Science and Religion?

[BADecker]

And what do we know for sure? You keep talking about knowing for sure and facts but you still dont understand that there is no such thing. Science does not operate that way. There are no 100% facts in anything. Science theory is the closest we can get to facts

So, this is why science thinks the universe is 13 billion years old? Because they don't know it? Because they know there are as many ideas that suggest the universe - at least the earth - is young, like 10,000 years old?

I'm soooo happy that scientists can get excited about the things that they don't know, and especially that they know that they don't know... even while they advertise that they are fact... like evolution, for example.

All you are suggesting is that science is a big conglomeration of science fiction.

Much of religion, on the other hand, is recorded, eye witness accounts. Some of it sci-fi science doesn't have a clue about. So science sci-fi tries to dismiss it as fantasy or fiction. But as you said, it is science that is the fiction. So their dismissals are fictitious. Religion, being eye witness accounts, is factual, even though some of it might be interpretations of what was seen, because  - as we have so often heard - truth is stranger than fiction.

[af_newbie]

And what do we know for sure? You keep talking about knowing for sure and facts but you still dont understand that there is no such thing. Science does not operate that way. There are no 100% facts in anything. Science theory is the closest we can get to facts

So, this is why science thinks the universe is 13 billion years old? Because they don't know it? Because they know there are as many ideas that suggest the universe - at least the earth - is young, like 10,000 years old?

I'm soooo happy that scientists can get excited about the things that they don't know, and especially that they know that they don't know... even while they advertise that they are fact... like evolution, for example.

All you are suggesting is that science is a big conglomeration of science fiction.

Much of religion, on the other hand, is recorded, eye witness accounts. Some of it sci-fi science doesn't have a clue about. So science sci-fi tries to dismiss it as fantasy or fiction. But as you said, it is science that is the fiction. So their dismissals are fictitious. Religion, being eye witness accounts, is factual, even though some of it might be interpretations of what was seen, because  - as we have so often heard - truth is stranger than fiction.

Show me one contemporary historical figure who actually saw Moses or Jesus for that matter.

[BADecker]

And what do we know for sure? You keep talking about knowing for sure and facts but you still dont understand that there is no such thing. Science does not operate that way. There are no 100% facts in anything. Science theory is the closest we can get to facts

So, this is why science thinks the universe is 13 billion years old? Because they don't know it? Because they know there are as many ideas that suggest the universe - at least the earth - is young, like 10,000 years old?

I'm soooo happy that scientists can get excited about the things that they don't know, and especially that they know that they don't know... even while they advertise that they are fact... like evolution, for example.

All you are suggesting is that science is a big conglomeration of science fiction.

Much of religion, on the other hand, is recorded, eye witness accounts. Some of it sci-fi science doesn't have a clue about. So science sci-fi tries to dismiss it as fantasy or fiction. But as you said, it is science that is the fiction. So their dismissals are fictitious. Religion, being eye witness accounts, is factual, even though some of it might be interpretations of what was seen, because  - as we have so often heard - truth is stranger than fiction.

Show me one contemporary historical figure who actually saw Moses or Jesus for that matter.

Contemporary to what? Our time or theirs? Did Plato or Archimedes or Euclid really exist?



EDIT: Miriam and Aaron saw Moses. Peter, James and John saw Jesus. (Sorry, I got carried away. You asked for only one.)

[af_newbie]

And what do we know for sure? You keep talking about knowing for sure and facts but you still dont understand that there is no such thing. Science does not operate that way. There are no 100% facts in anything. Science theory is the closest we can get to facts

So, this is why science thinks the universe is 13 billion years old? Because they don't know it? Because they know there are as many ideas that suggest the universe - at least the earth - is young, like 10,000 years old?

I'm soooo happy that scientists can get excited about the things that they don't know, and especially that they know that they don't know... even while they advertise that they are fact... like evolution, for example.

All you are suggesting is that science is a big conglomeration of science fiction.

Much of religion, on the other hand, is recorded, eye witness accounts. Some of it sci-fi science doesn't have a clue about. So science sci-fi tries to dismiss it as fantasy or fiction. But as you said, it is science that is the fiction. So their dismissals are fictitious. Religion, being eye witness accounts, is factual, even though some of it might be interpretations of what was seen, because  - as we have so often heard - truth is stranger than fiction.

Show me one contemporary historical figure who actually saw Moses or Jesus for that matter.

Contemporary to what? Our time or theirs? Did Plato or Archimedes or Euclid really exist?



EDIT: Miriam and Aaron saw Moses. Peter, James and John saw Jesus. (Sorry, I got carried away. You asked for only one.)

Show me one historical evidence (outside of religious texts) that Moses or Jesus existed.

[BADecker]

Show me one historical evidence (outside of religious texts) that Moses or Jesus existed.

Show me one place in the Bible that says that they didn't exist.     

[Astargath]

Show me one historical evidence (outside of religious texts) that Moses or Jesus existed.

Show me one place in the Bible that says that they didn't exist.     

You are obviously trolling because you know there is 0 evidence for anything in the bible outside the bible. Science theory is the closest to facts, a book it's not. How do you know for sure the bible wasn't written by someone else?

[BADecker]

You are obviously trolling because you know there is 0 evidence for anything in the bible outside the bible. Science theory is the closest to facts, a book it's not. How do you know for sure the bible wasn't written by someone else?

There are about 1.5 billion Christians in the world. The rest would be Christians if they saw the strength in Christianity. Most of the rest are simply ignorant of the Bible.

You are missing a great big chunk of evidence if you say there is zero evidence.

[af_newbie]

Show me one historical evidence (outside of religious texts) that Moses or Jesus existed.

Show me one place in the Bible that says that they didn't exist.     

Show me where it says in The Lord of the Rings that Frodo Baggins does not exist.

You should read other books, other than the Bible if you want to distinguish what is fiction and what is not.

[af_newbie]

You are obviously trolling because you know there is 0 evidence for anything in the bible outside the bible. Science theory is the closest to facts, a book it's not. How do you know for sure the bible wasn't written by someone else?

There are about 1.5 billion Christians in the world. The rest would be Christians if they saw the strength in Christianity. Most of the rest are simply ignorant of the Bible.

You are missing a great big chunk of evidence if you say there is zero evidence.

Two thousand years ago, all people on Earth believed that Earth was flat.  Being wrong is not evidence you are right.  It is evidence of your ignorance of science.

[Easteregg69]

You will have to take spacetime and belief in to consideration to make the math work.


That way you have room for both Moses, Jesus, God and yourself.

[BADecker]

Science is very limited. It is divided into two basic parts:
1. The parts that are factual, like electrolysis of H2O;
2. The parts that are unknown (science theory), like Big Bang or evolution.

Religion covers the parts that science hasn't gotten to, yet.

If science fact didn't work, it would have been gone long ago.

If religion didn't work, it would have been gone long ago.

Believing in science that isn't known to be fact is like making it into a religion. After all, people feel that religion is true, but they can't easily put their fingers on the facts that might make it true. Same with science theory. No facts that make science theory true, or it would be science fact. So, belief in science theory is religion or like religion.

The reason science theory works is that it is a religion to its believers.

[Astargath]

Science is very limited. It is divided into two basic parts:
1. The parts that are factual, like electrolysis of H2O;
2. The parts that are unknown (science theory), like Big Bang or evolution.

Religion covers the parts that science hasn't gotten to, yet.

If science fact didn't work, it would have been gone long ago.

If religion didn't work, it would have been gone long ago.

Believing in science that isn't known to be fact is like making it into a religion. After all, people feel that religion is true, but they can't easily put their fingers on the facts that might make it true. Same with science theory. No facts that make science theory true, or it would be science fact. So, belief in science theory is religion or like religion.

The reason science theory works is that it is a religion to its believers.

ROFL, here is the problem badecker, science is very limited, religion (which is nothing, just a book) is far more limited. Does religion have any other method that it's better than the scientific method to find out when something is true or not?

[BADecker]

Science is very limited. It is divided into two basic parts:
1. The parts that are factual, like electrolysis of H2O;
2. The parts that are unknown (science theory), like Big Bang or evolution.

Religion covers the parts that science hasn't gotten to, yet.

If science fact didn't work, it would have been gone long ago.

If religion didn't work, it would have been gone long ago.

Believing in science that isn't known to be fact is like making it into a religion. After all, people feel that religion is true, but they can't easily put their fingers on the facts that might make it true. Same with science theory. No facts that make science theory true, or it would be science fact. So, belief in science theory is religion or like religion.

The reason science theory works is that it is a religion to its believers.

ROFL, here is the problem badecker, science is very limited, religion (which is nothing, just a book) is far more limited. Does religion have any other method that it's better than the scientific method to find out when something is true or not?

It's kinda surprising that someone who believes in science with all its limitations, would consider religion to be nothing. After all, limited science IS religion when believed in. So the believer in science is believing in nothing.

What's interesting is that the traditional religions all have psychology and understanding in them that works better than most of the science religion. In fact that's why more than half of the world's population believes in religion (the other half believing in nothing). Religion works. Even the science religion nothing... sometimes.

[iamhungry]

Regardless of whether you are into Science or Religion, neither of them will solve all your problems at the end of the day.

[BADecker]

Regardless of whether you are into Science or Religion, neither of them will solve all your problems at the end of the day.

But religion might solve all your problems at the end of your life... if you have the right religion. Scientists aren't near capable enough to make science succeed for you.

[bones261]

But religion might solve all your problems at the end of your life... if you have the right religion. Scientists aren't near capable enough to make science succeed for you.

That is the crux of the problem though. As you just acknowledged, it might solve your problems and it might not solve your problems at the end of your life. There is no way to confirm that your faith path is indeed the correct one, until it's too late. Even if supernatural being visits you personally, it could be a malevolent spirit leading down the wrong path...At least with science, we can always test and retests any ideas, and if we find some discrepancies, modify the ideas to conform to the measurements.

[BADecker]

But religion might solve all your problems at the end of your life... if you have the right religion. Scientists aren't near capable enough to make science succeed for you.

That is the crux of the problem though. As you just acknowledged, it might solve your problems and it might not solve your problems at the end of your life. There is no way to confirm that your faith path is indeed the correct one, until it's too late. Even if supernatural being visits you personally, it could be a malevolent spirit leading down the wrong path...At least with science, we can always test and retests any ideas, and if we find some discrepancies, modify the ideas to conform to the measurements.

If science were about the simple things - like electrolysis of water, or making graphene - it would be okay for use in this life. But science is fill with all kinds of theories, some of which will never be able to be proven. What are the theories for? Two things:
1. To help build a product that they can sell and make money;
2. To find the answer to life, the universe, and everything = religious (42?).

In its simple ways, science is a tool. In its complex ways, science is a religion.

[bones261]

If science were about the simple things - like electrolysis of water, or making graphene - it would be okay for use in this life. But science is fill with all kinds of theories, some of which will never be able to be proven. What are the theories for? Two things:
1. To help build a product that they can sell and make money;
2. To find the answer to life, the universe, and everything = religious (42?).

In its simple ways, science is a tool. In its complex ways, science is a religion.

Science is not a religion. There is no dogma in science. If a theory doesn't fit the measurable facts, it is eventually discarded.

[iamhungry]

If science were about the simple things - like electrolysis of water, or making graphene - it would be okay for use in this life. But science is fill with all kinds of theories, some of which will never be able to be proven. What are the theories for? Two things:
1. To help build a product that they can sell and make money;
2. To find the answer to life, the universe, and everything = religious (42?).

In its simple ways, science is a tool. In its complex ways, science is a religion.

Science is not a religion. There is no dogma in science. If a theory doesn't fit the measurable facts, it is eventually discarded.

Right, pure science isn't but I think he's referring to personal bias that can bleed into research or people being influenced to do certain studies (and maybe change results here and there)... those kinds of things, tampering with the actual practice of science

[BADecker]

If science were about the simple things - like electrolysis of water, or making graphene - it would be okay for use in this life. But science is fill with all kinds of theories, some of which will never be able to be proven. What are the theories for? Two things:
1. To help build a product that they can sell and make money;
2. To find the answer to life, the universe, and everything = religious (42?).

In its simple ways, science is a tool. In its complex ways, science is a religion.

Science is not a religion. There is no dogma in science. If a theory doesn't fit the measurable facts, it is eventually discarded.

Measurable facts are science dogma, even though they don't fit the dogma of formal religion. Why? Because they are things that can't be changed. Do a science experiment exactly the same way every time, and you get exactly the same results every time. Science dogma is even stronger than religious dogma.

There are many science theories that are popular, but haven't been proven one way or another, yet remain theories. So, it is the decision of scientists whether or not they will drop a theory from being such.