on his mood
in the world and decisions are depend on his mood | illini319 wrote: |
| I cannot discount those who believe in a God, but are atheistic (i.e. acknowledging that a god exists; but choosing not to believe in it). |
A person that acknoledges that there is a god but prefers not to think about it is called an AGNOSTIC. Either way there is no RIGHt answer to god or science...just my two cents
| PatTheGreat42 wrote: |
| You should always put science before religion, because you can build upon science. You can't build anything useful upon religion. And science can answer EVERYTHING. You just have to think hard enough. |
Non-believers often accuse believers of forcing their opinion upon others. The impression I get is that it's often vice-versa. The beliefs of science is glorified everywhere - and people that don't believe in its supremacy are called nuts. Now how is that respectful then?
| raver wrote: | ||
A person that acknoledges that there is a god but prefers not to think about it is called an AGNOSTIC. Either way there is no RIGHt answer to god or science...just my two cents |
No, no, no... an agnostic thinks that it is impossible to know if there is a god.
Here - For future reference to all included in the discussion:
Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God.
Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
Anything else... well, you can look it up. These are the three most common terms used to describe someone's beliefs, though, when it comes to religion.
| Arnie wrote: |
| Non-believers often accuse believers of forcing their opinion upon others. The impression I get is that it's often vice-versa. The beliefs of science is glorified everywhere - and people that don't believe in its supremacy are called nuts. Now how is that respectful then? |
First of all, science is not a religion. A religion is a belief. Science is an ever-changing guess based on facts trying to explain everything.
| Quote: |
| There are people that think religion can answer EVERYTHING. |
Can you build an aircraft based on religion and make it fly? Can you explain gravity with religion? Can you find the speed of light with religion? Can you build a computer with religion?
I suppose the answer is a big no.
If not, go to the top of the highest building in your town. Then pray for god to let you fly. You'll either start flying (religion) or experiencing gravity (science). (WARNING: this is a joke, don't try this at home!)
I really don't understand why people put religion vs science.
-Religion is a belief and should be used to explain religious things like god, heaven, hell and moral values. There is no possible way to explain moral values with science.
-Science is a guess to explain reality and should be used for scientific things like biology, history, chemistry, geography, physics and all other technologic/scientific things. There is no way to explain physics or biology with religion.
| Bondings wrote: |
|
If not, go to the top of the highest building in your town. Then pray for god to let you fly. You'll either start flying (religion) or experiencing gravity (science). (WARNING: this is a joke, don't try this at home!) |
That's ef'n beautiful!
"It is written, thou shalt not test the Lord thy God"
Sound familiar?
Probably not, I don't guess anybody reads the book I'm quoting.
Sound familiar?
Probably not, I don't guess anybody reads the book I'm quoting.
| raver wrote: | ||
A person that acknoledges that there is a god but prefers not to think about it is called an AGNOSTIC. Either way there is no RIGHt answer to god or science...just my two cents |
Get your definitions straight...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic
An agnostic, which I particularly feel represents me, remains skeptical about the existence of god, BUT prefers not to outright conclude one way or the other. you can call that non-commital. or you can call that pure scientist. either way... it's not the definition which you ascribe to agnostic.
| Kestrel wrote: | ||||
|