Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Well...personaly I think religion and science are the same.

I guess that sounds a little bit of a crazy/stupid comment. But when I think of religion and that satan character I ask myself "What would I use to fight god?" Then I think of useing the bible itself of cource. So I think its just religion now and days that are posioned. Seeing that is most people who take the bible serious (I mean like ridiculously serious) seem to be rather close minded..

But then again I tend to have other things that run in my mind then these things.

Hmm...
Religion
1. Think that there god is all mighty
2. Think that they are better then everyone else
3. Are complete retards.
Science
1. Don't believe in god ^_^
2. Are pretty humble
3. Actually smart.

Science wins.

At 1/24/07 12:56 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Uhm, no. In fact, science aknowledges that it is wrong, but that it gets better all the time.

what does that even mean?

There's a lot of direct evidence for the Big Bang, but you can't prove natural facts. That's just not possible.

yeah, right. the big bang did happen. the evidence clearly shows that it happened. it is so plausable that it is proven.

There's no proof for either, not even evidence. God is inherrently outside of our physical world, so it's impossible to find evidence of the existence of a god.

no proof? the proof is that god only exists in a book. god is a form of fiction. without that boook he doesnt exist. there's your proof.

That's personal opinion.

no thats fact ass hole

It has been said many times before, but religion and science can coexist, if they keep to their proper domains. Religion can't answer questions like whether evolution is real or not any more than science can answer why there's a universe as opposed to there not being a universe.
Religion doesn't hold us back, fundamentalism like creationism attempts to hold us back.

religion faces the old ways. the new ways go agaisnt these religious freaks views.

Bullshit. No matter how you wish to define "forward". Plenty of scientists are religious. There's no correlation between wanting to go forward and being religious...

scientists are not religious. it just doesnt happen. in religioun there are no atoms. the bible doesnt talk of atoms or why gravity is the way it is, or what the elements are. the reason why is because these things are not believed in religiouns.

First off, that's a generalization, and second, your reason is wrong. They have many objections against stemcell research, but not wanting cancer to disappear is not one of them.

it is one of the big reasons. i can undersand the whole fetus thing, but they dont even want us to use the umbilicol cord. most people throw that away. the ones that eat it are sick minded. but most throw it away. the religious people dont want it to help cancer because they think cancer is one of god's plans.

Another blatantly false generalization. My high school biology teacher, now doctor in biology, was highly religious and taught religion as well as biology.

science and religioun dont mix. what, when he got to reproduction did he tell you that the way women have babies is by god putting it there?

There's a difference between religious fundamentalism like creationists and flat earthers, and sane religious people.

there are no sane religious people. i they were sane then they would go the way of science.

And the conversion by the sword you're talking about has long since passed. The implementation of religion changes over the years you know.

the bible is still the same so no it doesnt.

And what do you base that statement on? How do you know so certainly that there is no god of any kind?

there is no god because god would not create a being that could eventually be come more powerful then he could ever be.

humans have the potential to become more then what is called a god. we will evolve into a being that can control the universe by our will alone. if there is any god, then it is humans themselves. not some character in an old old old story.

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Ok, so religion has the bible, the koran, the holy scriptures and so fourth and so on, but Science has everything else plus logic.

I know I'm getting in on this late, but the original post has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. "How long until science disproves the theories of god creating the earth?"... What? Are you seriously 23?

At 1/25/07 01:12 AM, HogWashSoup wrote:

At 1/24/07 12:56 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Uhm, no. In fact, science aknowledges that it is wrong, but that it gets better all the time.

what does that even mean?

It's the scientific method. Do some experiments, make a theory than can explain those experiments, make predictions based on said theory, and do experiments to verify. If the experiments don't match the predictions, then something's wrong with the theory, and the theory is adjusted. And so on. It ensures that our knowledge gets better and better all the time. But it's impossible to arrive at complete absolute facts, and it would be foolish to claim that you do.

There's a lot of direct evidence for the Big Bang, but you can't prove natural facts. That's just not possible.

yeah, right. the big bang did happen. the evidence clearly shows that it happened. it is so plausable that it is proven.

It's very plausible, there's a lot of evidence for it, but that still doesn't make it an absolute fact. Many years ago people thought that when they burned things, something left the thing. It was also considered proven, with experiments with wood and so on. But when burning dunnowhatitwas, they noticed that the burnt object was actually heavier. Which means their theory was wrong, and then dalton came with the idea of atoms (although it was very different from out atomic theory today).
So from all proof we have now, we conclude that the Big Bang is true. But it's important to keep in mind that we could be wrong, so we have to keep looking for evidence that supports and contradicts it, so we can refine and adjust the theory.

There's no proof for either, not even evidence. God is inherrently outside of our physical world, so it's impossible to find evidence of the existence of a god.

no proof? the proof is that god only exists in a book. god is a form of fiction. without that boook he doesnt exist. there's your proof.

It's not because we don't have any evidence of something, that it is necessarily false. I think it's ridiculous to assume something without any evidence, but there's no evidence as to whether there is or isn't some sort of god, some world outside of our physical world. Claiming to have information about that god like some books do is a different matter of course.

That's personal opinion.

no thats fact ass hole

I'm sorry, you've proven me wrong with that superb argument.

Bullshit. No matter how you wish to define "forward". Plenty of scientists are religious. There's no correlation between wanting to go forward and being religious...

scientists are not religious. it just doesnt happen. in religioun there are no atoms. the bible doesnt talk of atoms or why gravity is the way it is, or what the elements are. the reason why is because these things are not believed in religiouns.

You're generalizing again. Albert Einstein was religious, in that he believed in some form of god. Wasn't he a scientist?
The reason why the Bible doesn't talk about those is because the Bible was not meant as a guide to "how the universe works", and should not be attempted to use as such. Sadly some people do, but to claim all religious people do it is a blatant generalization. It would be like saying atheists are all communists.

First off, that's a generalization, and second, your reason is wrong. They have many objections against stemcell research, but not wanting cancer to disappear is not one of them.

it is one of the big reasons. i can undersand the whole fetus thing, but they dont even want us to use the umbilicol cord. most people throw that away. the ones that eat it are sick minded. but most throw it away. the religious people dont want it to help cancer because they think cancer is one of god's plans.

There probably are fundamentalists with those ideas, but they are a minority. I'm more outraged at the pope claiming the condom is immoral. That's a direct cause for the huge spread of AIDS in Africa.

Another blatantly false generalization. My high school biology teacher, now doctor in biology, was highly religious and taught religion as well as biology.

science and religioun dont mix. what, when he got to reproduction did he tell you that the way women have babies is by god putting it there?

No... She taught about rna and dna copying and its influence on evolution... Science in the science class, religion in the religion class.

There's a difference between religious fundamentalism like creationists and flat earthers, and sane religious people.

there are no sane religious people. i they were sane then they would go the way of science.

Science can't explain everything you know. People need something more, a reason as to "why". The areas sciences can't explain, are explained by religion. They both treat different domains of questions, and they can coexist perfectly as long as they don't try to mess around in the other's domain. In that sense, it is "sane" to be religious. Most people have a psychological need for religion. Religion is not something that popped up recently, even cavemen were religious.

And the conversion by the sword you're talking about has long since passed. The implementation of religion changes over the years you know.

the bible is still the same so no it doesnt.

The Bible is the same, but they way it is interpreted and the way the belief is implemented has changed. There are no more crusades this day and age, nor any inquisition. Times change, and the implementation of religion with it. Even though the core and basis remains the same.

And what do you base that statement on? How do you know so certainly that there is no god of any kind?

there is no god because god would not create a being that could eventually be come more powerful then he could ever be.

You assume that we could become more powerful than a god? We are bound to this physical world, we can never transcend, so we'll always be inferior than the concept of god. Besides, you assume that that god would have created us.

humans have the potential to become more then what is called a god. we will evolve into a being that can control the universe by our will alone. if there is any god, then it is humans themselves. not some character in an old old old story.

Haha, you could indeed say we are the gods of the earth. Until an epidemia or earthquake comes and shakes some sense into us. There's much we can do, but we do have our limitations.
We can never be "more" than a god, since god is pretty much defined as "the ultimate entitity".

At 1/25/07 01:14 AM, BrooklynBrett wrote:

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Ok, so religion has the bible, the koran, the holy scriptures and so fourth and so on, but Science has everything else plus logic.

I know I'm getting in on this late, but the original post has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. "How long until science disproves the theories of god creating the earth?"... What? Are you seriously 23?

Already science has chipped away at parts of religion. And all this is if religion doesn't destroy itself first.

Now as we've already heard, Catholic's like to believe that only they follow the true path and that all other beliefs are false or the work of the devil. (don't even try to counter that fact).

Furthermore, take a look at 7th day adventists and (whats known as) "The Great Disappointment" and "The 2nd Great Disappointment" which were the tellings of the return of christ and the start of a utopian world in actual dates.
Of course, twice, he didn't show and the religion has since diminished greatly, because its just false.
Plan false.
He isn't real so he couldn't show up as their bible foretells.

Theres no way of knowing when science will employ a new technology that can reveal secrets that directly contridict some of religions most precious tellings.

It simply is a matter of time.
Since starting this thread I have changed my view than until that happends, perhaps yes, Science and Religion can co-exist.

And this revealing of secrets is a long way away.

At 1/25/07 10:35 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote:

At 1/25/07 01:14 AM, BrooklynBrett wrote:

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Ok, so religion has the bible, the koran, the holy scriptures and so fourth and so on, but Science has everything else plus logic.

I know I'm getting in on this late, but the original post has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. "How long until science disproves the theories of god creating the earth?"... What? Are you seriously 23?

Already science has chipped away at parts of religion. And all this is if religion doesn't destroy itself first.

Science chips away at the "God of the gaps". Some things will never be explained by science, and there will always be gods of the gaps to "explain" them.

He isn't real so he couldn't show up as their bible foretells.

Christ was real, one of many sect leaders in roman times. But he was the sect leader with the most tenacious followers, and they had a lot of luck when Clovis decided to pick up christianity as a way of controlling his newly conquered empire. Although christians would probably like you to believe that it was due to some great miracle that Clovis decided to convert...

Theres no way of knowing when science will employ a new technology that can reveal secrets that directly contridict some of religions most precious tellings.

It simply is a matter of time.
Since starting this thread I have changed my view than until that happends, perhaps yes, Science and Religion can co-exist.

Maybe. But it would have to be philosophy that replaces religion, since natural sciences don't concern themselves with the religious domain. And philosphy has been around for a loong while already. It is more or less directly responsible for the influence of science today, due to the Age of Reason, but it's been around 3 centuries already. I doubt religion will reduce in influence a lot further than it has already.
Maybe anthropology of religion will prove useful for something in the future...

In any case, revealing secrets that directly contradict religious' tellings has happened before. Many people were burned and banished before finally it was admitted by most that Earth, pinnacle of gods creation, was in fact not in the centre of the universe.

But religion hasn't crashed and burned, it goes on to fight the next scientific discovery that it sees as a threat. Evolution and Big Bang theory have nowadays been accepted by a lot of religious people, but you can still see the death throes in the form of creationists. And nobody takes flat earthers serious anymore.

So religion is definitely not going to die out because it's secrets are proven wrong. It's survived many times before, and will continue to do so. Maybe the current day religions will be replaced by others, just like christianity replaced the ancient greek gods, but religion itself will probably never die. And definitely not in our lifetime.

i have a question though. are you against people that are religious and religioun itself in a way of wanting people to all see the way of "science" or are you just merrly stating your theories on the flaws of religion?

i just wana make sure if you are or aren't the type of person that wants everyone to see one way.

if you are trying to get people to see one way, try as hard as you can but you will not win.

if you are just stating your theories as to why religioun has flaws, then keep at it and build upon it.

At 1/25/07 11:12 AM, shin-tenshu wrote: i have a question though. are you against people that are religious and religioun itself in a way of wanting people to all see the way of "science" or are you just merrly stating your theories on the flaws of religion?

Who are you talking to? In a feat of major arrogance, I shall assume you are talking to me and attempt to answer your questions :)

I just want people to have basis to their beliefs, to think about why they believe what they believe, and consider the possibility that they might be wrong.
Religion itself doesn't really have flaws, it offers psychological help in the sense that it provides (an illusion?) of certainty and control about the things that we actually have no real knowledge or control of. The implimentation of the religion frequently has a lot of flaws. But that differs from religious group to religious group.

If there's one flaw in religion itself it's that it needs dogmatic belief, something that is considered absolutely true, without even the remote possibility of it being wrong, without any real reason. For example: "Mary was a virgin". Things like that are bad for mutual understanding and tend to lead to fanaticism. But the majority of religious people are perfectly able to combine rational thought and dogmatic belief. (Even though it hasn't always been like that)

i just wana make sure if you are or aren't the type of person that wants everyone to see one way.

Hah, I don't really care which way people see things, I care more about why they see things a certain way. I don't expect anyone to change their mind about things, but it's by comparing one's beliefs with those of others, and the justifications behind them, that you can justify your own beliefs better, or if need be adapt them.

Twist or turn it anyway you want, but religion is a very interesting anthropological phenomenon.

Um, if we came from Adam and Eve, how did we become culturaly develpoed so fast and wouldn't that make us all relatives, religion supports incest? And the bible still says we're only 6,000 years old, but babylon is like older and the oldest place inhabited with proof is 10,000 years old..carbon dating is pimp. Catholic:"Carbon dating, um, it's the devil trying to test us!"

But, if i'm wrong and we came from Adam and Eve...I want my rib back.

At 1/25/07 11:46 AM, Togukawa wrote: Who are you talking to?

sorry, i was talking to the topic starter

I really wish this thread would die already. The whole OMG (insert religion, science, or other belief system here) IS T3H SUXXORS!!1 fad is really wearing thin, and no one is ever going to be able to prove their point in any decisive way. Religion will always have a place in humanity, as will science. Neither is going away anytime soon. I'm a Catholic but I still would consider myself a strong proponent of logic, reason, and science (I am an engineering student, after all).

At 1/24/07 11:41 PM, mrpiex wrote: Hmm...
Religion
1. Think that there god is all mighty
2. Think that they are better then everyone else
3. Are complete retards.
Science
1. Don't believe in god ^_^
2. Are pretty humble
3. Actually smart.

Science wins.

You calling me dumb?
Relligion says that the world was created with guidence and laws of the universe and the exsistance of matter, anti-matter, and energy proves it. Science is the study of the universe( biology is the study of lif for example) so science can not prove or disprove god just what he created. Atheism shouldnt be beleived in becaus it doesnt anser the questions that relligions anser. Atheism today is more similer to the catholic church of the renisance in regards to science ( the earth and sun thing) than todays catholic church is, it is just the current mainstreem thought in people like you because a number of smart people think so, but many smart people do believe in god, that is what i have to say.

At 1/25/07 11:10 AM, Togukawa wrote:

At 1/25/07 10:35 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote:

At 1/25/07 01:14 AM, BrooklynBrett wrote:

He isn't real so he couldn't show up as their bible foretells.

Christ was real, one of many sect leaders in roman times. But he was the sect leader with the most tenacious followers, and they had a lot of luck when Clovis decided to pick up christianity as a way of controlling his newly conquered empire. Although christians would probably like you to believe that it was due to some great miracle that Clovis decided to convert...

Don't misquote me.

I didn't say he 'wasn't' real. I said he 'isn't' real. Today, in a present tense. He's a guy that died. Like billions of others. Thats all.

I'm sorry for butting in but i believe that religion is how people explained unknown things in the world until people started to tap into tecknology the religions have been clashing with today's modern science for instance humans can now clone creating life but the bible says only god can creat life in conclusion some religeous beliefs were fairy tales to explain the unexplainable in the past

OK, I'm fed up with the stupidity here.

Anyone who thinks science and religion conflict is an idiot!

there is only a conflict if one is so shallow as to CREATE one. Science cannot prove god doesn't exist, and religion cannot conviniently overlook science.

At 1/26/07 07:46 AM, Camarohusky wrote: OK, I'm fed up with the stupidity here.

Anyone who thinks science and religion conflict is an idiot!

there is only a conflict if one is so shallow as to CREATE one. Science cannot prove god doesn't exist, and religion cannot conviniently overlook science.

In that case... Lets make this the OFFICIAL science vs religion thread.

At 1/26/07 07:46 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Anyone who thinks science and religion conflict is an idiot!

there is only a conflict if one is so shallow as to CREATE one. Science cannot prove god doesn't exist, and religion cannot conviniently overlook science.

Who are you to call all who oppose you idiots? The conflict between Science and Religion is that Science says that Religion is wrong whenever Religion tries to describe physical things in the world. Science is a set of competing ideals, and Religion can not accept any who oppose them; thus, conflict is inevitable.

At 1/26/07 11:19 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: In that case... Lets make this the OFFICIAL science vs religion thread.

how about not because it is obvious with no debate that everything about religioun is wrong.

hands down science is the true path. those who are religious are going to be left in the dust.

here is an example.

the earth is going to blow up. humans have the technology to go to other planets and have them colonized really fast.

religious people will stay saying that their god will save them. they also try to destroy the space ships saying that their god will save them.

the science people are the ones leaving for another planet.

the religious people die, and the science people live.

religioun is obsolete now. science is how things are now.

with religioun, it is just an excuse to find the easy answers to everything. "how does the sun make light?" "because it just does, god made it"

with science "how does the sun make light?" "because the sun is a giant nuclear ball of hot hydrogen gas, the gas is so hot that it emits bright light."

back in the day with religoun was new, people were very superstisious. the stars were the domain of the gods and such. religioun was created as an answer to a people who had no sence of logiic. they saw, but they didnt understand. so they said it was because of higher beings.

the age of rational thought comes and some things about gods and such are disproven because now they are less superstisious but still are superstisious.

as rational thought progresses, superstisioun becomes less.

but rational thought hasnt became total. that is why there still is religioun.

religioun is just the superstisious answer to things people dont understand.

back when, people didnt know how the universe was created. so they just assumed some higher being created it. now we know what created it.

At 1/26/07 01:11 PM, HogWashSoup wrote:

At 1/26/07 11:19 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: In that case... Lets make this the OFFICIAL science vs religion thread.

how about not because it is obvious with no debate that everything about religioun is wrong.

That is not true because we are bebating that right now o.O

hands down science is the true path. those who are religious are going to be left in the dust.

here is an example.

the earth is going to blow up. humans have the technology to go to other planets and have them colonized really fast.

religious people will stay saying that their god will save them. they also try to destroy the space ships saying that their god will save them.

the science people are the ones leaving for another planet.

the religious people die, and the science people live.

religioun is obsolete now. science is how things are now.

with religioun, it is just an excuse to find the easy answers to everything. "how does the sun make light?" "because it just does, god made it"

Light is energy and is photons, that is what science knows. But when you discover why light acts like that instead of its effects and the laws of the govern it than if god/gods/Brahmam didnt make the univers like that than how do you explain its purpose and the fact that energy exsists at all. It is people like you that thought the world was flat.

with science "how does the sun make light?" "because the sun is a giant nuclear ball of hot hydrogen gas, the gas is so hot that it emits bright light."

First of all, the sun is plasma, not gas, plasma has bean striped of its electrons.
Second of all, the laws of the world are universaly the same, if the force betwean neutrons and protons were a tiny bit different than there would be no hydrogen, no water or stars, so you wouldnt exsist, if the world was created by random than the laws wouldent be the same every were so you wouldnt exsist.

back in the day with religoun was new, people were very superstisious. the stars were the domain of the gods and such. religioun was created as an answer to a people who had no sence of logiic. they saw, but they didnt understand. so they said it was because of higher beings.

Again you believe the world settled out of chaos, you sir believe in a form of godless greek mythology!

the age of rational thought comes and some things about gods and such are disproven because now they are less superstisious but still are superstisious.

as rational thought progresses, superstisioun becomes less.

but rational thought hasnt became total. that is why there still is religioun.

religioun is just the superstisious answer to things people dont understand.

back when, people didnt know how the universe was created. so they just assumed some higher being created it. now we know what created it.

I guess the laws of the world (like gravity) are caused by magic and came into exsistance out of nothing, doesnt somethig out of nothing go against science?

where is your god now?

At 1/26/07 05:55 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: where is your god now?

Try posting some thing smart.

At 1/26/07 01:01 PM, Draconias wrote: Who are you to call all who oppose you idiots? The conflict between Science and Religion is that Science says that Religion is wrong whenever Religion tries to describe physical things in the world. Science is a set of competing ideals, and Religion can not accept any who oppose them; thus, conflict is inevitable.

Look up the word omnipotent.

End of story. I'm not tellnig you what I believe, because I am definitely not making it clear with any of my posts. Yet, I will not let you people claim that their is an end all conflict between these two. There isn't! Look at how much religion has incorporated science without hurting any of its doctrines. OK so a few of its 3000 year old stories have been changed a little, but the power god as described has not been changed, just been classified.

So, I must repeat, look up the word omnipotent and realize that logically (yes the same logic used in science and math) you cannot EVER disprove the existence of a god, or that god isn't controlling everything.

On the flip side, we have not come accross any evidence that has proven a god. For what was once a miracle now has a fairly humble reason.

It's like communism and democracy, people ONLY THINK they cannot fit together...

At 1/26/07 06:29 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 1/26/07 05:55 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: where is your god now?

Try posting some thing smart.

i'm sorry to say that it seems to have won.

At 1/26/07 05:55 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: where is your god now?

YTMND much?

Despite mindless babble, hogwashsoup still makes a good point.

If the Bible's god exists i think he gave us free will so that we could develop into greatness. God gave us a brain, and we're using that brain to solve problems, be it inconvenience or disease or otherwise. If it wasn't supposed to be, it wouldn't be.

At 1/26/07 07:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/26/07 01:01 PM, Draconias wrote: Who are you to call all who oppose you idiots? The conflict between Science and Religion is that Science says that Religion is wrong whenever Religion tries to describe physical things in the world. Science is a set of competing ideals, and Religion can not accept any who oppose them; thus, conflict is inevitable.

Look up the word omnipotent.

End of story. I'm not tellnig you what I believe, because I am definitely not making it clear with any of my posts. Yet, I will not let you people claim that their is an end all conflict between these two. There isn't! Look at how much religion has incorporated science without hurting any of its doctrines. OK so a few of its 3000 year old stories have been changed a little, but the power god as described has not been changed, just been classified.

So, I must repeat, look up the word omnipotent and realize that logically (yes the same logic used in science and math) you cannot EVER disprove the existence of a god, or that god isn't controlling everything.

The problem is that religion doesn't claim a god, but a specific god with known characteristics. You can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist either. I could pull any sort of God out of my behind, claim he is omnipotent, and you can't prove my recently made up god doesn't exist either. In fact, I could be extremely lucky and actually describe the real god. There's no way it can be proven my god does or does not exist.

But I certainly do hope there will be a big conflict with my recently made up religion and science when I say my god doesn't want anyone to eat broccoli, on account of that being an evil vegetable that's put on earth as a test for the infidels. There's no way to prove whether it's true or false, but I do hope noone will stop eating broccoli because of it.

You're right that religion has incorporated a lot of science. But after how much conflict? Christianity certainly didn't accept heliocentrism without a big fight. And to this day, many religious people (especially in the US) are fighting the Big Bang and evolution theories.
And you tell me there is no conflict between science and religion? There shouldn't have to be one, if both recognize their limits, but that's not going it happen. Science and religion don't conflict, in theory, just like communism works, in theory.

Togakuwa is right.

There IS conflict and there HAS BEEN conflict for over a mellinia.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either blind or ignorant.

At 1/27/07 09:21 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Despite mindless babble, hogwashsoup still makes a good point.

about how religioun was formed from superstision or that religioun is stupid and that anyone who is religious is stupid as well. or both?