The difference between science and religion

[o_e_l_e_o]

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[af_newbie]

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.

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.

[adamantasaurus]

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 Religion and science both try to explain our lives religion in my opinion is outdated and is no longer needed because we have science to prove without a doubt what is really going on.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)

[BADecker]

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.

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.

[af_newbie]

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.

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.

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.

[Foxpup]

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.

[BTCeminjas]

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.

[mathtoughfat]

Science believe only when they have a tangible proof and religion are base on faith and facts that are backed-up by the bible.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_organizations

[mhine07]

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.

[vedeloper]

Science exists, whether you believe it or not

[guybrushthreepwood]

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?" 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  .

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.

I just can't even....

[BADecker]

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?" 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  . - 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.

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.

[torkinakiza]

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.

 

[BADecker]

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.

 

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.

[Moloch]

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?

[Obeng Plusss]

You can read it in the following article
 https://athikacandra.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/perboritas-dan-persamaan-agama-dan-sains/

[CashMercenary]

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.

[Reedah]

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.