It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

page: 13
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
It's funny, people blame Religion for wars, murder etc etc.

That is history, can't change it... you know?!


originally posted by: MrConspiracy
If we take religion away (which is happening) have wars not been started outside of religious reasons?

Where??? Even USA occupation of Iraq can be characterized as religious because Bush was under influence that he was chosen for task?!
Any senile person would check himself up, once he hears voice in his head telling him what to do...


originally posted by: MrConspiracy
It's not religion that's the problem. It's people.

On contrary, religion turns normal people into lambs, isn't that terminology even used by religion??


originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Religion, at it's root, teaches nothing but love and respect. Sure, there's a few horror stories in the (insert holy book of choice). But it's teachings are somewhat solid.

You apparently have not read any of those books. I've read 2 and as I already mention, it is not children safe, should be rater R, fiction rated R.


originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Science and religion are 2 very different ways of explaining what we are and why we are here. I personally believe there is middle ground to be found.

On contrary, as seen in this thread, science and religion have not much in common and as showed in OP, are very different by definition...

Sorry, no middle ground for religion...

Spirituality and tradition - sure, but religion no...




posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DazDaKing

What does that have to do with the topic?,



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
If anything, I think they can be interchangeable, however, religion as a whole in todays growing world, has lost much of it virtues where science has kind of picked them up. Religions stuck in that view of nullifying pride of its self appointed Godliness to even think they can command God, where science would like to beat or even play God in that respect.

What I find funny is how the religious are afraid of it, but still use science to try to prove their own religious writings, like The Big Bang or God particle for that matter. While science seems to use religious sayings or philosophies to present their own ideas or views of life.

I just like how science can recognize its own mistakes, where as religions ether pushes on being to apologetic or even condemning. Religion hasn't evolved at all in the past thousands of years, but the same thing can happen to science eventually if it losses it way.

Also, both are incredibly stubborn and unimaginative most of the time, and hate being wrong .
edit on 17-5-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog


Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

No that is just your definition of faith and of religion. Most scientists even famous ones were in actuality pretty religious and a lot of what they did was influenced or on those trajectories. Einstein died trying to make a unified theory of everything, why is that? His believes were for the most part taking him down that trajectory.

The only thing people of faith need to do to follow the scientific process is to say that God is not yet known and to imbued every facet of all new known things into the concept of God. Basically what you call a thing and the context of that thing is not its final form.

Science is not concerned with concepts outside the observable and provable. Yet things outside the observable and provable exist. If they did not we would not be sitting here talking through a box over great distances and we would still likely believe that the sun revolves around the sun.

All those things at one point were not observable or provable. While the existence of God or a variable of other such things is not observable or provable. That in now way says that they don't exist in some capacity, it just means you do not have the tools, or the know how, or even the capacity to observe them. So if your talking about a guy in the clouds sitting there watching humans, ya sure that does not exist it has been proven that nobody is in the clouds just sitting around watching us.

But if your talking about some higher being on a completely different scale and dimension, then I would not be so sure because of our limited understanding and know how and pretty much everything else which is limited.

So you saying that God does not exist is purely based on your faith that it does not exist, just like when these christian people say he does exist is taken purely on faith that he does. Your both religious, just about different things, and your both lacking in the tools and know how to come to any definite conclusion on this subject.

Science then would not concern itself with it, from a purely scientific viewpoint. But then again if you believe there is such a thing as a purely scientific viewpoint that to is taken on a lot of faith and assume science is a magical being and a thing in itself instead of a process which various people of various teachings and believes and knowledge use. Science is a tool and for the most part like a tool it just depends on who is using it.

But if you believe and like I said before that science is a thing in itself and infallible, then your just substitution one god for another.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DazDaKing
Oh ya the whole caveman Neanderthal joke. It all bodes into the funny till science says that they had a bigger cranial area then us and were stronger then us and possibly even smarter then us even way back then, there linguistic skills may have been lacking, but that to is only comparison with what we know, which all came much much latter.

Nature though does not necessarily care about smarts or strength as much as we like to think, in fact it may be that the whole thing is just a bunch of random variation of who is at the right place at the right time, and nothing more. So it may not be the survival of the fittest or even the smartest, it may be the survival of the luckiest which matters more.

That or we are definitely not getting all the facts on the case known as the human race.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Cant people just believe what they chose to believe without trying to negate the beliefs of others? I think the jury is out on both science and religion being the absolute truth. I hate the arrogance of both religious and nonreligious people who insist that they know the absolute truth and its impossible for them to be wrong. Maybe BOTH science and religion are wrong, maybe this IS a simulation and we are just virtual sentient beings living in a Matrix. The only thing I know for sure about what the nature of reality is, is that NO ONE knows the true nature of reality (except maybe Alan Watts).



edit on 17-5-2015 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: SuperFrog

Cant people just believe what they chose to believe without trying to negate the beliefs of others? I think the jury is out on both science and religion being the absolute truth. I hate the arrogance of both religious and nonreligious people who insist that they know the absolute truth and its impossible for them to be wrong. Maybe BOTH science and religion are wrong, maybe this IS a simulation and we are just virtual sentient beings living in a Matrix. The only thing I know for sure about what the nature of reality is, is that NO ONE knows the true nature of reality.


People are allowed to believe what they want, as long as they are not trying to preach their belief onto others or try to put theological views into science books.

Sorry, but no, science and religion are not the same and not 2 faces of the same coin. This what you called 'absolute truth' is just something that religion thinks can answer to you. Science and scientist will never tell you to hold such a thing.

That mystical end of your post is just that... your voluntary not wanting to learn or try to learn what science really can offer you... and its not different then religion, its based on your own belief, not on evidence.
edit on 17-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog... banter snipped ...

Since in any "debate" those taking positions on either side must be aware of the argument(s) the opposition would present, what would be your argument were you to take to opposing point of view?


edit on 17-5-2015 by paradoxious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: SuperFrog

Cant people just believe what they chose to believe without trying to negate the beliefs of others? I think the jury is out on both science and religion being the absolute truth. I hate the arrogance of both religious and nonreligious people who insist that they know the absolute truth and its impossible for them to be wrong. Maybe BOTH science and religion are wrong, maybe this IS a simulation and we are just virtual sentient beings living in a Matrix. The only thing I know for sure about what the nature of reality is, is that NO ONE knows the true nature of reality.


People are allowed to believe what they want, as long as they are not trying to preach their belief onto others or try to put theological views into science books.

Sorry, but no, science and religion are not the same and not 2 faces of the same coin. This what you called 'absolute truth' is just something that religion thinks can answer to you. Science and scientist will never tell you to hold such a thing.

That mystical end of your post is just that... your voluntary not wanting to learn or try to learn what science really can offer you... and its not different then religion, its based on your own belief, not on evidence.



You state people are allowed to believe what they want as long as they try to preach their belief onto others, and yet by trying to tell me my "mystical" beliefs are wrong, and that I am not wanting to "learn"you are doing EXACTLY that. I have a shock for you, I HAVE studied science extensively, and work in a scientific field. But I, unlike you, have an open mind. I realize that science can explain the "how" but not really the "why". You imply that I am close minded and not willing to learn when in fact, the fact that you are not willing to look at other points of view shows that is exactly what you are. I have examined the positions of science and religion closely and honestly find both lacking.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
originally posted by: SuperFrog
originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: SuperFrog



People are allowed to believe what they want, as long as they are not trying to preach their belief onto others or try to put theological views into science books.

Sorry, but no, science and religion are not the same and not 2 faces of the same coin. This what you called 'absolute truth' is just something that religion thinks can answer to you. Science and scientist will never tell you to hold such a thing.


So, this view of yours that science and religion are not two faces of the same coin...is it absolute truth, or is it scientific? It can't be both, since according to you science doesn't purport to hold to absolute truth. Or do I misunderstand you?



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: openminded2011
You state people are allowed to believe what they want as long as they try to preach their belief onto others, and yet by trying to tell me my "mystical" beliefs are wrong, and that I am not wanting to "learn"you are doing EXACTLY that. I have a shock for you, I HAVE studied science extensively, and work in a scientific field. But I, unlike you, have an open mind. I realize that science can explain the "how" but not really the "why".

From the same person who said opening 2 sentences from this post - just make sure that you don't open your mind too much, your brain might fall out... You know, we are going in circle with this... and just for your info, most of evidence points that religion is most likely not very good source for knowledge on 'why'... just ask your self - why does your religion (no matter what one, Abrahamic or even Hindu with its caste systems support slavery... don't go any further... and sure, they will have good answer for you to WHY we are here... can I guess, to serve God who placed us on this rock... while shooting everything, from deadly rays from cosmos, to possibility to always kill us all with some asteroid... almost like good ol' reality show..




originally posted by: openminded2011
You imply that I am close minded and not willing to learn when in fact, the fact that you are not willing to look at other points of view shows that is exactly what you are. I have examined the positions of science and religion closely and honestly find both lacking.

As I have already told you... just make sure you don't open your mind too much...






originally posted by: StalkerSolent
So, this view of yours that science and religion are not two faces of the same coin...is it absolute truth, or is it scientific? It can't be both, since according to you science doesn't purport to hold to absolute truth. Or do I misunderstand you?

If you check first post, you will see that all I say is that they are fundamentally different and not compatible. That is title of the topic, isn't it? And no, science will never tell you they have answers to everything... there is always more to learn, discover, find... as long as you don't pretend to know answer, it is interesting world we live in...

Here, kind of reminder... from Dr. Minchin...



Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.


If you like whole song...




posted on May, 18 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Gregor Mendel seemed to be OK with it. I think he made the two work pretty well from what I've read.....



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
If you check first post, you will see that all I say is that they are fundamentally different and not compatible. That is title of the topic, isn't it? And no, science will never tell you they have answers to everything... there is always more to learn, discover, find... as long as you don't pretend to know answer, it is interesting world we live in...


So this belief of yours, that religion and science are not compatible...it isn't scientific. What sort of a belief is it? I take it it's not religious.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TheCretinHop

I haven't finished reading through the entire thread yet, so hopefully I am not repeating things someone else has already said. Though sometimes a little reiteration doesn't hurt.

While you may find some scientific truths in the Bible you believe are there thanks to an all knowing God inspiring the text, how would you feel knowing there are plenty of scientific inaccuracies? Claims the Bible makes that we understand today are false. But were believed during the times the various texts were written. To me it is another point of evidence to show the Bible is not divinely inspired.

These scientific inaccuracies are prevalent all throughout the Bible!

Science and History in the Bible

Some of it may come off as petty and sarcastic, especially from a theological standpoint. But give it a read, you'll find some grade a mistakes that reflect human inspiration as opposed to divine inspiration.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
So this belief of yours, that religion and science are not compatible...it isn't scientific. What sort of a belief is it? I take it it's not religious.


I know you are trying to be smart and sarcastic, but friend, when we have large amount of evidence for something, in the case of this discussion on the way religion and science being very different and in many times religion trying to suppress science and exploration. There is long period of over 1K where not just we did not have any major discoveries, but actually thanks to handy work of people who knew what God's intent was with knowledge we even lost some discoveries from ancient time. We cover that and much more in this thread... and when there is evidence, it's not any more belief... its fact.

Irony is that you trying to express belief as something bad... for which I applaud you... Great job.




posted on May, 18 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: DazDaKing

I deserved it. I was acting arrogant. To be honest I had never thought of it like that. It's a very compelling theory and I'd like to see if we could find some more evidence to corroborate it. We still have the time gap issue of when these other humanoids went extinct, but for all we know all the more recent remains decomposed and didn't get stuck in places that allowed them to fossilize.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
And what's not objective about observing a nifty rock carved to tell you how great somebody was?


It's the way the evidence is presented that makes it subjective. By saying, "I saw such and such" you are turning it into subjective evidence. This wouldn't be inherently bad if there were objective evidence backing up those claims, or ways to obtain and/or duplicate the evidence so that future readers could see the same thing.


And by the by, if I observed a god, would you believe me? Objective evidence is more than evidence that is merely observed by human beings.


That depends. How would you know it was a god? Do you have any tests that can determine godhood? Could you reproduce the results reliably so that someone else could see the same?


Not necessarily. Remember, you can interact with a human's "senses" by stimulating parts of the brain with wireless signals. You could "appear" to thousands of people at once, but the video camera in the room wouldn't pick up a thing.


Yes necessarily. Even with your example we are still physically stimulating the brain. You could still trace the source of those signals as interacting with the physical. As long as it interacts with the physical world, I see no reason to see why we shouldn't be able to build an instrument to detect it.

Isn't that what ghost hunting is supposed to be about? Trying to use electronic recording devices to record ghosts since they allegedly interact with electricity and white noise?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
It's funny, people blame Religion for wars, murder etc etc.

That is history, can't change it... you know?!


originally posted by: MrConspiracy
If we take religion away (which is happening) have wars not been started outside of religious reasons?

Where??? Even USA occupation of Iraq can be characterized as religious because Bush was under influence that he was chosen for task?!
Any senile person would check himself up, once he hears voice in his head telling him what to do...


originally posted by: MrConspiracy
It's not religion that's the problem. It's people.

On contrary, religion turns normal people into lambs, isn't that terminology even used by religion??


originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Religion, at it's root, teaches nothing but love and respect. Sure, there's a few horror stories in the (insert holy book of choice). But it's teachings are somewhat solid.

You apparently have not read any of those books. I've read 2 and as I already mention, it is not children safe, should be rater R, fiction rated R.


originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Science and religion are 2 very different ways of explaining what we are and why we are here. I personally believe there is middle ground to be found.

On contrary, as seen in this thread, science and religion have not much in common and as showed in OP, are very different by definition...

Sorry, no middle ground for religion...

Spirituality and tradition - sure, but religion no...


Erm... there are a LOT of wars not caused by religion. So, although it's caused it's fair share - it isn't THE cause. The cause is man.

I have read the Bible actually. And yes, it is pretty grim at times. Plus, the bible (as an example) we read today isn't the bible we were meant to read.

(I hope this isn't too off topic, it's a reply so...)
So you're twisting the word "Lamb" I presume? Religion doesn't automatically ruin man. Religion is man made, man ruined man. However, plenty of religious people world wide are devout (insert religion) and do NO harm to anyone. They are often the kindest, most generous people I have ever me. Yet... You seem to hold everyone to the same idea that RELIGION = WAR... when actually it's humans USING religion for war. Do you understand that?

Religion and Science do have middle ground. I think the bare bones of religion and science are both trying to explain... what, why and how. They have different approaches, sure. But I think we'll find (if we ever get there) that the outcome will have some middle ground between the two.

Also, you mention spirituality. Spirituality and faith are at the root of religion.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy


Erm... there are a LOT of wars not caused by religion. So, although it's caused it's fair share - it isn't THE cause. The cause is man.


Religion IS a war. God against demon, saint against sinner, perfection against imperfection. The whole point of religion is war...war of the mind. And you are right, man is at the helm.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
originally posted by: SuperFrog
originally posted by: StalkerSolent




I know you are trying to be smart and sarcastic, but friend, when we have large amount of evidence for something, in the case of this discussion on the way religion and science being very different and in many times religion trying to suppress science and exploration. There is long period of over 1K where not just we did not have any major discoveries, but actually thanks to handy work of people who knew what God's intent was with knowledge we even lost some discoveries from ancient time. We cover that and much more in this thread... and when there is evidence, it's not any more belief... its fact.


Oh dear heavens. Which thousand years are you talking about? The "dark ages?" The idea that the dark ages were dark is largely a myth, and while it's convenient to focus on Europe during that time, science and progress were getting it on just fine in the parts of the world that were occupied by...Islam. That's part of the cause of the Renaissance, IIRC, due to the trade with the Islamic world, bringing in innovation and free-thinking. But the Islamic world was very religious at the time. That idea relies on cherry-picking of facts to suit your purposes.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join