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: 15
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Name one god who has been verified via the scientific method. Or any spiritual ideology that answers to science before it answers to the supernatural.

None/Many/BOTH. It is you to determine truth or fallacy (you as human) are the factoring objective; decide your own truth and OBJECT (as far as the rules are concerned).




posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Uh huh. I haven't observed any evidence of that. I've seen some religious deny some scientific observations some times.

Nah, you never will observe or learn... yet we humans paid huge price many times over...



originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Ah, yes, our glorious progress...
I do see that you've stopped trying to argue that there wasn't scientific progress in the Middle Ages. I take it you've conceded the point

You make me wonder if you trolling or just plain ignorant. Didn't you just in last few replies acknowledge that religion was against science... but according to you that was not always case, yet all evidence proves contrary to that.



originally posted by: StalkerSolent
It means what it says. What *that* means is the real question. I think the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was capable of giving men understanding of moral right and wrong.


At this point I am sure that you just trolling...



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
originally posted by: SuperFrog
originally posted by: StalkerSolent



You make me wonder if you trolling or just plain ignorant. Didn't you just in last few replies acknowledge that religion was against science... but according to you that was not always case, yet all evidence proves contrary to that.


No, I didn't, and no, it doesn't. You've stopped citing evidence, perhaps because your evidence is shoddy. Now you're putting words in my mouth. Can't you distinguish between "one religion once" and "all religion forever"?



At this point I am sure that you just trolling...


Honestly, I was tempted to troll

But no, I think that's what it meant. It might not have been a literal fruit or a literal garden, but within the concept of the story, I think that is what it was getting at. (Why else the big nakedness side trail?) Or do you expect me to believe that the Catholic Church put that in to indoctrinate the young 'uns?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent
So, this is just little troll event... sorry, not interested...
Your recent posts best show that you have no idea what you are talking about... sorry, will not feed the troll..





posted on May, 19 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: StalkerSolent
So, this is just little troll event... sorry, not interested...
Your recent posts best show that you have no idea what you are talking about... sorry, will not feed the troll..


Is it that hard to admit that you were wrong? (Even I can do that!
) The Dark Ages weren't dark, and religion doesn't *necessarily* impede scientific process, and it's wrong to judge the whole from one of its parts.

For anyone who may have missed my previous post, here is a link explaining how the Middle Ages laid the foundations for the beginnings of later scientific inquiry, here is a link listing different types of tech built during the Middle Ages, including important inventions like stern mounted rudders (still in use today) that were built between the years 300 and 1300, and here is a link to the part-to-whole fallacy, which you commit if you take one religion's (temporary) crimes and assume that all religion is like it all the time.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

The principal difference between the Dark and Middle Ages, to use the common terminology, was that the latter saw the creation of working social institutions that were not dependent on church or state for their origin and survival: craft guilds, universities and above all the papacy, which finally got itself established and respectable between the seventh and eleventh centuries. The growth of social order and complexity make the difference between the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, and despite current academic efforts to conflate the two I think there's a distinct difference.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: StalkerSolent

The principal difference between the Dark and Middle Ages, to use the common terminology, was that the latter saw the creation of working social institutions that were not dependent on church or state for their origin and survival: craft guilds, universities and above all the papacy, which finally got itself established and respectable between the seventh and eleventh centuries. The growth of social order and complexity make the difference between the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, and despite current academic efforts to conflate the two I think there's a distinct difference.


That is an interesting analysis. Do you think that the Dark Ages were about rebuilding the security lost during the time of the Roman Empire, and once the new boundaries were drawn and people had more-or-less settled down, society became stable and affluent enough to develop the working social institutions you describe?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
a reply to: TzarChasm

You lost me

Care to elaborate?


no. i posted it in plain english. there was nothing confusing about it.

if you are just going to play games, then we are done here.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Ya know, it would probably have been just as easy to explain


Now, let's see...you said the scientific method was supposed figure out what it would look like to verify the scientific discovery of a God. Do I understand that correctly?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

The Dark Ages weren't about anything; they were just what happened next, after the Roman withdrawal.

History does not, in my opinion, have a teleological character, any more than biological evolution does.

In the absence of a strong state, various actors try to seize power for themselves. This leads to violent competition for power. At the beginning, many parties and factions are involved, then there's a shakeout. Eventually the winners emerge and then, in their own interest, begin to impose law and order. This happens successively at local, regional and national levels — unless the new order is imposed by external invaders, in which case the order is reversed.

Certainly, what some call the bourgeoisie and others call civil society cannot emerge until law and order and individual security are reasonably well assured.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:07 AM
link   
OK, what a wired sync. This was posted just a few days ago and I immediately wanted to paste the link here when I found it.

worldtruth.tv...

This is an interview with Nikola Tesla, which was supposedly just recently published. I did try and google it as to validate or discredit it, but there was no available information which would point to hoax. So maybe some other member does know more about it?

Quick summary:
just after brief read I understand that he talks about infinity energy, energy in empty space - ether, creator, light and many other stuff. Very interesting and I think that it belongs to be at least mentioned here. As it is another view from famous and genius (mad) scientist, if the interview is true!

So you can bicker all you want about compatibility of various subjects, but reality is and always will be here and is waiting to be discovered for the open minded people who cast aside differences in belief for religion or science as both are the same...imaginative.
edit on 1432112924508May085083115 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:32 AM
link   
hm...ok I found some info that points that it could be fake.

aetherforce.com...



Update: it has recently come to light that this interview is most likely faked as The theory of relativity was not developed in 1899. Be your own judge. The awesome folks at Tesla Volunteer Army discovered this and altered us. AetherForce is a grass roots movement and we make mistakes, boy do we ever, but when we are wrong we own up and admit it. Working together we can get the truth out about Tesla. Any mistakes we make are mistakes of the mind, not the heart. Please spread the word.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   
What?......

Cuz religion is based on faith and science is based on fact?.

NAH!!, nothing could possibly be that simple........



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniFinity
So you can bicker all you want about compatibility of various subjects, but reality is and always will be here and is waiting to be discovered for the open minded people who cast aside differences in belief for religion or science as both are the same...imaginative.


What did those 'open minded' people discover so far?! Care to share any discoveries info?

Only way to say for something that is based on facts, such as science, is imaginative is either by now knowing much about science or by just being plain ignorant.

On the other hand, everything about religion is imaginative and belief. Whole idea of this thread is to point to that major difference and explain why those 2 are incompatible.


edit on 20-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
remember my first post in this thread. Read about them and you will see, what they discovered...

Nikola Tesla was on my list, did he not discover anything?? I do not follow you...why are you so stuck up with religion. Let it be...

As I said. Religion and god or science does not compute. Religion is man made stories of old, describing god and his miracles. They are mostly metaphorical and a person must know a lot of background in order to ingest them completely. But God is god, do not confuse it with religion.

If you do not get it, then please listen to this video about Walter Russell and meditation:
www.youtube.com...

And he is now known as one of many great geniuses and a polymath, just like Leonardo and many others who knew that there are no coincidences in our universe.

I agree with you on certain level on your views about science and religion, but I do not discard God and I am not follower of any religion. Love is my religion any body is my temple. So if I view the world like that, what is stopping me to explore this beautiful world through the eyes of science. There are no blind beliefs, I am not expecting anything, just like you and others. Just exploring and learning from day to day...the only difference, from what I can gather is different prospective.

One is material the other is spiritual. But both are interchangeable in ways we cannot yet fathom.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
What I would like to get across is that, religion and science are just words, concepts. They are not real. Beliefs are not real. So why mingle them together or why mingle them at all? Why can't we just realize that we don't know as much as we think and let it be. Why must we label ourself and put all in some group. This is nonsense.

Everybody can be religious and a scientists. As long as they are not stubbornly converting people around them and so on. Just let it be. And just the opposite is true also. Atheist are great people to, although they have decided for themselves some things, as long as they don't bother me with facts and science, just let it be. I have many different friends and they are all great people. I do not care what are there beliefs and jobs. I care about their well-being when we are hanging out and that is it...

The main problem is in us and our attitude. We like to get people to follow us, try to convert them to our thinking, why do we do that?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: SuperFrog

If you think science is so incompatible with God, then you should probably take a look at Newton, Einstein and Pascal.

Seems like none of them had trouble considering the possibility that there exists a greater intelligence than human beings.

“God does not play dice with the universe”. - Albert Einstein


Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)

Pascal's Wager



You gotta stop pushing this idea that Einstein was some great man of faith. He was not.

Einstein's Faith on Wiki



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

Atheist are great people to, although they have decided for themselves some things, as long as they don't bother me with facts and science, just let it be.


Yeah who needs that kind of stuff....


The main problem is in us and our attitude. We like to get people to follow us, try to convert them to our thinking, why do we do that?


Isn't that what you're doing right now? maybe you should ask yourself that question....

One is a collection of superstitions used for comfort, the other is a method for exploring and attempting to understand the world around us. They're very different and they should be defined as such.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

Nicola Tesla was not pseudo scientist for what some claim him to be.

Pseudoscience is just extended hand of religion... nothing more. It purely works on belief system to exist, and does not require evidence...

Amazing Randi pointed this very well in his lecture at Princeton University... please watch, it is long video, but has good insights and covers pseudo science well...





One is material the other is spiritual. But both are interchangeable in ways we cannot yet fathom.


Again, statement made of thin air - where all evidence points not just that they have not much in common, but are actually mutually exclusive.

Wrapping everything in mythology and trying to make it true... sorry, it does nor work that way.

What meditation has to do with this topic? Topic is not about spirituality and science, but about religion and science.

Very interesting interview with Jerry Coyne about his latest book 'Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible.' done by Sam Harris. Just follow this link: www.samharris.org...


More about Jerry:


Jerry A. Coyne is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. He received a B.S. in Biology from the College of William and Mary and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Harvard University. After a postdoctoral fellowship at The University of California at Davis, he took his first academic position as assistant professor in the Department of Zoology at The University of Maryland. In 1996 he joined the faculty of The University of Chicago and has been there ever since. Coyne’s work has been largely concerned with the genetics of species differences, aimed at understanding the evolutionary processes that produce new species. He has written 115 scientific papers and more than 130 popular articles, book reviews, and columns, as well as a scholarly book about his research area—Speciation, co-authored with H. Allen Orr—and a trade book about the evidence for evolution—Why Evolution is True, which was a New York Times bestseller. His most recent book is Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible. Coyne is a contributor The New York Times, The New Republic, The Times Literary Supplement, The Guardian, The Nation, USA Today, and other popular periodicals.



edit on 20-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: Added part with Jerry's new book...



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369



Yeah who needs that kind of stuff....

Common you should know what I meant by that from context of my post. I meant no disrespect, science is very important, and I to am very much dependent on it, as I am a web developer. But in the context of people blinded by some kind of belief and trying to make everybody think like them...

Although English is not my primary language and in some cases I know it must be hard to read after me, I apologize if so




Isn't that what you're doing right now? maybe you should ask yourself that question....

One is a collection of superstitions used for comfort, the other is a method for exploring and attempting to understand the world around us. They're very different and they should be defined as such.

You paint your own picture of what I am supposedly doing while reading my post. Your own thoughts spin my words and intention with it. And they are very different from reality!

I have no expectations and certainly not trying to convert anybody with those posts, I mean how could I, with my writing skills?? hah


And this thread is created for expressing a view on this stuff and that is the only thing I am doing right now!

So I would say to you, you are looking into a mirror in a way when you post something like that.

Who are you? can you tell me that? can you tell me for certain what are you, life, death, feelings, dreams, different inherent fears since we were babies, where do they come from, and on and on...? This is what I am trying to find out, if you have good answers I will listen with joy. So please do not say things like that, I am sure you don't have all the answers, nobody has them...but everybody can try on their own way of learning that. Be it a religious scientist or atheist. Definitions are just labels, which are getting to meaningful in the eyes of the people in my opinion.




top topics



 
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join