Science Vs. Religion

[RevKev]

Ok, I fully understand what this could turn into, but I'm hoping people take time to consider what they're saying before it devolves into that.

Over the past 24 hours, some VERY interesting topics have come up, mostly in regards to science. Reading over them, posting in them, and gathering responses to my posts, I've come to a conclusion. Science is a religion. Let's look at the basis:

It has it's own creation theory, which like every other creationist out there, boils down to "it just did". This is, as it was dubbed in conversation, "the God cop out". At least most religions have a diety to explain why, where does science get its?

It seeks to explain the mysteries of the universe. Sorry, but if not to explain things, why do we have religion at all?

It has a higher power. It clearly states that the laws of physics guide everything, even our own personal choices. That's a diety in my book.

It has the "my way or the highway" mindset. Afterall, if the laws of physics say you can't do it, it can't be done.

It has it's own moral code, after all "every action has an opposite and equal reaction". Sounds like a rewording of the golden rule to me, heck, it's dang near Karma!

It has it's own theory on the afterlife, even if it is just being turned into dirt, recycled into the system and starting over, it's occuring after life.

It can't "truelly" be proven correct or false. Try as you might, a taoist can debunk you in a heartbeat Mr. Hawking.


Off the top of my head, that's all I can think of, but hey, if you see more feel free to add!

I was just curious as to what everyone's thoughts are on this, and to how much of the religion of science you buy into, if any? How many of you are part of a more organized religion, and how many are pure scientist, buying into the whol kit and kaboodle?

[Nick]

Is spirituality a factor in your science religion or is it broken down to something simple like chemicals in the brain being released?

[steve]

I dont have time for a good post

Religion: A bunch of theories that all require "faith" to make any sense of

Science: A bunch of proven facts(and theories still) that draw on real life evidence to support them

Religion is just kindof bullshit... its like fairy tales.

[RevKev]

Steve, you missed my point:

Science IS a Religion. Just like any other, and it requires faith to prove itself. Personally, I believe a great deal of science is, as you say, a fairy tale, and that religion is the pure and simple truth of the universe.

And Nick, yes, science uses chemicals to explain spirituality. It's a cold religion of test tubes and warmed metal, thus why so many carry such a nast nasty temperment about it.

[NarutoNineTails]

u might wanna check out this thread...very similar to yours:
http://forum.narutochaos.com/showthread.php?t=6543

[Bap]

Science is just the study dealing with facts and such. Religion is not really a study of anything...

[Chidongan]

Science is just the study dealing with facts and such. Religion is not really a study of anything...

Whats scientology then?

[partlink1]

Whats scientology then?

well Scientology is just fing great heres what they think


In Scientology doctrine, Xenu (also Xemu) is an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of aliens to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to wreak chaos and havoc today.

These events are known to Scientologists as "Incident II", and the traumatic memories associated with them as The Wall of Fire or the R6 implant. The story of Xenu is part of a much wider range of Scientology beliefs in extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in Earthly events, collectively described as space opera by L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction writer and founder of Scientology.

Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, famously warning that R6 was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it." The Xenu story was the start of the use of the volcano as a common symbol of Scientology and Dianetics from 1968 to the present day.

Criticism of the Church of Scientology often brings to light the story of Xenu. The Church has tried to keep Xenu confidential;[1] critics claim revealing the story is in the public interest, given the high prices charged for OT III, part of Scientology's secret "Advanced Technology" doctrines taught only to members who have already contributed large amounts of money to the organization.[2]

The Church avoids making mention of Xenu in public statements and has gone to considerable effort to maintain the story's confidentiality, including legal action on the grounds of both copyright and trade secrecy. Despite this, much material on Xenu has leaked to the public.

Isn't it f-ing great

[Chidongan]

well Scientology is just fing great heres what they think


In Scientology doctrine, Xenu (also Xemu) is an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of aliens to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to wreak chaos and havoc today.

These events are known to Scientologists as "Incident II", and the traumatic memories associated with them as The Wall of Fire or the R6 implant. The story of Xenu is part of a much wider range of Scientology beliefs in extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in Earthly events, collectively described as space opera by L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction writer and founder of Scientology.

Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, famously warning that R6 was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it." The Xenu story was the start of the use of the volcano as a common symbol of Scientology and Dianetics from 1968 to the present day.

Criticism of the Church of Scientology often brings to light the story of Xenu. The Church has tried to keep Xenu confidential;[1] critics claim revealing the story is in the public interest, given the high prices charged for OT III, part of Scientology's secret "Advanced Technology" doctrines taught only to members who have already contributed large amounts of money to the organization.[2]

The Church avoids making mention of Xenu in public statements and has gone to considerable effort to maintain the story's confidentiality, including legal action on the grounds of both copyright and trade secrecy. Despite this, much material on Xenu has leaked to the public.

Isn't it f-ing great

THAT'S AWESOME!! way better then my previous religion. ^^

[animeking]

well Scientology is just fing great heres what they think


In Scientology doctrine, Xenu (also Xemu) is an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of aliens to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to wreak chaos and havoc today.

These events are known to Scientologists as "Incident II", and the traumatic memories associated with them as The Wall of Fire or the R6 implant. The story of Xenu is part of a much wider range of Scientology beliefs in extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in Earthly events, collectively described as space opera by L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction writer and founder of Scientology.

Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, famously warning that R6 was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it." The Xenu story was the start of the use of the volcano as a common symbol of Scientology and Dianetics from 1968 to the present day.

Criticism of the Church of Scientology often brings to light the story of Xenu. The Church has tried to keep Xenu confidential;[1] critics claim revealing the story is in the public interest, given the high prices charged for OT III, part of Scientology's secret "Advanced Technology" doctrines taught only to members who have already contributed large amounts of money to the organization.[2]

The Church avoids making mention of Xenu in public statements and has gone to considerable effort to maintain the story's confidentiality, including legal action on the grounds of both copyright and trade secrecy. Despite this, much material on Xenu has leaked to the public.

Isn't it f-ing great

I hate that F****ing cult

[Raki]

weird....anyway....hey Kev why dont u just put the thread name as "Religon is Science?" it would not misguide people about what they discuss here

[Flyin]

He's right, it's not really a vs thread, because as you've stated, they're one in the same. Who's cooler, Kakashi or Kakashi, who's hotter Anko or Anko. If they are the same, then it's not really a vs. I agree with you completly. I've studied theology for years, and it really is just a form of science. And Science is definetly a religion, as you've put together the aspects justly naming it so.
Religion, Definition: "The sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe."
So yes, science is a religion

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Wow, people misunderstand science completely if you think its a religion, mostly because science isn't a centralized doctrine its possible in science if something isn't proven undeniably that if you have another possible theory it is still viable. Whereas, in religion there is only one truth for each religion which can't be opposed and there is no explanation of why its true they just say it is.

Saying that newton's second law is a moral doctrine is just insane, I hope that was a joke. Science doesn't preach vengeance or karma its just saying that if you apply a force to an object that object applies an equal force to you. Moral theories based on science tend to be evolutionary in origin.

Moreover, its like steve said science always offers proofs and arguments in favour of hypothesis and if these hypothesis can never be proven they aren't called laws. You say its being closed minded by saying you have to follow the laws of physics, but the laws of physics change constently as we come to understand the nature of our universe more. Religion is stagnant and most recognized religions are over a thousand years old showing that they come from ignorance. No religion can offer a decent proof to anything it says, whereas science can offer a decent proof to everything it says.

Finally, religion is just a fabrication to make people feel better about their insignificance in the frame of things.

[Nick]

Wow, people misunderstand science completely if you think its a religion, mostly because science isn't a centralized doctrine its possible in science if something isn't proven undeniably that if you have another possible theory it is still viable. Whereas, in religion there is only one truth for each religion which can't be opposed and there is no explanation of why its true they just say it is.


Hang on a second, I must object for objection sake. Can you please name me one mainstream religion that don't have divisions among them where the doctrines are interpreted differently by the dividing sects?

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Ya, but these divisions tend to occur as a result of societal problems more than actual theological differences. Moreover, the sects tend not to gather with each other to discuss and determine what is the ultimate truth, they just say each of them is right for some arbitrary or societal reason and segregate themselves. Scientist come together at conventions at Universities to discuss and publish their ideas in journals to be read and critisized by their peers, they all work under the concept that each of them could be wrong and they will usually accept good proofs and agree on something eventually. As a microbiology student I sometimes feel like an enemy of religion because the things I believe from proofs are rejected so vehemently by religious people because some old book said it was wrong.

[Flyin]

Well, the Bible is veiwed as the most historically accurate book recounting past the first century. It gives dates, names, locations and events, all of which have been proven to have happened from secular sources. Use of science has proved many things in religion.
Also, he's saying science is can be taken as a religion. As he said, it has its own beliefs, and doctrines. It also has people who study it in all its forms, much like theologists.Some things are proven, some take 'faith' to believe, because they can't be proven. Both are in an endless, tiring struggle to attain answers to our questions. In most definitions, Science fits in as a religion.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Most historically acurate book of the first century, that might be a result of Christian's burning books written by heretics. Like I've said the main difference is that science doesn't say anything is definite and it accepts opposition, whereas religions are absolute without proof or reason. I can tell you honestly I believe nothing about bacteria that hasn't been shown absolutely true. No scientist I have ever met has ever told me something is the way it is because they believe its that way, whereas many religious people have told me the world is the way it is because their parents raised them to believe that.

Science is not a faith it is a study of facts.
Religion is pretty much faith in magic.

[Nick]

Well, the Bible is veiwed as the most historically accurate book recounting past the first century. It gives dates, names, locations and events, all of which have been proven to have happened from secular sources. Use of science has proved many things in religion.
Also, he's saying science is can be taken as a religion. As he said, it has its own beliefs, and doctrines. It also has people who study it in all its forms, much like theologists.Some things are proven, some take 'faith' to believe, because they can't be proven. Both are in an endless, tiring struggle to attain answers to our questions. In most definitions, Science fits in as a religion.

That, and whenever religion was challenged in the past it lead to wars...

[superkhanh0]

science doesnt push u and make consequences for not following it. and u can agree or disagree w theory in science but cant in religion
so i think science is greater and taking us to another level , religion is just same text teaches people over and over again w.o improving

[Flyin]

Why does it need to improve. Along with a decline in those that believe and practise religion, there has been a huge increase in societital breakdowns due to a moral dissalusion. Drug use, teen parents, random violence and theft all increased a great deal between the 1940's and the 1960's in North America, also conciding with the rapid decline in those following religious teaching. I'm not saying atheists are druggy teen parents, violent and theifs, and I'm also not saying that everyone in religion is a good person, but the teachings found in REAL religious communities do affect people later in life. The main principle taught in most religions is love. Although many people dilute what religion has said and become fanatic psychos, any who seriously study it find it doesn't teach outdated crazy laws.

[kjrav]

I peronally believe since in' a religion.While some parts of it can be related to religion science just isn't a religion.It dosn't use just faith as religion does there is a lot of proving as where religion is often just accepted.though science is flawed since it's impossible to test every circumstace, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are good enough for.Personally tough I use Science and Religion together since I believe them to both be right, ya know god i the cause to everything and science explains how he does it, ect.

[Nova]

That is quite possibly one of the single most intelligent things I've read on NC Flyin'.

And I'd also like to add that religion does change. It's doctrine may not, but it's easy to say that it changes from person to person. I know my view of Christianity is much different from my parents view. And it's because of outside influence, such as science and other religions. Why can't religion and science coincide with each other? Science can't prove everything, so why not let religion do that for us?

[Flyin]

Good example.
I feel in most definitions, and I did look them up, Science can be fitted into it. They're both intertwined, so why not group them together?

[kjrav]

I completly agree with what you just said nova, can't we all just get along

[steve]

Steve, you missed my point:

Science IS a Religion. Just like any other, and it requires faith to prove itself. Personally, I believe a great deal of science is, as you say, a fairy tale, and that religion is the pure and simple truth of the universe.

And Nick, yes, science uses chemicals to explain spirituality. It's a cold religion of test tubes and warmed metal, thus why so many carry such a nast nasty temperment about it.

ALright yeh, i wont lie i didnt read your post enough before i responded, but now ive read it and...

I dont see how religion is a pure and simple truth? The thing with science is, until it is empirically PROVEN it is a theory. It is philosophy explaining something that happens in our world and it is critiqued and supported through more research. If and when it becomes a complete proven fact, through countless countless examples with the same result, then it becomes a "law". Science as a "fairy tale" is rediculous. Maybe theories can be seen that way, but the thing is, evidence supports theories which eventually become fact. They are proven by using the world that, *sigh* GOD */sigh* to provide us evidence. If I argue from a religious standpoint even, God made this world perfectly and it was ours to use. Everything in it was good etc. Thats why when we use our perfect world to prove things, it is empirically correct. From a secular viewpoint... using our surroundings to provide factual reasoning behind something that occurs is the best way of determining the truth of this world without having to close your eyes and make blind leaps of faith.

So recap: Science has two forms
Laws: Proven empirically. You cannot argue against these unless you are using 100% non-fact based arguments.
Theories: Ways of explaining phenomenon. Theories are tested over and over and most theories have strong evidence supporting them. The only reason they are not law is become they are not 100% proven yet or still have revisions to be made.

Religion: Religion does not empirically prove anything. There is no sort of factual basis at all. As a christian for the first 15 years of my life, Im very aware of these elements and thats why I denounced christianity. There are alot of unanswered questions in religion, and when I say alot, I mean ALOT. People practicing their various values use one word to justify ignoring all these plot holes and things that dont make sense... "faith". Faith is what you use when there is no way for you to prove you are right or to fill a grey area. Faith lets you believe anything a bible or Torah says. As a pure and simple truth... I dont really see how it can be? Considering all religions have differences, hell, even smaller factions in religions have differences in them(ie, protestants and catholics). How can something with so much controversy... controversy based the interpretations of ancient authors and how certain things make you feel.

The way I see it... Logic is the way to explain the world. If God made this world and wanted to provide us with a pure and simple truth.. he wouldve made it possible to factually prove his existence on this earth. Im not saying God doesnt exist, but I am saying that you cant reasonably argue that religion is a pure and simple truth.

In terms of fairy tales... read through the old testament, treat it as a book instead of a way of life... suddenly the stories sound rediculous, but are very entertaining. Good fictional literature... strange how god goes from killing women and children(yes... that happens) to forgiving all of humanity? Hum. Not very simple and truthful.

So... to finalize my post

Science: Science has proven laws and theories that have REAL evidence to support them. There is no faith needed because there is empirical proof. Until things are proven, they are not fully accepted as truth, instead, they are studied to find an empirical truth. In this way, science is not a religion. Its a study, a practice. A religion requires faith.

Religion: Collection of theories that people compound with "faith", an imaginary concept used to justify not knowing an answer to a question.

NOTE: Im not here to say that any one or all religions are WRONG. I am agnostic. However, If science shows me the proof, I believe it. I know the bible says you haveto have faith and take god into your heart... but what I hear in that line is "we dont know... so.... just take my word for it ok?"

[Flyin]

True. I must agree with your last point there, very reasonable.
Religion, is much like your description of a theory, there is some evidence supporting it, but no definite proof of what it says, for the most part. Most religions are quite plausable, before people rape it into a wholly new idea, but none can be proven. Thus, a theory which is where I think they get, Theology.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

No they get it from the greek word for God Theos, and the greek word for logic Logos, and it means study of God.
Your argument that religion is good simply because atheist commit crimes is absurd, that just proves human beings are idiots that can't act morally unless they are told they will burn for all eternity for being immoral. Most human beings are idiots and religion keeps them from screwing up, but that just means religion is useful not that it is right. People hate when I do this so I'll just say go read some books by Nietszche if you want to learn some philosophy about the stupidity of the general human populace and its relation to religion.

I will never except religion as a means to explain the Universe when everything that people look to religion for that has a use, such as morals. Is argued by philosophers who use proofs and thought experiments to prove why their views are correct instead of pointing to a deity. Except of course for religious philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas.

Trying to explain the Universe doesn't concern me very much because the Universe is so vast and we are so insignificant, and eventually we will all die so everything we do is insignificant so we must as well just live for the sake of living and not worry about how the Universe was created, and just worry about ways to use the Universe to make our lives more livable.

[Flyin]

The belief in hell doesn't originate in the Bible, and wasn't taught in mainstream Christianity until the time of Roman emporer Constantine. I didn't say it needed threats, because anyone can live with threats, "If you get pregnant then..." and "If you get drunk...." but it teaches children moral values from their upbringing. Society is doing better at it now, but still hasn't reached the same level that religion has in instructing children about moral conduct.
I never said it was right, and never will say any religion is right or wrong. I believe it is, however, a helpfull tool in integrating a sense of moral fabric in society, decreasing our dependance on programs to help those who denied the advice.

[KageNaruto]

That is quite possibly one of the single most intelligent things I've read on NC Flyin'.

And I'd also like to add that religion does change. It's doctrine may not, but it's easy to say that it changes from person to person. I know my view of Christianity is much different from my parents view. And it's because of outside influence, such as science and other religions. Why can't religion and science coincide with each other? Science can't prove everything, so why not let religion do that for us?

why not? because it doesent prove anything, its blind faith. ill write a book about a giant turkey that rules the universe with many vague predictions and a lot of stories. in 2000 years, will people worship it? hell, you never know what can happen! and then itll be regarded as almost fact like the bible. religion is unporvable, therefore how the heck do you know which one is right, and even if there is a right one.

and science doesent answer everything.... YET! bwahahahahah

[RevKev]

Ok, I'm going to try and cover as many previous posts as I can since I couldn't post from work. Most of what I'm saying is in regards to Steve, not out of targeting, but because I feel the majority of his post was well laid out, and presented by far the best argument!

First and foremost, we need to discern a difference between "religion" and "church". Religion does change, vastly, and it typically does so very quickly. The church, however, is usually inept at changing, and very rarely does it at any rate. So while I'll agree organized religion has it's issues with change, spirtuality, and religion as a whole has little problem. When a new idea is presented to a singular religion, it tends to adapt very very quickly.

Now, for those of you who say science is empirical, linear, or anywhere near right...you make me laugh.

"Moreover, its like steve said science always offers proofs and arguments in favour of hypothesis and if these hypothesis can never be proven they aren't called laws."

This was the qoute of the day to me. I have two seperate instances in which this statement can be proven completely false. The first is the "law" of thermodynamics. This one is so blatantly "the god cop out" that it makes me smile. How can you create a set of "laws", whose most basic principle can never be tested? Assuming this to be truth, like so many parts of science, is not only an act of, but a testament to, faith.

((For those who wish me to explain further, the very first law of thermodynamics: "The increase in the energy of a closed system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to the system and the work done on the system; the internal energy only depends on its state." is impossible to prove true. In our universe you can never, ever, ever, ever, have a truelly closed system. So it can't be proven true or false. So it can't be made a law. But it's counted as one. Sorry...that's faith to me))

The second proof of scientifical falacy is what I've dubbed "the rats and rice falacy". You see, scientifically speaking if I go to a barn, and place a pile of rice in a corner, and let it sit, it will eventually become a rat. We know this because of the evidence left behind. However, what ACTUALLY happened is a rat came and ate the rice. The obvious solution is rarely the right one, and without knowing the TRUTH of what makes everything in the universe tick you're just assuming the rice became rats. Once again, an act of faith.

Again let me delve deeper. You see, we're only beggining to undertsand the truth of subatomic physics, and without a complete understanding of everything in our universe, we're making allot of assumptions and guesswork to try and move forward. Again, the "it just is this way", or the "god cop out".

And you can't say that science isn't a religion, because it does take faith to see it as truth. How do I know? I don't believe it. Not a lick of what has been shown to me. I find it laughable, and a good discussion topic for theological debates. Yes, I do believe in a higher power, a massive one at that, but you can't make me believe we feel, love, and think like we do because of chemical reactions. I can't fathom that these electrons, protons, and neutrons are responsible for everything that ever has happened, is happening, or ever will happen. I'm religious, but that's a leap of blind faith I just can't take.

[Flyin]

The major events in the bible have been proven, and it serves as a good historical book for the ancient world, lying in and around the middle east. It is fact, as it has been proven true in many ways.
Yes, some profecies were quite vague, and left understanding to be a guessing game.
You can't know which one is right, but some are obviously....not. Just saying.

[Lixie]

I have to agree that science is a religion. I read Steve's last post about empirical proofs.

But for truth to be truth, however solid of a fact it is, it still requires faith.

Here's an example:

People with "extra-senses" exist. They see "ghosts" or hear "spirits." Is this really extra vision, or are these people actually experiencing the real world without any sense-barriers? How do we know that we're not SHORT of a sense?

How do we know that science is the truth? Science explains our surroundings, our bodies, the way we think and the way we feel. It explains close to everything humanly possible.... and while these explanations are backed up by physical evidence, how can we know any of this physical evidence is REAL?

------

In order for scientific facts to be REAL or FACTS, it requires an absolute faith. Most people have this, but humans aren't born with it. This FAITH... psychology calls it KNOWLEDGE. A child ACQUIRES KNOWLEDGE as it ages... KNOWLEDGE of empirical things...

But KNOWLEDGE, thus SCIENCE, I dare to argue, is NOT the truth, at least not the whole truth.

I am aware of the arguments against my philosophical approach. How can I deny the very thing... that brought us advanced technology in every aspect of life... as truth?

Easy. Science is not truth. Science is rather an extremely clever manipulation of knowledge. Knowledge acquired through out the ages by evolution. Fire. The wheel. Manipulation of knowledge and experience... manipulation built so much into our human culture that it there leaves little room for doubt... and so it becomes human nature to believe science as factual truth.

Science occupies the mind and gives if a false sense of truth... and this is the reason for the lack of pursuit of Truth in human nature. It's rather sad.

Or maybe I'm just a crazed rambler.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

I'm sorry to burst your bubble rev but the first law of thermodynamics although it can't be observed exactly, we can isolate a system well enough to estimate enthalpy and energy to a very precise amount ok here goes I'm getting technical.

1st law:
dE=q+w
dE=Efinal - Einitial

and at P constand q(irreversible) = dH

Now although you can't have a close system if you have a very good estimate using a calorimetre and with the second law

dG=dH-TdS

you can use measures of heat and work to measure values of the entropy and gibbs free energy, and melting points of protein can be calculated using the 2 laws of thermodynamics and they always work. Now this seems like proof to me if we are always able to estimate something to reasonable amount. Not only can it be used to calculate melting points, you can calculate equilibrium constants, and explain why objects fall spontaneously instead of resisting gravity, why an elastic contracts and much much more. Now there is much more proof, but I don't know it because I don't have a PhD. in physical Chemistry.

To the second example, that is what scientist originally thought, people actually believed in spontaneous generation. However, the scientific method prevailed and Francisco Redi and Louis Pasteur proved the theory of biogenesis. So even though our initial conclusions can be wrong the value of science is that it never stops searching for new answers.

To Lixie, oy meta-physics gives me a headache you can make up anything, even religious people accept that our world exists. Maybe we all live in people's dreams, or in the Matrix this kind of speculation always bothers me because there really is no way to disprove it. Descartres when asked "what if the world is just a trick being played on us by a demon" thought about this for a long period and came to the conclusion that the world has no value, but the value inside our own mind since its the only definite proof that we can rely on, which is "I think therefore I am" we only know for sure that our consciousness exists and nothing else.

[Flyin]

"Neo, you must choose. The red pill, or the blue pill."

You just said that you can assume that it reasonable. Yes, but can you be 100% sure, not without a test, so like he said, it's still faith. I know it's reasonable, but that is to our knowledge thusfar. So like you said, science is continually advancing, to answer these questions better. Religion just put forth ideas into the questions science has not answered. Why, How...these can't be proven, only reasonably guessed, so many believe their guess is as reasonable as yours is.

[steve]

K, good post! I am in the middle of writing a paper for polisci so Ill try to do this simply and effectively with much less of the talking.

Your argument aimed to disprove the laws created by science through two examples:
In terms of the law of thermodynamics, I will respond first by giving you a link to a webpage(shitty academic resource, I know, but I dont have the time right now)
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookEner1.html

The Law of thermodynamics, simplified, is the statement that energy can never be destroyed or created and that all the energy that will ever exist exists right now. Energy takes different forms and performs different functions. In terms of a closed system, its better to word it, If no outside energy enters a system, the output or energy within that system is the same.
Now, Im no scientist so these may be lame examples but possible ways of proving this:
1. Sunlight strikes plant. Energy is absorbed in plant. Plant uses energy(energy changes form) to grow larger and maintaining good health. THe energy transformation and transferral takes place within cells, then is transported and used in the correct manner to make this plant grow. Again, Im no scientists, I dropped gr 12 bio and I almost failed gr 11, but I do remember it being fully explained.

Second: You Throw a Ball at a friend. Ball has kinetic-movement-energy. Ball is caught, the energy the ball had is expended into the glove, the glove contorts and the energy from the ball causes your friends arm to move.

Unless someone can give better scientific examples, Ill stand by those... Its the law that energy cannot be made or destroyed and has been proven empirically.

The rice-rat philo. The thing is, scientists do not claim something to be a law until they have explained all the steps in between. (shit I wish I was a scientist right now... I remember concepts from psych100 but cant use technical terms). For example, eyesight, rays of light enter your eyes, cells called, Rods and Cones(cells that have been phsyicially proven to exist) take this light, transfer it into nerve impulses which then travel on nerves to the brain where they are produced.
What Im saying is, the whole POINT of science isnt to assume whats happening in between A and C, its to understand what is B, why B happens, can B be controlled? When does it occur? And so on, neverending variables. Its not about seeing the beginning and the end and assuming its a law.

You make a hypothesis, yes. I hypothesis the reason my roommate isnt home yet is because his girlfriends dog died yesterday.(true story!) This is a logical statement that I have come to using logic, not faith. As an empiricist, I set out to prove or disprove my theory by getting on the skytrain, going to North Van, going to her house and seeing if my roommate is there holding her in his arms. If the answer is yes, I have empirically proven my hypothesis, it is now fact. The fact that through using my senses and my evidence I have come to the conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that my roommate is there right now.
Never did I use faith... only theory and logic.

Anyways, science AIMS to explain B in every circumstance. It hasnt done it yet, thats why alot of hypothesis are just theories while scientists find ways to explain C through empirical associations.

For example: When I was /// trying \\\ to study science, I was taught the whole electron, proton neutron theory. THEORY. In no way is it accepted as truth and over the past century, the concept and image of particles have changed greatly. However, scientific experiments to prove or disprove the existence of these atoms has so far, recommended that there is truth in the statement. That said, the scientific community does not believe they exist. They aim to discover the truth... but they dont use faith in any way during this. Only empirical reasoning.

Thats my best disprovement (not a real word!) of science as a religion.

In terms of how I feel, ohh wow, I remember what i wanted to say way long ago, in terms of feelings, personality, what makes you, YOU... let me quote one of the few things i remember from lecture in psych.

There was a man, a construction worker. He was a nice man, loved his family, had a very defined personality. One day a metal bar went through his head. He didnt die! However, after he returned home, his family quickly noticed changes to his personality. He had lost a love for family and activities he previously loved. His interests had moved in a different direction. He was essentially, a different person. My point is... your body controls who you are, you use your mind, an amazing development in lifeforms, to reason, decide how things make you feel, etc etc. These internal chemicals and external influences create who you are, and if you alter these, you arent who you are anymore.

You throw me into the ghetto of new york... im not going to be a binge drinking university student anymore(... im going to be dead). Socialization factors.

You change who my mom is... Im not going to have redhair and a crazy temper.

Change my past experiences, Ill have a different outlook... I mean, part of who I am is agnostic, thats part of my existence, however, if I hadnt been raised Christian, theres a strong possibility I wouldnt be agnostic right now. In fact, I may even be christian myself, or worse... Jewish...(kidding)

My point is, who you are is a product of influences... not gods hand.


END

ps. although we have differing opinions on this matter, im enjoying going back and forth on it. No point in having convictions if you cant compare them with someone who feels differently.

EDIT: I see that someone with more knowledge then myself(tiredsleepy) has performed what I was trying to do with this post.

I also see that this was like... 50 times longer then i wanted it to be.

EDITX2: Lixie posted? I cant respond to that right now. I will stand by what I said about empiricism being the only way to factualize(not a real word!!) B in the A B C relationship.

EDITX3: If anyone is out there lurking waiting for the perfect chance to jump in with a completely ridiculous argument like "STFU! BURGERS ARE THE BEST!" please dont do it right now... that took me like... 20 minutes to write. I hear the spam zone is having a sale.

[006]

forget it im too tired to make a point Ima go to bed and rest on it
See you in the morning =3
And btw
Science cannot prove religion wrong and same for religion
time will tell...no one will ever be right or wrong until one finds and absoulute right in either
im sure we can all agree to that?

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

To flyin, no explanation given by religion can ever be called "reasonable".

Good post steve although I found your example of how plants use energy entertaining. The plants contain chloroplast, which contain pigments which are arranged with one oxygen molecule at the centre of the pigment, the other molecules of the pigment are agitated by energy from the sun (additive wave properties oooo) and transfer that energy to the oxygen at the centre which dislodges an electron which is carried through the electron transfer chain to produce ATP in the mitochondria. Atleast thats as well as I remember it since I haven't studied cell metabolism in a little bit I'm more of an enzymes and DNA type person.

[Flyin]

Dude, I know what you mean. I live to argue....and get laid.

It searches to explain, but can't in every case, which is why we come to reasonable explinations as to why. The most reasonable explination as to, HOW, was and still is, that something created all. It's inexplicably unreasonable to beleive that massive chaos developed the perfect living environment, earth. - - - - How'd that house get there? Jim built it. How'd that house get there? Well, maybe a massive eplosion happened and the wood, rock, and metal in the earth laid down in that exact order. The first is more reasonable, and easier to accept, just like creationism.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Except the the statistical probability of the Earth being formed the way it is is very low it is supported by the fact that there are no other planets that we know of that could support life like the Earth can. I'll not bring up stuff like the Bible saying living things were created at the same time as the Earth even though it took 4 billion years before any living things appeared on the planet. Your analogy isn't very good because although we can immitate the building of a house and we can go see Jim and ask him how he built it, God is no where to be found.

EDIT: except for 006 every single person who posted on this page was a Canadian...

[Flyin]

No, and the Bible, if you were to look into its actual teachings, and not just doctrines that are taught in the misguided churches of our day, doesn't teach that GOD created everything in one week, or that you go to hell if you're bad, or that you go to heaven if you're good, or any of that laughable junk. Yes we know it takes time for molten rock to solidify, for the air around it to become usable, and the water in the world to become potable. I hate how so many religions give religion in general a bad name. Damn child-raping priests!

[RevKev]

Tired, to say religion can't do anything is an act of discrimnation. In all honesty, taoism explains everything in a way that goes completely against what sceince dictates. You can't PROVE science is right without science, it's self approving, and thus not valid based on that alone. While I'll agree we can isolate a system enough to validate thermodynamics as a solid theory, useable even to calculate other theories. I'm simply stating that since a pure closed system can't be formed, calling it a law might be a little hastey. Also, my point over the spontaneus generation (props for being the first person to know the proper name of the theory, most people get lost that this was actually occuring) wasn't that we where once a victim of it. My point is that we are still doing it. We look at something, and because it works we're assuming we where right. But we know so very little about the TRUE cause and effect of so much of our universe, in another few hundred years people will look back on us like we where the idiots. "You mean they actually believed matter couldn't be created nor destroyed? Oh haha, that's just toooo fabulous!"

Steve, loving to read your posts on this. However, you're forgetting that science is only ONE example of reason given for why the ball acts the way it does. It has nothing to do with physics, but rather with belief. You believed the ball would stop in the glove, and so it did. That's it. No subatomic reactions flowing through. Scientifically it's flawless. I drop a book, it falls becase I believed it would. I can use science to validate the theory, test it, and prove it into law. It's religion proven through science, doesn't mean you have to belieive it too!

[Named]

And Science is definetly a religion, as you've put together the aspects justly naming it so.
Religion, Definition: "The sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe."
So yes, science is a religion

Absolutely not! Religion is identified as the belief in and worship of a God or gods. There are no gods of science. But more importantly than this, the WORLDVIEW behind a scientific mind and a religious mind are fundamentally opposing in every respect. One embraces an assumption as truth (Religion), the other continually reviews assumptions in order to validate a truth.

To call science a religion is an almost offensive ignorance.

In all honesty, taoism explains everything in a way that goes completely against what sceince dictates.
How so? I'm a practitioner of Taoism, so explain to me how the philosophy of living one's life naturally in any way contradicts a scientific paradigm. What I take from reading, say, the Holographic universe is exactly the same enlightenment I feel after walking out of meditation with Shihan.
Let us say, for the sake of your argument, that one man of whatever qualification announces that his scientific findings disagree with a belief uttered in Taoism (excusing how absurd this is, seeing as Taoism doesn't directly address anything in the world)
Do you decide to ignore the fact that no other scientific theory disagrees with Taoism, and conclude, "SCIENCE DEFIES TAOISM!"
Or do you calmly consider that one man does not represent all men; especially those who do not agree with each other!

Science doesn't seek to prove itself; could someone explain to me what they believe 'itself' constitutes? What exactly is the form of science?
Science is reviewing assumptions made of observations of reality, it's a way of thinking - not a belief system. It doesn't adhere to a doctrine, it doesn't conform to any values or beliefs.
I wouldn't deny that some scientists adopt almost religious attitudes towards a theory they agree with, but this attitude is considered UNscientific. To use them as examples of the community is narrowminded and an unfair portrayal of what science represents; the pursuit of truth; the evalutation and review of assumptions leading to the validation of a perception.

you're forgetting that science is only ONE example of reason given for why the ball acts the way it does.
OH, science is, is it? Is that why certain theories are debunked by other theories? You paint the picture as if all people equated as Scientist inherently agree with one another and report in to a dogma. I'd say you couldn't be FARTHER from the truth. There are in fact dozens of ways to explain how a ball is falling from independent scientific views.
Again, I want you to ask yourself what you believe 'science' is, and what tangible form this must take on to evidently allow you to fire upon. I'd say your conception of what constitutes science is in dire need of reconstruction. Science isn't a theory; it's the way of thinking which leads to a theory. How can a method of thinking be the same as a doctrine of immutable beliefs? Am I missing something here?

I drop a book, it falls becase I believed it would.
I guess babies are genetically programmed to believe that, too, 'cause the same thing happens when they drop a book. You're wrong. The book falling is an observation. Where science steps in is explaining how that observation was percieved. Why do things always fall? Let's find out. An assumption is made, which is cross-checked with reality; it's scrutinised and refined or totally replaced by a more accurate assumption until this assumption does not conflict with forces in the world. Science is proving your assumptions to be wrong, so you can make them right. Religion is asserting your assumption is correct, despite all thoughts and experiences after the fact.
"A God exists."
"On what reason do you base that assumption?"
"Faith."
"Why did you choose to have faith in this and no other absurd, irrational and unjustified assumption which is equally unprovable, such as a giant space monkey drawing the universe with his magical carrot?"
Because the assumption is under no circumstances ALLOWED, in their mind (and according to doctrine), to be undermined by anything. Be it a thought or a consideration of evidence presented. The assumption simply does not allow itself to be reconsidered.
There is a reason why science doesn't like religion. Science likes things to be rational.


Science occupies the mind and gives if a false sense of truth... and this is the reason for the lack of pursuit of Truth in human nature. It's rather sad.

Or maybe I'm just a crazed rambler.

How can 'science' occupy a mind! It has no form! No set values, no dogma, no beliefs! Scientists actively argue with one anther on topics as broad as how the universe operates! How can something this varied, something continually changing, OCCUPY any given dimension of thought, time or space?

I'd say you're just a crazed rambler ;) One can be religious to a scientific THEORY, not to science itself. To argue the contrary is no different from reasoning that a devout Christian practicing Christianity is also a devoted Hindu. They're both religions, right? Eh, if you say so. You'll find neither Christians or Hindus would agree, though. One aspect of what we consider to be a religion does not therefore represent ALL things considered to be religious. The same applies to a criticism of a particular scientific theory or a scientist's attitude towards a theory. Neither represent science as a whole.

There is no solitary unifying trait identifying scientists, other than the employment of an objective method of thinking.
If you'll excuse the messy post; I found these particular utterances to be distressing and responded to posts in no sensible order.
In closing, i'll stress it again...The worldview responsible for science is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to the worldview responsible for a religious attitude. One asserts assumptions as truth, the other insists assumptions can't be truth. Do the thinking, people, how do they equate, exactly?

Why can't religion and science coincide with each other? Science can't prove everything, so why not let religion do that for us?
Hahaha! Because science is rationally observing reality. Religion is making ridiculous assumptions about reality. Don't even jokingly suggest religion and science can ever operate in agreement. I will to my death protest religion, BECAUSE I choose to understand rather than ignorantly assume.

[animeking]

Absolutely not! Religion is identified as the belief in and worship of a God or gods. There are no gods of science. But more importantly than this, the WORLDVIEW behind a scientific mind and a religious mind are fundamentally opposing in every respect. One embraces an assumption as truth (Religion), the other continually reviews assumptions in order to validate a truth.

hey isn't Buddhism a religion? and doesn't that religion not have a god? I'm pretty sure it does not ^^ therefore YOU ARE WRONG!

[kjrav]

Depends on the Buddhism.SOme Buddhist believeBudda is kind of a god, otheres belive that when you die you become one with the univers or are reincarnated.So yah some forms of Buddhism are godless.

[animeking]

Depends on the Buddhism.SOme Buddhist believeBudda is kind of a god, otheres belive that when you die you become one with the univers or are reincarnated.So yah some forms of Buddhism are godless.

yeah well lets just speak of the godless ones than lol XD

[Named]

hey isn't Buddhism a religion? and doesn't that religion not have a god? I'm pretty sure it does not ^^ therefore YOU ARE WRONG!

No, Buddhism is not a religion. It's considered a belief system or a philosophy. When people call it a religion THEY are wrong, therefore you are wrong alongside them, but I won't rub that in your face like you attempted to do to me ;) (kidding!)

When you argue with what I said above, you're arguing with the English definition of religion. And you know what? Arguing with a rule of a language is about as productive as arguing with a dog. Though by all means go ahead, if that's how you value your time ^-^
It was only through cultural ignorance that Eastern beliefs were understood by us here in the Roman Empire as 'religion', which is all we understood of spiritual belief. Religion is our word and has always meant the belief in a god or gods, and the reverence of those deities.

Buddhism and Taoism are two examples of what a religion is not. I'm a Taoist; there are no gods worshiped and no assumptions made of reality. It's simply guidance to live one's life naturally. Much of Buddhist and Taoist philosophy is only now being caught up with by scientific reason. Strangest of all is how we are now scientifically understanding the ramblings of mystics far in the East. These spiritualities and science do not conflict and they most certainly coincide, to what is often somewhat a shocking revelation; they understood the universe before we could.

To think what would have happened if Eastern beliefs took over the world before the Roman Empire got its claws into it. That is all 'the West' is. The Roman Empire. They brought their customs and beliefs to Europe, England. England colonised the world. Now America holds that torch, on Roman-built Christian principles.
Welcome to Rome, fellas.
Imagine if the peaceful, tolerance teaching beliefs from the East spread before the conquest of West. ;) But don't think too much, 'cause The Sage and I are attempting to answer that =)


I'll have to edit otherwise i'll be double-posting... Here we go again

Science being likened to Religion is one of the things which offends my intellect.
When we get past those names and examine the attitude and worldview responsible for them, they are unequivocally opposing each other by their very nature. One assumes itself to be right and denies absolutely any revisal. The other assumes itself to be wrong until proven right and encourages revisal.
'An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism' is a book advocating the stance of Atheism by not attacking Religion as is the common approach but instead defending the worldview behind it, which is the only logical way to go about it. You can't argue beliefs - they are beliefs; articles of irrational faith denying address by rational inquiry. (The invocation of 'God's mysterious ways', for example) The issue that is taken up with them is how they were concieved; ignorantly. How they were developed, which is not at all.

Religious Assumption -> Don't question the assumption or the sky falls and everyone dies! Alternatively, the religion hypocritically advises questioning, so long as the result of your questioning doesn't undermine the 'truth' of the initial assumption. Of course it's not really a question if you assume you know the answer, is it? God exists so learn to live with it... Apparently!

Scientific Assumption -> Initial assumption is broad as to not overstep any reason or possible validation by producible evidence. Undergoes a relentless treatment of criticism and revisal to narrow down the possibility of it being wrong.
This process rules out assumptions which prove to be untrue or unjustifiable from the assumptions which have yet to be proven wrong and thus are still considered plausible theories until -further- review of them can prove otherwise.

The former worldview is no way to think. In fact it's non-thinking. It denies thinking.

The original natural philosophers - scientists - were defined as those who broke AWAY from religious creed and dogma in order to see reality truthfully, from an 'unbiased' disposition (at least less biased than assuming one knows everything). It's insulting to free-thinkers and counter-intuitive to the causes for science to be at all thought of as a rigidly structured belief system with its own dogma, because it's not true. Just look at it. No one agrees with each other; that's the whole point. No one assumes they know truth, they try to discover truth.
The following is important to understand:
Certain scientific communities or institutions can be rightly accused of being no better than the religious they condemn. Insofar it is often true to liken these people to the religious. The advocates of particular theories, too, can be accused of this same ignorant zealousness. But these people are considered by Science itself as being unscientific. I strongly protest an individual identified as 'scientist' being treated as a servent to a belief system, because we don't have a code we adhere to! We don't keep ourselves 'in rank', for there is no rank. How can any action or espousal made by one scientist be held against all scientists, when we are not unified by any particular belief? It's ridiculous.
People are stupid, or they wouldn't be religious. Scientists often fall victim to the same close-mindedness. Science itself is not to blame. How can it be, when it professes no creed governing these men and therefore no single governing force to be held responsible? By this, I mean no Church we attend; no pastor collectives of us listen to and most importantly no single book of rules we all agree with and blindly enforce.
There are many different names for the same kind of ignorance - religion is just the largest offender, and religion was born from the same flawed human mind a scientist unfortunately must use to view the world.
If individual 'scientists' had the presence of mind to oppose dogmatic mindsets, they wouldn't succumb to vortices of intolerant thought.
In this respect, we don't have the liberty of blaming the 'science belief' or blaming some personification of evil such as Satan. When a scientist makes an error, it is his error and his alone. Accepted and embraced as a learning opportunity. When a Christian accepts they're wrong... Oh, right, they don't do that. See the problem? One is willing to reconsider opinions regarding their selves and the world. The other absolutely refuses to even give their assumptions a second thought. THAT is the error of religion. That is the difference between Religion and Science. Surely enough to warrant them separate categories, don't you think?

Science:
The word itself was derived from the Latin scientas, which means knowledge, NOT fantastical notions of grandeur to excuse the intellectual responsibility of trying to actually explain what was once beyond one's capacity to understand.

We should be actively trying to cure the mental sickness that is religion, rather than confuse the issue with misconceptions of scientific reasoning. Nothing but stalling tactics, if you ask me. History illustrates that there is nothing but a passage of time distinguishing Religion from Mythology, the former is fated to be eventually recognised as the latter. Science merely expediates the transition. ;)

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Well atleast mythology gives us insight into the human psyche, particularly when the myths surround concepts of human sexuality, I find the study of mythology and religion to be a very useful tool for sociologist and psychologist otherwise it can only have personal significance to an individual who needs to take a leap of faith and believe in something to make their life meaningful to them.

[Named]

Me agrees! Expressions of insanity (lol) are indeed interesting to study and important if one wants to better understand humanity. We're plagued by some fascinating things. Spread like a virus, too, they do.

[animeking]

damn your impossible to argue with o_o its like when we come up with something you find a way to out smart me o_O wow just wow

[NarutoNineTails]

Named just loves to burst the bubbles of ignorance. :)

[RevKev]

Named, I fear I must disagree with Tao being a religion. While I will admit you seem far better versed than myself, as I prefer the mysticism over it, in cunjunction with my Pagan ways, I've always seen the diety of Taosim as perception. Perception is the driving force behind everything in Taoism, and what is diety but a personification of driving force?

[Flyin]

I think the 'driving force' in most religions with a diety overloarding them is the consequence or rewards of following them.

I don't like one comment made here, I forget who said it, but he said something to the effect of 'Science and religion don't mix, and it's insulting to say they agree.' So far, I've found nothing that doesn't agree between the two. The only opposition I find is in the original creation, was it the 'BIG BANG' theory, or a 'DIVINE CREATOR', and since neither can really be answered, I have no problem in accepting the two. Neither provide perfect results, so I feel this should be less of an arguement, and more of a conveying of principles and ideas to relate the two, just like it started out as.

[NarutoNineTails]

Named gave out specific examples and explanations why religion and science don't mix. You just made a rebuttal without anything to back it up. Named's argument is obviously much more effective imo.

[Named]

Everyone has a perception. Taoism doesn't value their perception over other's, so even that cannot be considered a deity. And to do so belittles the meaning of deity.
Let me quote you a teaching of Taoism;
"The way which is uttered is not the eternal way."

There is no god in Taoism, and to not confuse issues needlessly, a 'god' remains to be a personification of a force, not a loosely considered effect of various forces. They have different names. If you do not worship a personified figure, ie god, then you do not subscribe to a religion. Taoism isn't a religion, and there is no reason to bend definitions to make it so. It's quite rightly separated from such things.

[RevKev]

Everyone has a perception. Taoism doesn't value their perception over other's, so even that cannot be considered a deity. And to do so belittles the meaning of deity.
Let me quote you a teaching of Taoism;
"The way which is uttered is not the eternal way."

There is no god in Taoism, and to not confuse issues needlessly, a 'god' remains to be a personification of a force, not a loosely considered effect of various forces. They have different names. If you do not worship a personified figure, ie god, then you do not subscribe to a religion. Taoism isn't a religion, and there is no reason to bend definitions to make it so. It's quite rightly separated from such things.

Not true Named, at least so far as the personification goes. I'm a Wiccan, first of all, and I don't attribute personifications to the forces of diety. The closest things considerable to personification would be the male/female aspects of diety.

And when I said "perception is the diety of Taosim", I did not mean the perception of a Taoist, I meant perception as a whole. Perception is the creator, the greater force. It is what guides and drives us, it creates us, and the world around us, and it can end us with a thought. It perdicts the future, and is even said to be able to restore life to the deceased. Personified or not, that is divine force, and divine force is a diety.

EDITE:
And Nine, while I would like to see more examples, Flyin did offer one. He offered himself as proof that Named's statement wasn't entirely true, as he considers himself both scientist and religious.

[Named]

I meant perception as a whole. Perception is the creator, the greater force.
Taoism teaches no such thing... There is no unified perception. Think again of, "The way which is uttered is not the eternal way."
Each individual is instructed to live one's life naturally. There is no basis of which they all must do so.

he considers himself both scientist and religious.
Without offering any reasons as to how this is possible, in response to my comprehensive argument illustrating why it is impossible.

[NarutoNineTails]

And Nine, while I would like to see more examples, Flyin did offer one. He offered himself as proof that Named's statement wasn't entirely true, as he considers himself both scientist and religious.

Trying to sum up science using the "big bang" theory is well...I don't think I need to go any further. ;)

[RevKev]

I didn't say I agreed with him, but he did offer at least some argument. I personally agree science and religion doesn't mix well, but mainly because mixing two religions never mixes well.

Also, Named, I have realised that you and I are both what is wrong with religion, and also what could be done to set it right. We both study Tao, but disagree on the principles to the point that it almost seems we're studying two different things. Of course it comes from the fact you study Tao as a form of philosophy, with myself being a student of mysticsm. In eszsence, you study the mind, I study the soul. I never realised it could lead to such drastic differences in viewpoints, but when one consider that Tao is about perception, I find no end to the irony!

[NarutoNineTails]

I didn't say I agreed with him, but he did offer at least some argument.


I guess I didn't consider that an argument at all or at least not an effective one. ;)

[Octo]

The major events in the bible have been proven, and it serves as a good historical book for the ancient world, lying in and around the middle east. It is fact, as it has been proven true in many ways.
Yes, some profecies were quite vague, and left understanding to be a guessing game.
You can't know which one is right, but some are obviously....not. Just saying.

When you state something has been proven. You offer proof.


I SEE NONE.


I await your documented links + sources. No biased sites, no Jesus fan sites.

[Flyin]

Ok, simple example. Tower of Babel. Back in Babylon, the ancient ruler nebbuchadnezzar decided to build a massive tower, the tallest structure of the day. This was meant to be worshipped. Then goes the story in the Bible of the 4 young Hebrews who would not worship it. Anyways, back in the 30's I believe, on an archialogical dig in the ruins of the former area of Babylon, they found a toppled structure, on it written, "Nebbuchadnezzar we laud and worship you". They found this thousands of years after it was destroyed, and after many thought it to be only a fable. Actually there's even more examples of this one ruler. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, those to were written about in detail back in the 4th Century BC, and are one of the only, if not the only written evidences of the place. We know it was there, because archiologists discovered it. Also, there's the fall of Babylon to King Cyrus. The Bible has had the name Cyrus in it for centuries, also the 4th century BC, as the general that massacred Babylon in less than a day. After examining the site, and having other sources citing the daily guard of the city, it doesn't even seem plausable to attack and win. The Bible says the doors were left open, the moat was dried up, and the invading forces of Cyrus walked right in. Well, around the 60's a few coins in the area of the city of Babylon were discovered with cyruses face, name and were aged to around the same time as Biblical Chronology told us it happened.
Any further inquiries you have, feel free to ask me.

[Hiyo]

bumped so people in the gay rights agruing about the bible can see this :P

[steve]

I dont feel like really getting back into this one but flyin'
The existence of some things in the bible does not make the bible true. As easily as it could be interpreted as god making a tower fall down, consider as well that you are a highly superstitious, religious culture. You build a tower to god and the tower topples. You are going to say the tower toppled because God toppled it and wasnt happy with you. You arent going to think about structural flaws the tower had.

Interpretation is something that you need to think about when reading old texts. I read Herodotus-ancient scholar- and his account of the Persians and their conquests in the 400's(BC). Well, the "Ethiopians" were a culture that the king wanted to conquer, however, after sending a messenger to the group to scout, it became evident that the Ethiopians had superhuman/unnatural abilities. They were twice the size of normal humans, had the strength of 5 men, and most importantly, had a pool that granted you extended youth-not immortality but pretty close.

My point is , perspective, interpretation, understanding.
If I didnt know I had a heart in my chest, I might assume the constant bumping was God reminding me he was here with me, a little man inside me.

In my opinion, much of the bible(esp. old test) is comprised of stories passed by word of mouth. - hell even the christian elementary school i went to told me this - but as a result of word of mouth, stories are changed and altered. Interpretation of events differs and what used to be
"The Man Died" has become "The Man was struck down by Gods fury"
Tower of bablyon? Existence? Evidence says yes.
Evidence that the tower was knocked down by God? says no.

[Flyin]

However, my evidence wasn't a matter of a historical document. These were written hundreds of years BEFORE the events took place. That's a bit of a coincidence, names dates and events coinciding with the prophecy written hundreds of years beforehand.

[steve]

huh? Where does the prophecy occur? Either your messages dont make sense or Im not taking enough time to read them carefully.

Whos prophecy was it? what was it?

[Flyin]

It was the prophesy found in the book of David. It gives names, places, events, everything is in there. That's all in regard to Cyrus, and the fall of Babylon.

*EDIT*
Sorry, book of DANIEL, not David.

[steve]

I think ive got my stories mixed up right now, so this response isnt going to be as well thought out as I'd like to think my normal standard is. The bottom line is I havent read that section and dont have a full understanding so Ill give it a shot with what I know by comparing back to Herodotus

In terms of predictions in ancient scripts, I maintain my word of mouth and scope of interpretation arguments.
I believe(havent studied this since last april) that the Persian kings name was Cyrrus at the time, but thats not important. What is important is that his "prophets" predicted he would die ... shit I really wish I could remmeber this better ... but basically he killed a "god" of one of the peoples he conquered. Prophets said that he would die a certain type of death as a result. He did die this death.
Point is: predictions are easy to add in when its not recorded in protected writing. What Im saying is, it's easy to make assumptions for people and add litlte truths to make the story better. Im sure that you've known at least one person who will retell the events of the weekend while exaggerating points to make it almost unbelievable.

ANyways, that was pretty unclear and defianetly not some of my best
I'd haveto actually read up to be able to give you a better response and honestly, Im not about to do that.

[Flyin]

No worries, It's hard to get that effort, I know.
I know what you mean, and I'm skeptical of many things of the like myself. They use something that the mystics of today use, cold readings. They prophesy a bit, and let the rest fill in later. And on top of that, Only the Correct predictions are made famous. You don't hear about the guy that said in 2004 we'd be in flying cars. It makes sense that it was incrediously correct, just because it was....etch and scetched to fill in the blanks later. But the prophecy, while untouched by the times of cheaters, was fairly correct. In 1992 they found something called, 'The dead sea scrolls' which were dated back to 650BCE, long before the prophesied events occurred. These contained a few books, of which, Daniel, was included.

[Octo]

It was the prophesy found in the book of David. It gives names, places, events, everything is in there. That's all in regard to Cyrus, and the fall of Babylon.

*EDIT*
Sorry, book of DANIEL, not David.

When a man writes a billion prophecies, one will come true.

[Hiyo]

All you need is one King with a fancy for storytelling to fill up the Bible with lots of garbage. I mean, it's not like one group has overlooked the creation of all the bibles since they began. All you need is one rich king to get peasants or monks to put in glorified stories about himself and worse off stories about his enemies. To enforce his feelings/rules for society,etc. It's easy to make procephies when you are paying to have thousands of Bibles made and spread around the world and you can say what to put in there :P

That's why it's silly to believe anything in the Bible. Sure they'll be stuff that's true, there'll be stuff that's sorta true but changed a little and there'll be stuff that's just purely made up. It's not like the Bible was created and the copies were made over and over without changes or additions.

If you have faith in a religion is should be based solely off a book that's pretty sad faith. Personally I don't believe in a god. I had a talk with my family once (who aren't religious) and they seemed almost scared to admit they didn't believe in a god. Having religion forced on you by your family from childhood does that to you. Most people believe in religion solely for that reason. If you grew up without having heard anything about religion and someone told you "hey there is an all powerful god that rules over us all" you'd laugh in their face.

I still think religion is great for society though. There's no doubt that without some form of religion our world would never have gotten to were we are today. But I think that religion is obviuosly starting to fade away and society is starting to be more responsible for itself. Although we still do bad shit, but now with the internet people have a way of making their voice heard. Hopefully some day people won't be going around bombing each other and using religion as an excuse (rather they won't be bombing anyone at all :P)

[NarutoNineTails]

I have new respect for the bible:
http://www.churchhopping.com/ten-verses-never-preached-on/

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Lol, too funny like #3 the best and the one with the bears.

[Flyin]

Ohh those are funny. My favourite is still Song of Solomen. Ohh the dirty guy's hilarious!

[ColdFire]

That's why it's silly to believe anything in the Bible. Sure they'll be stuff that's true, there'll be stuff that's sorta true but changed a little and there'll be stuff that's just purely made up. It's not like the Bible was created and the copies were made over and over without changes or additions.

I saw something really cool on Discovery Channel. It was some show totally dedicated to proving or disproving the bible's storys. Turns out almost all of them were proven to be impossible. Like one example thats obviously fake was Noah's Ark. They actually calculated approximately how big the ark would have to be, the time it would take to get each of the species, and so on. There were VERY few, if any, that were proven to be true. Some have been somewhat plausible, but thats about as far as it went.

[Jey]

I know that one of the plagues that god sent on egypt was somewhat number of pure night, it was actually the red sand on the pyramids, they were the cause and Egypt had for some reason believed god did it.

[isaiahLIII]

I was just curious as to what everyone's thoughts are on this, and to how much of the religion of science you buy into, if any? How many of you are part of a more organized religion, and how many are pure scientist, buying into the whol kit and kaboodle?


Revkev: Yes, I agree with your original post. However, it seems we all have one thing in common- we all get off topic. I've argued this with many of my atheist friends who aren't people of faith, so they say, but fact only. They're like "if there's a God then why can't we see Him, I don't see God." I say you can't see wind either but you still believe it exists. And yes, I'm part of an organized religion; although I don't like to refer to it as that. I heard this old preacher say one time, Religion is man's attempt to reach God- Christianity is God's attempt to reach man. I thought it was pretty cool and it stuck with me.

[steve]

thats a pretty cool quote

one that stuck with me, altho less of a quote and more of a concept is

Science is always open to falsification by empirical sources, religions on the other hand are non falsifiable, placing them outof the realm of applicable debate

I have respect for philosophers like Aquinas who attempted to justify their faith through empiricism and reasoning as opposed to nearly unquestioning acceptance.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Aquinas was a hack, his natural law theory is complete bs, I heard once that on his death bed St. Aquinas said that all the work he had done was "but straw". The best religious philosopher is the Danish existentialist Soren Kierkegaard, who argued that the value of religion was in the inability to prove it, because faith becomes meaningless if religion is an empirical fact, I also agree with his views against organised worship. Quoting from memory so it may be a bit off: "The problem with Christianity is that it has become too easy to be a Christian." It doesn't sound very poetic paraphrased out of my memory lol. Anyway the point is, that people don't come to realisations of faith and belief, but have them imposed on them by society.

[steve]

Aquinas theory of natural law was what the catholic church based its supremecy for centuries(and continues to try to do). Mind you, as an agnostic, I dont believe in his theory but I believe in a rational efforts to prove it's existence

I havent read Soren Kierkegaard but I liked what you posted. seems his view of faith can be used for or against spiritualism though... from an atheist perspective it sounds like the empirical exploration of religion may disprove it's existence and from a christian perspective, it gives religion a shield against it's scientifical critics

ill probably read some of his stuff.... what era is he from? still alive? notable titles?

[Flyin]

It makes sense, that quote. Another in the Bible is this, coming from Jesus, "Not everyone saying to me, 'lord, lord' will be saved. But those with a true faith will inherit the kingdom of the heavans."
The way I understood your quote was pretty much that exactly. Anyone can become a Catholic, all you do is get baptised and confess your sins and you're in for life. But a true 'Christian' devotes his life to following the morals and instructions within the Bible, something we don't see much of today.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Kierkegaard lived during the early to mid 19th century, the quote I took before is from his book Concluding Unscientific Postscript. (I guess Danish people don't have a talent for titles.) Another important one is Attack upon Christendom. His most famous, but not a religiously concerned book, is The Concept of Anxiety.

Here is a list of quotes by Kierkegaard on religion :

http://www.bruderhof.co.uk/articles/BecomingChristian.htm?format=print&preview=false

Also to fix the quote I put before from memory: "Truly, if it was once no easy thing to become a Christian, I believe now it becomes more difficult every year, because by now it has become so easy to become one."

The main problem with Saint Aquinas' theory is that all his "objective" conclusions require the admitance of God's existense, otherwise he can't prove any of his conclusions. Moreover, he completely plagiarised plato he just went through his works crossed out gods, zeus, prometheus, etc. and replaced them with God.

[isaiahLIII]

Named:
I believe Lao-Tze would be very disappointed. On this thread you have said:

I'm a practitioner of Taoism


We should be actively trying to cure the mental sickness that is religion, rather than confuse the issue with misconceptions of scientific reasoning. Nothing but stalling tactics, if you ask me. History illustrates that there is nothing but a passage of time distinguishing Religion from Mythology, the former is fated to be eventually recognised as the latter. Science merely expediates the transition.
People are stupid, or they wouldn't be religious. Scientists often fall victim to the same close-mindedness. Science itself is not to blame. How can it be, when it professes no creed governing these men and therefore no single governing force to be held responsible? By this, I mean no Church we attend; no pastor collectives of us listen to and most importantly no single book of rules we all agree with and blindly enforce.



Everyone has a perception. Taoism doesn't value their perception over other's, so even that cannot be considered a deity.
With these statements you have contradicted yourself. As a Taoist, you obviously value your opinion or "perception", that you dogmatically proclaim, over all others!
Taoism is based on the teachings of the Tao Te Ching (http://forum.narutochaos.com/tao_te_ching.htm), a short tract written in the 6th century BC in China.There are two main strands and schools within Taoism, usually labeled "philosophical Taoism" (Tao-chia) and "religious Taoism" (Tao-chaio). Scholars now say the two are not as strongly distinguished as once thought, but the former generally focuses on the philosophical writings of Lao-Tzu, Chuang-Tzu and other early mystics while the latter emphasizes religious rituals aimed at attaining immortality.
They do have a "spiritual leader", Sage and "a house of worship", temple.

"Once I, Chuang Chou, dreamed that I was a butterfly. Suddenly I awoke, and there I was, visibly Chou. I do not know whether it was Chou dreaming that he was a butterfly or the butterfly dreaming it was Chou" (Chuang-Tzu, disciple of Lao-Tzu, 4th century B.C.).Since no butterfly has ever been known to have questioned whether or not he was a butterfly, much less recorded such a predicament, it is probably safe to assume that you are Chou and not the butterfly. Man, that dude's been smoking too much opium!

YIN-YANG, the Tao concept of many elements that are contrary to one another, i.e. light/darkness, life/death, etc. Yin is represented by the darker shape and broken lines. Yang is represented by the lighter shape and solid lines.
Has it ever occurred to you that Taoism itself may be a yin of misguided thinking, in need of deliverance from the 'yang' of truth? Jesus once said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." John 14:6

Could Jesus be the answer for Taoists?
"There was something undefined and complete, coming into existence before Heaven and Earth. It may be regarded as the Mother of all things. I do not know its name..." (The Tao Te King, chapter XXV).

"What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you...the God who made the world and all things in it...He is Lord of heaven and earth..." (Acts 17:23-24)


"Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.
The word "theory" in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:

theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise, "science" in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:

sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either "science" or a "theory" must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a" scientific theory" must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:

nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of "science"—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less "scientific" than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God. "Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery," they reason, "the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science." Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.
It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it. There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.
Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens "science" up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions. But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a "science" strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism. The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of "science" to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the" scientific community." [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the "scientific community" exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]
The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like "There is no such thing as creation science!" or "If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!" What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution [I]must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists! A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.
So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a "scientific theory" must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard. "
-Timothy Wallace, author.

[animeking]

wow thats alot o_o im not sure whats more shocking the fact that i read all that or the fact that now i feel a little light headed after reading this o_o (than again i always get like that during discussion of this sort of thing)

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

It is not a double standard, because science requires proof to make inferences, and proof can only be derived from the world we live in, since other meta-physical worlds can not be proven through science, they must be denied by science.


The most vocal proponents of creatianism say things like "There is no such thing as evolutionary science!" or "If evolutionist would just come to accept God, we would have something to talk about!" What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to creatianism must be based on the same, oh wait creationist don't accept any alternatives at all, they just blindly believe. A better example of the ignorance of religion would be hard to find. :D

[Flyin]

A jewish guy I know likes bacon. DONE!

Yes religions as a whole are ignorant to the scientific facts presented before them. What I feel is that they argue blindly, opposing another theory. Science proposes factual evidence of their findings, while religion depends upon a faith into an unknown force. So look at it this way...Science is like a droid, and religion a darth lord/jedi. Although a droids reason and tactical provisions to redeem themselves from an opposing force may be better, the darth lord/jedi will still kick their ass. Thus proving Religion superior to Science!

[isaiahLIII]

Tired Sleepy:
Although I don't know you, I believe you're more intelligent than that! Those who know you may disagree. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt, obviously you're just screwing around.
Flyin:
I like the way you think! :)

[ScareCrow]

Btw, if you want to listen to a rapper who raps about science and philosophy, listen to Proclaim on myspace.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=27419390

BrainwashedRemix and Question Everything are especially good.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

The most vocal proponents of creatianism say things like "There is no such thing as evolutionary science!" or "If evolutionist would just come to accept God, we would have something to talk about!" What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to creatianism must be based on the same, oh wait creationist don't accept any alternatives at all, they just blindly believe. A better example of the ignorance of religion would be hard to find. :D

I was just rewriting the last paragraph of that essay to show that it was ridiculous because similar accusations can easily be thrown at religion as well. I just find any religious people calling others close minded because they refuse to accept what they believe is absurd, since the religious person will never accept that they are wrong. Finally, my initial comment that science can not accept religion seems to answer all his arguments of ignorance in science because science couldn't exist without the assumption that our world is real and the only existing world. Moreover, his essay is in no way an argument of science being opposed to God, but opposed to some supernatural force that is impossible to measure, this just means that scientist refuse to accept any sort of supernatural speculation, yet he persist in using the word God as if God were the only supernatural force that is reasonable to believe in and likely to exist. It just rubbed me the wrong way because the author comes off very much as a Bible pusher.

[Kholdstare]

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new Christian students to stand and.....

Professor : You are a Christian, aren't you, son?

Student : Yes, sir.

Prof : So you believe in God?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Prof : Is God good?

Student : Sure.

Prof : Is God all-powerful?

Student : Yes.

Prof : My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof : You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?

Student :Yes.

Prof : Is Satan good?

Student : No.

Prof : Where does Satan come from?

Student : From...God...

Prof : That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student : Yes.

Prof : Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student : Yes.

Prof : So who created evil?

(Student does not answer.)

Prof : Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student :Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

(Student has no answer.)

Prof : Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student : No, sir.

Prof : Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student : No , sir.

Prof : Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof : Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Prof : According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof : Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof : Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof : Yes.

Student : No sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof : Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make
darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof : So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof : Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite,something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof : If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class is in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Prof : I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student : That is it sir.. The link between man & God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

The student was Albert Einstein.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

This is the argument that God can never be proven false, thus it can not be concluded that God does not exist. However, this in no way validates Christianity, or Jewdaism in the case of Einstein, as a "true" faith because all religions can use this argument equally. Why is it that people think it is reasonable to choose a religious faith based solely on the fact that it is appealing to them, do they believe they have some special insight into the world that allows them to pick the one true religion out of the meriade choices humanity has created?
Kierkegaard wrote that God was a subjective truth, and that faith could only be obtained through an illogical commitment to a concept. That is what faith in religion is, an illogical commitment to an abstract philosophy embodied and represented by a suposedly sentient and omniscient being. There is nothing reasonable about believing in a religion, every religious person is just gambling on the possibility they may be right, since no one has proven they may be wrong. (Although I would say that evolution is definitely real from what I know of biochemistry and genetics.)

[KageNaruto]

so why did einstein choose the christian god instead of the greek gods? what about the egyptian gods. allah?

the point he gets across goes toward all the gods.

so is the answer that we go to all gods ever created exist because of faith?

me no like that-_-

[Kholdstare]

many roads lead to Rome

[Raki]

rome was where they first started christianity so its no wonder

[KageNaruto]

many roads lead to Rome
so youre saying that all the gods people ever believed somehow do coexist in the world? and if more religions are created, say a group of people praise a god whos actually a giant all powerful turkey, itll exist?

lol, i actually like that idea, our thoughts and faith, and the energy from that faith create those gods in a different dimension of this world which affect the world itself?

lol, pretty kool, but then how would the heaven/afterlife ideas go about?

(Still, I find this too farfetched to believe)

[Flyin]

I, feel the same as you do. But I am a christian. I doubt the existance of afterlife completely, because as I have stated before, the Bible, which I base my faith entirely upon, said there is no thought, no action and no wage after death, because once you die, you are nothing. Same with hell, no such place of torment, because then Satan would be the leader of that, who the Bible says will be destroyed, and banished to the same abyss that he would have control over (Paradox.) As for the 'heaven' idea, that is a toss up as I don't understand it that well. The Bible does talk about a spiritual realm, in which angels preside with God, but it does not say, 'If God likes you, you go to heaven!' and the only mention of people going there is the 12,000 from each of the 'tribes of Judah.' Other than that, it says people will be brought back to the paradisic conditions that were talked about originally in the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve presided, before they 'sinned'.

[Mighty_Frog]

i personally find it impossible to rely on faith and the bible alone to ground urself in christianity. I mean srsly,flyin,u sound like u read the bible a lot right? from what i know of the bible, in those days which it speaks of there were miracles occuring left, right and centre; water into wine,walking on water,the plagues,calling fire from the sky,etc... But yet there has never been such a miracle in decades? Many christians like to say this is because God doesnt have to prove himself to us yet in the bible there are countless miracles which were accompanied with phrases like "this is to show that i am the Lord" and other stuff like that. So why not now? This is the time where we most need it. Man has become so much more intelligent and so much less gullible that we will seldom believe anything unless we witness it personally with our own eyes.

[Flyin]

Yep. You're right. We, as a society, don't believe in anything unless it's shown to work. Thus we have late night ad's for the knife that washes your car, feeds the baby and does your laundry. Anyways, it's true that the Bible says that, but it also say's, "Anyone performing miracles in the Lords name, after me, and any prophets that come about are false." This was Jesus, saying, basically, that anybody that would be making signs and acts in the name of the Lord, God or Jesus, would be false.
I dunno', kind of like a Copyright on miracles or something, but either way, no there aren't any miraculous things now, unless you believe in the statues spouting blood, and the people with bruises shaped like Jesus and stuff.

[KageNaruto]

my look on religion is the same as my look on bigfoot, chupacabra, etc.

theirs things to back it up, but they are so lil and cannot be proven... whether you belive is based on you and your thoughts

[Kholdstare]

In my opinion is that there is only one religion, just many many versions of it. Question is when is a religion a religion and not some cult. Also you shouldn't take the bible to seriously on facts, like with the copyright thingy on miracles, you wouldn't take for example the The Davinci Code as fact, eventhough it states, I believe on the first page, that everything that is written in this book is based on real facts.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Difference between a religion and a cult is only a social stigma. They are the same.

[Flyin]

Cult - A religious seperation from society where a human leader rules and is the oraphace for the beliefs.

Religion - A belief in, mostly entities, where moral doctrine and presence in the universe is taught.

The main difference is in the human leader. Well, Catholics do have a Pope, who people basically worship.

The other thing is that Cults don't pay taxes in many countries. So, if you're right, I WANT ALL MY MONEY BACK! 10 yrs of repremendation (As far as our country allows).

[Raki]

hmm Does Amish count as a cult? They seem seperated from technology and the rest of the world

[Flyin]

Yes, they are. Which is why they don't pay Federal Taxes.

[steve]

really? thats kindof cool. Crazy amish

[KageNaruto]

In my opinion is that there is only one religion, just many many versions of it. Question is when is a religion a religion and not some cult. Also you shouldn't take the bible to seriously on facts, like with the copyright thingy on miracles, you wouldn't take for example the The Davinci Code as fact, eventhough it states, I believe on the first page, that everything that is written in this book is based on real facts.

the greek religion(did it evern have an actual name btw?) and egyptian one was definitly not a cult.

but in no way can these tie into christianity or judiasm etc.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

The difference between cult and religion is subjective, the Raelians, which believe that humans were cloned from aliens and that buddha, jesus, and other religious figures were aliens in disguise, are considered to be a cult everywhere in the world except in Quebec where they are considered a Religion.
Mormons are considered a cult in Quebec, but are a religion in Utah, so its a social stigma, people view cults as less than religions.
This could all have to do with the fact that the rest of Canada and the United States have a civil legal system based on the British commonlaw, whereas Quebec's is based on French civic law.

[Solace]

i myself follow under scientology,

BUT, I do keep many of my ethics which do fall under religious teachings. I mean, what feels right and feels wrong is something key that we all must have.

[spacecadet319]

rofl scientology

[Solace]

rofl scientology

i dont see whats so funny, explain. Amuse me and maybe ill laugh too

[006]

.... Hey solace your the first scientology person I have ever seen save tom cruise... or whomever famous person made a big deal about switching...
Anyways im not educated in the whole scientology thing.
What is it about...?
All I heard was aliens and hydrogen bombs =/

[Flyin]

Just watch the South Park episodes with Scientology in them, they have a totally unbiased veiw of their beliefs.

[KageNaruto]

rofl scientology

rofl the idea of a god

[006]

eeeee do I smell burnt toast?!.
I want to hear this be proved false xD
Decided to argue because I love arguing!

MATTER CAN NOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED. cept by god ;)
If thats so, how did space, time and matter become created? The bible states the god has always been and will always be... Science is just whats based off after all that just 'happened' and appeared.

[Auske13]

EVOLUTION IS DUMB

and ill tell you why if you wanna ask me

CREATION IS REAL

and ill tell you why if you wanna ask me

SCIENTOLOGY IS GAY

and ill tell you why right now it likes other fake male religons as it is one its self making it gay

[KageNaruto]

we got another brainwashed guy here! alert! alert!

im also just wondering, did you even study evolution. because unless you intensively studied it saying its gay is irrational

[Auske13]

oh i have studied it and find it quite retarded