Health and Religion

[CoinCube]

So what are the discoveries? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?

Religion discovered truth and science

"Even we knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by the thousand-year-old faith, the Christian faith which was also Plato's faith, that God is truth; that truth is divine". ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

[BADecker]

It is true that scientists take certain things on faith. It is also true that religious narratives might speak to human needs that scientific theories can’t hope to satisfy.

And yet, scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life.

Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.

What are you even going on about? If religion hadn't produced results, people would have forgotten about it long ago.

One of the most warmongering religions of today - Islam, https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx - has wonderful peace truths in it. These peace truths aren't things that work by accident. They are used because they have been tested out and work.

When you consider the Bible, one of the most peaceful of religions, its strength is very great. How do we know? Because the nation of Israel has been around for something like 3,500 years, and is one of the smallest, yet one of the strongest nations today. Do you think such happens by accident? The science of the Bible may not be the same as the science of modern science, but Bible science is stronger. Israel and America and Western Europe are examples of this.

Religion is stronger than science, and produces better results, both direct and indirect. The Internet shows this all over the place. The libraries are full of books that show this all over the place.

As usual, you are kinda backwards in your thinking.

So what are the discoveries? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?

As my previous post that you quoted indicates, all the time-proven remedies for health and wise living are found in religious writings. Why are they found in religion? Because that is where people recorded them when they found that they worked. Religion is the backbone of health... not science.

Nature is too complex for modern medicine to build much of any health. Someday maybe. But religious records from the ancient past still work. Even scientists of today are using info found in these records to enhance their capabilities.

[BADecker]

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

LOL! You talk so silly.

Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these:
1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened;
2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened;
3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not.

In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it.

Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened
2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did
3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not

This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them.

Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do.

So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily.

If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things.

[Astargath]

It is true that scientists take certain things on faith. It is also true that religious narratives might speak to human needs that scientific theories can’t hope to satisfy.

And yet, scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life.

Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.

What are you even going on about? If religion hadn't produced results, people would have forgotten about it long ago.

One of the most warmongering religions of today - Islam, https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx - has wonderful peace truths in it. These peace truths aren't things that work by accident. They are used because they have been tested out and work.

When you consider the Bible, one of the most peaceful of religions, its strength is very great. How do we know? Because the nation of Israel has been around for something like 3,500 years, and is one of the smallest, yet one of the strongest nations today. Do you think such happens by accident? The science of the Bible may not be the same as the science of modern science, but Bible science is stronger. Israel and America and Western Europe are examples of this.

Religion is stronger than science, and produces better results, both direct and indirect. The Internet shows this all over the place. The libraries are full of books that show this all over the place.

As usual, you are kinda backwards in your thinking.

So what are the discoveries? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?

As my previous post that you quoted indicates, all the time-proven remedies for health and wise living are found in religious writings. Why are they found in religion? Because that is where people recorded them when they found that they worked. Religion is the backbone of health... not science.

Nature is too complex for modern medicine to build much of any health. Someday maybe. But religious records from the ancient past still work. Even scientists of today are using info found in these records to enhance their capabilities.

''all the time-proven remedies for health and wise living are found in religious writings'' I don't follow your logic, even if indeed those remedies that you have provided no evidence for, work, what do they have to do with religion? Those are things that people took at the time to try to heal themselves, it has nothing to do with religion, did god tell them about the remedies or whats your argument here?

''Nature is too complex for modern medicine to build much of any health.'' I don't get this part either, you are saying our medicine today is not far far far better than it was 2000 years ago?

''Even scientists of today are using info found in these records to enhance their capabilities'' Like what?

[Astargath]

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

LOL! You talk so silly.

Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these:
1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened;
2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened;
3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not.

In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it.

Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened
2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did
3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not

This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them.

Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do.

So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily.

If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things.

You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god.

God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

[Astargath]

So what are the discoveries? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?

Religion discovered truth and science

"Even we knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by the thousand-year-old faith, the Christian faith which was also Plato's faith, that God is truth; that truth is divine". ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

''Religion discovered truth and science '' Did it really, did god specifically told people in the bible about the scientific method?

''When we had little understanding of our world, we needed something to hold on to, to explain the phenomenons we couldn't understand, so we made up a lot of believe systems, some of which evolved into what we now call religion. This was long before man had any understanding of how to to explain these phenomenons by investigating, experimenting and proving what one thinks.

All religion when it was conceived was meant to be peaceful and make people aware of their responsibilities towards one another. Sadly people misused it all the time for all kind of reasons, e.g. to obtain control over the population, power, greed etc. Historically speaking the clergy sadly have often condoned this, or even were active in promoting this misuse of religion.

Usually religion requires it's followers to adhere to unproven dogma's, which is OK with me since belief is something that can't be proven, and if it gives you strength and guidance, by all means, follow it.
What I object to is the insistance of some to convert the so called non believers, sometimes by coercion or by force.

Because of this religion has often in the past stood in the way of scientific advancement, because what scientists found didn't fit the dogma. Just think of Galileo Galilei, who was threatened with a ban when he proposed the view that earth was not the centre of the universe.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal...

Everything we have archieved what makes our lives better, more enjoyable and easier has not come to us through religion, like Jon Davis and William Jackson wrote, but through science e.g. technology, economic development, healthcare.
Fundamentalistic religion has even made life less enjoyable for it's followers, as enjoying life would be a sin!''

https://www.quora.com/Does-religion-slow-down-human-advancement-in-science-and-technology

[BADecker]

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

LOL! You talk so silly.

Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these:
1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened;
2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened;
3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not.

In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it.

Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened
2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did
3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not

This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them.

Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do.

So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily.

If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things.

You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god.

God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

Thanks for more or less agreeing with me. After all, the evidence for the existence of God, is so extremely greater in numbers of magnitudes than evidence for the non-existence of God, that if God doesn't exist, then with an absolute certainty no-God can't exist under any circumstance. Religious health is part of what proves the existence of God.

 

[Astargath]

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

LOL! You talk so silly.

Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these:
1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened;
2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened;
3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not.

In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it.

Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened
2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did
3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not

This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them.

Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do.

So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily.

If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things.

You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god.

God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

Thanks for more or less agreeing with me. After all, the evidence for the existence of God, is so extremely greater in numbers of magnitudes than evidence for the non-existence of God, that if God doesn't exist, then with an absolute certainty no-God can't exist under any circumstance. Religious health is part of what proves the existence of God.

 

Same can be applied for the big bang.

[BADecker]

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

LOL! You talk so silly.

Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these:
1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened;
2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened;
3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not.

In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it.

Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened
2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did
3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not

This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them.

Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do.

So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily.

If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things.

You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god.

God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

Thanks for more or less agreeing with me. After all, the evidence for the existence of God, is so extremely greater in numbers of magnitudes than evidence for the non-existence of God, that if God doesn't exist, then with an absolute certainty no-God can't exist under any circumstance. Religious health is part of what proves the existence of God.

 

Same can be applied for the big bang.

For example:
Let's say that nobody knew anything about trees. Then people started to scientifically investigate things about trees. Atom by atom, molecule by molecule, we started to unravel what a tree is, how it works, why it exists, and everything else we could find out about a tree and trees in general.

Regarding Big Bang, all the farther we are in examining it is the idea that it exists. We haven't started to examine the first "atom" or "molecule" so to speak, to see what it is about. We certainly haven't started to apply the things we know about the earth and life to it in any definitive way. We can guess that scientific operations of the earth and life have something to do with BB, but we don't have a scientific clue what the connection might be, or how it would or could work.

Same with God, from the scientific standpoint.

The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else. Scientists have all kinds of ideas. But there is no scientific knowledge or understanding, at all, about the connection between BB and the earth and life. All science has regarding BB is some math that suggests that it happened... if there isn't something else that messes the math up in some way not yet understood.

Nice start for science. But after all, we have to start somewhere, right?

The point? If BB is the cause behind the universe (something that science is only guessing at), then BB is God. Let's go to the religious revelations that God gives us about Himself, so that we can bypass a bunch of the laborious scientific examinations, which might take hundreds or thousands of years, and start to really find something out about God.

Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.

[af_newbie]

...

Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.

Religion is useless.  Religious people go to hospitals.

Medical intern is more powerful than any of your Gods (Allah, Yahweh, or any other 5000+ names people used in the past).

[sathi7890]

religion reproductive health care Ombudsman motherhood reproductive health refers to overall wellness in reproduction.

[Astargath]

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

LOL! You talk so silly.

Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these:
1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened;
2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened;
3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not.

In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it.

Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened
2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did
3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not

This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them.

Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do.

So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily.

If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things.

You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god.

God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

Thanks for more or less agreeing with me. After all, the evidence for the existence of God, is so extremely greater in numbers of magnitudes than evidence for the non-existence of God, that if God doesn't exist, then with an absolute certainty no-God can't exist under any circumstance. Religious health is part of what proves the existence of God.

 

Same can be applied for the big bang.

For example:
Let's say that nobody knew anything about trees. Then people started to scientifically investigate things about trees. Atom by atom, molecule by molecule, we started to unravel what a tree is, how it works, why it exists, and everything else we could find out about a tree and trees in general.

Regarding Big Bang, all the farther we are in examining it is the idea that it exists. We haven't started to examine the first "atom" or "molecule" so to speak, to see what it is about. We certainly haven't started to apply the things we know about the earth and life to it in any definitive way. We can guess that scientific operations of the earth and life have something to do with BB, but we don't have a scientific clue what the connection might be, or how it would or could work.

Same with God, from the scientific standpoint.

The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else. Scientists have all kinds of ideas. But there is no scientific knowledge or understanding, at all, about the connection between BB and the earth and life. All science has regarding BB is some math that suggests that it happened... if there isn't something else that messes the math up in some way not yet understood.

Nice start for science. But after all, we have to start somewhere, right?

The point? If BB is the cause behind the universe (something that science is only guessing at), then BB is God. Let's go to the religious revelations that God gives us about Himself, so that we can bypass a bunch of the laborious scientific examinations, which might take hundreds or thousands of years, and start to really find something out about God.

Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.

''The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else'' So you admit there is no scientific proof for god, ok.

''Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.'' What is religion? Why is religion the key to health or knowledge? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?

[CoinCube]

All religion when it was conceived was meant to be peaceful and make people aware of their responsibilities towards one another. Sadly people misused it all the time for all kind of reasons, e.g. to obtain control over the population, power, greed etc. Historically speaking the clergy sadly have often condoned this, or even were active in promoting this misuse of religion.

Usually religion requires it's followers to adhere to unproven dogma's, which is OK with me since belief is something that can't be proven, and if it gives you strength and guidance, by all means, follow it.
What I object to is the insistance of some to convert the so called non believers, sometimes by coercion or by force.

Because of this religion has often in the past stood in the way of scientific advancement, because what scientists found didn't fit the dogma. Just think of Galileo Galilei, who was threatened with a ban when he proposed the view that earth was not the centre of the universe.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal...

Yep, that's us humans for you. We lie, we cheat, we oppress, we seek power over others. Point to any human institution be it economic, scientific, or religious and you simply need to scratch the surface to expose the corruption we introduce. Religious institutions are in no way immune. They are composed of flawed individuals too.

In the Catholic church during the middle ages the corruption got to the point where it was selling permission to sin in the form of indulgences. The corruption was so severe that believers in the church could no longer overlook the hypocrisy and broke away in open rebellion thus the Protestant Reformation.

Galileo certainly was treated very poorly by the Catholic church but he was no saint himself. He refused to marry the mother of his three children making them illegitimate which was a big deal back then. Despite being a wealthy and powerful man, acknowledging illegitimate daughters would have presumably been embarrassing and inconvenient for him. It would also have probably been costly and difficult to find them good husbands. So instead he opted to sent them away at the tender ages of thirteen and twelve respectively to live in a covenant for the rest of their lives. A very harsh fate for a 12 year old when it is imposed not voluntarily chosen. Galileo was human too a good scientist but very human.

Religion discovered truth and science

"Even we knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by the thousand-year-old faith, the Christian faith which was also Plato's faith, that God is truth; that truth is divine". ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

''Religion discovered truth and science '' Did it really, did god specifically told people in the bible about the scientific method?

Yes it did or at least that is my belief. The grounding of reality in the divine and the acknowledgement that truth is divine sets us on a quest to seek the truth. Science is nothing more then a formalized and systemic attempt to seek truth. Its prerequisite is the belief and certainty that there is a truth worth seeking.

Friedrich Nietzsche one of the most devastating critics of institutional Christianity that every lived felt this way, as does Jordan Peterson today. Somewhere upthread I posted an eloquent argument by John C. Wright where he makes this case as well. I find the arguments these thinkers put forward persuasive but you will have to make up your own mind.

[timadok911]

self-development is the most important benefit for our brain, when the brain develops in different directions, it becomes flexible for different situations and will be able to tell you interesting solutions to the way out of the crisis. learn, read, listen, watch, discuss on different topics, your brain loves such work))

[Escan0r]

I don't believe these studies at all, times have changed and the problem is always extremist people. Judging by religions is a mistake at this time. Or are we still living in caverns

[BADecker]

I don't believe these studies at all, times have changed and the problem is always extremist people. Judging by religions is a mistake at this time. Or are we still living in caverns

You are believing the wrong studies. Time changes, but people don't. All you need to do to see this is look qt people of the past to see that they had heads, arms, hands, feet, legs, torsos, etc. just like we have.

People still live in caves in various parts of the world. If there were an abundance of caves right now in parts of California, people would be living there rather than in the tent cities.



All the skeletons and parts of skeletons of prehistoric man that we have, are so few in number that they could fit on one table. Their differences from modern mankind suggest genetic or other deformities in a few people or animals, rather than evolution. Evolution, including the timeline and formally accepted age of the earth, is a complete fable.

Time for you to start learning what is real, rather than what you want to believe.

[BADecker]

There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

LOL! You talk so silly.

Consider the science of Big Bang Theory, which many people have come to believe as truth. The one truth of it is the math behind it. Among the many things that discredit it are these:
1. Nobody knows that there is not some math, or some happening, that makes BB impossible to have happened;
2. Just because a BB is possible to happen, nobody knows that this is the way that our universe happened;
3. BB doesn't account at all for many of the multitudes of things that go on in the universe, so nobody knows if it could actually fit the universe or not.

In other words, much of the most popular science out there is mostly religion... because people believe it without having any direct knowledge of the possibility or probability of it. Modern media, which runs with all kinds of fantastic science stories, and blows them all out of proportion, has turned science into a religion, and many scientists, basking in the glory of being demigods for a day, go right along with it.

Yet it is often the religions that keep the politicians from using some of the most disastrous scientific devices ever made, to destroying the earth.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

1. Nobody knows that there is not some math or something happening that makes god impossible to have happened
2. Just because god is possible to happen doesnt mean it did
3. God doesn't account for many of the things that happen in our universe so nobody knows if it actually fits or not

This is where the difference exists. Cause and effect, complexity, and entropy exist all over the place in abundance of operations, many of which are repeatable by mankind if he simply copies nature. Yet the source of these has never been found by science, and they could only exist in nature as they do if God existed and made them.

Big Bang, or factual knowledge of what black holes are, are examples of things that people believe to be true, yet these haven't really been shown to be able to be made to exist even once. And if we have come close to making them, we have used C&E, entropy, and complexity to do it... not knowing where C&E, complexity, and entropy really come from, or how they work together as they do.

So, existence proves God, there is no proof for much of science (at least percentage-wise when comparing with C&E, entropy, and complexity), and religion - especially religious history - shows the ways for people to live peacefully and healthily.

If you had simply thought about it a little, you wouldn't have had to suggest such simplistic things.

You don't know if there are places where they don't exist. You also don't know that god made those things either. You also don't know if they could exist without god.

God is an example of things that people believe it's true yet they haven't really shown that it is even possible for it to exist.

You are kinda off in your thinking, as usual.

Thanks for more or less agreeing with me. After all, the evidence for the existence of God, is so extremely greater in numbers of magnitudes than evidence for the non-existence of God, that if God doesn't exist, then with an absolute certainty no-God can't exist under any circumstance. Religious health is part of what proves the existence of God.

 

Same can be applied for the big bang.

For example:
Let's say that nobody knew anything about trees. Then people started to scientifically investigate things about trees. Atom by atom, molecule by molecule, we started to unravel what a tree is, how it works, why it exists, and everything else we could find out about a tree and trees in general.

Regarding Big Bang, all the farther we are in examining it is the idea that it exists. We haven't started to examine the first "atom" or "molecule" so to speak, to see what it is about. We certainly haven't started to apply the things we know about the earth and life to it in any definitive way. We can guess that scientific operations of the earth and life have something to do with BB, but we don't have a scientific clue what the connection might be, or how it would or could work.

Same with God, from the scientific standpoint.

The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else. Scientists have all kinds of ideas. But there is no scientific knowledge or understanding, at all, about the connection between BB and the earth and life. All science has regarding BB is some math that suggests that it happened... if there isn't something else that messes the math up in some way not yet understood.

Nice start for science. But after all, we have to start somewhere, right?

The point? If BB is the cause behind the universe (something that science is only guessing at), then BB is God. Let's go to the religious revelations that God gives us about Himself, so that we can bypass a bunch of the laborious scientific examinations, which might take hundreds or thousands of years, and start to really find something out about God.

Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.

''The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else'' So you admit there is no scientific proof for god, ok.

Did you miss my little word "how" that you quoted? Did you not see the part where I said, "If BB is the cause behind the universe (something that science is only guessing at), then BB is God." Science doesn't have a clue HOW God did it. They can't even put 2 + 2 together enough to understand that it WAS God Who did it. And you can't even think enough to recognize the answers to your questions, even when you copy them to rebut the things I say. You are proving that you are devolving.

''Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.'' What is religion? Why is religion the key to health or knowledge? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?

Since there is only devolution, why should there be any modern changes made in ages old religions? They have always had the best. If they didn’t, they would have been gone long ago.

However, the religion of science has found things out, many of which just aren’t true, although people often believe them: BB Theory, Black Hole Theory, Age-of the earth ideas, etc., many things. Such things are religion since people believe them, but don’t realize that they are not true.

When you believe religions of science to be true, your health is affected negatively when you place your trust in them. The only reason your health might be affected in good ways is, the ability of your mind to use placebo effect regarding your health, is the thing that makes you healthy even though you have beliefs in the false religions of science. After all, if science knew what it was doing, it would cure everybody. So, it is a false religion.

Health and religion go hand in hand. It's just that many people have an imprecise or incorrect understanding of which religion is affecting their health, and how.

[Astargath]

I don't believe these studies at all, times have changed and the problem is always extremist people. Judging by religions is a mistake at this time. Or are we still living in caverns

You are believing the wrong studies. Time changes, but people don't. All you need to do to see this is look qt people of the past to see that they had heads, arms, hands, feet, legs, torsos, etc. just like we have.

People still live in caves in various parts of the world. If there were an abundance of caves right now in parts of California, people would be living there rather than in the tent cities.


All the skeletons and parts of skeletons of prehistoric man that we have, are so few in number that they could fit on one table. Their differences from modern mankind suggest genetic or other deformities in a few people or animals, rather than evolution. Evolution, including the timeline and formally accepted age of the earth, is a complete fable.

Time for you to start learning what is real, rather than what you want to believe.

''don’t know how many hominin fossils there are in the world. There is no tabulation. The pace of discovery now is too fast to track. Each year for the last decade, anthropologists have unearthed hundreds of fossil specimens from extinct hominin species and populations.

By 2012, the Sima de los Huesos hominin assemblage, near Burgos, Spain, numbered more than 6500 specimens from at least 28 individuals. Many more fossils are recovered in every field season. In South Africa, the Rising Star hominin sample today numbers more than 2000 specimens from at least 18 individuals. This deposit of hominin fossils was completely unknown until 2013. From just two caves, that is nearly 9000 fossil hominin specimens.''

https://medium.com/@johnhawks/how-much-evidence-have-scientists-found-for-human-evolution-355801dfd35c

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

You can clearly see all the differences.

[Astargath]

''The earth and life are so extremely complex and marvelous, that science doesn't really have a clue about how it all came into being... from a scientific standpoint... be it by God or by BB or by something else'' So you admit there is no scientific proof for god, ok. Did you miss my little word "how" that you quoted? Did you not see the part where I said, "If BB is the cause behind the universe (something that science is only guessing at), then BB is God." Science doesn't have a clue HOW God did it. They can't even put 2 + 2 together enough to understand that it WAS God Who did it. And you can't even think enough to recognize the answers to your questions, even when you copy them to rebut the things I say. You are proving that you are devolving.

''Religion is the key to health and knowledge about God. Science will take way too long to be practical.'' What is religion? Why is religion the key to health or knowledge? What has religion found out in the last 5000 years?

Since there is only devolution, why should there be any modern changes made in ages old religions? They have always had the best. If they didn’t, they would have been gone long ago.

However, the religion of science has found things out, many of which just aren’t true, although people often believe them: BB Theory, Black Hole Theory, Age-of the earth ideas, etc., many things. Such things are religion since people believe them, but don’t realize that they are not true.

When you believe religions of science to be true, your health is affected negatively when you place your trust in them. The only reason your health might be affected in good ways is, the ability of your mind to use placebo effect regarding your health, is the thing that makes you healthy even though you have beliefs in the false religions of science. After all, if science knew what it was doing, it would cure everybody. So, it is a false religion.

Health and religion go hand in hand. It's just that many people have an imprecise or incorrect understanding of which religion is affecting their health, and how.

''then BB is God.'' The definition of the big bang is clearly not the definition of god in the bible, I don't see how you can say that if the big bang was real then the big bang would be god, the big bang would be the creator of the universe but the big bang is not a sentient being let alone an omniscient omnipotent one.

''Science doesn't have a clue HOW God did it. They can't even put 2 + 2 together enough to understand that it WAS God Who did it.'' But you are smarter than all of them and you do know, right?

''After all, if science knew what it was doing, it would cure everybody.'' Fallacy. After all if religion knew what it was doing and was inspired by God it would cure everybody, right? Science has cured infinitely more people than religion because religion has cured 0 people. As I said before, do you go to a church to pray when you are sick or do you go to your doctor? I'm still waiting for you to tell me what religion has found out in the last 5000 years.

[BADecker]

I don't believe these studies at all, times have changed and the problem is always extremist people. Judging by religions is a mistake at this time. Or are we still living in caverns

You are believing the wrong studies. Time changes, but people don't. All you need to do to see this is look qt people of the past to see that they had heads, arms, hands, feet, legs, torsos, etc. just like we have.

People still live in caves in various parts of the world. If there were an abundance of caves right now in parts of California, people would be living there rather than in the tent cities.


All the skeletons and parts of skeletons of prehistoric man that we have, are so few in number that they could fit on one table. Their differences from modern mankind suggest genetic or other deformities in a few people or animals, rather than evolution. Evolution, including the timeline and formally accepted age of the earth, is a complete fable.

Time for you to start learning what is real, rather than what you want to believe.

''don’t know how many hominin fossils there are in the world. There is no tabulation. The pace of discovery now is too fast to track. Each year for the last decade, anthropologists have unearthed hundreds of fossil specimens from extinct hominin species and populations.

By 2012, the Sima de los Huesos hominin assemblage, near Burgos, Spain, numbered more than 6500 specimens from at least 28 individuals. Many more fossils are recovered in every field season. In South Africa, the Rising Star hominin sample today numbers more than 2000 specimens from at least 18 individuals. This deposit of hominin fossils was completely unknown until 2013. From just two caves, that is nearly 9000 fossil hominin specimens.''

https://medium.com/@johnhawks/how-much-evidence-have-scientists-found-for-human-evolution-355801dfd35c

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

You can clearly see all the differences.

You can clearly see the differences:







Your B.S. tables are simply a science fiction story. They are a religion that distracts from reality. They are destroying the health of people simply by getting people to believe in falsehood.

Health and religion.