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.

 

Can Science Resurrect God? New Scenario Says 'Yes'

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


Faith...in science?

that isnt needed in science.




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Science has nothing to do with it as science is a methodology of discovery. This method has no explicit requirements to lay out a path of destruction. Yet, some religious dogma does lay out a path of destruction. Discovery of new thing's is not the problem, it's the violent ignorance of people that is the problem. You need to place blame where blame is due, not shift that blame due to some unfounded dislike of science. If I hand you a gun and you shoot someone, who's fault is it?

You?

The gun?

Or the man who invented that gun?

The person who discovered black powder?

Or the person who developed smelting and casting?

Or perhaps the first person to discover metal ore?

Hell, why not the guy who discovered how to created fire?

[edit on 16-12-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Science has nothing to do with it as science is a methodology of discovery. This method has no explicit requirements to lay out a path of destruction.

Two words: Nuclear Weaponry.

Science is bought and paid for by the military industrial complex before it ever filters down to the consumer, and you know it.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
This is interesting. You keep going on about how scientific discovery has caused catastrophe, and it is evident your belief is that religion is a cure to this...so please inform me what you believe "created" the ability to progress technology? Surely God would be against it? But no...if we follow your path of thought, God began everything including religion and man's ability to manage technology to use it destructively. So it's more a moral issue than theological.

And for the record, the Bible has a few passages describing how best to destroy people. Just a few....



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by sirnex
Science has nothing to do with it as science is a methodology of discovery. This method has no explicit requirements to lay out a path of destruction.

Two words: Nuclear Weaponry.

Science is bought and paid for by the military industrial complex before it ever filters down to the consumer, and you know it.

— Doc Velocity


Answer the question, do not purposefully avoid it.

If I hand you a gun and you shoot someone, who's fault is it?

You?

The gun?

Or the man who invented that gun?

The person who discovered black powder?

Or the person who developed smelting and casting?

Or perhaps the first person to discover metal ore?

Hell, why not the guy who discovered how to created fire?

Science is a methodology of discovery, the scientific method contains no instructions that one should use said discoveries to kill in it's name. However, religious text's DO contain this message and it's followers ABUSE technologies in order to carry out that command.

You sir are incredible.


[edit on 16-12-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity


The major religions of the world, on the other hand, have survived essentially unchanged for hundreds and even thousands of years, and the overwhelming majority of humanity is still religious.

— Doc Velocity


that doesn't make them right. the great thing about science is that revision and new information is accepted and even desired, whereas with religion change and new information is treated like a disease. also need i remind you that christianity is merely a revision of judaism? christianity itself is also guilty of change (or dare i say evolution?), take for example the Lutheran movement or the fact that there are all kinds of "branches" of christianity. protestant, baptist, southern baptist, catholic, pentecostal, lutheran, jehovah's witnesses just to name a few. the different branches constitute a number of changes from the initial idea. and now the icing on the cake... we no longer publicly stone people, which was a biblical practice that has been let go because it was ridiculous to begin with; and THAT is more laughable than some of the scientific mistakes that have been corrected as we learn more about our world.
also, what's up with 2 versions of Genesis? can't the almighty God make up his mind which is the true beginning of things? (sorry if that last bit leaned more toward snotty, but i do genuinely want to know your take on that.)



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by misterhype


Originally posted by Doc Velocity
The major religions of the world, on the other hand, have survived essentially unchanged for hundreds and even thousands of years...

that doesn't make them right.

And it isn't even true.

Religions, like everything else, are in a constant ferment of change and evolution. Consider how Christianity has changed since its foundation. It took centuries before even the basics of doctrine crystallized, and as soon as that happened there was dissent and schism. The Christianity of the Dark Ages was little like that of the Middle Ages, and the scandals of the Renaissance popes and the Avignon antipopes were nothing like either. And then there was the Reformation--which only the profoundly unhistorical see as a return to some earlier state of native grace.

Consider how the Roman Catholic attitude to science has changed: the church that burned Giordano Bruno for supporting Copernicus now believes in the possibility of intelligent life on other worlds and endorses the theory of evolution. Meanwhile, Protestantism has divided into a plethora of different sects and degenerate twenty-first-century cults, with many doctrinal and liturgical divisions between them. We all know, I hope, how the story has gone from there.

As for the Eastern church--the Orthodox congregations--that is another story entirely.

Even the fundamentals change. The doctrinal split between East and West goes back nearly a thousand years. Since then, there have been so many others.

The same is true of Islam. The monolithic entity perceived by Westerners conceals a multitude of sects and approaches to belief, from liberal groups that call themselves neither Sunni nor Shia to spit-flying bearded fanatics, from Sufis who cultivate mystical mind-states with the aid of music, dance and hashish to Dawoodi Boras who live and die in the grip of a moneymaking scam perpetrated by their sect authorities.

All living religions are in a process of constant change. Modern-day Hindu 'nationalism' shows the influence of Western ideas of 'race purity' and political action unknown in ancient India. Even Buddhism, a religion in decline, has changed under the influence of political change in Sri Lanka, Thailand and elsewhere.

An interesting example of the ever-changing nature of religion are the degenerate, loosely Protestant consumer-Christianity cults so popular in America. Most followers of these cults believe they are revivalist in nature, based on 'that good old-time religion'; in fact, they are nothing of the sort. Doctrinarily, they peddle positivist feelgood pablum ('purpose-driven lives', and so forth) that are in direct philosophical and doctrinal contradiction to mainstream Christianity, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. Their indulgence of bigotry and intolerance, based on selective readings of the Old Testament, are a very modern phenomenon, part of that fearful rejection of modernity and global integration that is called fundamentalism, and which is, sociologically speaking, a child of the twentieth century. Their rejection of the scientific worldview is yet another fundamentalist manifestation.

These sects, with their megachurches adjoining vast car parks and filled with high-tech communications equipment, are on the cutting edge of social change in the twenty-first century, yet their followers think they are preserving old ways and views. A mediaeval schoolman would not recognize them; neither would a old-fashioned Calvinist or a pillar-dwelling, self-flagellating eremite of the Dark Ages.

'Essentially unchanged?' I don't think so.

[edit on 23/12/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
The pro and cons of religion are both wierd kind of people, they both seem to think they are right and at the same time they think the counter part is wrong.

And they both call each other hypicrates. Congrats, you both will shortly recieve the moron awards. How about finding some common grounds? When did ideas started cliding? Why should it clide? Is there some type of moral issue involved which enforces ideas to clide?

Let me tell both sides about the cool thing in regards to ideas. See, ideas can change, that is why it doesn't have to colide. You see both science and religion can change.

Science is faith based as much as Religion, it is only when you go deep in either side that you truely find out.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
s914.photobucket.com... the purpose of the Lazarus parable was to illustrate a curious fact about resurrection, even after the body has been dead four days and has bloated, started to decompose and stink, can still be brought back to life. WHY would that be important? Adam and Eve were the children of God and they repented of their Sin for nearly 2000 years and it wasn't enough. Jesus the surrogate Son paid for their Sin and ours in three days? Who resurrected Him? Why would He hang around Israel for forty days then dissappear for 2000 years without fulfilling promises He had made? Dead men don't tell lies. The best way to keep Jesus dead is to spread the lie that He has already risen. The longer his return is delayed the more disbelief spreads. Talk about the ultimate conspiracy theory.........



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism


Science is faith based as much as Religion.



that is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard. ever. science is supported by evidence and stone cold fact. religion on the other hand is supported by no evidence and can in no way be considered fact.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Bam. Thank you for the sharp history lesson. More people need these.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by misterhype


that is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard. ever. science is supported by evidence and stone cold fact. religion on the other hand is supported by no evidence and can in no way be considered fact.

ohhh I'm going to love to see you prove to me that what I claimed was the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard.

Let's break it down.

You believe in scientists right?

I do too.

But I also believe in thinkers.

But I also believe in messengers.

The same way you believe in Scientists.

Now to put it simply, you believe in them and I believe in someone else.

Me and you are not different after all.

Scientists can say what ever they like at the end of the day me and you have to be the one who believe them. True or False?

The same goes for messengers. It is about believing not about how much evidence they provide.

Evidence is secondary, hence politics.

Humans are the way they are, we believe in science because it has brought us something, we believed in messengers because they brought us something.

They are both equal and the same, which ever one you choose you can still advance.

Do you want evidence?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


"Scientists can say what ever they like at the end of the day me and you have to be the one who believe them. True or False?"

mostly false but it could be argued there are some instances where it is true. take for instance this statement: the sun is hot. that is irrefutable scientific FACT that is supported by evidence. now take for example the theory of evolution, while it is not entirely 100% proven it is still a theory that is backed up with some pretty solid evidence in it's favor, that is a case where yes, you and i decide to believe them or not. even though there is still some supportive evidence. moving on...

"The same goes for messengers. It is about believing not about how much evidence they provide."

this is where i found the most rubbish in your argument. messengers provide no solid evidence. it is simply a choice to believe their revelations or not. again, they provide NO SOLID EVIDENCE; nothing that could be recreated by different people to get the same outcome or result. whereas in science results and outcomes can be recreated and documented by separate, independent parties.
so there is in fact a huge difference in science and messengers and to claim otherwise is preposterous. science can provide evidence whereas religion relies completely on faith. different.

forgot to tie it in to my initial point of what you said that i thought was a ridiculous claim so here it is:
you had said it took as much faith to believe science as it does to believe religion. to that i argue that science provides evidence and data where religion offers no such thing. as a result of that it takes more faith to believe religion than it does science. i feel like i can't stress enough the importance of evidence and data to back something up, like science has but religion lacks.




[edit on 30-12-2009 by misterhype]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join