Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


  • Please log in to reply
2034 replies to this topic

#1561 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 26 September 2012 - 01:41 PM

There is a difference between stupid and misguided. You being a prime example. I have no doubt you're an intelligent person but you're certainly misguided about a great many things.
  • 2

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1562 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 01:46 PM

Yes...but if they are really that stupid - how on earth can they help science anyways? ;)

Again, I don't see how they are slowing down science - if all it takes is for some stupid people to be able to do that...well...then science isn't as smart as I thought it was.


In the ecumenical words of one of the pre-eminent philosopher's of our day,

"Move bitch, get out the way,
Get out the way bitch, get out the way"

- Ludacris
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1563 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,135 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 26 September 2012 - 01:48 PM

Everyone should read these essays on "Does Science Make a Belief in God Obsolete":

http://www.templeton.org/belief/

Some very smart and influential people wrote these like Pinker, Hitchens, Miller just to name a few.


there is a big difference between knowledge and wisdom .
  • 1

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#1564 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,828 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 26 September 2012 - 02:17 PM

Yes...but if they are really that stupid - how on earth can they help science anyways?   ;)

Again, I don't see how they are slowing down science - if all it takes is for some stupid people to be able to do that...well...then science isn't as smart as I thought it was.


Because the ones they target aren't necessarily stupid, just inexperienced and innocent. Children are in the crosshairs of the fundamentalist nutbars and suffer for it; books being banned (Harry Potter apparently promotes witchcraft and devil worship), faith based schooling in private shools, curriculum changes that offer alternatives to science in public schools, etc.

The most efficient way to slow down progress is to dumb down the next generation. For an unbiased and quite enlightening debate on the subject, watch this BBC series debate on faith schools in England. (There are six parts, the following is part one).


  • 0
Posted Image

#1565 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,183 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 26 September 2012 - 04:09 PM

I listened to the entire thing. And if you mean by "even compete with Aron", you really mean "won't let him speak".

Aron has a few logical fallacies he is overlooking.

1) What is his method of certainty? How does he reproduce empirical evidence for his wife? There are some instances where you have fights with your spouse in which typical evidences of love are completely absent though it is widely accepted that you still love your spouse. There is no consistency in the method of certainty.

2) How can Aron assert truth on someone else's behalf? For example, how can I ever say to Sharpshooter that he will ONE DAY FOR SURE know that God exists? I cannot. Nor can Sharpshooter say to me "you can't know what you know".

3) Aron claims he is atheist and NOT agnostic, but how can he do that? It is philosophically impossible to be atheist for reason of this fact alone, you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God DOES NOT exist. It's impossible. Richard Dawkins himself realizes this too and is a self proclaimed agnostic. I'l repeat again, it is a philosophical impossibility to be a true atheist because it is impossible to fully disprove God.


Now, I don't have the time to watch the video again but I did make some notes from last week:

Aron wouldn't let Ray speak? You mean the few times were Ray demonstrated more than once he had no clue in what the hell he was talking about and Aron interrupted him to an effort to correct his mistakes? It's hard to listen to someone try to explain a subject to you when it's your profession and it's something they haven't even taken ten minutes to do a little research about. I'll get to that.


Creation relies on ignorance. It is not honest research. It is a scam, a con job, exploiting the common folk praying on their deepest beliefs and fears. Creation apologetics depend on misrepresented data and misquoted authorities, out of date and out of context, and distorted definitions, if they uses them at all. The bold especially applies to Ray. Ray had absolutely no rebuttal for anything Aron said in regards to evolution. Why? Because he doesn't have the slightest understanding of the subject. I'll elaborate in a moment.

Ray is the one with logical fallacies in his arguments. Not only that but his rebuttals were incredibly weak and often his only counter to Aron's remarks were unimposing follow up questions in an effort to stump Aron, which he failed to do.

Aron can assert truth on Ray's behalf because Ray thinks he knows God exists when in fact he does not know God exists because he can't demonstrate God exists in anyway whatsoever. Knowledge is demonstrable. If you can't show it, you don't know it. Knowledge is justified.

Empirical evidence, evidence through observation, correct, for Aron's wife would be a number of tests as Aron states, video and photos of their wedding, and so on. Ray doesn't need faith to know that is Aron's wife. The evidence is there.

Atheist but not agnostic. I don't know. He could explain a helluva lot better than I can what he meant.

Now what I observed. The beat down:

Aron tries explaining traits and an aspect of evolution to Ray around 39 minutes. Ray says it's not right but fails to elaborate why. 'God created everything' was his rebuttal.

Ray: Dogs and cats came from the same ancestor? Can you explain that? Genetically. Aron elaborates.

Aron: Look up homonodia (sp). Ray doesn't believe in it because he doesn't understand it. Ray demonstrates this clearly. Ray also can't explain why Aron is not an ape because he can't even put the effort into looking it up in an effort to understand.

Ray: Could you explain populations and why we have populations and why we have 1.4 million different animals each male and female reproducing after it's own kind. ---- We don't, you're wrong on two points there; Aron elaborates.

Aron tries explaining ape characters to Ray. Ray compares himself to a pig, but he doesn't have hooves for starters. Biological classification. Aron tries explaining this to Ray, he tries to elaborate, and Ray simply resorts to "speak for yourself Aron, I know God created me."

Ray also demonstrates he doesn't understand the basics of big bang cosmology because more than once he says that everything came from nothing and tries to pin this on Aron, which Aron never said. Aron mentions a hyper cosmic origin. The cause was collision of hyper dimensional brains. Ray asks Aron where those hyper dimensional brains came from and Aron's response is that we don't know but we can't assert something we do not know. Which is something Ray constantly does -- God.

Ray's problem is that he doesn't know anything about anything well enough to argue it. Remember, this is the same guy that thinks since the banana fits the human hand perfectly proves God. *laugh. The entire second half of that clip was Ray asking questions, not understanding, claiming God did everything and then dubbing Aron as being incorrect. Ray also fails to explain how or why he thinks something is designed. He doesn't know therefore God. Ignorant. Intelligent design is creation in a lab coat. Nobody has demonstrated that a system is irreducibly complex. They have just asserted it. It's an argument from ignorance. It is a claim that "look at this system, we couldn't think of anything that could do or any way it could come about, therefore we will declare it irreducibly complex. That is an argument from ignorance. First, you need to actually demonstrate that an irreducibly complex system exists.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1566 Mr.DirtyDangles

Mr.DirtyDangles

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,975 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 10

Posted 26 September 2012 - 11:34 PM

I think you are basically just dissing religion in this post. -_-

However I disagree with it. The fact that science is built around the study of the physical world and religion mainly involves the question of the non-material (or supernatural) is the very reason they can co-exist.


:blink: Science actually tries to explain everything be it physical or non physical while religion says you must follow these parameters in the physical realm to get to the spiritual(non physical) realm ? When man created religion he may not have intended it to be fear based faith but eventually through it's own doctrines naturally progressed to it. If you dont follow these rules you cant get into heaven. If you dont worship this way you cannot be absolved form your sin and will not receive salvation. Science and religion cannot currently co-exist because they cancel each other out on many levels of truth.

How can you discuss the origins of humanity with someone who believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago ? Try to tell a catholic that the story of Jesus is actually a 3000 year older plagiarism from an Egyptian story ? Jesus in literal translation means HORUS or the SUN. The sun God was AMEN RA. Does the phrase Amen ring a bell to anyone ? We all came from the sun in this solar system so yeah we are all the sons and daughters of God. Pretty straight forward conclusion by man but religion wants to cast doubt in humanity and their ability to think for themselves. That way the sheep(us) can be easily manipulated into anything by simply instilling a fear based faith systems.

All that being said true, pure or blind faith cannot be swayed in anyone by numbers and stats. That is not what faith is. My personal faith is in humanity and it's ability to persevere. In time proven truths will exist between all faiths and sciences. Maybe then we can be on the same page globally teaching benevolence, respect and equality instead of preaching nationalism, profit and discrimination.

Edited by vanfan73, 27 September 2012 - 05:42 AM.

  • 0

x_x_tumblr_miyglaKcds1s75lpdo1_500.gif

On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami :ph34r:


#1567 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,489 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 27 September 2012 - 07:34 AM

Proof that Science and God can co-exist:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Quantum_Leap

Just watched Season 2, episode 1 on Netflix, starts off with "Al" explaining what happened to "Sam" - that somehow he keeps leaping through time to fix things that went wrong - they attribute that somewhat to God.

:)
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1568 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 27 September 2012 - 08:10 AM

How can you discuss the origins of humanity with someone who believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago ? Try to tell a catholic that the story of Jesus is actually a 3000 year older plagiarism from an Egyptian story ? Jesus in literal translation means HORUS or the SUN. The sun God was AMEN RA. Does the phrase Amen ring a bell to anyone ? We all came from the sun in this solar system so yeah we are all the sons and daughters of God. Pretty straight forward conclusion by man but religion wants to cast doubt in humanity and their ability to think for themselves. That way the sheep(us) can be easily manipulated into anything by simply instilling a fear based faith systems.

All that being said true, pure or blind faith cannot be swayed in anyone by numbers and stats. That is not what faith is. My personal faith is in humanity and it's ability to persevere. In time proven truths will exist between all faiths and sciences. Maybe then we can be on the same page globally teaching benevolence, respect and equality instead of preaching nationalism, profit and discrimination.

Why limit belief in god to such a fundie branch of believers who claim the world is only 6000 years old? MANY believers do not think that and the Hebrews certainly never believed that. Young earth creationism is a relatively new belief. Can that co-exist with science? Obviously not, but let's not limit religion or belief in a God to such foolish beliefs like that.

And Jesus = Horus. False. Though it is a common mythicist misconception. Did you get that info from the Zeitgeist? Just a word of caution to not believe everything you hear and check your sources mate.

Good to hear you admit that you do have some faith though in things that can't be proven :)
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1569 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 27 September 2012 - 08:52 AM

Proof that Science and God can co-exist:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Quantum_Leap

Just watched Season 2, episode 1 on Netflix, starts off with "Al" explaining what happened to "Sam" - that somehow he keeps leaping through time to fix things that went wrong - they attribute that somewhat to God.

:)


Did you actually just try to reference an 80's science FICTION TV show off Wikipedia as some sort of proof/evidence??!!! :blink:
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1570 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:01 AM

Why limit belief in god to such a fundie branch of believers who claim the world is only 6000 years old? MANY believers do not think that and the Hebrews certainly never believed that. Young earth creationism is a relatively new belief. Can that co-exist with science? Obviously not, but let's not limit religion or belief in a God to such foolish beliefs like that.


I will maintain that so long as religion can not remain in the supernatural world it belongs in and people continue to try to force it in to the physical, measurable world (science/reality), they will always be in conflict.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1571 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,489 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:18 AM

Did you actually just try to reference an 80's science FICTION TV show off Wikipedia as some sort of proof/evidence??!!! :blink:


Did you actually not understand that it was sarcasm/humour?
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1572 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:27 AM

Did you actually not understand that it was sarcasm/humour?


With you, I've stopped taking anything for granted.
  • 3

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1573 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,945 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:40 AM

Science doesn't fight religion. It ignores it. (Right?)

However, those with an antitheistic agenda would use science to crucify religion.

The response from theists is usually, well, science can't disprove ghosts, ESP, visions, historical miracles, etc. or anything supernatural, so how can it disprove God, let lone religion?

The result is neverending debate from two sides with an unyielding agenda.


The problem with using science to disprove religion is that it is based on empiricism. Experience, evidence and sensory perception can only take the human mind so far. You can't use science to disprove what it cannot possibly reach.

While religion might be archaic, at least it attempts to explain the unexplainable, whereas those things are out of science's reach, and that's why science and religion are mutually exclusive.


The science vs. religion debate is folly, since by definition the sides can never come together. Still, i can see progress being made when science and religion do work together. It would be nice if scientists were able to open their minds a bit and if religious people realized that some of their archaic beliefs aren't even worth having.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1574 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:58 AM

Well science and belief in a god answer to different question. Science attempts to answer the "how" questions and religion or belief in a god attempts to answer the "why" questions. As long as they stay in within their fields and don't attempt to try answer things that by their nature they can't then I see no reason why the two can't coexist.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1575 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 27 September 2012 - 09:59 AM

Science doesn't fight religion. It ignores it. (Right?)

However, those with an antitheistic agenda would use science to crucify religion.

The response from theists is usually, well, science can't disprove ghosts, ESP, visions, historical miracles, etc. or anything supernatural, so how can it disprove God, let lone religion?

The result is neverending debate from two sides with an unyielding agenda.


The problem with using science to disprove religion is that it is based on empiricism. Experience, evidence and sensory perception can only take the human mind so far. You can't use science to disprove what it cannot possibly reach.

While religion might be archaic, at least it attempts to explain the unexplainable, whereas those things are out of science's reach, and that's why science and religion are mutually exclusive.


The science vs. religion debate is folly, since by definition the sides can never come together. Still, i can see progress being made when science and religion do work together. It would be nice if scientists were able to open their minds a bit and if religious people realized that some of their archaic beliefs aren't even worth having.


And once again, you are wrongheaded in your argument. Atheists don't try to disprove god (or anything else really) we simply lack belief one exists due to a lack of any evidence or data. It is not unyielding, if anything science is the epitome of yielding, the other side simply needs to provide an argument worth yielding for. So far they can not.

I'll also argue that your "science can't explain the unexplainable" premise is false as well. Many things USED to seem unexplainable until science uncovered the root of them. Earthquakes or volcanoes are not in fact angry, vengeful gods for instance but simply techtonic, magma etc movement. Yay Science!
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1576 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:00 AM

With you, I've stopped taking anything for granted.


:lol:

_______ bless Heretic. He's one of a kind.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1577 Kass9

Kass9

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:02 AM

Just curious.

Does anyone in here get offended when they hear "Oh my God."?
  • 0

#1578 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:03 AM

Just curious.

Does anyone in here get offended when they hear "Oh my God."?


Gets used quite frequently in the boudoir actually! :bigblush:
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1579 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:06 AM

Well science and belief in a god answer to different question. Science attempts to answer the "how" questions and religion or belief in a god attempts to answer the "why" questions. As long as they stay in within their fields and don't attempt to try answer things that by their nature they can't then I see no reason why the two can't coexist.


As long as they stay compartmentalized, which is what I think you're suggesting, then there's no reason that they can't have the ability to be held in one's head. People do it all the time. The problem of co-existence arises when someone attempts to have them co-exist in the same compartment. Very much similar rational reaction/outcome for those who are capable of reason as is borne when matter and anti-matter.share the same space.

Edited by Sharpshooter, 27 September 2012 - 10:14 AM.

  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1580 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:15 AM

Well science and belief in a god answer to different question. Science attempts to answer the "how" questions and religion or belief in a god attempts to answer the "why" questions. As long as they stay in within their fields and don't attempt to try answer things that by their nature they can't then I see no reason why the two can't coexist.


Pretty sure that`s the exact problem Atheists have with religion. It doesn't like to stay in it`s "why" wheelhouse and starts interfering with my "how" one.

I think I can fairly safely say that Atheists could give a rats ass about your personal "why" journey. We only get pissed off when you start screwing with our "how". At most we might feel their beliefs are quaint or humorous if they weren't actively damaging our "how". If religion could sort that out, it can exist all it likes along with the other fairy tales.

Edited by J.R., 27 September 2012 - 10:16 AM.

  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1581 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:16 AM

As long as they stay compartmentalizes, which is what I think you're suggesting, then there's no reason that they can't have the ability to be held in one's head. People do it all the time. The problem of co-existence arises when someone attempts to have them co-exist in the same compartment. Very much similar rational reaction/outcome for those who are capable of reason as is borne when matter and anti-matter.share the same space.

Yeah. Like I said religion doesn't have to conflict. The problem is fundamentalists and other religious people sincerely believe unscientific things - like 6000 year old earth, global flood, non-belief in evolution etc. all those things don't negate whether or not there is a god. It just negates certain people's understandings. So yes science and certain religious doctrines do conflict - but the belief in a god, gods, or personal God, doesn't have to conflict.

I think other problems arise when people try and insert god in a "God-of-Gaps" way to explain natural phenomenon. Then when science comes along and shows us the mechanism religious people look foolish.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1582 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:20 AM

Just curious.
Does anyone in here get offended when they hear "Oh my God."?


I'm offended...


  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#1583 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:20 AM

My biggest problem with religion and science is religious people make claims despite no evidence and then when evidence to contrary is presented they still refuse to change their positions.

Because religious people do that - religion and science will always have conflict. Unfortunately.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1584 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,945 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:21 AM

^ Science doesn't explain the unexplainable. It ignores it. Much like it ignores religion.

Volcanoes are natural, so science can be applied to it. It is supernatural phenomena that it cannot be applied to, while religion can. This is what makes science and religion mutually exclusive.

Saying that religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences is like saying atheism is a religion, in that both sides are supposed to be mutually exclusive, but can be brought together by those who want to make a debate for the sake of debate.
  • 1
Posted Image

#1585 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,489 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:22 AM

Science doesn't fight religion. It ignores it. (Right?)

However, those with an antitheistic agenda would use science to crucify religion.

The response from theists is usually, well, science can't disprove ghosts, ESP, visions, historical miracles, etc. or anything supernatural, so how can it disprove God, let lone religion?

The result is neverending debate from two sides with an unyielding agenda.


The problem with using science to disprove religion is that it is based on empiricism. Experience, evidence and sensory perception can only take the human mind so far. You can't use science to disprove what it cannot possibly reach.

While religion might be archaic, at least it attempts to explain the unexplainable, whereas those things are out of science's reach, and that's why science and religion are mutually exclusive.


The science vs. religion debate is folly, since by definition the sides can never come together. Still, i can see progress being made when science and religion do work together. It would be nice if scientists were able to open their minds a bit and if religious people realized that some of their archaic beliefs aren't even worth having.


Isn't that what Scientology is about? :)

Kidding - I know the Scient part of it has nothing to do with "Science" today - it comes from a Greek word meaning "Knowledge or "skill"...
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1586 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:23 AM

^ Science doesn't explain the unexplainable. It ignores it. Much like it ignores religion.

Volcanoes are natural, so science can be applied to it. It is supernatural phenomena that it cannot be applied to, while religion can. This is what makes science and religion mutually exclusive.

Saying that religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences is like saying atheism is a religion, in that both sides are supposed to be mutually exclusive, but can be brought together by those who want to make a debate for the sake of debate.

Yeah there are questions science simply cannot answer - and there are questions religion should never attempt to answer.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1587 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,489 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:24 AM

And once again, you are wrongheaded in your argument. Atheists don't try to disprove god (or anything else really) we simply lack belief one exists due to a lack of any evidence or data. It is not unyielding, if anything science is the epitome of yielding, the other side simply needs to provide an argument worth yielding for. So far they can not.

I'll also argue that your "science can't explain the unexplainable" premise is false as well. Many things USED to seem unexplainable until science uncovered the root of them. Earthquakes or volcanoes are not in fact angry, vengeful gods for instance but simply techtonic, magma etc movement. Yay Science!


Again you have jumped to the wrong conclusion - he didn't say atheists, he said antitheists (like yourself and SS).
  • 1

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1588 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:32 AM

^ Science doesn't explain the unexplainable. It ignores it. Much like it ignores religion.

Volcanoes are natural, so science can be applied to it. It is supernatural phenomena that it cannot be applied to, while religion can. This is what makes science and religion mutually exclusive.

Saying that religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences is like saying atheism is a religion, in that both sides are supposed to be mutually exclusive, but can be brought together by those who want to make a debate for the sake of debate.


Are there things that can't be explained though? You simply can't say that for certain. And please note I'm not saying that there definitely AREN'T "supernatural" phenomena (though I'd love for you to offer up some examples).

But it's also equally possible that we simply lack the knowledge AT THIS TIME to explain "X" phenomena. As I noted earlier, two thousand years ago we may have lacked the knowledge to explain seemingly "supernatural" acts like those earthquakes or say the aurora borealis. Yet we can explain them now. A lack of knowledge about a thing does not equate a quality of "supernatural" to it.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1589 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,293 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:34 AM

Again you have jumped to the wrong conclusion - he didn't say atheists, he said antitheists (like yourself and SS).


For I believe the 4th time now. I'm not an anti-theist. You seem to have ignored my previous 3 rebuttals on the matter so I won't bother with another one. How typical of you to ignore facts and logic and continue to spout of senseless and baseless comments though. I'd expect nothing different from a person who ignores science and believes in fairy tales though.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#1590 GodzillaDeuce

GodzillaDeuce

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 08

Posted 27 September 2012 - 10:35 AM

Isn't that what Scientology is about? :)

Kidding - I know the Scient part of it has nothing to do with "Science" today - it comes from a Greek word meaning "Knowledge or "skill"...


sorry, how does knowledge that have "nothing to do" with science?

edit: n/m, i get what you're saying now. disregard this hahahahaha

Edited by GodzillaDeuce, 27 September 2012 - 10:38 AM.

  • 0

well I'm sorry that gd is soo perfect





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.