Forum

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

Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
Science vs. Religion (Read 16628 times)
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Science vs. Religion
Aug 9th, 2018 at 7:29pm
 
One of the most succinct arguments I've heard when comparing science to religion.


Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 9th, 2018 at 7:38pm by Amadd »  
 
IP Logged
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #1 - Aug 10th, 2018 at 10:22pm
 
Yeah, its a good comparison, but i would not say that is one verses the other. The thing about theists is that they are all different, even when they say they are the same. The god concept is totally subjective. No one knows what another envisages. They try to standardise the indescribable with scripture. Best to say you understand and believe or I will have you tortured and put to death.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 39921
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #2 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:01pm
 
Amadd wrote on Aug 9th, 2018 at 7:29pm:
One of the most succinct arguments I've heard when comparing science to religion.





This guy was funny in the Office because we thought he was not David Trent. But he is. This guy has remained cringe-worthy on every level ever since because he is David Trent in real life.

.

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 #3 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:03pm
 
Its a good question though
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Johnnie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 12485
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #4 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:10pm
 
Religion is a belief, science is not.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #5 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 11:30pm
 
Actually, science is a belief based on the best facts and experimentation possible in this present time. Religion is not.  Religion is merely a usurper of truth and fact for personal gain. Call it a faith if you like, but you need to have a bloody big faith to believe that load of nonsense.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #6 - Aug 12th, 2018 at 12:13am
 
issuevoter wrote on Aug 10th, 2018 at 10:22pm:
Yeah, its a good comparison, but i would not say that is one verses the other. The thing about theists is that they are all different, even when they say they are the same. The god concept is totally subjective. No one knows what another envisages. They try to standardise the indescribable with scripture. Best to say you understand and believe or I will have you tortured and put to death.


Well, I know that many people put it down to faith in the supernatural and stuff, but let's be serious...it's a belief. The religious believe in 000's of year old scriptures and stuff and the modern person tends to believe in what is tried and tested.

Yes I agree that theists often tend to choose some religion which agrees with their wants, there's 000's of channels of poo to choose from. If there's not a channel to their liking, then they try to invent another load of bs.


But the premise that I wanted to highlight is that if all of the scriptures were wiped out and all of the science books were wiped out also, the science books would return pretty much as they are today, scriptures would not.


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 #7 - Aug 12th, 2018 at 8:40am
 
Amadd wrote on Aug 12th, 2018 at 12:13am:
issuevoter wrote on Aug 10th, 2018 at 10:22pm:
Yeah, its a good comparison, but i would not say that is one verses the other. The thing about theists is that they are all different, even when they say they are the same. The god concept is totally subjective. No one knows what another envisages. They try to standardise the indescribable with scripture. Best to say you understand and believe or I will have you tortured and put to death.


Well, I know that many people put it down to faith in the supernatural and stuff, but let's be serious...it's a belief. The religious believe in 000's of year old scriptures and stuff and the modern person tends to believe in what is tried and tested.

Yes I agree that theists often tend to choose some religion which agrees with their wants, there's 000's of channels of poo to choose from. If there's not a channel to their liking, then they try to invent another load of bs.


But the premise that I wanted to highlight is that if all of the scriptures were wiped out and all of the science books were wiped out also, the science books would return pretty much as they are today, scriptures would not.


Caveat: I use "religion" in the popular, God related way, when in fact, I am just as religious about cocktail hour.

Yes, its a good premise, and a fair bet. And I like points that are succinct. However, if we use history as an experiment, the result is unclear. Secularism, and the cause and effect perspective were definitely gaining ground against the various creation myths, in the 20th century. But religionists are now in the process of reinventing myths as it suits them. Which seems to indicate that even if all the copies of ancient scripture were destroyed, a significant number of people would be ready to embrace the notions of glassy eyed, charismatic, orators who claim to know something about reality and existence that they don't.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 39921
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #8 - 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.

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 #9 - 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 ?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 39921
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #10 - 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).

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 #11 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 39921
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #12 - 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,
.
Back to top
 

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



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #13 - 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!

Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 94086
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #14 - Aug 12th, 2018 at 9:56pm
 
The truth lies within the sword Excalibur.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
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: 39921
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: 94086
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: 39921
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: 45543
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
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #30 - Aug 29th, 2018 at 4:27am
 
Jasin wrote on 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


Actually No. The analogies that you quote have nothing to do with the difference between ancient accepted beliefs that something is true and scientific reasonings that prove otherwise.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
PZ547
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9282
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #31 - Aug 29th, 2018 at 2:33pm
 
Neither science nor religion are able to explain the discarnate appearance of the supposedly physically dead

Neither of them

Meanwhile, millions throughout history have witnessed the ghosts of the dead and are in no doubt about their experience/s

Science and religion attempt to render life explainable, without success

Both attempt to own Life and Death

They're not convincing anywhere near as many as they'd like

it's out of their hands

that really irritates them


Back to top
 

All my comments, posts & opinions are to be regarded as satire & humour
 
IP Logged
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #32 - Aug 29th, 2018 at 5:44pm
 
PZ547 wrote on Aug 29th, 2018 at 2:33pm:
Neither science nor religion are able to explain the discarnate appearance of the supposedly physically dead

Neither of them

Meanwhile, millions throughout history have witnessed the ghosts of the dead and are in no doubt about their experience/s

Science and religion attempt to render life explainable, without success

Both attempt to own Life and Death

They're not convincing anywhere near as many as they'd like

it's out of their hands

that really irritates them




I killed a couple of cane toads yesterday. Nothing supposedly about it.
Back to top
 

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



Posts: 45543
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #33 - Aug 30th, 2018 at 9:13am
 
Amadd wrote on Aug 29th, 2018 at 4:27am:
Jasin wrote on 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


Actually No. The analogies that you quote have nothing to do with the difference between ancient accepted beliefs that something is true and scientific reasonings that prove otherwise.


Actually Yes. I understand that Science floats its boat over Religion in the Northern Hemisphere because 'up there' Religion is for the poor (breeders) and Science is for the rich (Achievers).
...but here in the Southern Hemisphere - its the reverse.
Here 'Science' lacks common sense for starters and is renowned for many stuff ups. Here Science is for the 'breeders' and Religion is for the 'achievers'.

So, as you can see - there are 'two' right answers for starters, like two 'hemispheres' of the brain (surely you're not just thinking Northern Hemisphere? I might have to call you a 'half-wit' then? Huh Cheesy)

Science has ruined this world, as 'technology' has so obviously come through its Port and not Religions. Look at the world today - its due to all of those 'scientific' inventions that have brought pollution and devastation of war to the planet.

Science has been smart to stuff things up, but it is too weak to rectify it.
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
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10952
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #34 - Sep 2nd, 2018 at 2:25pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 16th, 2018 at 5:01pm:
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.


How can you be so sure......???

Would you bet your soul over to the devil....!!!

If you stop to think about everything,

The goldilocks zone

Variety of life on Earth

The physics of nature

etc etc

Can all this be by luck....somehow I just cant see it.

The proof will be revealed when we pass from this life.
Back to top
 

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery &  prison" Regas Feraeos
 
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 45543
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #35 - Sep 2nd, 2018 at 7:03pm
 
Northern Hemisphere:

Religion: Fictional, for breeders
Science: Factual, for powermongers

Southern Hemisphere:

Religion: Factual, for powermongers
Science: Fictional, for breeders


...don't you love how things balance out and equalise  Wink
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
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #36 - Sep 2nd, 2018 at 7:10pm
 
Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 2:25pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 16th, 2018 at 5:01pm:
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.


How can you be so sure......???

Would you bet your soul over to the devil....!!!

If you stop to think about everything,

The goldilocks zone

Variety of life on Earth

The physics of nature

etc etc

Can all this be by luck....somehow I just cant see it.

The proof will be revealed when we pass from this life.


Why can't it be luck? In a universe of infinite possibilities, infinite variations are possible.

Why is random chance almost offensive to people? If anything it should make us feel even more special. Despite the odds we are here.

The idea of a creator diminishes that.
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
 
The_Barnacle
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #37 - Sep 3rd, 2018 at 12:02pm
 
Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2018 at 2:25pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 16th, 2018 at 5:01pm:
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.


How can you be so sure......???

Would you bet your soul over to the devil....!!!

If you stop to think about everything,

The goldilocks zone

Variety of life on Earth

The physics of nature

etc etc

Can all this be by luck....somehow I just cant see it.

The proof will be revealed when we pass from this life.


What you are describing is the observer paradox
If the universe WASN'T perfect for the formation of intelligent life then we wouldn't be here discussing it.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #38 - Sep 3rd, 2018 at 12:03pm
 
Its also an argument from incredulity
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
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10952
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #39 - Sep 3rd, 2018 at 6:11pm
 
Hmmm you guys are asking me to believe something that is even more incredible than the God theory.

The big bang can only work if there is a God, think about it something so small it can sit on the end of the point of a pin exploded and the universe was formed, how do they know it was so small, why did it explode…?...where did all the matter come from.

Just because they cannot explain why the universe is expanding, they came up with a hypothesis that is even more incredible than the God theory under the guise of science and you believe that.

First thing you are taught in physics is you cannot make something from nothing, why should this not hold true for a silly hypothesis that cannot even prove..??

Yet the God theory sounds so ridiculous to all of you.

Or that the ingredients of life transported to Earth by a meteor and the diversity of life found on the Earth came from a maggot that formed and crawled out of the sea.

The truth is nobody knows and all will be revealed when we all pass from this life, unfortunately it’s a one way ticket.

The only thing I have to say about religion is, if Jesus had found milk and honey with the pharisees and the scribes I probably wouldn't believe in the God theory.
Back to top
 

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery &  prison" Regas Feraeos
 
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 45543
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #40 - Sep 3rd, 2018 at 7:00pm
 
Isn't the 'belief in God'
the 'belief in the people'?

I mean. Young child, orphan - no parents, grows up in 150BC like an animal after scraps.
If no parents, if no other known relatives - who does he/she put their 'faith' in?
The original 'concept' of God was that these people could put their faith in something ...a sense of 'belonging'.

Where would you be, as a person - if you had no 'family'?
Does Science have anything for that or like that?
No. Science has no sense of morality and hence why so many 'Scientific' innovations/inventions/procedures have ruined the planet, people's lives and more.
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
 
The_Barnacle
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #41 - Sep 5th, 2018 at 9:13pm
 
Ajax wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 6:11pm:
Hmmm you guys are asking me to believe something that is even more incredible than the God theory.

The big bang can only work if there is a God, think about it something so small it can sit on the end of the point of a pin exploded and the universe was formed, how do they know it was so small, why did it explode…?...where did all the matter come from.

Just because they cannot explain why the universe is expanding, they came up with a hypothesis that is even more incredible than the God theory under the guise of science and you believe that.

First thing you are taught in physics is you cannot make something from nothing, why should this not hold true for a silly hypothesis that cannot even prove..??

Yet the God theory sounds so ridiculous to all of you.

Or that the ingredients of life transported to Earth by a meteor and the diversity of life found on the Earth came from a maggot that formed and crawled out of the sea.

The truth is nobody knows and all will be revealed when we all pass from this life, unfortunately it’s a one way ticket.

The only thing I have to say about religion is, if Jesus had found milk and honey with the pharisees and the scribes I probably wouldn't believe in the God theory.


You are using the typical flawed argument of a theist.
That because it's so complicated and we can't (currently) fully explain the universe, the only possible explanation is God.
There are many possible explanations on how the universe began and how life began but the one thing they have in common is that they don't require a God entity.

Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #42 - Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:40pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 9:13pm:
Ajax wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 6:11pm:
Hmmm you guys are asking me to believe something that is even more incredible than the God theory.

The big bang can only work if there is a God, think about it something so small it can sit on the end of the point of a pin exploded and the universe was formed, how do they know it was so small, why did it explode…?...where did all the matter come from.

Just because they cannot explain why the universe is expanding, they came up with a hypothesis that is even more incredible than the God theory under the guise of science and you believe that.

First thing you are taught in physics is you cannot make something from nothing, why should this not hold true for a silly hypothesis that cannot even prove..??

Yet the God theory sounds so ridiculous to all of you.

Or that the ingredients of life transported to Earth by a meteor and the diversity of life found on the Earth came from a maggot that formed and crawled out of the sea.

The truth is nobody knows and all will be revealed when we all pass from this life, unfortunately it’s a one way ticket.

The only thing I have to say about religion is, if Jesus had found milk and honey with the pharisees and the scribes I probably wouldn't believe in the God theory.


You are using the typical flawed argument of a theist.
That because it's so complicated and we can't (currently) fully explain the universe, the only possible explanation is God.
There are many possible explanations on how the universe began and how life began but the one thing they have in common is that they don't require a God entity.



Religion: "I don't know, it must be God."

Science: "I don't know, let's find out."
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
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #43 - Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:46pm
 
Ajax wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 6:11pm:
Hmmm you guys are asking me to believe something that is even more incredible than the God theory.

The big bang can only work if there is a God, think about it something so small it can sit on the end of the point of a pin exploded and the universe was formed, how do they know it was so small, why did it explode…?...where did all the matter come from.

Just because they cannot explain why the universe is expanding, they came up with a hypothesis that is even more incredible than the God theory under the guise of science and you believe that.

First thing you are taught in physics is you cannot make something from nothing, why should this not hold true for a silly hypothesis that cannot even prove..??

Yet the God theory sounds so ridiculous to all of you.

Or that the ingredients of life transported to Earth by a meteor and the diversity of life found on the Earth came from a maggot that formed and crawled out of the sea.

The truth is nobody knows and all will be revealed when we all pass from this life, unfortunately it’s a one way ticket.

The only thing I have to say about religion is, if Jesus had found milk and honey with the pharisees and the scribes I probably wouldn't believe in the God theory.


So if God created the universe then you would believe that God is all powerful, correct?
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
 
Cu Chulainn
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2135
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #44 - Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:01pm
 
Raven wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:46pm:
Ajax wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 6:11pm:
Hmmm you guys are asking me to believe something that is even more incredible than the God theory.

The big bang can only work if there is a God, think about it something so small it can sit on the end of the point of a pin exploded and the universe was formed, how do they know it was so small, why did it explode…?...where did all the matter come from.

Just because they cannot explain why the universe is expanding, they came up with a hypothesis that is even more incredible than the God theory under the guise of science and you believe that.

First thing you are taught in physics is you cannot make something from nothing, why should this not hold true for a silly hypothesis that cannot even prove..??

Yet the God theory sounds so ridiculous to all of you.

Or that the ingredients of life transported to Earth by a meteor and the diversity of life found on the Earth came from a maggot that formed and crawled out of the sea.

The truth is nobody knows and all will be revealed when we all pass from this life, unfortunately it’s a one way ticket.

The only thing I have to say about religion is, if Jesus had found milk and honey with the pharisees and the scribes I probably wouldn't believe in the God theory.


So if God created the universe then you would believe that God is all powerful, correct?


Youngest son used to go to a Christian Youth Group, he was even a youth leader. Then one day, he was asked to never come back to hang out with his friends. He asked that question. When the elders answered yes he then asked, ok if that is the case can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? The elders, without much thought obviously, answered yes. He then asked how then could he be all powerful if he can't lift it?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #45 - Sep 7th, 2018 at 11:37pm
 
Cu Chulainn wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:01pm:
Raven wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:46pm:
Ajax wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 6:11pm:
Hmmm you guys are asking me to believe something that is even more incredible than the God theory.

The big bang can only work if there is a God, think about it something so small it can sit on the end of the point of a pin exploded and the universe was formed, how do they know it was so small, why did it explode…?...where did all the matter come from.

Just because they cannot explain why the universe is expanding, they came up with a hypothesis that is even more incredible than the God theory under the guise of science and you believe that.

First thing you are taught in physics is you cannot make something from nothing, why should this not hold true for a silly hypothesis that cannot even prove..??

Yet the God theory sounds so ridiculous to all of you.

Or that the ingredients of life transported to Earth by a meteor and the diversity of life found on the Earth came from a maggot that formed and crawled out of the sea.

The truth is nobody knows and all will be revealed when we all pass from this life, unfortunately it’s a one way ticket.

The only thing I have to say about religion is, if Jesus had found milk and honey with the pharisees and the scribes I probably wouldn't believe in the God theory.


So if God created the universe then you would believe that God is all powerful, correct?


Youngest son used to go to a Christian Youth Group, he was even a youth leader. Then one day, he was asked to never come back to hang out with his friends. He asked that question. When the elders answered yes he then asked, ok if that is the case can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? The elders, without much thought obviously, answered yes. He then asked how then could he be all powerful if he can't lift it?


According to the Bibe, god is not all powerful.

Judges 1:19 "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

It seems ferrous is Kryptonite to god.

Why would an "all powerful" creator limit his "power?"
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
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #46 - Sep 8th, 2018 at 7:05am
 
Raven wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 11:37pm:
Cu Chulainn wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 9:01pm:
Raven wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 8:46pm:
Ajax wrote on Sep 3rd, 2018 at 6:11pm:
Hmmm you guys are asking me to believe something that is even more incredible than the God theory.

The big bang can only work if there is a God, think about it something so small it can sit on the end of the point of a pin exploded and the universe was formed, how do they know it was so small, why did it explode…?...where did all the matter come from.

Just because they cannot explain why the universe is expanding, they came up with a hypothesis that is even more incredible than the God theory under the guise of science and you believe that.

First thing you are taught in physics is you cannot make something from nothing, why should this not hold true for a silly hypothesis that cannot even prove..??

Yet the God theory sounds so ridiculous to all of you.

Or that the ingredients of life transported to Earth by a meteor and the diversity of life found on the Earth came from a maggot that formed and crawled out of the sea.

The truth is nobody knows and all will be revealed when we all pass from this life, unfortunately it’s a one way ticket.

The only thing I have to say about religion is, if Jesus had found milk and honey with the pharisees and the scribes I probably wouldn't believe in the God theory.


So if God created the universe then you would believe that God is all powerful, correct?


Youngest son used to go to a Christian Youth Group, he was even a youth leader. Then one day, he was asked to never come back to hang out with his friends. He asked that question. When the elders answered yes he then asked, ok if that is the case can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? The elders, without much thought obviously, answered yes. He then asked how then could he be all powerful if he can't lift it?


According to the Bibe, god is not all powerful.

Judges 1:19 "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

It seems ferrous is Kryptonite to god.

Why would an "all powerful" creator limit his "power?"


That's an interesting Bible quote. It supports the suggestion that Abrahamic scripture is not original, but is modified paganism.
Back to top
 

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


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #47 - Sep 8th, 2018 at 6:35pm
 
That's like comparing maths with art.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #48 - Sep 21st, 2018 at 10:23am
 
freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2018 at 6:35pm:
That's like comparing maths with art.


Do you mean the art of BS?

Maybe I should have said science vs science vs religion because science does a far better job at refuting itself then any god botherering religion could.


Yes there's a lot of art depicting biblical scenes. These were created by artists, not clergymen.
The clergymen were too busy buggering their children.

I can go with the notion that science is also a faith. I have far more faith that an object will free fall at 9.8m/s/s than a man walking on water and rising into the sky.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 45543
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #49 - Sep 21st, 2018 at 10:41am
 
Amadd wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 10:23am:
freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2018 at 6:35pm:
That's like comparing maths with art.


Do you mean the art of BS?

Maybe I should have said science vs science vs religion because science does a far better job at refuting itself then any god botherering religion could.


Yes there's a lot of art depicting biblical scenes. These were created by artists, not clergymen.
The clergymen were too busy buggering their children.

I can go with the notion that science is also a faith. I have far more faith that an object will free fall at 9.8m/s/s than a man walking on water and rising into the sky.


Many Scientists, Atheists & Celebrities (many of whom share the ANTI religion stance) - bugger children too.
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
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #50 - Sep 21st, 2018 at 11:23am
 
Raven wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 11:37pm:

According to the Bibe, god is not all powerful.

Judges 1:19 "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

It seems ferrous is Kryptonite to god.

Why would an "all powerful" creator limit his "power?"




Raven,

Nice scripture quote, but you got the emphasis wrong in the reading of that quote.

[And yes, i concede that the emphasis within that scripture quote is not clear in its reading.]


Judges 1:17
And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.
18  Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof.
19  And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but [Judah] could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
20  And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.





Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #51 - Sep 21st, 2018 at 11:21pm
 
Jasin wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 10:41am:
Amadd wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 10:23am:
freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2018 at 6:35pm:
That's like comparing maths with art.


Do you mean the art of BS?

Maybe I should have said science vs science vs religion because science does a far better job at refuting itself then any god botherering religion could.


Yes there's a lot of art depicting biblical scenes. These were created by artists, not clergymen.
The clergymen were too busy buggering their children.

I can go with the notion that science is also a faith. I have far more faith that an object will free fall at 9.8m/s/s than a man walking on water and rising into the sky.


Many Scientists, Atheists & Celebrities (many of whom share the ANTI religion stance) - bugger children too.


I agree. And they often gravitate to areas where they are around children. Clowns, scout leaders, child entertainers, clergymen etc.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
The_Barnacle
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #52 - Sep 22nd, 2018 at 2:05pm
 
Amadd wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 10:23am:
I can go with the notion that science is also a faith. I have far more faith that an object will free fall at 9.8m/s/s than a man walking on water and rising into the sky.


Science isn't a faith because it can be tested, verified and proven.
You don't need to have faith that an object falls at 9.8 m/s/s. You can measure it and prove it.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #53 - Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:06pm
 
Yadda wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 11:23am:
Raven wrote on Sep 7th, 2018 at 11:37pm:

According to the Bibe, god is not all powerful.

Judges 1:19 "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

It seems ferrous is Kryptonite to god.

Why would an "all powerful" creator limit his "power?"




Raven,

Nice scripture quote, but you got the emphasis wrong in the reading of that quote.

[And yes, i concede that the emphasis within that scripture quote is not clear in its reading.]


Judges 1:17
And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.
18  Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof.
19  And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but [Judah] could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
20  And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.



Which version are you quoting?

You admit the emphasis is not clear. So how did Raven get the emphasis wrong?

You've added Judah's name in the scripture. Are you sure you are right to do so? And even if you are right, god was with him and he still failed.

This does not sound like an all powerful creator.
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
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 39921
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #54 - Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:29pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on 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.




Natural proofs cannot be applied to supernatural beings.

That's a trivially interesting point but a lot of people fail to see it. What is much more significant is that much of what is human experience is also beyond natural, scientific explanations. Most of the significant things about us as human beings, a persons, is completely beyond natural and scientific explanations.

The entities of 'I' and 'you' are utterly non-scientific categories yet we live our lives in 'I and you' relationships.
Back to top
 

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



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #55 - Sep 22nd, 2018 at 9:31pm
 
Yadda wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 11:23am:

Raven,

Nice scripture quote, but you got the emphasis wrong in the reading of that quote.

[And yes, i concede that the emphasis within that scripture quote is not clear in its reading.]


Judges 1:17
And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.
18  Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof.
19  And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but [Judah] could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
20  And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.






Raven wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:06pm:

Which version are you quoting?    
KJV




You admit the emphasis is not clear. So how did Raven get the emphasis wrong?         
as i said, the emphasis within that scripture quote is not clear in its reading




You've added Judah's name in the scripture.          
yes i did.




Are you sure you are right to do so?         
i simply added Judah's name, in my reply to your post, for clarity in the reading of that verse.




And even if you are right, god was with him and he still failed.

This does not sound like an all powerful creator.         
no, it doesn't.






hmm, i wonder why Judah 'could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley'  ?

there must be a reason why.

maybe it was because the tribe of Judah was 'afoot',      and the inhabitants of the valley had chariots of iron ?



sorta like men on foot carrying swords, going up against opponents in/on a form of cavalry.


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #56 - Sep 23rd, 2018 at 7:50am
 
There are other stupid things in the Bible. You don't need to fixate on 1.
Back to top
 

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



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #57 - Sep 23rd, 2018 at 8:17am
 
issuevoter wrote on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 7:50am:

There are other stupid things in the Bible.

You don't need to fixate on 1.




Exactly correct issue.

Did you get that Raven ?

Don't get so fixated upon Kryptonite chariots ferrous chariots      Raven.



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
The_Barnacle
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #58 - Sep 23rd, 2018 at 11:27am
 
Frank wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:29pm:
Natural proofs cannot be applied to supernatural beings.



That's convenient.




Frank wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:29pm:
That's a trivially interesting point but a lot of people fail to see it. What is much more significant is that much of what is human experience is also beyond natural, scientific explanations. Most of the significant things about us as human beings, a persons, is completely beyond natural and scientific explanations.

The entities of 'I' and 'you' are utterly non-scientific categories yet we live our lives in 'I and you' relationships.


I would argue that the sciences of psychology and anthropology could explain most of those things.
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 #59 - Sep 24th, 2018 at 11:40am
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 2:05pm:
Amadd wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 10:23am:
I can go with the notion that science is also a faith. I have far more faith that an object will free fall at 9.8m/s/s than a man walking on water and rising into the sky.


Science isn't a faith because it can be tested, verified and proven.
You don't need to have faith that an object falls at 9.8 m/s/s. You can measure it and prove it.


Yes agreed. By "faith" I mean "complete trust and confidence", just like I have faith that religions are bs. God speaks in maths not words.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 39921
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #60 - Sep 24th, 2018 at 1:20pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 11:27am:
Frank wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:29pm:
Natural proofs cannot be applied to supernatural beings.



That's convenient.




Frank wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:29pm:
That's a trivially interesting point but a lot of people fail to see it. What is much more significant is that much of what is human experience is also beyond natural, scientific explanations. Most of the significant things about us as human beings, a persons, is completely beyond natural and scientific explanations.

The entities of 'I' and 'you' are utterly non-scientific categories yet we live our lives in 'I and you' relationships.


I would argue that the sciences of psychology and anthropology could explain most of those things.

Well, argue it then, let's see how. Well you can argue it.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #61 - Sep 24th, 2018 at 10:23pm
 
Yadda wrote on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 8:17am:
issuevoter wrote on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 7:50am:

There are other stupid things in the Bible.

You don't need to fixate on 1.




Exactly correct issue.

Did you get that Raven ?

Don't get so fixated upon Kryptonite chariots ferrous chariots      Raven.





Using one example does not equate to fixation.

However an all powerful god, standing with Judah, should be able to defeat any foe before him. Including foot soldiers facing chariots.
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
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #62 - Sep 24th, 2018 at 10:31pm
 
Yadda wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 9:31pm:
Yadda wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 11:23am:

Raven,

Nice scripture quote, but you got the emphasis wrong in the reading of that quote.

[And yes, i concede that the emphasis within that scripture quote is not clear in its reading.]


Judges 1:17
And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.
18  Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof.
19  And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but [Judah] could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
20  And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.






Raven wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:06pm:

Which version are you quoting?    
KJV




You admit the emphasis is not clear. So how did Raven get the emphasis wrong?         
as i said, the emphasis within that scripture quote is not clear in its reading




You'v added Judah's name in the scripture.          
yes i did.




Are you sure you are right to do so?         
i simply added Judah's name, in my reply to your post, for clarity in the reading of that verse.[/colors]



And even if you are right, god was with him and he still failed.

This does not sound like an all powerful creator.          [color=#ff0000]no, it doesn't.






hmm, i wonder why Judah 'could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley'  ?

there must be a reason why.

maybe it was because the tribe of Judah was 'afoot',      and the inhabitants of the valley had chariots of iron ?



sorta like men on foot carrying swords, going up against opponents in/on a form of cavalry.




So you have added text to God's word to provide clarity have you? Are you a Prophet? You clearly presume to know the will of God.

Tell us great one, what new truths are we missing?
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
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #63 - Sep 25th, 2018 at 6:18am
 
Amadd wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 11:40am:
The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 2:05pm:
Amadd wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 10:23am:
I can go with the notion that science is also a faith. I have far more faith that an object will free fall at 9.8m/s/s than a man walking on water and rising into the sky.


Science isn't a faith because it can be tested, verified and proven.
You don't need to have faith that an object falls at 9.8 m/s/s. You can measure it and prove it.


Yes agreed. By "faith" I mean "complete trust and confidence", just like I have faith that religions are bs. God speaks in maths not words.


Is there any real difference between "faith" and wishful-thinking?
Back to top
 

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



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #64 - Sep 25th, 2018 at 12:00pm
 
Raven wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 10:31pm:
Yadda wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 9:31pm:
Yadda wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 11:23am:

Raven,

Nice scripture quote, but you got the emphasis wrong in the reading of that quote.

[And yes, i concede that the emphasis within that scripture quote is not clear in its reading.]


Judges 1:17
And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.
18  Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof.
19  And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but [Judah] could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
20  And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.






Raven wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:06pm:

Which version are you quoting?    
KJV




You admit the emphasis is not clear. So how did Raven get the emphasis wrong?         
as i said, the emphasis within that scripture quote is not clear in its reading




You'v added Judah's name in the scripture.          
yes i did.




Are you sure you are right to do so?         
i simply added Judah's name, in my reply to your post, for clarity in the reading of that verse.[/colors]



And even if you are right, god was with him and he still failed.

This does not sound like an all powerful creator.          [color=#ff0000]no, it doesn't.






hmm, i wonder why Judah 'could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley'  ?

there must be a reason why.

maybe it was because the tribe of Judah was 'afoot',      and the inhabitants of the valley had chariots of iron ?



sorta like men on foot carrying swords, going up against opponents in/on a form of cavalry.




So you have added text to God's word to provide clarity have you?

Are you a Prophet?

You clearly presume to know the will of God.

Tell us great one, what new truths are we missing?




Raven,

You are trying to load a burden upon me that i am unwilling to carry.

I choose to read scripture.

That is all.



.



Psalms 25:8
Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.
9  The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
10  All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
11  For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.
12  What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.
13  His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.
14  The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.


If a man seeks God, then [perhaps] God's spirit, will teach that man,

"...in the way that he shall choose."

That, is what reading scripture teaches me.




Why, 'perhaps' ?

Because men have no power, to choose God.

It is God who chooses us.


Psalms 73:1
Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart.


Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.


Revelation 17:14
....they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Cu Chulainn
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2135
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #65 - Sep 25th, 2018 at 3:07pm
 
Yadda wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 9:31pm:
Yadda wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 11:23am:

Raven,

Nice scripture quote, but you got the emphasis wrong in the reading of that quote.

[And yes, i concede that the emphasis within that scripture quote is not clear in its reading.]


Judges 1:17
And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.
18  Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof.
19  And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but [Judah] could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
20  And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.






Raven wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:06pm:

Which version are you quoting?    
KJV




You admit the emphasis is not clear. So how did Raven get the emphasis wrong?         
as i said, the emphasis within that scripture quote is not clear in its reading




You've added Judah's name in the scripture.          
yes i did.




Are you sure you are right to do so?         
i simply added Judah's name, in my reply to your post, for clarity in the reading of that verse.




And even if you are right, god was with him and he still failed.

This does not sound like an all powerful creator.         
no, it doesn't.






hmm, i wonder why Judah 'could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley'  ?

there must be a reason why.

maybe it was because the tribe of Judah was 'afoot',      and the inhabitants of the valley had chariots of iron ?



sorta like men on foot carrying swords, going up against opponents in/on a form of cavalry.




Alexander the Great is greater than Yahweh, his foot soldiers wiped out Darius' chariots at Gaugamela.

Quote:
Attack of the Persian scythed chariots
Darius now launched his chariots at those troops under Alexander's personal command; many of the chariots were intercepted by the Agrianians and other javelin-throwers posted in front of the Companion cavalry. Those chariots who made it through the barrage of javelins charged the Macedonian lines, which responded by opening up their ranks, creating alleys through which the chariots passed harmlessly. The Hypaspists and the armed grooms of the cavalry then attacked and eliminated these survivors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela#Attack_of_the_Persian_scythed_...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
The_Barnacle
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #66 - Sep 25th, 2018 at 9:43pm
 
Frank wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 1:20pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 11:27am:
Frank wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:29pm:
Natural proofs cannot be applied to supernatural beings.



That's convenient.




Frank wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:29pm:
That's a trivially interesting point but a lot of people fail to see it. What is much more significant is that much of what is human experience is also beyond natural, scientific explanations. Most of the significant things about us as human beings, a persons, is completely beyond natural and scientific explanations.

The entities of 'I' and 'you' are utterly non-scientific categories yet we live our lives in 'I and you' relationships.


I would argue that the sciences of psychology and anthropology could explain most of those things.

Well, argue it then, let's see how. Well you can argue it.


I'm not a psychiatrist or an anthropologist.
I am merely pointing out that your claim that human behaviour, identity and relationships being beyond science is wrong. There are many branches of science that study it.
Back to top
 

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



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #67 - Sep 25th, 2018 at 10:33pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 9:43pm:
Frank wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 1:20pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 23rd, 2018 at 11:27am:

I would argue that the sciences of psychology and anthropology could explain most of those things.



Well, argue it then, let's see how. Well you can argue it.



I'm not a psychiatrist or an anthropologist.

I am merely pointing out that your claim that human behaviour, identity and relationships being beyond science is wrong.

There are many branches of science that study it.




barnacle,


If that is correct, can you explain why human insanity and violence remains wholly unrestrained in the world today ?

Surely if human science has already extensively studied "human behaviour, identity and relationships" for the last century or so [and it has],
then surely human science would have found a useful methodology, which could be used and applied, to overcome and tame the source of human insanity and human violence ?

"There are many branches of science that study it."


If man's science and study, has a solution to such problems [i.e. the 'human condition'], then where is it ?




Dictionary;
Utopia = = an imagined perfect place or state of things.





QUESTION;
What is the solution to such problems ?


All ills even human ills, have causes.

If we ['human sciences'] continue to seek to address symptoms, instead of seeking to address the causes of problems,
i would confidently predict that mankind will never find a solution to the problems caused by 'problematic' human 'behaviour'.


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #68 - Sep 26th, 2018 at 12:43am
 
issuevoter wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 6:18am:
Amadd wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 11:40am:
The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 2:05pm:
Amadd wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 10:23am:
I can go with the notion that science is also a faith. I have far more faith that an object will free fall at 9.8m/s/s than a man walking on water and rising into the sky.


Science isn't a faith because it can be tested, verified and proven.
You don't need to have faith that an object falls at 9.8 m/s/s. You can measure it and prove it.


Yes agreed. By "faith" I mean "complete trust and confidence", just like I have faith that religions are bs. God speaks in maths not words.


Is there any real difference between "faith" and wishful-thinking?


Yes. I have faith that the religious are bs artists (as displayed by Yadda) and it's wishful thinking that they will be honest.
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 #69 - Sep 26th, 2018 at 7:02am
 
Yadda wrote:

"Surely if human science has already extensively studied "human behaviour, identity and relationships" for the last century or so [and it has],
then surely human science would have found a useful methodology, which could be used and applied, to overcome and tame the source of human insanity and human violence ?"

I see no reason to make that assumption. The complexity of societies and populations are too vast.

Back to top
 

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



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #70 - Sep 26th, 2018 at 10:49am
 
Amadd wrote on Sep 26th, 2018 at 12:43am:
issuevoter wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 6:18am:
Amadd wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 11:40am:
The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 2:05pm:
Amadd wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 10:23am:
I can go with the notion that science is also a faith. I have far more faith that an object will free fall at 9.8m/s/s than a man walking on water and rising into the sky.


Science isn't a faith because it can be tested, verified and proven.
You don't need to have faith that an object falls at 9.8 m/s/s. You can measure it and prove it.


Yes agreed. By "faith" I mean "complete trust and confidence", just like I have faith that religions are bs. God speaks in maths not words.


Is there any real difference between "faith" and wishful-thinking?


Yes. I have faith that the religious are bs artists (as displayed by Yadda) and it's wishful thinking that they will be honest.




Amadd,

I post in this forum, in order 1/ to express arguments 2/ and to ask questions [and yes, to affirm my own conclusions and beliefs].



I cannot prove anything, to another.

Personal experience is not 'proof', to another.

And the witness contained within scripture [the accounts of past experiences], is not 'proof'.




Amadd,

As i have stated many times in this forum [and this is a copy&paste]....

Really, i'm happy for you to believe whatever you want to believe.

Believe what you will.

We all do.



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #71 - Sep 26th, 2018 at 8:27pm
 
Yadda wrote on Sep 25th, 2018 at 12:00pm:
Raven wrote on Sep 24th, 2018 at 10:31pm:
Yadda wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 9:31pm:
Yadda wrote on Sep 21st, 2018 at 11:23am:

Raven,

Nice scripture quote, but you got the emphasis wrong in the reading of that quote.

[And yes, i concede that the emphasis within that scripture quote is not clear in its reading.]


Judges 1:17
And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.
18  Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof.
19  And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but [Judah] could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
20  And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.






Raven wrote on Sep 22nd, 2018 at 8:06pm:

Which version are you quoting?    
KJV




You admit the emphasis is not clear. So how did Raven get the emphasis wrong?         
as i said, the emphasis within that scripture quote is not clear in its reading




You'v added Judah's name in the scripture.          
yes i did.




Are you sure you are right to do so?         
i simply added Judah's name, in my reply to your post, for clarity in the reading of that verse.[/colors]



And even if you are right, god was with him and he still failed.

This does not sound like an all powerful creator.          [color=#ff0000]no, it doesn't.






hmm, i wonder why Judah 'could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley'  ?

there must be a reason why.

maybe it was because the tribe of Judah was 'afoot',      and the inhabitants of the valley had chariots of iron ?



sorta like men on foot carrying swords, going up against opponents in/on a form of cavalry.




So you have added text to God's word to provide clarity have you?

Are you a Prophet?

You clearly presume to know the will of God.

Tell us great one, what new truths are we missing?




Raven,

You are trying to load a burden upon me that i am unwilling to carry.

I choose to read scripture.

That is all.




Not at all Yadda, you are the one adding to God's word, any burden placed upon you is your own making.

You are not reading Scripture, you are adding to it.  Adding your own emphasis.
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
 
Cu Chulainn
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2135
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #72 - Sep 27th, 2018 at 11:30pm
 
Raven, you should continue with YWHY is not all powerful. If YHWY was all knowing, why would he get so many people killed if he knew the outcome? Did he just want to see his people slaughtered?

Yadda, you should explain why Alexander could do what YWHY could not.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #73 - Sep 28th, 2018 at 10:54am
 
Cu Chulainn wrote on Sep 27th, 2018 at 11:30pm:

Yadda, you should explain why Alexander could do what YWHY could not.



Cu Chullain,

Firstly, it was     Judah     who,    'could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley'.

Why not ?

I    believe    that Yahweh could have secured the success of the tribe of Judah.

But he did not.

Why not ?

I don't know.       [....and scripture does not explain why]




.



Cu Chulainn wrote on Sep 27th, 2018 at 11:30pm:

Raven, you should continue with YWHY is not all powerful.

If YHWY was all knowing, why would he get so many people killed if he knew the outcome?

Did he just want to see his people slaughtered?





"Did he just want to see his people slaughtered?"




Cu Chullain,

Scripture states that those things recorded in scripture [particularly in the O.T.], were recorded as examples to us who read scripture.


1 Corinthians 10:1
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2  And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3  And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5  But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6  Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7  Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8  Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9  Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10  Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
11  Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.


O.T. scripture records many, many instances of men dying in conflict with other men.

Human history, has been a history of human conflict.

Isn't that a 'lesson' for us ?

Q.
Shouldn't that history, be a 'lesson' for all of mankind ?


And if it is a 'lesson' for us,       shouldn't we ask ourselves [something like];

What is the cause of so many conflicts between men ?



.



James 4:1
From whence come wars and fightings among you?....



Don't you want to know the answer ?

Wink



.



So, so often, we [mankind] don't set aside the time [our time], to seek out the answers to important questions.

And even when we [mankind] do seek out the answers,    so, so often we will 'brush aside' what those answers reveal,
as being 'inconvenient' to us.



.



"All we have to decide, is what to do with the time that is given to us."

Gandalf - FOTR



Matthew 6:33
.....seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his [God's] righteousness;...



"For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence."




Indifference to human injustice and iniquity, is the gateway to hell.

Q.
Are you 'knocking on the door' ?




Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Cu Chulainn
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2135
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #74 - Sep 28th, 2018 at 6:04pm
 
Yadda wrote on Sep 28th, 2018 at 10:54am:
Cu Chullain,

Firstly, it was     Judah     who,    'could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley'.

Why not ?

I    believe    that Yahweh could have secured the success of the tribe of Judah.

But he did not.

Why not ?

I don't know.       [....and scripture does not explain why]



So having YHWH on your side has no benefit? It's pointless to try and appease him as he can't even be bothered to help you conquer the land he gave you because they have chariots of iron? When you win you glorify him, when you lose, you blame yourself. Sounds like an unhealthy relationship.


Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 28th, 2018 at 6:11pm by Cu Chulainn »  
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 39921
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #75 - Sep 30th, 2018 at 6:07pm
 
Religion,  art, literature, music - they deal with the stuff science is unable and unsuited to address.


Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #76 - Oct 11th, 2018 at 1:01am
 
Religion makes a claim and tries to make it true, either by propaganda or force.

Science makes a claim and then tries disprove it, just to make sure it's correct.
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
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #77 - Oct 11th, 2018 at 5:26pm
 
Raven wrote on Oct 11th, 2018 at 1:01am:

Religion makes a claim and tries to make it true, either by propaganda or force.

Science makes a claim and then tries disprove it, just to make sure it's correct.




If you were honest, you would concede that the ideals of Science [honest process], have often been found to have been be corrupted.

And that Science is just another 'religion' mate, with its own quota of dishonest 'priests'.


Google;
science fraud


scientific misconduct





Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332568105/110#110
Quote:
Quote:

So do you believe the world is less than 10,000 years old ??

Science says it isn't Wink





1.
Yes.

and,

2.
Science says no such thing.

Science, that is, the scientific process, has been corrupted by men.
i.e.
Men look for evidence that will support what they want to believe, and they turn away from the evidence which does not align with, and agree with, their own worldview.

And, THAT, is not science.





Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
The_Barnacle
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #78 - Oct 11th, 2018 at 8:37pm
 
Yadda wrote on Oct 11th, 2018 at 5:26pm:
Raven wrote on Oct 11th, 2018 at 1:01am:

Religion makes a claim and tries to make it true, either by propaganda or force.

Science makes a claim and then tries disprove it, just to make sure it's correct.




If you were honest, you would concede that the ideals of Science [honest process], have often been found to have been be corrupted.

And that Science is just another 'religion' mate, with its own quota of dishonest 'priests'.


Google;
science fraud


scientific misconduct




Once again you are too lazy to provide links and instead expect us to do the googling for you.

You believe without question the ramblings of a thousands of year old book after many dubious translations yet you refuse to believe any modern evidence that contradicts it. That is blind faith.

The beauty of science is that it is self correcting. When people get things wrong they are called to account and the record is corrected. Sciencee is not a religion because it doesn't rely on faith. It relies on evidence.

Whereas people like yourself live in the fog of delusion believing that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old despite all the evidence that contradicts this.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 12485
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #79 - Oct 11th, 2018 at 9:29pm
 
Science and religion are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, I cant ever imagine science asking religion for any answers.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Prime Minister for Canyons
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #80 - Oct 12th, 2018 at 7:55am
 
Yadda wrote on Oct 11th, 2018 at 5:26pm:
[quote author=Raven link=1533806975/76#76 date=1539183685]

Religion makes a claim and tries to make it true, either by propaganda or force.

Science makes a claim and then tries disprove it, just to make sure it's correct.






Fraud and dishonesty are more human qualities of those working in science compared to hte quality of science itself.
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
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20901
A cat with a view
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #81 - Oct 12th, 2018 at 11:15am
 
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Oct 12th, 2018 at 7:55am:
Yadda wrote on Oct 11th, 2018 at 5:26pm:
[quote author=Raven link=1533806975/76#76 date=1539183685]

Religion makes a claim and tries to make it true, either by propaganda or force.

Science makes a claim and then tries disprove it, just to make sure it's correct.



Fraud and dishonesty are more human qualities of those working in science

compared to the quality of science itself.




True.

But once again, that circumstance underlines a basic truth;

Whatever men 'touch',       they will inevitably corrupt.

It is just something in our nature/character.

We [mankind] are all flawed creatures.




Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #82 - Dec 10th, 2023 at 4:55pm
 
This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print