Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 6
Send Topic Print
Science vs. Religion (Read 16630 times)
Prime Minister for Canyons
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #15 - Aug 13th, 2018 at 12:31pm
 
Yadda wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 9:56pm:



Reply #08
Reply #10

Frank,

Good posts, and good basis of counter argument.

Argument, showing how currently accepted firm [scientific] 'truths' or, any solid, current accepted scientific hypothesis [in any scientific field],
should not be viewed as being securely 'founded', just because that is what our best human knowledge [or reasoning], today, would tend to support.

Throughout recent human history, on so many occasions, our 'contemporary' human ['scientific'] knowledge has so often been exposed as being so, so wrong, and based in error!





Example of  current accepted scientific hypothesis
Back to top
 

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)
 
IP Logged
 
Johnnie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 12485
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #16 - Aug 13th, 2018 at 2:27pm
 
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 9:07pm:
Johnnie wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:31pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:23pm:
Johnnie wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:09pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:01pm:
Johnnie wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:10pm:
Religion is a belief, science is not.



Science is a hypothesis. There parameters of science are as man-made as religion's. What's the difference between belief and hypothesis? Provability or falsifiability.

On that level, there is no difference  - faith in god cannot be falsified. Agnosticism is applying scientific methods to religion. Atheism is totally unscientific as there is no disproving, only counter-hypothesising about god and religion.

An ancient Chinese encyclopædia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge divides all animals into 14 categories:

Those that belong to the emperor
Embalmed ones
Those that are trained
Suckling pigs
Mermaids (or Sirens)
Fabulous ones
Stray dogs
Those that are included in this classification
Those that tremble as if they were mad
Innumerable ones
Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
Et cetera
Those that have just broken the flower vase
Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

(trans. Franz Kuhn)


Disprove it.


Are their any scientific facts you would like to dispute ?



Plenty. And all of it in the spirit of science.

Science is not meant to be somthing you submit to but something you try to refute.

There are no settled scientific facts that must not ever be questioned. That would be a completely unscientific approach.  There may be consensus, but consensus is not proof.

One reason is that we are bound (hemmed)  by sense perception and by the limits of reason (ie the limits of the operation of human reasoning. See more in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason if you are really interested).


Can you name one, science is always subject to scrutiny, if you got something present it.



Climate science. Mind science. Medicine. Anything relating to/giving rise to technology,
.

There are plenty of sciences but not one scientific fact you can dispute, on the other hand religion does not have one single fact to go on.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 39928
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #17 - Aug 13th, 2018 at 7:08pm
 
Johnnie wrote on Aug 13th, 2018 at 2:27pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 9:07pm:
Johnnie wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:31pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:23pm:
Johnnie wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:09pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:01pm:
Johnnie wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:10pm:
Religion is a belief, science is not.



Science is a hypothesis. There parameters of science are as man-made as religion's. What's the difference between belief and hypothesis? Provability or falsifiability.

On that level, there is no difference  - faith in god cannot be falsified. Agnosticism is applying scientific methods to religion. Atheism is totally unscientific as there is no disproving, only counter-hypothesising about god and religion.

An ancient Chinese encyclopædia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge divides all animals into 14 categories:

Those that belong to the emperor
Embalmed ones
Those that are trained
Suckling pigs
Mermaids (or Sirens)
Fabulous ones
Stray dogs
Those that are included in this classification
Those that tremble as if they were mad
Innumerable ones
Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
Et cetera
Those that have just broken the flower vase
Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

(trans. Franz Kuhn)


Disprove it.


Are their any scientific facts you would like to dispute ?



Plenty. And all of it in the spirit of science.

Science is not meant to be somthing you submit to but something you try to refute.

There are no settled scientific facts that must not ever be questioned. That would be a completely unscientific approach.  There may be consensus, but consensus is not proof.

One reason is that we are bound (hemmed)  by sense perception and by the limits of reason (ie the limits of the operation of human reasoning. See more in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason if you are really interested).


Can you name one, science is always subject to scrutiny, if you got something present it.



Climate science. Mind science. Medicine. Anything relating to/giving rise to technology,
.

There are plenty of sciences but not one scientific fact you can dispute, on the other hand religion does not have one single fact to go on.



If you knew what facts are we could go on.

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Johnnie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 12485
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #18 - Aug 13th, 2018 at 7:12pm
 
Frank wrote on Aug 13th, 2018 at 7:08pm:
Johnnie wrote on Aug 13th, 2018 at 2:27pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 9:07pm:
Johnnie wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:31pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:23pm:
Johnnie wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:09pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:01pm:
Johnnie wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:10pm:
Religion is a belief, science is not.



Science is a hypothesis. There parameters of science are as man-made as religion's. What's the difference between belief and hypothesis? Provability or falsifiability.

On that level, there is no difference  - faith in god cannot be falsified. Agnosticism is applying scientific methods to religion. Atheism is totally unscientific as there is no disproving, only counter-hypothesising about god and religion.

An ancient Chinese encyclopædia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge divides all animals into 14 categories:

Those that belong to the emperor
Embalmed ones
Those that are trained
Suckling pigs
Mermaids (or Sirens)
Fabulous ones
Stray dogs
Those that are included in this classification
Those that tremble as if they were mad
Innumerable ones
Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
Et cetera
Those that have just broken the flower vase
Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

(trans. Franz Kuhn)


Disprove it.


Are their any scientific facts you would like to dispute ?



Plenty. And all of it in the spirit of science.

Science is not meant to be somthing you submit to but something you try to refute.

There are no settled scientific facts that must not ever be questioned. That would be a completely unscientific approach.  There may be consensus, but consensus is not proof.

One reason is that we are bound (hemmed)  by sense perception and by the limits of reason (ie the limits of the operation of human reasoning. See more in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason if you are really interested).


Can you name one, science is always subject to scrutiny, if you got something present it.



Climate science. Mind science. Medicine. Anything relating to/giving rise to technology,
.

There are plenty of sciences but not one scientific fact you can dispute, on the other hand religion does not have one single fact to go on.



If you knew what facts are we could go on.


Name one in the favour of religion.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #19 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 1:39am
 
There's still plenty in favour of religion IMO.


Weddings, funerals, bar mitzvahs..etc. just don't cut it without that religious aspect.

It's definitely more comforting (at the time) to think that your loved one is being embraced to the bosom of God, or that a marriage is a partnership constructed by God ..even if it is bs.





Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 94116
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #20 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 6:16am
 
Amadd wrote on Aug 15th, 2018 at 1:39am:
There's still plenty in favour of religion IMO.


Weddings, funerals, bar mitzvahs..etc. just don't cut it without that religious aspect.

It's definitely more comforting (at the time) to think that your loved one is being embraced to the bosom of God, or that a marriage is a partnership constructed by God ..even if it is bs.




People love ceremonies.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #21 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 7:11am
 
People also love rituals. Its the showbiz aspect of religion, and even the dower old Puritans couldn't dismiss it entirely. But Atheism, if it is a philosophy, does nothing for me. I am not going to define myself by what I am not. The trouble is that it buys into the trichotomy of Theist-Agnostic-Atheist, as if that is the only interpretation of existence. If one put themselves outside that mindset, it all becomes blather and truth is self-evident (where have I heard that one before?). In the meantime, I will consider the blather, but they are going to have to come up with something a lot more interesting than what humanity has dreamed up so far.
Back to top
 

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.
 
IP Logged
 
The_Barnacle
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #22 - Aug 16th, 2018 at 5:01pm
 
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:01pm:
faith in god cannot be falsified. Agnosticism is applying scientific methods to religion. Atheism is totally unscientific as there is no disproving, only counter-hypothesising about god and religion.



It is easy to prove that religion is a man made construct.
Therefore the null hypothosis is that there is no God.
The onus of proof lies with the religious.
There is no point in even entertaining the idea of the existence of God until there is proof.
Back to top
 

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 39928
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #23 - Aug 16th, 2018 at 7:24pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 16th, 2018 at 5:01pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:01pm:
faith in god cannot be falsified. Agnosticism is applying scientific methods to religion. Atheism is totally unscientific as there is no disproving, only counter-hypothesising about god and religion.



It is easy to prove that religion is a man made construct.
Therefore the null hypothosis is that there is no God.
The onus of proof lies with the religious.
There is no point in even entertaining the idea of the existence of God until there is proof.

Science is man made.  Everything in your head is man-made.  All the proofs are man-made.

Think harder, think better.

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Cu Chulainn
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2135
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #24 - Aug 17th, 2018 at 9:33pm
 
Frank wrote on Aug 16th, 2018 at 7:24pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 16th, 2018 at 5:01pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:01pm:
faith in god cannot be falsified. Agnosticism is applying scientific methods to religion. Atheism is totally unscientific as there is no disproving, only counter-hypothesising about god and religion.



It is easy to prove that religion is a man made construct.
Therefore the null hypothosis is that there is no God.
The onus of proof lies with the religious.
There is no point in even entertaining the idea of the existence of God until there is proof.

Science is man made.  Everything in your head is man-made.  All the proofs are man-made.

Think harder, think better.



Oh, shyte! I've seen the light! Jebus is the son of god, I mean he is god, I mean...

You mean think less, just believe.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
The_Barnacle
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #25 - Aug 17th, 2018 at 9:47pm
 
Frank wrote on Aug 16th, 2018 at 7:24pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 16th, 2018 at 5:01pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:01pm:
faith in god cannot be falsified. Agnosticism is applying scientific methods to religion. Atheism is totally unscientific as there is no disproving, only counter-hypothesising about god and religion.



It is easy to prove that religion is a man made construct.
Therefore the null hypothosis is that there is no God.
The onus of proof lies with the religious.
There is no point in even entertaining the idea of the existence of God until there is proof.

Science is man made.  Everything in your head is man-made.  All the proofs are man-made.



I never said it wasn't, in fact my post made no mention of science at all.
It is only the theists who want to claim a supernatural entity, so the burden of proof is on them.

Back to top
 

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #26 - Aug 18th, 2018 at 3:22am
 
You're correct IMO. I'd like to make a succinct reply but I think that it will be a little drawn out and it will require some more thought.

OK edit.

I'm assuming that religious people would assume that athiests, agnostics or deists have never experienced anything that could/would be regarded as paranormal. That's not correct, however, the difference being that the above stated would most probably look to some logical reason for their experience and not blindly attribute it to some ancient book of bs.

It's often stated that "non-believers" consider themselves as God. On the contrary, if there is in fact some interventional supernatural force, then those who rely on logic and reason are God's greatest servants to the gift given to them.

I would stick my neck out to say that, upon reliable proof in the existence of an interventional god, 100% of atheists would embrace God.

But that ain't gonna happen is it? We need to hope and pray that 3 + 3 = 7.
Sorry assholes, I'll stick with the truth and you fodder can go to the hell that you invented. ..and what we don't believe in, so therefore it does not exist for us...only for you.

Science exists for all of us, so therefore, we will always rule you ignorant assholes, unless you learn to compete realistically and in the good name of a non-interventionist God  Grin
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2018 at 5:57am by Amadd »  
 
IP Logged
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #27 - Aug 18th, 2018 at 8:08am
 
Science is a careful examination of the world around us. But I don't think a scientific approach can explain the human fixation with the supernatural, even though the fixation is obviously a fact.

What is interesting is that in "modern times," and I would say better educated times, all prophet and messiah-like claims of intimacy and communication with God, have been shown to be untrue. Predictions of the end of time come and go unfulfilled, followers of glassy-eye holy-men wind up in personality worshiping cults, while ancient scriptures have to re-interpreted to take into account that society is not quite as gullible as it was in biblical times.

However, I do not see this process as an evolution towards a humanity without the God fixation. It may be part of the human condition, just in different percentages. And I repeat that I am ready for an interesting God, but not the smelly old ones we have seen so far.
Back to top
 

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.
 
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #28 - Aug 18th, 2018 at 8:46pm
 
The difference between science and religion is that you can challenge science.

Scientists are doing it all the time. Every time a hypothesis is submitted and peer reviewed they tear it to shreds trying to find any flaw. But if the evidence is there it becomes accepted

Scientists continually question the current accepted scientific facts, trying to improve our understanding of the Universe.

You cannot challenge religion in this way. It is the word of god! Despite all the evidence to the contrary the earth is 6000 years old. Despite the evidence for evolution we came from a dust man and a rib woman. Even though they lack the physical ability donkeys can talk. Unicorns are real but dinosaurs aren’t.

You challenge these concepts and it’s an attack on faith, you’re persecuting them for their beliefs.

A scientist says “I don’t know the answer let’s see if we can find out.”

A religious person says “I don’t know the answer, so it must be god.”
Back to top
 

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.
 
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 45566
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #29 - Aug 23rd, 2018 at 12:58am
 
Science V Religion  Grin Grin Grin Grin

That's like saying a woman giving birth 'Creationism' is right and a Man culturally raising the kid to an adult 'Evolution' is wrong.  Roll Eyes

Science V Religion is like saying
Music V Fashion

...or Military V Medicine
...or Conservation V Cooking
...or Art V Politics
...or Aeroplanes V Submarines
...or Sport V Maths
...or Cities V Farms

As you can see, the old Science V Religion (Evolution V Creationism, etc  Roll Eyes) is really really STOOPID.

STOOPID people think there is only ONE right answer  Roll Eyes Tongue
Back to top
 

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 6
Send Topic Print