1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Truth : Science Vs. Religion

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by Wrigleyvillain, Jul 18, 2011.

  1. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,658 (3.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,767
    Location:
    Chicago
    Good news why? Cause it bolsters the belief that Allah created the universe? :rolleyes:

    Like Mailman said we really have no idea when it comes to the universe and religious Creationist theory is likely the epitome of that ignorance.

    Very interesting. Nice find.
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011
  2. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,784 (3.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,482
    nothing in science speaks about a creator nor can science ever make any statements to that
  3. LAN_deRf_HA

    LAN_deRf_HA

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    4,524 (1.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    932
    Technically as understanding of the mind grows science can make plenty of statements about what and why we believe the things we do.
  4. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,784 (3.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,482
    yes but that has nothing to do with a creator. any answer science can give you can ask "why? how?"
  5. The Witcher New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    433 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Location:
    United Arab Emirates
    What ? you just read United ARAB Emirates and automatically assumed I'm a Muslim ?

    I just find it funny when things like that happen, I mean when I see other people defending concepts just because everyone believe in it. I'm a free thinker myself, I'm extremely skeptic about everything.

    Anyway I was just being sarcastic....
  6. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,936 (7.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,509
    Religion is not the epitome of ignorance. Mans arrogance is. Be it his faith in an interpretation of mans science. Or his faith in mans interpretation of a book. Its all self severing stupidity and the message is always lost.

    Some say man uses religion to explain the unknown. Some say man uses science to explain away his misunderstanding of G-d. Bottom line? Nobody knows and anyone who holds judgment over one or the other is worse then who he holds judgment over.

    Both science and religion are about having an open mind. Yet both extremes seem to be the most closed.
  7. JATownes

    JATownes

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,824 (0.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    433
    This post needs to be put on a billboard and shared with the world! Very good outlook on science & religion. I liked it a lot. Kudos to you!
  8. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,936 (7.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,509
    From the man who "proved" there is no G-d sitting in a wheelchair. :laugh:
  9. digibucc

    digibucc

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,914 (2.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,490
    except he never said religion is the epitome of ignorance,
    he said that religions' creationist theory is, and i'd like to
    see the great mailman ;) dispute that!
  10. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,936 (7.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,509
    Religion is the corner stone of the creationist theory.

    Disputed. :laugh:
    digibucc says thanks.
  11. streetfighter 2

    streetfighter 2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,658 (1.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    732
    Location:
    Philly
    I don't recall that ever happening. Douglas Adams did that. :laugh:
    On a more serious note I don't see how science conflicts with deism.

    The problem I have with your criticism of science is that you seem to neglect the burden of responsibility that exists in science.

    To explain that idea a little better . . . Often the question of where to go for lunch will come up between my friends and I. Being a troublemaker, I'll often suggest a restaurant I like. Someone will inevitably complain that they don't like ______ food. My standard response is thus, "In life you won't get very far by only stating that a choice is inadequate; you have to suggest another option which works better." Then I put on my troll face. :D

    This metaphor extends to science and begs the additional questions:
    How do we know when we know it? Or, how much evidence is enough to be positive proof?

    Human ego is pervasive in science, but this is incidental and unavoidable. What aspect of life is not subject to bias? Nevertheless we must be diligent in removing obstacles, including the illusion of knowledge, to scientific progress.

    Last edited: Jul 19, 2011
    digibucc says thanks.
  12. digibucc

    digibucc

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,914 (2.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,490
    exactly, science at the very least makes an allotment for human egotism,
    and that's why there are so many checks and balances, proof argument
    and counter-point. it's goal is to find the most objective truth we can
    - whereas religion's goal seems to be to ignore as much proof as possible,
    so as to maintain the grip you have on people's minds.

    and note:i mean organized religion, though i think the belief in god alone has
    it's harmful effects, in making one MORE willing to accept inconsistent claims
    on "faith". but it's nothing compared to the effect of the abrahamic religions
    in particular.
  13. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,936 (7.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,509
    I agree. However while scientists are willing acknowledge they do not know everything. They are also 100% positive there is no G-d yet can offer no proof. Its hypocritical and egotistical. There lies my issue with a lot of "science". I feel the same way when religion passes judgment on a culture or a person. They are being hypocritical to their own foundation.

    My view is to keep an open mind. Until ether one can be proved without a doubt Ill practice what both preach. ;)

    No thats not religions goal at all. Thats mans goal.

    The same can be said about science and its misuse of the "green industry" to also gain control. Checks and balances are out the window when politics are involved.

    Science and religion should team up and get rid of what truly ills man. Politics. :laugh:
  14. digibucc

    digibucc

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,914 (2.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,490
    that is the first time i have seen you say something that is outright false. i don't even want
    to know your excuse, as that statement has no basis in reality.

    any scientist, heck - any rational logical being worth their salt would say at most:

    "I highly doubt there is any creator, though i can't say for sure." anything more than that
    is either an ignorant person, or a straw-man argument.
  15. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,936 (7.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,509
    Lots of scientist say for sure there is no G-d. When they do I toss them out as scientist.

    Granted my statement was generalizing and that was a mistake.
    digibucc says thanks.
  16. digibucc

    digibucc

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,914 (2.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,490
    fair enough.

    right but the difference is, religions are built around the idea of trusting a singluar
    authority that has no basis in fact to back up their claims. at least with science and
    enough desire it is possible to test the claims we are trusting.

    religion inherently lacks a system to do this, and therefore imo is less reliable.
  17. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,936 (7.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,509
    There used to be a show years ago that attacked the bible and its theory's with science. The parting of the red sea and such. Almost every single major "miracles" in the bible could be explained through science and in fact could be replicated in some way today.

    It was an amazing show that pissed off both religious and scientific minds. Guess thats why it went off the air :laugh:

    Anyway it comes down to one belief. Do you believe in coincidence and all its likelihoods.
  18. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,658 (3.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,767
    Location:
    Chicago
    My bad for jumping to conclusions but I couldn't come up with any other reason why this would be "good news" and your "explanation" didn't really change much in that regard. And as 76% of the UAE is Muslim I figured it was a safe assumption.

    And yes I agree that mans arrogance is the epitome of ignorance but what is more arrogant in terms of believing one has "all the answers" (well, almost) than organized religion?

    Religion is like a communicable virus that affects the mind.
    digibucc says thanks.
  19. streetfighter 2

    streetfighter 2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,658 (1.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    732
    Location:
    Philly
    Wait, wait, wait -- what? I don't remember science saying god doesn't exist. Richard Dawkins said that and most of his peers regard him as a shock jock.

    Whether or not god exists depends on how your belief system works. For instance if someone asserts, "if the earth is more than about 6,000 years old than god doesn't exist because the bible is literal", well I've got bad news for you, because god doesn't exist :laugh:. If, on the other hand, the statement is changed to, "God is infallible but the bible is not a literal account of creation", then this says nothing about whether god actually exists or not.

    You can only disprove god if you give god some testable criteria. Science does not define god, religion does.

    As I said earlier, "I don't see how science conflicts with deism."
    TheMailMan78 and digibucc say thanks.
  20. digibucc

    digibucc

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,914 (2.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,490
    well without seeing it, i would assume the science was shoddy - so scientists didn't like it.

    and religions, as wrigley said, already have all the answers. anyone claiming something
    else is obviously wrong, or else why have we been listening to these people for thousands of years.

    if the science isn't shoddy, i would have something to consider. do you remember the name?

    as for coincidence, i believe some things are going to happen. not "meant" as to signify
    intention, but more like the answer to a math problem. the pieces are already in place so
    it will happen regardless.

    but a lot is simply chance. and i've heard no argument strong enough, that even combined
    with the others lends any credence to the idea that there is a divine being that created our
    world with intent, and/maybe still watches over us. absolutely nothing leads to this being
    the most logical conclusion, so i dismiss it until maybe something does logically lead there.

    it's not a matter of accepting the possibility, i have already done that. i just think it's
    about as likely that there is a teapot orbiting our solar system. i could never prove that
    wrong, but it doesn't mean there is an equal chance of it being correct as not.
    CDdude55 says thanks.
  21. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,936 (7.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,509
    Fixed.

    So is bad science. The only thing they have in common is mans arrogance. ;)
  22. CDdude55

    CDdude55 Crazy 4 TPU!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8,179 (3.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,277
    Location:
    Virginia
    You can only assess the claims of God's depending on how you define a God. Some say God is love, some say it's the soil or air. But the problem has always been the lack of evidence, they all rely on faith which solely appeals to emotion, as faith is not a pathway to truth.

    Religion and God are the easiest ways for our minds to comprehend the existence of the universe, but it doesn't help us understand the universe like we should. I consider God a cop out answer to such a large and complex question, it's the suspension of critical thinking for what feels right to the mind as well as what your parents told you growing up, they lie to you and then tell you to be honest.

    God is possible, but so is the celestial teapot and flying elfs creating the universe, possibilities are infinite.
    digibucc says thanks.
  23. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,936 (7.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,509
    The science wasn't shoddy IMO. A lot of times they would say "we can't prove this" and they would chalk it up to fantasy. But when they did prove something it was awesome. They even had the red sea accounted for with a Neapolitan expedition and account. The whole thing had to do with the plates of the Earth shifting for some reason or another. Ill see if I can find the show. It was pretty mind blowing some of the stuff they were showing and proving and disproving. Sodom was one they couldn't prove. They theroized it was a meteor I belive. But the soil proved that wrong. Good stuff.

    Anyway I GOT to get back to work. Ill rebuttle some of the other stuff tonight if I can.
    digibucc says thanks.
  24. The Witcher New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    433 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Location:
    United Arab Emirates
    Since this thread will get locked anyway, let's me toss my opinion :D

    Well, regarding Dawkin's memes. I can clearly see that many of his concepts are being used here. But I've to ask the question, do some of you think about what you read or do you just believe it because it was said by a charismatic and a little bit authoritarian figure such as Richard Dawkins ? I myself always think about the process of the human mind accepting new ideas and how it accepts it (That's a whole different topic).

    I myself is torn apart by the sheer number of ideas regarding science/religion. I've a constant inner conflict, it's like one part of me start saying that Richard Dawkins ideas "for example" are right but then another parts jump and start saying that there is still a possibility that there is some kind of grand plan.

    The bottom line is, always be open minded and don't accept anything as a fact or close to a fact, because in the end you might get disappointed. Being neutral is good for me, at least in the mean time.

    Oh one last thing, I bow for MailMan because he is one of the few people I've seen that do look really open-minded unlike some people that convince themselves that they are open-minded when they are not "I'm talking in general here, I'm not directing this to anyone :D"
  25. digibucc

    digibucc

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,914 (2.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,490
    you're free to believe what you want witcher, but i disagree . not in your sentiment,
    but in your analysis of the situation. being paralyzed by fear of the unknown is the
    only reason to stay neutral.

    though there is no definite answer either way, there is enough information to take a side.
    you can be open minded while at the same time not giving more credence than deserved
    to faulty ideals.

    i mean, do you believe "god did it" is as good an answer as the theory of gravity, or general relativity?

    atomic clocks are not worthless, they just aren't as infallible as we thought. and note, the article's title
    is misleading. it may not be constant, but that doesn't mean the change isn't accountable.
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2011
    CDdude55 says thanks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page