Science vs Religion

tony1,

You wouldn't be so easily hurt if you kept your heart behind your armor where it belongs instead of out on your sleeve.
Click to expand...

That's the difference between us. I fight with my Love. You just hide it. Jesus fought with His Love too, and finished by being crucifixed.

I'm just doing my best to be like Him and fight for other people allways using my Love. I knew you had Love in your Heart, but you prefer to hide it not to be hurt than to fight with it.

I'm just carrying the cross with Jesus, fighting for other people with all my Heart. It's your choice if you follow us or continue to hide your Love not to be hurt.

Love,
Nelson
 
There is the Tony1 we all "hate" to love!!..

Back with a vengence are we?

Quote: Tony1:
"Knowing you is kind of hard on your friends, isn't it?
Perhaps it's the absence of hope you're preaching to them."

No!! I don't preach, however you do!!.

Quote: Tony1:"Since you're so focused on using your own brains, why is it that you so often seem to be quoting or paraphraing those two?
Have your own brains failed?

Actually I have brains, "lets not start calling ourselves brainless again, shall we!" There's no point in cut downs.


BTW, you allways seem to be preaching the bible in given topics, since I don't PREACH, I quote my favorite philosopher, that's not about having brains or not, that is as a reference, pretty much as you yourself do with the bible!.

Quote, Xev: "No, actually, I think I was more or less born an athiest. I've tried to believe....sorta....but I can't."

You are quiet correct in that assessment, we are all born athiests, even Tony1, or Truthseeker was born an atheist as well, it is latter in life when their heads got filled with superstition, that they decided not to question, and believe full hearterdly, however in the case of Atheists, we just couldn't buy the whole story of superstition and mysticism. We are all born "tabula raza" an empty slate.
Therefore the lack of knowledge as a baby makes us atheist first.
 
Tony1: you said "Everyone believes in god"? That is one hell of an assumption (little pun there). Are you trying to tell me that the nature-spirit believing horsemen of far north-east Siberia who have never even heard of christianity believe i the christian god? What about the Dalai Lama? What about the natives of Australia who also believe in nature and animal spirits? What about atheists like me? Are you ridiculously arrogant enough to assure me that I believe in something which has never been more than another fairy tale to me?
 
Last edited:
Godless,

I have no surpertitions. I experienced what I believe. ;)
And before the experience, I already had Faith.

Love,
Nelson
 
Godless: It is like the old joke: "We are both athiests, I simply believe in one God fewer than you"

Edit for here is the quote:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. [Stephen Roberts]
Click to expand...

On faith, even Pascal noted that

Faith is a gift of God; do not believe that we said it was a gift of reasoning. Other religions do not say this of their faith. They only gave reasoning in order to arrive at it, and yet it does not bring them to it.
Click to expand...

I submit that faith is activly sought and independant of reason.

Nelson: You'd do better to fight with your mind and wall off your heart enough to avoid getting hurt.
 
Last edited:
Godless,

***Quote: Tony1:"Since you're so focused on using your own brains, why is it that you so often seem to be quoting or paraphraing those two?
Have your own brains failed?

Actually I have brains, "lets not start calling ourselves brainless again, shall we!" There's no point in cut downs.


BTW, you allways seem to be preaching the bible in given topics, since I don't PREACH, I quote my favorite philosopher, that's not about having brains or not, that is as a reference, pretty much as you yourself do with the bible!.***

I think you and tony1 might be approaching the same end in different ways. I'm sure that neither one of you really considers the other person to be brainless. You both "use" your intellect in different ways to approach an end which can probably be thought of as happiness. What you and tony1 seem to be doing, and science vs religion in general, is questioning how the other "uses" their intellect to arrive at that end.

Most of us, I think, have a desire to know the cause of what we see and, ultimately, the cause of everything. If the intellect is not extended so far as to arrive at the first cause, that which I call God*, then I reason that the intellect has probably not operated at its highest function. As such, the intellect which does not arrive at the first cause, that which I call God*, approaches what is thought of as happiness but its happiness would actually consist of something lesser.
 
Xev,

You'd do better to fight with your mind and wall off your heart enough to avoid getting hurt.
Click to expand...

The Truth is not in my mind, is in my Heart.
I have to fight with my Heart.
I don't care being hurt...
It's unavoidable...
As long as someone win something with that...

Love,
Nelson
 
Despite our differences, I like to wish every one...

A Happy Easter!:D

The secular meaning of Easter, is the welcoming of Spring, meaning a renewed season for the harvest to be planted, in essence re-birth of fruits & harvest.
 
Tony1

Sorry, no.
There are plenty of healthy believers around.
Click to expand...
That is a different definition. I am healthy. That does not perclude my being sick at an earlier period in my life. There is no person on this planet that has gone a lifetime without some infirmity. Any claim against that is a lie. You need only talk to a physician to confirm this. I don't buy that Christian Science crap.
*Even Christian ideas change. The problem I identified is that the book cannot change also. That is called stagnation.*

The problem is that the word "stagnation" essentially applies to water, not to books.
Click to expand...
The bible percludes any other position beyond that of a six-day creation. In light of new evidence we know that to be false. The pope can accept that, and so too can some congregations. I am only arguing that two versions of the bible should be printed, the one for stupid people and the one that incorporates evolution.

Some books age better. Compare the works of Greece, The Republic and The Oddysey. They were just born less stale. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they were written by thinking peoples. That's only to say that instead of finding god responsible for lighting and rain they explained the phenomena through invention of a theory involving convection currents.
*I realize that some lack a fundamental awareness of what constitutes an argument, but please at least follow those principles at the least.*

This an explanation of why you so rarely form coherent arguments?
Click to expand...
There are other ways to compensate for your lack of knowledge and oratory ability. Sarcasm is not the only way.
 
Re: Re: Science vs Religion

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

TS, I disagree with you, science is the study of the universe/matter, i believe its point is to (eventually) analyticaly find out the source of the material universe and everything therein. Religion is to interact with that source and realise our true identities, and become liberated from material nature. Religion follows on from science.
Science without religion has no real puropse other than entangling us moreso in this material prison. Religion without science is just mere sentiment, it has no real value."


Wow! This is excellent. Yes, I believe your right, these are the ideal goals for science and religion. But, I believe that a problem exsists with those who actually work in the scientific field today. And it is the same in religious circles. Once a theory, like say evolution, takes a stronghold, it becomes the basis for all future scientific study. And as such takes a stifling effect upon arriving at some other possibility. In this way, it becomes religious in nature (by religious here, I mean possibly guided by rigid tradition) and therefore no longer a pure scientific endeavor based upon independent facts.

However I also must agree that, without a religious belief to base things upon, science really is futile. And of course religion based on fantasy is also quite the same.

I just really like what you said here and had to comment. Well put.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Re: Science vs Religion

Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
Originally posted by Jan Ardena

Once a theory, like say evolution, takes a stronghold, it becomes the basis for all future scientific study. And as such takes a stifling effect upon arriving at some other possibility. In this way, it becomes religious in nature (by religious here, I mean possibly guided by rigid tradition) and therefore no longer a pure scientific endeavor based upon independent facts.
Click to expand...

The field of science is predicated upon the fact that any theory may be challenged. However, to do so and be taken seriously one must have evidence. The strongest theories are those with the most supporting evidence not those that have been "believed" the longest.

Eienstein, Gallello, Newton, all belie your notion that scientific theory becomes "rigid tradition". Each broke through the currently accepted theories because their theory(ies) best explained the evidence.
That some theories continue to be regarded as true or, at least, most true is that no competing theory has yet been able to out-prove it.

BTW I find your description of "religious in nature" as "guided by rigid tradition" a very interesting one.

~Raithere
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science vs Religion

Originally posted by Raithere


"BTW I find your description of "religious in nature" as "guided by rigid tradition" a very interesting one."

I agree with you mostly, and about the description, you should find it interesting, because thats what religion is. And evolution is also a religion BTW.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science vs Religion

Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
And evolution is also a religion BTW.
Click to expand...

I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion.
 
Aww crap! He found us out! I wonder if he knows about our infiltration of the government and the ritualistic sex? ;)

*Xev wanders off to sprinkle goat's blood over her copy of 'The Origen of Species'.*

Hey, beats reading the damn thing. That man just goes on and on and on.....don't get me started on the pigeons. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
And evolution is also a religion BTW. [/B]
Click to expand...

You are mistaken.

re·lig·ion n. Abbr. rel., relig. 1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

ev·o·lu·tion n. 3. Biology. a. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.

However, what you may be thinking of is belief:

be·lief n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

Belief does not constitute religion. One may believe in evolution, this does not mean it is a religion.

~Raithere
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science vs Religion

Originally posted by Adam

"I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion."

Big surprise there......ha!:p

Well its quite simple really. Religion, bases it claims upon substantiated facts and unsubstantiated beliefs based upon those facts. As well as mens teachings, traditions, Biblical doctrine, etc.

Evolutionary theory is much the same. There is much conjecture filling the holes. Thats not to say that those holes wont be filled eventually by continued study. Although I personally think that the evolutionary God of random selection is far too subjective to ever aid in the search for the real truth.

And I find, in debating evolutionary adherants, that they become quite religious about their beliefs. Reacting just as a Christian or any other theistic adherant. They have simply chosen a different God. A God which cannot ever allow its believers to ever literally call it "a God". Because this would taint his power. Which comes through, supposedly "objective science". But it is a God none-the-less.
Click to expand...
 
Richie,

<i>Evolutionary theory is much the same. There is much conjecture filling the holes.</i>

Which holes are you talking about?

<i>...I personally think that the evolutionary God of random selection is far too subjective to ever aid in the search for the real truth.</i>

Evolution is only partially random, and no God is involved.
 
Originally posted by James R


Richie said;
<i>Evolutionary theory is much the same. There is much conjecture filling the holes.</i>

James asked;
"Which holes are you talking about?"

Richies reply;
Well, the real problem is to "take it from the top" so to speak.

Where did all this genetic material come from? How did it start? As you well know, these questions will never be answered adequately because, quite frankly, no one was there. So all that can be done is to theorize. Based upon the knowledge you have yes, but its still just theory, conjecture. And even, as Im sure your aware, fabrication. This is a very desperate and religious act.

Richie said;
<i>...I personally think that the evolutionary God of random selection is far too subjective to ever aid in the search for the real truth.</i>

To which James replied;
"Evolution is only partially random, and no God is involved."

Richies response;
"Partially random, totally random, makes little difference, the fact is, the foundations of evolutionary theory, especially regarding mankind are "the roll of the dice". We got lucky. Which, based upon how carefully balanced this planet is to support life, such a "chance encounter" seems a bit far fetched. And as you know, based on scientific "beliefs" about the beginnings of our world, it is a mathmatical impossibility. This is the "God" of evolution. The unprovable part, that requires a leap of faith. Just as the Christian belief requires such a leap. Both are based in known facts, but still require a certain amount of faith to believe. As such, it can be called a religion. And I do so call it."
Click to expand...
 
Richie,

<i>Where did all this genetic material come from? How did it start?</i>

I think you're confusion evolution and abiogenesis.

<i>As you well know, these questions will never be answered adequately because, quite frankly, no one was there.</i>

Just like we'll never know how electrons act because nobody will ever be as small as an electron, right?

<i>So all that can be done is to theorize. Based upon the knowledge you have yes, but its still just theory, conjecture.</i>

All science is made up of things which are "just theory". Some theories are better than others. Evolution is a particularly successful one. I can't understand why some people think "just a theory" is a bad thing.

<i>And even, as Im sure your aware, fabrication.</i>

Examples, please.

<i>...the foundations of evolutionary theory, especially regarding mankind are "the roll of the dice". We got lucky.</i>

True. Things could have gone differently. We're nothing special.

<i>Which, based upon how carefully balanced this planet is to support life, such a "chance encounter" seems a bit far fetched.</i>

You've got things around the wrong way. Life is adapted to the planet, not the other way round.

<i>And as you know, based on scientific "beliefs" about the beginnings of our world, it is a mathmatical impossibility.</i>

Please explain. Show me the maths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top