Religion vs. Science

[Alexander]

Do you think religion and science can get along?

I don't. The reason behind my believe is that science is about establishing the truth based on proven facts and methodology. Religion is primarily faith based and so by definition does not require this and is not open to new evidence.

No scientific theory proclaims absolute truth - it is always open to new evidence being brought to the table. Religious faith however does claim absolute truth. Therefore I believe the two are imcompatable as science by it's very nature rules out absolute truth.

"Science by it's very nature rules out absolute truth."
This statement defeats itself as your saying that science proves that there are no absolute truths but yet make an absolute truth with that statement.
Science and religion can and do get along. It's the misunderstanding of what faith is that's the problem. You practice acts of faith every day, when you watch the news, when you read the newspaper. You take it on faith that the stories are accurate unless you independently verify each and every story.
no absolute truth's? Would torturing a child for fun be considered an evil act regardless of which society you live in?

It may be acceptable however does that make it right? Isn't it still an evil act? If its only based on society, then why did we go to war with the germans?

So, what your saying is that some faith is based on experience that so far this has shown out to be true so therefore, it should remain true?

Archeological evidence does show (and is continuing to show) that the Bible is accurate. Based on faith, i can logically assume if the physical evidence is factual, then that which can't be proven by science should also be factual. If the Bible is gong to be truthful about everything else, then why fabricate stories about other events?


Archeological evidence doesn't support the big bang nor evolution. The evidence that i'm speaking of is all of the cities, towns, rulers, money that are mentioned in the Bible, archeologicist discover.

Are you aware of the Big Bang fudge factor required to make the theory work? Dark matter and Dark Energy, neither of which can be proven or observed. If they didn't put in "dark matter" then there isn't enough matter in the universe, and not enough gravity to form stars, etc, etc.
Then there is dark energy which is needed to explain why things are accelerating instead of moving away at a constant speed, as one would expect.

Evolution has its own problems such as how did life began? Where did the information required for life start. A living organism must be capable of successfully reproducing, also ingesting, assimilating, and processing food
and also must have a system to transport waste products. A stable supply of food must be available in order to manufacture the various complex elements and produce the chemical reactions necessary to obtain the energy needed to insure the organism's survival. Let’s say the first cell used sunlight as a food source. This gives it a stable supply of food. The ability to reproduce, to ingest, assimilate, process the sunlight into a usable energy source in order to drive the chemical reactions to ensure survival and the ability to successfully reproduce have to be in place, at the same time and working correctly in order to survive. If the cell has to evolve them one at a time over a period of many years, then the cell is not going to survive in order to reproduce. The cell needs the information on how to accomplish these tasks and it doesn't have time to figure it out slowly. all of that information must be in place. Information does not evolve and required intelligence. Our understanding of it "evolves" but the information is already there.

The inquisitors didn't consider thier act evil however it still was. If society decides what is good and evil, then why did we go to war with Germany? Why did we put those leaders we caught on trial for war crimes? They didn't consider what they were doing as evil.

archeological evidence does support what is written in the Bible. If that is factual, then it follows to reason that other parts of it are factual.

As an atheist, where did we get our moral stances from? Why is it when you do something wrong, it feels wrong? If its just society that makes that determination then it shouldn't feel that way. How did moriality evolve to the point where it affects emotions? How did murder become wrong? Why does helping someone make you feel good? How can you say what is evil unless you have something good to compare it too?

As a Christian, I know where moriality comes from. Evolutionist can't explain it.

It doesn't answer where did we get our moriality from beside the fact where did we get emotions from. Emotions are not a survival trait. Fear, rage, love, hate, disguest or any of the other's don't help with survival. From an evolutionary stand point, isn't it survival of the fittest? Why is rape wrong when from an evolutionary standpoint the object is to spread your gene's to as many females as possible to ensure that your genetic potential survives. Murder would be the same thing. If i can kill someone else, then i'm the strongest and if i can do it without harm to myself, even so much the better.
Dark matter is accepted within the scientific community because without it, the big bang falls apart and the one thing that most scientist can't allow is a devine foot in the door.

Love helps humans to reproduce however it isn't necessary and it definatly doesn't have any play into animal reproduction. Besides the fact that other species are far better at reproduction and survival then we are. Look at it this way, if a motorcycle will get you from point "a" to point "b" with no trouble, then evolution isn't going to design a town car. Humans have alot of luxeries built in that are not required.

"Survival of the fittest also functions on a higher level, ie, survival of the fittest society. Your species is less likely to survive if your killing each other. "
The reverse is also true. If the strong kill off the weak then only the strongest gene's are being passed along. Human's don't practice that but yet all other animal species do. Besides the simple fact of that the human species is the only one that kills its own for no reason. No other species "murders" its own.

However with out dark matter and dark energy then cosomology falls apart. Besides, the starting point of the Big Bang can also point to creation by God. The big bang theory also has the problem of where did this point of energy/matter come from'? How does this singularity suddenly spring into existance from nothing. this is in violation of cause and effect. Basically stated a temporal effect can't be the cause of itself or you can't get something from nothing.

[Lenin II]

http://pharyngula.org/images/the_creationist_method.jpg

[MrDoom]

Bullshit. Science and Religion are as irreconcilable as the bourgeoisie and proletariat are.


Science and religion can and do get along. It's the misunderstanding of what faith is that's the problem. You practice acts of faith every day, when you watch the news, when you read the newspaper. You take it on faith that the stories are accurate unless you independently verify each and every story.
At least with the news you CAN verify it as fact or nonfact. Religion is pure conjecture with no substance. It's not "faith" at all.


Would torturing a child for fun be considered an evil act regardless of which society you live in?

It may be acceptable however does that make it right? Isn't it still an evil act? If its only based on society, then why did we go to war with the germans?
This being a leftist board, any good communist or anarchist worth their salt denies the existence of any and all objective morality. So I can't help you there.


Archeological evidence does show (and is continuing to show) that the Bible is accurate. Based on faith, i can logically assume if the physical evidence is factual, then that which can't be proven by science should also be factual.
Except that faith has nothing logical to it whatsoever.


If the Bible is gong to be truthful about everything else, then why fabricate stories about other events?
Power. Absolute power.


Archeological evidence doesn't support the big bang nor evolution. The evidence that i'm speaking of is all of the cities, towns, rulers, money that are mentioned in the Bible, archeologicist discover.
WTF does archeology have to do with the big bang? The big bang is physics and astronomy, archeology is about the study of past cultures. And so what if the Bible names cities and towns that actually exist? The shit about sky wizards and angels is nonsense. Truth mixed with falsehood is, when taken as a whole, falsehood.


Evolution has its own problems such as how did life began? Where did the information required for life start. A living organism must be capable of successfully reproducing, also ingesting, assimilating, and processing food
and also must have a system to transport waste products. A stable supply of food must be available in order to manufacture the various complex elements and produce the chemical reactions necessary to obtain the energy needed to insure the organism's survival. Let’s say the first cell used sunlight as a food source. This gives it a stable supply of food. The ability to reproduce, to ingest, assimilate, process the sunlight into a usable energy source in order to drive the chemical reactions to ensure survival and the ability to successfully reproduce have to be in place, at the same time and working correctly in order to survive. If the cell has to evolve them one at a time over a period of many years, then the cell is not going to survive in order to reproduce. The cell needs the information on how to accomplish these tasks and it doesn't have time to figure it out slowly. all of that information must be in place. Information does not evolve and required intelligence. Our understanding of it "evolves" but the information is already there.
WTF is this shit here? Life, no matter how basic or complex, is a chemical process. There is no "information" required nor is it "there". It acts upon the physical and chemical laws of the universe, you mumbling dolt.


The inquisitors didn't consider thier act evil however it still was. If society decides what is good and evil, then why did we go to war with Germany? Why did we put those leaders we caught on trial for war crimes? They didn't consider what they were doing as evil.
Again, communists don't bother with "morality", seeing as there is no such thing as objective morals.


archeological evidence does support what is written in the Bible. If that is factual, then it follows to reason that other parts of it are factual.
The most harebrained part of this rambling nonsense, ladies and gentlemen. If 1 fact out of a million is true, then all must be true. How droll.


As an atheist, where did we get our moral stances from? Why is it when you do something wrong, it feels wrong? If its just society that makes that determination then it shouldn't feel that way. How did moriality evolve to the point where it affects emotions? How did murder become wrong? Why does helping someone make you feel good? How can you say what is evil unless you have something good to compare it too?
It has nothing to do with this "good" and "evil" bullshit. Doing "good" makes one feel good because it's a mechanism for genetic continuity of the species.


It doesn't answer where did we get our moriality from beside the fact where did we get emotions from. Emotions are not a survival trait. Fear, rage, love, hate, disguest or any of the other's don't help with survival.
Oh, but emotion is a survival trait. Fear is perhaps the most primal of them all.


From an evolutionary stand point, isn't it survival of the fittest? Why is rape wrong when from an evolutionary standpoint the object is to spread your gene's to as many females as possible to ensure that your genetic potential survives. Murder would be the same thing. If i can kill someone else, then i'm the strongest and if i can do it without harm to myself, even so much the better.
Because it'd end our fucking species and ALL genes associated, you pseudoscientific twat.


However with out dark matter and dark energy then cosomology falls apart. Besides, the starting point of the Big Bang can also point to creation by God. The big bang theory also has the problem of where did this point of energy/matter come from'? How does this singularity suddenly spring into existance from nothing. this is in violation of cause and effect. Basically stated a temporal effect can't be the cause of itself or you can't get something from nothing.

Saying "I honestly don't know yet" is far better than saying "a man in the sky did it". And for the record, there is evidence of dark matter, such as the lensing effect.

My daily dose of religious moronity. :rolleyes:

[freakazoid]

Because it'd end our fucking species and ALL genes associated, you pseudoscientific twat.

How does rape end our species?



It has nothing to do with this "good" and "evil" bullshit. Doing "good" makes one feel good because it's a mechanism for genetic continuity of the species.

Not necessarily.


Power. Absolute power.

Yeah that's it, that's why they didn't admit that what they had said was a lie even though they would be brutally killed, for absolute power. :rolleyes:

[ichneumon]

Again, communists don't bother with "morality", seeing as there is no such thing as objective morals.

i've never really understood this statement. what does "objective" mean in the context of morality? is there relative morality? this is the number one statement heard preceeding a communist/socialist doing something selfish, destructive and shortsighted. wtf?


besides, quoth JazzRat,

We can have morals without religion. Religion is, for the most part, a tool to opress and nothing more.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:42 pm
Do you think religion and science can get along?

Nope. Religion is unscientific and Science is non-faith based.


"Science by it's very nature rules out absolute truth."
This statement defeats itself as your saying that science proves that there are no absolute truths but yet make an absolute truth with that statement. That was a comment on definition/nature and not a scientific statement.

Science and religion can and do get along. Not without serious compromise from one or the other.
It's the misunderstanding of what faith is that's the problem. You practice acts of faith every day, when you watch the news, when you read the newspaper. You take it on faith that the stories are accurate unless you independently verify each and every story. It's a rather well placed faith, the same faith that has me convinced that by the end of a twenty four hour period the earth will have made a complete rotation.

no absolute truth's? Would torturing a child for fun be considered an evil act regardless of which society you live in? Science does not teach morality or even posit a specific kind of society. Unlike religion it does not have a dogmatic set of views, beyond "make sure you can support your theory with evidence".


It may be acceptable however does that make it right? Isn't it still an evil act? If its only based on society, then why did we go to war with the germans? You still seem to be labouring under the delusion that science teaches good and evil. It doesn't.


So, what your saying is that some faith is based on experience that so far this has shown out to be true so therefore, it should remain true? Yes, until something changes to prove it untrue. This is why theories are constantly tested.


Archeological evidence does show (and is continuing to show) that the Bible is accurate. How exactly can archeology alone prove that a self-contradictory piece of fiction is fact?
Based on faith, i can logically assume if the physical evidence is factual, then that which can't be proven by science should also be factual. "Based on faith" :lol:
If the Bible is gong to be truthful about everything else, then why fabricate stories about other events? Mainly to create a ruling entity which is used both to comfort and coerce the masses.


Archeological evidence doesn't support the big bang nor evolution. The evidence that i'm speaking of is all of the cities, towns, rulers, money that are mentioned in the Bible, archeologicist discover. That doesn't mean shit. A lot of fictional works are based in real places. Am I to gather that because London exists it contains (at least) a dozen werewolves, thirteen vampires, six evil wizards, the site of the apocalyptic battle against a mysterious figure known as "the antipope", among a whole host of other preposterous things.




Are you aware of the Big Bang fudge factor required to make the theory work? Dark matter and Dark Energy, neither of which can be proven or observed. If they didn't put in "dark matter" then there isn't enough matter in the universe, and not enough gravity to form stars, etc, etc. I'm aware of what dark energy and dark matter are, thanks.

Then there is dark energy which is needed to explain why things are accelerating instead of moving away at a constant speed, as one would expect....and? It's a fuck of a lot more reasonable than positing an entity that came out of nowhere and made everything in six days. Which is fucking laughable.


Evolution has its own problems such as how did life began? A series of complicated chemical reactions created single celled life. Where did God start?
Where did the information required for life start. A living organism must be capable of successfully reproducing, also ingesting, assimilating, and processing food
and also must have a system to transport waste products. I'm no biologist but I believe these essentials wre simply part of the creature with no need for any "knowledge" of them. After all how many Bacteria are there that can be reasonably said to have "knowledge". Where did God's knowledge of how to be God come from then? God needs to know: How to form things out of the fundament, develop the concept of 'light' and a whole series of other things - how did he know how to do this? How did he know how to speak and say "let there be light"?
A stable supply of food must be available in order to manufacture the various complex elements and produce the chemical reactions necessary to obtain the energy needed to insure the organism's survival. Let’s say the first cell used sunlight as a food source. This gives it a stable supply of food. The ability to reproduce, to ingest, assimilate, process the sunlight into a usable energy source in order to drive the chemical reactions to ensure survival and the ability to successfully reproduce have to be in place, at the same time and working correctly in order to survive. If the cell has to evolve them one at a time over a period of many years, then the cell is not going to survive in order to reproduce. The cell needs the information on how to accomplish these tasks and it doesn't have time to figure it out slowly. all of that information must be in place. Information does not evolve and required intelligence. Our understanding of it "evolves" but the information is already there. What a load of psuedoscientific twaddle, and - until recently - you could get away with peddling this shite in schools? You're basically trying to get across the ludicrous idea that any natural instinct disproves natural evolution and strengthens the argument for god - this is poor for two reasons: 1. Instinct is required for survival and 2. If there are problems in evolution this does not mean that "God did it" is anything other than a joke.


The inquisitors didn't consider thier act evil however it still was. If society decides what is good and evil, then why did we go to war with Germany? Why did we put those leaders we caught on trial for war crimes? They didn't consider what they were doing as evil. Because we did and we won the fight.


archeological evidence does support what is written in the Bible. If that is factual, then it follows to reason that other parts of it are factual. You know most of the places in the qu'ran are real too? In fact Mecca is still very much standing, does this mean that Allah is real too? That both holy books are right?


As an atheist, where did we get our moral stances from? Humanism mostly, although I also take into account whatever is in my material interest.
Why is it when you do something wrong, it feels wrong? Because you personally believe it is wrong.
If its just society that makes that determination then it shouldn't feel that way. Why not? If you're brought up believing it is wrong to, for example, eat ice cream and you're told that only lowlife scum do that and one day you try some ice cream out of curiosity and feel disgusted with yourself does this actually make eating the ice cream terrible and wrong?
How did moriality evolve to the point where it affects emotions? How did murder become wrong? By its definition mainly. 'Murder' being 'wrongful killing'.
Why does helping someone make you feel good? Me, personally? Because I like people.
How can you say what is evil unless you have something good to compare it too? You can't. Why did you ask this silly question?


As a Christian, I know where moriality comes from. You know where a morality comes from, or at least the morality of your particular sect.
Evolutionist can't explain it. It's separate from evolution, evolution does not posit any morality. That's like saying "Religious people can't explain why things are the colour they are" some might, most probably won't, but none of their religious teachings explain it, the bible does not deal with the explaations of such things.


It doesn't answer where did we get our moriality from beside the fact where did we get emotions from. Emotions are not a survival trait. Fear, rage, love, hate, disguest or any of the other's don't help with survival. What a load of utter, utter bollocks. Let's start with the easiest thing to refute first: Fear - fear is extremely useful in surviving - it stops us from doing stupid things or facing unnecessary risk (an enraged bear for instance.), rage is great when fear has failed and you can't run anymore, it gives just a little bit more oomph into your ability to protect yourself, love is useful for many things; maternal and paternal love for instance increase the likelihood of a child's survival whilst "romantic" love is useful in both mating and in keeping individual members of a species altruistic, hate is useful in much the same way as rage is and of course disgust can be used to prevent us doing harmful things - eating a wrong berry for example.
From an evolutionary stand point, isn't it survival of the fittest? Why is rape wrong when from an evolutionary standpoint the object is to spread your gene's to as many females as possible to ensure that your genetic potential survives. You've mad that same mistake again whereby you assume that evolution posits a system of morals. It fucking doesn't. It's getting boring trying to explain this too you every time you thick ****.
Murder would be the same thing. If i can kill someone else, then i'm the strongest and if i can do it without harm to myself, even so much the better. It would also make the gene pool of the species much smaller and of course prevent mass proliferation (like with us humans - 6 billion globally. If we just murdered each other most of the time we'd still be a handful of thousand in Africa.).

Dark matter is accepted within the scientific community because without it, the big bang falls apart and the one thing that most scientist can't allow is a devine foot in the door. Even if Dark Matter is disproven then this is still no way of shoehorning God in. You have prove he exists first, as you made the positive claim about his existence.


Love helps humans to reproduce however it isn't necessary and it defiantly doesn't have any play into animal reproduction. Most animal reproduction it doesn't know, but nearly all animals have maternal/paternal type love which helps keep the younger members of the species alive for longer.
Besides the fact that other species are far better at reproduction and survival then we are. The fact that there are six billion of us and we are increasing in number I would say we're perfectly capable of reproducing well.
Look at it this way, if a motorcycle will get you from point "a" to point "b" with no trouble, then evolution isn't going to design a town car. Humans have alot of luxeries built in that are not required. They all serve a useful function, hunchbrain. The first thing "evolution" would do (as if it was a fucking entity, you really are fucking stupid) would be design a better bike. Then, if four wheels were better - for example kept the vehicle more balanced, it would begin to look a lit more like a car - see where I'm going with this?


"Survival of the fittest also functions on a higher level, ie, survival of the fittest society. Your species is less likely to survive if your killing each other. "
The reverse is also true. If the strong kill off the weak then only the strongest gene's are being passed along. But brute strenght isn't the only determining factor of who makes a good mate.
Human's don't practice that but yet all other animal species do. Evidence that every single other animal species does this? Most of the time if there is a violent competition for mating rights it will not end in death - because every time a member of the species died a waste of perfectly good genes takes place.
Besides the simple fact of that the human species is the only one that kills its own for no reason. No other species "murders" its own. Yes. We're also the only sapient creature on the planet.


However with out dark matter and dark energy then cosomology falls apart. Besides, the starting point of the Big Bang can also point to creation by God. The big bang theory also has the problem of where did this point of energy/matter come from'? How does this singularity suddenly spring into existance from nothing. this is in violation of cause and effect. Basically stated a temporal effect can't be the cause of itself or you can't get something from nothing. A very valid criticism of the big bang, I'd take it up with CERN if I were you. Just try not to mention god, otherwise they will howl with laughter and tell you to get the fuck out. That is unless you have watertight evidence for God that has not yet become known.