Bitcoin Forum

Other => Politics & Society => Topic started by: Moloch on August 21, 2018, 02:18:05 PM



Title: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on August 21, 2018, 02:18:05 PM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: KingScorpio on August 21, 2018, 03:07:53 PM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

science is what can immediately be proven, at any time. problem is many scientific proof or evidence is to expensive and to complicated to explain

religion can be quite though too proof and stays subjective.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Mometaskers on August 21, 2018, 04:05:02 PM
Well, one big difference is science accommodates to any new "reality". That's how we switched from Ptolemaic to Copernican. There's always something new.

Quite the opposite, religion is supposed to be the same for all time, unchanging.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on August 21, 2018, 04:18:33 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyvYMgdDej0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h4m7s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyvYMgdDej0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h4m7s)

This section of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate sums it up perfectly.

"What, if anything, would ever change your mind."

Religious answer - nothing.

Scientific answer - evidence.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Steamtyme on August 21, 2018, 04:29:47 PM
^^

Watching his Science Guy documentary on Netflix, I think the saddest part was rather than open minds it earned Ham millions to build his "museum of facts".



Religion is not a permanent rigid construct either. It changes constantly, based on who wrote or rewrote the sections of any religious text. I do not care what people believe in, but some of my most memorable conversations used to fall apart around the point where I would call a central idea of many religions of "love and peace" into question based on religious leaders actions.

I can't think of a single scientist or science enthusiast I have derailed a conversation with when mentioning things like gravity as a constant, laws of thermodynamics, Or why water is just a weird compound based on it's properties.

I don't want to overly generalize, as I have been able to speak with some open minded individuals who find comfort in the core ideas of their religion and can accept that there are flaws and faults that happen along the way. It's just with scientists, there can be an agreement based on facts and methodologies, up to the point where it's a hypothesis. Then they work to either disprove or prove this and final result can be universally accepted.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: fedben on August 21, 2018, 05:45:52 PM
Religion and science are too different and opposing phenomena.

Religion preaches Faith and believe in the supernatural and the unseen. It promotes belief in the existence of a supernatural being or entities that supposedly has power to influence human life course.

Sciences preaches reason, experiment and observation. In science, every event and situation has a logical and reasonable explanation. Any phenomenon that can not be observed doesn't exist.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: r_herbert on August 22, 2018, 05:05:10 AM
Both are parts of our life. No matter what we think about them, they regulate our daily life. Science and religions are together actually. Science is for the physical body and religion for the spiritual one. As you know, we are made of flesh and spirit. Nobody has ever proved that we are made of spirits. We can see our flesh. We cannot see our spirit. We can feel it. When we dream, we know what we can see and we understand that we are not only flesh and bones. It is thus obvious that science and religion must work together to discover and solve the mysteries of our civilizations. They must not fight but cooperate.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Martha_Ferris on August 22, 2018, 05:39:46 AM
You forget so easily how much religion has added to the world too. In fact, the truth is I doubt there will be any science today without religion. Most of the knowledge we have come to be exposed to now was sponsored by institutions religion set up. So, stop throwing baseless claims around. Some of what is called science today will not be around in some years. The likes of the evolution theory and Big Bang theory are concepts I'm certain will die out. Christianity for example has lasted more than 2000 years. On what basis then do you say that it won't be around in the next 1000 years?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on August 22, 2018, 09:37:45 AM
Christianity for example has lasted more than 2000 years. On what basis then do you say that it won't be around in the next 1000 years?

Egyptian gods were worshiped for a few thousand years. Now gone. Greek gods. Now gone. Old Norse religion. Gone. Semitic religion. Gone. Mesopotamian religion. Gone. Babylonian. Gone. Celtic polytheism. Gone. Etc. Etc. Etc.

The number of extinct religions vastly outnumbers the number of practicing religions. On what basis then do you say that Christianity will still be around in 1000 years, especially since we are proving more and more of Christian doctrine demonstrably false?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Sabertoothboth on August 22, 2018, 10:23:13 AM
science is moving, while religion is staying;
science is knowing, while religion is believing;
science is developing, while religion is stagnating, etc.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on August 22, 2018, 03:06:41 PM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

If you could take all the other religions of the world and destroy them, you still would have your religion of destruction of religions. But that is what you are trying to do, isn't it?

As long as science has science theory as part of it, science is never the same. Why not? Because science theory changes daily as it is adapted to new findings in science.

1 + 1 = 2 is not a provable concept. It might be a provable in a virtual, visualized way. But 1 + 1 does not = 2 in reality, because there are no two things that are exactly the same. This means that 1 + 1 will always = 1 + 1.

Wake up and learn the things you talk about before you start spouting them out.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on August 22, 2018, 03:30:17 PM
I appreciate the eloquence of Richard Dawkins, so I will defer to his answer for the nature of scientific evidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtFSDKrq88 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtFSDKrq88)

Quote
Audience Question: The question is about the nature of scientific evidence.  You both said we are justified in holding belief if there is evidence for it or logical arguments we can find that support it.  But, it seems like this is itself a belief that would require some sort of evidence.  So I'm wondering what you would count as evidence in favor of that, and if not, how do we justify choosing that heuristic without appealing to the same standard we are trying to justify?

Richard Dawkins: It works.  Planes fly, cars drive, computers compute.  If you base medicine on science you cure people.  If you base the design of planes on science they fly.  If you base the design of rockets on science they reach the moon.  It works, bitches.

tl;dr -
Q: How do you justify using the scientific method?
A: It works, bitches


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on August 22, 2018, 04:06:37 PM
I was wondering how long it would take BADecker to show up and completely miss the point.

If you could take all the other religions of the world and destroy them, you still would have your religion of destruction of religions. But that is what you are trying to do, isn't it?

Firstly, that wouldn't be a religion, and secondly, it's completely irrelevant.


As long as science has science theory as part of it, science is never the same. Why not? Because science theory changes daily as it is adapted to new findings in science.

That's entirely the point. Science adjusts its views to new evidence. Religion doesn't. However, if science was wiped out and started again, it would find exactly the same evidence for the big bang, the age of the Earth, evolution, etc. New religions would be entirely different, as has been historical proven many times.


1 + 1 = 2 is not a provable concept. It might be a provable in a virtual, visualized way. But 1 + 1 does not = 2 in reality, because there are no two things that are exactly the same. This means that 1 + 1 will always = 1 + 1.

1 + 1 = 2 is absolutely provable, and has been done so many times. Silly word play about things being different doesn't change a mathematical proof.


Perhaps you should take your own advice to learn about things before talking about them.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Applechild on August 24, 2018, 02:22:54 PM
Science in a way begins and ends with human curiosity to certain questions. These questions leads to discoveries but if you ask me, those discoveries are not just random occurrence but predestined divinely to be so. Religion on the other hand is based on faith in the supernatural that may not require scientific prove to verify it. It exists in itself. Like a little comedienne gigged “a science lecturer told his class to proof the existence of a supreme being, and when they could not prove it, he told the class that such being or religion does not exist. The comedienne and other students thought what to do to prove the lecturer wrong. They came up with something. Approached the lecturer and ask, sir, please, do you have senses, the man not discerning, answered yes, I have many senses, the student now went ahead to ask him to show them where his senses are. At the end he could not prove he had senses. So they conclude for him that he does not have senses just like he told them there is no God or such thing as Supreme Being since they could not prove it. Science is based on facts and experiment, but no evidence to Divine Being. Religion is faith based, beliefs in supernatural and super powers. Etc.
The debate pertaining science and religion has been on for ages and will last till eternity. My conclusion is that whatever view point you are, be true to it. I love what is written in Revelation 22:11 King James Version (KJV) “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Be on your lane if you are scientist and you dont want anything to do with religion, be on your lane if you a religious person.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on August 24, 2018, 03:05:45 PM
Your analogy is flawed.

do you have senses, the man not discerning, answered yes, I have many senses, the student now went ahead to ask him to show them where his senses are. At the end he could not prove he had senses.

There are plenty of non-physical concepts or processes - gravity, calculus, our senses - where we cannot show "where they are", but still have overwhelming evidence that they exist. To say having senses is proof of a god is nonsense. Additionally, your analogy is not specific to a particular god. It equally applies to Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as it does to any other god.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on August 24, 2018, 03:06:07 PM
I love what is written in Revelation 22:11 King James Version (KJV) “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

How do you feel about some of the other things written in the bible, like:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21  "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, ... all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die"

Killing a child for being "stubborn and rebellious" seems a bit extreme if you ask me.  It is also illegal, so please don't follow this biblical advice (from god?!?)

Deuteronomy 22:28–29 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

I personally do not think a woman should be forced to marry her rapist.  How much is a 50 shekel fine these days anyway?



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: smithadeoye199 on August 24, 2018, 08:06:43 PM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not


Both religion and science are ways of life living which ideally should effect positive changes and impact lives positively too but what differenciate science totally from religion is the high tendency of science to always and aptly revolve with time and modern warfare inventions which isn't corruptible but progressive while religion most times anytime it strives to be possessive and devoid of the real and through values due to the human conceptions and perceptions of different idealogies which makes it tends to be corruptible sometimes.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on August 25, 2018, 02:47:19 PM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

I reject this.

Regarding religion. The assertion is an impossibility. "Destroy them?"

A huge part of human experience, in it's history, literature, and even grammar cannot be "destroyed." Communist nations have tried to do this, they failed. So you would predicate a logical conclusion on an impossibility. That has no meaning.

Regarding science. It's often debated whether math is a science. Many things are called science which do not fit your criteria. "Social sciences," political science...Economics...

Many cases can be cited where "science" is influenced by social factors. Examples are the Russian Lysenko and his work, current "climate science," current and past psychology "science."

Many, many other examples. 19th century Phrenology, Piltdown Man, phlogiston. Science always reflects the ignorance and superstition of its times.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on August 25, 2018, 03:16:20 PM
I reject this.

Religious people reject reality all the time, why would this be any different?

I will use an example from medical science.  Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye.  After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTKTq-fnUFQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTKTq-fnUFQ)

People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually.  Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.

Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost.  Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel.  It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations.  All the science would return one step at a time.

Physics would return the same if lost.  The force of gravity would be the same.  We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity.  All this would return exactly the same as before.

Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form.  Religions today are nothing like religions of the past


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on August 25, 2018, 04:06:10 PM
Everybody rejects reality at times. But religious people are looking for the truth just like scientists.

For example. Archaeological science has proven parts of the Bible true. An example is the ancient city of Jericho. Before anybody knew where the ancient city of Jericho was, science said that this Bible story was a myth. Then the archaeologists dug up ancient Jericho, and found that its walls had fallen flat, just like the Bible said.

When you consider all the science theory that has been proven wrong, that is exactly what science theory is there for... to find the truth, by weeding out what is wrong, and determining what is right. But people who believe some science theory to be fact, when it is known to be theory (not necessarily factual, because it can change, and often does), are treating the science theory like a religion.

An example of this is the evolution idea. Evolution theory is science theory, subject to change, based on new discoveries. But many people believe that evolution is true when the only place it is factually known to exist is in the theory itself. Such people have a religion in evolution through believing that evolution theory applies to reality in a factual way. Much of science is like this.

So, while there are science facts, and while there are religious facts, there is also science that is believed like it was a religion, and there is a science of religion because many people study religion to find out what part of it is real.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on August 25, 2018, 07:50:26 PM
Then the archaeologists dug up ancient Jericho, and found that its walls had fallen flat, just like the Bible said.

Except that's a complete lie.

Leslie J. Hoppe (September 2005). New light from old stories: the Hebrew scriptures for today's world. Available here: (https://books.google.nl/books?id=qPUAPIYRTtAC&pg=PA82&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

"The walls that he and Selling found dated to the seventeenth century BC and earlier - three to five hundred years before the Israelites emerged in Canaan."

"Her excavations showed that the walls found at Jericho were from the Middle Bronze Age (1950-1550 BC). She concluded that when the Israelites supposedly destroyed Jericho, the city was a small, poor, and unwalled settlement.

Miriam C. Davis (2008). Dame Kathleen Kenyon: digging up the Holy Land. Available here: (https://books.google.nl/books?id=0qYqFpz_4CwC&pg=PA101&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

"In the time of Joshua, Jericho was a heap of ruins on which stood perhaps a few isolated huts."

"No evidence for defenses from the Late Bronze Age, the period of Joshua, was found."


And presumably we are just ignoring the fact that archaeological science has proven the world isn't 6000 years old, wasn't created in 7 days, there was no flood, there was no exodus, etc, etc? Cherry picking much?


But many people believe that evolution is true when the only place it is factually known to exist is in the theory itself.

Another complete lie.

Firstly, scientific theory does not mean "made up guesses" like you seem to think. Suggesting otherwise is at best disingenuous, and at worst plain stupid. A scientific theory is rigorously tested and fits all the available evidence, such as the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and yes, the theory of evolution.

Secondly, evolution is known to factually exist because of the mountain of evidence for it. But if for some reason all the evidence from fossils, anatomy, molecular biology, genetics, biogeography, paleontology, etc, isn't good enough for you then that's OK - we have literally observed evolution happening in bacteria and insects.


Once again, I would suggest that you take your own advice and aim to achieve even the most basic level of understanding of a topic before offering your opinion on it:

Wake up and learn the things you talk about before you start spouting them out.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on August 26, 2018, 12:34:35 AM
I will tell you what the difference SHOULD be. Religion talk should not be allowed on this forum because this forum is about serious, real world topics.

Religion is a serious topic as long as people commit atrocities in the name of religion.

Science doesn't expect you to take anything on faith.  Everything is science is backed up by evidence you can check yourself.  That is how science works.  If you disagree with the evidence, you have every right to conduct proper research and get your findings published in a reputable periodical.  If your evidence shows you have a better theory for just about anything, you win a nobel prize!

Science doesn't just randomly invent evolution... it simply follows the evidence, and that is the obvious conclusion to the vast majority of people who view the evidence


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on August 26, 2018, 11:05:12 AM
Belief in science theories is just like religion. After all, religions have some facts in them just like science.


So you are just ignoring my previous post exposing everything you said to be a lie?

Standard religious behavior. I expected nothing and I am still disappointed.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on August 26, 2018, 03:56:39 PM
Well, there are always going to be disagreements between experts.
Except there aren't. Everyone who has excavated that site agrees that the Biblical story of Joshua and Jericho is nonsense.


The daters of standard world dating, themselves, express that they are only using guesses to set up an organized standard. Currents date standards are flawed in various ways.
Except they aren't.


The evidence for the flood has been found all around the world, and is recorded in many cultural records as well as cave paintings.
Except it isn't. If you want to be taken seriously, try presenting some evidence to back up your claims, like I did.


The same mountain of evidence for evolution can much more easily be used to show creation, adaptation, and like-begets-like.
No, it absolutely can't.


You can waffle your unfounded nonsense as long as you like, but if you can't provide a single shred of evidence to support any one of your opinions, then they are just that - opinions. Not facts. Not the truth. Just baseless, incorrect, opinions. Exactly what we have all come to expect from you.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on August 27, 2018, 04:46:32 AM
Well, there are always going to be disagreements between experts.
Except there aren't. Everyone who has excavated that site agrees that the Biblical story of Joshua and Jericho is nonsense.


The daters of standard world dating, themselves, express that they are only using guesses to set up an organized standard. Currents date standards are flawed in various ways.
Except they aren't.


The evidence for the flood has been found all around the world, and is recorded in many cultural records as well as cave paintings.
Except it isn't. If you want to be taken seriously, try presenting some evidence to back up your claims, like I did.


The same mountain of evidence for evolution can much more easily be used to show creation, adaptation, and like-begets-like.
No, it absolutely can't.


You can waffle your unfounded nonsense as long as you like, but if you can't provide a single shred of evidence to support any one of your opinions, then they are just that - opinions. Not facts. Not the truth. Just baseless, incorrect, opinions. Exactly what we have all come to expect from you.

You ARE having your troubles, today, aren't you.

Regarding Jericho, for starters:
- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx
- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/The-Walls-of-Jericho.aspx
- https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/world/believers-score-in-battle-over-the-battle-of-jericho.html

Regarding age of the universe, you can find the papers of the scientists who started the idea of an old universe, where they claim exactly that nobody knows the age for sure, and that an old universe was set as a method for organizing scientific things... not because it had to do with the actual age of the universe.

Regarding evolution, a creation model easily matches all the evidence claimed for an evolution model; so, which is it? The exactness of complex cause and effect destroys the possibility of such a thing as random mutations suggested by evolution theory. Natural selection as suggested by evolution theory would have to be so extremely complex to produce life, that it would be way beyond human selection... as we can see by man's failed ability to create life from scratch; such indicates God rather than evolution. The flaw in suggesting that it was the long length of time that allows beneficial mutation accumulation, is that exact same length of time allows the greatly more prevalent natural corrections and detrimental mutations to destroy all the beneficial mutations.

You need to think a little rather than always allow yourself to be led by some kind of propaganda-filled political science.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on August 28, 2018, 03:19:13 PM
Regarding Jericho, for starters:
- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx
- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/The-Walls-of-Jericho.aspx
- https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/world/believers-score-in-battle-over-the-battle-of-jericho.html

So the grand total of your evidence is two articles and one newspaper clipping, all written by the same guy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_G._Wood), a known science denier and creationist (read: idiot), who never excavated the site. The best quote from those three nonsense articles is this:

"When the archaeology is correctly interpreted, however, the opposite is the case."

How convenient that he is the only one who can correctly interpret the data! How convenient! It's just a shame his interpretation is completely at odds with the evidence, the reports of the people who did actually excavate the site, and the wider scientific community.

Also, as a side note, when asked for evidence to back up your ramblings, linking to even more incoherent ramblings that are shunned by the scientific community is not really an effective tactic. Try some real evidence next time.



Also, do you actually believe Noah's ark is a true story? As in, you actually believe that all the animals in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house? And after the flood, he toured the world in his boat, dropping the penguins off in the Antarctic, kangaroos off in Australia and raccoons off in America?

This is so stupid it cannot be believed by a thinking person.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: christina.arnigo on August 29, 2018, 11:31:53 PM
Science is study according to the facts on what is existing. They discovered how everthing happens, how it moves, what will be the result and their giving conclusions in every experiment or study they make.
Religion is based on the Bible where everything are indicated, from the beginning of the world and the prediction on what will happen in future.
Religion and science are sometimes contradict because the conclusions of the scientists are different with what is in telling the Bible. But as the time goes by, there are studies that the science are mistakenly written and proved that what is written in the Bible are all true.
Bible is really a miracle that cannot comprehend by science


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: darklus123 on August 30, 2018, 12:17:39 AM

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or

Wrong cause in the binary system 1+1 = 10. Therefore mathematics is also evolving and changing just like religion

Science was discovered or created by mortals. Yes science provide evidences. Tho it changes over time when a new scientists discover new evidences.

Therefore science is not constant. Just like the "scientific theory" on how the universe created. There are a lot of them eg:  Bigbang theory and most of them provided evidence.

Now the question is which one to believe?
The best thing in this planet that i really love is that science can't provide evidence on its creator.

Which boils down to alot of philosophers and scientists to believe that there is someone immortal who created everything.

Disregard religion since most of it believes that there is really someone looking up there.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: SkyFlakes on August 30, 2018, 10:49:16 AM
I think why religion can be taught as not universal because it is more of subjective while science is objective, that's why it becomes universal. I agree that the religion of today is not the sam with the future because beliefs of human is always changing. What humans believe today will be change. In comparison, science and mathematics is something that won't be change in the future. I am pointing out to those universally accepted concepts. Thus, I think the difference of two is that religion is subjective whereas science is objective.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on August 30, 2018, 02:59:56 PM
When scientists disagree, they publish papers with evidence and experiments to back up their claims... the winner gets a nobel prize

When religions disagree, they kill each other... nobody wins


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: markj113 on August 30, 2018, 07:53:53 PM
Wrong cause in the binary system 1+1 = 10. Therefore mathematics is also evolving and changing just like religion

The maths is constant its just a different way of expressing things.

Ever heard the expression "a rose is still a rose by any other name" - same thing.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on August 30, 2018, 10:35:09 PM

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or

Wrong cause in the binary system 1+1 = 10. Therefore mathematics is also evolving and changing just like religion

Science was discovered or created by mortals. Yes science provide evidences. Tho it changes over time when a new scientists discover new evidences.

Therefore science is not constant. Just like the "scientific theory" on how the universe created. There are a lot of them eg:  Bigbang theory and most of them provided evidence.

Now the question is which one to believe?
The best thing in this planet that i really love is that science can't provide evidence on its creator.

Which boils down to alot of philosophers and scientists to believe that there is someone immortal who created everything.

Disregard religion since most of it believes that there is really someone looking up there.

I have some news for you, the fact that science is unchanging is not inconsistent with the fact that scientific representations vary when expressed in differing human languages (including but not limited to number systems) and is not inconsistent with the fact that our understanding of science evolves.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: darklus123 on August 31, 2018, 12:59:20 AM

Wrong cause in the binary system 1+1 = 10. Therefore mathematics is also evolving and changing just like religion

The maths is constant its just a different way of expressing things.

Ever heard the expression "a rose is still a rose by any other name" - same thing.


So is religion? There are a lot of different way of expressing it but it is still constant how does that sound







~

Then why is it that scientists explains different theories. For example to where did humans originated.

Some do say we originated from monkeys. While others say we came from fish. Both of them provided some "solid evidence" aswell.

And how will you explain to me that maybe if not half, a lesser number of total scientists believes the existence of god even if they can't provide a solid evidence.


Just from the philosophy that simply science can't explain anything.
Does that mean that scientists themselves are not consistent?  


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on August 31, 2018, 01:41:37 AM
....

~

Then why is it that scientists explains different theories. For example to where did humans originated.

Some do say we originated from monkeys. While others say we came from fish. Both of them provided some "solid evidence" aswell.

And how will you explain to me that maybe if not half, a lesser number of total scientists believes the existence of god even if they can't provide a solid evidence.


Just from the philosophy that simply science can't explain anything.
Does that mean that scientists themselves are not consistent?  

The history of science is full of wrong ideas, and of their eventual rejection.

The way to understand, ask what is a scientific hypothesis?

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

There is little more than this, except that various social and political factors certainly can influence science.

An example is "global warming." There is no formulated hypothesis capable of being tested, yet it is widely considered science. It is more accurately a "belief."

A scientist can belief in many things which are not testable by scientific hypothesis.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: darklus123 on August 31, 2018, 01:48:28 AM

The history of science is full of wrong ideas, and of their eventual rejection.

The way to understand, ask what is a scientific hypothesis?

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

There is little more than this, except that various social and political factors certainly can influence science.

An example is "global warming." There is no formulated hypothesis capable of being tested, yet it is widely considered science. It is more accurately a "belief."

A scientist can belief in many things which are not testable by scientific hypothesis.


That is really what confuses me alot. If they hypothesis was based on the scientific method conducted by the scientists therefore both theorom were just a possibility. Which one will I believing if both hypothesis have solid evidences.

That only shows that science is not consistent because if thats the caseI believe that both scientists should came up with the same hypothesis.

Note that the only constant in this world is change.


If that is the case that scientists will just based their hypothesis to their beliefs then the study is not a fact


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on August 31, 2018, 01:48:39 AM
When scientists disagree, they publish papers with evidence and experiments to back up their claims... the winner gets a nobel prize

When religions disagree, they kill each other... nobody wins

It was the morals of the religious that were trying to stop the scientists who were developing the first atomic bombs, which were used to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of Japanese people, and cause crippled children and grandchildren because of atomically "burned" reproduction organs.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on August 31, 2018, 11:52:41 AM
When scientists disagree, they publish papers with evidence and experiments to back up their claims... the winner gets a nobel prize

When religions disagree, they kill each other... nobody wins

It was the morals of the religious that were trying to stop the scientists who were developing the first atomic bomb

Just stop... stop making up lies... please

If you want people to believe in your religion... you should stop lying... your book says not to lie

Pics or it didn't happen


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on August 31, 2018, 02:30:02 PM
It was the morals of the religious that were trying to stop the scientists who were developing the first atomic bombs

You mean like Lt Gen Leslie Groves, son of a pastor, who directed the Manhattan project? Or J. Robert Oppenheimer, a Jew, who was lead scientist? Or maybe Robert Serber, also a Jew, who wrote The Los Alamos Primer?

Not only were the morals of the religious not trying to stop the development, but they were the ones who were in charge of the development.

Another 100% made up lie brought to you by BADecker. Do you not realize that people know how to use Google? Your nonsense can be refuted by a 5 year old.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Earl Ragnaar on August 31, 2018, 03:47:58 PM
Science in a way starts and closures with human interest to specific inquiries. These inquiries prompts revelations yet in the event that you ask me, those disclosures are not simply arbitrary event but rather fated supernaturally to be so. Religion then again depends on confidence in the heavenly that may not require logical demonstrate to confirm it. It exists in itself.
As you probably are aware, we are made of fragile living creature and soul. No one has ever demonstrated that we are made of spirits. We can see our tissue. We can't see our soul. We can feel it. When we dream, we realize what we can see and we comprehend that we are not just fragile living creature and bones. It is in this way evident that science and religion must cooperate to find and settle the puzzles of our human advancements. They should not battle but rather coordinate.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: markj113 on August 31, 2018, 05:30:58 PM
So is religion? There are a lot of different way of expressing it but it is still constant how does that sound

Most religions seem to be incompatible with each other.

Religious nut jobs are forever killing every one else in the name of their one true god, same cant be said about mathematicians.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: De Mukerere on August 31, 2018, 05:59:13 PM
Science is the physical explanation of our natural world while religion is a supernatural revelation of our natural world.
This I believe will be difficult for the atheist to believe because he does not believe in the existence of God and might also be difficult for those who are opposed to christianity to believe. But as a Christian scientist, I believe and can proof reasonably that both are different means to one end.

From the creation account, after God created man, being just, he didn't leave him ignorant of his natural world and how to interact with it. However, when man disobeyed God, theologians believe he, God, destroyed the garden of Eden, but I rather think that is a figurative speech. "What is so special about this garden that man will miss?" I will always ask. I think what the scriptures meant by destroying the garden must be "the destruction or withdrawal of the knowledge of how man can interact with his immediate environment. And when he said that he will toil and till the ground before he can eat, I believe he, God, meant man will suffer before he will regain mastery of the Earth. And don't just start blaming God and seeing him as wicked because every system that wants to maitain balance must have checks and consequences for going against the rules. Bitcointalk forum has, your country has, mine has too. Check the crime rate in countries that have decided to relax theirs and compare it with those of the countries that have decided to enforce theirs religiously, may be you will understand why God did what he did. That was the premise on which religion and science were born. HOW?
Remember science is defined as a body of knowledge or a systematic enquiry into nature. When Man's knowledge was withdrawn, he started doing things by trial and error. Things that worked were celebrated. The process leading to such result was preserved and handed over to the next generation. Gradually, man's knowledge of the principles guiding his environment grew to what we know today as science. BUT WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH religion?
Remember man's mastery of his natural environment was a very slow one. There are archeological proofs of ancient communities that once existed but somehow went into extinction for reasons no one can clearly asertain till date but with high belief that most cases were due to adverse conditions. That means man must have gone through monstrous ordeals to come this far. However, God in his infinite mercies could not sit and watch his creation suffer. But he could not reverse his judgement because he is just so he had to release information about how to survive through some difficult situations to some persons who will share the idea with his community. When this idea works the community in appreciation will set up a system of appreciating the source of such revelational knowledge and that was how religious worship emanated. So the people will continue with the practice for their survival until someone could explain it physically then when it's physical explanation has been gotten people will start working on it to see how they could apply the process to other situations. Therefore, through religion, man knew that some heights were scalable. And by explaining revelational knowledge later on using physical parameters gotten through observation, he knew he could solve more problems by studying events that happen around him. Thus, religion inspired scientific advancement.
Now, because man has seen so much development via scientific advancement, he then thinks religion is bluff. There are several things happening in our present day, that men predicted accurately several years back without scientific aid. Today, meteorologist forecast weather conditions and the world is celebrating. In my traditional religion, there are so many feats these men achieve at a lower cost than using scientific methods. Examples include finding missing items, controlling weather condition etc.
I am not relegating any of the above mentioned issues to the background but I am only saying that while both are means to same end, religion inspired scientific advancements. And religion is still ahead of science in helping man understand and subdue his challenges. Don't get it twisted because of bigots that have made a mess of religion.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on August 31, 2018, 06:38:47 PM
.....There are several things happening in our present day, that men predicted accurately several years back without scientific aid. Today, meteorologist forecast weather conditions and the world is celebrating. In my traditional religion, there are so many feats these men achieve at a lower cost than using scientific methods. Examples include finding missing items, controlling weather condition etc.....

I don't think so.

I am quite familiar with modern weather forecasting. It's quite good up to 10 days, and this has came to be by using supercomputers.

Weather forecasting is not "a feat" but it is impossible for it to be a thing that could be claimed to be done by a religion.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on August 31, 2018, 08:41:23 PM
.....There are several things happening in our present day, that men predicted accurately several years back without scientific aid. Today, meteorologist forecast weather conditions and the world is celebrating. In my traditional religion, there are so many feats these men achieve at a lower cost than using scientific methods. Examples include finding missing items, controlling weather condition etc.....

I don't think so.

I am quite familiar with modern weather forecasting. It's quite good up to 10 days, and this has came to be by using supercomputers.

Weather forecasting is not "a feat" but it is impossible for it to be a thing that could be claimed to be done by a religion.

Pick your favorite location at Weather Underground - https://www.wunderground.com/. Check the 10-day forecast. The forecast changes as many as 6 or more times a day, and certainly every day to the next.

I expect that there are tranquil locations where the 10-day barely changes throughout the whole 10 days. But there are other place where the weather is wilder, and predictions can change hourly, throughout the day.

There isn't as much known about the weather as we think.

I recommend that, as part of their training, forecasting meteorologists be required to earn $100,000 in the stock market, in the year that they are accepted on the weather job. This would weed out the fakers from those who really know how to forecast accurately. We might wind up without a weather channel, which would be beneficial to us all.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 01, 2018, 02:10:47 AM
.....There are several things happening in our present day, that men predicted accurately several years back without scientific aid. Today, meteorologist forecast weather conditions and the world is celebrating. In my traditional religion, there are so many feats these men achieve at a lower cost than using scientific methods. Examples include finding missing items, controlling weather condition etc.....

I don't think so.

I am quite familiar with modern weather forecasting. It's quite good up to 10 days, and this has came to be by using supercomputers.

Weather forecasting is not "a feat" but it is impossible for it to be a thing that could be claimed to be done by a religion.

Pick your favorite location at Weather Underground - https://www.wunderground.com/. Check the 10-day forecast.....

On some subject you just need to shut it. The ignorance is profound...



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Sealis on September 01, 2018, 04:09:04 AM
Science is the answer to the questions in the world. It's basically saying that every phenomena has a reason for its existence. Religion on the other hand, is saying that something exists because it was created. And who created that creator? Religion would then say he exists because he exists. This would be the basic idea of their reasoning in every argument. Basically, Science and Religion should or rather would never meet. They are completely on the opposite ends of a spectrum.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: De Mukerere on September 01, 2018, 04:21:39 AM
.....There are several things happening in our present day, that men predicted accurately several years back without scientific aid. Today, meteorologist forecast weather conditions and the world is celebrating. In my traditional religion, there are so many feats these men achieve at a lower cost than using scientific methods. Examples include finding missing items, controlling weather condition etc.....

I don't think so.

I am quite familiar with modern weather forecasting. It's quite good up to 10 days, and this has came to be by using supercomputers.

Weather forecasting is not "a feat" but it is impossible for it to be a thing that could be claimed to be done by a religion.

Don't get so excited about weather forecast 10 days ahead cos in my local traditional religion, those guys can't just only forecast weather, they can as well control it. On a rainy day, they can stop the rain. In the midst of rainy season, the can withhold rain for days up to a week and beyond. That's what I'm talking about. Paradventure our central government was committed to scientific developments, they would have sent guys to go check how those people are producing such results and see if they could refine it scientifically. Now, if they had done so and published it on journals you would celebrate the end product relegating the source to junk. And like I said, this is one of their numerous abilities.
However, scientific forecast is limited. There are areas of life you can't predict the future on but religion is doing marvellously well. I guess you know "Nostrademus!". He is a global figure. You may check out his predictions or forecast then you will understand what I am talking about. Note that he is just one man. There are several men like him. It's just that his work gained global prominence. These conflict in ideas has been hampering our harnessing our potential because one group will think they are better than the other. They will want to strive for suproirity rather than seek partnership.
Let's see these two regions of ontology as different means to one end. Let us not discard religion on one or few premise like most people do.

Science is about evidence. Any published speech must be supported by evidence to get everyone's approval, and religion relies on faith! Faith from the heart


Most religions seem to be incompatible with each other.

Religious nut jobs are forever killing every one else in the name of their one true god, same cant be said about mathematicians.
Most people contributing in this thread do not know the history of most scientific developments they see today. Go back to history of science and you will see that science didn't even start in Europe. Most of your reference are from Europe. The basic ideas that those Europeans started with were mostly from Africa, Egypt to be precise and Asia, particularly China. And these were highly religious entities with China still preserving it religion because most of their discoveries came from their priests, monks etc.
So friends, let us stop promoting one at the expense of the other. Our forefathers might have done that because they were overwhelmed let's make amends. Let's try to look at what the religious world is saying and see if we can verify them scientifically. Let's stop this tossle for glory.  Let us take a hollistic look at them with intentions of improving the lot of mankind.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 01, 2018, 06:24:11 AM
in my local traditional religion, those guys can't just only forecast weather, they can as well control it.

Proof please.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: De Mukerere on September 01, 2018, 10:30:10 AM

Proof please.
[/quote]

The only proof is when you visit and see them probably make rain in a place where meteorological report has forecasted there will be no rain. Or withhold rain for days in the middle of rainy season. Road Construction Companies hire them for the job. It might sound rocket science to you but it is very simple only that they wouldn't reveal the secrete to anyone outside their circles. I guess you would be shocked to see it happen but that's not all they can do.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 01, 2018, 02:05:50 PM

Proof please.

The only proof is when you visit and see them probably make rain in a place where meteorological report has forecasted there will be no rain. Or withhold rain for days in the middle of rainy season. Road Construction Companies hire them for the job. It might sound rocket science to you but it is very simple only that they wouldn't reveal the secrete to anyone outside their circles. I guess you would be shocked to see it happen but that's not all they can do.
[/quote]

Show a hundred years of rainfall data, or more. This is part of what modern science DOES.

Then show a record of dates, times, and places proving cause and effect.

Then show that this "man induced shaman rainfall" is statistically signifcant WHEN COMPARED to a control group, which might be a similar region some distance away.

You see? The scientific process is not the enemy of your shaman. It can prove your assertion, or it can refute it. But your assertion is not proved by your words alone.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: jak3 on September 01, 2018, 07:43:06 PM
That's absolutely true they will not only make new religions but they can make you their religion if they found you destroyed those old rules. They will start a business and surviving on your name. So human beings need both the science and religion to service except me. I only need science and I am in religion for making others happy not for me.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Avengers360 on September 01, 2018, 08:26:35 PM
Religion and science are actually very related, and have gone hand in hand for several decades, up till the concept of creation and the source.

Both comprises of zealots, who are totally opposed to the other.

Although one is based on faith, and the other faith in facts


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 01, 2018, 10:57:06 PM
Actually, we can see that science is very faith based. When anyone believes a scientific theory to be true, he is believing it by faith. Why? Because the fact that it is scientific theory means that it can be changed as new info is found out. So, believing it as fact, when it is not known to be fact, involves faith.

As for religions, the major factors in religions may not be known to be true... making believing them to be done by faith. But aspects of all religions are factual... their writings, their religious buildings, the number of people who accept a particular religion, some of the wisdom in some of their writings, etc.

The thing that is opposite in the two, might be their basics... like faith in God vs. factual chemical formulae.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 02, 2018, 01:28:23 PM
Religion and science are actually very related, and have gone hand in hand for several decades, up till the concept of creation and the source.

Both comprises of zealots, who are totally opposed to the other.

Although one is based on faith, and the other faith in facts

If science is faith in facts, what is religious faith?  Faith without facts?  How is that better?

"Faith in facts" is an oxymoron... the word faith implies lack of evidence/facts

According to dictionary.com, religious faith is "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

The only way to find truth is through facts and evidence.  People can believe literally anything on faith.  You could have faith that the moon is made from green cheese, but that does not make it true

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Classical_definition_of_Kno.svg/512px-Classical_definition_of_Kno.svg.png

In this venn diagram, faith can only lead to "Beliefs", or "Poorly justified true beliefs" if they get lucky and are correct without evidence... Faith cannot possibly lead to Truths or Knowledge (both of which require facts and evidence)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Getadaaa on September 02, 2018, 02:15:18 PM
Science is purely earthly. And religion is heavenly. The both could coexit if we let it. There’s no need separating one from the other. Instead we can learn from the both. They both checkmate each other. When religions disagree then science comes to settle it out. When science is going beyond ethics, then religion checkmates it. And that’s peace. Who doesn’t like that?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 02, 2018, 02:42:54 PM
Religion and science are actually very related, and have gone hand in hand for several decades, up till the concept of creation and the source.

Both comprises of zealots, who are totally opposed to the other.

Although one is based on faith, and the other faith in facts

If science is faith in facts, what is religious faith?  Faith without facts?  How is that better?

"Faith in facts" is an oxymoron... the word faith implies lack of evidence/facts.....

In ancient times, one king might have said to another...

"It's a fact that my zealous religious cult soldiers are not afraid to die".

The other might have said,

"My populations are taught that homosexuality is evil, and that sex with a virgin is wonderful. It's a fact that this increases the birth rates and maximizes the number of soldiers for my troops. Let's combine these two methods."

Facts?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 02, 2018, 05:29:24 PM
Religion and science are actually very related, and have gone hand in hand for several decades, up till the concept of creation and the source.

Both comprises of zealots, who are totally opposed to the other.

Although one is based on faith, and the other faith in facts

If science is faith in facts, what is religious faith?  Faith without facts?  How is that better?

"Faith in facts" is an oxymoron... the word faith implies lack of evidence/facts.....

In ancient times, one king might have said to another...

"It's a fact that my zealous religious cult soldiers are not afraid to die".

The other might have said,

"My populations are taught that homosexuality is evil, and that sex with a virgin is wonderful. It's a fact that this increases the birth rates and maximizes the number of soldiers for my troops. Let's combine these two methods."

Facts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)
"A fact is a statement that is consistent with objective reality or can be proven with evidence."

Given zero evidence is provided, neither statement is a fact

The fact that you asked the question tells me that you don't even understand the word, fact


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 02, 2018, 08:13:20 PM
Religion and science are actually very related, and have gone hand in hand for several decades, up till the concept of creation and the source.

Both comprises of zealots, who are totally opposed to the other.

Although one is based on faith, and the other faith in facts

If science is faith in facts, what is religious faith?  Faith without facts?  How is that better?

"Faith in facts" is an oxymoron... the word faith implies lack of evidence/facts.....

In ancient times, one king might have said to another...

"It's a fact that my zealous religious cult soldiers are not afraid to die".

The other might have said,

"My populations are taught that homosexuality is evil, and that sex with a virgin is wonderful. It's a fact that this increases the birth rates and maximizes the number of soldiers for my troops. Let's combine these two methods."

Facts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)
"A fact is a statement that is consistent with objective reality or can be proven with evidence."

Given zero evidence is provided, neither statement is a fact

The fact that you asked the question tells me that you don't even understand the word, fact
Except that you are wrong. In the example of the two kings discussion, each asserted the existence of a fact. "Can be proven with evidence" does not mean "was proven".

Every day, we state facts briefly. You might say "That man is a criminal." You don't cite the cases and details.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 03, 2018, 06:12:57 AM
Religion and science are actually very related, and have gone hand in hand for several decades, up till the concept of creation and the source.

Both comprises of zealots, who are totally opposed to the other.

Although one is based on faith, and the other faith in facts

If science is faith in facts, what is religious faith?  Faith without facts?  How is that better?

"Faith in facts" is an oxymoron... the word faith implies lack of evidence/facts.....

In ancient times, one king might have said to another...

"It's a fact that my zealous religious cult soldiers are not afraid to die".

The other might have said,

"My populations are taught that homosexuality is evil, and that sex with a virgin is wonderful. It's a fact that this increases the birth rates and maximizes the number of soldiers for my troops. Let's combine these two methods."

Facts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)
"A fact is a statement that is consistent with objective reality or can be proven with evidence."

Given zero evidence is provided, neither statement is a fact

The fact that you asked the question tells me that you don't even understand the word, fact
Except that you are wrong. In the example of the two kings discussion, each asserted the existence of a fact. "Can be proven with evidence" does not mean "was proven".

Every day, we state facts briefly. You might say "That man is a criminal." You don't cite the cases and details.

Anecdotes are not facts... you are still wrong, just stop with your nonsense

I REALLY hate that religious people try to change the meaning of words to confuse everyone... that's such bullshit I cannot begin to describe how evil it is


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: needcryptos on September 03, 2018, 09:01:46 AM
We have a clear distinction between religion and science: religion is for the whole of society or all groups, while science applies only to some. Now the question is how religion can sustain its identity in the doctrinal and the doctrinal sense. This is done only through faith. The root of religion is faith, using faith to preserve its essence.
Science is limited to the number of accomplished, thinkers. They preserve the nature of science through proven truth, use results-based test methods, and spread the word through wisdom, accuracy, and scientific methods.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 03, 2018, 09:45:00 AM
I REALLY hate that religious people try to change the meaning of words to confuse everyone

It's because they don't have any actual evidence or proof to support their position, and they know they can't even begin to argue against the mountains of evidence that proves they are wrong. Their only defense is to resort to petty semantics and try to claim that somehow facts aren't facts and that evidence isn't evidence.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 03, 2018, 03:02:31 PM
I REALLY hate that religious people try to change the meaning of words to confuse everyone

It's because they don't have any actual evidence or proof to support their position, and they know they can't even begin to argue against the mountains of evidence that proves they are wrong. Their only defense is to resort to petty semantics and try to claim that somehow facts aren't facts and that evidence isn't evidence.

Look up the word religion in the dictionary - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. You will see that religion is something that everybody has, by definition. So, everybody is religious, one way or another.

Let the religious atheists stop trying to change the meanings of words just so that they can try to strengthen their own faith that they are atheists, while trying to keep atheism outside of the religion that it is.

Let the religious scientists who are attempting to believe that certain scientific theories are fact, when such isn't known that these theories are fact, stop trying to change the meanings of words just so that they can try to strengthen their own faith that the theories are facts... thereby turning science into religion for themselves.

Let people see that by the definitions, all people are religious, so that we can recognize that the differences between science and religion are academic, and not real.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 03, 2018, 03:19:07 PM
-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 03, 2018, 03:51:41 PM
-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

Thank you for agreeing with me, finally.      :D


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 03, 2018, 04:22:02 PM
-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

Thank you for agreeing with me, finally.      :D

Since in your world "fact" means "belief", "evidence" means "faith", and "atheist" means "religious", I can only assume that "agree" means "disprove".


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 03, 2018, 05:31:40 PM
Every day, we state facts briefly. You might say "That man is a criminal." You don't cite the cases and details.

.....

Anecdotes are not facts... you are still wrong, just stop with your nonsense
.....

Not an anecdote. Saying "That man is a criminal" is stating a fact.

It's true, another party might say "I don't believe it. Prove it." Then it's incumbent upon the first to state the underlying details.

Just go attend a chemistry class. Nothing but exposition of facts without underlying support. All of science is this way.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 03, 2018, 10:20:18 PM
-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

Thank you for agreeing with me, finally.      :D

Since in your world "fact" means "belief", "evidence" means "faith", and "atheist" means "religious", I can only assume that "agree" means "disprove".

My meanings are as the dictionary meanings are. Since you want to ignore the dictionary meanings, which I even pointed out to you, how can anyone even begin to know what you are really talking about?, since you ignore the dictionary, and proceed to express stuff with your own meanings?

In fact, it is kinda useless for you when I even respond to what you say... because you don't use the dictionary definitions of words, and don't clarify what you even mean, or if you even understand what I am saying. You seem to be speaking in your own weird language that is similar to English in some ways. But for the benefit of the rest of the forum readers who read your posts, I am simply showing them from the dictionary that you don't use standard meanings.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 03, 2018, 10:45:05 PM
My meanings are as the dictionary meanings are.

Let people see that by the definitions, all people are religious

Collins: (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/religion) Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping

Oxford: (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

Merriam Webster: (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) the service and worship of God or the supernatural

I (and millions others) do not believe/worship/pray to a god/gods/superhuman/supernatural power. Therefore, you are wrong yet again.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 04, 2018, 02:30:01 AM
My meanings are as the dictionary meanings are.

Let people see that by the definitions, all people are religious

Collins: (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/religion) Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping

Oxford: (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

Merriam Webster: (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) the service and worship of God or the supernatural

I (and millions others) do not believe/worship/pray to a god/gods/superhuman/supernatural power. Therefore, you are wrong yet again.


Okay. So you quote one entry from several dictionaries. Don't you even look below or above the one entry you found, to see that there are other entries that confirm what I said? Are you unwilling to check other dictionaries? Are you unwilling to check the in-depth meanings of words in encyclopedias?

All you are doing is showing yourself to be incompetent in these things that you say. But we kinda knew that, because a few posts up I showed a dictionary link that proves what I have been saying... - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. But you completely ignored it and went on your way with meanings that you made up.

But thank you. You encourage me to bring up my activity rating when you do this.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 04, 2018, 02:35:01 AM
Every day, we state facts briefly. You might say "That man is a criminal." You don't cite the cases and details.

.....

Anecdotes are not facts... you are still wrong, just stop with your nonsense
.....

Not an anecdote. Saying "That man is a criminal" is stating a fact.

It's true, another party might say "I don't believe it. Prove it." Then it's incumbent upon the first to state the underlying details.

Just go attend a chemistry class. Nothing but exposition of facts without underlying support. All of science is this way.

However, the underlying facts exist.

Religion is in fact based on belief, not fact in any sense. It's silly and ignorant to argue otherwise.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 04, 2018, 11:27:03 AM
Okay. So you quote one entry from several dictionaries. Don't you even look below or above the one entry you found, to see that there are other entries that confirm what I said? Are you unwilling to check other dictionaries? Are you unwilling to check the in-depth meanings of words in encyclopedias?

All you are doing is showing yourself to be incompetent in these things that you say. But we kinda knew that, because a few posts up I showed a dictionary link that proves what I have been saying... - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. But you completely ignored it and went on your way with meanings that you made up.

You gave a quote from an online search. I gave you quotes from the 3 most widely selling dictionaries in the world. You can cherry pick all you want, the fact is you lied yet again. Nowhere in the 3 most widely selling dictionaries in the world does the definition state, as you claimed, that "all people are religious".

Please continue to argue though. Every one of your nonsense posts, arguing about petty semantics and trying to argue that facts are based on faith just confirms my initial point:

It's because they don't have any actual evidence or proof to support their position, and they know they can't even begin to argue against the mountains of evidence that proves they are wrong. Their only defense is to resort to petty semantics and try to claim that somehow facts aren't facts and that evidence isn't evidence.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: guybrushthreepwood on September 04, 2018, 12:12:59 PM
The difference between facts and fairy-tales.

If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

I think religions would die off very quickly if it wasn't for parents brainwashing their children with their own beliefs. People should teach their children how to think, not what to think and I the world would be a better place for it. We'd probably then have a lot more free-thinkers and scientists as opposed to just brainwashed kids that pass on the same indoctrination to their own children and the cycle continues. If a child was educated in science without the mention of religions I doubt they'd ever pick up a religious text in the future and think it was a legitimate source of knowledge and decide to be a convert or follower of whatever book they picked up. Even if you gave them a copy of the bible, quran, torah etc and asked them to choose which one they believed was the one 'true' one I don't think they'd come to the conclusion that it had to be one of them.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: darklus123 on September 04, 2018, 12:19:27 PM

Collins: (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/religion) Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping

Oxford: (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

Merriam Webster: (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) the service and worship of God or the supernatural

I (and millions others) do not believe/worship/pray to a god/gods/superhuman/supernatural power. Therefore, you are wrong yet again.



Thanks for giving this links, by that I can argue with your statement.

Collins: (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/religion) -  You missed to point this meaning from the link you've given .
Quote
b.
any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system


by the phrase " any system of beliefs" and based on your statement "I (and millions others) do not believe/worship/pray to a god/gods/superhuman/supernatural power.". By simply saying that (you do not believe in god = You believe that God did not exist). Therefore atheism is still a belief system and based on the link you have given. One synonym of religion is "belief" and by that I have concluded (congrats) you are a very religious person cause you hardly believe that god never existed.


Oxford: (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion) -
Quote
A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
‘consumerism is the new religion’

Based on that link and based on your statement. You have a great devotion since you are committed by not believing in god right?


Thefore, you are wrong as well.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 04, 2018, 12:33:51 PM
....

by the phrase " any system of beliefs" and based on your statement "I (and millions others) do not believe/worship/pray to a god/gods/superhuman/supernatural power.". By simply saying that (you do not believe in god = You believe that God did not exist). Therefore atheism is still a belief system....

Maybe or maybe not, but you have not proved it with your illogic.

There is no equality where you placed it.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 04, 2018, 12:39:13 PM
-snip-

I don't understand this argument at all.

Firstly, atheism is not a religion in the same way that not playing football is not a sport.

Secondly, what a desperate argument. The best argument you have for your position isn't atheism is wrong, science is wrong, look at all the proof for god, or look at the evidence for creation, but instead "you are just as irrational/delusional as I am!"

How utterly confused you are. But please, continue with your silly word games and prove my point even further.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 04, 2018, 07:00:40 PM
-snip-

I don't understand this argument at all.

Firstly, atheism is not a religion in the same way that not playing football is not a sport.

Secondly, what a desperate argument. The best argument you have for your position isn't atheism is wrong, science is wrong, look at all the proof for god, or look at the evidence for creation, but instead "you are just as irrational/delusional as I am!"

How utterly confused you are. But please, continue with your silly word games and prove my point even further.

Atheism is a chunk of stupidity... barely a religion. After all, anybody who attempts to be an atheist, knows that he is a liar, because:
1. Nobody knows that God doesn't exist somewhere, and that God has simply hidden Himself from people to observe people in private; nobody knows that this isn't the way things are;
2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god, simply by trying to force himself to believe that there is no God in the face of knowing #1, above; so when he sets himself up as god, he is contradicting the exact thing that he is proclaiming for himself... atheism.

Since the atheist is doing these things, he has a religion going for himself, even though it is not a religion like other religions. Why? Because he is trying to believe that he can be an atheist even though he knows that God might exist somewhere, and even though - if he thinks about it - he is attempting to set himself up as god simply by trying to be an atheist.

In a similar way, science is a religion when scientist and others try to believe that a science theory is a fact, because they know that being a theory, it can change. But facts don't change. Only things that are believed to be facts when they aren't, can change. These people even know science theory can be dropped from theory status if enough evidence against it is discovered. Because of this, believing it to be fact is like a religion for them.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 04, 2018, 07:22:59 PM
1. Nobody knows that God doesn't exist somewhere, and that God has simply hidden Himself from people to observe people in private; nobody knows that this isn't the way things are;

And nobody knows that there isn't a china teapot in between the Earth and Mars revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. That's not how the burden of proof works.


2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god, simply by trying to force himself to believe that there is no God in the face of knowing #1, above; so when he sets himself up as god, he is contradicting the exact thing that he is proclaiming for himself... atheism.

Since the atheist is doing these things, he has a religion going for himself, even though it is not a religion like other religions. Why? Because he is trying to believe that he can be an atheist even though he knows that God might exist somewhere, and even though - if he thinks about it - he is attempting to set himself up as god simply by trying to be an atheist.

More nonsense wordplay. I'm bored pointing out yet again that you are simply proving yet again my point that you have zero proof for your claims. Present some actual evidence please.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 04, 2018, 07:49:05 PM
1. Nobody knows that God doesn't exist somewhere, and that God has simply hidden Himself from people to observe people in private; nobody knows that this isn't the way things are;

And nobody knows that there isn't a china teapot in between the Earth and Mars revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. That's not how the burden of proof works.


2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god, simply by trying to force himself to believe that there is no God in the face of knowing #1, above; so when he sets himself up as god, he is contradicting the exact thing that he is proclaiming for himself... atheism.

Since the atheist is doing these things, he has a religion going for himself, even though it is not a religion like other religions. Why? Because he is trying to believe that he can be an atheist even though he knows that God might exist somewhere, and even though - if he thinks about it - he is attempting to set himself up as god simply by trying to be an atheist.

More nonsense wordplay. I'm bored pointing out yet again that you are simply proving yet again my point that you have zero proof for your claims. Present some actual evidence please.


Well, thanks... for confirming that atheism is a religion for you. You are not bored pointing out. You are worn out dogged tired, because you know that you can't find anything to prove me wrong. The things I say are not proving things. They are thinking things, and you can't find anything wrong with them. If you could, you would say it rather than continually saying that I am wrong, without having anything to show as wrongness in me.

Again, science theory, when it is believed to be fact, is a religion for those who so believe. The dictionary definition I pointed out shows it by definition, that anything you believe in is a religion for you, or part of your personal religion.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: guybrushthreepwood on September 05, 2018, 09:48:22 AM
Atheism is a chunk of stupidity... barely a religion. After all, anybody who attempts to be an atheist, knows that he is a liar, because:
1. Nobody knows that God doesn't exist somewhere, and that God has simply hidden Himself from people to observe people in private; nobody knows that this isn't the way things are;
2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god, simply by trying to force himself to believe that there is no God in the face of knowing #1, above; so when he sets himself up as god, he is contradicting the exact thing that he is proclaiming for himself... atheism.

Since the atheist is doing these things, he has a religion going for himself, even though it is not a religion like other religions. Why? Because he is trying to believe that he can be an atheist even though he knows that God might exist somewhere, and even though - if he thinks about it - he is attempting to set himself up as god simply by trying to be an atheist.

In a similar way, science is a religion when scientist and others try to believe that a science theory is a fact, because they know that being a theory, it can change. but facts don't change. Only things that are believed to be facts when they aren't can change. These people even know science theory can be dropped from theory status if enough evidence against it is discovered. Because of this, believing it to be fact is like a religion for them.

8)

Barely a religion? It isn't a religion, nor is it stupid, and saying things like this is pretty stupid in my opinion. Why don't you apply the same logic to believers? Going by your logic surely someone who says they know that there's a god is as equally as stupid as the atheist because it's something they can't possibly know for certain. Atheism is a lack of belief or faith if anything. As Richard Dawkins says (and I'm paraphrasing here): you're not an atheist or agnostic towards unicorns if you don't believe in them. There could be unicorns, but there's almost certainly not and there's at least no evidence for them (other than in books, which like religions are just myths containing supernatural beings).

Atheism isn't necessarily the belief that you know there's no god either. It's that you don't believe there is one, unlikely to believe there is one, or you don't see any evidence for there being one:

Quote
Atheism: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

That doesn't mean you 100% know there's no god (though some people may certainly claim they believe 100% there isn't one but that doesn't mean all atheists believe that). I personally don't believe there's a god because there's no evidence for one. I'm not going to 100% say that's there's definitely no god because I can't prove of disprove that either way. There could actually be a god.... but there probably isn't. God could have created the big bang and evolution. But he probably didn't.

Well, thanks... for confirming that atheism is a religion for you. You are not bored pointing out. You are worn out dogged tired, because you know that you can't find anything to prove me wrong. The things I say are not proving things. They are thinking things, and you can't find anything wrong with them. If you could, you would say it rather than continually saying that I am wrong, without having anything to show as wrongness in me.

Again, science theory, when it is believed to be fact, is a religion for those who so believe. The dictionary definition I pointed out shows it by definition, that anything you believe in is a religion for you, or part of your personal religion.

8)

You're being intellectually dishonest here and are trying to stretch definitions to suit your agenda. If something is a fact then it is a fact. It's not a religious belief if you believe that water is wet. You can't say the people who "believe" the earth is round are a religion. A theory is a proposed idea:

Quote
A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking

A theory can be debunked or disproved if it's not true. The earth being flat used to be a theory. Then the earth being round was a theory. One was disproved and the other was proved by facts and science (though you still get idiots who think the earth is flat but hey, some people deny facts and logic). I think all scientific theories probably start out as abstract ideas or educated guesses or assumptions, but then you look for evidence to either support or disprove them.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 05, 2018, 12:36:03 PM
2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god

This is a logical contradiction... an atheist doesn't believe in gods

It sounds more like you are describing Hinduism, which is a recognized religion

I'd recommend spending a little time learning about other religions and their beliefs, before telling other people what their "religion" believes, lmfao


BADLogic: This topic is about the difference between science and religion.  None of your posts are on-topic, and simply atheist bashing.  You are simply trying to derail the conversation into the same nonsense you spout in every thread.  I will report all your off-topic posts and hopefully others will do the same.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 05, 2018, 08:30:17 PM
Atheism is a chunk of stupidity... barely a religion. After all, anybody who attempts to be an atheist, knows that he is a liar, because:
1. Nobody knows that God doesn't exist somewhere, and that God has simply hidden Himself from people to observe people in private; nobody knows that this isn't the way things are;
2. The atheist is trying to set himself up as god, simply by trying to force himself to believe that there is no God in the face of knowing #1, above; so when he sets himself up as god, he is contradicting the exact thing that he is proclaiming for himself... atheism.

Since the atheist is doing these things, he has a religion going for himself, even though it is not a religion like other religions. Why? Because he is trying to believe that he can be an atheist even though he knows that God might exist somewhere, and even though - if he thinks about it - he is attempting to set himself up as god simply by trying to be an atheist.

In a similar way, science is a religion when scientist and others try to believe that a science theory is a fact, because they know that being a theory, it can change. but facts don't change. Only things that are believed to be facts when they aren't can change. These people even know science theory can be dropped from theory status if enough evidence against it is discovered. Because of this, believing it to be fact is like a religion for them.

8)

Barely a religion? It isn't a religion, nor is it stupid, and saying things like this is pretty stupid in my opinion. Why don't you apply the same logic to believers? Going by your logic surely someone who says they know that there's a god is as equally as stupid as the atheist because it's something they can't possibly know for certain. Atheism is a lack of belief or faith if anything. As Richard Dawkins says (and I'm paraphrasing here): you're not an atheist or agnostic towards unicorns if you don't believe in them. There could be unicorns, but there's almost certainly not and there's at least no evidence for them (other than in books, which like religions are just myths containing supernatural beings).

Atheism isn't necessarily the belief that you know there's no god either. It's that you don't believe there is one, unlikely to believe there is one, or you don't see any evidence for there being one:

Quote
Atheism: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

That doesn't mean you 100% know there's no god (though some people may certainly claim they believe 100% there isn't one but that doesn't mean all atheists believe that). I personally don't believe there's a god because there's no evidence for one. I'm not going to 100% say that's there's definitely no god because I can't prove of disprove that either way. There could actually be a god.... but there probably isn't. God could have created the big bang and evolution. But he probably didn't.

Well, thanks... for confirming that atheism is a religion for you. You are not bored pointing out. You are worn out dogged tired, because you know that you can't find anything to prove me wrong. The things I say are not proving things. They are thinking things, and you can't find anything wrong with them. If you could, you would say it rather than continually saying that I am wrong, without having anything to show as wrongness in me.

Again, science theory, when it is believed to be fact, is a religion for those who so believe. The dictionary definition I pointed out shows it by definition, that anything you believe in is a religion for you, or part of your personal religion.

8)

You're being intellectually dishonest here and are trying to stretch definitions to suit your agenda. If something is a fact then it is a fact. It's not a religious belief if you believe that water is wet. You can't say the people who "believe" the earth is round are a religion. A theory is a proposed idea:

Quote
A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking

A theory can be debunked or disproved if it's not true. The earth being flat used to be a theory. Then the earth being round was a theory. One was disproved and the other was proved by facts and science (though you still get idiots who think the earth is flat but hey, some people deny facts and logic). I think all scientific theories probably start out as abstract ideas or educated guesses or assumptions, but then you look for evidence to either support or disprove them.


Aw, did I hurt your itty-bitty feelings?

There is lots of proof for the fact that God exists. Simply check out the "Scientific proof that God exists? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0)" thread to see the proof. The simplest of the proofs is the machine nature of the universe. Machines have makers.

Everybody knows that God exists, way down in their heart. But if people don't know God that way, let me say it again:

Either you believe that God might exist, because you know that there are many place you haven't checked for Him yet, and He might be in one of those places...

Or you firmly believe that God doesn't exist, which makes you into a god, so God does exist in you simply believing that god doesn't exist. After all, it takes a god to make the faithful pronouncement that God doesn't exist, especially when it is possible that He might exist somewhere that you haven't checked out yet.

Either way, God/god exists. So, not atheist, really. But even if there could somehow be an atheist, atheism is a religion with a god... the atheist, himself.

Or can't you think clearly enough to understand all this?



The difference between atheists and the Dawkins unicorns is this. Atheism is like a unicorn trying to believe unicorns don't exist. Atheism is like a god trying to believe God/god doesn't exist.



In the God-proof thread I linked, above, there are proofs listed for God. I even mentioned one of them. This means that people who understand the proof, absolutely know that God exists. This means that they lack belief in the existence of God. Why would they lack belief in His existence? Because they know He exists by the proof found in nature and other places. It's very difficult believe something you know. If they didn't know, but only saw evidence, they might believe somewhat, based on the evidence. But since they know that God exists, they don't believe it.

The ironic thing here is that this makes people who know that God exists, more atheists than atheists themselves. Why? Because part of the definition of atheist is "lacks belief in the existence of God." People who know that God exists, lack belief both in His existence or His non-existence, because they are outside the realm of believing or not believing such a thing. They know God exists... no room for belief or unbelief or non-belief.

I mean, when you sit down at the table for supper, you don't believe the plate of food is there. Either it is there and you know it, or it is not there and you know it. No belief one way or the other involved at all. But look at the definition for "atheism:"
1.    the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.    disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
It has to do with belief or disbelief. When you know, you don't believe or disbelieve.



Theories that can't be debunked are facts, not theories.



8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 05, 2018, 08:43:03 PM
Here's the difference between science and religion:

While science is busy inventing the internet, curing diseases and putting men in to space, religion is busy foaming at the mouth with whatever you want to call that incoherent rant in the previous post.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 05, 2018, 09:27:42 PM
Here's the difference between science and religion. Religion has the answers to the main and most important questions of the universe. Science has a tiny touch of some of the details, and will take thousands of years to catch up to the important things religion already has... through revelation.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 05, 2018, 10:05:01 PM
Here's the difference between science and religion. Religion has the answers to the main and most important questions of the universe. Science has a tiny touch of some of the details, and will take thousands of years to catch up to the important things religion already has... through revelation.

8)

You forgot to add "blah, blah, I can't hear you, blah, blah...evolution is a hoax, blah, blah, I can't hear you, blah, blah".

Here is the difference between the two:

Religion provides answers without evidence.

Science provides answers based on evidence.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: adamantasaurus on September 05, 2018, 10:29:39 PM
This topic is one of my favs to talk/think about. IMHO I think religion is the precursor to science without religion, without wondering where we came from why we came here etc. etc. there would be no science. Religion and science both try to explain our lives religion in my opinion is outdated and is no longer needed because we have science to prove without a doubt what is really going on. Now if you take religious practices (such as meditation, trance states, psychedelic ceremony) and apply science to them then you can really get a firm grasp on what is going on. Religion without science is like grasping at straws and just making unprovable assumptions about life where as religion with science is taking those concepts and philosophies and really proving them through the scientific method, I believe that is where we are heading a science based philosophy instead of faith base philosophies (i say philosophy because the religion word conveys a sense of organized cult behavior)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 05, 2018, 11:18:34 PM
Here's the difference between science and religion. Religion has the answers to the main and most important questions of the universe. Science has a tiny touch of some of the details, and will take thousands of years to catch up to the important things religion already has... through revelation.

8)

You forgot to add "blah, blah, I can't hear you, blah, blah...evolution is a hoax, blah, blah, I can't hear you, blah, blah".

Here is the difference between the two:

Religion provides answers without evidence.

Science provides answers based on evidence.

Oh, oh. You goofed.

Religion provides answers based on eye witness reports.

Science provides answers in theory form, when believed as fact, are really just a form of religion.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 06, 2018, 03:39:09 AM
Here's the difference between science and religion. Religion has the answers to the main and most important questions of the universe. Science has a tiny touch of some of the details, and will take thousands of years to catch up to the important things religion already has... through revelation.

8)

You forgot to add "blah, blah, I can't hear you, blah, blah...evolution is a hoax, blah, blah, I can't hear you, blah, blah".

Here is the difference between the two:

Religion provides answers without evidence.

Science provides answers based on evidence.

Oh, oh. You goofed.

Religion provides answers based on eye witness reports.

Science provides answers in theory form, when believed as fact, are really just a form of religion.

8)

You don't understand both, religion and science.  

Frankly, I am not surprised you are religious.  You have no choice.  You were born this way.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Foxpup on September 06, 2018, 04:04:33 AM
Religion provides answers based on eye witness reports.
Let me tell you something about eyewitness reports, though I don't expect you to listen. I once served on a jury in an assault case with many eyewitnesses, all of whom disagreed on various details about what happened, and who were all completely contradicted by CCTV footage of the incident, which showed it happened completely differently to how everyone thought it did, and which completely exonerated the accused. We returned a verdict of "not guilty" based primarily on the CCTV footage. If we had to rely on eyewitness testimony, we would have convicted an innocent man.

Eyewitness testimony is worthless. People misremember things, misinterpret things they do remember, and even outright lie. It is foolish and dangerous to rely on eyewitnesses.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/x300/82143869/by-the-way-im-aware-of-the-irony-of-using-anecdotal-evidence-in-order-to-decry-it-so-dont-bother-poi.jpg


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BTCeminjas on September 06, 2018, 10:09:11 AM
Science is humankind's effort in trying to understand our environment. We came up with many methods of thought and data processing to be able to define and understand the world. Religion is not supposed to be man made. It claims to be from a higher source and is meant to be guidance. It tries to teach us of things that are intangible. Then we look at most of the Religions today, and see that we have imposed our own superstitions, strange traditions, rituals and beliefs.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: mathtoughfat on September 06, 2018, 10:26:38 AM
Science believe only when they have a tangible proof and religion are base on faith and facts that are backed-up by the bible.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 06, 2018, 01:05:32 PM
Eyewitness testimony is worthless. People misremember things, misinterpret things they do remember, and even outright lie. It is foolish and dangerous to rely on eyewitnesses.

http://www.newenglandinnocence.org/eyewitness-misidentification (http://www.newenglandinnocence.org/eyewitness-misidentification)

71% of wrongful convictions in the US that have since been overturned by DNA evidence were due to eyewitnesses being wrong.


Further, there would be absolutely no reason that people would lie, right? Right!?

https://i.imgur.com/zok4n8Fg.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_organizations)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: mhine07 on September 07, 2018, 12:31:17 AM
Science is for the people who are curious with something and they want to proof that something to be truth , science is knowledge of the people who wants to know the possibility and availability of a certain kind of things. While religion is for the people who believes in god and praises god. Religion is important to the people who are seeking some help through religious act like praying.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: vedeloper on September 07, 2018, 06:09:25 AM
Science exists, whether you believe it or not


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: guybrushthreepwood on September 07, 2018, 12:05:47 PM
Aw, did I hurt your itty-bitty feelings?

Not at all. How did you come to the conclusion that my feelings were hurt by what I just said? I thought I made a pretty rational argument.

There is lots of proof for the fact that God exists. Simply check out the "Scientific proof that God exists? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0)" thread to see the proof.

There is no proof there. Just assumptions. You can't really fully prove that something made up doesn't exist, just like you can't with Russell's teapot or the flying spaghetti monster.

The simplest of the proofs is the machine nature of the universe. Machines have makers.

Isn't god a machine? If the universe needs a designer then so does god. If he creates then he needs a creator himself. God cannot exist with your logic.

Either you believe that God might exist, because you know that there are many place you haven't checked for Him yet, and He might be in one of those places...

Or you firmly believe that God doesn't exist, which makes you into a god, so God does exist in you simply believing that god doesn't exist. After all, it takes a god to make the faithful pronouncement that God doesn't exist, especially when it is possible that He might exist somewhere that you haven't checked out yet.

Either way, God/god exists. So, not atheist, really. But even if there could somehow be an atheist, atheism is a religion with a god... the atheist, himself.

What sort of unholy twisted logic is this? It's mind-blowing the way you play mental gymnastics and twist logic to suit your argument. Not believing in a god doesn't make you a god yourself, and I'm not sure how you can even twist such logic to come to a conclusion.

Or can't you think clearly enough to understand all this?

I'm not sure you understand what clear thinking is. You've just claimed to prove the existence of god because atheists exist which means therefore god exists.

The difference between atheists and the Dawkins unicorns is this. Atheism is like a unicorn trying to believe unicorns don't exist. Atheism is like a god trying to believe God/god doesn't exist.

No. It's like unicorns not existing and some idiot trying to prove that they do just by saying "unicorns exists because you don't believe in them".

In the God-proof thread I linked, above, there are proofs listed for God. I even mentioned one of them. This means that people who understand the proof, absolutely know that God exists. This means that they lack belief in the existence of God. Why would they lack belief in His existence? Because they know He exists by the proof found in nature and other places.

Nature doesn't prove there's a creator. Nature exists because it finds a way to by adapting to its surroundings. In fact, it's nature that leads me to believe there is no god. Nature is a beast and if it had a designer it would almost certainly work much differently and kinder with likely no basis in science but just magic. If there's a god that can and does do magic with no basis is reality then why do we need to work within the confines of reality? Humans and animals wouldn't need lungs to breathe air or blood vessels to transport blood and nutrients. We wouldn't need to eat. We wouldn't need internal organs. We do because we evolved them to utilize the things we need to use as energy to function. If there's a god then we wouldn't need to eat or breathe. People wouldn't starve to death or die of cancer. People get cancer because genes mutate. Bad design, but that's evolution for you... far from perfect, because it didn't have an intelligent creator behind it.

BTW, if you're going to start worshiping nature it sounds more like you might be actually a pagan  ;D.

The ironic thing here is that this makes people who know that God exists, more atheists than atheists themselves. Why? Because part of the definition of atheist is "lacks belief in the existence of God." People who know that God exists, lack belief both in His existence or His non-existence, because they are outside the realm of believing or not believing such a thing. They know God exists... no room for belief or unbelief or non-belief.

I mean, when you sit down at the table for supper, you don't believe the plate of food is there. Either it is there and you know it, or it is not there and you know it. No belief one way or the other involved at all. But look at the definition for "atheism:"
1.    the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.    disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
It has to do with belief or disbelief. When you know, you don't believe or disbelieve.



Theories that can't be debunked are facts, not theories.



8)

I just can't even.... ???


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 07, 2018, 03:04:04 PM
Aw, did I hurt your itty-bitty feelings?

Not at all. How did you come to the conclusion that my feelings were hurt by what I just said? I thought I made a pretty rational argument. - (Do you see? In the stuff, below, this is what I am talking about) - You assume that I came to some kind of conclusion that your feelings were hurt. At least, that's the way your wrote, above. But you answered my question for what it was, a question. Then you sort of went on the defensive against what? a question? This shows that you are defensive when there is nothing to be defensive about. What in the world state of mind are you in, anyway?

There is lots of proof for the fact that God exists. Simply check out the "Scientific proof that God exists? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0)" thread to see the proof.

There is no proof there. Just assumptions. You can't really fully prove that something made up doesn't exist, just like you can't with Russell's teapot or the flying spaghetti monster. - Do you think that outer space doesn't exist simply because we can't get a handle on nothingness? Is outer space make believe? In the same way, we prove God by measuring things that prove that it was God that made them, even though we can't get a handle on God Himself. But this is talk for a different thread.

The simplest of the proofs is the machine nature of the universe. Machines have makers.

Isn't god a machine? If the universe needs a designer then so does god. If he creates then he needs a creator himself. God cannot exist with your logic. - We don't know what God is. Something outside the universe is something totally foreign to anything in this universe, including our way to evaluate it. But this is talk for a different thread.

Either you believe that God might exist, because you know that there are many place you haven't checked for Him yet, and He might be in one of those places...

Or you firmly believe that God doesn't exist, which makes you into a god, so God does exist in you simply believing that god doesn't exist. After all, it takes a god to make the faithful pronouncement that God doesn't exist, especially when it is possible that He might exist somewhere that you haven't checked out yet.

Either way, God/god exists. So, not atheist, really. But even if there could somehow be an atheist, atheism is a religion with a god... the atheist, himself.

What sort of unholy twisted logic is this? It's mind-blowing the way you play mental gymnastics and twist logic to suit your argument. Not believing in a god doesn't make you a god yourself, and I'm not sure how you can even twist such logic to come to a conclusion. - Not believing in the existence of God, when you know that He might possibly exist somewhere, is setting yourself up higher than the God of the possibility. So, you are setting yourself up as god above God to make such a judgment.

Or can't you think clearly enough to understand all this?

I'm not sure you understand what clear thinking is. You've just claimed to prove the existence of god because atheists exist which means therefore god exists. - I didn't say or claim that... at least not directly. I asked a question. Are you afraid you will be claiming that you are a god if you answer my question?

The difference between atheists and the Dawkins unicorns is this. Atheism is like a unicorn trying to believe unicorns don't exist. Atheism is like a god trying to believe God/god doesn't exist.

No. It's like unicorns not existing and some idiot trying to prove that they do just by saying "unicorns exists because you don't believe in them". - Yet, if the unicorns try to prove that they exist or don't exist... It's like us acting like god when we try to prove that God exists or doesn't. The proof for God is in the other thread.

In the God-proof thread I linked, above, there are proofs listed for God. I even mentioned one of them. This means that people who understand the proof, absolutely know that God exists. This means that they lack belief in the existence of God. Why would they lack belief in His existence? Because they know He exists by the proof found in nature and other places.

Nature doesn't prove there's a creator. - From our point of view, nature does prove that there is a creator. From the Creator's point of view, we don't know. Nature exists because it finds a way to by adapting to its surroundings. - Circular. If nature doesn't exist (like before it existed) it can't do anything. It certainly can't find a way to adapt. In fact, it's nature that leads me to believe there is no god. - Such is your religion, since nature shows the existence of God. Nature is a beast and if it had a designer it would almost certainly work much differently and kinder with likely no basis in science but just magic. If there's a god that can and does do magic with no basis is reality then why do we need to work within the confines of reality? - Such is part of your religion, since nature shows the existence of a different God. Humans and animals wouldn't need lungs to breathe air or blood vessels to transport blood and nutrients. We wouldn't need to eat. We wouldn't need internal organs. We do because we evolved them to utilize the things we need to use as energy to function. If there's a god then we wouldn't need to eat or breathe. People wouldn't starve to death or die of cancer. People get cancer because genes mutate. Bad design, but that's evolution for you... far from perfect, because it didn't have an intelligent creator behind it. - Why do you think that God wouldn't do things the way He wanted? Just because you would do things this way or that, you don't even have the ability to imagine all the things that go on in the universe. You are way to small to judge what the God of the universe would do or wouldn't do.

BTW, if you're going to start worshiping nature it sounds more like you might be actually a pagan  ;D. - Actually, you are the one who is essentially worshiping nature. How? By thinking that nature could do all the miraculous, wonderful, fantastic, marvelous things that it does without God.

The ironic thing here is that this makes people who know that God exists, more atheists than atheists themselves. Why? Because part of the definition of atheist is "lacks belief in the existence of God." People who know that God exists, lack belief both in His existence or His non-existence, because they are outside the realm of believing or not believing such a thing. They know God exists... no room for belief or unbelief or non-belief.

I mean, when you sit down at the table for supper, you don't believe the plate of food is there. Either it is there and you know it, or it is not there and you know it. No belief one way or the other involved at all. But look at the definition for "atheism:"
1.    the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.    disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
It has to do with belief or disbelief. When you know, you don't believe or disbelieve.



Theories that can't be debunked are facts, not theories.



8)

I just can't even.... ???

That's exactly the point. You can't even. All of mankind can't even. The best that people do on their own is guesstimate. And that is the precise reason why science becomes a religion for many people.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: torkinakiza on September 08, 2018, 11:20:12 AM
Hi, I see it in the following way. Religion bases its postulates on faith and science on facts. So it is true that if you destroy all science, it will always resurface in the future, which if it is not certain is whether it is the same, whether gravity exists or not. Religion depends on who initiates it and how to guide its followers and give them faith and hope.

 :D



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 08, 2018, 12:57:56 PM
Hi, I see it in the following way. Religion bases its postulates on faith and science on facts. So it is true that if you destroy all science, it will always resurface in the future, which if it is not certain is whether it is the same, whether gravity exists or not. Religion depends on who initiates it and how to guide its followers and give them faith and hope.

 :D



The interesting thing is that all people have religion (by the complete definition of religion). And in their religion, all of them use science, even if it is only some crude form of engineering - like the wheel.

The practical, in-practice, divisions between science and religion fade away as these two things blend together in the lives of all people.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 08, 2018, 02:08:38 PM
The difference between science and religion summed up in a single question:

Question: What would change your mind about your beliefs?

Catholic:     Nothing
Protestant:  Nothing
Muslim:       Nothing
Scientist:    Evidence
Atheist:      Evidence

Nuff said?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Obeng Plusss on September 08, 2018, 05:47:35 PM
You can read it in the following article
 https://athikacandra.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/perboritas-dan-persamaan-agama-dan-sains/


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CashMercenary on September 09, 2018, 11:56:16 AM
Religions vs math/science really have huge difference in terms of basis, proofs and the way how people thinks. Science contradicts religions which always finds a way to prove that what we believe in our religion is actually the opposite on what they believe. Knowledge is broad and always evolves while faith only sticks on what they believe and how they feel depending on the teaching of their religion. In science/math, they always have a solid basis or equations which makes their curiosity rises to discover new things. Religions vs math/science are in different levels my friends.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Reedah on September 09, 2018, 12:29:48 PM
Religion can also be always new only if we are keen to explore it. You will see by yourself, discovering so many new things everyday. And even in thousand years it is somehow going to be the same with God's will.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 09, 2018, 12:58:35 PM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

 That said; civilization will continue to develop things and that in science there will be new approaches to objects about the world and new mindsets that is different from the current like it will be viewed with different aspects and dimensions while religion's difference is that people will continue to believe in different things and that in return would have different impact about human behavior because of new beliefs.

However, the above is totally wrong.

1+1 never equals 2.

Why not? Because there are no two things in the universe that are the same. Mathematics and language are completely abstract.

For example. Stand a huge male elephant next to a tiny baby elephant. You might say 1 elephant + another elephant equals two elephants. You would also be correct, but only in an abstract way. Why? Because in reality, the elephant's can't be added together, because they are different. They will always be one-huge-male-elephant plus one-tiny-baby-elephant, because they will always be different... even if the tiny baby elephant grows up.

It's like trying to add apples and oranges. You can't add apples and oranges. If you call them both fruit, you have made the whole thing into an abstraction.

Because of this, mathematics will always be flawed regarding reality. The flaw is not so important when considering something as simple as 1+1. But when you get into complex math like E=mc2, the complexity starts to break down regarding its relationship with reality.

This is why relativity and many other complex mathematical theories remain as theories. They can't match reality enough to say that they are facts rather than theories. The reason is, because math is abstract. 1+1=2 doesn't exist, because there are no two things in the whole universe that are exactly the same. Even two electrons are different regarding their locations in space, if nothing else. So, they are always 1+1, never 2, except in the abstract.

Science is entirely abstract. It is a "picture" of reality that we use to get an idea of what is going on in reality. But since the picture is flawed, when we try to twist reality to match the picture, we start to destroy reality... or at least the perfect balance reality operates in.

Traditional religion, not having more than simple math involved within it, doesn't destroy reality. Rather, it enhances peoples' lives within reality.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 09, 2018, 01:31:37 PM
It has come to my attention that the story in the bible about Moses and the burning bush has a scientific explanation...

According to the bible, Moses comes across an acacia bush which is on fire at the base of Mount Horeb (commonly believed to be Mt Sinai, Egypt).  Moses then hears God talking to him, and has a short conversation with God.


Now, I'd like to get into the science of what happened that day...

85% of all acacia species tested contain psychoactive chemicals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acacia_species_known_to_contain_psychoactive_alkaloids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acacia_species_known_to_contain_psychoactive_alkaloids)

The most likely candidate species for Moses' acacia bush would be Vachellia Nilotica, the "Egyptian Acacia", aka gum arabic tree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vachellia_nilotica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vachellia_nilotica)

This species of acacia has been found to contain DMT & 5-MeO-DMT, 2 of the most powerful psychedelic/hallucinogens known to man.  DMT is known to cause hallucinations similar to a near death experience, where people often have conversations with "entities" (call them gods if you want, Moses did)

If this bush was burning, it would emit more than enough DMT in the smoke to make anyone downwind have hallucinations



To sum up, I'll give the religious vs scientific explanations:
Religious: Moses spoke with God
Science: Moses was high on DMT and hallucinated that he spoke with God


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 09, 2018, 02:54:25 PM
It has come to my attention that the story in the bible about Moses and the burning bush has a scientific explanation...

According to the bible, Moses comes across an acacia bush which is on fire at the base of Mount Horeb (commonly believed to be Mt Sinai, Egypt).  Moses then hears God talking to him, and has a short conversation with God.


Now, I'd like to get into the science of what happened that day...

85% of all acacia species tested contain psychoactive chemicals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acacia_species_known_to_contain_psychoactive_alkaloids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acacia_species_known_to_contain_psychoactive_alkaloids)

The most likely candidate species for Moses' acacia bush would be Vachellia Nilotica, the "Egyptian Acacia", aka gum arabic tree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vachellia_nilotica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vachellia_nilotica)

This species of acacia has been found to contain DMT & 5-MeO-DMT, 2 of the most powerful psychedelic/hallucinogens known to man.  DMT is known to cause hallucinations similar to a near death experience, where people often have conversations with "entities" (call them gods if you want, Moses did)

If this bush was burning, it would emit more than enough DMT in the smoke to make anyone downwind have hallucinations



To sum up, I'll give the religious vs scientific explanations:
Religious: Moses spoke with God
Science: Moses was high on DMT and hallucinated that he spoke with God

I believe a fire would have destroyed the chemical DMT, instead of releasing it.

This is not like weed where an elevated temperature is required to release the psychoactive properties.

(But I am not very knowledgable about this. Could be wrong...)

However leaving that aside, assuming he was munching on those leaves or something.

So what? Many religions have recognized psychoactive substances as being related to the spiritual.

That doesn't get you where you'd like to be in terms of conclusions.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 09, 2018, 03:55:47 PM
-snip-

You hear that, guys? Einstein was wrong because elephants can be different sizes. Groundbreaking stuff here.


So what? Many religions have recognized psychoactive substances as being related to the spiritual.

You have your conclusions back to front. Science has recognized that psychoactive substances cause hallucinations. The fact that people choose to interpret those hallucinations as religious in nature, tells you more about the irrationality of religion than anything else.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Mysterium 14 on September 09, 2018, 06:57:55 PM
The fundamental difference is that science is able to challenge all the axioms and the facts on which it is based. Scientific knowledge can sometimes be disproved. Religion is based on unsubstantiated, unverifiable axioms (postulates, dogmas), the comprehension of which is believed to be inaccessible to the human mind, and therefore they are not investigated and tested. Religion claims to be complete, absolute truth.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 09, 2018, 10:11:30 PM
-snip-

You hear that, guys? Einstein was wrong because elephants can be different sizes. Groundbreaking stuff here.


So what? Many religions have recognized psychoactive substances as being related to the spiritual.

You have your conclusions back to front. Science has recognized that psychoactive substances cause hallucinations. The fact that people choose to interpret those hallucinations as religious in nature, tells you more about the irrationality of religion than anything else.

I don't think so. Not defending religion here, but the user reports of psychoactive substances effects go far beyond "hallucinations." That's a pretty strictly defined term in psychology. Reported effects include deep insights, feelings of being one-with-the-universe, etc, etc. They explicitly include experiences which said users describe as "spiritual."

I just don't think Moloch can successfully argue against religion on the basis of some of the events described in the books being attributable to psychoactive, instead of some pure mental state or whatever.

There are many ways to argue this issue well but this isn't one of them.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: phdilanuom on September 09, 2018, 11:15:31 PM
Religion is keeping total faith in someone or something. No developments. No adaptations with the time. You can not question it. You need to believe it. Religion can never create a free thinker.
BUT the science is seeking evidence. Frequent Developments and adaptations. It can make a man a free thinker. I would have believed a religion if there is no science.   


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 09, 2018, 11:36:32 PM
-snip-

You hear that, guys? Einstein was wrong because elephants can be different sizes. Groundbreaking stuff here.


So what? Many religions have recognized psychoactive substances as being related to the spiritual.

You have your conclusions back to front. Science has recognized that psychoactive substances cause hallucinations. The fact that people choose to interpret those hallucinations as religious in nature, tells you more about the irrationality of religion than anything else.

I don't think so. Not defending religion here, but the user reports of psychoactive substances effects go far beyond "hallucinations." That's a pretty strictly defined term in psychology. Reported effects include deep insights, feelings of being one-with-the-universe, etc, etc. They explicitly include experiences which said users describe as "spiritual."

I just don't think Moloch can successfully argue against religion on the basis of some of the events described in the books being attributable to psychoactive, instead of some pure mental state or whatever.

There are many ways to argue this issue well but this isn't one of them.



Or the guy just had his schizophrenic episode.

If you talk to your God, you are religious.
If your God talks back to you, you are insane.

All people who claim they hear or see spirits are mentally ill.

Brain malfunction that is all it is.  Drug induced or not, still a malfunction.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 10, 2018, 01:39:46 AM
....
Or the guy just had his schizophrenic episode.

If you talk to your God, you are religious.
If your God talks back to you, you are insane.

All people who claim they hear or see spirits are mentally ill.

Brain malfunction that is all it is.  Drug induced or not, still a malfunction.



I wouldn't go that far.

For example, in the past people may have construed various physical phenomena as indicative of spirits. Examples.

Sun dogs and sun pillars
Lunar halos
various types of "ball lightning"

... you get the point ...

And there are various geological areas that naturally emit rather odd sounds.

Just about all of this has now been explained scientifically, but there is nothing dumb or stupid about such phenomena in the past, being explained in the context of the knowledge of the time.

In fact, the entire world view in the past was radically different. Such a simple thing as taking a sweater off in the dark, seeing all the sparks of static electricity that occur, that might be construed as spirits. Also spontaneous generation. On and on.

Don't think for a split second you are smarter or wiser than those people of those times. You simply have different frames of reference.

A subset of people who claim they hear or see spirits are mentally ill. That is a far higher percentage today than in the dim past, of course.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 10, 2018, 01:49:27 AM
I don't think so. Not defending religion here, but the user reports of psychoactive substances effects go far beyond "hallucinations." That's a pretty strictly defined term in psychology. Reported effects include deep insights, feelings of being one-with-the-universe, etc, etc. They explicitly include experiences which said users describe as "spiritual."

I just don't think Moloch can successfully argue against religion on the basis of some of the events described in the books being attributable to psychoactive, instead of some pure mental state or whatever.

There are many ways to argue this issue well but this isn't one of them.

Who said I was arguing against religion?  I simply pointed out the difference in viewpoint between religious and scientific interpretations of this particular event

Many people who have taken psychedelics consider them "spiritual" events just like Moses did.  From the reports I have heard about DMT, there is no doubt in my mind this is what happened that day.  DMT is said to be a profoundly mystical experience... the type that could start a religion... particularly if a person didn't know they were taking drugs, and thought the hallucinations were real


Anyway, I think you are wrong... I would definitely argue that a person who "spoke to god" through drug use was... unreliable to say the least

Would you believe someone these days who took LSD then claimed they spoke to god?  Of course not... why is Moses any different?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: jbjoyce on September 10, 2018, 02:24:00 AM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

i never arguing about the religion, if you have faith with your religion you never change what they believe,it's the same with science they can discover many element in this world what they experiment they can believe in this


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 10, 2018, 03:22:26 AM
I don't think so. Not defending religion here, but the user reports of psychoactive substances effects go far beyond "hallucinations." That's a pretty strictly defined term in psychology. Reported effects include deep insights, feelings of being one-with-the-universe, etc, etc. They explicitly include experiences which said users describe as "spiritual."

I just don't think Moloch can successfully argue against religion on the basis of some of the events described in the books being attributable to psychoactive, instead of some pure mental state or whatever.

There are many ways to argue this issue well but this isn't one of them.

Who said I was arguing against religion?  I simply pointed out the difference in viewpoint between religious and scientific interpretations of this particular event

Many people who have taken psychedelics consider them "spiritual" events just like Moses did.  From the reports I have heard about DMT, there is no doubt in my mind this is what happened that day.  DMT is said to be a profoundly mystical experience... the type that could start a religion... particularly if a person didn't know they were taking drugs, and thought the hallucinations were real


Anyway, I think you are wrong... I would definitely argue that a person who "spoke to god" through drug use was... unreliable to say the least

Would you believe someone these days who took LSD then claimed they spoke to god?  Of course not... why is Moses any different?

Assuming the myth has some basis in fact, after this experience Moses went and wrote some profoundly simple rules defining good and bad behavior on some stone tablets. That sets him pretty far apart from today's drug user.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 10, 2018, 04:05:16 AM
....
Or the guy just had his schizophrenic episode.

If you talk to your God, you are religious.
If your God talks back to you, you are insane.

All people who claim they hear or see spirits are mentally ill.

Brain malfunction that is all it is.  Drug induced or not, still a malfunction.



I wouldn't go that far.

For example, in the past people may have construed various physical phenomena as indicative of spirits. Examples.

Sun dogs and sun pillars
Lunar halos
various types of "ball lightning"

... you get the point ...

And there are various geological areas that naturally emit rather odd sounds.

Just about all of this has now been explained scientifically, but there is nothing dumb or stupid about such phenomena in the past, being explained in the context of the knowledge of the time.

In fact, the entire world view in the past was radically different. Such a simple thing as taking a sweater off in the dark, seeing all the sparks of static electricity that occur, that might be construed as spirits. Also spontaneous generation. On and on.

Don't think for a split second you are smarter or wiser than those people of those times. You simply have different frames of reference.

A subset of people who claim they hear or see spirits are mentally ill. That is a far higher percentage today than in the dim past, of course.

Of course people in the past did not know much about the world around them.  We see plenty of that in the scriptures.

That does not mean that when someone who sees a father like figure in the sky, with white beard and a white robe telling him what humanity should do or not do is actually sane.

Moses was mentally ill because he 'heard" God talking to him or he made the whole thing up just to gain power over other poor schmucks.

We have plenty of "Moses like" conditions in mental hospitals today.  Mentally ill people claim all kinds of unbelievable things, and when you talk to them they sound very intelligent and well spoken; and yet they are insane.

Medicine has made progress in the last 2000 years so we can identify these conditions.  Back in Moses times, nobody knew what paranoia or schizophrenia is and how to identify it.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 10, 2018, 12:36:23 PM
I don't think so. Not defending religion here, but the user reports of psychoactive substances effects go far beyond "hallucinations." That's a pretty strictly defined term in psychology. Reported effects include deep insights, feelings of being one-with-the-universe, etc, etc. They explicitly include experiences which said users describe as "spiritual."

I just don't think Moloch can successfully argue against religion on the basis of some of the events described in the books being attributable to psychoactive, instead of some pure mental state or whatever.

There are many ways to argue this issue well but this isn't one of them.

Who said I was arguing against religion?  I simply pointed out the difference in viewpoint between religious and scientific interpretations of this particular event

Many people who have taken psychedelics consider them "spiritual" events just like Moses did.  From the reports I have heard about DMT, there is no doubt in my mind this is what happened that day.  DMT is said to be a profoundly mystical experience... the type that could start a religion... particularly if a person didn't know they were taking drugs, and thought the hallucinations were real


Anyway, I think you are wrong... I would definitely argue that a person who "spoke to god" through drug use was... unreliable to say the least

Would you believe someone these days who took LSD then claimed they spoke to god?  Of course not... why is Moses any different?

Assuming the myth has some basis in fact, after this experience Moses went and wrote some profoundly simple rules defining good and bad behavior on some stone tablets. That sets him pretty far apart from today's drug user.

You must know different drug users than I do...

Ever listen to a guy named Alan Watts, or Terrence McKenna?

Ever listen to a story from anyone who has done DMT?

They all pretty much sound like Jesus, Moses, etc... it's something the drug does to you

If you are interested, here is one example from Terrence McKenna (time queued for you)... but take it with a grain of salt because every description varies a bit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNVdMATZ0_c&t=368s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNVdMATZ0_c&t=368s)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 10, 2018, 02:01:38 PM
I don't think so. Not defending religion here, but the user reports of psychoactive substances effects go far beyond "hallucinations." That's a pretty strictly defined term in psychology. Reported effects include deep insights, feelings of being one-with-the-universe, etc, etc. They explicitly include experiences which said users describe as "spiritual."

I just don't think Moloch can successfully argue against religion on the basis of some of the events described in the books being attributable to psychoactive, instead of some pure mental state or whatever.

There are many ways to argue this issue well but this isn't one of them.

Who said I was arguing against religion?  I simply pointed out the difference in viewpoint between religious and scientific interpretations of this particular event

Many people who have taken psychedelics consider them "spiritual" events just like Moses did.  From the reports I have heard about DMT, there is no doubt in my mind this is what happened that day.  DMT is said to be a profoundly mystical experience... the type that could start a religion... particularly if a person didn't know they were taking drugs, and thought the hallucinations were real


Anyway, I think you are wrong... I would definitely argue that a person who "spoke to god" through drug use was... unreliable to say the least

Would you believe someone these days who took LSD then claimed they spoke to god?  Of course not... why is Moses any different?

Assuming the myth has some basis in fact, after this experience Moses went and wrote some profoundly simple rules defining good and bad behavior on some stone tablets. That sets him pretty far apart from today's drug user.

You must know different drug users than I do...

Ever listen to a guy named Alan Watts, or Terrence McKenna?

Ever listen to a story from anyone who has done DMT?

They all pretty much sound like Jesus, Moses, etc... it's something the drug does to you

If you are interested, here is one example from Terrence McKenna (time queued for you)... but take it with a grain of salt because every description varies a bit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNVdMATZ0_c&t=368s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNVdMATZ0_c&t=368s)

Government is controlled by its desire for money.

Keeping people mildly sick keeps bringing in the money.

Surely we wouldn't want a cure fore every disease; no money for government or doctors.

Massive amounts of DMT cure everything.

No wonder government and the medical try to keep us away from pot and other hallucinogens.




I mean, play games with goofy ideas, right?

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: FortFC on September 10, 2018, 02:56:33 PM
Being a believer in 21-th century is more than a strange thing to do, of course,i'm up here for the science!


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Shaftdel on September 10, 2018, 04:05:33 PM
Science is the sum of knowledge gained from methods, principles and laws. Though proven but is ssubject to change at anytime.
While religion is a way life of people with a particular system of faith and worship due to what they believe.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 10, 2018, 11:10:45 PM
Massive amounts of DMT cure everything.

No wonder government and the medical try to keep us away from pot and other hallucinogens.

According to Terrence McKenna, someone stole a 55-gallon drum of DMT from the Army (with a dosage ~20mg, that is millions of doses)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN3NLeKMImk&t=81s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN3NLeKMImk&t=81s)
"The US Army was trying to develop and aerosol artillery shell which would land in a vietnamese village, drive everyone nuts, and you could send your people in and take over in all the confusion"



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 11, 2018, 12:48:01 AM
Massive amounts of DMT cure everything.

No wonder government and the medical try to keep us away from pot and other hallucinogens.

According to Terrence McKenna, someone stole a 55-gallon drum of DMT from the Army (with a dosage ~20mg, that is millions of doses)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN3NLeKMImk&t=81s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN3NLeKMImk&t=81s)
"The US Army was trying to develop and aerosol artillery shell which would land in a vietnamese village, drive everyone nuts, and you could send your people in and take over in all the confusion"



Now I'm confused. You are supporting science instead of religion by reference to a leading advocate of pseudoscience?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna
McKenna formulated a concept about the nature of time based on fractal patterns he claimed to have discovered in the I Ching, which he called novelty theory,[3][5] proposing this predicted the end of time in the year 2012.[5][6][7][8] His promotion of novelty theory and its connection to the Maya calendar is credited as one of the factors leading to the widespread beliefs about 2012 eschatology.[9] Novelty theory is considered pseudoscience.[10][11]


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 11, 2018, 12:57:20 AM
....

Moses was mentally ill because he 'heard" God talking to him or he made the whole thing up just to gain power over other poor schmucks.

We have plenty of "Moses like" conditions in mental hospitals today.  Mentally ill people claim all kinds of unbelievable things, and when you talk to them they sound very intelligent and well spoken; and yet they are insane.

Medicine has made progress in the last 2000 years so we can identify these conditions.  Back in Moses times, nobody knew what paranoia or schizophrenia is and how to identify it.

You are using these terms loosely and not in the correct sense scientifically. You're likely looking for "paranoid schizophenia."

I have not seen evidence of paranoid schizophrenia in the handed down reports of behavior of Moses.

People in mental hospitals ..... let's just say that they are the extremes of the spectrum of mental illness. Today, most are at home taking drugs, which control their illness until they forget to take them, and then perhaps they go shoot up a Schoo.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 11, 2018, 01:37:17 AM
....

Moses was mentally ill because he 'heard" God talking to him or he made the whole thing up just to gain power over other poor schmucks.

We have plenty of "Moses like" conditions in mental hospitals today.  Mentally ill people claim all kinds of unbelievable things, and when you talk to them they sound very intelligent and well spoken; and yet they are insane.

Medicine has made progress in the last 2000 years so we can identify these conditions.  Back in Moses times, nobody knew what paranoia or schizophrenia is and how to identify it.

You are using these terms loosely and not in the correct sense scientifically. You're likely looking for "paranoid schizophenia."

I have not seen evidence of paranoid schizophrenia in the handed down reports of behavior of Moses.

People in mental hospitals ..... let's just say that they are the extremes of the spectrum of mental illness. Today, most are at home taking drugs, which control their illness until they forget to take them, and then perhaps they go shoot up a Schoo.

LOL.  Having hallucinations and delusions is a textbook example of schizophrenia.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml

He did have delusion/hallucination of talking to God.   So the only question is how severe were his symptoms.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 11, 2018, 02:13:24 AM
....

Moses was mentally ill because he 'heard" God talking to him or he made the whole thing up just to gain power over other poor schmucks.

We have plenty of "Moses like" conditions in mental hospitals today.  Mentally ill people claim all kinds of unbelievable things, and when you talk to them they sound very intelligent and well spoken; and yet they are insane.

Medicine has made progress in the last 2000 years so we can identify these conditions.  Back in Moses times, nobody knew what paranoia or schizophrenia is and how to identify it.

You are using these terms loosely and not in the correct sense scientifically. You're likely looking for "paranoid schizophenia."

I have not seen evidence of paranoid schizophrenia in the handed down reports of behavior of Moses.

People in mental hospitals ..... let's just say that they are the extremes of the spectrum of mental illness. Today, most are at home taking drugs, which control their illness until they forget to take them, and then perhaps they go shoot up a Schoo[l].

LOL.  Having hallucinations and delusions is a textbook example of schizophrenia.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml

He did have delusion/hallucination of talking to God.   So the only question is how severe were his symptoms.

LOL! You were there, right? The Proof for the existence of God thread shows that God exists. So, there isn't any big deal in the idea of God talking to Moses.

However...
just to show you how off-base you are, the bush could have been next to a rock formation with special vibrational qualities. Some joker could have been hiding in the rock formation and tricking Moses. Moses didn't have to be hallucinating. He just might have been tricked.

So, here you are, trying to trick us into thinking you know just what went on with Moses. You are just the kind of joker who would have tried to trick Moses if you could have. And now you are trying to trick us into thinking you have even a hint of what you are talking about.

Everything you say points to your lack of any real science behind you. You talk just like it is all religion for you. And that is the trouble with most people. They are essentially all mixed up regarding the relationship between science and the religious talk they spout.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: mrmikeo on September 11, 2018, 04:20:58 AM
Well, as a religious person me who loves science I have never found the two to come into contradiction. I’ve always viewed science to be the study and search for how things came to be, whereas religion focuses as to the “Why” or the purpose of everything around us.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 11, 2018, 01:29:26 PM
just to show you how off-base you are, the bush could have been next to a rock formation with special vibrational qualities. Some joker could have been hiding in the rock formation and tricking Moses. Moses didn't have to be hallucinating. He just might have been tricked.

I feel there is enough evidence to point to Moses hallucinating on DMT.  The only question is whether this was an accident, or intentional.

Moses, having been raised in Egypt, would likely have known about "the tree of life" (aka Acacia Nilotica, aka "the Egyptian Acacia")
The Egyptians Had Their Own Version Of Ayahuasca They Called “The Tree Of Life”
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/05/31/the-tree-of-life-acacia-nilotica/ (https://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/05/31/the-tree-of-life-acacia-nilotica/)

The fact that the bible mentions the bush was burning, but did not burn up, implies knowledge of the vaporization of DMT.  DMT will degrade into other chemicals in a fire, which is why the story makes a point about the fire being small and not consuming the bush itself, only hot enough to vaporize the DMT in the plant, but not hot enough to destroy the chemical.

IMHO, this implies Moses understood DMT and its vaporization temperature.

Jews often wrote things down cryptically like this, so only those "in the know" would understand the meaning.  This is extremely common in the bible.  Other examples include astrology (Egyptians worshiped the bull [age of Torus 4000BCE-2000BCE], Abraham sacrificed the ram instead of his son Isaac [age of Aries 2000BCE-0CE], Jesus is symbolized by the fish Pisces [age of Pisces 0CE-2000CE]).  According to this theme, the next major religion should be symbolized by Aquarius [age of Aquarius 2000CE-4000CE]

Another example of Jews cryptic writings in the bible would be the number of the beast, 666/616, referring to Nero Caesar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast)

Another example of hallucinogenic drug use in the bible would be manna/mushrooms.  Anyone familiar with psychedelic mushrooms can tell you the similarity between the description of manna from heaven, and magic mushrooms growing

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NKItwp7-H5I/UFxM92vdVBI/AAAAAAAAECc/RRA1SgErqNM/s1600/62036.jpg

The bible mentions that the priests gathered up a bunch of this "manna", and put it in a pot to keep in the "holy of holies" and eat it for 40 years...


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: criza on September 11, 2018, 03:05:04 PM
One of the most, if not the most evident difference between science and religion I think is mainly its nature. The concept of religion is primarily based on faith and beliefs while the concept of science is mostly based on discovered facts and principles. Furthermore, one of tge most obvious difference between science and religion is its influence to people. Out of almost eight billion population in the world, almost 100% of it believes in science more than the percentage of people who believes in religion; and even those percentage of people believe, they surely does have different religions --- and that's how the third difference comes in. Science is universal, while religion is not.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 11, 2018, 03:16:18 PM
just to show you how off-base you are, the bush could have been next to a rock formation with special vibrational qualities. Some joker could have been hiding in the rock formation and tricking Moses. Moses didn't have to be hallucinating. He just might have been tricked.

I feel there is enough evidence to point to Moses hallucinating on DMT.  The only question is whether this was an accident, or intentional.

Moses, having been raised in Egypt, would likely have known about "the tree of life" (aka Acacia Nilotica, aka "the Egyptian Acacia")
The Egyptians Had Their Own Version Of Ayahuasca They Called “The Tree Of Life”
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/05/31/the-tree-of-life-acacia-nilotica/ (https://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/05/31/the-tree-of-life-acacia-nilotica/)

The fact that the bible mentions the bush was burning, but did not burn up, implies knowledge of the vaporization of DMT.  DMT will degrade into other chemicals in a fire, which is why the story makes a point about the fire being small and not consuming the bush itself, only hot enough to vaporize the DMT in the plant, but not hot enough to destroy the chemical.

IMHO, this implies Moses understood DMT and its vaporization temperature.

Jews often wrote things down cryptically like this, so only those "in the know" would understand the meaning.  This is extremely common in the bible.  Other examples include astrology (Egyptians worshiped the bull [age of Torus 4000BCE-2000BCE], Abraham sacrificed the ram instead of his son Isaac [age of Aries 2000BCE-0CE], Jesus is symbolized by the fish Pisces [age of Pisces 0CE-2000CE]).  According to this theme, the next major religion should be symbolized by Aquarius [age of Aquarius 2000CE-4000CE]

Another example of Jews cryptic writings in the bible would be the number of the beast, 666/616, referring to Nero Caesar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast)

Another example of hallucinogenic drug use in the bible would be manna/mushrooms.  Anyone familiar with psychedelic mushrooms can tell you the similarity between the description of manna from heaven, and magic mushrooms growing

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NKItwp7-H5I/UFxM92vdVBI/AAAAAAAAECc/RRA1SgErqNM/s1600/62036.jpg

The bible mentions that the priests gathered up a bunch of this "manna", and put it in a pot to keep in the "holy of holies" and eat it for 40 years...

This is almost exactly the kind of thing that I am trying to say in this thread.

Notice that the things in the post I am quoting, are full of DMT and other science, even though some of it is from ancient Egypt. But all of this science is pointing at a happening - the burning bush, Moses - that we have no first-hand fact about. All we have is writings in the Bible.

What does this mean? It means that scientific facts are being combined with scientific ideas which are being combined with something that we have to proof for. Yet people believe this thing that we have no proof for.



Again, the science may be 100% accurate. But when we apply this science to happenings that we don't know that it should be applied to...

or if we think that the happenings are fictional but we apply the science to them anyway...

and then we say that we believe the science applications to the unknown happenings...

aren't we turning science into a religion?



Consider. The science of DMT is known to be reasonably accurate.
The science of Moses and the burning bush is really religion.
When we apply real DMT science to religion, aren't we turning science into religion?
After all, since we don't have any provable data to the Moses thing,
how can we have provable science with it?
The whole operation falls into the religious realm.
We are turning science into a religion!

If this thread was about Moses and DMT, the whole thing might be a different story. But since it is about science and religion, the quoted post is a great example of how easily one can turn science into a religion without even realizing that he is doing so.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 12, 2018, 12:14:48 PM
When we apply real DMT science to religion, aren't we turning science into religion?

No, science is hypothesizing that Moses hallucinated via known mechanisms.  This is based on the facts which I already presented.  There is no request to "take it on faith" or any of that jazz.  I presented facts and evidence.  The evidence I presented could be tested by anyone.

That's the whole point of science.  You can test it for yourself.  Unlike religion, where you are asked to trust the writings of an ancient desert dwelling tribe without the ability to test any of their claims.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: tracymik on September 12, 2018, 01:09:22 PM
Science can be proven physically whilst religion cannot be proven physically.   Science aims to solve physical problem of mankind whilst religion seeks to solve the spiritual problems of mankind. I think both are helpful to make humans complete.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: darklus123 on September 12, 2018, 02:13:52 PM
When we apply real DMT science to religion, aren't we turning science into religion?

No, science is hypothesizing that Moses hallucinated via known mechanisms.  This is based on the facts which I already presented.  There is no request to "take it on faith" or any of that jazz.  I presented facts and evidence.  The evidence I presented could be tested by anyone.

That's the whole point of science.  You can test it for yourself.  Unlike religion, where you are asked to trust the writings of an ancient desert dwelling tribe without the ability to test any of their claims.

Then why science "can't explain the existence of life and why science can't explain if where did the evolution begins". That can simply tell us that science can't explain everything. Just imagine how did they concluded that we came from apes based on charles darwin's theory yet he cannot explain the core of evolution that he presented.

If we came from apes then where did the ape came from? From the fussil? Where did the fussil came from? So basically science cannot dig in deeper to that which makes science not completely rational IMO.

I just hate the fact that people thinks that science is perfect which is obviously not.

Everytime I ask some atheist to why science can't just simply explains everything they will always tells me that because science is still progressing. Lol seriously? That is just a pure common sense that because there is someone who created everything


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 12, 2018, 04:37:42 PM
When we apply real DMT science to religion, aren't we turning science into religion?

No, science is hypothesizing that Moses hallucinated via known mechanisms.  This is based on the facts which I already presented.  There is no request to "take it on faith" or any of that jazz.  I presented facts and evidence.  The evidence I presented could be tested by anyone.

That's the whole point of science.  You can test it for yourself.  Unlike religion, where you are asked to trust the writings of an ancient desert dwelling tribe without the ability to test any of their claims.

Hypothesizing is not what you are doing when you say that a religious person did something. Are you now stating that you don't really know what Moses did, and that you were making up a story about what he might have done?

Why didn't you say your were talking science fiction, right from the start? After all, hypotheses are not know to be facts. So, you contradict yourself, and right in the same, short paragraph.

In addition, the evidence you presented could not be tested on Moses and the burning bush. Or do you actually have time travel?

You are kinda outside thinking ability, aren't you.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 12, 2018, 05:16:09 PM
....

Moses was mentally ill because he 'heard" God talking to him or he made the whole thing up just to gain power over other poor schmucks.

We have plenty of "Moses like" conditions in mental hospitals today.  Mentally ill people claim all kinds of unbelievable things, and when you talk to them they sound very intelligent and well spoken; and yet they are insane.

Medicine has made progress in the last 2000 years so we can identify these conditions.  Back in Moses times, nobody knew what paranoia or schizophrenia is and how to identify it.

You are using these terms loosely and not in the correct sense scientifically. You're likely looking for "paranoid schizophenia."

I have not seen evidence of paranoid schizophrenia in the handed down reports of behavior of Moses.

People in mental hospitals ..... let's just say that they are the extremes of the spectrum of mental illness. Today, most are at home taking drugs, which control their illness until they forget to take them, and then perhaps they go shoot up a Schoo.

LOL.  Having hallucinations and delusions is a textbook example of schizophrenia.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml

He did have delusion/hallucination of talking to God.   So the only question is how severe were his symptoms.
No, those are not "textbook examples." Schizo. is defined by disassociation of cognitive patterns primarily. Halluc. / delusions can have many causations.

Have you ever known or associated with such people?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 12, 2018, 05:28:23 PM
....

Moses was mentally ill because he 'heard" God talking to him or he made the whole thing up just to gain power over other poor schmucks.

We have plenty of "Moses like" conditions in mental hospitals today.  Mentally ill people claim all kinds of unbelievable things, and when you talk to them they sound very intelligent and well spoken; and yet they are insane.

Medicine has made progress in the last 2000 years so we can identify these conditions.  Back in Moses times, nobody knew what paranoia or schizophrenia is and how to identify it.

You are using these terms loosely and not in the correct sense scientifically. You're likely looking for "paranoid schizophenia."

I have not seen evidence of paranoid schizophrenia in the handed down reports of behavior of Moses.

People in mental hospitals ..... let's just say that they are the extremes of the spectrum of mental illness. Today, most are at home taking drugs, which control their illness until they forget to take them, and then perhaps they go shoot up a Schoo.

LOL.  Having hallucinations and delusions is a textbook example of schizophrenia.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml

He did have delusion/hallucination of talking to God.   So the only question is how severe were his symptoms.
No, those are not "textbook examples." Schizo. is defined by disassociation of cognitive patterns primarily. Halluc. / delusions can have many causations.

Have you ever known or associated with such people?


I worked with a guy who was later diagnosed with schizophrenia.  Really smart guy, real genius, nobody knew he had mental issues.
He was undoubtedly the smartest guy on my team.  Then he had a breakdown/episode, and was hospitalized.

We visited him in a hospital, he was half a man after all the drugs they were feeding him, hard to say if what he was saying was due to drugs or his condition.  He wondered, could not recognize half of the people who visited him.  He was talking nonsense about his girlfriend in Sweden, that she will come to visit him next week, shit like that.  He never had a girlfriend, nor been to Sweden.

Years later he was released, I saw him on linkedin, he was working as an IT manager.  Then he disappeared again.
  


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 12, 2018, 08:38:00 PM
.....
I worked with a guy who was later diagnosed with schizophrenia.  Really smart guy, real genius, nobody knew he had mental issues.
He was undoubtedly the smartest guy on my team.  Then he had a breakdown/episode, and was hospitalized.

We visited him in a hospital, he was half a man after all the drugs they were feeding him, hard to say if what he was saying was due to drugs or his condition.  He wondered, could not recognize half of the people who visited him.  He was talking nonsense about his girlfriend in Sweden, that she will come to visit him next week, shit like that.  He never had a girlfriend, nor been to Sweden.

Years later he was released, I saw him on linkedin, he was working as an IT manager.  Then he disappeared again.
 
Wow. Okay, you know then. It's a tragic thing.

Where I was coming from really, was more like being unable to relate (what we know of ) the behavior, thoughts and writing of Moses with people I have known that had various mental conditions including schizophrenia.

But as you know, the guy could have been totally sane and then turned.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 12, 2018, 09:12:49 PM
LOL.  Having hallucinations and delusions is a textbook example of schizophrenia.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml

He did have delusion/hallucination of talking to God.   So the only question is how severe were his symptoms.
No, those are not "textbook examples." Schizo. is defined by disassociation of cognitive patterns primarily. Halluc. / delusions can have many causations.

Have you ever known or associated with such people?

Schnieder's First Rank Symptoms for schizophrenia include both auditory hallucinations and primary delusions.

Similarly, both hallucinations and delusions are among the DSM-V list of symptoms required for a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Yes, there are other causes, but af_newbie is right - hallucinations and delusions are literally textbook schizophrenia.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Atlantic12 on September 12, 2018, 09:22:32 PM
Science is rooted in evidence-base that is experimentation and observation. But religion is based on beliefs and faith.So they are two different phenomena altogether.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 12, 2018, 10:09:21 PM
LOL.  Having hallucinations and delusions is a textbook example of schizophrenia.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml

He did have delusion/hallucination of talking to God.   So the only question is how severe were his symptoms.
No, those are not "textbook examples." Schizo. is defined by disassociation of cognitive patterns primarily. Halluc. / delusions can have many causations.

Have you ever known or associated with such people?

Schnieder's First Rank Symptoms for schizophrenia include both auditory hallucinations and primary delusions.

Similarly, both hallucinations and delusions are among the DSM-V list of symptoms required for a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Yes, there are other causes, but af_newbie is right - hallucinations and delusions are literally textbook schizophrenia.


They do NOT in and of themselves permit a diagnosis of scizophrenia.

Let's take a look at the symptoms.

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/schizophrenia/what-is-schizophrenia

Positive psychotic symptoms: Hallucinations, such as hearing voices, paranoid delusions and exaggerated or distorted perceptions, beliefs and behaviors.

Negative symptoms: A loss or a decrease in the ability to initiate plans, speak, express emotion or find pleasure.

Disorganization symptoms: Confused and disordered thinking and speech, trouble with logical thinking and sometimes bizarre behavior or abnormal movements.

Impaired cognition: Problems with attention, concentration, memory and declining educational performance.

So with Moses you have the first but not the other three?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 12, 2018, 10:24:15 PM
Schnieder's First Rank Symptoms for schizophrenia include both auditory hallucinations and primary delusions.

Similarly, both hallucinations and delusions are among the DSM-V list of symptoms required for a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Yes, there are other causes, but af_newbie is right - hallucinations and delusions are literally textbook schizophrenia.
They do NOT in and of themselves permit a diagnosis of scizophrenia.

Yes they do.

The DSM V criteria is two or more of the following, and at least one of them must be 1, 2, or 3:

  • Delusions
  • Hallucinations
  • Disorganized speech
  • Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior
  • Negative symptoms, such as diminished emotional expression

So delusions and hallucinations together would be enough for a diagnosis provided other causes had been excluded.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 13, 2018, 01:20:13 AM
.....

So delusions and hallucinations together would be enough for a diagnosis provided other causes had been excluded.

We're pretty much in agreement if you read what I said.

Who has excluded other causes?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 14, 2018, 12:02:45 PM
When we apply real DMT science to religion, aren't we turning science into religion?

No, science is hypothesizing that Moses hallucinated via known mechanisms.  This is based on the facts which I already presented.  There is no request to "take it on faith" or any of that jazz.  I presented facts and evidence.  The evidence I presented could be tested by anyone.

That's the whole point of science.  You can test it for yourself.  Unlike religion, where you are asked to trust the writings of an ancient desert dwelling tribe without the ability to test any of their claims.

Then why science "can't explain the existence of life and why science can't explain if where did the evolution begins". That can simply tell us that science can't explain everything. Just imagine how did they concluded that we came from apes based on charles darwin's theory yet he cannot explain the core of evolution that he presented.

If we came from apes then where did the ape came from? From the fussil? Where did the fussil came from? So basically science cannot dig in deeper to that which makes science not completely rational IMO.

I just hate the fact that people thinks that science is perfect which is obviously not.

Everytime I ask some atheist to why science can't just simply explains everything they will always tells me that because science is still progressing. Lol seriously? That is just a pure common sense that because there is someone who created everything

Nobody says science is perfect...

When science doesn't know the answer, scientists say, "I don't know", which is a much better answer than religious people pulling an answer out of their ass...

I'd rather have someone say, "I don't know" than claim to have an answer they don't have, with no evidence to back up their claim.

If you want to know about evolution and where apes came from, google it... science has those answers... science can trace the path of human evolution for a billion years, basically since we were bacteria.  There is enough evidence to convince anyone if you simple look (obviously you have not looked)

If you are truly interested (you did ask the question after all), here is a video series by Aron Ra explaining it all to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW)

Aron has compiled a series of 34 videos so far, tracing human evolution from bacteria to the current day... after 34 videos, he is almost up to where humans evolved... almost

Why would you even expect science to have every answer to every question?  Is that a reasonable expectation?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 14, 2018, 01:47:41 PM
Science knows it doesn't know everything, because otherwise, it would stop.



The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins is also a great resource. It follows human evolution all the back to the origin a life. A great read for any one interested.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 14, 2018, 01:56:06 PM
When we apply real DMT science to religion, aren't we turning science into religion?

No, science is hypothesizing that Moses hallucinated via known mechanisms.  This is based on the facts which I already presented.  There is no request to "take it on faith" or any of that jazz.  I presented facts and evidence.  The evidence I presented could be tested by anyone.

That's the whole point of science.  You can test it for yourself.  Unlike religion, where you are asked to trust the writings of an ancient desert dwelling tribe without the ability to test any of their claims.

Then why science "can't explain the existence of life and why science can't explain if where did the evolution begins". That can simply tell us that science can't explain everything. Just imagine how did they concluded that we came from apes based on charles darwin's theory yet he cannot explain the core of evolution that he presented.

If we came from apes then where did the ape came from? From the fussil? Where did the fussil came from? So basically science cannot dig in deeper to that which makes science not completely rational IMO.

I just hate the fact that people thinks that science is perfect which is obviously not.

Everytime I ask some atheist to why science can't just simply explains everything they will always tells me that because science is still progressing. Lol seriously? That is just a pure common sense that because there is someone who created everything

Nobody says science is perfect...

When science doesn't know the answer, scientists say, "I don't know", which is a much better answer than religious people pulling an answer out of their ass...

I'd rather have someone say, "I don't know" than claim to have an answer they don't have, with no evidence to back up their claim.

If you want to know about evolution and where apes came from, google it... science has those answers... science can trace the path of human evolution for a billion years, basically since we were bacteria.  There is enough evidence to convince anyone if you simple look (obviously you have not looked)

If you are truly interested (you did ask the question after all), here is a video series by Aron Ra explaining it all to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW)

Aron has compiled a series of 34 videos so far, tracing human evolution from bacteria to the current day... after 34 videos, he is almost up to where humans evolved... almost

Why would you even expect science to have every answer to every question?  Is that a reasonable expectation?

Science has to be perfect. If we run a DC current through water, and use the same current and the same cind of water every time, we have to get the same result every time. Science is perfect.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 14, 2018, 01:56:57 PM
Science knows it doesn't know everything, because otherwise, it would stop.



The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins is also a great resource. It follows human evolution all the back to the origin a life. A great read for any one interested.

Great sci-fi story.    8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: darklus123 on September 14, 2018, 02:02:57 PM
Nobody says science is perfect...
When science doesn't know the answer, scientists say, "I don't know", which is a much better answer than religious people pulling an answer out of their ass...
Exactly they can't answer everything  then the last thing you can think is there "might" or should" be someone who created everything and that is where the religion start to take actions.

Quote
I'd rather have someone say, "I don't know" than claim to have an answer they don't have, with no evidence to back up their claim.

Are you talking about theist?

Quote

If you want to know about evolution and where apes came from, google it... science has those answers... science can trace the path of human evolution for a billion years, basically since we were bacteria.  There is enough evidence to convince anyone if you simple look (obviously you have not looked)



If you are truly interested (you did ask the question after all), here is a video series by Aron Ra explaining it all to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW)

Aron has compiled a series of 34 videos so far, tracing human evolution from bacteria to the current day... after 34 videos, he is almost up to where humans evolved... almost
I haven't watch the video yet but ok lets assume that this person is right. Did he explain where did the bacteria came from?

Quote
Why would you even expect science to have every answer to every question?  Is that a reasonable expectation?

Because it is also not reasonable to assume that a creator never existed based on the fact that not all things are explainable.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 14, 2018, 02:34:00 PM
Science knows it doesn't know everything, because otherwise, it would stop.



The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins is also a great resource. It follows human evolution all the back to the origin a life. A great read for any one interested.

Great sci-fi story.    8)

And there it is. There's the difference between science and religion:

Science - "here's a fully researched, peer reviewed, cross checked 800 page book laying out, in detail, the evolutionary tree of humans, with so much evidence that no sane person could doubt it".

Religion (without even reading the book) - "I'm not listening LALALALA".

This sums it up so perfectly. Logic and reason against irrationality and ignorance.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 14, 2018, 04:09:25 PM
Nobody says science is perfect...
When science doesn't know the answer, scientists say, "I don't know", which is a much better answer than religious people pulling an answer out of their ass...
Exactly they can't answer everything  then the last thing you can think is there "might" or should" be someone who created everything and that is where the religion start to take actions.

Quote
I'd rather have someone say, "I don't know" than claim to have an answer they don't have, with no evidence to back up their claim.

Are you talking about theist?

Quote

If you want to know about evolution and where apes came from, google it... science has those answers... science can trace the path of human evolution for a billion years, basically since we were bacteria.  There is enough evidence to convince anyone if you simple look (obviously you have not looked)



If you are truly interested (you did ask the question after all), here is a video series by Aron Ra explaining it all to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW)

Aron has compiled a series of 34 videos so far, tracing human evolution from bacteria to the current day... after 34 videos, he is almost up to where humans evolved... almost
I haven't watch the video yet but ok lets assume that this person is right. Did he explain where did the bacteria came from?

Quote
Why would you even expect science to have every answer to every question?  Is that a reasonable expectation?

Because it is also not reasonable to assume that a creator never existed based on the fact that not all things are explainable.


I think you decided to believe in nonsense because you NEED to have answer to everything.  Even if the answer is some supernatural being that created everything and is an answer to everything.

It is ok not to know how the first life came about.  Relax, take a deep breath, pick up a biology textbook, get to work.

That is why we have science.  To discover how the world works, to find out how that bacteria came about.

Remember, when something is not true, your belief in it will not change the outcome.

Supernatural beings do not exist, regardless of what people believe.  That is the reality.

Evolution is a fact. Earth is not flat.  Bible has been wrong all along.

PS.  That need to have answers is what drives religious folks to some batshit crazy ideas: 6 days creation, virgin conception, dome over flat Earth etc.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 14, 2018, 04:36:33 PM
based on the fact that not all things are explainable.

Sure, not all things are explainable yet, but that doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever made up nonsense you like. If the whole world did that, we would still think the Sun goes round the Earth, thunderstorms are the Gods being angry, and diseases are caused by evil spirits.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 14, 2018, 08:37:17 PM
Science knows it doesn't know everything, because otherwise, it would stop.



The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins is also a great resource. It follows human evolution all the back to the origin a life. A great read for any one interested.

Great sci-fi story.    8)

And there it is. There's the difference between science and religion:

Science - "here's a fully researched, peer reviewed, cross checked 800 page book laying out, in detail, the evolutionary tree of humans, with so much evidence that no sane person could doubt it".

Religion (without even reading the book) - "I'm not listening LALALALA".

This sums it up so perfectly. Logic and reason against irrationality and ignorance.

But nobody brought up any proof. The paper may have been peer reviewed, but what was the review all about? Did they say that it was proof? Or was it peer reviewed as somebody's idea about how things might be. Where is the proof in the paper or the peer review?

If there isn't any proof, the whole thing is part of their religion.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 15, 2018, 01:13:07 AM
based on the fact that not all things are explainable.

Sure, not all things are explainable yet, but that doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever made up nonsense you like. If the whole world did that, we would still think the Sun goes round the Earth, thunderstorms are the Gods being angry, and diseases are caused by evil spirits.

I would like a warp drive, and a fusion reactor no bigger than a desk.

It's very reasonable to think these will exist within a thousand years, likely within a hundred years.

To build them I need for starters, some pages of physics and math equations. These pages are knowable, but unknown.

Religious belief does not move us closer to having warp drives and fusion reactors.

Science is a process which actually will create a warp drive and a fusion reactor.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 15, 2018, 01:21:30 AM
based on the fact that not all things are explainable.

Sure, not all things are explainable yet, but that doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever made up nonsense you like. If the whole world did that, we would still think the Sun goes round the Earth, thunderstorms are the Gods being angry, and diseases are caused by evil spirits.

I would like a warp drive, and a fusion reactor no bigger than a desk.

It's very reasonable to think these will exist within a thousand years, likely within a hundred years.

To build them I need for starters, some pages of physics and math equations. These pages are knowable, but unknown.

Religious belief does not move us closer to having warp drives and fusion reactors.

Science is a process which actually will create a warp drive and a fusion reactor.

But the technology in our body biology is so great, that if we don't find out how to live for more that our piddly hundred years or less, going places and doing things will always come to an end.

From the point of a hundred years, looking back doesn't seem so long. But what worth is it if there is death? Are we so loving of other people that we want to help them along by developing flight to the stars for them, that we ourselves will never take part of?

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: darklus123 on September 15, 2018, 01:33:03 AM
I think you decided to believe in nonsense because you NEED to have answer to everything.  Even if the answer is some supernatural being that created everything and is an answer to everything.
Lol, if the existence of God is purely nonsense then there is no ongoing debate that is happening right now? does that make sense?


Quote

It is ok not to know how the first life came about.  Relax, take a deep breath, pick up a biology textbook, get to work.

That is why we have science.  To discover how the world works, to find out how that bacteria came about.
Bacteria came out because somebody have created it and that is the fact no matter how will you think about that or shall we say a bit of common sense will do.

Quote

Remember, when something is not true, your belief in it will not change the outcome.

Supernatural beings do not exist, regardless of what people believe.  That is the reality.

Evolution is a fact. Earth is not flat.  Bible has been wrong all along.

PS.  That need to have answers is what drives religious folks to some batshit crazy ideas: 6 days creation, virgin conception, dome over flat Earth etc.


Then take that idea out, those religious belief might not really be true but still you can think about of someone or somebody who created everything having the fact that it is just too hilarious to think that this world,universe or all creatures including those we  haven't seen yet existed out from nowhere.



Sure, not all things are explainable yet, but that doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever made up nonsense you like. If the whole world did that, we would still think the Sun goes round the Earth, thunderstorms are the Gods being angry, and diseases are caused by evil spirits.

Nonsense? as I have said if it is purely nonsense then there is no on going debate about the existence of god. Even some of the known philosophers and scientist believes in the existence of god from that fact again that they can't trace the core of life's existence.


~

Sorry your statement is just too deep for I only have basic knowledge towards english. Therefore, I don't know what are you talking about




Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 15, 2018, 01:02:22 PM
If you are truly interested (you did ask the question after all), here is a video series by Aron Ra explaining it all to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW)

Aron has compiled a series of 34 videos so far, tracing human evolution from bacteria to the current day... after 34 videos, he is almost up to where humans evolved... almost

I haven't watch the video yet but ok lets assume that this person is right. Did he explain where did the bacteria came from?

His video series is about evolution.  Abiogenesis is a completely different subject.  Wikipedia has a decent article on abiogenesis, complete with 335 cited sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)

There have been several experiments which show how abiogenesis is possible.  The first was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment)

Of course science doesn't just take the word of Miller and Urey.  Repeatability is a foundation of science.  A single experiment means nothing until it is repeated by a completely separate group of scientists.  This test, and similar tests have been repeated with positive results many times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Other_experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Other_experiments)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 16, 2018, 03:52:52 PM
If you are truly interested (you did ask the question after all), here is a video series by Aron Ra explaining it all to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW)

Aron has compiled a series of 34 videos so far, tracing human evolution from bacteria to the current day... after 34 videos, he is almost up to where humans evolved... almost

I haven't watch the video yet but ok lets assume that this person is right. Did he explain where did the bacteria came from?

His video series is about evolution.  Abiogenesis is a completely different subject.  Wikipedia has a decent article on abiogenesis, complete with 335 cited sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)

There have been several experiments which show how abiogenesis is possible.  The first was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment)

Of course science doesn't just take the word of Miller and Urey.  Repeatability is a foundation of science.  A single experiment means nothing until it is repeated by a completely separate group of scientists.  This test, and similar tests have been repeated with positive results many times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Other_experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Other_experiments)

Abiogenesis is simply a part of evolution. Trying to throw it into its own class, separate from evolution, simply shows how desperate evolutionists are to find something that shows that evolution exists. They take abiogenesis out to not have something else against the ridiculous idea of evolution.

Did you note that you said that there are experiments that show that abiogenesis is possible? These same experiments show that it takes intelligence to make abiogenesis. What would such intelligence be in nature? Are you trying to show that nature is way smarter, by multitudes of "smartness," than scientists are? I mean, scientists haven't made abiogenesis. They only show that it might be possible. They ain't smart enough to do it. But nature did it with great success, right?

Go ahead. Keep it up. Dig yourself into one hole after another. After all, it is your religion to do so >>> definition of religion #6 at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 16, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
If you are truly interested (you did ask the question after all), here is a video series by Aron Ra explaining it all to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQP_R-yiuw&list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW)

Aron has compiled a series of 34 videos so far, tracing human evolution from bacteria to the current day... after 34 videos, he is almost up to where humans evolved... almost

I haven't watch the video yet but ok lets assume that this person is right. Did he explain where did the bacteria came from?

His video series is about evolution.  Abiogenesis is a completely different subject.  Wikipedia has a decent article on abiogenesis, complete with 335 cited sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)

There have been several experiments which show how abiogenesis is possible.  The first was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment)

Of course science doesn't just take the word of Miller and Urey.  Repeatability is a foundation of science.  A single experiment means nothing until it is repeated by a completely separate group of scientists.  This test, and similar tests have been repeated with positive results many times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Other_experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Other_experiments)

Abiogenesis is simply a part of evolution

Abiogenesis has never been "a part of evolution"... abiogenesis is about the origin of life... evolution is about changes to life-forms over time... 2 completely different topics

Abiogenesis happened once (we assume), evolution happens continuously, every second of every day... totally not the same thing

Did you note that you said that there are experiments that show that abiogenesis is possible? These same experiments show that it takes intelligence to make abiogenesis.

Apparently you didn't read the experiment... no intelligence involved... it's simply chemicals in a jar where lightning changes the base chemicals into amino acids, the building blocks of life

Amino acids have been found inside meteorites from space... who put them there, God?
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life-components.html (https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life-components.html)

Why would God put all this evidence for evolution everywhere?  Just to confuse scientists?  Wouldn't it make more sense for God to leave evidence for creationism instead of evidence for evolution?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 16, 2018, 04:35:44 PM
Exactly. Did you not read Genesis where it says:

He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And then He said "Let's hide amino acids on meteorites, that'll be a laugh". And His scribe asked "What are amino acids and meteorites, my Lord?" And God said "Shut up and just write it down".


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 17, 2018, 12:15:11 AM



Abiogenesis has always been the biggest part of evolution. Evolution from inanimate to animate would be way more difficult than simply changing a little piece of animate. All of it is evolving, except that none of it happens. The only reason there is the separation is that abiogenesis is way too difficult because of the great number of positioning of atoms and molecules. Probability odds against natural abiogenesis show that it is impossible. Let's do the simple stuff, and worry about the complicated stuff, later.

Did you not see where you used the word "experiment," and then the phrase "no intelligence involved?" Are you really trying to say that scientists are unintelligent critters?

Amino acids are what? Oh, I get it. They are amino acids. I suppose when evolutionists get desperate enough, they will start to say that amino acids are life itself.

Part of your religion is to attempt to turn religion into science and science into religion, and then to say that they are completely different. Are you having trouble in any other parts of your life?

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: tsinelas on September 17, 2018, 02:35:00 AM
Science is creating facts which we believe true because of creating basis while religion is believing what we cannot prove. Science is a creation of human believing to itself that can be ruined by another study, religion as well but religion cannot be destroyed by anyone else.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BLAST2MARS on September 17, 2018, 02:47:43 AM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not


I really agree on this explanation but to me  religion is faith-based while math/science is faith-based. I know the worshippers will give it different names as they want but their motive is always to seek help or thank the Almighty One.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 17, 2018, 11:55:46 AM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

I really agree on this explanation but to me  religion is faith-based while math/science is faith-based. I know the worshippers will give it different names as they want but their motive is always to seek help or thank the Almighty One.

I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 17, 2018, 07:45:03 PM
....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 17, 2018, 10:32:57 PM
From Dictionary.com:
science
[sahy-uhns]

noun

1.    a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2.    systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3.    any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4.    systematized knowledge in general.

5.    knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6.    a particular branch of knowledge.

7.    skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Notice that science can overlap engineering, and even religion a little, right in its direct and immediate definition.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 19, 2018, 10:30:29 AM
....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 19, 2018, 02:17:12 PM
....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"


Religion doesn't appear until someone interprets their observation of facts.

Science theory is something that knowably is open to change. Therefore it is knowably not known to be fact.

When someone believes a science theory to be true and factual, he is placing it into the realm of religion for himself. Why? Because he knows that the only fact of the theoretical point is that it is a theory. So, he is basing his interpretation on the only fact available... that the science theory is factually known to not be a fact. For him the science theory point has become religion, even if it is not religion for others who do not believe that it is fact, but who only understand that it is theory.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 19, 2018, 05:55:02 PM
....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"

Actually, you are cherry picking the article in wikipedia to support your rather lame understanding of the matter. The article supports exactly what I said.

Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation. Scientists are careful to distinguish between: 1) states of affairs in the external world and 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[21].....

Consistent with the idea of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden....

The scientific method[edit]
Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method....

As an example, let's use our understanding of science to make a prediction. I will drop an apple, and it will fall. That is a prediction, not a fact. Yet it is the ability of science to accurately predict outcomes which is it's value.

EG cause and effect are verbs. Fact is a noun.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: akosipepot on September 19, 2018, 10:50:40 PM
Clear, obvious difference. Science = fact + evidence. Religion = fantasy + stupidity, gullibility, desperation.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 19, 2018, 11:11:51 PM
Clear, obvious difference. Science = fact + evidence. Religion = fantasy + stupidity, gullibility, desperation.

Now we just need to wait on BADecker showing up to tell you why you didn't mean what you said, and that you actually meant what he wants you to mean, because an online dictionary says so.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 19, 2018, 11:57:37 PM
Clear, obvious difference. Science = fact + evidence. Religion = fantasy + stupidity, gullibility, desperation.

Now we just need to wait on BADecker showing up to tell you why you didn't mean what you said, and that you actually meant what he wants you to mean, because an online dictionary says so.

Frankly on this thread I have not seen much understanding either of the nature of science or religion. Although as you point out, the noise to signal ratio may be so high as to make it impossible.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 20, 2018, 12:56:22 PM
....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"

Actually, you are cherry picking the article in wikipedia to support your rather lame understanding of the matter. The article supports exactly what I said.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

Did you even read what you quoted from wikipedia?

"a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation"

"a fact is an observation" (adjectives removed)

How is this not exactly what I said, and the opposite of what you keep saying?

Scientific Fact = objectively verifiable observation (repeatable experiments, et al)

I don't understand how you keep saying that facts are not observations, when your quote specifically says, "A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation"

What exactly do you not understand?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 20, 2018, 10:55:39 PM
....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"

Actually, you are cherry picking the article in wikipedia to support your rather lame understanding of the matter. The article supports exactly what I said.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

Did you even read what you quoted from wikipedia?

"a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation"

"a fact is an observation" (adjectives removed)

How is this not exactly what I said, and the opposite of what you keep saying?

Scientific Fact = objectively verifiable observation (repeatable experiments, et al)

I don't understand how you keep saying that facts are not observations, when your quote specifically says, "A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation"

What exactly do you not understand?

You can't even show that 1+1=2, because it doesn't. Why not? Because numbers are abstract.

Does one apple plus one orange equal two fruit? No! Because languages are abstract ideas just like numbers.

One plus one never equals two, because everything is different than everything else... at least by the space that it occupies.

Why do we use 1 + 1 = 2 (math, in other words)? Because we can make things happen that are against nature. And ultimately doing so will destroy us all, and nature right along with us if nature can't destroy us first.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: cryptothief on September 20, 2018, 11:08:37 PM
I'm guessing you took the idea for this topic from watching Ricky Gervais, unless it was said by someone else previously - which I'm sure it has???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi2AgNfQCg

I am definitely on the side of science, as even though it is constantly proving itself wrong, it accepts that and continually evolves into an ever improving version. Religion (in general) tends to ignore any other possible 'explanations', basically sticking their fingers in their ears and mumbling incoherently whenever anyone dares to question it.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 20, 2018, 11:19:53 PM
I'm guessing you took the idea for this topic from watching Ricky Gervais, unless it was said by someone else previously - which I'm sure it has???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi2AgNfQCg

I am definitely on the side of science, as even though it is constantly proving itself wrong, it accepts that and continually evolves into an ever improving version. Religion (in general) tends to ignore any other possible 'explanations', basically sticking their fingers in their ears and mumbling incoherently whenever anyone dares to question it.

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

Historically, it evolved from privative shamanistic gods-of-the-trees and rivers, to pantheism, and from there to monotheism. That in turn has obvious evolution, old to New Testament, those to Mormon stuff, or Muslim.

Indeed, the emergence of Martin Luther and protestant sects was a reaction to and an obvious evolution of the prior Catholicism. From there, you have the evangelical Christian stuff, which is a very recent development.

Religion also evolves in terms of how it adapts to and accepts science. In the past, religions were opposed to many medical and scientific practices, which today for the most part they are not opposed.

Religion also seems to adapt to local cultural practices in a number of ways.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: cryptothief on September 20, 2018, 11:31:51 PM
Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

I get your point, but only partly agree with it. Religion, as you detailed in your post, is impacted by 'local cultural practices'; for example, someone born in the Middle East is likely to be raised a Muslim, whereas someone born in Ireland is likely to be raised Catholic. This doesn't happen in science. What is true in Saudi Arabia is true in Ireland, or anywhere. Someone's religion is (99% of the time) directly linked to their place of birth, or at the very least, by those that raise them. This isn't true with science. So while I accept that religion has evolved, in some respects even diluted, it is only in how people choose to practice it or which 'almighty power' they worship.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 21, 2018, 12:51:42 AM
I'm guessing you took the idea for this topic from watching Ricky Gervais, unless it was said by someone else previously - which I'm sure it has???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi2AgNfQCg

I am definitely on the side of science, as even though it is constantly proving itself wrong, it accepts that and continually evolves into an ever improving version. Religion (in general) tends to ignore any other possible 'explanations', basically sticking their fingers in their ears and mumbling incoherently whenever anyone dares to question it.

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

Historically, it evolved from privative shamanistic gods-of-the-trees and rivers, to pantheism, and from there to monotheism. That in turn has obvious evolution, old to New Testament, those to Mormon stuff, or Muslim.

Indeed, the emergence of Martin Luther and protestant sects was a reaction to and an obvious evolution of the prior Catholicism. From there, you have the evangelical Christian stuff, which is a very recent development.

Religion also evolves in terms of how it adapts to and accepts science. In the past, religions were opposed to many medical and scientific practices, which today for the most part they are not opposed.

Religion also seems to adapt to local cultural practices in a number of ways.

The extremely interesting thing about this religion evolution is, Martin Luther took the Roman Catholic stuff, back to what it was in the early days of Catholicism. The evolution was back, not forward into something else. Along with Luther were other reformers who did the same.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 21, 2018, 01:09:00 AM
Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

I get your point, but only partly agree with it. Religion, as you detailed in your post, is impacted by 'local cultural practices'; for example, someone born in the Middle East is likely to be raised a Muslim, whereas someone born in Ireland is likely to be raised Catholic. This doesn't happen in science. What is true in Saudi Arabia is true in Ireland, or anywhere. Someone's religion is (99% of the time) directly linked to their place of birth, or at the very least, by those that raise them. This isn't true with science. So while I accept that religion has evolved, in some respects even diluted, it is only in how people choose to practice it or which 'almighty power' they worship.

Well, that's not exactly what I was thinking about. Here's an example. Catholics thought they'd have priests that didn't marry, but there were exceptions. Why? Because they had to make exceptions to get some groups to go with their plan.

Christianity had many opposed to "vivisection" in the 19th century and prior, but that's not an issue today.

Galileo, I think you know that story.

It's been noted regarding the American Indians, that those who had adaptable religions have survived, while those who had rigid precepts in their religions have not. Adaptable is of course a key to something surviving a variety of conditions for a long term.

Consider the following argument. If religion did not adapt, science would overshadow it and it would vanish. If it did adapt to new understandings, it would survive. That is assuming some innate human needs for services provided by religion of course.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 21, 2018, 01:30:34 AM
Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

I get your point, but only partly agree with it. Religion, as you detailed in your post, is impacted by 'local cultural practices'; for example, someone born in the Middle East is likely to be raised a Muslim, whereas someone born in Ireland is likely to be raised Catholic. This doesn't happen in science. What is true in Saudi Arabia is true in Ireland, or anywhere. Someone's religion is (99% of the time) directly linked to their place of birth, or at the very least, by those that raise them. This isn't true with science. So while I accept that religion has evolved, in some respects even diluted, it is only in how people choose to practice it or which 'almighty power' they worship.

Well, that's not exactly what I was thinking about. Here's an example. Catholics thought they'd have priests that didn't marry, but there were exceptions. Why? Because they had to make exceptions to get some groups to go with their plan.

Christianity had many opposed to "vivisection" in the 19th century and prior, but that's not an issue today.

Galileo, I think you know that story.

It's been noted regarding the American Indians, that those who had adaptable religions have survived, while those who had rigid precepts in their religions have not. Adaptable is of course a key to something surviving a variety of conditions for a long term.

Consider the following argument. If religion did not adapt, science would overshadow it and it would vanish. If it did adapt to new understandings, it would survive. That is assuming some innate human needs for services provided by religion of course.



Eventually, science will explain what causes people to believe in these ridiculous religious dogmas.  One day, science will figure out the cure so that people who suffer from this condition can get some help.

As for religions adapting, well, they don't have a choice.  They cannot kill all the scientists.  They tried, but failed.




Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 21, 2018, 02:48:12 AM
....
As for religions adapting, well, they don't have a choice.  They cannot kill all the scientists.  They tried, but failed.

Religion tried to kill all the scientists? Where was that?

As I mentioned, those religions which are adaptable seem to prosper much better than those which are rigid. But I used "adaptable" in a very general sense, not just science vs religion.

Note that some religions historically utterly collapsed when people with advanced tech came into the picture. Why?

How did Cortez conquer 20,000 Aztec soldiers with 400 men? Read about this and you will see the collapse of the entire Aztec belief structure, not a story of a military victory. (caution, it's a pretty bloody and sordid story).

My point: Aztec religious beliefs WERE NOT ADAPTABLE.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 21, 2018, 03:18:06 AM
....
As for religions adapting, well, they don't have a choice.  They cannot kill all the scientists.  They tried, but failed.

Religion tried to kill all the scientists? Where was that?

...

Have you been living under a rock? Or you are just pretending to be an innocent, ignorant, religious buffoon?

To answer your question, it was during inquisition, there was an open hunting season on all scientists.

What they did to Giordano Bruno is mind boggling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Just google it if you want the names. 

They tried to silence science back then, now they are trying to push their narrative in science classrooms with their "biblical science" curriculum.

Science will advance forward and push religions out to become footprints in the history books. 

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 21, 2018, 06:48:03 AM
Exactly. Did you not read Genesis where it says:

He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And then He said "Let's hide amino acids on meteorites, that'll be a laugh". And His scribe asked "What are amino acids and meteorites, my Lord?" And God said "Shut up and just write it down".


Actually Genesis says God made man from dust. Interestingly modern scientific theory is inching towards that same conclusion.


Scientists believe that we may have had our beginnings in CLAY
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488467/Scientists-believe-beginnings-CLAY.html
Quote

All life on Earth may have come from clay according to new scientific research - just as the Bible, Koran and even Greek mythology have been suggesting for thousands of years.

The latest theory is that clay - which is at its most basic, a combination of minerals in the ground - acts as a breeding laboratory for tiny molecules and chemicals which it 'absorbs like a sponge'.

The process takes billions of years, during which the chemicals react to each other to form proteins, DNA and, eventually, living cells, scientists told the journal Scientific Reports.

Biological Engineers from Cornell University's department for Nanoscale Science in New York state believe clay 'might have been the birthplace of life on Earth'.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 21, 2018, 06:59:53 AM
What is the difference between science and theology
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-difference-between-science-and.html?m=1
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
I have been reading and thinking about the nature of science, and its definitions, for a long time - probably since I saw Bronowski's TV programme The Ascent of Man in 1972.

Any comprehensive definition must be minimal - in particular there is no characteristic scientific method, nor mode (i.e. Popper was wrong, although interesting and useful) - nor does science have any essential attribute of being self-correcting, nor is science necessarily observational or empirical.

And so on.

So what made the difference between science and what went before?

*

This is the idea: Science came from philosophy and philosophy from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a social system.

Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.

Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.

*

So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.

But what is special about being a social system?

Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).

So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.

*

Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.

Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.

How did this perception arise?

1. Science as (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).

Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.

(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)

2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.

*

And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.

Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.

A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.

*

NOTE ADDED: in sum, to put it another way, progress in science was essentially a consequence of the quality and quantity of man-hours dedicated to the aim of discovering truth about the world using reason and excluding religious explanations.

When the most able truth-seeking people with leisure from subsistence increasingly shifted their interest, activity and effort away from theology into philosophy (from, say, the twelfth century onwards in the West) and then from philosophy into science (from, say, the seventeenth century) - this shifted achievement in the same direction.

And when the most able people with leisure from subsistence increasingly shifted their interest, activity and effort away from truth-seeking and into other things (especially careers) (from, say, the early-middle twentieth century) this shifted achievement into... well, bureaucracy and media distractions.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: darklus123 on September 21, 2018, 08:11:19 AM


Have you been living under a rock? Or you are just pretending to be an innocent, ignorant, religious buffoon?

To answer your question, it was during inquisition, there was an open hunting season on all scientists.

What they did to Giordano Bruno is mind boggling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Just google it if you want the names. 

They tried to silence science back then, now they are trying to push their narrative in science classrooms with their "biblical science" curriculum.

Science will advance forward and push religions out to become footprints in the history books. 

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.



Poof? so you think that atheism is the answer? Even a great scientist like Einstein believes in  the
Quote
pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.
Therefore teaching children truth is not a child abuse.


Science has nothing to do with God's existence. Therefore there is no point in using science to prove that if God really existed or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Einstein may have a different view about God but still he believes that there must be an entity that created everything. Also believing that god did not exist because of the lack of evidence cannot make you more knowledgeable than to those who believed.


As I quote

Quote
Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein)


Quote
Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."



It is a pure slap to an atheist lol.


Now I have learned that

Religions believes in science
Science does not believe in religion.
Religion respected science views, On the other hand some atheist uses Science or even Scientist to disrespect religion.


Now I still remember your question which is the honest position?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 21, 2018, 08:45:21 AM

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.


Actually the latest science says that a religious upbringing improves children's health into adulthood.

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 21, 2018, 12:43:17 PM

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.


Actually the latest science says that a religious upbringing improves children's health into adulthood.

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287


Belonging to a social club, meditating and exercising all have the same effect, without a boogie man or Santa Claus.  Not sure what your point is.

I would not hire anyone who believes that Earth is 6000 years old, or believes that the religious scriptures are the "word of God", no matter how happy and social they are.

People who believe those things lack critical thinking skills and have poor judgement.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 21, 2018, 02:24:52 PM

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.


Actually the latest science says that a religious upbringing improves children's health into adulthood.

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287


Belonging to a social club, meditating and exercising all have the same effect, without a boogie man or Santa Claus.  Not sure what your point is.

I would not hire anyone who believes that Earth is 6000 years old, or believes that the religious scriptures are the "word of God", no matter how happy and social they are.

People who believe those things lack critical thinking skills and have poor judgement.


You can't do anything without God - not even belong to a social club - because He penetrates everything if only for the purpose of holding it all in existence. Go to the Scientific proof that God exists? thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 - to see that God exists, and how He controls everything.

People who do not understand that the Earth in its present, general physics form is only about 6,000 years old, might have skills that make them worth hiring, even if they have a different religion than you.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Bunsomjelican on September 21, 2018, 02:36:08 PM
Science for me was came from knowledge, you are exploring something on which are creating by God almighty. Whether it is a creatures from land, sea, heaven, and universe and etc. While religion was a kind of group organization that has their won belief about the creator of all things in this earth.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: bivaetjetakoe on September 21, 2018, 02:41:47 PM
My friend, hello, I really liked your opinion. About religion I completely agree, do you think that religion will ever disappear from our land? :)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 21, 2018, 02:48:05 PM
Even a great scientist like Einstein believes in the "pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza."

Einstein was not a religious scholar, it was not his area of expertise.  Anyway, he was most definitely not a christian.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-659b5aac53563a25c8bc7585e3adbd9c-c

Einstein was also a Socialist...

http://noebie.net/wp-content/uploads/einstein-socialism.jpg

And extremely anti-capitalism

https://creativesystemsthinking.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/screen-shot-2016-01-18-at-10-28-05-pm.png



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 21, 2018, 02:48:49 PM

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.


Actually the latest science says that a religious upbringing improves children's health into adulthood.

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287


Belonging to a social club, meditating and exercising all have the same effect, without a boogie man or Santa Claus.  Not sure what your point is.

I would not hire anyone who believes that Earth is 6000 years old, or believes that the religious scriptures are the "word of God", no matter how happy and social they are.

People who believe those things lack critical thinking skills and have poor judgement.


You can't do anything without God - not even belong to a social club - because He penetrates everything if only for the purpose of holding it all in existence. Go to the Scientific proof that God exists? thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 - to see that God exists, and how He controls everything.

People who do not understand that the Earth in its present, general physics form is only about 6,000 years old, might have skills that make them worth hiring, even if they have a different religion than you.

8)

So I guess his 1755 earthquake in Lisbon (on All Saints day when all people were in church, the tallest buildings in the city) was a practical joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Nice going God...

Need I go on?  AIDS in newborns, flesh eating bacteria, cancer, birth defects...The list is endless of "his" creations.

The sooner you realize that there are natural forces at work, not the supernatural the better, for your own sanity.  Continue to ignore the obvious, it does not matter what you folks believe, the nature will continue to evolve, regardless of your belief in the Jewish Zombie myth.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 21, 2018, 03:45:13 PM
So I guess his 1755 earthquake in Lisbon (on All Saints day when all people were in church, the tallest buildings in the city) was a practical joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Nice going God...

Need I go on?  AIDS in newborns, flesh eating bacteria, cancer, birth defects...The list is endless of "his" creations.

The sooner you realize that there are natural forces at work, not the supernatural the better, for your own sanity.  Continue to ignore the obvious, it does not matter what you folks believe, the nature will continue to evolve, regardless of your belief in the Jewish Zombie myth.


Of course there are natural forces at work and yes they are a source of tragedy and suffering. In the larger scheme, however, such evils are the result of our ignorance and natural frailty they are also a very small relatively unimportant portion of the true evil that humanity suffers from.


The Three Kinds of Evil
https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/the-god-papers/34-the-three-kinds-of-evil/
Quote from: Rabbi Jack Abramowitz
There are three kinds of evil in the world. The first is based on the fact that man is a physical and temporal being. Because of this, we are subject to physical ailments, whether based on weaknesses in our own constitutions or exposure to harmful agents in our environments. But creation and destruction go hand in hand; the same temporal nature that requires us to ultimately perish is also what enables us to come into existence. We therefore see that our physical nature, with all its limitations, is the result of God’s kindness. And, despite our limited natures, evils of this type are relatively rare. Most people are in fairly good health and physical defects are rather uncommon.

The second type of evil is the kind that people inflict on one another, such as by physically abusing others. These are greater in number than the first kind of evil but they are still not ubiquitous. It’s pretty uncommon for a person to scheme to rob or kill his neighbor. Large numbers of people can be affected by this kind of evil in wars but, again, these are relatively infrequent in the big picture of all inhabited countries.

The third kind of evil is the type that a person inflicts upon himself. This is the largest category of evils, far greater in number than those in the second class. Only a few people are not guilty of this kind of self-inflicted harm. This type of evil is spoken of by such prophets as Malachi (1:9 – “this has been of your doing”). King Solomon also wrote of it in Proverbs. For example, in 6:32 it says, “one who does this destroys his own soul,” while 19:3 tells us that “the foolishness of man perverts his way.” Solomon also discussed this topic in Koheles (Ecclesiastes). In 7:29 he tells us, “God has made man upright but they have come up with many thoughts.” These thoughts bring evil upon man.
The evils that a person brings upon himself are because of his vices, such as a desire for more food, drink and sex than is actually necessary. People engage in too much of these things, or they enjoy them inappropriately, and it causes them both physical and spiritual injury. Since the soul resides in the body, if one accustoms himself to superfluous amenities, he simultaneously conditions his soul to crave unnecessary things. This is especially bad when you consider that actual necessities are relatively few in both number and required quantities, while superfluous things are potentially without number.

People’s thoughts can become so twisted that they’re in constant agony over their inability to acquire as much silver or gold as someone else. They will expose themselves to great danger in order to acquire things they don’t really need. When they come to ruin through their own decisions, they blame God. They curse the circumstances they blame for their inability to acquire as much wine, women and song as money could buy as if the world exists solely for their gratification. Some go so far as to disparage God, saying the if He were able, He surely would have created a world more fair than this one.

Wise people, on the other hand, live their lives consistent with the words of King David in Psalms 25:10, “All the paths of God are mercy and truth to those who keep His covenant and His testimonies.” Those who keep their own role in the universe in context see God’s mercy and truth in everything. Rather than railing against God’s judgment, they seek to better understand His ways. Their needs are modest – food and clothing in limited quantities – and they are happy with their lot. In truth, all the self-inflicted injuries stem from a desire for that which is unnecessary, so that man cannot be satisfied that his actual needs have been met.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 21, 2018, 04:48:19 PM
1) If God created the universe, and everything in it... that includes evil

2) If God created evil, God cannot be omnibenevolent

If your god is defeated by simple logic, it probably doesn't exist


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 21, 2018, 05:22:28 PM
So I guess his 1755 earthquake in Lisbon (on All Saints day when all people were in church, the tallest buildings in the city) was a practical joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Nice going God...

Need I go on?  AIDS in newborns, flesh eating bacteria, cancer, birth defects...The list is endless of "his" creations.

The sooner you realize that there are natural forces at work, not the supernatural the better, for your own sanity.  Continue to ignore the obvious, it does not matter what you folks believe, the nature will continue to evolve, regardless of your belief in the Jewish Zombie myth.


Of course there are natural forces at work and yes they are a source of tragedy and suffering. In the larger scheme, however, such evils are the result of our ignorance and natural frailty they are also a very small relatively unimportant portion of the true evil that humanity suffers from.


The Three Kinds of Evil
https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/the-god-papers/34-the-three-kinds-of-evil/
Quote from: Rabbi Jack Abramowitz
There are three kinds of evil in the world. The first is based on the fact that man is a physical and temporal being. Because of this, we are subject to physical ailments, whether based on weaknesses in our own constitutions or exposure to harmful agents in our environments. But creation and destruction go hand in hand; the same temporal nature that requires us to ultimately perish is also what enables us to come into existence. We therefore see that our physical nature, with all its limitations, is the result of God’s kindness. And, despite our limited natures, evils of this type are relatively rare. Most people are in fairly good health and physical defects are rather uncommon.

The second type of evil is the kind that people inflict on one another, such as by physically abusing others. These are greater in number than the first kind of evil but they are still not ubiquitous. It’s pretty uncommon for a person to scheme to rob or kill his neighbor. Large numbers of people can be affected by this kind of evil in wars but, again, these are relatively infrequent in the big picture of all inhabited countries.

The third kind of evil is the type that a person inflicts upon himself. This is the largest category of evils, far greater in number than those in the second class. Only a few people are not guilty of this kind of self-inflicted harm. This type of evil is spoken of by such prophets as Malachi (1:9 – “this has been of your doing”). King Solomon also wrote of it in Proverbs. For example, in 6:32 it says, “one who does this destroys his own soul,” while 19:3 tells us that “the foolishness of man perverts his way.” Solomon also discussed this topic in Koheles (Ecclesiastes). In 7:29 he tells us, “God has made man upright but they have come up with many thoughts.” These thoughts bring evil upon man.
The evils that a person brings upon himself are because of his vices, such as a desire for more food, drink and sex than is actually necessary. People engage in too much of these things, or they enjoy them inappropriately, and it causes them both physical and spiritual injury. Since the soul resides in the body, if one accustoms himself to superfluous amenities, he simultaneously conditions his soul to crave unnecessary things. This is especially bad when you consider that actual necessities are relatively few in both number and required quantities, while superfluous things are potentially without number.

People’s thoughts can become so twisted that they’re in constant agony over their inability to acquire as much silver or gold as someone else. They will expose themselves to great danger in order to acquire things they don’t really need. When they come to ruin through their own decisions, they blame God. They curse the circumstances they blame for their inability to acquire as much wine, women and song as money could buy as if the world exists solely for their gratification. Some go so far as to disparage God, saying the if He were able, He surely would have created a world more fair than this one.

Wise people, on the other hand, live their lives consistent with the words of King David in Psalms 25:10, “All the paths of God are mercy and truth to those who keep His covenant and His testimonies.” Those who keep their own role in the universe in context see God’s mercy and truth in everything. Rather than railing against God’s judgment, they seek to better understand His ways. Their needs are modest – food and clothing in limited quantities – and they are happy with their lot. In truth, all the self-inflicted injuries stem from a desire for that which is unnecessary, so that man cannot be satisfied that his actual needs have been met.

If I had a son and I would disappear when my son was born, then I would tell him (in his dream) to worship me, kill other animals including humans in my name, and I would send all imaginable diseases so that he suffers pretty much all his life, send all imaginable natural disasters so that his family is killed and he suffers, and yet I would tell him to trust me, because I love him and I have prepared hell for him when he dies if he does not do what I tell him to do, would I be a good father?

Someone needs to call the Child Protective Services on this God of yours. LOL. 

This idea that God created evil to test us is as ridiculous as the idea of the God itself.  This whole notion is unnatural.  No sane human being would want to harm his/her children, yet God somehow finds it entertaining to do just that.  Is your God mentally unstable?

Think about before you regurgitate someone else's ideas.

PS. Never mind God's commands to own slaves, subjugate women, kill gays and nonbelievers or even people who work on Sabbath.  

 


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 21, 2018, 07:44:29 PM

If I had a son and I would disappear when my son was born, then I would tell him (in his dream) to worship me, kill other animals including humans in my name, and I would send all imaginable diseases so that he suffers pretty much all his life, send all imaginable natural disasters so that his family is killed and he suffers, and yet I would tell him to trust me, because I love him and I have prepared hell for him when he dies if he does not do what I tell him to do, would I be a good father?

Someone needs to call the Child Protective Services on this God of yours. LOL.

This idea that God created evil to test us is as ridiculous as the idea of the God itself.  This whole notion is unnatural.  No sane human being would want to harm his/her children, yet God somehow finds it entertaining to do just that.  Is your God mentally unstable?

Think about before you regurgitate someone else's ideas.

PS. Never mind God's commands to own slaves, subjugate women, kill gays and nonbelievers or even people who work on Sabbath.  

 

All you are saying is that Protective Services is your God, and that they know how to raise your kids better than you do.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 21, 2018, 07:49:27 PM

So I guess his 1755 earthquake in Lisbon (on All Saints day when all people were in church, the tallest buildings in the city) was a practical joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Nice going God...

Need I go on?  AIDS in newborns, flesh eating bacteria, cancer, birth defects...The list is endless of "his" creations.

The sooner you realize that there are natural forces at work, not the supernatural the better, for your own sanity.  Continue to ignore the obvious, it does not matter what you folks believe, the nature will continue to evolve, regardless of your belief in the Jewish Zombie myth.


God protects his people.

God's people are the ones who believe in Jesus-salvation.

God even protects His people in death. He will give them new life in the resurrection. This life will take them to Heaven to be with Him in joy forever.

People who are not God's people will go to a tormentous destruction in Hell forever.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 21, 2018, 08:02:39 PM
1) If God created the universe, and everything in it... that includes evil

2) If God created evil, God cannot be omnibenevolent

If your god is defeated by simple logic, it probably doesn't exist

Ah the Epicurean paradox.

The argument that God should all prevent evil from existing is not well founded. Biblical scripture in fact explicitly states the opposite.

Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil;I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Our understanding of evil is quite limited we suffer yes but we don't necessarily see the larger picture. For every evil act, there is a possible benevolent act that can undo its harm (if only the technology or wisdom was available).

The promise of such overarching benevolence is fundamental to Christianity which states that our evils have been paid for by another and that all wrongs will eventually be made right. The world to come in Judaism is a near identical belief if it less detailed on how said future comes to be.

Now perhaps you dismiss this ideal as fantasy. Regardless, it seems clear enough to me that the outlines of such a future could eventually be manifested into reality by any intelligent species including our own with sufficient faith, time, technology and determination. Indeed the very worship of God seems destined to bring it into existence.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: pathumg on September 22, 2018, 03:18:45 AM
At the point when researchers deviate, they distribute papers with confirmation and investigations to back up their cases... the champ gets a nobel prize

At the point when religions dissent, they murder one another... no one wins :-X :-X


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 22, 2018, 11:26:27 AM
1) If God created the universe, and everything in it... that includes evil

2) If God created evil, God cannot be omnibenevolent

If your god is defeated by simple logic, it probably doesn't exist

Ah the Epicurean paradox.

The argument that God should all prevent evil from existing is not well founded. Biblical scripture in fact explicitly states the opposite.

You missed the point... Christians claim their god is omnibenevolent... which itself is a claim that god would prevent all evil from existing... it is not my argument, that is the Christian argument...

I have shown that an omnibenevolent god is an impossibility... that's how logic works, your god is contradictory and cannot exist

In a similar fashion, an omnipotent god is also an impossibility... god cannot make a boulder so big he can't lift it (or if he can, then he can't lift everything)... either way it is another paradox showing your god is contradictory and impossible to exist

If your god can be defeated so easily with logic... he definitely does not exist


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: qwertyuiop0987654321 on September 22, 2018, 11:59:47 AM
Both are parts of our life. No matter what we think about them, they regulate our daily life. Science and religions are together actually. Science is for the physical body and religion for the spiritual one. As you know, we are made of flesh and spirit. Nobody has ever proved that we are made of spirits. We can see our flesh. We cannot see our spirit. We can feel it. When we dream, we know what we can see and we understand that we are not only flesh and bones. It is thus obvious that science and religion must work together to discover and solve the mysteries of our civilizations. They must not fight but cooperate.
absolutely, for me, the difference between the two is science believe in scientific bases and studying living and non living things while religion believes that God created all living things and non living things.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 22, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
For every evil act, there is a possible benevolent act that can undo its harm (if only the technology or wisdom was available).

So what you are saying, is for every evil thing your God chose to create*, there is some technological advancement that we are yet to make that will undo its harm. So basically, science will fix the evil mess your God left behind? Got it.



*Evil your God created for no good reason, by the way. He could quite easily have created a universe that doesn't include (as a tiny example):
1 - Cancer in children, causing pain, suffering and often death
2 - A parasitic worm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onchocerciasis) that burrows out through children's eyeballs and makes them go blind
3 - Children being transmitted HIV from their mothers during birth

If you assume a god did create this universe, he/she/it is clearly monstrous, and deserves no respect or worship whatsoever.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: De Mukerere on September 22, 2018, 04:54:35 PM
1) If God created the universe, and everything in it... that includes evil

2) If God created evil, God cannot be omnibenevolent

If your god is defeated by simple logic, it probably doesn't exist

Don't be too sure your logic is objective. God created man in his imaage and after his likeness. This means that since God is a creator, man is also a creator. If man being a creator decided to go against God in handling the Earth, a home which God developed for him, don't you think he will destroy the Earth and himself with his God given ability?
Why do you go through a driving test before you get drivers license???
Or diverse rigorous training and test before you get any certification or endorsement??? It's simple! It's simple. Man knows you can destroy others and yourself with those things. So the Earth is man's training ground friends and those who were able to pass the tests gets liscesed to go to heaven. Those who were not submissive to the training process wouldn't make it. It's that simple friends.
Imagine when your institution sends you to your faculty and you refuse to take lectures in your discipline, and rather go to a friend's cos you think the vice Chancellor should come and clerify some issues to you personally. No matter how excellent you argument may be you are never going to score any point in exams.
Imagine when you buy a Ford car and you are using volks wagen parts for it's maintenance you are surely headed for an auto crash or because their are different car designs you decided not to use any car cos of reasons best known to you, who looses?

There is God friends and he is democratic in nature. Was there democracy and advocacy for respect of people and their territories anywhere in the world before the emergence of America? And yet America is the only nation of the world founded by Christians, that is why they are projecting the image of God, liberalism. God is a liberal God, that is why he has allowed all the confusion that characterised his existence. But surely a day will come when he will put an end to it. Be careful friends so that on that day you wouldn't just realized how ignorant you have been of your maker. Don't even try to feel guilty or remorseful that day cos it's only logical that nothing emerges from nowhere.

Would a Mercedes car being used on raods with holes in underdeveloped Africa blame it's maker for it's ordeal? When you have an open mind, looking around you, you will see pointers to God's existence.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 22, 2018, 05:44:41 PM
Why do you go through a driving test before you get drivers license???

That would be a good point, if it weren't completely nonsense. What about all the children who are born with incurable diseases and die in infancy? That's not exactly a fair test. What about the millions of people who born, live and die without having ever even heard of Christianity? They all get punished for eternity because an accident of geography?

There is God friends and he is democratic in nature. Was there democracy and advocacy for respect of people and their territories anywhere in the world before the emergence of America? And yet America is the only nation of the world founded by Christians, that is why they are projecting the image of God, liberalism.

Wrong again. Ancient Greece had democracy by 500 BC.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 22, 2018, 06:06:30 PM
So what you are saying, is for every evil thing your God chose to create*, there is some technological advancement that we are yet to make that will undo its harm. So basically, science will fix the evil mess your God left behind? Got it.

In the long run the moral truth is more important then the technological truth. Science is just a cooperative social system. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4933505.msg45973351#msg45973351) It's really just time and effort applied in a systemic way. What matters more then science is the foundation science is built upon. What sustains science and keeps its ends directed towards the good? Get that right and the technological progress will fall into place.

If you assume a god did create this universe, he/she/it is clearly monstrous, and deserves no respect or worship whatsoever.

Why did God create a universe that allows for human suffering? Perhaps because understanding and then overcoming evil is necessary to achieve the highest good.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 22, 2018, 06:11:39 PM
Why did God create a universe that allows for human suffering? Perhaps because understanding and then overcoming evil is necessary to achieve the highest good.

Right. So instead of just creating humans who are capable of achieving the "highest good" on their own, which an omnipotent god would easily be able to do, he decided instead to condemn millions of innocent children to a life of torment and suffering.

Your God is a maniac, and you are morally bankrupt if you try to justify children suffering in the name of "the greater good".


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 22, 2018, 06:23:27 PM

You missed the point... Christians claim their god is omnibenevolent... which itself is a claim that god would prevent all evil from existing... it is not my argument, that is the Christian argument...


Yes and I replied highlighting the problems with this logic.

Omnibenevolence does not demand God prevent all evil from existing.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 22, 2018, 06:36:18 PM
Why did God create a universe that allows for human suffering? Perhaps because understanding and then overcoming evil is necessary to achieve the highest good.

Right. So instead of just creating humans who are capable of achieving the "highest good" on their own, which an omnipotent god would easily be able to do, he decided instead to condemn millions of innocent children to a life of torment and suffering.

Your God is a maniac, and you are morally bankrupt if you try to justify children suffering in the name of "the greater good".

Are you equally torn up about the millions of animals killed in terror every day to feed humanity or the plants ripped from the ground and consumed to feed those animals?

The natural world is full of evil and good. The fundamental difference between humans and those animals is that we alone have knowledge of good and evil.

With this knowledge comes the power to transform it. To rectify and redeem the evil in ourselves and in so doing become something more then a hyper intelligent animal.

The world is not a permanent playpen for our coddling and amusement. It is a reality that calls to us and demands we grow into something better then what we are.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 22, 2018, 06:53:44 PM
Are you equally torn up about the millions of animals killed in terror every day to feed humanity or the plants ripped from the ground and consumed to feed those animals?

You completely dodged the point. It would also have been equally trivial for an omnipotent god to create a human that did not require to eat any living thing for sustenance.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 22, 2018, 07:16:38 PM

You missed the point... Christians claim their god is omnibenevolent... which itself is a claim that god would prevent all evil from existing... it is not my argument, that is the Christian argument...


Yes and I replied highlighting the problems with this logic.

Omnibenevolence does not demand God prevent all evil from existing.

If he created everything, as you claim, he is ultimately responsible.  Flesh eating bacteria, HIV in babies etc.

He is a psychopathic criminal to "create" such a world.

Actually, that is another indication that the world was not created by any intelligent being. 

No intelligent being would create the world the way your God "created" it.

No mental gymnastics can help you here.  Face it.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 22, 2018, 09:19:30 PM

You missed the point... Christians claim their god is omnibenevolent... which itself is a claim that god would prevent all evil from existing... it is not my argument, that is the Christian argument...


Yes and I replied highlighting the problems with this logic.

Omnibenevolence does not demand God prevent all evil from existing.

If he created everything, as you claim, he is ultimately responsible.  Flesh eating bacteria, HIV in babies etc.

He is a psychopathic criminal to "create" such a world.

Actually, that is another indication that the world was not created by any intelligent being. 

No intelligent being would create the world the way your God "created" it.

No mental gymnastics can help you here.  Face it.


But you of all people know that God created things perfect, and that it was mankind voluntarily and knowingly eating the fruit in the Garden that started the chain of destruction among people.

And here you are, knowing that God exists, and that God has provided salvation in Jesus, but making the destruction worse by not acknowledging Him, and by trying to talk others into not accepting Him.

So you prove that your atheism is simply a religion, and that science that believes unknown things (science theories) as truth, has turned science into a religion.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 22, 2018, 09:31:20 PM
But you of all people know that God created things perfect, and that it was mankind voluntarily and knowingly eating the fruit in the Garden that started the chain of destruction among people.

So because Adam ate a fruit, God created an insect that burrows in to the eyes of millions of children and makes them go blind.

Your God is a lunatic.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 22, 2018, 09:35:27 PM
Are you equally torn up about the millions of animals killed in terror every day to feed humanity or the plants ripped from the ground and consumed to feed those animals?

You completely dodged the point. It would also have been equally trivial for an omnipotent god to create a human that did not require to eat any living thing for sustenance.

But God did it the way He did because of the enjoyment to be found in doing things, with a wide variety of things available to do. God made some living things to be eaten, and to be filled with joy and ecstasy when they are eaten... and joy for the eaters, as well.

Consider. A plant is a much lower life form than a human. A plant will never become anywhere as great or as capable as a human. But the plant will become great like a human if a human eats the plant.



Consider Matthew 13:30:
Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.
Read the whole chapter to get the setting of the parable this passage is taken from - https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/13.htm.

The point is "then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn." What happens to wheat that is gathered into a barn? People grind it into flower, bake bread, and eat it. Those of us who are saved are going to be absorbed into God... into greatness that we can barely understand anything about at all... even though the pain of grinding in this life isn't always fun. Those who are weeds will be collected, tied and burned.

Take your pick. You still have time to become one with God. Change your way, and believe in Jesus-salvation.


8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 22, 2018, 09:46:13 PM
But you of all people know that God created things perfect, and that it was mankind voluntarily and knowingly eating the fruit in the Garden that started the chain of destruction among people.

So because Adam ate a fruit, God created an insect that burrows in to the eyes of millions of children and makes them go blind.

Your God is a lunatic.

Simply because you don't want to accept the greatness God is giving you in the universe, you would turn the idea of God into lunacy.

God made perfection. He placed His power into perfection. Mankind used the power of God to turn the perfection into evil. Such ability of mankind was the greatness which God gave them. The inertia of the power of God is what mankind used to bring evil.

God turned it around. God made a choice for people. Believe in Jesus and be saved into a new universe in the resurrection. Freedom to use God's power is still here for people. They can still freely aim for destruction, like you are doing. But, now, we also have freedom to accept Jesus-salvation.

How long does anybody live? How long does that painfully sick person live? The strongest of us - those who live in their pains and weaknesses longer than 100 years - still die. Life is short compared with eternity that will follow in the resurrection.

Your choice is to accept Jesus-salvation, and live in eternal joy in the new heavens and the new earth God is creating, or to be burned forever in the destruction of this one. Turn to accept Jesus salvation while you still have a chance.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: akosipepot on September 22, 2018, 10:33:42 PM
Clear, obvious difference. Science = fact + evidence. Religion = fantasy + stupidity, gullibility, desperation.

Now we just need to wait on BADecker showing up to tell you why you didn't mean what you said, and that you actually meant what he wants you to mean, because an online dictionary says so.

Frankly on this thread I have not seen much understanding either of the nature of science or religion. Although as you point out, the noise to signal ratio may be so high as to make it impossible.

I don't understand why we even question this, or better said why would anyone try to put science and religion in one pot; they just don't go together.
Religion is for the stupid, there is no such thing, it's all in your heads. However, science is real and provable; it cures people.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 23, 2018, 12:47:23 AM

You missed the point... Christians claim their god is omnibenevolent... which itself is a claim that god would prevent all evil from existing... it is not my argument, that is the Christian argument...


Yes and I replied highlighting the problems with this logic.

Omnibenevolence does not demand God prevent all evil from existing.

If he created everything, as you claim, he is ultimately responsible.  Flesh eating bacteria, HIV in babies etc.

He is a psychopathic criminal to "create" such a world.

Actually, that is another indication that the world was not created by any intelligent being.  

No intelligent being would create the world the way your God "created" it.

No mental gymnastics can help you here.  Face it.


But you of all people know that God created things perfect, and that it was mankind voluntarily and knowingly eating the fruit in the Garden that started the chain of destruction among people.

And here you are, knowing that God exists, and that God has provided salvation in Jesus, but making the destruction worse by not acknowledging Him, and by trying to talk others into not accepting Him.

So you prove that your atheism is simply a religion, and that science that believes unknown things (science theories) as truth, has turned science into a religion.

8)

Did your God create the flesh eating bacteria?  Yes or No please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrotizing_fasciitis


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 23, 2018, 12:57:23 AM

Did your God create the flesh eating bacteria?  Yes or No please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrotizing_fasciitis


God does everything. He does it at the request of people. He does it according to the results He wants to set in place.

The point is this. Originally there was no destruction. The devil and the first people brought destruction into play. God didn't really want any destruction, but His love pushed Him to obey their requests. However, God knows how to manipulate destruction far better than anyone else. The thing He is doing is destroying destruction.

All people die. They are essentially destroyed out of this life. When the destruction of people is done, God will destroy this universe, and resurrect His believers into a new universe that doesn't have destruction.

The unbelievers will be resurrected to be destroyed with this universe, which will take forever. If you don't turn and believe, you will have caused your own destruction.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 23, 2018, 01:19:58 AM
https://pics.me.me/my-new-invention-is-going-to-make-me-filthy-stinking-13853957.png


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 23, 2018, 02:04:59 AM

Did your God create the flesh eating bacteria?  Yes or No please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrotizing_fasciitis


God does everything. ...
8)

So he is responsible for inflicting pain and suffering?  Is he mental?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 23, 2018, 02:52:28 AM

Did your God create the flesh eating bacteria?  Yes or No please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrotizing_fasciitis


God does everything. ...
8)

So he is responsible for inflicting pain and suffering?  Is he mental?

Remember the gist of what I said. God does what we ask Him, even though He does it His own way. That is why we have bad things and problem things. We asked for the wrong things.

What are you asking for when you reject Jesus-salvation - since Jesus-salvation is the only salvation that exists. When you reject, you are asking for destruction in the dissolution of this corrupt universe. So, when God gives you what you ask for, He is just being a Nice Guy and giving you something you couldn't get for yourself if you didn't ask for it.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 23, 2018, 06:00:51 AM

Did your God create the flesh eating bacteria?  Yes or No please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrotizing_fasciitis


God does everything. ...
8)

So he is responsible for inflicting pain and suffering?  Is he mental?

Remember the gist of what I said. God does what we ask Him, even though He does it His own way. That is why we have bad things and problem things. We asked for the wrong things.

What are you asking for when you reject Jesus-salvation - since Jesus-salvation is the only salvation that exists. When you reject, you are asking for destruction in the dissolution of this corrupt universe. So, when God gives you what you ask for, He is just being a Nice Guy and giving you something you couldn't get for yourself if you didn't ask for it.

8)

So he is also deaf.  I have asked you to ask him to post on this forum with no avail.

How about all you religious freaks ask him to eliminate the flesh eating bacteria?

He will not answer because he does not exist. lol.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: ojanamon on September 23, 2018, 07:07:58 AM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not
Science and religion are two very important aspects of every human’s life. Science and religion are subjects which can be discussed extensively and still would be unfinished in the end. However, we can try to understand their differences in a very general and simplified way.

Religion:
Religion, by many people, is considered as an absolute faith, an absolute knowledge about the universe, nature, humans, and their belief in their own gods. This is a very limiting expression of what religion is. Religion is actually a collection of beliefs and systems. It includes different belief systems, cultural systems, and worldviews.
Religion developed in separate parts of the world as different beliefs, different morals, different ethics, and different lifestyles evolved. People surrendered themselves to their gods; they used religion to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, and basic human nature and laws binding them together through religion. There are many religions in the world. It has been observed that some religions emphasize more on faith while others on what they practice. Some emphasize on spirituality and personal experiences while others emphasize on rituals observed by a particular community.

Science:
Science is a study which collects, organizes, and proves or disproves the knowledge that has been collected through analysis. It studies about nature, its evolution, its forces, and different phenomenon taking place in nature with respect to each other.
For a very long time, “Science” and “Philosophy” were considered interchangeable. But after the 17th century, “philosophy” and “natural philosophy” or “natural science,” as it is called today, started being considered as different concepts. Science is, in modern times, considered “physical science” and “natural science,” or a study of chemistry, physics, biology, and geology. Natural science deals with studying the natural phenomena.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Kertmu on September 23, 2018, 09:01:17 AM
For every evil act, there is a possible benevolent act that can undo its harm (if only the technology or wisdom was available).

So what you are saying, is for every evil thing your God chose to create*, there is some technological advancement that we are yet to make that will undo its harm. So basically, science will fix the evil mess your God left behind? Got it.



*Evil your God created for no good reason, by the way. He could quite easily have created a universe that doesn't include (as a tiny example):
1 - Cancer in children, causing pain, suffering and often death
2 - A parasitic worm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onchocerciasis) that burrows out through children's eyeballs and makes them go blind
3 - Children being transmitted HIV from their mothers during birth

If you assume a god did create this universe, he/she/it is clearly monstrous, and deserves no respect or worship whatsoever.

Mothers consciously go to the birth of a child with HIV, knowingly condemning him to such a life.

It's the fault of mothers!


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 23, 2018, 10:12:13 AM

So he is also deaf.  I have asked you to ask him to post on this forum with no avail.

How about all you religious freaks ask him to eliminate the flesh eating bacteria?

He will not answer because he does not exist. lol.

Humm in a single post you managed to:

1) Demand others personally ask God to manifest before you.
2) Insist God eliminate a living species from the planet at your request.
3) Proclaim that God not does not exist.
4) Call believers of God freaks.
5) Break into laughter presumably at your own wit.

I don't see much point in further discussion. You clearly have made up your mind and show no interest in reflection or exploring the topic in a non superficial manner.

I will bow out of this thread and leave it to those with an interest in this flavor of discourse.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 23, 2018, 11:30:17 AM

So he is also deaf.  I have asked you to ask him to post on this forum with no avail.

How about all you religious freaks ask him to eliminate the flesh eating bacteria?

He will not answer because he does not exist. lol.

Humm in a single post you managed to:

1) Demand others personally ask God to manifest before you.
2) Insist God eliminate a living species from the planet at your request.
3) Proclaim that God not does not exist.
4) Call believers of God freaks.
5) Break into laughter presumably at your own wit.

I don't see much point in further discussion. You clearly have made up your mind and show no interest in reflection or exploring the topic in a non superficial manner.

I will bow out of this thread and leave it to those with an interest in this flavor of discourse.

You are still here?

Did God create the flesh eating bacteria? Yes or no?

I bet you will dodge to answer this question.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Lostchickens102 on September 23, 2018, 05:19:50 PM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

Science and religion are two different things that can be used to prove each other. The universe being so wide is so hard to understand. All of what we have known might change in an instant. We will never know what is next until we experienced it. Religion may seem to be a bit straightforward without much to consider about it factually.  While science may just be used to study about religion.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 23, 2018, 08:35:08 PM

So he is also deaf.  I have asked you to ask him to post on this forum with no avail.

How about all you religious freaks ask him to eliminate the flesh eating bacteria?

He will not answer because he does not exist. lol.

Humm in a single post you managed to:

1) Demand others personally ask God to manifest before you.
2) Insist God eliminate a living species from the planet at your request.
3) Proclaim that God not does not exist.
4) Call believers of God freaks.
5) Break into laughter presumably at your own wit.

I don't see much point in further discussion. You clearly have made up your mind and show no interest in reflection or exploring the topic in a non superficial manner.

I will bow out of this thread and leave it to those with an interest in this flavor of discourse.

You are still here?

Did God create the flesh eating bacteria? Yes or no?

I bet you will dodge to answer this question.

God is so loving that He does what people request. People requested that God convert an aspect of nature into flesh eating bacteria. So, He did it for them.

God didn't create flesh eating bacteria. He converted something else into flesh eating bacteria as people asked.

God is 100% almighty.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 23, 2018, 08:38:18 PM
God is so loving that He does what people request. People requested that God convert an aspect of nature into flesh eating bacteria. So, He did it for them.

So your god created flesh eating bacteria because someone asked for it, but ignores the millions of people who ask to be cured?

Your god is a lunatic.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 24, 2018, 12:07:17 AM

Humm in a single post you managed to:

1) Demand others personally ask God to manifest before you.
2) Insist God eliminate a living species from the planet at your request.
3) Proclaim that God not does not exist.
4) Call believers of God freaks.
5) Break into laughter presumably at your own wit.

I don't see much point in further discussion. You clearly have made up your mind and show no interest in reflection or exploring the topic in a non superficial manner.

I will bow out of this thread and leave it to those with an interest in this flavor of discourse.

You are still here?

Did God create the flesh eating bacteria? Yes or no?

I bet you will dodge to answer this question.

God created everything including bacteria. He also created something far more evil then bacteria.

God created mankind the only creation on Earth that purposefully and freely chooses evil with full knowledge of his actions.

God created a mankind so morally warped that many individuals choose deny evil actually exists or ignore it in favor of expediency.

Why does God tolerate the most fallen of his creations to exist? Why does he not snuff us all out like you want to do to your bacteria? Perhaps it's because we can grow and with time and effort rectify ourselves.

Here is a song for you. It's about a cruel God that lets three innocent people die in a horrible car wreck. Or something like that.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cP8lCapcqwM


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 24, 2018, 12:35:38 AM

Humm in a single post you managed to:

1) Demand others personally ask God to manifest before you.
2) Insist God eliminate a living species from the planet at your request.
3) Proclaim that God not does not exist.
4) Call believers of God freaks.
5) Break into laughter presumably at your own wit.

I don't see much point in further discussion. You clearly have made up your mind and show no interest in reflection or exploring the topic in a non superficial manner.

I will bow out of this thread and leave it to those with an interest in this flavor of discourse.

You are still here?

Did God create the flesh eating bacteria? Yes or no?

I bet you will dodge to answer this question.

God created everything including bacteria.
...

Are you sure?  I thought he loves people.  Why is he purposely killing us?  Is he a sadistic maniac?

Does the flesh eating bacteria also eats his flesh? You know, since we are created in his image and all.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 24, 2018, 01:06:36 AM

Are you sure?  I thought he loves people.  Why is he purposely killing us?
...


He does. That is why he is saving us inspite of ourselves.

Everybody dies. That is inevitable. The only variable is exactly how that death occurs.

The only offer of life after death on the table is through God and it requires an act of faith.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 24, 2018, 02:47:58 AM

Are you sure?  I thought he loves people.  Why is he purposely killing us?
...


He does. That is why he is saving us inspite of ourselves.

Everybody dies. That is inevitable. The only variable is exactly how that death occurs.

The only offer of immortality on the table is through God and it requires an act of faith.

That is dumb. No intelligent being would design a system this way.

All the killing and torture is unnecessary. He is like a small child, unsure of himself because he needs people to worship him?

Why would he create life in the first place? What would be the purpose?  To worship him?  He could have created some fans where ever he resides and be done with it. 

Why going through the trouble of the big bang, billions years of evolution, star formation, expanding universe, supernovas, evolution from simple bacteria to humans etc.  That just does not add up.  It is just too complicated story for the creation of an obedient, one specie of primates, on an insignificant planet, in billions of solar systems, in a galaxy, among billions of other galaxies. 

You do know that the Earth is spinning on its axis, as it goes around the Sun, as do other planets.  You do understand that the solar system itself is travelling at 230 km/s through space, around the center of our galaxy.  Our Milky Way is also moving through space at about 580 km/s.

The whole system is just overly complicated if the primary purpose of the creation was a specific member of the Ape family to worship and believe in the creator. You would have to be an idiot to design something like this if you just wanted obedient primates who would believe in you.

If I was God, I would just create everything all at once, 6000 years ago, on flat Earth, with glass dome over it, place it in the center of the universe and be done with it.

BTW, you know that immortality is physically impossible, don't you?

So the question to you is:  Is your God an idiot or a deranged psychopath who would go to extra length to satisfy his emotional needs?

PS.
He definitely does not know much about Physics or Biology to create such a mess.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 24, 2018, 05:02:28 AM

The whole system is just overly complicated if the primary purpose of the creation was a specific member of the Ape family to worship and believe in the creator. You would have to be an idiot to design something like this if you just wanted obedient primates who would believe in you.

If I was God, I would just...


Who said anything about obedient primates being the primary purpose of creation?

Why would he create life in the first place? What would be the purpose?

This is a very deep question and it goes far beyond the scope of this thread.

If you have a genuine interest in this topic the best answer I have come across is the following book.

Way of God: Derech Hashem by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/087306769X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1/159-3751462-6767111?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=NM9R7T16A9G2147WGMJX&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=1944687722&pf_rd_i=1598264672

It is an older classic 18th century religious book. It is very logical and is set out in parts that are divided into a few chapters. The parts are:
1. Fundamentals, covering The Creator, Man, Human Responsibility.
2. How Providence Works.
3. The Soul, Inspiration and Prophecy,.
4. Serving God, Love and Fear of God, Prayer.

There is a class in Seattle that went through this book chapter by chapter taught by Mark Spiro. Audio recordings of that class are available for free here.

http://www.livingjudaism.com/the-way-of-god.html

Both Moshe Chaim Luzzatto and Mark Spiro approach the issue from the Jewish tradition but I think anyone interested in God or religion will find it worthwhile. I did and I am not Jewish.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 24, 2018, 02:02:21 PM

The whole system is just overly complicated if the primary purpose of the creation was a specific member of the Ape family to worship and believe in the creator. You would have to be an idiot to design something like this if you just wanted obedient primates who would believe in you.

If I was God, I would just...


Who said anything about obedient primates being the primary purpose of creation?


Genesis.

All scriptures are preoccupied with obedience and a special purpose of man.
 
Why would he create life in the first place? What would be the purpose?

This is a very deep question and it goes far beyond the scope of this thread.

Not really.  Life was not created. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are pure lottery.  Nature tries things via processes called evolution and emergence.

How our solar system, Earth, and life on it came about is by pure lottery, trial and error.  
Things that work, continue to work, things that have some impediment, get destroyed and/or die.

Both of us might be breathing the oxygen atoms that Julius Cesar or Hitler breathed.  That coffee or tea you had this morning might have water molecules that went through Napoleon's kidney and urine.  The atoms in your body were created in some supernova somewhere, they will be returned to Sun and then end up in the universe somewhere once Sun explodes.

The fact that we are here is also pure chance.  We could have been wiped out by asteroid or nuclear war, and cockroaches could have become the dominant species.

Homo Sapiens are not special.  Do not fool yourself into thinking that.  Earth is not our planet.  It belongs to the universe, like countless other planets.

The way we are evolving, AI will replace us in few hundred years.  Universe will continue for another 20 billion years or so, then it will probably suffer a crunch and another big bang will result, with different physics and chemistry, maybe even different space time equivalent.

If you have a genuine interest in this topic the best answer I have come across is the following book.

Way of God: Derech Hashem by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/087306769X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1/159-3751462-6767111?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=NM9R7T16A9G2147WGMJX&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=1944687722&pf_rd_i=1598264672

It is an older classic 18th century religious book. It is very logical and is set out in parts that are divided into a few chapters. The parts are:
1. Fundamentals, covering The Creator, Man, Human Responsibility.
2. How Providence Works.
3. The Soul, Inspiration and Prophecy,.
4. Serving God, Love and Fear of God, Prayer.

There is a class in Seattle that went through this book chapter by chapter taught by Mark Spiro. Audio recordings of that class are available for free here.

http://www.livingjudaism.com/the-way-of-god.html

Both Moshe Chaim Luzzatto and Mark Spiro approach the issue from the Jewish tradition but I think anyone interested in God or religion will find it worthwhile. I did and I am not Jewish.

LOL.  It is like offering a pack of cigarettes to someone who quit smoking 30 years ago.  No thanks.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Bitrio on September 24, 2018, 03:42:08 PM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not


Science is based on discovering and proving, religion is based on believing - there're no proofs there and it doesn't need them.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Cannerald on September 24, 2018, 05:13:14 PM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not


Science is based on discovering and proving, religion is based on believing - there're no proofs there and it doesn't need them.
There is a saying that we as humans should just judge things we saw, felt, heard, smelled or so.
So who has ever saw god, who has ever heard god nobody right? The same things can be said about our big bang, nobody saw it...

In the end no one can ever proof things to 100% we either have faith in something we call god or we believe in the big bang and the whole precess behind it.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 24, 2018, 05:41:35 PM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not


Science is based on discovering and proving, religion is based on believing - there're no proofs there and it doesn't need them.
There is a saying that we as humans should just judge things we saw, felt, heard, smelled or so.
So who has ever saw god, who has ever heard god nobody right? The same things can be said about our big bang, nobody saw it...

In the end no one can ever proof things to 100% we either have faith in something we call god or we believe in the big bang and the whole precess behind it.

Ignorance is bliss.

The expansion (and the acceleration of thereof) of the younger universe has been observed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

Science can prove things pretty close to 100%, in most cases at 100%.

Religion does not need to prove anything.  They just state all made up shit as they go along.  God is God, that is all they know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uqiv3tCghA


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 25, 2018, 01:18:27 AM
LOL.  It is like offering a pack of cigarettes to someone who quit smoking 30 years ago.  No thanks.

Actually you have it backwards what I am doing it's much more akin to trying to talk a 30 year smoker into quitting.
I would point to the 20+ studies I have highlighted over the last few years in the Health and Religion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.0) thread to back that up.

We agree on a lot of your points but not the assumptions at the heart of your "faith".

I agree that nature tries things via processes called evolution and emergence.
I agree that Earth is one planet in a universe of countless other planets and their are likely many others very similar to it.
I agree that the the prospects of a long term future for homo sapien biological life appear quite grim.

But I am not a believer in your nihilistic faith so we part ways when you go into those core doctrines.

You cannot prove our the existence of our universe is a pure lottery this is doctrine.
You cannot prove the fact that we are here is pure chance. This is faith.
You cannot prove that we are not valuable or special this is a part of your nihilistic religion.
 
All differences aside, however, we do agree on one final point.

We agree that:
Things that work, continue to work, and things that have some impediment, get destroyed and die.

Unfortunately I appear to lack the necessary eloquence to show you that faith in God is the most important of the "Things that work".


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 25, 2018, 02:22:24 AM
LOL.  It is like offering a pack of cigarettes to someone who quit smoking 30 years ago.  No thanks.
...
You cannot prove our the existence of our universe is a pure lottery this is doctrine.

We cannot collect the evidence outside of our universe.  However, quantum fluctuations could have jump started our initial inflation.

You cannot prove the fact that we are here is pure chance. This is faith.
There is more evidence that it is than that it is not.

You cannot prove that we are not valuable or special this is a part of your nihilistic religion.

We are as special as other mammals, fish or any other living organism.
All life is special.  We are different in one respect.  We are good at story telling (myths, religious dogmas etc).
Myths is what united us early on in our human history and allowed for greater cooperation between large hordes of
hunters and gatherers. That is the only reason why we are at the top of the food chain.  Cooperation and socialization.

Unfortunately I appear to lack the necessary eloquence to show you that faith in God is the most important of the "Things that work".

Give me your best example of when God intervened to make "things that work".  I fail to see any "hand of God" in this universe.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Spendulus on September 25, 2018, 02:49:17 AM
....


We cannot collect the evidence outside of our universe.  However, quantum fluctuations could have jump started our initial inflation.
...
....

That makes zero sense, if you think it over. Outside of our own universe has no meaning.

 I don't think it's necessary to posit a means by which the initial expansion of our universe occurred. That is not needed to support the hypothesis of the Big Bang.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 25, 2018, 04:46:12 AM
Give me your best example of when God intervened to make "things that work".  I fail to see any "hand of God" in this universe.

You answered this question yourself you just don't realise it.

That is the only reason why...  Cooperation and socialization.

What does God have to do with cooperation. This is a challenging topic so I will start with the comments of miscreanity who commented on it earlier.

What is actually the worst possible outcome is to have one strategy, religion, or culture adopted by everyone.

This is the point I disagree with. I think we both agree that the optimal way to increase degrees of freedom for individuals is to allow and enable instead of controlling. A universal strategy is an essential foundation that enables freedom. Without that, we have the situation that is developing now with varying viewpoints where some sets are progressing toward destruction and others are being dragged into declining entropy. Competition can take place when there is room for growth but on a globally saturated scale, nobody wins.

Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible.

This relationship between God and cooperation is as fundamental as it is necessary. God breaks us free from ultimately self-destructive conflict and enables ever higher orders of cooperative synergy. The more we bring ourselves into alignment with God the greater the levels of cooperation that become possible.

I discussed this point in some detail here:
See: Superrationality and the Infinite (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg21680790#msg21680790)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Bitrio on September 25, 2018, 08:38:51 AM
If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not


Science is based on discovering and proving, religion is based on believing - there're no proofs there and it doesn't need them.
There is a saying that we as humans should just judge things we saw, felt, heard, smelled or so.
So who has ever saw god, who has ever heard god nobody right? The same things can be said about our big bang, nobody saw it...

In the end no one can ever proof things to 100% we either have faith in something we call god or we believe in the big bang and the whole precess behind it.


In science everything is put in question.  The big bang theory functions in those models which are worked out to prove it. As long as sth functions several times a conclusion is made that it is true and proved by science. But it doesn't mean it's really true and later can be proved false. When the Earth was believed to be flat the science considered it to be flat.
Moreover, apart from science and religion one more way to experience the world is art - perception of reality by means of images.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 25, 2018, 11:30:23 AM
Give me your best example of when God intervened to make "things that work".  I fail to see any "hand of God" in this universe.

You answered this question yourself you just don't realise it.

That is the only reason why...  Cooperation and socialization.

What does God have to do with cooperation. This is a challenging topic so I will start with the comments of miscreanity who commented on it earlier.

What is actually the worst possible outcome is to have one strategy, religion, or culture adopted by everyone.

This is the point I disagree with. I think we both agree that the optimal way to increase degrees of freedom for individuals is to allow and enable instead of controlling. A universal strategy is an essential foundation that enables freedom. Without that, we have the situation that is developing now with varying viewpoints where some sets are progressing toward destruction and others are being dragged into declining entropy. Competition can take place when there is room for growth but on a globally saturated scale, nobody wins.

Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible.

This relationship between God and cooperation is as fundamental as it is necessary. God breaks us free from ultimately self-destructive conflict and enables ever higher orders of cooperative synergy. The more we bring ourselves into alignment with God the greater the levels of cooperation that become possible.

I discussed this point in some detail here:
See: Superrationality and the Infinite (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg21680790#msg21680790)

Common myths establish an immediate trust between strangers and allow for unimpeded cooperation.

That is why people who otherwise would kill each other work together and trust each other when they believe in the same religious or political dogma.

This of course has nothing to do if the underlying dogma is true or not.

Many UFOlogists would immediately trust other UFOlogists.  Same goes for FlatEarthers, Christians or Muslims.

The lower the IQ of individuals in any given group, the easier it is to establish that common trust based on the underlying myth or belief.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 25, 2018, 02:09:35 PM
Give me your best example of when God intervened to make "things that work".  I fail to see any "hand of God" in this universe.

You answered this question yourself you just don't realise it.

That is the only reason why...  Cooperation and socialization.

What does God have to do with cooperation. This is a challenging topic so I will start with the comments of miscreanity who commented on it earlier.

What is actually the worst possible outcome is to have one strategy, religion, or culture adopted by everyone.

This is the point I disagree with. I think we both agree that the optimal way to increase degrees of freedom for individuals is to allow and enable instead of controlling. A universal strategy is an essential foundation that enables freedom. Without that, we have the situation that is developing now with varying viewpoints where some sets are progressing toward destruction and others are being dragged into declining entropy. Competition can take place when there is room for growth but on a globally saturated scale, nobody wins.

Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible.

This relationship between God and cooperation is as fundamental as it is necessary. God breaks us free from ultimately self-destructive conflict and enables ever higher orders of cooperative synergy. The more we bring ourselves into alignment with God the greater the levels of cooperation that become possible.

I discussed this point in some detail here:
See: Superrationality and the Infinite (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg21680790#msg21680790)

Common myths establish an immediate trust between strangers and allow for unimpeded cooperation.

That is why people who otherwise would kill each other work together and trust each other when they believe in the same religious or political dogma.

This of course has nothing to do if the underlying dogma is true or not.

Many UFOlogists would immediately trust other UFOlogists.  Same goes for FlatEarthers, Christians or Muslims.

The lower the IQ of individuals in any given group, the easier it is to establish that common trust based on the underlying myth or belief.


If the trust has been established, it remains even though the myths are shown for what they are... myths. How much stronger is the trust among believers, when the Bible is proven to be truth and fact.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 25, 2018, 02:31:35 PM
Give me your best example of when God intervened to make "things that work".  I fail to see any "hand of God" in this universe.

You answered this question yourself you just don't realise it.

That is the only reason why...  Cooperation and socialization.

What does God have to do with cooperation. This is a challenging topic so I will start with the comments of miscreanity who commented on it earlier.

What is actually the worst possible outcome is to have one strategy, religion, or culture adopted by everyone.

This is the point I disagree with. I think we both agree that the optimal way to increase degrees of freedom for individuals is to allow and enable instead of controlling. A universal strategy is an essential foundation that enables freedom. Without that, we have the situation that is developing now with varying viewpoints where some sets are progressing toward destruction and others are being dragged into declining entropy. Competition can take place when there is room for growth but on a globally saturated scale, nobody wins.

Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible.

This relationship between God and cooperation is as fundamental as it is necessary. God breaks us free from ultimately self-destructive conflict and enables ever higher orders of cooperative synergy. The more we bring ourselves into alignment with God the greater the levels of cooperation that become possible.

I discussed this point in some detail here:
See: Superrationality and the Infinite (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg21680790#msg21680790)

Common myths establish an immediate trust between strangers and allow for unimpeded cooperation.

That is why people who otherwise would kill each other work together and trust each other when they believe in the same religious or political dogma.

This of course has nothing to do if the underlying dogma is true or not.

Many UFOlogists would immediately trust other UFOlogists.  Same goes for FlatEarthers, Christians or Muslims.

The lower the IQ of individuals in any given group, the easier it is to establish that common trust based on the underlying myth or belief.


If the trust has been established, it remains even though the myths are shown for what they are... myths. How much stronger is the trust among believers, when the Bible is proven to be truth and fact.

8)

Re-read my post and think about it some more.

Christian myth is the same as the Flat Earther movement from the psychological point of view. Once you are part of the group with common beliefs you cling onto that belief no matter what, that is because most people (with lesser intelligence) do not want to be wrong.

You convince yourself that what you believe is true and when you see others in your group expressing their beliefs it validates your (false) belief.  Herd mentality and confirmation bias is at play here.

It is easier to abandon your false beliefs when you leave the group, and/or have good critical thinking skills.

PS. Most scientists love to be wrong, that is why you don't see too many scientists who believe in ancient myths.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 25, 2018, 07:34:56 PM

Common myths establish an immediate trust between strangers and allow for unimpeded cooperation.

That is why people who otherwise would kill each other work together and trust each other when they believe in the same religious or political dogma.

This of course has nothing to do if the underlying dogma is true or not.

...

Cooperative myths do indeed establish trust between strangers but such a process is self limited if the myths are false.

Cooperation forms a foundation that society builds itself upon. It allows for the unfolding of potential into higher orders of development. If the shared beliefs are false, that foundation will eventually fail and the society with it.

With increasing cooperation the power and understanding of a society grows progressively with time. Such understanding will explore and and expose any demonstrable untruths in the shared belief structure.

When this happens the common basis for cooperation fails and the society fragments and starts the process of collapse.

What is universe changing, however, is an inclusive paradigm that allows for genuine total and voluntary cooperation that cannot ever be falsified with progress. This is what is achieved by grounding ones foundation for cooperation in God.

God cannot be falsified (https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/), is entirely consistent with our knowledge of truth (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg35450386#msg35450386), and maximizes cooperation over time (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg16982834#msg16982834).

You are certainly free to reject God and attempt to ground your reality in some other faith. That is exactly what you have done with your embrace of nihilistic principles.

You can live your life as though your existence is simply chance.
You can deny any ultimate purpose to your existence.
You can even decide that you have no inherent value or worth.

In the long run, however, these are not viable beliefs. They have no future because they don't form the necessary foundation needed to sustain cooperation and hence life over time.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 25, 2018, 09:15:27 PM

Common myths establish an immediate trust between strangers and allow for unimpeded cooperation.

That is why people who otherwise would kill each other work together and trust each other when they believe in the same religious or political dogma.

This of course has nothing to do if the underlying dogma is true or not.

...

Cooperative myths do indeed establish trust between strangers but such a process is self limited if the myths are false.

Cooperation forms a foundation that society builds itself upon. It allows for the unfolding of potential into higher orders of development. If the shared beliefs are false, that foundation will eventually fail and the society with it.

With increasing cooperation the power and understanding of a society grows progressively with time. Such understanding will explore and and expose any demonstrable untruths in the shared belief structure.

When this happens the common basis for cooperation fails and the society fragments and starts the process of collapse.

What is universe changing, however, is an inclusive paradigm that allows for genuine total and voluntary cooperation that cannot ever be falsified with progress. This is what is achieved by grounding ones foundation for cooperation in God.

God cannot be falsified (https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/), is entirely consistent with our knowledge of truth (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg35450386#msg35450386), and maximizes cooperation over time (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg16982834#msg16982834).

You are certainly free to reject God and attempt to ground your reality in some other faith. That is exactly what you have done with your embrace of nihilistic principles.

You can live your life as though your existence is simply chance.
You can deny any ultimate purpose to your existence.
You can even decide that you have no inherent value or worth.

In the long run, however, these are not viable beliefs. They have no future because they don't form the necessary foundation needed to sustain cooperation and hence life over time.


Not if the participants do not know that the underlying myth is false.

Who said there is no purpose of your existence in absence of a common supernatural myth?

The purpose of any living organism is to procreate. Trees, fish, humans or any other living thing have this in common.  Pass your genes to the next generation.  Have you ever wondered why grandparents are happy to see their grandchildren?   Thanks to science not supernatural myths we know better how life forms function.

If you ever farmed or did some gardening you would understand that plants and animals go to extra lengths to pass their seeds, and make sure that some of the seeds germinate and start a new life.  This is true universally all across the animal and plant kingdoms.

The superimposed purpose provided by a supernatural myth is just that.  Nothing to do with reality.

BTW, most secular nations around the world function quite well.  The religious governments are the most oppressive; Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Israel (although they consider themselves a secular nation) etc.  Your notion that you need a religious supernatural myth to unite a nation is just false.  

Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: darklus123 on September 26, 2018, 12:40:01 AM

Einstein was not a religious scholar, it was not his area of expertise.  Anyway, he was most definitely not a christian

Einstein was also a Socialist...
And extremely anti-capitalism



Well, it doesn't matter if he is a christian or not. Based on the given statement from Wikipedia which i give you the link. It is pretty obvious and clear and factual that Einstein believes of an entity "who","that","which" created everything.

A quote from just someones blog is not so reliable at all.

He is not an atheist either :P


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on September 26, 2018, 01:16:26 AM
Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.

No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.

Similarly your stated purpose of competitive reproductive and genetic supremacy is barren ground to organise a society around. We saw this tried in the 1940s and the horrors it leads to.

You are correct that every human theocracy is and will continue to be terrible but that is a separate topic related to human ignorance, and lust for power.

We are not going to agree so I am going to give you the last word in this conversation.

I will leave you with a different book recommendation since you were not interested in the religious one. Here is a science fiction series related to the topics discussed above. It is totally free of any talk of God.


For those that like science fiction I recently read the Doom Star Series by Vaughn Hepner. It is interesting social commentary underneath a good story.
https://www.amazon.com/Star-Soldier-Doom-Book-ebook/dp/B003SNJVH4

It envisions a dystopian future where humanity has terraformed and spread throughout the solar system and traditional religion appears to have has died out or been suppressed.

Humanity has splintered into various ideological factions. Earth is under the control of a stifling planet wide socialism. Mars and Venus are under the control of genetically engineered super humans who believe their superiority gives them the right to rule. Jupiter is controlled by philosopher kings who value only logic. Total laissez-faire capitalism dominates the outer planets and on the edges of the solar system a group seeks to create the ultimate controllable soldier by mixing man and machine.

As the story progress the various groups compete for dominance committing ever more horrific acts of evil that are completely justified by their various philosophies. It is quite clear that in this future humanity is in danger of extinction as the self-inflected horrors worsen and billions start to die.

The series is subtle social commentary the reader slowly realizes that while some ideological groups are better then others they are all pretty bad.

It is a vision of a future without God where religion in the form of various ideological and political constructs is very much alive and well.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 26, 2018, 01:42:37 AM
God is so loving that He does what people request. People requested that God convert an aspect of nature into flesh eating bacteria. So, He did it for them.

So your god created flesh eating bacteria because someone asked for it, but ignores the millions of people who ask to be cured?

Your god is a lunatic.

No. You are the lunatic. Why? Because God created salvation for all people... Jesus salvation for them. You know this, yet you won't save yourself by turning to believe. You're an utter stupid lunatic to reject the only salvation that there is.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 26, 2018, 01:46:38 AM

Humm in a single post you managed to:

1) Demand others personally ask God to manifest before you.
2) Insist God eliminate a living species from the planet at your request.
3) Proclaim that God not does not exist.
4) Call believers of God freaks.
5) Break into laughter presumably at your own wit.

I don't see much point in further discussion. You clearly have made up your mind and show no interest in reflection or exploring the topic in a non superficial manner.

I will bow out of this thread and leave it to those with an interest in this flavor of discourse.

You are still here?

Did God create the flesh eating bacteria? Yes or no?

I bet you will dodge to answer this question.

God created everything including bacteria.
...

Are you sure?  I thought he loves people.  Why is he purposely killing us?  Is he a sadistic maniac?

Does the flesh eating bacteria also eats his flesh? You know, since we are created in his image and all.


Did you forget already? God loved us. So He did what we asked by giving us the results of our sin that we asked for. Then, when we asked for salvation, He sent Jesus to die on the cross to save us.

So, God gave us destruction and salvation like we asked for... well, some of us. Looks to me like you are continuing to ask for destruction.

Poor Jesus. Took suffering and death on the cross for you. And you are just throwing it away. (Sigh!) We're all going to miss you in Heaven.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 26, 2018, 01:51:44 AM

Are you sure?  I thought he loves people.  Why is he purposely killing us?
...


He does. That is why he is saving us inspite of ourselves.

Everybody dies. That is inevitable. The only variable is exactly how that death occurs.

The only offer of immortality on the table is through God and it requires an act of faith.

That is dumb. No intelligent being would design a system this way.

All the killing and torture is unnecessary. He is like a small child, unsure of himself because he needs people to worship him?

Why would he create life in the first place? What would be the purpose?  To worship him?  He could have created some fans where ever he resides and be done with it.  

Why going through the trouble of the big bang, billions years of evolution, star formation, expanding universe, supernovas, evolution from simple bacteria to humans etc.  That just does not add up.  It is just too complicated story for the creation of an obedient, one specie of primates, on an insignificant planet, in billions of solar systems, in a galaxy, among billions of other galaxies.  

You do know that the Earth is spinning on its axis, as it goes around the Sun, as do other planets.  You do understand that the solar system itself is travelling at 230 km/s through space, around the center of our galaxy.  Our Milky Way is also moving through space at about 580 km/s.

The whole system is just overly complicated if the primary purpose of the creation was a specific member of the Ape family to worship and believe in the creator. You would have to be an idiot to design something like this if you just wanted obedient primates who would believe in you.

If I was God, I would just create everything all at once, 6000 years ago, on flat Earth, with glass dome over it, place it in the center of the universe and be done with it.

BTW, you know that immortality is physically impossible, don't you?

So the question to you is:  Is your God an idiot or a deranged psychopath who would go to extra length to satisfy his emotional needs?

PS.
He definitely does not know much about Physics or Biology to create such a mess.

Why do you keep on asking for destruction? You know He loves you, and will, out of love, give you what you ask for. But, I guess that's okay. After all, nobody, especially God, would take your freedom to self-destruct away from you.

And Coincube. Don't feel so bad about af_newbie. This life is short. We'll be out of here in relatively short order. We won't even remember af_newbie in Heaven. Just be patient a little while longer, and we will be in joy forevermore.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 26, 2018, 01:57:37 AM

If the trust has been established, it remains even though the myths are shown for what they are... myths. How much stronger is the trust among believers, when the Bible is proven to be truth and fact.

8)

Re-read my post and think about it some more.

Christian myth is the same as the Flat Earther movement from the psychological point of view. Once you are part of the group with common beliefs you cling onto that belief no matter what, that is because most people (with lesser intelligence) do not want to be wrong.

You convince yourself that what you believe is true and when you see others in your group expressing their beliefs it validates your (false) belief.  Herd mentality and confirmation bias is at play here.

It is easier to abandon your false beliefs when you leave the group, and/or have good critical thinking skills.

PS. Most scientists love to be wrong, that is why you don't see too many scientists who believe in ancient myths.



If you studied Bible from a scientific standpoint, you would find that Bible isn't myth.

So, it is you who has the myths and false beliefs.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 26, 2018, 02:10:32 AM
Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.

No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...

And belief in an imaginary friend will hold the society forever? LOL.  You base this on what?  The bloody history of the Christian church?
Those beliefs were imposed with quite a bit of fire and sword handiwork.

If I were you, I would worry about education and science to eradicate all the superstition and beliefs in the supernatural in few generations.

Science will be here in few hundred years,  religions will not.

If you want to know where religions are going, check out the participation rates in younger generations.

http://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less-religious-by-several-measures/

The trend will accelerate as people become more educated and science fills gaps in our knowledge (that is where the God of the Gaps lives).


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 26, 2018, 02:15:20 AM

Are you sure?  I thought he loves people.  Why is he purposely killing us?
...


He does. That is why he is saving us inspite of ourselves.

Everybody dies. That is inevitable. The only variable is exactly how that death occurs.

The only offer of immortality on the table is through God and it requires an act of faith.

That is dumb. No intelligent being would design a system this way.

All the killing and torture is unnecessary. He is like a small child, unsure of himself because he needs people to worship him?

Why would he create life in the first place? What would be the purpose?  To worship him?  He could have created some fans where ever he resides and be done with it.  

Why going through the trouble of the big bang, billions years of evolution, star formation, expanding universe, supernovas, evolution from simple bacteria to humans etc.  That just does not add up.  It is just too complicated story for the creation of an obedient, one specie of primates, on an insignificant planet, in billions of solar systems, in a galaxy, among billions of other galaxies.  

You do know that the Earth is spinning on its axis, as it goes around the Sun, as do other planets.  You do understand that the solar system itself is travelling at 230 km/s through space, around the center of our galaxy.  Our Milky Way is also moving through space at about 580 km/s.

The whole system is just overly complicated if the primary purpose of the creation was a specific member of the Ape family to worship and believe in the creator. You would have to be an idiot to design something like this if you just wanted obedient primates who would believe in you.

If I was God, I would just create everything all at once, 6000 years ago, on flat Earth, with glass dome over it, place it in the center of the universe and be done with it.

BTW, you know that immortality is physically impossible, don't you?

So the question to you is:  Is your God an idiot or a deranged psychopath who would go to extra length to satisfy his emotional needs?

PS.
He definitely does not know much about Physics or Biology to create such a mess.

Why do you keep on asking for destruction? You know He loves you, and will, out of love, give you what you ask for. But, I guess that's okay. After all, nobody, especially God, would take your freedom to self-destruct away from you.

And Coincube. Don't feel so bad about af_newbie. This life is short. We'll be out of here in relatively short order. We won't even remember af_newbie in Heaven. Just be patient a little while longer, and we will be in joy forevermore.

8)
"In heaven, all interesting people are missing." - Friedrich Nietzsche


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 26, 2018, 02:15:52 AM
Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.

No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...

And belief in an imaginary friend will hold the society forever? LOL.  You base this on what?  The bloody history of the Christian church?
Those beliefs were imposed with quite a bit of fire and sword handiwork.

If I were you, I would worry about education and science to eradicate all the superstition and beliefs in the supernatural in few generations.

Science will be here in few hundred years,  religions will not.

If you want to know where religions are going, check out the participation rates in younger generations.

http://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less-religious-by-several-measures/

The trend will accelerate as people become more educated and science fills gaps in our knowledge (that is where the God of the Gaps lives).

At the time of the Great Flood, there were only 8 people who still accepted God... Noah and hs family. When you consider the potential for reproduction back then, there were probably easily over a billion other people who didn't accept God. Who won?

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 26, 2018, 02:17:13 AM

"In heaven, all interesting people are missing." - Friedrich Nietzsche

In Hell, the most interesting is the fragrance of burnt flesh.     ;D


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 26, 2018, 02:38:11 AM
Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.

No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...

And belief in an imaginary friend will hold the society forever? LOL.  You base this on what?  The bloody history of the Christian church?
Those beliefs were imposed with quite a bit of fire and sword handiwork.

If I were you, I would worry about education and science to eradicate all the superstition and beliefs in the supernatural in few generations.

Science will be here in few hundred years,  religions will not.

If you want to know where religions are going, check out the participation rates in younger generations.

http://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less-religious-by-several-measures/

The trend will accelerate as people become more educated and science fills gaps in our knowledge (that is where the God of the Gaps lives).

At the time of the Great Flood, there were only 8 people who still accepted God... Noah and hs family. When you consider the potential for reproduction back then, there were probably easily over a billion other people who didn't accept God. Who won?

8)

I would recommend you study genetics.  Never mind the other nonsense in this story.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on September 26, 2018, 11:53:58 AM
https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-difference-between-science-and-religion-is-the-difference-between-a-willingness-sam-harris-132-50-21.jpg


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: KonstantinosM on September 26, 2018, 12:21:11 PM
The difference between religion and science is the same between sanity and insanity.

When you are sane you can use your sanity (same as science) to make educated predictions about what will happen next.

When you are insane your insanity will prevent that. You might think that the government is made up of aliens, and no new facts will disprove that.

If you are sane and someone presents you with the conspiracy theory that the government is full of aliens that are all powerful and are hungry for human flesh, you will most likely ask for evidence. There is no such evidence so you will dismiss it.

The insane (religious) man will live in fear of his mayor eating him alive and will avoid government buildings based on his misconceptions of the world.






Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 27, 2018, 12:06:00 PM
Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.

The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: stats on September 27, 2018, 12:12:22 PM
Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.

The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.

8)

And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?

Whatever Fucktard!

Can't be eyewitness observations!


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 27, 2018, 12:20:37 PM
Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.

The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.

8)

And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?

Whatever Fucktard!

Can't be eyewitness observations!

The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 27, 2018, 12:46:28 PM
The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit.

Ahh nice. The "God did it" fallacy.

1) Present an argument
2) Your opponents prove your argument is obviously false
3) Simply state "You are wrong because God did it/God can do anything"

It is impossible to argue against, because we can break the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, maths, space, time, even logic, by simply stating "God did it". Every argument presented can be refuted by simply stating "God did it".

"How come all the evidence proves the Universe is >13 billion years old" - "Ahhh, God did it"
"How come all the evidence proves evolution" - "Ahhh, God made it that way"
"How come fossils exist" - "Ahhh, God put them there"

It truly is the last bastion of the stupid and ignorant.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 27, 2018, 12:54:50 PM
Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.

The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.

8)

And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?

Whatever Fucktard!

Can't be eyewitness observations!

The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.

8)

Ghosts and spirits  do not exist, they could not have "directed" anybody.  People just wrote whatever came to mind.  Just like the writers today get inspirations and write good novels.  So did the 40+ authors of the Bible.  They had previous myths to work with, they just changed few things, added more interesting details, made the story interesting for the intended audience.

Do you think the "night journey" as described in the Quran actually happened?  Muhammad traveled at night, by himself, then went on Buraq and flew to heaven.  All by himself (forget the fact that the Mosque from which he flew to heaven was not there at the time of his death).

Nobody witnessed it, yet someone wrote about it.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: stats on September 27, 2018, 01:06:30 PM
Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.

The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.

8)

And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?

Whatever Fucktard!

Can't be eyewitness observations!

The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.

8)

Imaginary people don't count. They are only real to you and therefore don't exist.

I truly believe you need a better book to read, one which has more semblance of reality.

A perfect book for you, would be, "Little Miss Contrary". The story of a young child who always says the opposite of what she means.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 27, 2018, 08:28:56 PM
Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.

The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.

8)

And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?

Whatever Fucktard!

Can't be eyewitness observations!

The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.

8)

Imaginary people don't count. They are only real to you and therefore don't exist.

I truly believe you need a better book to read, one which has more semblance of reality.

A perfect book for you, would be, "Little Miss Contrary". The story of a young child who always says the opposite of what she means.

You really need to look into what the nation of Israel is all about. They are extremely fastidious people who over the last 3,500 years kept meticulous records. These records, and the way they were kept, and whose records were accepted by them, show that God is real, and that the things He says in the Bible are real.

Your mistake is underestimating God and Ancient Israel.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: arafat222 on September 28, 2018, 05:37:33 PM
Religion changes very slowly if at all to the  world around us making it difficult to apply its knowledge to new problems and circumstances.  Science is self-correcting, constantly challenging ideas, throwing out old ones in place of new and better ones.
Most religions reflect the worldview and knowledge of ancient people who are long gone.   Science is being created today, right now.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 28, 2018, 11:35:03 PM
Religion has the answers. Science is simply far behind in trying to find out why the answers are what they are.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: jiniyaakter on September 30, 2018, 05:39:44 PM
Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 30, 2018, 08:17:53 PM
Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims

If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on September 30, 2018, 08:26:39 PM
Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims

If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.

8)

There is no data; no science can be done on the subject of spirits, souls, and supernatural.

They do not exist.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on September 30, 2018, 08:35:38 PM
Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims

If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.

8)

There is no data; no science can be done on the subject of spirits, souls, and supernatural.

They do not exist.

The data starts with a person's emotions, his mind, and his drive. These are in great evidence all over the place all the time.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 01, 2018, 12:29:35 PM
Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims

If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.

8)

There is no data; no science can be done on the subject of spirits, souls, and supernatural.

They do not exist.

The data starts with a person's emotions, his mind, and his drive. These are in great evidence all over the place all the time.

Science has investigated emotions, mind, etc... Science has concluded that these are chemical reactions taking place in the body...

Can you precisely explain how is God is an explanation for any of this?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 01, 2018, 08:20:48 PM

Science has investigated emotions, mind, etc... Science has concluded that these are chemical reactions taking place in the body...

Can you precisely explain how is God is an explanation for any of this?

Actually, science simply has shown that chemical processes are part of the body connection to spirit, mind and soul. That's why there are continual scientific investigations into how the connection works.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 02, 2018, 11:52:22 AM

Fuck off you cunt. That's not what science says. You obviously lack any scientific insight. You're just a troll that needs to kill themselves.

I advise anger management courses meditation or perhaps formal counselling.

They're just trolls who get paid to mouth off. Anger management doesn't work on cold, political science trolling.

Children... please stay on topic

This thread is about the differences between science and religion, not who is the bigger cunt

Thanks


https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-difference-between-science-and-religion-is-the-difference-between-a-willingness-sam-harris-132-50-21.jpg


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: sharif12 on October 02, 2018, 03:39:23 PM
every people reject reality all the time, why would this be any different?
I will use an example from medical science.  Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye.  After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually.  Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.

Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost.  Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel.  It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations.  All the science would return one step at a time.

Physics would return the same if lost.  The force of gravity would be the same.  We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity.  All this would return exactly the same as before.

Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form.  Religions today are nothing like ancient time


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 02, 2018, 05:58:43 PM
every people reject reality all the time, why would this be any different?
I will use an example from medical science.  Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye.  After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually.  Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.

Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost.  Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel.  It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations.  All the science would return one step at a time.

Physics would return the same if lost.  The force of gravity would be the same.  We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity.  All this would return exactly the same as before.

Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form.  Religions today are nothing like ancient time.

But it is the religious beliefs of people that cause them to look for things that work, whether or not these things fall into the realm of science. So, religion is the greater foundation of science.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on October 02, 2018, 07:45:54 PM
Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.

No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...

And belief in an imaginary friend will hold the society forever? LOL.  You base this on what? .

Ultimately on the logical necessity of maintaining the top-down control necessary to prevent freedom from becoming destructive and the simultaneous logical necessity to minimize such control as it limits knowledge formation and progress.

A complicated answer to be sure but it's not a trivial question.

In the opening post of this thread I linked to The Rise of Knowledge (http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html) where Anonymint discussed the the nature of knowledge and its relationship to entropy.

Immediately up-thread I discussed the prerequisites of freedom. What freedom is and what is necessary to achieve it.

This post will explore the relationship between freedom and knowledge.

Knowledge and Power by George Gilder
https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274
Quote
The most manifest characteristic of human beings is their diversity. The freer an economy is, the more this human diversity of knowledge will be manifested. By contrast, political power originates in top-down processes—governments, monopolies, regulators, elite institutions, all attempting to quell human diversity and impose order. Thus power always seeks centralization.

Capitalism is not chiefly an incentive system but an information system. We continue with the recognition, explained by the most powerful science of the epoch, that information itself is best defined as surprise: by what we cannot predict rather than by what we can. The key to economic growth is not acquisition of things by the pursuit of monetary rewards but the expansion of wealth through learning and discovery. The economy grows not by manipulating greed and fear through bribes and punishments but by accumulating surprising knowledge through the conduct of the falsifiable experiments of free enterprises. Crucial to this learning process is the possibility of failure and bankruptcy. In this model, wealth is defined as knowledge, and growth is defined as learning.

Because the system is based more on ideas than on incentives, it is not a process changeable only over generations of Sisysphean effort. An economy is a noosphere (a mind-based system) and it can revive as fast as minds and policies can change.

That new economics—the information theory of capitalism—is already at work in disguise. Concealed behind an elaborate mathematical apparatus, sequestered by its creators in what is called information technology, the new theory drives the most powerful machines and networks of the era. Information theory treats human creations or communications as transmissions through a channel, whether a wire or the world, in the face of the power of noise, and gauges the outcomes by their news or surprise, defined as “entropy” and consummated as knowledge. Now it is ready to come out into the open and to transform economics as it has already transformed the world economy itself.

All information is surprise; only surprise qualifies as information. This is the fundamental axiom of information theory. Information is the change between what we knew before the transmission and what we know after it.

Let us imagine the lineaments of an economics of disorder, disequilibrium, and surprise that could explain and measure the contributions of entrepreneurs. Such an economics would begin with the Smithian mold of order and equilibrium. Smith himself spoke of property rights, free trade, sound currency, and modest taxation as crucial elements of an environment for prosperity. Smith was right: An arena of disorder, disequilibrium, chaos, and noise would drown the feats of creation that engender growth. The ultimate physical entropy envisaged as the heat death of the universe, in its total disorder, affords no room for invention or surprise. But entrepreneurial disorder is not chaos or mere noise. Entrepreneurial disorder is some combination of order and upheaval that might be termed “informative disorder.”

Shannon defined information in terms of digital bits and measured it by the concept of information entropy: unexpected or surprising bits...Shannon’s entropy is governed by a logarithmic equation nearly identical to the thermodynamic equation of Rudolf Clausius that describes physical entropy. But the parallels between the two entropies conceal several pitfalls that have ensnared many. Physical entropy is maximized when all the molecules in a physical system are at an equal temperature (and thus cannot yield any more energy). Shannon entropy is maximized when all the bits in a message are equally improbable (and thus cannot be further compressed without loss of
information). These two identical equations point to a deeper affinity that MIT physicist Seth Lloyd identifies as the foundation of all material reality—at the beginning was the entropic bit.
...
The accomplishment of Information Theory was to create a rigorous mathematical discipline for the definition and measurement of the information in the message sent down the channel. Shannon entropy or surprisal defines and quantifies the information in a message. In close similarity with physical entropy, information entropy is always a positive number measured by minus the base two logarithm of its probability. Information in Shannon’s scheme is quantified in terms of a probability because Shannon interpreted the message as a selection or choice from a limited alphabet. Entropy is thus a measure of freedom of choice. In the simplest case of maximum entropy of equally probable elements, the uncertainty is merely the inverse of the number of elements or symbols.
...
Linking innovation, surprise, and profit, learning and growth, Shannon entropy stands at the heart of the economics of information theory. Signaling the arrival of an invention or disruptive innovation is first its surprisal, then its yield beyond the interest rate—its profit, a further form of Shannon entropy. As a new item is absorbed by the market, however, its entropy declines until its margins converge with prevailing risk adjusted interest rates. The entrepreneur must move on to new surprises. The economics of entropy depict the process by which the entrepreneur translates his idea into a practical form from the realms of imaginative creation. In those visionary realms, entropy is essentially infinite and unconstrained, and thus irrelevant to economic models. But to make the imagined practical, the entrepreneur must make specific choices among existing resources and strategic possibilities. Entropy here signifies his freedom of choice.

As Shannon understood, the creation process itself escapes every logical and mathematical system. It springs not from secure knowledge but from falsifiable tests of commercial hypotheses. It is not an expression of past knowledge but of the fertility of consciousness, will, discipline, imagination, and art.

Knowledge is created by the dynamic interaction of consciousness over time. This process results in surprise (new information) which is the foundation of new knowledge. Entropy in this context is a measure of freedom, it is the freedom of choice. An information system with higher entropy allows for greater dynamic interaction of consciousness and thus greater knowledge formation. Freedom must be subject to the constraint of convergence. Some top-down order must be maintained to prevent destructive chaos aka noise that would otherwise destroy rather than create knowledge.

The amount of top-down control needed increases in the presence of increased noise. A primitive population may require the iron fist of a dictator whereas an educated one may thrive in a republic. However, power always seeks centralization. Thus the tendency of both of the dictatorship and the republic will be towards ever increasing centralization restricting freedom beyond that what is necessary and hobbling knowledge formation.

I posit that that the only model of top-down control that facilitates knowledge formation without inevitable progressive centralization is Ethical Monotheism (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/mono.html). Uniformly adopted and voluntary followed it may be the only restraint on freedom that is necessary.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 02, 2018, 09:32:13 PM
Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.

No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...

And belief in an imaginary friend will hold the society forever? LOL.  You base this on what? .

Ultimately on the logical necessity of maintaining the top-down control necessary to prevent freedom from becoming destructive and the simultaneous logical necessity to minimize such control as it limits knowledge formation and progress.

A complicated answer to be sure but it's not a trivial question.

In the opening post of this thread I linked to The Rise of Knowledge (http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html) where Anonymint discussed the the nature of knowledge and its relationship to entropy.

Immediately up-thread I discussed the prerequisites of freedom. What freedom is and what is necessary to achieve it.

This post will explore the relationship between freedom and knowledge.

Knowledge and Power by George Gilder
https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274
Quote
The most manifest characteristic of human beings is their diversity. The freer an economy is, the more this human diversity of knowledge will be manifested. By contrast, political power originates in top-down processes—governments, monopolies, regulators, elite institutions, all attempting to quell human diversity and impose order. Thus power always seeks centralization.

Capitalism is not chiefly an incentive system but an information system. We continue with the recognition, explained by the most powerful science of the epoch, that information itself is best defined as surprise: by what we cannot predict rather than by what we can. The key to economic growth is not acquisition of things by the pursuit of monetary rewards but the expansion of wealth through learning and discovery. The economy grows not by manipulating greed and fear through bribes and punishments but by accumulating surprising knowledge through the conduct of the falsifiable experiments of free enterprises. Crucial to this learning process is the possibility of failure and bankruptcy. In this model, wealth is defined as knowledge, and growth is defined as learning.

Because the system is based more on ideas than on incentives, it is not a process changeable only over generations of Sisysphean effort. An economy is a noosphere (a mind-based system) and it can revive as fast as minds and policies can change.

That new economics—the information theory of capitalism—is already at work in disguise. Concealed behind an elaborate mathematical apparatus, sequestered by its creators in what is called information technology, the new theory drives the most powerful machines and networks of the era. Information theory treats human creations or communications as transmissions through a channel, whether a wire or the world, in the face of the power of noise, and gauges the outcomes by their news or surprise, defined as “entropy” and consummated as knowledge. Now it is ready to come out into the open and to transform economics as it has already transformed the world economy itself.

All information is surprise; only surprise qualifies as information. This is the fundamental axiom of information theory. Information is the change between what we knew before the transmission and what we know after it.

Let us imagine the lineaments of an economics of disorder, disequilibrium, and surprise that could explain and measure the contributions of entrepreneurs. Such an economics would begin with the Smithian mold of order and equilibrium. Smith himself spoke of property rights, free trade, sound currency, and modest taxation as crucial elements of an environment for prosperity. Smith was right: An arena of disorder, disequilibrium, chaos, and noise would drown the feats of creation that engender growth. The ultimate physical entropy envisaged as the heat death of the universe, in its total disorder, affords no room for invention or surprise. But entrepreneurial disorder is not chaos or mere noise. Entrepreneurial disorder is some combination of order and upheaval that might be termed “informative disorder.”

Shannon defined information in terms of digital bits and measured it by the concept of information entropy: unexpected or surprising bits...Shannon’s entropy is governed by a logarithmic equation nearly identical to the thermodynamic equation of Rudolf Clausius that describes physical entropy. But the parallels between the two entropies conceal several pitfalls that have ensnared many. Physical entropy is maximized when all the molecules in a physical system are at an equal temperature (and thus cannot yield any more energy). Shannon entropy is maximized when all the bits in a message are equally improbable (and thus cannot be further compressed without loss of
information). These two identical equations point to a deeper affinity that MIT physicist Seth Lloyd identifies as the foundation of all material reality—at the beginning was the entropic bit.
...
The accomplishment of Information Theory was to create a rigorous mathematical discipline for the definition and measurement of the information in the message sent down the channel. Shannon entropy or surprisal defines and quantifies the information in a message. In close similarity with physical entropy, information entropy is always a positive number measured by minus the base two logarithm of its probability. Information in Shannon’s scheme is quantified in terms of a probability because Shannon interpreted the message as a selection or choice from a limited alphabet. Entropy is thus a measure of freedom of choice. In the simplest case of maximum entropy of equally probable elements, the uncertainty is merely the inverse of the number of elements or symbols.
...
Linking innovation, surprise, and profit, learning and growth, Shannon entropy stands at the heart of the economics of information theory. Signaling the arrival of an invention or disruptive innovation is first its surprisal, then its yield beyond the interest rate—its profit, a further form of Shannon entropy. As a new item is absorbed by the market, however, its entropy declines until its margins converge with prevailing risk adjusted interest rates. The entrepreneur must move on to new surprises. The economics of entropy depict the process by which the entrepreneur translates his idea into a practical form from the realms of imaginative creation. In those visionary realms, entropy is essentially infinite and unconstrained, and thus irrelevant to economic models. But to make the imagined practical, the entrepreneur must make specific choices among existing resources and strategic possibilities. Entropy here signifies his freedom of choice.

As Shannon understood, the creation process itself escapes every logical and mathematical system. It springs not from secure knowledge but from falsifiable tests of commercial hypotheses. It is not an expression of past knowledge but of the fertility of consciousness, will, discipline, imagination, and art.

Knowledge is created by the dynamic interaction of consciousness over time. This process results in surprise (new information) which is the foundation of new knowledge. Entropy in this context is a measure of freedom, it is the freedom of choice. An information system with higher entropy allows for greater dynamic interaction of consciousness and thus greater knowledge formation. Freedom must be subject to the constraint of convergence. Some top-down order must be maintained to prevent destructive chaos aka noise that would otherwise destroy rather than create knowledge.

The amount of top-down control needed increases in the presence of increased noise. A primitive population may require the iron fist of a dictator whereas an educated one may thrive in a republic. However, power always seeks centralization. Thus the tendency of both of the dictatorship and the republic will be towards ever increasing centralization restricting freedom beyond that what is necessary and hobbling knowledge formation.

I posit that that the only model of top-down control that facilitates knowledge formation without inevitable progressive centralization is Ethical Monotheism (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/mono.html). Uniformly adopted and voluntary followed it may be the only restraint on freedom that is necessary.

Political or patriotic dogmas will hold longer than religious nonsense for one reason:  it is easier to demonstrate that the details of the religious dogma are simply not true.  Pick any scriptures, they are all complete BS.  They make no sense scientifically and morally.  Never mind some supernatural nonsense.  You want to base society on that?  We HAD to go through years of reformation and eventually HAD to abandon the religious ideas because the moral code was just not in line with the progress we've made in sociology and psychology.

If we stuck with the religious governments, women would never get their equal rights, gays would be either killed or held in mental hospitals.

If you take any religion, it is trivial to show that the fundamental tenets are simply not true.  Therefore over time, as people become more educated, you will have less followers and the religious societal foundations will crumble.  You would need to physically coerce people with fear, real or imaginary for people to stay in their religion.  That is what Islam is doing as I type this post.

Political or patriotic dogmas are based on real, physical societal structures, cultures, national history etc.  That is a lot harder to invalidate.

As for centralization of power, well, that will happen no matter what the underlying dogma is.  At least in the western style democracies you can vote to elect your president.  Try that with the Catholic church.  When was the last time a church goer had a chance to elect the Pope?

I am telling you that the secular thought is far superior on many different levels from human rights to morality; and it agrees with science.  I hope you'll admit this much that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works.
  
Science is the way to go, religion is not.  Sorry religion, you had your day in the sun.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on October 03, 2018, 06:03:50 AM
@af_newbie

We agree that if the fundamental tenets of a society are false then over time, as people become more educated, you will have fewer believers and the societal foundations will crumble. False fundamental tenets thus ultimately limit how developed a society can become before it turns on its own foundations and collapses.

We disagree that political or patriotic dogmas hold longer than religious one. History in fact argues for the opposite conclusion with religions that have far outlasted any empire. Perhaps this will change in the future but I am skeptical.

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  

Finally we agree that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works. We simply disagree on what is necessary for science to exist. Science is dependent on a supporting structure of culture which in turn rest on a foundation of apriori axioms aka religion. Science is something like the window in a skyscraper penthouse providing an unprecedented view over vast distances. The culture that enables science the steel support beams holding the building aloft and the shared aprior truths are the bedrock on which the entire edifice rests.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 03, 2018, 11:50:04 PM
@af_newbie

We agree that if the fundamental tenets of a society are false then over time, as people become more educated, you will have fewer believers and the societal foundations will crumble. False fundamental tenets thus ultimately limit how developed a society can become before it turns on its own foundations and collapses.

We disagree that political or patriotic dogmas hold longer than religious one. History in fact argues for the opposite conclusion with religions that have far outlasted any empire. Perhaps this will change in the future but I am skeptical.

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  

Finally we agree that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works. We simply disagree on what is necessary for science to exist. Science is dependent on a supporting structure of culture which in turn rest on a foundation of apriori axioms aka religion. Science is something like the window in a skyscraper penthouse providing an unprecedented view over vast distances. The culture that enables science the steel support beams holding the building aloft and the shared aprior truths are the bedrock on which the entire edifice rests.



Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted.  He uses a lot of word salads.  As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.

12:37 - rationality divorced from your being is self-destructive

As a scientist you deal with data, not psychology of yourself!  His approach is to over analyze the emotions of his subjects. 
Of course, a person would go mad if you second guess your actions, emotions every second of your life.  Strong individuals do not do that.

16:20 - the dream was informed by the way we act

What is he talking about? We act based on our morals, ethical standards, our values.  What we feel is right.
If you don't know why you act a certain way, well, you have psychological or mental issues.

21:40 - transcendent psychological entity that inhabits the body?

Sorry he lost me there.  I think he studied too many deviants. I lost interest after that.

I have no idea what he is talking about.  Listening to him I can say that psychology is not science.

As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew
inspiration from those stories and myths.
  Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.

Today, you have to use your reason and conclude that those stories are not applicable to the modern times as they were written by very primitive humans and reflect their primitive nature.

I see no value in the stories written in the Bible, Quran or Talmud.  I have disqualified all these books as a source of wisdom based
on the moral code they espouse. 

I have better morals than any of the writers (Gods) of these holy scriptures.  I do not understand how anyone can believe that these books were inspired by some supernatural God, who I presume had an infinite wisdom.

The scriptures stories reflect the realities of life of the writers.  Nothing to do with transcendent beings.





Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on October 04, 2018, 01:48:54 AM

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  


Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted.  He uses a lot of word salads.  As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...

As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths.  Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.



Your welcome af_newbie.

I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.

We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.

These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.

I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 04, 2018, 10:16:40 AM

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  


Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted.  He uses a lot of word salads.  As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...

As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths.  Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.



Your welcome af_newbie.

I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.

We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.

These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.

I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.

Don't assume that the universe is logical, prove it to yourself.

Think about singularities, black holes, birth and death of stars, streching of space time by the dark energy and pulling it all together by the dark matter, all uneven across the observable universe. Carnage caused when galaxies colide etc. All natural processes, but not logical in a sense as in intelligently designed by a sentient being.

Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

As for religions, well, I see wealthy religions and poor worshippers.

The idea that a sentient being created all the mess that we observe and that being is somehow interested in us, it just does not compute with me.

I see the world as is not as it could be.

Life started thanks to supernovae.

Without them there would be no atoms to create the first amino acids.

PS. Discover magazine (November 2018, page 26) has a good article on the subject of superstitions and how to overcome them.  Read it, it might help you.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 04, 2018, 02:34:32 PM

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  


Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted.  He uses a lot of word salads.  As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...

As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths.  Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.



Your welcome af_newbie.

I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.

We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.

These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.

I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.

Don't assume that the universe is logical, prove it to yourself.

Think about singularities, black holes, birth and death of stars, streching of space time by the dark energy and pulling it all together by the dark matter, all uneven across the observable universe. Carnage caused when galaxies colide etc. All natural processes, but not logical in a sense as in intelligently designed by a sentient being.

Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

As for religions, well, I see wealthy religions and poor worshippers.

The idea that a sentient being created all the mess that we observe and that being is somehow interested in us, it just does not compute with me.

I see the world as is not as it could be.

Life started thanks to supernovae.

Without them there would be no atoms to create the first amino acids.

PS. Discover magazine (November 2018, page 26) has a good article on the subject of superstitions and how to overcome them.  Read it, it might help you.

You are so funny.

Take a look at a raging river. Everything in the river acts logically, according to the physics of the universe. Why would black holes, or the carnage of colliding galaxies be any different? All of it acts logically, according to the physics of the universe.

Overcoming superstitions is done by finding out what works, scientifically. That's why when scientists believe science theories to be fact, they have a superstition going for themselves. They haven't found that the theory is fact. If they had, it wouldn't be a theory any longer.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on October 04, 2018, 02:42:56 PM
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html
Quote from: Tanya Lewis
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.

In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.

"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).

"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."

The idea follows the observation that nature is full of patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence, a series of numbers in which each number is the sum of the previous two numbers. The flowering of an artichoke follows this sequence, for example, with the distance between each petal and the next matching the ratio of the numbers in the sequence.

The nonliving worldalso behaves in a mathematical way. If you throw a baseball in the air, it follows a roughly parabolic trajectory. Planets and other astrophysical bodies follow elliptical orbits.

"There's an elegant simplicity and beauty in nature revealed by mathematical patterns and shapes, which our minds have been able to figure out," said Tegmark, who loves math so much he has framed pictures of famous equations in his living room.

One consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe is that scientists could in theory predict every observation or measurement in physics. Tegmark pointed out that mathematics predicted the existence of the planet Neptune, radio waves and the Higgs boson particle thought to explain how other particles get their mass.

Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind.

Max Erik Tegmark is a Swedish-American physicist and cosmologist. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the scientific director of the Foundational Questions Institute.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 04, 2018, 04:44:09 PM
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html
Quote from: Tanya Lewis
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.

In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.

"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).

"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."

The idea follows the observation that nature is full of patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence, a series of numbers in which each number is the sum of the previous two numbers. The flowering of an artichoke follows this sequence, for example, with the distance between each petal and the next matching the ratio of the numbers in the sequence.

The nonliving worldalso behaves in a mathematical way. If you throw a baseball in the air, it follows a roughly parabolic trajectory. Planets and other astrophysical bodies follow elliptical orbits.

"There's an elegant simplicity and beauty in nature revealed by mathematical patterns and shapes, which our minds have been able to figure out," said Tegmark, who loves math so much he has framed pictures of famous equations in his living room.

One consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe is that scientists could in theory predict every observation or measurement in physics. Tegmark pointed out that mathematics predicted the existence of the planet Neptune, radio waves and the Higgs boson particle thought to explain how other particles get their mass.

Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind.

Max Erik Tegmark is a Swedish-American physicist and cosmologist. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the scientific director of the Foundational Questions Institute.

Congrats you found one to confirm your bias.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: dippididodaday on October 04, 2018, 06:20:35 PM

It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.

In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 04, 2018, 07:59:27 PM

It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.

In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.

Both have truths and both have lies.

The difference is that past religion was science of that day. And it is still holding out past truths an fallacies.

Today's science has become one of the major religions of today in believing the fallacy that it provides... that science theories are fact.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on October 04, 2018, 09:40:34 PM
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

Congrats you found one to confirm your bias.


Thanks but credit for that initial logic goes to Perry Marshall who's background was in electrical engineering before he went on to make his money in IT. My own educational background was in biochemistry before I went on to a doctorate in medicine so your "bet" was really not a wise one. Perhaps having been shown incorrect in one area you should reexamine other axioms?

Regardless if you are interested in further exploration Professor Tegmark wrote an entire book on this topic.

Mathematical Universe
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div

Here are some reviews of that book also by scientists.

Brian Greene, physicist, author of The Elegant Universe and The Hidden Reality
“Our Mathematical Universe boldly confronts one of the deepest questions at the fertile interface of physics and philosophy: why is mathematics so spectacularly successful at describing the cosmos? Through lively writing and wonderfully accessible explanations, Max Tegmark—one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists—guides the reader to a possible answer, and reveals how, if it’s right, our understanding of reality itself would be radically altered.”

Michio Kaku, author of Physics of the Future
“Daring, Radical. Innovative. A game changer. If Dr. Tegmark is correct, this represents a paradigm shift in the relationship between physics and mathematics, forcing us to rewrite our textbooks. A must read for anyone deeply concerned about our universe.”

Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near
“Tegmark offers a fresh and fascinating perspective on the fabric of physical reality and life itself. He helps us see ourselves in a cosmic context that highlights the grand opportunities for the future of life in our universe.”

Prof. Edward Witten, physicist, Fields Medalist & Milner Laureate
“Readers of varied backgrounds will enjoy this book. Almost anyone will find something to learn here, much to ponder, and perhaps something to disagree with.”

Prof. Andrei Linde, physicist, Gruber & Milner Laureate for development of inflationary cosmology
“This inspirational book written by a true expert presents an explosive mixture of physics, mathematics and philosophy which may alter your views on reality.”

Prof. Mario Livio, astrophysicist, author of Brilliant Blunders and Is God a Mathematician?
“Galileo famously said that the universe is written in the language of mathematics. Now Max Tegmark says that the universe IS mathematics. You don’t have to necessarily agree, to enjoy this fascinating journey into the nature of reality.”

Prof. Julian Barbour, physicist, author of The End of Time
“Scientists and lay aficionados alike will find Tegmark’s book packed with information and very thought provoking. You may recoil from his thesis, but nearly every page will make you wish you could debate the issues face-to-face with him.”

Prof. Seth Lloyd, Professor of quantum mechanical engineering, MIT, author of Programming the Universe
“In Our Mathematical Universe, renowned cosmologist Max Tegmark takes us on a whirlwind tour of the universe, past, present—and other.  With lucid language and clear examples, Tegmark provides us with the master measure of not only of our cosmos, but of all possible universes.  The universe may be lonely, but it is not alone.”

Prof. David Deutsch, physicist, Dirac Laureate for pioneering quantum computing
“A lucid, engaging account of the various many-universes theories of fundamental physics that are currently being considered, from the multiverse of quantum theory to Tegmark’s own grand vision.”


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 04, 2018, 11:58:24 PM
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

Congrats you found one to confirm your bias.


Thanks but credit for that initial logic goes to Perry Marshall who's background was in electrical engineering before he went on to make his money in IT. My own educational background was in biochemistry before I went on to a doctorate in medicine so your "bet" was really not a wise one. Perhaps having been shown incorrect in one area you should reexamine other axioms?

Regardless if you are interested in further exploration Professor Tegmark wrote an entire book on this topic.

Mathematical Universe
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div

Here are some reviews of that book also by scientists.

Brian Greene, physicist, author of The Elegant Universe and The Hidden Reality
“Our Mathematical Universe boldly confronts one of the deepest questions at the fertile interface of physics and philosophy: why is mathematics so spectacularly successful at describing the cosmos? Through lively writing and wonderfully accessible explanations, Max Tegmark—one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists—guides the reader to a possible answer, and reveals how, if it’s right, our understanding of reality itself would be radically altered.”

Michio Kaku, author of Physics of the Future
“Daring, Radical. Innovative. A game changer. If Dr. Tegmark is correct, this represents a paradigm shift in the relationship between physics and mathematics, forcing us to rewrite our textbooks. A must read for anyone deeply concerned about our universe.”

Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near
“Tegmark offers a fresh and fascinating perspective on the fabric of physical reality and life itself. He helps us see ourselves in a cosmic context that highlights the grand opportunities for the future of life in our universe.”

Prof. Edward Witten, physicist, Fields Medalist & Milner Laureate
“Readers of varied backgrounds will enjoy this book. Almost anyone will find something to learn here, much to ponder, and perhaps something to disagree with.”

Prof. Andrei Linde, physicist, Gruber & Milner Laureate for development of inflationary cosmology
“This inspirational book written by a true expert presents an explosive mixture of physics, mathematics and philosophy which may alter your views on reality.”

Prof. Mario Livio, astrophysicist, author of Brilliant Blunders and Is God a Mathematician?
“Galileo famously said that the universe is written in the language of mathematics. Now Max Tegmark says that the universe IS mathematics. You don’t have to necessarily agree, to enjoy this fascinating journey into the nature of reality.”

Prof. Julian Barbour, physicist, author of The End of Time
“Scientists and lay aficionados alike will find Tegmark’s book packed with information and very thought provoking. You may recoil from his thesis, but nearly every page will make you wish you could debate the issues face-to-face with him.”

Prof. Seth Lloyd, Professor of quantum mechanical engineering, MIT, author of Programming the Universe
“In Our Mathematical Universe, renowned cosmologist Max Tegmark takes us on a whirlwind tour of the universe, past, present—and other.  With lucid language and clear examples, Tegmark provides us with the master measure of not only of our cosmos, but of all possible universes.  The universe may be lonely, but it is not alone.”

Prof. David Deutsch, physicist, Dirac Laureate for pioneering quantum computing
“A lucid, engaging account of the various many-universes theories of fundamental physics that are currently being considered, from the multiverse of quantum theory to Tegmark’s own grand vision.”

Saying that something can be expressed in Math does not mean you actually can.  We don't know anything about how the space time behaves when the length is less than the Planck's length or express events in less than Planck's time.  How can you say you can express these in the Math equation if you don't know what you need to express or simulate on the computer?  Ask any of the guys you listed above.

BTW, I like the idea of universe being a computer simulation.  Just because I like some idea or want it to be true does not mean it is true.

Don't take it personally, I actually enjoy talking to you.  My hope is you'll start thinking for yourself rather than just read what others said.
You know, I still think you are delusional, but I engage all kinds of people on this forum.  Some are gone more than others.

The idea that some supernatural being is overseeing this universe, never mind creating it, is just plain stupid since you have absolutely no proof that what you believe is actually true, IMHO.

But it looks like I failed to convince you to change your position.

PS. If some alien civilization is running us as a simulation, what makes you think they have good intentions?  They can unplug us and restart it to work out the bugs.  Anyway, a sci-fi novel writes itself...


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 05, 2018, 01:46:05 AM

It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.

In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.

Both have truths and both have lies.

Got a link to a source of scientists lying?  Got any facts to back up your bullshit claim?

Scientists can be wrong, but they don't intentionally lie... science that is not repeatable is not science, so who would lie when they KNOW they would get caught as soon as someone repeated their experiment?

It just doesn't make any sense that a scientist would lie, there is no upside, and you'd lose your job as a scientist... religion is beneficial for liars, not science

Sorry, not sorry


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 05, 2018, 02:41:46 AM

It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.

In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.

Both have truths and both have lies.

Got a link to a source of scientists lying?  Got any facts to back up your bullshit claim?

Scientists can be wrong, but they don't intentionally lie... science that is not repeatable is not science, so who would lie when they KNOW they would get caught as soon as someone repeated their experiment?

It just doesn't make any sense that a scientist would lie, there is no upside, and you'd lose your job as a scientist... religion is beneficial for liars, not science

Sorry, not sorry

Every serious evolution scientist is a liar. How? Because all of them know that cause and effect operate in everything. Yet they almost totally ignore C&E with regard to evolution, because it shows that evolution theory doesn't fit reality. How doesn't it fit reality? By the fact that there is no random mutation. Everything is set to operate exactly as C&E dictates.

Is that lying? Perhaps not directly. But the result is the same. Intentionally ignoring C&E, which is possibly the most bottom-line foundation of all science, is so close to lying that there really isn't much difference.

As far as losing your job for lying... It's exactly the opposite. When you are financed by a university, you toe the university line, no matter what it is, if you want to keep your job. It's the political direction of the universities that determines what is scientifically stated as truth. And it is all based on threatening the scientists that work for them with loss of job.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on October 05, 2018, 07:30:25 PM
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

Saying that something can be expressed in Math does not mean you actually can.  We don't know anything about how the space time behaves when the length is less than the Planck's length or express events in less than Planck's time.  How can you say you can express these in the Math equation if you don't know what you need to express or simulate on the computer?  Ask any of the guys you listed above.

Don't take it personally, I actually enjoy talking to you.  My hope is you'll start thinking for yourself rather than just read what others said.

You know, I still think you are delusional but I engage all kinds of people on this forum.  

You are entertaining af_newbie. First you argue my claim is ridiculous and that I will not be able to find a single scientist that supports my view.

Then when I show you not one but several highly regarded scientist who take this idea very seriously you argue that I should stop reading scientist's books and think for myself?

Just so you know I wrote my Argument for God (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg36246134#msg36246134) a few months before I stumbled across professor Tegmark's excellent book:

Mathematical Universe
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div

Why are you twisting yourself up into such rhetorical knots. It is not necessary.

All you need to say is that you are not convinced that the universe is logical and mathematical thus you reject my first claim. You could also correctly point out that the idea of a logical and mathematical universe as outlined by professor Tegmark is not universally accepted among scientists.
 
By going beyond that and turning to personal attack calling me delusional and implying that I am "far gone" presumably into insanity you only expose you own bias and weaken your arguments.

In regards to your other comments the Planck length is a certain combination of the three physical constants fundamental to general relativity and to quantum theory. As we currently lack a unified physical theory that incorporates all three of these constants we do not fully understand the physical meaning and significance of the Planck length.

Such an understanding would require a physical theory that subsumes both quantum theory and general relativity. Should such a theory be discovered we cannot even be certain it would continue to ascribe a fundamental status to the three constants from which the Planck length is derived.

If the universe is logical and mathematical then the answers to these questions exist and simply wait to be discovered.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 05, 2018, 10:09:06 PM
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

Saying that something can be expressed in Math does not mean you actually can.  We don't know anything about how the space time behaves when the length is less than the Planck's length or express events in less than Planck's time.  How can you say you can express these in the Math equation if you don't know what you need to express or simulate on the computer?  Ask any of the guys you listed above.

Don't take it personally, I actually enjoy talking to you.  My hope is you'll start thinking for yourself rather than just read what others said.

You know, I still think you are delusional but I engage all kinds of people on this forum.  

You are entertaining af_newbie. First you argue my claim is ridiculous and that I will not be able to find a single scientist that supports my view.

Then when I show you not one but several highly regarded scientist who take this idea very seriously you argue that I should stop reading scientist's books and think for myself?

Just so you know I wrote my Argument for God (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg36246134#msg36246134) a few months before I stumbled across professor Tegmark's excellent book:

Mathematical Universe
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div

Why are you twisting yourself up into such rhetorical knots. It is not necessary.

All you need to say is that you are not convinced that the universe is logical and mathematical thus you reject my first claim. You could also correctly point out that the idea of a logical and mathematical universe as outlined by professor Tegmark is not universally accepted among scientists.
 
By going beyond that and turning to personal attack calling me delusional and implying that I am "far gone" presumably into insanity you only expose you own bias and weaken your arguments.

In regards to your other comments the Planck length is a certain combination of the three physical constants fundamental to general relativity and to quantum theory. As we currently lack a unified physical theory that incorporates all three of these constants we do not fully understand the physical meaning and significance of the Planck length.

Such an understanding would require a physical theory that subsumes both quantum theory and general relativity. Should such a theory be discovered we cannot even be certain it would continue to ascribe a fundamental status to the three constants from which the Planck length is derived.

If the universe is logical and mathematical then the answers to these questions exist and simply wait to be discovered.


Sorry it was my unprofessional opinion. My background is in Electrical Engineering not Psychiatry.

My point was that sometimes we work ourselves into a thinking knot as you put it.  Instead you should look at what is known and supported by evidence.

Sometimes really smart people can believe in batshit crazy stuff and argue eloquently to support their position.

I have worked with one really smart guy, probably the smartest guy on my team who later was diagnosed with schizophrenia.  If you talked to him you would never know that the guy was losing touch with reality.

Fantasing about something that gives you comfort does not make your fantasy any more true.

I just offered you my unbiased opinion.

BTW, the biggest issue that I see are the singilarities that cannot be computed in bound time.  Math can deal with infinities, Physics or Computer Science not so much.

The world does look like it was fine tuned, but that is probably just an illusion.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: CoinCube on October 06, 2018, 01:34:15 AM
...
My point was that sometimes we work ourselves into a thinking knot as you put it.  Instead you should look at what is known and supported by evidence.
...
The world does look like it was fine tuned, but that is probably just an illusion.


Indeed we certainly can tie ourselves into thinking knots. To avoid this we must deeply scrutinize our assumptions for these are the foundation our structures of thought rest upon.

We must identify and look at each a priori belief and genuinely consider the possibility and that the assumption is untrue. Not a trivial rejection but a full exploration of a foundational shift on ones entirely structure of thought. This is actually extremely difficult to do because our basic assumptions deeply shape our very patterns of thoughts. Everything rests on them.

Perhaps one of us has tied ourselves into such a thinking knot. Are you absolutely certain that I am the one tangled up?

Which of us has adopted a set of beliefs that has been shown in basically every study to be correlated with lower health, lower fertility, and reduced well-being (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.0)?

Which of us has adopted beliefs that appear to, limit possible cooperation over time (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg21680790#msg21680790)?

The world does indeed look like it was fine tuned. Maybe that's not an illusion but a simple observation of reality.

I will leave that for you to decide.

Time constraints force me to bow out of this conversation. The final word is yours.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 06, 2018, 02:06:01 AM
cannot be falsified (https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/), is entirely consistent with our knowledge of truth (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg35450386#msg35450386), and maximizes cooperation over time (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg16982834#msg16982834)

Health and Religion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.0)


...
My point was that sometimes we work ourselves into a thinking knot as you put it.  Instead you should look at what is known and supported by evidence.
...
The world does look like it was fine tuned, but that is probably just an illusion.


Indeed we certainly can tie ourselves into thinking knots. To avoid this we must deeply scrutinize our assumptions for these are the foundation our structures our thought rest upon.

We must identify and look at each a priori belief and genuinely consider the possibility and that the assumption is untrue. Not a trivial rejection but a full exploration of a foundational shift on ones entirely structure of thought. This is actually extremely difficult to do because our basic assumption deeply shape our very patterns of thoughts. Everything rests on them.

Perhaps one of us has tied ourselves into such a thinking knot. Are you absolutely certain that I am the one tangled up?

Which of us has adopted a set of beliefs that has been shown in basically every study to be correlated with lower health, lower fertility, and reduced well-being (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.0)?

Which of us has adopted beliefs that appear to [/u][/url], limit possible cooperation over time (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg16982834#msg16982834)?

The world does indeed look like it was fine tuned. Maybe that's not an illusion but a simple observation of reality.

I will leave that for you to decide.

Time constraints force me to bow out of this conversation. I will leave you the final word.


I could definitely be wrong.  Some new evidence of the supernatural effects will invalidate my position.

To be honest with you, I don't try to validate my position by looking at the effects it has or used to have on the society.
Why? Because people are good or evil despite their world view so you will always find a paper that would argue benefits of your world view.

My reality is based on science. I am an engineer, always was and always will be, so I will probably never understand metaphysics, quantum energy levels of Deepak Chopra or Peterson's inner self dream actualization etc.or whatever world salad they use.

I do know one thing for sure.  Religions are parasitic in nature and are immoral.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Impulseboy on October 06, 2018, 02:33:46 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyvYMgdDej0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h4m7s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyvYMgdDej0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h4m7s)

This section of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate sums it up perfectly.

"What, if anything, would ever change your mind."

Religious answer - nothing.

Scientific answer - evidence.

I agree. I think that one of the biggest differences between science and religion is that science is very evidence-based, whereas religion heavily relies on faith. This is why the two always clash. Add to this the existence of technology, with science, new and advanced technology such as AI  can be accepted with sufficient evidence, but religion may disregard it completely simply because it goes against their faith.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: anthonytcm on October 06, 2018, 11:14:33 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyvYMgdDej0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h4m7s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyvYMgdDej0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h4m7s)

This section of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate sums it up perfectly.

"What, if anything, would ever change your mind."

Religious answer - nothing.

Scientific answer - evidence.

Human nature plays a huge role into it, and pride, in fact so much so, most people don't want to realize they base their beliefs in false stuff. Imagine that god turned out existing. People would still deny his existence, we see it all the time specially in today's social climate with social media and stuff, look at how many anti vaxxers have appeared! And this is people that is being manipulated. Some of these religious folks say they wouldn't change their views but it's just because science doesn't cater to their interests.

So it is a difficult thing to deal with. But not impossible.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 09, 2018, 02:37:35 AM
I found this on the interwebs

The important difference between science and religion is that religion comes with ABSOLUTE statements, that neither can be proved or disproved, and science evolves from relative truths and statements, that can be testified and proven false (which means: science has to develop, in order to replace (partly) untrue theories, and replace them with better ones). Science does not claim it has absolute knowledge on anything. Religion claims it has.

All scientific theories are in principle disprovable, and in the end all theories will be disproven (at least it can be shown there is a limiting case in which the theory does not work).

Religion can in principle not be disproven. Which does not contribute either to it's proof. It is also unprovable.

If something is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is useless.
It can only have value to people who prefer to be ignorant, and don't want to get into complicated knowledge, and prefer to believe in something that is disprovable.

Science is for people that realize that in order to acquire knowledge, some work (sometimes a LOT) has to be done! And even despite you put in a LOT of work, someone else my disproof all (or part) of your work! That is : you have to try even harder!

Religion is for people who claim to know EVERYTHING ABSOLUTELY ("God created the world", for instance ) without having done any work to get to that opinion, and for which nobody can give any disproof. So it is a very safe position. You don't have to do WORK for entitling yourself an opinion on matters that seem important, and nobody can force you to do some work for finding a better opinion, cause there lacks the ability to disproof you.

What a comfortable position!


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: dippididodaday on October 09, 2018, 08:36:25 PM

Furthermore, religion, at its base, wants to fix / "preserve" people-groups at a terrible cost: omission of the truth; to the degree that written-in-stone falsities are upheld at all cost, as truth -  whilst constantly and persistently siphoning off valuable time and labor of the community members the religion is supposed to serve, all the time in an all to important effort to maintain status quo, but disrupting, disrespecting, and disowning those who dare to oppose said falsities, banishing any single individual who dares to ask a serious question pertaining to actual truth.

Science, on the other hand, seeks truth openmindedly and wholeheartedly. It restores / rewards valuable time and labor efforts to its community members, especially whose who question known ideas vigorously and boldly, kind of like the exact opposite of religion.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 10, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
Science is when the scientist calmly figures out scientific answers.

Religion is when the scientist's answers have been proven wrong and his feelings are hurt.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 10, 2018, 10:45:42 PM
3 scientists just won a Nobel Prize for using evolution in chemisty!

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf (https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)

Quote
A (r)evolution in chemistry

  The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
  This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold.  
(...)
  For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.

  After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
 
  Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.

  In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.

  With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.

  The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.

(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf (https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf))


Nobel prize for science involving evolution = Checkmate

Now where is BADLogic's Nobel Prize?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 10, 2018, 11:02:45 PM
3 scientists just won a Nobel Prize for using evolution in chemisty!

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf (https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)

Quote
A (r)evolution in chemistry

  The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
  This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold.  
(...)
  For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.

  After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
 
  Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.

  In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.

  With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.

  The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.

(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf (https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf))


Nobel prize for science involving evolution = Checkmate

Now where is BADLogic's Nobel Prize?

Again, it is not evolution theory evolution, and it is based on Nobel Prize people having been talked into believing in evolution when there is no proof.

The people who started evolution, like Darwin, were shrewd enough to suggest that evolution took thousands or millions of years. This way evolution could never be proven or disproven. Because of this, evolution got its foot in the door. Look at the big religion the science of evolution has become today.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 14, 2018, 02:22:42 PM
Faith, Science, and Truth (https://helpwiththetoughquestions.com/c03a-science-and-faith/)

1.    Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. (Pope John-Paul II)
2.    Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein)
3.    Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes. (Georges Lemaitre)
4.    The truth cannot contradict the truth. (Pope John-Paul II, quoting Pope Leo XIII)
5.    A little knowledge leads away from God, but much knowledge leads towards him. (Isaac Newton)
6.    Who set the planets in motion? (Isaac Newton)
7.    God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth. (Pope John-Paul II)
8.    Reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way. (Pope John-Paul II)
9.    We are not a lost atom in a random universe. We are not the result of necessity or chance, but have been willed into existence. (Fr Chris Hayden)
10.    Faith is not an irrational leap in the dark; it is the reasonable response to the real…. Faith is no more than honesty before reality. (John Waters)
11.    Either God made the world or He did not make the world. There are no other possibilities. If I decide He did not make the world, I have to come up with a better explanation, and this has for millenia taxed more practised minds than mine. (John Waters)
12.    Science is a very successful way of knowing, but not the only way. We acquire knowledge in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. A scientific view of the world is hopelessly incomplete….
13.    Once science has had its say, there remain questions of value, purpose, and meaning that are forever beyond science’s domain, but belong in the realm of philosophical reflection and religious experience. (Francisco J. Ayala)
14.    Technology has remedied countless evils which used to harm and limit human beings. (Pope Francis)
15.    Our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience. (Pope Francis)

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 14, 2018, 03:23:57 PM
Faith, Science, and Truth (https://helpwiththetoughquestions.com/c03a-science-and-faith/)

1.    Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. (Pope John-Paul II)
2.    Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein)
3.    Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes. (Georges Lemaitre)
4.    The truth cannot contradict the truth. (Pope John-Paul II, quoting Pope Leo XIII)
5.    A little knowledge leads away from God, but much knowledge leads towards him. (Isaac Newton)
6.    Who set the planets in motion? (Isaac Newton)
7.    God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth. (Pope John-Paul II)
8.    Reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way. (Pope John-Paul II)
9.    We are not a lost atom in a random universe. We are not the result of necessity or chance, but have been willed into existence. (Fr Chris Hayden)
10.    Faith is not an irrational leap in the dark; it is the reasonable response to the real…. Faith is no more than honesty before reality. (John Waters)
11.    Either God made the world or He did not make the world. There are no other possibilities. If I decide He did not make the world, I have to come up with a better explanation, and this has for millenia taxed more practised minds than mine. (John Waters)
12.    Science is a very successful way of knowing, but not the only way. We acquire knowledge in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. A scientific view of the world is hopelessly incomplete….
13.    Once science has had its say, there remain questions of value, purpose, and meaning that are forever beyond science’s domain, but belong in the realm of philosophical reflection and religious experience. (Francisco J. Ayala)
14.    Technology has remedied countless evils which used to harm and limit human beings. (Pope Francis)
15.    Our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience. (Pope Francis)

8)

16. Science solves existing problems.  Religion creates non-exisiting problems.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: dippididodaday on October 14, 2018, 05:31:40 PM

1.    Science has obliterated religion.
2.    Science without religion is heaven on earth.
3.    Once you realize that book (bible) is full of crap, you will dump it altogether.
4.    Truth will prevail.
5.    A little knowledge leads away from God, but much knowledge renders him non-existent.
6.    Who set the planets in motion? (Isaac Newton)
7.    The human heart has a desire to know the truth.
8.    Reason and knowledge cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, science is the appropriate way.
9.    We are a marvel in a random universe. We are the result of necessity and chance - we are ultimate existence.
10.  Faith is an irrational leap in the dark; it is the unreasonable response to the real…. faith is no more than falsity before reality.
11.  "god" did not make the world. There are no other possibilities -> Science shows he did not make the world - it came up with a better explanation, and this has for ages freed more practised minds than mine.
12.  Science is the only successful way of knowing. We acquire knowledge only through science, whilst we amuse and entertain ourselves through literature, the arts, philosophy and altered states of consciousness.
13.  Once science has had its say, questions of value, purpose, and meaning resolves automatically.
14.  Science has remedied countless religious evils which used to harm and limit human beings.
15.  Our immense technological development has been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 20, 2018, 11:36:23 AM
The difference between science and religion:


Religious answer to anything = "God did it"

Scientific answer to anything = "Let me show you how it happened", or "I don't know"


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: IndeecV on October 20, 2018, 07:25:17 PM
God, religion was indiscriminate for a long time, because it demanded blind faith, and disbelief was a sin. Now scientifically objective discoveries have changed our view of the world. And religion has to constantly retreat, even the most stubborn fanatics do not want to look crazy. Therefore, religion is trying to find an explanation for the contradictions, so as not to lose its audience. But as the population becomes more educated, it becomes more difficult to maintain outdated mythology. One hundred years and 90% of people will be atheists.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 20, 2018, 08:41:10 PM
God, religion was indiscriminate for a long time, because it demanded blind faith, and disbelief was a sin. Now scientifically objective discoveries have changed our view of the world. And religion has to constantly retreat, even the most stubborn fanatics do not want to look crazy. Therefore, religion is trying to find an explanation for the contradictions, so as not to lose its audience. But as the population becomes more educated, it becomes more difficult to maintain outdated mythology. One hundred years and 90% of people will be atheists.

I think that there is never blind faith in religion. Why? Because no religion would ever get off the ground if all there was, was blind faith.

Rather, religions have religious books, religious buildings and statues, and other religious objects and philosophies that people use as a basis for their faith... faith which expects a future outcome because of the religion, but doesn't really know how the outcome is going to work or be set in place.

Science theory is religion. Why? Because it doesn't provide facts that we know will always be facts:
As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required.
The same paragraph contradicts what was just said:
That doesn’t mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics etc).

The whole idea of science theory is double talk, designed to make science fiction into science fact in the eyes of people who are not scientists. This means that science is just another religion, based on rigorous examination, and a built-in combination of faith and doubt (doubt, because scientists are always trying to find new ways to correct present science theories).

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 22, 2018, 03:43:56 PM
God, religion was indiscriminate for a long time, because it demanded blind faith, and disbelief was a sin. Now scientifically objective discoveries have changed our view of the world. And religion has to constantly retreat, even the most stubborn fanatics do not want to look crazy. Therefore, religion is trying to find an explanation for the contradictions, so as not to lose its audience. But as the population becomes more educated, it becomes more difficult to maintain outdated mythology. One hundred years and 90% of people will be atheists.

it doesn't provide facts that we know will always be facts:
As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required.
The same paragraph contradicts what was just said:
That doesn’t mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics etc).

The whole idea of science theory is double talk, designed to make science fiction into science fact in the eyes of people who are not scientists

This is called intellectual honesty... something you know nothing about

Only a fool would think he had all the answers and he couldn't possibly be mistaken about anything

There are some scientific theories, like evolution, to which the abundance of facts and evidence have proven the theory true, to the point where it could not be fundamentally changed (details might change, but evolution is proven true... every living thing on this planet evolves... period... this is a proven fact)... this is what you quoted, and you don't seem to understand it or accept it

The same goes with the other things in that list... the Earth revolves around the sun... all living things have cells... these are facts which cannot seriously be disputed

Denying evolution is as laughable as denying the Earth revolves around the sun... you're a fool if you believe your own nonsense


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 22, 2018, 08:56:30 PM
God, religion was indiscriminate for a long time, because it demanded blind faith, and disbelief was a sin. Now scientifically objective discoveries have changed our view of the world. And religion has to constantly retreat, even the most stubborn fanatics do not want to look crazy. Therefore, religion is trying to find an explanation for the contradictions, so as not to lose its audience. But as the population becomes more educated, it becomes more difficult to maintain outdated mythology. One hundred years and 90% of people will be atheists.

it doesn't provide facts that we know will always be facts:
As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required.
The same paragraph contradicts what was just said:
That doesn’t mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics etc).

The whole idea of science theory is double talk, designed to make science fiction into science fact in the eyes of people who are not scientists

This is called intellectual honesty... something you know nothing about

Only a fool would think he had all the answers and he couldn't possibly be mistaken about anything

There are some scientific theories, like evolution, to which the abundance of facts and evidence have proven the theory true, to the point where it could not be fundamentally changed (details might change, but evolution is proven true... every living thing on this planet evolves... period... this is a proven fact)... this is what you quoted, and you don't seem to understand it or accept it

The same goes with the other things in that list... the Earth revolves around the sun... all living things have cells... these are facts which cannot seriously be disputed

Denying evolution is as laughable as denying the Earth revolves around the sun... you're a fool if you believe your own nonsense

Your examples of science fact are examples of how a bunch of facts that are twisted to show things that really didn't happen. And the twisting is done in the minds of people who want them to be factual, and who use a lot of words to make them sound factual when they are not factual, or when we don't know that they are factual.

Evolution scientists are fools if they believe their own nonsense.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Sherwood_Archer on October 23, 2018, 06:06:31 AM
Science is based on evidence. Religion is based on belief.
Whether you believe on science or not will not change a thing about it. The same cannot be said with religion.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 23, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
God, religion was indiscriminate for a long time, because it demanded blind faith, and disbelief was a sin. Now scientifically objective discoveries have changed our view of the world. And religion has to constantly retreat, even the most stubborn fanatics do not want to look crazy. Therefore, religion is trying to find an explanation for the contradictions, so as not to lose its audience. But as the population becomes more educated, it becomes more difficult to maintain outdated mythology. One hundred years and 90% of people will be atheists.

it doesn't provide facts that we know will always be facts:
As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required.
The same paragraph contradicts what was just said:
That doesn’t mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics etc).

The whole idea of science theory is double talk, designed to make science fiction into science fact in the eyes of people who are not scientists

This is called intellectual honesty... something you know nothing about

Only a fool would think he had all the answers and he couldn't possibly be mistaken about anything

There are some scientific theories, like evolution, to which the abundance of facts and evidence have proven the theory true, to the point where it could not be fundamentally changed (details might change, but evolution is proven true... every living thing on this planet evolves... period... this is a proven fact)... this is what you quoted, and you don't seem to understand it or accept it

The same goes with the other things in that list... the Earth revolves around the sun... all living things have cells... these are facts which cannot seriously be disputed

Denying evolution is as laughable as denying the Earth revolves around the sun... you're a fool if you believe your own nonsense

Your examples of science fact are examples of how a bunch of facts that are twisted to show things that really didn't happen. And the twisting is done in the minds of people who want them to be factual, and who use a lot of words to make them sound factual when they are not factual, or when we don't know that they are factual.

Evolution scientists are fools if they believe their own nonsense.

You used to attempt to make sense... this is just sad to watch these days... why even bother replying with something so stupid?

You certainly won't convince anyone that you are correct when you post shit like this

You only make yourself look foolish


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 23, 2018, 02:59:10 PM
https://scontent.fybz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/44552787_2074141692672679_893053005123813376_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent.fybz1-1.fna&oh=40ff6582f0fa20ae4b9842947a812df2&oe=5C57FC48


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 23, 2018, 03:53:41 PM

Science and Religion

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 24, 2018, 12:54:18 PM
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d0/c3/b0/d0c3b0af0fe6af8bd6655694c6e2d407.jpg


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 24, 2018, 02:30:46 PM
The elite turned their 9/11 action into a religion of terror. Dr. Stephen Jones shows the nano-thermite used in the Twin Towers to make them collapse the way they did. Believing some formal religious group orchestrated 9/11, is believing in a false religion of propaganda done by those elite Americans who were behind the 9/11 war on America and the rest of the world, all for money.


Dr Steven Jones Nano Thermite 9 11 Truth Movement
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFSEw8nJrEk/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEXCPYBEIoBSFryq4qpAwkIARUAAIhCGAE=&rs=AOn4CLCiru4_nHrVV1eja_cdP5MVoHBE7w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFSEw8nJrEk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFSEw8nJrEk)


What You Don't Know About 9/11 Could Fill A DVD...
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y45qZWfjEcw/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEjCPYBEIoBSFryq4qpAxUIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJDeAE=&rs=AOn4CLBBdSAWXJJekSypOp2GYn7_ZSAawg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y45qZWfjEcw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y45qZWfjEcw)


The REAL conspiracy theory is that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. So, what is the religion? The scientifically applied acts against America on and following 9/11... and then hiding this truth from the world.


8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Savanna_R on October 25, 2018, 12:06:07 PM
don't agree with you. Science and religion answer different questions: science is about describing the world around, religion is about answering the question of what's after death. if you define them correctly, you'll see there's nothing to argue about...


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 25, 2018, 12:13:28 PM
don't agree with you. Science and religion answer different questions: science is about describing the world around, religion is about answering the question of what's after death. if you define them correctly, you'll see there's nothing to argue about...

The problem is religion tries to do more than simply answer questions about death... religion suppresses women, gays, abortion, drugs, and many other things... the bible has thousands of pages, and very few talk about death or the afterlife...

Quote from: Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

What does this have to do with answering questions about the afterlife?

Is this a good rule to follow in 2018?


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 25, 2018, 12:23:14 PM
don't agree with you. Science and religion answer different questions: science is about describing the world around, religion is about answering the question of what's after death. if you define them correctly, you'll see there's nothing to argue about...

Except there is no life after death.  Nobody in the history of life on Earth came back from death.  Not a shred of evidence.

Religion comes up with answers to non-existing problems, without providing any supporting evidence.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 26, 2018, 12:45:28 AM
don't agree with you. Science and religion answer different questions: science is about describing the world around, religion is about answering the question of what's after death. if you define them correctly, you'll see there's nothing to argue about...

Except there is no life after death.  Nobody in the history of life on Earth came back from death.  Not a shred of evidence.

Religion comes up with answers to non-existing problems, without providing any supporting evidence.

But God exists... fact. The faith part is believing Him when He tells us about the coming resurrection.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 26, 2018, 01:25:02 AM
don't agree with you. Science and religion answer different questions: science is about describing the world around, religion is about answering the question of what's after death. if you define them correctly, you'll see there's nothing to argue about...

Except there is no life after death.  Nobody in the history of life on Earth came back from death.  Not a shred of evidence.

Religion comes up with answers to non-existing problems, without providing any supporting evidence.

But God exists... fact. The faith part is believing Him when He tells us about the coming resurrection.

8)

Nobody cares about your faith.  It does not change a thing.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 26, 2018, 02:24:45 AM
Math is the perfect science. These fields were proven helpful in the pursuit of new innovatios, inventions, and investigating extraordinary phenomenon. There were many theories and explainations being presented by science and all of those are still theory especially in the question of how human beings were created or how life begins in this planet. But, some people believe in extraordinary things explain it through beliefs and this is religion.

Religion is the way to connect the unexplained things happened in this world. Thid is why I do believe on religion rather than science. Faith or religion is better than science. Science could not explain all things in this world. For sure this world is created with superpowers.



Religion provides answers without any evidence.  It does not explain anything. 

It conflates what we already know with what we don't know.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 26, 2018, 12:51:43 PM
don't agree with you. Science and religion answer different questions: science is about describing the world around, religion is about answering the question of what's after death. if you define them correctly, you'll see there's nothing to argue about...

Except there is no life after death.  Nobody in the history of life on Earth came back from death.  Not a shred of evidence.

Religion comes up with answers to non-existing problems, without providing any supporting evidence.

But God exists... fact. The faith part is believing Him when He tells us about the coming resurrection.

8)

Nobody cares about your faith.  It does not change a thing.

You are quite wrong about this. The example right here is that my faith causes me to post some of the things that I post in this forum. And some of the things I post modify the thinking of others. So, we all have and use faith. And all of us base our faith on things that we do religiously, day after day... even scientific things that we do.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 26, 2018, 02:39:42 PM
don't agree with you. Science and religion answer different questions: science is about describing the world around, religion is about answering the question of what's after death. if you define them correctly, you'll see there's nothing to argue about...

Except there is no life after death.  Nobody in the history of life on Earth came back from death.  Not a shred of evidence.

Religion comes up with answers to non-existing problems, without providing any supporting evidence.

But God exists... fact. The faith part is believing Him when He tells us about the coming resurrection.

8)

Nobody cares about your faith.  It does not change a thing.

You are quite wrong about this. The example right here is that my faith causes me to post some of the things that I post in this forum. And some of the things I post modify the thinking of others. So, we all have and use faith. And all of us base our faith on things that we do religiously, day after day... even scientific things that we do.

8)

At least you are honest about why you do it.

Your faith (or faith of other people) does not impact the reality one tiny bit.  

It does not matter if you have 2 billion delusional people, they still are delusional.  

Believing something does not make it true.

I care about the truth.  If I don't know something, I say I don't know, you instead adopted some ancient cult to fill your (large) gaps in knowledge.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: LickKing on October 28, 2018, 05:07:54 AM
This is really a bold idea. But you don't understand the importance of religion. Religion is the most basic step in science. The future world must be subverted. But it all stems from the early imagination. In short, religion is very important to the meaning of science.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 28, 2018, 12:40:16 PM
This is really a bold idea. But you don't understand the importance of religion. Religion is the most basic step in science. The future world must be subverted. But it all stems from the early imagination. In short, religion is very important to the meaning of science.

This makes no sense at all... science does not depend on religion for anything

Care to elaborate on how exactly "religion is the most basic step in science", or "religion is very important to the meaning of science"?

Science is about exploring and explaining the natural world, not supernatural woo-woo


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 28, 2018, 03:18:12 PM
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll just leave this here

http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/FT_15.02.11_darwin.png


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: IndeecV on October 28, 2018, 08:00:48 PM
This is really a bold idea. But you don't understand the importance of religion. Religion is the most basic step in science. The future world must be subverted. But it all stems from the early imagination. In short, religion is very important to the meaning of science.

The sole contribution of religion to science is education. In the Middle Ages, all training was concentrated in monasteries and churches. Many scientists were novices.
Because the church is an institution that accumulated knowledge and other learning opportunities (outside the ordinary crafts) did not exist.
But all the contradictions between the faith and knowledge of the mejou were interpreted in favor of the faith. Therefore, at some point religion has become a brake. And it remains to them so far.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 28, 2018, 11:36:58 PM

You are quite wrong about this. The example right here is that my faith causes me to post some of the things that I post in this forum. And some of the things I post modify the thinking of others. So, we all have and use faith. And all of us base our faith on things that we do religiously, day after day... even scientific things that we do.

8)

At least you are honest about why you do it.

Your faith (or faith of other people) does not impact the reality one tiny bit.  

It does not matter if you have 2 billion delusional people, they still are delusional.  

Believing something does not make it true.

I care about the truth.  If I don't know something, I say I don't know, you instead adopted some ancient cult to fill your (large) gaps in knowledge.


Your buddy, Moloch:
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll just leave this here

http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/FT_15.02.11_darwin.png

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Initscri on October 29, 2018, 06:18:28 AM
Science should absolutely always trump religion. Religion can be practiced, but not with the malice or disadvantage of society. There are many circumstances where religion and churches have benefited society, and many situations where it has not. Religion is historically based (but loosely). Science is going forward, and willing to adapt. Anything willing to adapt to facts should be followed primarily, as that's the only way the world will progress.

I firmly agree with the seperation of Church/State. IMO religion should be something that should be personal, but not used to dictate complex laws by complex countries/states.


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 29, 2018, 02:40:13 PM
Religion talked about and used the wheel thousands of years before science ever existed.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: Moloch on October 30, 2018, 01:36:12 PM
A channel I follow on YouTube posted a video about the recent Nobel Prize in chemistry.  They describe in detail how the various teams used evolution of a bacteriophage virus to create new medicines, fuels, etc.

The 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry - Periodic Table of Videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKtFKphuds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKtFKphuds)

This is how science works... they show you exactly how they did it, and how you could do it to if you want to test their claim

Any time I have tested a claim by religion, it fails... science works


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 31, 2018, 01:48:57 PM
https://scontent.fybz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/45040666_138679233763958_8060637910661070848_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent.fybz1-1.fna&oh=6e9ccd55fd457e92df1e54d6637bd213&oe=5C774543


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 31, 2018, 08:14:43 PM
Religion talked about and used mathematics thousands of years before science ever existed.

8)


Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: af_newbie on October 31, 2018, 10:46:19 PM
Religion talked about and used mathematics thousands of years before science ever existed.

8)

Should we use trepanning to cure migraines or perform bloodletting in alignment with the planets and zodiacs?

Talmud recommended specific days of the week and month to perform bloodletting, well before modern medicine existed.

Not sure what is your point.  

Are you suggesting that religious, ignorant superstitions are superior to science?

Your ignorance of the modern world is astounding.



Title: Re: The difference between science and religion
Post by: BADecker on October 31, 2018, 11:58:40 PM
Religion talked about and used mathematics thousands of years before science ever existed.

8)

Should we use trepanning to cure migraines or perform bloodletting in alignment with the planets and zodiacs?

Talmud recommended specific days of the week and month to perform bloodletting, well before modern medicine existed.

Not sure what is your point.  

Are you suggesting that religious, ignorant superstitions are superior to science?

Your ignorance of the modern world is astounding.


You go right ahead and use the form of science you want to use, right?

Remember this picture?:
Science and Religion

We have only had big gun science for about 300 years, maybe. But the population of the world is larger than ever by natural science which supports religion? How does it support religion? Many religions have as one of their major themes, reproduction, via natural science.

The title should have been, "The difference between science and science."

When you check out info listed on the Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1905551.760) page, and then do the research to verify it, you find out that man made science tends towards death and destroying people in the name of money. It's like this with the big gun picture, above.

Religion tends towards life by natural means, the only way it can be done.

Are you starting to get the picture, yet? Or are you going to remain in your astounding ignorance of modern science?

8)