Science and Religion

[tklmaestro]

However, that is wrong. God isn't the reason I'm here. I'm here because of the biological processes that occur during conception.

God "is" that biological process.

 

[desk]

Most of the World's Greatest Scientists were either Christians, Jews, or agnostics that believed in a higher power... NOT ATHEISTS! DUH!

 

[desk]

Oh excuse me I am leaving out some of the great atheist scientists that blog at Tickle Theater, my mistake.

 

[Mash]

Oh excuse me I am leaving out some of the great atheist scientists that blog at Tickle Theater, my mistake.

You're so ignorant that it's funny.

Beliefs and Faiths aren't about being right or wrong. However, Atheism is about as close to 'right' as you can get; as no scientific evidence has ever arisen to contradict atheism, whereas evidence pops up left and right to contradict other beliefs.

Also, most of these scientists, like Albert Einstein, had no official religious affiliation, but believed in a God for personal reasons. Not a single one of them will ever tell you that it was their work that led them to believing God. In other words...The fact that they were scientists had absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

I like to think that, when big brained scientist-types believe in God, it's because they've come to terms with the innate knowledge that we either weren't meant to know everything, or simply can never possibly know everything.

Or worse. They figured out that we'll only ever know, like, one millionth of everything there is to know about even our podunk galaxy, let alone the rest of the universe.

 

[Jagermeistered]

If you want to understand their view point on this, you have to throw away science and evidence for a second.

They believe that God created everything; that he gave us all that we have. They believe that he is all powerful, and that he controls every little thing that happens on this planet, and the universe.
We have to step away from things like science, because science undeniably proves that things like volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunami's...they're caused by measurable, observable events that are caused by other measurable and observable events; not some deity.

In their eyes, God has every right to assign us our place in the universe, since he essentially is the reason that we're here.

However, that is wrong. God isn't the reason I'm here. I'm here because of the biological processes that occur during conception. Unlike Jesus, my mother was not supposedly knocked-up by God. If my mother tried to tell me that I was born from the holy ghost, I'd tell her to quit lying to me and tell me who the affair was with.

Mash you finally get it...

Science has all the proof that a god doesn't exist; meanwhile, religion and Theology has all the proof that He does exist. Thus, you will always have a trainwreck when the two collides.

The only way you will put the nail in the coffin of religion and Theology is thru epistemology and philosophy. Primarily, epistemology should be the weapon of choice.

Let's take faith as an example... The Age of Faith has only been around for a little over a thousand years. So, the question to people with 'faith'; where was this 'faith' for the first thousand years after Christ's death?

Their answer will be like listening to wolves howling at the moon.

 

[Mash]

Science has all the proof that a god doesn't exist; meanwhile, religion and Theology has all the proof that He does exist. Thus, you will always have a trainwreck when the two collides.

The thing is, neither side has any actual proof of anything relating to a God. There is no scientific evidence that claims that there is no God, just as there is no scientific evidence that directly supports the existence of a God.

Science really doesn't have an actual 'opinion' on the idea of God. Whether one exists or not, they don't really care; so long as they can definitively measure it, and so long as it doesn't violate any of the laws of physics.

You're thinking more of the battle between theism and atheism.

 

[Rikusfalto]

The thing is, neither side has any actual proof of anything relating to a God. There is no scientific evidence that claims that there is no God, just as there is no scientific evidence that directly supports the existence of a God.

Evidence on the existence of WHAT. Until someone manages to define what does the term "God" refers to, it's impossible to mount evidence pro or contra.

When atheists talk about the nonexistence of gods, they talk about he gods as they imagine them. Would they perceive them the same way believers do, they wouldn't be atheists.

The way I see, metaphysical personifications like gods come from the reflection of the positive consciousness upon its inherent finiteness, by addressing and relating to the Beyond that surrounds its limits. No amount of science can change the finiteness of the mind, because science is also positive and finite, subjectively and objectively.

Science and religion are separate magisteria, because the methodological naturalism of science is useless in describing metaphysics and spirituality.

 

[Mash]

Evidence on the existence of WHAT. Until someone manages to define what does the term "God" refers to, it's impossible to mount evidence pro or contra.

When atheists talk about the nonexistence of gods, they talk about he gods as they imagine them. Would they perceive them the same way believers do, they wouldn't be atheists.

The way I see, metaphysical personifications like gods come from the reflection of the positive consciousness upon its inherent finiteness, by addressing and relating to the Beyond that surrounds its limits. No amount of science can change the finiteness of the mind, because science is also positive and finite, subjectively and objectively.

Science and religion are separate magisteria, because the methodological naturalism of science is useless in describing metaphysics and spirituality.

The term 'God' essentially could vary from person to person. If I thought that a rock was a God, then I could very well call it a God, and worship it, and be precisely as valid as modern Christians.

'God' could essentially be anything, so for now, we have to use the image of 'God' that popular religions draw up. We have no evidence of that type of God, in any case, nor do we have evidence contradicting that type of God.

 

[jts963]

The term 'God' essentially could vary from person to person. If I thought that a rock was a God, then I could very well call it a God, and worship it, and be precisely as valid as modern Christians.

'God' could essentially be anything, so for now, we have to use the image of 'God' that popular religions draw up. We have no evidence of that type of God, in any case, nor do we have evidence contradicting that type of God.

Nonsense. There's plenty of evidence contradicting supernatural phenomena, ergo there's plenty of evidence calling into question the existence of supernatural beings, including gods.

Yes, no one could prove the nonexistence of every type of god, but given the alleged existence of a specific god, it becomes a rather straightforward procedure to demonstrate the almost countless contradictions within the so-called history of said specific deity. And let's face it, we aren't talking about "generic" gods here, we're talking about specific gods. Always have been, always will be. If you can disprove the history, you have disproved the god.

And as far as the so-called difficulty of defining 'god', my response is: if they can't define it, they've got no business advocating it.

 

[Mash]

Nonsense. There's plenty of evidence contradicting supernatural phenomena, ergo there's plenty of evidence calling into question the existence of supernatural beings, including gods.

Yes, no one could prove the nonexistence of every type of god, but given the alleged existence of a specific god, it becomes a rather straightforward procedure to demonstrate the almost countless contradictions within the so-called history of said specific deity. And let's face it, we aren't talking about "generic" gods here, we're talking about specific gods. Always have been, always will be. If you can disprove the history, you have disproved the god.

And as far as the so-called difficulty of defining 'god', my response is: if they can't define it, they've got no business advocating it.

Well, supernatural phenomena can mean a lot of things. We have evidence that contradicts certain forms of supernatural phenomena, but not all of it. For instance, there could be events that we aren't even aware of, things we can't observe; can't measure. However, just because we can't measure or observe them does not mean they aren't there, and it certainly doesn't mean that we have evidence to contradict them.

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

For instance, who are we to say that there aren't invisible, matterless blocks of a non-physical substance floating to the right side of the head of every human being? It's possible that they're there, and we have no evidence to contradict that idea.

We have evidence that contradicts certain religions, like Christianity, however, just because it contradicts a religion, and the God it's affiliated with, does not mean that it contradicts the very idea of God. There is no feasible evidence that could possibly contradict such a vague thing.

 

[jts963]

Well, supernatural phenomena can mean a lot of things. We have evidence that contradicts certain forms of supernatural phenomena, but not all of it. For instance, there could be events that we aren't even aware of, things we can't observe; can't measure. However, just because we can't measure or observe them does not mean they aren't there, and it certainly doesn't mean that we have evidence to contradict them.

At some point, certain things have to stop being an issue so we can move on to the next issue. If you're stuck on "anything is possible", no progress can be made. Ever.


Lack of evidence is not evidence.

Couldn't disagree more. Yes, absense of evidence is not identical to evidence of absense, but in practical terms, it almost always turns out that way. I look around my house and see no evidence of elephants, ergo it is logical to conclude there are no elephants in my house, not even mutant miniature and stealthy ones.

 

[Mash]

Couldn't disagree more. Yes, absense of evidence is not identical to evidence of absense, but in practical terms, it almost always turns out that way. I look around my house and see no evidence of elephants, ergo it is logical to conclude there are no elephants in my house, not even mutant miniature and stealthy ones.

Ah, but you're forgetting about the elephants that don't abide to the laws of physics and reality. That is what you're missing.

When dealing with the supernatural, just because you can't see it, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there.

 

[jts963]

Ah, but you're forgetting about the elephants that don't abide to the laws of physics and reality. That is what you're missing.

When dealing with the supernatural, just because you can't see it, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there.

Basically what you're arguing is "anything is possible", which pretty much negates the whole point of learning. Why bother learning science when "anything is possible"? Sorry, all my senses and experiences tell me the world is full of limits, and not everything is possible. Ergo it's smart to learn what is possible, what is not possible, and what is so bloody unlikely it may as well be impossible.

For example, most nuclear physicists were not fooled for even half a second by the two chemists who claimed to have discovered "cold fusion". That's because most nuclear physicists know what is possible and what is impossible about nuclear reactions.

 

[Mash]

Basically what you're arguing is "anything is possible", which pretty much negates the whole point of learning. Why bother learning science when "anything is possible"? Sorry, all my senses and experiences tell me the world is full of limits, and not everything is possible. Ergo it's smart to learn what is possible, what is not possible, and what is so bloody unlikely it may as well be impossible.

For example, most nuclear physicists were not fooled for even half a second by the two chemists who claimed to have discovered "cold fusion". That's because most nuclear physicists know what is possible and what is impossible about nuclear reactions.

Again, we're not talking about science here. I am well aware that 'God' defies just about every law of physics there is.

Supernatural is called supernatural for a reason. It goes beyond what we see as 'logical' and 'possible'.
I'm not saying there is a God. I'm just saying that when dealing with such vague terms, it's wise not to rule out anything. I genuinely believe that there is no God.

And, if the world were truly full of limits, singularities would not exist. x)

 

[Rikusfalto]

If there are Gods, ghouls and other ghastly things, then science would be able to test and make and refine self-consistent reproducible models to plan, anticipate and predict such phenomena.


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
This part might not be applicable to readers. Caution advised

“A religious person is narrow-minded if they consider that their religion, and their religion alone is correct. It is also-narrow minded of them to assert their arguments based on their doctrines alone. And mostly, if they contradict the scions, teachers and leaders of their religions. Then they are blaspheming heretics.”
-Myself
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.

Why do you believe you know what you talk about? Why is it that every time atheists "try" to understand religion, they come to a "conclusion" that they are WONDERFUL people for not being believers? Why does it bears uncanny resemblence to a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT???

When you talk about the nonexistence of gods, you talk about the gods as YOU perceive them, in your head.
And if you are willing to believe that a Carmelite nun in the height of her spiritual union with the Divine and a religion-hating antitheist think of the same thing, then welcome to self-deception.

Until you define what you refer to by "god" in exact terms, it's idiotic to try to prove anything about them, evidence pro or contra, because you fail to pin down what you are thinking about.
The arguments in this thread are all pointless because of this.

And while we are talking about it, spiritual experience is a scientifically verified, objective phenomenon. And it is the same with the Abrahamic God, the Buddhist Dharma and the Hindoo godhead, meaning they are interchangeable terms, meaning they have the same objective basis.

 

[Mash]

Why do you believe you know what you talk about? Why is it that every time atheists "try" to understand religion, they come to a "conclusion" that they are WONDERFUL people for not being believers? Why does it bears uncanny resemblence to a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT???

When you talk about the nonexistence of gods, you talk about the gods as YOU perceive them, in your head.
And if you are willing to believe that a Carmelite nun in the height of her spiritual union with the Divine and a religion-hating antitheist think of the same thing, then welcome to self-deception.

Until you define what you refer to by "god" in exact terms, it's idiotic to try to prove anything about them, evidence pro or contra, because you fail to pin down what you are thinking about.
The arguments in this thread are all pointless because of this.

And while we are talking about it, spiritual experience is a scientifically verified, objective phenomenon. And it is the same with the Abrahamic God, the Buddhist Dharma and the Hindoo godhead, meaning they are interchangeable terms, meaning they have the same objective basis.

Misconception: Atheists try and prove the non-existence of God. - False.

Generally speaking, Atheists do the exact same thing as theists; they simply believe. Anyone with a grain of sense will know that it's a futile battle trying to prove or disprove God. Of course, there are both on either side that believe they can find proof that solidifies their beliefs, but they're usually loons.

This thread is not entitled 'Atheism and Theism'; it's titled 'Science and Religion'. God cannot be proven wrong, but most religions can. That's the difference.

And frankly, I could shoot up heroin and call it a 'spiritual experience'. Mental hallucinations hardly mean anything.

 

[Rikusfalto]

God cannot be proven wrong, but most religions can. That's the difference.

And frankly, I could shoot up heroin and call it a 'spiritual experience'. Mental hallucinations hardly mean anything.

When you think most religions can be proven wrong, you assume to know what they are talking about.
Actually, spiritual experience works without drugs. The immersion in transcendence is a subjective experience, but this does not makes it a hallucination.
If religion has even a spark of spiritual depth, then it means it has to work along subjective idealistic lines, of which the methodological naturalism of science is unrelated to.

 

[Mash]

When you think most religions can be proven wrong, you assume to know what they are talking about.
Actually, spiritual experience works without drugs. The immersion in transcendence is a subjective experience, but this does not makes it a hallucination.
If religion has even a spark of spiritual depth, then it means it has to work along subjective idealistic lines, of which the methodological naturalism of science is unrelated to.

It doesn't matter if I know what they're talking about.

The Earth isn't 6,000 years old. There was no flood. Women can't get knocked up by ghosts.

Do you see what I'm saying here?

 

[Rikusfalto]

... I excelled in theology at school. Also I have never mentioned I'm an Atheist.

I never specifically insinuated the non-existence of gods, merely that there are many possibilities of which require validation.

If I told you that I have a book I wrote in which an giant oyster made the world like a pearl would you argue against my writings?

I haven't been excommunicated, and I was a Eucharist minister in my final year of high school.

Also, I have never come to the conclusion that I'm a wonderful person, in fact in all honesty. I consider myself to be a very horrible and unlikeable person.

You have been very presumptuous and hurtful towards me.


Also in a previous article I made a very specific analysis of what I refer to by "god."

In fact you can find many articles written here about that very topic... Did you read any of the previous articles in this thread? It's currently only twenty-nine pages.

Have you never met a troll in your life?

I'm talking in general terms. Unbelievers always use strawman arguments against religion, often without being aware of it.
If you already consider yourself a horrible and unlikeable person, why are you offended when others think so too?
Besides, it matters little how much theology did you learn, if you did not find out WHAT it is about. Its SUBJECT.
You don't need to study fairyology to disbelieve fairies, y'know. Unless you know what fairies are. You don't know God.

Mash16: if you don't know what they are talking about, you can't make statements about them. You don't understand what is behind religious symbolism. Also, biblical creationism is not religion, as it tries to be a scientific explanation.

 

[Mash]

Mash16: if you don't know what they are talking about, you can't make statements about them. You don't understand what is behind religious symbolism. Also, biblical creationism is not religion, as it tries to be a scientific explanation.

Sure I can. Also, 'tries' is definitely the key word here. Creationism is nothing more than a fictitious fairy tale that is used to make believers feel special about themselves.
To have a 'scientific' explanation, you need actual science. Making unsupported claims is certainly not the way to support an argument.

The Bible is inaccurate. There are parts of it that are just plain wrong. Given that, it's fair to say that the deity it represents might also be wrong.

 

[Mash]

Now you're just talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say "When dealing with the supernatural, just because you can't see it, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there" followed by "If there are Gods, ghouls and other ghastly things, then science would be able to test and make and refine self-consistent reproducible models to plan, anticipate and predict such phenomena."

Tell us, how exactly does science test, make models, etc. for phenomena that YOU expressly stated "don't abide to the laws of physics and reality." Talk about trying to have it both ways!

If the supernatural can defy reality, then it is beyond the capability of science to study it, learn from it. If all the gods, ghouls, etc. remain hidden, exactly what is science supposed to be testing, modeling, etc.?

Congrats, you've painted yourself into a corner. Enjoy. :lol

You quote two different people. Enjoy. :lol

 

[jts963]

You quote two different people. Enjoy. :lol

Got me! :lol

 

[Mash]

Unless of course that was your intention. However, even if it was, me and drire are not attached at the hip. We aren't defending each other, or trying to support each other. We're holding separate arguments based on separate ideals/beliefs.

 

[Mash]

On a separate note, I just recently found out that apparently all young-earth creationists believe that ALL carnivorous animals were herbivores prior to Adam eating that apple.

Ken Ham so intelligently told a bunch of children that T-Rexes, the most infamous carnivore that has ever existed, used it's enormous legs to relentlessly chase after grass, and it's 6-inch long fangs to shred through lettuce.