Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

To reiterate, you could wipe out every element of religious thinking and war would continue, as well as become deadlier with every generation.

I'd go one step further and say that when science increases dramatically is during war, being a time when ordinary social custom breaks down and scientists are allowed to "express" their less than humane theories.

I'll quote a line from Jurassic Park, just because ;)

"scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should ".

I'd even go so far as to argue that science has a very "dark" side to it, and it is only through normative social customs and the basic humanity we see during peacetime that science is curtailed and doesn't breed excessive human destruction.

German geneticists were prominent during the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean scientists didn't want to play with human bodies when the Kaiser was around. It just means they didn't get the OK back then.......

So each generation becomes more deadly based on the wars of the previous generation. You can see that clearly through the last century alone. We've moved from muskets, to rifles, repeating-rifles, machine guns, artillery, poison gas, cruise missiles, to Atom bombs.

Mankind discovers gunpowder: Lets use it to make guns

Mankind invents the sail-boat: Lets put guns on it and make it a battleship
Mankind splits the atom: Lets make it a bomb
Mankind invents the airplane: Lets put guns AND bombs on it

Ironically enough, I think the opposite is true as well. Inventions man discoveres for war end up having crucial civilian uses.

Mankind discovers jet propulsion (first as fighter jet): Let's put em on commercial planes
Mankind discovers Atomic energy (first as a bomb): Let's use it to make power plants
Mankind invents submarine (first as a weapon): Let's explore the ocean

And on it goes. Sonar, Radar, communication devices, spacecraft, and lo and behold: THE INTERNET!

All designs first conceived for military use. ASTOUNDING what they are today......

Mengele (is that how its spelt?) must have come up with at leas some constructive stuff. it seems impossible to poke at so many people and not get anything at all from it.

I do not have the time to read every post this thread has concocted but I will reply with hopes that not much has changed.

A better name for this topic would be "Belief versus Belief". Science is simply a study of certain subjects, the sciences of biology, archaeology, zoology, physics, and chemistry are the big players that converge on the creation of the universe. Yet, all agree that disproving faith is impossible, they just want to help people channel their faith, to point them in the right direction. They are doing their best to find the right direction, yet no way to see through the fog that is the past. We know that time travel is impossible and that any chance of seeing the moment when "God made" the universe. Proving a thesis is hard enough, proving a theory and inducting it as a scientific law is practically impossible, only some of the most obvious things are laws. Disproving a theory is easy and can happen with one discovery. Evolution is still young and cannot be confirmed nor will it ever be, so belief in it is similar to religion but the religious justify their beliefs with certain historical inconsistencies and phenomenon. Are you so different from them? Fearful of being wrong you hide behind science and attack something which you do not know. You hate their ideas and their faith yet you "hate" it. Does that hate really exist? Although this sounds cheesy just go with it, hate cannot exist without love and vice-versa. Hate is the bi-product while love is the main emotion, the reason you hate someone or something is because you feel it threatens something or someone you love. Love is based on faith and does not truly exist as a tangible object, yet many believe in it and profess it. Have you ever thought you loved someone? Well, do they love you? How do you know? You don't, it is faith and that many take that faith, that commitment as truth and when it is broken they break down, inside they burn and scream with sadness and hate towards the truth. This can be applied to religion, for thousands of years we humans have had religion, many of them lasting for many many centuries, you say you have disproven them, and you think they will not take it lightly, not only have you just lied but you have made them question them and their entire lineage. You believe that everyone can just shake it off and say, "You know what this theory has some good ideas let's go along with it." and everyone can skip to a happy ending? People will never get rid of religion and you are a fool to think that religion should die, instead of getting rid of it let it adapt, you have tried to take power over something that you, an insignificant human being with a very small minority of the world behind you can see the entire universe, science still knows nothing. Religion knows nothing. No one knows anything. Our grasp on reality is so small, the Earth is big to us, yet so small and we don't even know everything about it yet. Do not believe your argument cannot be argued as you have said, for it can't even stand enough to be proven.

Thank you if you have read my entire piece, and I apologize if I went off topic on any part of it.

Death-Cannon

please. use. paragraphs.

Seriously, just chomping up the text a little will cause a lot of more people to read it.

so belief in it is similar to religion but the religious justify their beliefs with certain historical inconsistencies and phenomenon.

Holy shit. Are you actually saying religion proves its claims but science dosent?

I mean, the whole nature about science is about proving your claims. That is the whole freaking point!

Say what you want about theories about evolution. But just think about it, HOW exactly did evolution, in just 150 years, win the battle against Christianity (quite a few people was fighing activly against evolution, and the general feeling for it wasn't very good), and get to be taught as how the species originated in school? How did it become the mainstream view within biology?

Are you saying that all this happened despite it having absolutely no evidence or weight behind it claims?

I think you should seriously look into science a little more and how it works. Science isn't some "religion without God". It is a method for proving things, and one that involves evidence.

At 3/25/07 02:07 AM, Death-Cannon wrote:

A better name for this topic would be "Belief versus Belief". Science is simply a study of certain subjects, the sciences of biology, archaeology, zoology, physics, and chemistry are the big players that converge on the creation of the universe. Yet, all agree that disproving faith is impossible, they just want to help people channel their faith, to point them in the right direction.

Of course disproving faith is impossible. That a person's faith can superseded logic is not the question; But rather what is and isn't logical and or empirical, and faith is inherently illogical never mind it's (generally) complete contrast to being empirical. As an aside, is there anything that doesn't require some element of belief, and if so, wouldn't the object that requires the lest belief be most like to be correct?

:They are doing their best to find the right direction, yet no way to see through the fog that is the past.

But we do have methods to see into the past, and Observatories and rock strata are good place to start looking.

:We know that time travel is impossible and that any chance of seeing the moment when "God made" the universe.

Time travel isn't impossible, at lest in a non-flat space time (which are universe isn't). General relativity states that space time can be distorted, stretched, and even potently wrapped back in on it self. Also we don't have to go back to the very beginning of the universe to know how it formed.

:Proving a thesis is hard enough, proving a theory and inducting it as a scientific law is practically impossible, only some of the most obvious things are laws.

Theories, and laws are NEVER proven; They simply adapt to new information, and become stronger as well as more accurate.

:Disproving a theory is easy and can happen with one discovery. Evolution is still young and cannot be confirmed nor will it ever be, so belief in it is similar to religion but the religious justify their beliefs with certain historical inconsistencies and phenomenon.

Actually evolution has been confirmed and it's considered a fact that all speaches evolve. While some of actual mechanisms (i.e. The theory part) of evolution are still being discovered, the general foundation and frame work are very sound.

:Are you so different from them? Fearful of being wrong you hide behind science and attack something which you do not know.

Actually I look forward to being wrong (main reason why I hate test by the way.), it means I have something new to learn. Also you assume that I don't know about your religion (what I assume your talking about).

:You hate their ideas and their faith yet you "hate" it. Does that hate really exist? Although this sounds cheesy just go with it, hate cannot exist without love and vice-versa. Hate is the bi-product while love is the main emotion, the reason you hate someone or something is because you feel it threatens something or someone you love.

But I don't have the same kind of faith they do, I have “faith” in the natural order of the world, and am will to readjust any and all of my standers if I find them to be in error; in addition I do my best to limit it and if possible completely remove it from my life. Also hate is perhaps to strong a word. I personally don't hate anything, or at lest I do my best not to. However many individuals in the science community, feel that science is under attack by religion (more specifically fundamentalism); What with a general lack of funding as well as a negative delta on it and the creationist and IDist trying to bring science education back into the dark ages.

:Love is based on faith and does not truly exist as a tangible object, yet many believe in it and profess it.
But love is an electro-chemical reaction in the brain; hell we can see it on MRI's . (There are of course better links to actual papers, but you'd need a subscription to view them.)

:Have you ever thought you loved someone? Well, do they love you? How do you know? You don't, it is faith and that many take that faith, that commitment as truth and when it is broken they break down, inside they burn and scream with sadness and hate towards the truth.

Short of sticking them into an MRI, there are subtle clues and body language to tell if some one loves you. They can be rather difficult to detect, especially on people who can “control” there body language, but they're there.

:This can be applied to religion, for thousands of years we humans have had religion, many of them lasting for many many centuries, you say you have disproven them, and you think they will not take it lightly, not only have you just lied but you have made them question them and their entire lineage. You believe that everyone can just shake it off and say, "You know what this theory has some good ideas let's go along with it." and everyone can skip to a happy ending?

How they take it is irrelevant in regards to whether they're wrong or not. We can see with all the optics we have that the sun isn't being pulled by some guy with winged horses on a chariot, we can see the there is no under world; Many of the elements from ancient religions and mythology have been shown to be false, and lacking evidence, how can you be so sure that the religions of today wont come to a similar end? I have done my best not to lie, but if any of my post are erroneous please point them out so I can correct them, I'm sure most other poster would/will do the same.

:People will never get rid of religion and you are a fool to think that religion should die, instead of getting rid of it let it adapt, you have tried to take power over something that you, an insignificant human being with a very small minority of the world behind you can see the entire universe, science still knows nothing. Religion knows nothing. No one knows anything. Our grasp on reality is so small, the Earth is big to us, yet so small and we don't even know everything about it yet.

But I see religion as a potential danger to intellectual inquiry and science. I've seen all religions used at one time or another to drag humanity into the darkness of ignorance. You say to let religion adapt, and I would have no problem with this if religion made the effort to adapt; but more often then not it doesn't. Rather, it tend to lash out and bring down that which truly makes humanity special, our intellect.

:Do not believe your argument cannot be argued as you have said, for it can't even stand enough to be proven.

But philosophical arguments can be proven to be true or false, though not necessarily factual; and empirical arguments can show faults in a general world view.

To answer, I'll quote something our Rabbi told us:

The bible should be taken Seriously, but not Literally.

That means that the bible has import lessons in morality to teach us, yet is mostly untrue story-wise.

Hey, this thread is becoming scientific again. Nice. Having been away for a while I'm finding the heathenry thread pretty hard to decipher so I'll warm myself up with this:

At 3/25/07 02:07 AM, Death-Cannon wrote: I do not have the time to read every post this thread has concocted but I will reply with hopes that not much has changed.

In the creation-evolution atheism-theism argument, nothing ever changes.

A better name for this topic would be "Belief versus Belief". Science is simply a study of certain subjects, the sciences of biology, archaeology, zoology, physics, and chemistry are the big players that converge on the creation of the universe. Yet, all agree that disproving faith is impossible, they just want to help people channel their faith, to point them in the right direction.

Not entirely sure what you're saying here but it's something like: science is a belief just as religion is because it talks about the same kind of things that religion talk about - that is, it discusses the beginning of the universe and the origin of man. Do forgive me if this is somewhat of a strawman.

Now, faith and science are completely different things. One relies on the reliability of empirical observation and the other...doesn't. Look, regardless of how true religion is or isn't, it isn't there to give us accurate descriptions of the origin of the universe of humans. It just...isn't. Regardless of how true it is the ancients wouldn't have understood the big bang or evolutionary theory, so why on earth would their divine revelations dealt with these kinds of issues? Why the HELL would you assume that, for instance, Genesis 1 gives an accurate, completely technical description of the creation of the universe? WHY?! The universe is WAY too messy for its creation to have been as Genesis 1.

They are doing their best to find the right direction, yet no way to see through the fog that is the past. We know that time travel is impossible and that any chance of seeing the moment when "God made" the universe.

No, we have several ways of looking into the past. I honestly find it quite annoying when people don't understand how such an intricate past could be observable "here" - just because you don't understand theoretical physics doesn't mean theoretical physicists don't, or that you know better than them.

Proving a thesis is hard enough, proving a theory and inducting it as a scientific law is practically impossible, only some of the most obvious things are laws.

Define "practically impossible". Laws are always being refined - take Newtonian physics for instance. He wasn't right, but he was close enough. Should we discount all of his work because Einstein refined it? Or discount all of Einstein's work because Planck refined it?

Also, laws are less obvious than you think. They just seem obvious when you hear about them.

Disproving a theory is easy and can happen with one discovery. Evolution is still young and cannot be confirmed nor will it ever be, so belief in it is similar to religion but the religious justify their beliefs with certain historical inconsistencies and phenomenon.

Theories are very rarely completely discarded, usually just refined. Evolution is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt - the nature of proof relies on axioms such as in mathematics, and science isn't an axiomatic system, so nothing can ever be "proven" per se. But, so that less scientifically-minded people, the word "proof" is entirely acceptable when talking about theories. I've noticed a lot of people start to doubt evolution and the big bang when it's called a "theory" or that it isn't "proven". This is seriously bad. Since these people will never take an interest in science...hang on, I'm going on a bit of a tangent here. Let's move on.

Are you so different from them? Fearful of being wrong you hide behind science and attack something which you do not know.

Holy crap. Holy crap. Do you have any idea how many times in this thread atheists have said that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive? You're talking about science as if it's some kind of trump card. Considering how much ignorance about the nature of science you've so far displayed in this post, you are being seriously hypocritical here. Faith is known by most atheists - sure they probably haven't experienced, but with religion it isn't proven, so why would an atheist assume some kind of truth there anyway? Oh my fucking christ....

You hate their ideas and their faith yet you "hate" it.

I really don't hate religion. It's useful socially. But heh, we hate it yet we "hate" it...yeah, hate usually entails hate....

Does that hate really exist? blah blah blah

Now you are simply talking shit. How old are you? 14 by any chance? I'm afraid on running out of characters here, so I won't bother taking your quite frankly retarded points and destroying them, one by one...sounds enticing, actually....

This can be applied to religion, for thousands of years we humans have had religion, many of them lasting for many many centuries, you say you have disproven them, and you think they will not take it lightly, not only have you just lied but you have made them question them and their entire lineage.

In many ways the big bang and evolution do make the concept of religion seem ridiculous - see my first post in this topic for reference - but other than that, they don't need to be mutually exclusive, as people have said several times in this thread. Very few atheists claim that science disproves religion per se, except Richard Dawkins of course.

Also, very few religious people have ever questioned their faith just because of a few outspoken atheists. They just go all "OMG ITS ONLY A THEORY"...a bit like you, eh?

You believe that everyone can just shake it off and say, "You know what this theory has some good ideas let's go along with it." and everyone can skip to a happy ending?

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

People will never get rid of religion and you are a fool to think that religion should die, instead of getting rid of it let it adapt, you have tried to take power over something that you, an insignificant human being with a very small minority of the world behind you can see the entire universe, science still knows nothing.

Science knows quite a bit, actually...not that it knows everything, obviously. But from the available evidence we can say that the universe originated from a very small, very dense, very hot state. From the available evidence we can say that man originated from ape-like creatures, and eventually an abiogenesis in primeval oceans.

Religion knows nothing. No one knows anything.

So your little rant has turned into knowledge nihilism? Seriously, you are probably going to regret making this post later...no more weed for you.

Our grasp on reality is so small, the Earth is big to us, yet so small and we don't even know everything about it yet.

We don't know everything? Woah man, thanks for that, I'm really reassured. As opposed to anything as you proclaimed before?

Do not believe your argument cannot be argued as you have said, for it can't even stand enough to be proven.

You don't even know what proof is, do you?

Thank you if you have read my entire piece, and I apologize if I went off topic on any part of it.

Thank you is fucking right. Paragraph it next time, for the love of god. Also, don't talk out of your ass either. It's amusing for a while, but eventually it just gets annoying....

At 3/25/07 08:41 AM, navij11 wrote:

That means that the bible has import lessons in morality to teach us, yet is mostly untrue story-wise.

Why would you follow a religion that is "mostly untrue"?

At 3/25/07 12:08 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/25/07 08:41 AM, navij11 wrote:

That means that the bible has import lessons in morality to teach us, yet is mostly untrue story-wise.

Why would you follow a religion that is "mostly untrue"?

Exactly. You don't learn anything from Aesop's fables either now do you? If the books don't describe real events, then the bible teaches nothing worthwile. Haha, talking animals, indeed.

I guess the only possible answer must be that all the followers of religion are absolutely batshit crazy and unaware that their book might actually not be true in the literal sense.

At 2/23/07 05:13 PM, Imperator wrote: His presence will NOT be missed I'm sure ;)

Yay for intelligence!

The very fact that I'm not arguing a pointless topic with you to no end is the true intelligence here.

But thank you for giving me a slight grin as I leave you with actually thinking that you've won "the battle".

At 3/25/07 07:15 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/23/07 05:13 PM, Imperator wrote: His presence will NOT be missed I'm sure ;)

Yay for intelligence!

The very fact that I'm not arguing a pointless topic with you to no end is the true intelligence here.

Says the person who posts yet again, after stating his last post was the previous one, about a comment made several pages ago. GG.

But thank you for giving me a slight grin as I leave you with actually thinking that you've won "the battle".

He won the freaking war, who cares about the battles.

Ok I'm going to put an end to this stupid thread once and for all!

OK, Evolution is a theory. And its staying a theory because scientists cant honestly say its fact and choosing to follow this idea is your own. Whenever the evidence changes so must the theory. However it does have just enough proof so it can't be discredited completly.

End of that

Religion is going downhill. No matter how much you fool yourself into thinking otherwise people are becoming less and less dependant on religion to go about their daily lives. There are still people who are strong believers in God(s). Religion is not dead nor will it ever die as long as you follow its rules and does what it says. Acording to some people I've talked to it's up to you what you say it metaphircal and what is literal. It's that simple.

Now that's finished

Religion and Science are two VERY seperate things. You don't go into work and say
"Right I'm going to do the companies bugdet while skydiving."
They are seperate. They have the books and the material for you to make up your own damn mind and not bother about what the man next to you has decided. You don't go into a dealership and pick the car which was the most recently sold. You pick a car for your own preferences. Thats it.

It's that fucking simple and you people have turned this entire thread which was alread crude to start off with into a flame war. All you are doing is firing back and forth to each other trying you're very best to discredit the other man/woman but it doesn't work because no matter how many links you are not going to change his/her beliefs and ideas.

This thread needs to die. This thread has to die. Because having all of you in one thread venting you're anger on one another is starting to piss me off. And yes I know there are going to be a dozen threads straight after this one but by then you all will have scattered and this pulsating piece of shit called Science Vs Religion will finally be layed to rest.

End Of Rant.

At 3/25/07 07:59 PM, Brick-top wrote: Ok I'm going to put an end to this stupid thread once and for all!

Oh bring it!

OK, Evolution is a theory.

Clearly not a science guy......

Religion is going downhill.

and you're an idiot.

Religion and Science are two VERY seperate things.

Again, idiot.

All you are doing is firing back and forth to each other trying you're very best to discredit the other man/woman but it doesn't work because no matter how many links you are not going to change his/her beliefs and ideas.

Not really. Take a look back, we've moved on to bigger and better things....

Apparently Theology 101 is not a course at your school......

This thread needs to die. This thread has to die.

Fat chance. Proteas hath crisened it the Official Religion Thread, for and I quote "this is the only topic on the BBS right now to have the balls to admit what it is", that being a direct conflict between science and religion.

Th problem is no one seems to realize that Theology takes manny different avenues, none of which happen to be conversion or "changing beliefs". Luckily, the few of us who DO realize that have our own litle heaven upon which to exand (Heathenry thread).

End Of Rant.

Well....at least your reign of terror was short lived......

At 3/25/07 09:57 PM, Imperator wrote:

Religion is going downhill.

and you're an idiot.

i forget why you and Dre don't get along.

Religion and Science are two VERY seperate things.

Again, idiot.

oh ya...

At 3/25/07 11:36 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
i forget why you and Dre don't get along.

it's opposites that attract, remember?

oh ya...

Come now! Science and religion are only at war with each other when people THINK they're that way. The other 99% of reality shows otherwise. As much as people would like to think religion is on the "downhill", it'll turn about with the next passing wave. Shit, we're not even sure to what extent people in Greece and Rome were religious, so how can you say it's on a "downhill" if we don't even know the starting point?

and Religion and science are not as separate as one would think. Theology IS a completely legitimate academic subject after all......

Religion will always have a part in everyday life, no matter what. Religion is what you believe is true about something science can not prove. As science is never going to prove everything, people will sometimes turn to religion to find the answers they want.

At 3/25/07 07:20 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 3/25/07 02:07 AM, Death-Cannon wrote:

People will never get rid of religion and you are a fool to think that religion should die, instead of getting rid of it let it adapt, you have tried to take power over something that you, an insignificant human being with a very small minority of the world behind you can see the entire universe, science still knows nothing. Religion knows nothing. No one knows anything. Our grasp on reality is so small, the Earth is big to us, yet so small and we don't even know everything about it yet.

All relligions have chainged over the years, with science and mingleing with other faiths, The Jewish faith and the hindu faith have bean influenced by and have influenced another old relligion, Zorosterism. Christianity and Islam came form the jewish faith and have concepts that stem from zoresterism and hinduism. Budhism has concepts of zoresterism and the jewish faith because it came from hinduism. sihkism came from a mix of hinduism and Islam. All relligions have also bean influenced by counless smaller faiths.

The more we know about science and each other and ourselvs we come closer to the truth, all relligions are a path to God, but all faiths nead to learn of each other to be better at it. That is why I some times see atheism as backwards, hindering development.

Okay, a question for all those saying that religion and science goes perfectly well hand in hand.

Christianity claims Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days. This goes against just about everything science knows about the process of dying and being dead. The brain tends to DIE, as in, STOP WORKING, as in, BRAIN CELLS ROTTING, after 11 minutes when you aren't breathing.

Islam says Muhammad rode into the sky on a magical horse. Science has never observed magic, much less any kind of flight involving magic instead of aerodynamic.

In all holy scripture, we can find such claims. Now, don't get me wrong. It is possible we could find such a source of magic in the future, or a new and better understanding of how death works, but these religions aren't doing ANYTHING the scientific way.

So, even if they are true, that doesn't make them scientific unless they are observed and documented using the scientific method.

On what basis do you claim that religion and science goes hand in hand?

On what basis do you claim that religion and science goes hand in hand?

Well what I was trying to say (maybe somewhat unsuccessfully) was that the two are not necessarily polar opposites, they are similar to each other in varying degrees, despite popular opinion.

Christianity claims Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days. This goes against just about everything science knows about the process of dying and being dead. The brain tends to DIE, as in, STOP WORKING, as in, BRAIN CELLS ROTTING, after 11 minutes when you aren't breathing.

People die and come back from the operating table all the time. Cardiac arrest =/= death.

Islam says Muhammad rode into the sky on a magical horse. Science has never observed magic, much less any kind of flight involving magic instead of aerodynamic.

This might be one area where science and religion don't meet eye to eye.

In all holy scripture, we can find such claims. Now, don't get me wrong. It is possible we could find such a source of magic in the future, or a new and better understanding of how death works, but these religions aren't doing ANYTHING the scientific way.

Not their intent. The similarities between the two are still there though. Whether we're talking about the benefit for mankind, the pursuit of the unknown, an attempt to explore the universe, or discovering the basics of human thought, science and religion can overlap.

So, even if they are true, that doesn't make them scientific unless they are observed and documented using the scientific method.

Well, the Catholic criteria for miracles might fall under this category, although I haven't found the exact criteria yet, there is a degree of scruitiny in judging whether something is considered a miracle or not.

On what basis do you claim that religion and science goes hand in hand?

Their appeals to man are similar perhaps? For starters at least.

Why do you feel as if they should be opposing forces?

I have a very different look on religion that you do, I think.

As I see it, people look for truth. Religion doesn't claim that "this is a nice method to get the truth". It simply claims, "This religion IS truth."

I mean, if religion was a way to find truth, then it should be able to produce ANYTHING. Do you think Christianity will ever prove that Jesus didn't exist? Why not? Jesus did or did not exist. If Christianity was a tool for finding truth, then it would FIND IT OUT, instead of giving a BASELESS CLAIM.

As I see it, if you are looking for truth in something, religion is like a man telling you he knows it ALL and will TELL you and you have to TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT, while science is a man telling you he doesn't know all, but he knows a way to find it out, which also includes YOU, so that YOU can be sure it IS the truth, and not being forced to take his word.

Science never says: "this is true, trust me". Religion does. That is my basis.

At 3/26/07 11:34 AM, Grammer wrote: That's because religion is base on faith, so you can believe in whatever the Hell you want. That doesn't make it wrong, though, we use faith in our lives all the time, and we never think twice about it.

That is true, but it doesn't make faith equal to evidence. More than once has evidence and faith said different things, are we to trust a gut feeling and what you "feel to be true", over hard evidence and our senses?

Futhermore, faith isn't very sharable over several people. You might have faith in one thing, and I another. But, 1 +1 = 2 will be always be true for both of us. That is why I find logic and evidence better than faith. (but I am not saying faith is useless and should be gotten rid of. We often don't have logic and evidence in some part of our lives)

At 3/26/07 11:27 AM, Drakim wrote: Science never says: "this is true, trust me". Religion does. That is my basis.

That's not true. Science heavily asserts it's validity when counter-evidence comes into play. Look at all the flak Einstien had to go through when he developed equations that contradicted Newton's Laws. It wasn't until the most recent centuries that scientists finally started throwing their hands up as a community and accepted that they basically knew "the jist" until it could be disproven by someone else.

But even that's still not the case. Lots of scientists are chastised and shunned by the scientific community if you don't step in line with what they believe. Scientists who don't fall in line with the global warming dogma can be looked down upon often. It is, in it's own respect, a "this is true, trust me" type of relationship.

Without the bibl;e there are no theries t test nd without scinece those theries cannot be tested...both need each other to survive!!!

At 3/25/07 11:36 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 3/25/07 09:57 PM, Imperator wrote:

Religion is going downhill.

and you're an idiot.

i forget why you and Dre don't get along.

Hang a tick, are you acusing me of being an alt of Dre?!

At 3/26/07 01:29 PM, Brick-top wrote: Hang a tick, are you acusing me of being an alt of Dre?!

no, no; just of being an idiot as Imperator said.

At 3/26/07 02:43 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 3/26/07 01:29 PM, Brick-top wrote: Hang a tick, are you acusing me of being an alt of Dre?!

no, no; just of being an idiot as Imperator said.

That's fine then. Don't care being called an idiot just DONT FUCKING CALL ME DRE! God I hate him.

At 3/26/07 11:34 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/26/07 11:27 AM, Drakim wrote: Science never says: "this is true, trust me". Religion does. That is my basis.

That's because religion is base on faith, so you can believe in whatever the Hell you want. That doesn't make it wrong, though, we use faith in our lives all the time, and we never think twice about it.

Never think twice about it? Are you so sure that theists never question what they believe and why? That's where philosophy comes from. Hell there are a lot of times where I've thought about the possibility of there not being a God. I've gone through periods where I didn't want to believe that there was a God because it was so much easier just to let it go and be 'free'. So don't tell me or other theists that we've never thought twice about it.

At 3/26/07 11:01 AM, Drakim wrote: Okay, a question for all those saying that religion and science goes perfectly well hand in hand.

Christianity claims Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days. This goes against just about everything science knows about the process of dying and being dead. The brain tends to DIE, as in, STOP WORKING, as in, BRAIN CELLS ROTTING, after 11 minutes when you aren't breathing.

congratulations Dr.Alberstein! you just discovered that when the bible said that jesus died, he in fact Died!

Islam says Muhammad rode into the sky on a magical horse. Science has never observed magic, much less any kind of flight involving magic instead of aerodynamic.

I dought that Islam said that, the relligion that never said Muhhammad had magical powers. And that Islam was a relligion that was so scared to make something a deity (like a magical horse), so they diddnt have Idols or pictures of people, I think your just spouting bull shit.

In all holy scripture, we can find such claims. Now, don't get me wrong. It is possible we could find such a source of magic in the future, or a new and better understanding of how death works, but these religions aren't doing ANYTHING the scientific way.

A) Islam never claimed muhammed had magic
B) no one ever thought muhammed could fly because there were no images made depicting that.

So, even if they are true, that doesn't make them scientific unless they are observed and documented using the scientific method.

you dont know what you are talking about.

On what basis do you claim that religion and science goes hand in hand?

I diddnt even know that there were horses in arabia at muhammeds time O.o

At 3/26/07 11:27 AM, Drakim wrote: I have a very different look on religion that you do, I think.

As I see it, people look for truth. Religion doesn't claim that "this is a nice method to get the truth". It simply claims, "This religion IS truth."

I mean, if religion was a way to find truth, then it should be able to produce ANYTHING. Do you think Christianity will ever prove that Jesus didn't exist? Why not? Jesus did or did not exist. If Christianity was a tool for finding truth, then it would FIND IT OUT, instead of giving a BASELESS CLAIM.

Relligion doesnt need to prove that jesus existed, the Romans had him on file as a criminal, profe he exsisted.

As I see it, if you are looking for truth in something, religion is like a man telling you he knows it ALL and will TELL you and you have to TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT, while science is a man telling you he doesn't know all, but he knows a way to find it out, which also includes YOU, so that YOU can be sure it IS the truth, and not being forced to take his word.

How about, water is made of 1 part oxygen, 2 parts hydrogen?

Science never says: "this is true, trust me". Religion does. That is my basis.

Except the Clotis first thoery, the DNA/RNA prion thoery, scientific racism... and many others.

At 3/26/07 11:34 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/26/07 11:27 AM, Drakim wrote: Science never says: "this is true, trust me". Religion does. That is my basis.

That's because religion is base on faith, so you can believe in whatever the Hell you want. That doesn't make it wrong, though, we use faith in our lives all the time, and we never think twice about it.

So if you're a christian or jew etc its
"I'm God what I say IS true and it's my way or the highway"