You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
(nobody)
...and 283 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2613472
Today 10
Topics 127501
  
 
Messageboard index
Religion v.s. science?
 

offline Monoid from one source all things depend on 2010-01-20 12:12 [#02360789]
Points: 11007 Status: Regular



Are they compatible? I think not. Religions rely on
revelation while science relies on observable, repeatable
experiences and ONTOLOGICAL NATURALISM. Naturalism and
supernaturalism are incompatible!


 

offline RussellDust on 2010-01-20 12:14 [#02360790]
Points: 16057 Status: Regular



They are compatible.

Nice to see you, Monoid.


 

offline glasse from Harrisburg (United States) on 2010-01-20 12:15 [#02360791]
Points: 4211 Status: Regular | Followup to Monoid: #02360789 | Show recordbag



LAZY_TITLE

LAZY_TITLE


 

offline Monoid from one source all things depend on 2010-01-20 12:18 [#02360792]
Points: 11007 Status: Regular | Followup to glasse: #02360791



What other options are there?


 

offline Steinvordhosbn from London (United Kingdom) on 2010-01-20 12:18 [#02360793]
Points: 3185 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



Both camps talk far too much.


 

offline glasse from Harrisburg (United States) on 2010-01-20 12:23 [#02360795]
Points: 4211 Status: Regular | Followup to Monoid: #02360792 | Show recordbag



i am about to get ready to go to work. how about having a
poke around the 1st link and i'll peak in a bit later.
click "topics" on the menu bar on the left.


 

offline Guybrush from the white room on 2010-01-20 12:24 [#02360797]
Points: 2556 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



scientology - both religion and science.


 

offline khrimson from the fridge on 2010-01-20 12:33 [#02360799]
Points: 1757 Status: Regular



religion relies on faith

science relies on observation of measurable facts

in modern physics, especially in the very big and very small
domains, nothing is really measurable. There's Heisenberg
theorem for very small and deep space hubble telescope
imagery for very big scenarios as examples of this
indetermination. That's where human free will come into
place, you can be good or bad. That's the inner teaching of
religion belief systems, they teach you why you should be
good, trough stories, methaphors and simple laws of
conduct.

As far as I know most of great scientists believe in god in
some sort of another. Faith is a personal matter anyways, I
don't think forcing someone into believe makes a true
believer.

Salamaleikum


 

offline Monoid from one source all things depend on 2010-01-20 12:44 [#02360800]
Points: 11007 Status: Regular | Followup to khrimson: #02360799



Nothing is really measurable, I agree with this, but this
doesn't change anything. A scientific theory, even if it is
well verfied, can never be 100% true.

Religion and moral (and theory of moral - Ethic) have
nothing to do with each other


 

offline khrimson from the fridge on 2010-01-20 12:46 [#02360803]
Points: 1757 Status: Regular



yes they have, infact religion is all about morals


 

offline Monoid from one source all things depend on 2010-01-20 12:50 [#02360805]
Points: 11007 Status: Regular | Followup to glasse: #02360795



I don't know what kind of site is this?

"that it takes at least as much faith to believe in the
theory of evolution as in creation by a supernatural God

"And in reality, evolution has more characteristics of a
“myth” than of a scientific theory."

This is a bit laughable, dont you think?


 

offline Cliff Glitchard from DEEP DOWN INSIDE on 2010-01-20 12:51 [#02360806]
Points: 4158 Status: Lurker



science wins by k.o.


 

offline Monoid from one source all things depend on 2010-01-20 12:53 [#02360807]
Points: 11007 Status: Regular | Followup to khrimson: #02360803



The fundamental problem of a supernatural morality was
pin-pointed by Plato. Is a moral quality right intrinsically
(than we have a moral standard that was NOT created by god,
but someone else) or is it right because a supernatural
being has declared or commanded it to be right. Is the
Christian god 'good' because he declared himself to be
"good"?



 

offline khrimson from the fridge on 2010-01-20 12:54 [#02360808]
Points: 1757 Status: Regular



american people believing god magically created the universe
6000 years ago obviously are silly people


 

offline Monoid from one source all things depend on 2010-01-20 12:59 [#02360809]
Points: 11007 Status: Regular



The goal of the ID and creationist movement is to destroy
science and progress and to establish a theocracy. They are
the al-qaida of the western world.



 

offline nightex from Šiauliai (Lithuania) on 2010-01-20 13:00 [#02360810]
Points: 1275 Status: Lurker



Looking from my position science is truth, religion is not.

Some people thing science and religion can coexist together.
I think great example would be Ph.D Francis
Collins.Francis Collins responds to Sam Harris' criticism


 

offline toby from ^_^ (China) on 2010-01-20 13:00 [#02360811]
Points: 373 Status: Regular



everything is good when there are morals there, you cant
deny that religion shapes a lot of this but it sure gets
crazy sometimes.
Just because some are clever enough to see how best to be a
good person do'snt mean that everyone is there. some still
need leaders i think


 

offline toby from ^_^ (China) on 2010-01-20 13:02 [#02360813]
Points: 373 Status: Regular



science wont teach morals tho


 

offline Monoid from one source all things depend on 2010-01-20 13:06 [#02360814]
Points: 11007 Status: Regular | Followup to toby: #02360813



No. But philosophy will. The philosophical ethic is a lot
older than the christian ethic.


 

offline khrimson from the fridge on 2010-01-20 13:10 [#02360815]
Points: 1757 Status: Regular | Followup to Monoid: #02360807



ok, we're about talking western religions.

I think the good attitude points towards thriving of
life so it is innate in our behaviour (most of us anyways).
God didn't declared himself good, in the christian vision he
set the rules of the universe, going against these rules
brings to unhappiness, and ultimately to damnation.

Science might have done good for a whole good lot of people
on this planet, still there are some that suffer terrible
pains because of the unbalances brought by globalization. As
a a matter of fact the whole planet is suffering.


 

offline nightex from Šiauliai (Lithuania) on 2010-01-20 13:14 [#02360816]
Points: 1275 Status: Lurker | Followup to toby: #02360811



I think religion could be good, and also could be bad. It
depends on ones ability to extract and adapt good
information about moral social life, at the same time
leaving behind ignorance incoherent with sience.


 

offline mohamed from the turtle business on 2010-01-20 13:15 [#02360818]
Points: 31145 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



what about measuring religions?


 

offline anirog on 2010-01-20 13:38 [#02360819]
Points: 762 Status: Regular



The vatican has a chief astronomer who recently claimed
intelligent beings created by "god" could exist in outer
space.


 

offline MAXIMUSMISCHIEF from Canada on 2010-01-20 14:02 [#02360825]
Points: 128 Status: Lurker



you cant prove or disprove something immaterial by looking
at and testing material things.


 

offline khrimson from the fridge on 2010-01-20 14:43 [#02360831]
Points: 1757 Status: Regular



Religion and morality


 

offline J198 from Maastricht (Netherlands, The) on 2010-01-20 15:17 [#02360834]
Points: 7342 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



skewed views of science


 

offline TroutMask from New York City (United States) on 2010-01-20 17:04 [#02360847]
Points: 472 Status: Regular



Well, to be clear, religion is a primitive philosophy, while
science is a method of recording and analyzing information.
However, no, religion, and the ideology one requires to
follow religion, are both completely inconsistent with
science. A scientist is one who refuses to take an
understanding to something on faith - he knows he must learn
of the nature of that something through logic.

A scientist contributes one of the most important aspects to
human survival, while religion contributes the most
destructive idea to human survival. A scientist contributes
knowledge, while a mystic contributes altruism, subjective
realities, and lies propagated through faith and coercion.


 

offline mohamed from the turtle business on 2010-01-20 17:34 [#02360849]
Points: 31145 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



A scientist contributes one of the most important aspects
to human survival



Attached picture

 

offline pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2010-01-20 18:25 [#02360852]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker



LAZY_TITLE


 

offline TroutMask from New York City (United States) on 2010-01-20 18:53 [#02360853]
Points: 472 Status: Regular | Followup to mohamed: #02360849



A scientist does not build; a scientist discovers. The
person responsible for the atom bomb's creation was not a
scientist - only the knowledge utilized was the work of the
scientist. And the funding? That was made possible by
government - an entity of society that has no role in the
life of a scientist.

So ask yourself why all those people died in Japan. Was it
because a scientist was able to discover nuclear fission? Or
was it because a non-scientist utilized the knowledge of
nuclear fission to be destructive and careless with human
life?


 

offline DiaZoHeXagoN from The city of angels (United States) on 2010-01-20 19:00 [#02360857]
Points: 2659 Status: Lurker



I think religion serves a purpose. Even throughout history,
for better or for worse, it has helped mold who we are in
society. I was raised christian and do not regret it,
though my current belief system is far from it. Religion
should enforce morals, however most often then not, it
becomes an excuse to condemn people which eventually leads
to dire consequences. I think faith in itself is a good
thing, but when it dictates your every move it can become
dangerous.

I think the real issue with the compatibility of religion vs
science is that both seem to have a hatred of each other and
can't seem to let the other co-exist peacefully, that and
the fact that both generally tend to be extremely
hypocritical. I cannot stand how believers and
non-believers attack each other. In a perfect world it
shouldn't matter whatever belief (or lack thereof) gets
someone through their life. I really dislike how some non
believers hypocritically accuse believers of force feeding
their own thought process to the masses, when they
themselves get angry when the believer won't give up on
their "ridiculous" religion. I also really dislike how a
number of christians condemn non-believers when their very
own dogma states that they shouldn't judge others. I guess
the point is, until both sides feel the need to stop
ridiculing each other, compatibility is not possible.


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2010-01-20 19:35 [#02360859]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker



Science is useless because you can't use it to pray for
things instead of getting them yourself.


 

offline pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2010-01-20 19:57 [#02360860]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker



I still can't believe Truman opted to murder thousands of
people by the means of searing pain, rather than take
military action and send troops to Japan. I mean they could
have dropped a bomb somewhere off the coast of Japan to
scare them.


 

offline mohamed from the turtle business on 2010-01-20 20:09 [#02360861]
Points: 31145 Status: Regular | Followup to TroutMask: #02360853 | Show recordbag



want to be pragmatic? who said that destruction is harmful
for human survival? certainly not me, your justifications
did. they read to me as if your concept of knowledge were
not that crystal clear. puppet-scientist or
primitive-mystic? posting a moral against scientist having a
moral = quadruple nipples drama.


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2010-01-20 20:28 [#02360863]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker



Oh, look, Thank God for the Atom Bomb by Paul Fussell is
online as a PDF.

I recommend it highly.


 

offline pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2010-01-20 21:09 [#02360867]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker | Followup to fleetmouse: #02360863



that's horrible. You do know that a soldier signs up for the
duty to give his life for his country, and to explain the
genocidal use of a nuclear bomb, is far from justifiable in
that regard at all.

Why did we need to kill people in order to show the strength
of a nuclear bomb? Like i said, a bomb off the coast in the
water would have done the job as well.


 

offline pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2010-01-20 21:10 [#02360868]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker | Followup to pulseclock: #02360867



to explain away*


 

offline toby from ^_^ (China) on 2010-01-20 21:22 [#02360870]
Points: 373 Status: Regular



philosophy has to b schooled to people; there are so many
ways to interpret these things. philosophy needs faith to
catch on i guess. its natural.
philosophy it is all just down to who teaches it. religion
gets bad because it is taught by bad controllers same as it
is bad when a child has parents with awful feelings. when
religion is taught by a person who is good and does not
encourage too much of all that spooky 'faith' then its not
so bad.

Not everyone is smart or independant many need leeders to
help them understand love and jealousy and when feeling very
angry or completely lost/near death. i think most of us can
say that we do not know how best to deal with these. science
will not help us with this.

philosophy teaches us about life but people want to
communicate and cooperate. they share the philosophy and all
become freinds in there mission to do the right thing - a
group. in any group there is a top dog leader so that
happens = you have a religion now and the process is so
inevitable and natural you can never have it banish.
people do not like science with religion i think its ok.
only if you look at religion as a contradiction to science
reality and evidence is when they do not mix.

there is the dangers of the heart. when people think about
there heart more than there mind its strange; all that heart
gets us too crazy. we need to use the mind to rationalise
whatever the heart is singing on about; teach it to behave.
too many religions make an unreal world of life mutating the
whole thing for heart-only interpretation! and it becomes an
isolated crazy.


 

offline toby from ^_^ (China) on 2010-01-20 21:28 [#02360872]
Points: 373 Status: Regular



religion is more fun is why it catched on


 

offline atwood from The Library (United Kingdom) on 2010-01-20 21:40 [#02360876]
Points: 2236 Status: Regular | Followup to toby: #02360872 | Show recordbag



Thats what I think Toby.Men of God and silly hats go hand in
hand.


 

offline glasse from Harrisburg (United States) on 2010-01-20 21:54 [#02360882]
Points: 4211 Status: Regular | Followup to Monoid: #02360805 | Show recordbag



it is a think tank of scientists (biologists,
astrophysicists, etc) and theologian/christian apologetics.

no i don't think that comment on evolution is laughable,
particularly not when referring to evolution in a purely
naturalistic sense (i could be open to a sort of
template/transition based speciation vs pure ex nihilo
creation of each species, but not random, algorithmic,
naturalistic evolution)

Cambrian Explosion

biologic big bang

evolution as algorithm

abiogenesis

i also did a post showing how the events of genesis 1 could
be consistent with our understanding of cosmological,
geological and biological development here.


 

offline JivverDicker from my house on 2010-01-20 22:01 [#02360883]
Points: 12102 Status: Regular | Followup to glasse: #02360882



Bollocks! 8 )


 

offline glasse from Harrisburg (United States) on 2010-01-20 22:27 [#02360887]
Points: 4211 Status: Regular | Followup to JivverDicker: #02360883 | Show recordbag



i like how in 7 minutes time you were able to read and
digest each article, and then still have time to prepare
such a poignant rebuttal. ;)

i think it is time for some yukon jack, grand mariner and
orange aid.


 

offline JivverDicker from my house on 2010-01-20 22:34 [#02360889]
Points: 12102 Status: Regular | Followup to glasse: #02360887



I've seen the links before. I'll have some sweet dessert
wine if you've got any on the go though.


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2010-01-21 06:46 [#02360901]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to JivverDicker: #02360889



I had some really nice Spanish solera sherry recently. It
tastes like fig liqueur. We bought it for trifle but it's
also good for nipping.


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2010-01-21 07:51 [#02360903]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker



Dr. Hugh G. Rection debunked


 

offline glasse from Harrisburg (United States) on 2010-01-21 09:21 [#02360909]
Points: 4211 Status: Regular | Followup to fleetmouse: #02360903 | Show recordbag



you've linked us to a google search page! i did actually
click and skim through a couple, mostly nitpicking on finer
points. there are actually christian groups that disagree
with some of his work/beliefs that give better arguments
than the few of these i've skimmed through.

check out some of these other hot topics.

LAZY_TITLE

LAZY_TITLE

LAZY_TITLE


 

offline cyrstal dude from LA all day! (United States) on 2010-01-21 09:30 [#02360912]
Points: 900 Status: Addict



they are both gay


 

offline Four Giants on 2010-01-21 10:05 [#02360920]
Points: 271 Status: Lurker



banana

side hug


 

offline glasse from Harrisburg (United States) on 2010-01-21 10:18 [#02360925]
Points: 4211 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



straw man


 


Messageboard index