Religion v.s. science? | xltronic messageboard

�

You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in
Register

�

(nobody)
...and 253 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...

Members 8025
Messages 2613470
Today 8
Topics 127501

Messageboard index
Religion v.s. science? \|« « 1 2 3

pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2010-01-27 18:34 [#02362606]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker

all this dichotomy talk, i never asked, what would be a
correct dichomoty for argument in this instance (science vs
god)?

pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2010-01-27 18:35 [#02362607]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker

ha 'dichomoty'

i'm a wittwe kid

glasse from Harrisburg (United States) on 2010-01-27 18:45 [#02362610]
Points: 4211 Status: Regular | Show recordbag

well from the christian perspective the actual dichotomy, or
dilemma, is unbelief. it is unbelief and blindness which
causes people to claim that belief in God is completely
ridiculous and outdated, while abiogenesis seems modern,
logical and rational. people make up the 'rules' of science
and and then follow them as though they were hardwired into
the cosmos. for instance, the 'rule' that ockham's razor
applies to everything except (conveniently) God (despite
that i believe ockham was also a theologian).

yann_g from now on 2010-01-27 18:45 [#02362611]
Points: 3772 Status: Lurker

well it depends on what you mean "relevant".

talking about nothing less than eternal life and giving
guidelines (if not laws) for reaching eternal happiness
without coming up with the shadow of an evidence ever about
all the supernatural and magic involved, is what i call
beeing irrelevant.

glasse from Harrisburg (United States) on 2010-01-27 18:48 [#02362612]
Points: 4211 Status: Regular | Followup to yann_g: #02362611 | Show recordbag

i've given a wealth of evidence just in this thread, and
more in the links i've provided. this goes back to the
blindness i was speaking of, people just look past it as
though it wasn't even there. it goes dim, like
walter in the dark tower books.

yann_g from now on 2010-01-27 18:51 [#02362614]
Points: 3772 Status: Lurker

well an evidence is not something that relies on
imagination.

glasse from Harrisburg (United States) on 2010-01-27 18:52 [#02362615]
Points: 4211 Status: Regular | Followup to yann_g: #02362614 | Show recordbag

thanks for helping with my point.

yann_g from now on 2010-01-27 18:54 [#02362617]
Points: 3772 Status: Lurker

did i?

pulseclock from Downtown 81 on 2010-01-27 18:58 [#02362618]
Points: 6015 Status: Lurker

The thing about religion (well let's face it, Christianity,
because it must be the ultimate path to god according
to them) - is it all relies on faith. You must believe all
the historical postulations are true and you must ignore the
alternative that they could be false. So in it's core, the
religion of christianity leaves no room for investigation as
to its coming about, it relies on being inherently true.

in short, it has no relevance to science.

mohamed from the turtle business on 2010-01-27 19:00 [#02362619]
Points: 31145 Status: Regular | Show recordbag

hahahahahahahahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2010-01-27 20:56 [#02362633]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker

urbanphilosophy is a pretty decent site where people discuss
the really difficult arguments about philosophy and
theology. If you know who Bahnsen and Plantinga are you'll
enjoy this.

Now back to trolling! I fucked the pope!!!!!!!!!

yann_g from now on 2010-01-27 21:51 [#02362643]
Points: 3772 Status: Lurker

theology is the worst type of masturbation.

magicant from Canada on 2010-01-27 23:30 [#02362664]
Points: 2465 Status: Lurker | Followup to yann_g: #02362643

like when cx talks about autechre releases in retrospect

Messageboard index