Science Vs Religion

[Raithere]

Re: Response 1

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Your right, but grammatically wrong, there are “many gods”.

I think you meant to say "You're right".

~Raithere

 

[SnakeLord]

For Visitor

To Visitor:

Read all of Jude....(about one page) and tell me what you think about it then.

This guy Jude writes a letter stating his opinions. That is all fair enough but i don't see it's relevance to the original line of discussion, which was this:

Visitor said: The spirits influencing man were the spirits of fallen angels trying to get back to heaven, which is in another dimension.
They had a plan and were using man to acomplish it.
This is why the thoughts of mankind were evil continually, they had given themselves over to these evil spirits.

I said: Visitor: Would you be kind enough to show me where in the bible it says this.

Nowhere in Jude does it say anything about fallen angels influencing man during the tower of babel. Nowhere does it say heaven is in another dimension, nowhere does it say the angels were trying to get back to heaven and nowhere does it say mankind had given themselves over to 'evil spirits'. Why are we even discussing Jude when it's irrelevant?

However, while we're here we might aswell look into it some more.

First off he states godless men have slipped in amongst the people he is writing to. First off godless does not mean evil, it means having no god. I think your brain should give up it's self righteousness for just one second and see that being godless and being evil are different. All the qualities your religion 'apparently' lives by are shared by many people from many different belief systems. There are people who believe in what you would class as false gods, and thus godless in the terms of your god. They are not evil- they are the same as you- Absolutely certain of their own truths. god might warrant this as being reason to eternally condemn people to burning in hell as so eloquently pointed out by Jude but then that's probably why some people don't want god, and i'd have to concur with them. Some of us are strong enough not to have to believe in something because otherwise we burn in hell. I do not serve dictators.

We can then see he has a problem with 'sexual immorality'. I'm sure, as is written in the bible, this has a lot to do with queers. I will be the first to state i do not see homosexuality as 'normal' but i dont think they deserve to burn in hell any more than religious folk. You see it's all down to personal ideals. In the grand scheme of things i doubt god would be as petty as man is and worry too much about homosexuals. If he does then again it makes some people wonder about this so called god. Against what the strange and ignorant little religious mans mind thinks people do not just 'choose' to be queer. You'd no doubt understand that if you spent more time studying humans instead of big invisible beings. He mentions Soddom and Gomorrah in context with this sexual immorality. If you read the section about Soddom there's talk of men wanting to get their ends away with the angels that come down so in that respect this is a valid reference- However, it bears no relevance to tower of babel, which is what we were discussing.

Now here's a question: God makes Adam who, according to Jan, is perfect. He then falls from perfection- which in itself shows he couldn't have been perfect and then comes this future of people going against god, doing evil yada yada yada.

One would wonder why god has such lack of control. The 'easy answer christian style' method says: "Well god gives man his choice" but evidence shows otherwise. To show just one example we can look at Exodus when the jews were being kept slave by the egyptians. God tells Moses to go free them BUT everytime says he will harden the hearts of the egyptians so they wont let the jews go- what a bloody waste of time. And that distinctly shows god is the one who makes people think and do what they do. We are puppets on a string and then blamed for doing that which our creator makes us do. One way or another this is fact. He makes imperfect beings then makes a devil to tempt them, knowing they will be tempted because they are not perfect beings.

Now man going against god is one thing. Some have different beliefs, ideas, cares, wants, needs and so on.

Now imagine you are an angel..... You are a servant of god living in the realm of god. Why would you go against god unless there was a serious problem with him? Again i guess god didnt make angels perfect either, so it's his fault.

Jude talks about angels 'abandoning their own home' and being kept in darkness, bound with 'everlasting' chains.

Question: Why would the angels abandon their home and go against god?

If god really wanted mankind to worship him and not do evil he could have easily made it so. Don't give me the free will shit, time and time again god shows man has absence of free will, absence of choice. If it's a big contest between him and apparent evil he's losing bigtime. But then we must distinguish what evil is.

Queers=evil
Cigarette smokers=evil
Athiests=evil
masturbation=evil

The one thing i do fear is that god does exist and is actually that pathetic he would worry about benders, wankers and malboro lights.

The main thing in life is uniqueness. Every man has his good side and his bad side- regardless of who you are or where you came from. As humans we can sit down and judge others- i don't like him cause he's gay, i don't like him cause he smokes etc, that is the way humans are. What belief in god attempts to do is destroy that individuality. We're all mindless drones that must do this that and the other or we burn forever. That doesn't make a community, it separates people- it creates barriers and makes needless enemies. Frankly i find the whole thing on the same level as nazis. The perfect race. Everyone must conform in a specific manner or they burn- but this time forever. Personally you make me sick. 2000 years on and people are still at it- flying planes into buildings, creating wars and anarchy all in the name of god. To quote an Eagles line:

"We satisfy our endless needs, and justify our bloody deeds; In the name of destiny, and in the name of god."

Just so you know that song is about the basic fucking genocide of the red indians. Evil comes from the man who claims he is with god. As you said, god works through man- so by that is god, through man, making all that evil done throughout human history? Who are those people god is working through? The religious man, spouting his self righteous threats across the face of this planet, deluding the innocent and weak into his way of thinking, corrupting those in times of need and hurt. Hell yes when i'm on my death bed some religious folk can come say his prayers- if i survive i'm instantly "Born again", this time with an unrivalled belief because i almost died. The other side of the coin is when mummy teaches it to be true and it is taught at such a young and tender age that it becomes the norm- it's technical brainwashing and furthermore brainwashing done under threats and fear- not love and peace. How many times as a completely unreligious, non-believing or caring individual have you read the bible? There is no love there. God gets off on seeing mankind suffer, on seeing us fear him. No matter where it lands me in the long run i cannot live a life in fear of something which cannot have the courage to present himself to me, which enjoys handing out pain, destruction and punishment. Of course belief does have a small purpose: When we have to sit down and watch our children die and then stick them in a hole in the ground it's nice thinking they actually go somewhere, that we will see them again etc etc, but that's as far as it goes.

Snakelord, I've got just one question for you after reading this.....

Do you watch a lot of Stargate SG1......?

I saw the movie and have seen several stargate episodes. What's the point? Where's the relevance?

 

[SnakeLord]

I don’t find their confusion humorous, just the fact that you think we can build directly from the ground into outer space.

Attempt at humour or attempt at stupidity? I think? No, we're talking about people several thousand years ago. Try to remember that heh.

If as one people (the population of the world) they can have it in mind, that this feat is possible (as impossible as it actually is), then they will believe all foolish endeavours as possible, which would create unrivalled anxiety, casting the whole world into ignorance. It is better that at least only some (a small stubborn few) try and give the majority of sober people a chance to gain salvation.

Ok worthy excuse, (briefly). God doesn't say 'foolish endeavours'. He says: "Nothing will be impossible". In other words: Everything will be possible. This has nothing to do with anxiety, ignorance or otherwise. Again i ask that you not add to what is written- it's pointless.

Firstly, it depends on what you call “the heavens”, if you are regarding the sky/clouds (as is the modern perspective), then you are correct, but if it is the upper portion of the universe (the ancient perspective), then that is complete nonsense.

What are you talking about? It's complete nonsense that man have got to 'the heavens', (upper portion)? Man has not been in space? Ok then..

What other reason would they labour so hard?
The fact that they wanted to make a name for themselves is also an indication of satiated sensual gratification, which is a taster of heaven.

I suppose they succeeded in making a name for themselves- they're mentioned in the bible afterall which has survived for thousands of years. So many people have read of them. As for 'what other reason..' there's many reasons to everything, however stating they wanted paradise is groundless speculation. It is said they wanted to reach the heavens. If god said 'if they can do this now nothing they plan to do will be impossible' then it must at some stage be/have been possible.

It says;

Then they said, "Come, let's build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves."

I suppose it depends on which translation is correct and which is false.

"Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

I will agree a motive is to make a 'name for themselves', but who doesn't want their 15 mins of fame? but also that they didn't want to be scattered over the whole earth. I've already outlined this before- to save taking up huge amount of space you build upwards.

That is my explanation of the text.

ok.

That is your opinion.

Aha, so yours is an 'explanation' and mines an opinion? How very noble.

These are beliefs, not necessarily truth.

I'd agree. Works the same for yours. You started off well but then alas...

The truth is very simple..

Tragic.

As regards “fatal intentions”, an example is given of what can happen when the whole of mankind becomes degraded, every body becomes consumed with “evil intent”, thus making every soul on the planet, eventual residents of hell.

Oh the threats from our loving father... stop it i can't handle it any more argggg! I don't want to burn in hell, save me Jan!

Your out of order, I do not dismiss everything out of hand, and my explanations of the biblical texts are not groundless.
Try and upgrade your attitude, it is becoming stale.

Out of order? Well i'm sorry if you can't handle a little bit of constructive criticism from another human. Furthermore i disagree with you- your [explanations?], (although i'm limited to opinions), of the biblical texts are filled with stuff not found anywhere in the biblical texts, thus they are groundless. As for my attitude.. that's your opinion of it, and you're free to have that opinion. My attitude is always wonderful to my family and friends, you are neither.

I am not in this discussion to prove you wrong or me right.

Of course not, you're already right, (apparently). If you believe there's any other possibility than your god being real, jesus being real and the son of god etc then say so. However when you make statements such as: "The truth is simple" it instantly shows you think you are right.

Because it is to ourselves, first and foremost, that knowledge becomes important. Read my explanation of riding a bicycle.

Knowledge is ultimately universal. I don't think there's one person that would disagree with this: 'Dropping a big rock on your foot will hurt'. Yet there is no universal knowledge of god- just a million different beliefs, thus it isn't knowledge- just belief. A good indication of this is showing that it's called 'belief' and 'faith'. You can openly claim you know the truth- but when there are people who dispute that and claim their own version of truth you should be able to see why a problem arises. Let's imagine you're a guy with no god, no answers. You get approached by a jew, a christian, a muslim and a hindu. All give you their own version of 'absolute' knowledge of truth. You see how personal knowledge/understanding is faulty? Truth does not change. If something is true, it's true- it doesn't divert into a million different truths. "The world is flat" was considered truth but was it? A man sat down and said that, and gained followers. He was ultimately wrong even though at that time he would have adamantly stood by that 'truth', that 'knowledge' of his.

There are many many mentions of unicorns throughout history. The main problem is the stories all differ to amazing degrees. In one culture the unicorn was an animal of peace, in another it was evil etc etc.... It would be a lot more valid a story if there was corroboration. If every story was in agreement we'd havea proper working baseline. When there's a million different versions how can you just 'assume' one to be true over the other possibilities? How can you just 'assume' any of them to be true and go one step further in claiming it's absolute truth?

If you can do that, you're a better man than i.

Ok so someone who hasn't seen, heard or witnessed god in any form, shape or molecule should just accept it as being true? If that's the case i can in accordance with age old argument just accept unicorns, fairies, aliens etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Alas, I don’t have the enthusiasm nor energy to respond to such nonsense.

Worthy response, thank you. When it comes to speaking the word of a big invisible guy you're as energetic and enthusastic as anyone ever can be, yet when someone mentions something as downright pathetic as aliens and unicorns you lose that energy? Sad. I mean c'mon... Unicorns are even mentioned in the bible, (some translations) so why wouldn't you believe and comment on them? Aliens on the other hand have evidence dating back to way way before the bible was written- they were spoken of by one of the first human civilisations known to man. There's constant reference to aliens in the bible, (we could debate this point). We could go borderline insanity and start believing in Giants and strange 4 headed creatures with wheels but wouldn't that be foolish? Oops, they're both spoken of in the bible. So everything in the bible talking about this creator being is true but everything else in the bible is utter bollocks? Fair enough.

Furthermore the question was sincere. If a man has never witnessed, never heard, never seen god why would he just believe that over any of the other things i mentioned? All of them are spoken of in many ancient texts, including the bible.... What makes one true, the rest false? Tell me if and when you find that energy of yours.

God “Himself”?

Any random example: And god said, "Let there be light blah blah"

he said that or not? If he did- then it's something god said, if not it's something man made up or speculated about. You choose.

Himself= the god who speaks as lord. The head honcho if you like.

Your right, but grammatically wrong, there are “many gods”.

Well completely evade the point by making worthless mention of capital letters or otherwise. If you're going to be pathetically pedantic i'd rather you not waste my time.

They wanted to build a building with its roof in heaven, doesn’t that sound like they wanted to go to heaven (paradise).

Is this the 'guessing game'? Whattya mean 'doesn't it sound like'? Kinda proves my point- it's groundless speculation. Their motives were clearly outlined: Make a name for ourselves/ not be spread over the whole earth. I don't see anything in reference to them wanting paradise.

He taught Adam, that if he eats of the tree of knowledge and evil, he will surely die. Adam must have understood the term “death” even though at that stage he was eternal. If he understood death, then he must have understood the reasons for death.
God had already taught Adam, previous to his advent, if you read the Qur’an, you will understand this

Ok, for arguments sake let's say god sat down and taught adam all about death. Adam now knows what death is...

3:5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like divine beings who know good and evil."

When you eat from it... so until he had eaten from it he wouldn't have known what good or evil was. As such if the evil serpent came up and said god was lying how could adam distinguish? There'd be absolutely no reason for him to not listen to the serpent- he wouldn't know the serpent was evil. His eyes would have remained 'closed' until after he'd eaten the fruit.

As an example i refer to a star trek voyager episode.

Chakotay crash lands on a planet and meets these soldiers who are fighting the most evil enemy imaginable. They tell him how this evil enemy, (the nemesis), has killed their people, raped their women etc etc. Eventually these evil monster looking enemies kill a village of people. Chakotay helps the army to kill some of these foe. Eventually he is rescued by the voyager crew. It turns out the nemesis, the real evil monsters were the good guys- the village deaths and stuff were a computer simulation in order to recruit passing travellers to the armies side who were in fact the ones committing the atrocities.

The point is: If you are dumped in the middle of nowhere with no understanding of what/who is good or evil there is nothing to make you choose one way or the other. When one says something it is no different to what the other says. From what is clearly written Adam had absolutely no knowledge of good or evil and as such was completely innocent.

Why else would he knowingly eat the fruit, he wasn’t hungry.

Good argument According to Visitor it wasn't a fruit, Adam was bonking the serpent! However to answer your futile question- i just had a boost chocolate bar. I wasn't hungry, i just felt like eating it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by SnakeLord

Attempt at humour or attempt at stupidity?

Neither, I’m being serious.

Ok worthy excuse, (briefly). God doesn't say 'foolish endeavours'. He says: "Nothing will be impossible".

What won’t be impossible?
The very ideas, one of which they were engaged in at that time?
You may not see their attempts as foolish, but I do, for reasons I have already given.

Everything will be possible. This has nothing to do with anxiety, ignorance or otherwise. Again i ask that you not add to what is written- it's pointless.

Well, there has to be a reason why God acted, and you say it is because he wanted to halt mans scientific progress, for which there is nothing written. Your argument is not even based on anything in the bible, it is your own speculation. God says of their actions, if they can do this foolishness, then they will think all foolishness is possible, foolishness is my inference but I would still think the same if someone started this madcap idea today, so just accept it.

What are you talking about? It's complete nonsense that man have got to 'the heavens', (upper portion)? Man has not been in space? Ok then..

Nonsense….foolishness, it’s all the same thing when you get down to it.

I suppose they succeeded in making a name for themselves- they're mentioned in the bible afterall which has survived for thousands of years.

Aside from the point that (in this day and age) all publicity is good, I don’t think they wanted to be seen as fools. Do you?

As for 'what other reason..' there's many reasons to everything, however stating they wanted paradise is groundless speculation.

Heaven n 1: the abode of God and the angels and the souls of those who have gained
2: any place of complete bliss and delight and peace

Paradise :a heavenly place (peaceful and beautiful) where those who are favored by the gods can go when they die

If god said 'if they can do this now nothing they plan to do will be impossible' then it must at some stage be/have been possible.

Whether it is possible or impossible is irrelevant, reference was given to their methodology (using bricks), this must also be taken into consideration. Through lack of knowledge, they believed if they built high enough, they would eventually reach the heavens, which is a foolish idea. Would you join such a scheme?

…but also that they didn't want to be scattered over the whole earth. I've already outlined this before- to save taking up huge amount of space you build upwards.

They were scattered over the whole earth anywayz, so it would appear that they knew their fate beforehand, and as a result, decided to flee.
If there idea to build one high building, was purely to save space, then why didn’t they build more, as part of their intention was to build a city, and why didn’t they mention such a reason, instead of just wanting to make a name for themselves.

I'd agree. Works the same for yours. You started off well but then alas...

I’m not claiming to have the truth, we are discussing the actions of God in this section of the bible, you say He is evil, I say He is all-good.

Oh the threats from our loving father... stop it i can't handle it any more argggg! I don't want to burn in hell, save me Jan!

What is all that about?
These are not threats, God does not threaten anybody in this regard, He saves people from burning in hell. It was better He killed evil mankind, and take the reactions, rather than let them live out their completely evil lives and then as a result, go to hell.

Don’t make me start quoting from the Gita now!

"The truth is simple" it instantly shows you think you are right.

Well, think about it, the truth has to be simple. I’m born, I grow, I die, is this not truth?
I get hungry, I eat, hunger stops, all very simple and all truths. Spiritual truth is the same, but we can’t remember due to our false identification with the material body. Knowing a truth doesn’t make you special or clever, it just means that no matter what you do, there is only one thing that prevails, and that is the truth of the matter, so you ahere. Some people have decided to live by the simple truth, which means giving up all false acting and thinking. I hope you can understand, but if not, lets not go through this again as we are just going round in circles.

'Dropping a big rock on your foot will hurt'.

Knowing it will hurt, and the hurt itself, are different stages of knowledge.

Yet there is no universal knowledge of god- just a million different beliefs, thus it isn't knowledge- just
belief.

There is also no universal knowledge of the hurt caused by dropping a rock on your foot, billions of people have not had that experience, and act as if they have not had that experience. Some people will imagine excruciating pain, while others may think, it will hurt a little, some may imagine they will die from shock, etc. But the fact is, most people acknowledge some kind of pain and reaction.
As I have said before, God-consciousness is personal, that is why Adam didn’t stick rigidly to Gods requests, he decided what he wanted to do.

Let's imagine you're a guy with no god, no answers.

You are human, so no matter how you are mentally situated, you will always have the ability to reason, even to yourself, through your own experiences, and question who and what you are, what happens when I die, why am I here, ect.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[SnakeLord]

What won’t be impossible?
The very ideas, one of which they were engaged in at that time?
You may not see their attempts as foolish, but I do, for reasons I have already given.

Let's all open our books to the tower of babel section. As you can see whatever they were attempting at that time to us would be deemed as foolish because we have 'knowledge'? it's impossible. However, god said: "If they can do this now nothing they plan to do will be impossible." It's all about progression... Their ideas at that time were faulty but it is a start to learning, a start to progressing. Eventually they would succeed. Whether by large tower made of bricks or by spaceship.

Well, there has to be a reason why God acted, and you say it is because he wanted to halt mans scientific progress, for which there is nothing written.

The lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us? go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

By confusing them he attempted to stop/slow down the 'nothing will be impossible'. Nowhere in it does god say: "Look guys, those humans are being foolish, let all of us go down and confuse them so they end up being even more foolish."

Your argument is not even based on anything in the bible, it is your own speculation.

No, it's quite clearly written for all to see. What isnt written, and would count as 'your own speculation and not based on anything in the bible' is this:

God says of their actions, if they can do this foolishness, then they will think all foolishness is possible

You think the best way to stop someone from being foolish is to confuse them? Fair enough.

foolishness is my inference but I would still think the same if someone started this madcap idea today, so just accept it.

Ah typical religious attitude: "Just accept it". Not my style, sorry.

Nonsense….foolishness, it’s all the same thing when you get down to it.

I think you missed the point. Man started building a tower to reach the heavens. They had 'begun' creating a way to reach 'the heavens'. Ok, we know it wouldn't have worked but to them and to god it was a start. If they had already begun doing these things eventually nothing would be impossible, as god said. 2000+ years later man is flying through the heavens. Did man make spacecraft because he 'wants paradise' or because man wants to explore, learn and see what is 'out there'? Not to mention paradise wouldn't remain as paradise for long once humans had got hold of it. It is in our genes to destroy, for we were made in the image of god.

Aside from the point that (in this day and age) all publicity is good, I don’t think they wanted to be seen as fools. Do you?

And they are only seen as fools by those who can't grasp the concept of what is written. Look at the people of old- those who made claims the world is flat etc... They're looked upon as being great men, even though they made mistakes. Nothing man attempted to do, be it faulty or perfect can be dismissed as a fool. Of course the religious man is quick to label others as fools instead of appreciating the work of humans- it's par for the course.

Heaven n 1: the abode of God and the angels and the souls of those who have gained
2: any place of complete bliss and delight and peace

Paradise :a heavenly place (peaceful and beautiful) where those who are favored by the gods can go when they die

The makers of the tower of babel didn't, to my knowledge, have access to dictionary.com. Furthermore they outlined their motives in the bible and not once is 'paradise' mentioned. It remains groundless speculation.

Whether it is possible or impossible is irrelevant, reference was given to their methodology (using bricks), this must also be taken into consideration. Through lack of knowledge, they believed if they built high enough, they would eventually reach the heavens, which is a foolish idea. Would you join such a scheme?

There are many instances where man has been wrong with his ideas. This doesn't make them fools, it makes them enterprising but unluckily wrong this time around. If you can't see past your own ignorant judging of others who attempt to progress i cannot help you. Of course science has taught you that you can't breathe in space so you know that- why assume they'd know that 2000+ years ago? Last time: Doesn't make them foolish.

They were scattered over the whole earth anywayz, so it would appear that they knew their fate beforehand, and as a result, decided to flee.

Have you read the bible?

Gen 11:8 So the lord scattered them from there over all the earth.

It actually repeats that on 11:9. It says that twice in a few sentences. Where's the mention of them 'deciding to flee'? From that moment on man was scattered over the whole earth and his language was changed to cause confusion, and that's what babel means= confusion. So in reality your claim to them knowing beforehand and fleeing across the whole earth is groundless.

If there idea to build one high building, was purely to save space, then why didn’t they build more, as part of their intention was to build a city, and why didn’t they mention such a reason, instead of just wanting to make a name for themselves.

It was mentioned- if you read the bible you'd find that out.

"Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

As for not building more.... It's probable in those days they didn't have the resources to build many. However this is now wandering off into speculation, which is best to avoid.

I’m not claiming to have the truth, we are discussing the actions of God in this section of the bible, you say He is evil, I say He is all-good.

By that same token you say man was all evil, i say they were all good. You take all the brilliance, all the thoughts, all the values of mankind and lump it into the hands of a big invisible being. I find that sickening. Mankind is degraded into nothingness. We have no worth. Man attempts something by his own abilities he's labelled a fool, and so on. If i say god is evil it comes directly from what is written. Acts of worldwide destruction, city destruction, closing womens wombs etc can not be seen as acts of kindness or love. You might say those men were evil and i will concur with you aside from the last point. When god closed the womens wombs, (all in the household), there was no purposeful motive. Abraham lied, the guy took sarai as his wife so god punished him and everyone in the household even though it was Abraham who had misled him. Abraham should be punished for lying about his wife and letting other men take her not the other way round. Closing the wombs of every woman in the household? Does that sound like an 'all good' thing to do? Fair enough.

Well, think about it, the truth has to be simple. I’m born, I grow, I die, is this not truth?

Sure, that's truth- and simple at that but you missed off one part that changes the whole thing:

"I'm born, I grow, I die, I go to heaven." (or hell dependant on how nasty you are).

That's speculation based on the writings of ancient men, it is not simple truth.

As I have said before, God-consciousness is personal, that is why Adam didn’t stick rigidly to Gods requests, he decided what he wanted to do.

Because he had no knowledge of good or evil. I already outlined this, you ignored it.

You are human, so no matter how you are mentally situated, you will always have the ability to reason, even to yourself, through your own experiences, and question who and what you are, what happens when I die, why am I here, ect.

Yeah, and it's a whole lot easier to just settle on one answer to save you having to ask.

 

[MarcAC]

Science Versus Religion???

What the heck is that crap? Science is a religion within itself. A proven scientific fact which disagrees with religious doctrine is an analogous situation to this; one religious doctrine disagreeing with another. The god of science is Energy, which is infinite, it can't be created, it can't be destroyed, it was there before all and will be after - E=mc^2. It defines all that is within the universe - Entropy. Science vs. Religion? You mean Science versus buddhism OR Science vs. Hinduism.

Ha! Science vs. Religion, gimme a break.

 

[wesmorris]

Re: Science Versus Religion???

Originally posted by MarcAC
What the heck is that crap? Science is a religion within itself. A proven scientific fact which disagrees with religious doctrine is an analogous situation to this; one religious doctrine disagreeing with another. The god of science is Energy, which is infinite, it can't be created, it can't be destroyed, it was there before all and will be after - E=mc^2. It defines all that is within the universe - Entropy. Science vs. Religion? You mean Science versus buddhism OR Science vs. Hinduism.

Ha! Science vs. Religion, gimme a break.

You're kidding right? Energy is not infinite (entropy) and science doesn't hold "energy" as god. Tell me what "energy" does mathematics hold as god?

 

[MarcAC]

Re: Re: Science Versus Religion???

Originally posted by wesmorris
You're kidding right? Energy is not infinite (entropy) and science doesn't hold "energy" as god. Tell me what "energy" does mathematics hold as god?

Well yeah I know nowadays Hawking and his cronies are saying that energy might not be such a 'god' after all - it's uncertain. But anyway, a striking analogy none-the-less, wes.

 

[wesmorris]

Re: Re: Re: Science Versus Religion???

Originally posted by MarcAC
Well yeah I know nowadays Hawking and his cronies are saying that energy might not be such a 'god' after all - it's uncertain.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Entropy was not introduced by Hawking. It was introduced in the 19th century by some thermodynamics guy. Entropy is "heat death". It has to do with the dissipation of potential (thermodynamic) energy in a system.

But anyway, a striking analogy none-the-less, wes.

That analogy only reveals your ignorance of that which you criticize.

 

[MarcAC]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Science Versus Religion???

Originally posted by wesmorris

Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Entropy was not introduced by Hawking. It was introduced in the 19th century by some thermodynamics guy.

You misread my post - maybe it's my fault. Anyway, I don't know who introduced entropy, but I didn't say it was Hawking - I guess I posted with the assumption that most who would read it would have a knowledge of what Hawking said with regards to virtual particles and it's implications where the concept of energy cannot be created or destroyed {E=mc^2} is concerned.

Entropy is "heat death". It has to do with the dissipation of potential (thermodynamic) energy in a system.

The universe always tends towards higher entropy - that's what I alluded to when I put "- Entropy".

That analogy only reveals your ignorance of that which you criticize.

I'll accept that you didn't understand what I posted - it is still a striking analogy. Science is fast becoming a religious system in itself - especially when it comes to atheists (strong atheists) - pretty sad to tell you the truth. I wasn't criticizing in the sense you use it. I was more attempting a critique.
By the way wes... you might find it quite interesting to have a look at the "God Does Exist" thread... Oh, I see you read it, I'll respond to that as soon as I can, so keep an eye on that thread will you? You should also respond to Jenyars post - it should be interesting. Lata wes.

 

[wesmorris]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science Versus Religion???

Originally posted by MarcAC
You misread my post - maybe it's my fault. Anyway, I don't know who introduced entropy, but I didn't say it was Hawking - I guess I posted with the assumption that most who would read it would have a knowledge of what Hawking said with regards to virtual particles and it's implications where the concept of energy cannot be created or destroyed {E=mc^2} is concerned.


So you refer to scientists as "hawking and his cronies"? Kind of a dig there I'd say. And yes, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Seemed to me that you referring to the concept of "conservation of energy" when you say "energy can neither be created or destroyed". And you should never assume that people reading a religion post are going to have knowledge about what Hawking said about virtual particles, etc. I'm still not sure you're applying whatever he said about it correctly, since I'm not sure what he said to begin with.

Oh, and okay.. for you maybe it's a striking analogy, to me it just sounds kind of silly. Comparing god's role in christianity to energy's role in science is a stupid comparison in my opinion. Science does not purport to "worship energy". Science is also, NOT a religon. I'm sure you could make a half-assed argument that it is and have a few valid points at the epistemological level, but the function of science is discovery through repeatable means. The function of religion is to satiate the "spiritual" side of humans. Hardly comparable.

By the way wes... you might find it quite interesting to have a look at the "God Does Exist" thread...


I saw it the day you wrote it, I just haven't had the energy to appropriately respond. The kids/wife/dog/house/job thing keeps me busy . Finally got it done though, pardon me if it sounds rude, I am generally in a hurry to finish the stinking post.

Oh, I see you read it, I'll respond to that as soon as I can, so keep an eye on that thread will you? You should also respond to Jenyars post - it should be interesting. Lata wes.

You know I'll get to it as soon as I can muster the time and energy, but thanks for the directive.

later bro!