Sciences vs. Religion

[glennr25]

Are you serious?

Science hasn't proven a made up story false?

Tell you what - you propose a mechanism for science to prove Hogwarts does not exist and I'll get it right on to proving Moses did not part the Red Sea, Noah did not float a boat and god did not send 42 she-bears to eat kids who called one of his pals "baldy".

Now you're just being silly. Show me where science proves that God isn't real. I'll wait.

[glennr25]

Are you serious?

Science hasn't proven a made up story false?

Tell you what - you propose a mechanism for science to prove Hogwarts does not exist and I'll get it right on to proving Moses did not part the Red Sea, Noah did not float a boat and god did not send 42 she-bears to eat kids who called one of his pals "baldy".

Double post.

[The Atheist]

Now you're just being silly. Show me where science proves that God isn't real. I'll wait.

Why don't you try reading the posts instead of making yourself look even more foolish?

Nobody has suggested science proves god isn't real - the only time that idea has even been mentioned in the thread is when you've typed it.

You are the one asking "science" to disprove events that are almost certainly fictional.

I ask again - how do you think something can be proven not to have happened? Feel free to use any of the following to show a mechanism for scientific investigation to prove them false:

Thor
Zoroaster
Mithras
Osiris
Ganesha
The King of Brobdingnag

Away you go.

[glennr25]

Why don't you try reading the posts instead of making yourself look even more foolish?

Nobody has suggested science proves god isn't real - the only time that idea has even been mentioned in the thread is when you've typed it.

You are the one asking "science" to disprove events that are almost certainly fictional.

I ask again - how do you think something can be proven not to have happened? Feel free to use any of the following to show a mechanism for scientific investigation to prove them false:

Thor
Zoroaster
Mithras
Osiris
Ganesha
The King of Brobdingnag

Away you go.

Almost certainly fictional, nice. That explains it all, I'm convinced those stories never took place now.

I would read all the posts, but I don't have time to sift through all the pages since I came into the discussion late. I read in a post on the atheism thread where someone (I forget who) said that ALL atheists know for a FACT that there is no God. Where has this person found this divine knowledge, I ask? Because not even Einstein (who is considered the smartest man ever to walk the Earth by many great minds--religious and scientific and everyone in between) wasn't able to tell for sure. If you can almost certainly prove that Noah didn't build an ark, that no great flood ever occurred, that Moses never set God's people free, then you can almost certainly for a fact believe God never existed, am I right? Aren't those stories interconnected in one way or another with the belief of God?

[The Atheist]

Is your theme song Chumbawumba's Tub-thumping?

Almost certainly fictional, nice. That explains it all, I'm convinced those stories never took place now.

Yes, almost certainly fictional. How do we know that?

The Flood: No geological records have been found indicating a worldwide flood. Given that our geological knowledge is comprehensive, I'm happy to go with "almost certainly fictional."

2 King 2:24. Heck, you're welcome to say that one's true and I'll let you have it. If it were my god, I'd prefer to think 42 bears ripping little children apart for calling some old guy baldy was allegorical, but if you want to claim it's not fictional, that's fine by me.

Parting of the Red Sea: First off, as done to death in another thread, there is no archeological evidence of Israelites in Egypt, let alone an exodus.

I would read all the posts, but I don't have time to sift through all the pages since I came into the discussion late.

And what the heck, you cherry-pick really well, so why read for context or accuracy? (see below)

Protip: if joining a discussion, it's essential to see what was said first. You seem to have plenty of time to type, so maybe you could have spent some of that time reading instead, then you don't make so many errors.

I read in a post on the atheism thread where someone (I forget who) said that ALL atheists know for a FACT that there is no God.

Bingo! There's your cherry right there.

I gave you the thread, which posts lots of evidence that that premise is entirely false. That post was made by someone who has no idea what they're talking about, so it's not much of a stretch to see why it would appeal to you.

Go and read the thread, because you're just digging the hole ever deeper in search of an escape.

And it ain't happening.

[glennr25]

Is your theme song Chumbawumba's Tub-thumping?



Yes, almost certainly fictional. How do we know that?

The Flood: No geological records have been found indicating a worldwide flood. Given that our geological knowledge is comprehensive, I'm happy to go with "almost certainly fictional."

2 King 2:24. Heck, you're welcome to say that one's true and I'll let you have it. If it were my god, I'd prefer to think 42 bears ripping little children apart for calling some old guy baldy was allegorical, but if you want to claim it's not fictional, that's fine by me.

Parting of the Red Sea: First off, as done to death in another thread, there is no archeological evidence of Israelites in Egypt, let alone an exodus.



And what the heck, you cherry-pick really well, so why read for context or accuracy? (see below)

Protip: if joining a discussion, it's essential to see what was said first. You seem to have plenty of time to type, so maybe you could have spent some of that time reading instead, then you don't make so many errors.



Bingo! There's your cherry right there.

I gave you the thread, which posts lots of evidence that that premise is entirely false. That post was made by someone who has no idea what they're talking about, so it's not much of a stretch to see why it would appeal to you.

Go and read the thread, because you're just digging the hole ever deeper in search of an escape.

And it ain't happening.

No, of course not, there isn't any historical accounts of a great flood ever occurring that spans different texts and eras. All of that is just made up nonsense.

I'm not cherry-picking at all, this is something I read in the link you pasted, then I read you agreeing with the statement wholeheartedly. Do you retract that statement somewhere? If so please send me the link.

[The Atheist]

I'm not cherry-picking at all,...

The only person you might be fooling with that statement is yourself.

...this is something I read in the link you pasted, then I read you agreeing with the statement wholeheartedly. Do you retract that statement somewhere? If so please send me the link.

Read the thread from the start. Laziness is not an excuse for cherry-picking a mis-informed post made by someone who is not an atheist.

[glennr25]

The only person you might be fooling with that statement is yourself.



Read the thread from the start. Laziness is not an excuse for cherry-picking a mis-informed post made by someone who is not an atheist.

If you want me to read a thread from the start why not just give me a link to the first page in the first place?

[The Atheist]

If you want me to read a thread from the start why not just give me a link to the first page in the first place?

This has officially past the extreme stupidity barrier and I'm done with it. Not only are your posts dishonest, you can't even make up a decent lie.

I gave you a link to page 1 of that thread.

Like this:

For an in-depth look, feel free to go to the thread itself: http://www.online-literature.com/for...actually-means!

[glennr25]

This has officially past the extreme stupidity barrier and I'm done with it. Not only are your posts dishonest, you can't even make up a decent lie.

I gave you a link to page 1 of that thread.

Like this:

Oh, I see, you were quoting someone from another thread. That's my mistake. I thought it was from the same thread. You say that atheists don't believe in anything. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it's not a religion. A lack of something is the same as not believing in it. It's not logical to twist the definition of something to fit your needs.

I've read about atheism, and most seem to believe there are two groups: the gnostic and the agnostic atheists. The gnostic atheist thinks he/she can prove that there is no God or gods while the agnostic atheist doesn't know for sure.

If you are a gnostic atheist (correct me if I'm wrong) then you believe you can prove that God doesn't exist. That is a belief. Because no human on this planet can prove how the universe came to be, if there's parallel worlds, or if even there is a God. You're placing your system (for lack of a better word) above that of all other religions. That sounds like something religions would do.

[AuntShecky]

I usually leave contentious threads alone, but nevertheless thought I'd make a coupla comments before the thread devolves into ad hominem rants or illustrates Godwin's Law and the administrators shut this puppy down.

1. It's fruitless to contrive a debate pitting science vs. religion. It's the proverbial comparison between apples and oranges-- two different things, LitNutters. The first discipline comes from reason, the second from intuition, or if you will,"faith."

2. Across the human spectrum, reason may be dominant in some people whereas intuition influences others. Science and religion are not necessarily exclusive all the time, as a person can respect each of those concepts. F. Scott Fitzgerald once remarked that holding two conflicting opinions at the same time is a sign of intelligence.

3. If one's faith depends on empirical proof, then his faith is nothing. That didn't come from an early Church father or a present-day evangelical, but noted atheist Douglas ("The Hitchhiker's Guide to the the Galaxy")Adams.

4. Some religious people hold science in high regard; whereas others, such as "Creationists" reject science completely. This group includes the "climate change deniers."

5. Many scientists recognize the difference between the two realms of reason and faith and yet treat the latter concept with respect. An example of this was all over the news last year, when in their research about the origin of the universe, physicists were beginning to close in on a crucial missing piece of the puzzle which they called --without irony--"the God Particle."

6. Reasonable persons of faith recognize that the Scriptures which provide form for their beliefs should not be taken literally, that the Creation story is allegorical. You don't have to have a Ph.D. to know that the earth is older than 6,000 years.The compilers of The New Testament alluded to the figurative nature of scriptural text: "He spoke in parables."

7. Reasonable persons of both science and religion (and those in-between) acknowledge the fact that whether humans were created or evolved, most of us were given brains with the expectation that we use them.

[glennr25]

Yes there are good cases for both Science and Religion, I agree. But to say that one is superior to the other is utter nonsense. It's that kind of thinking that tends to create unnecessary conflicts in the world

[MorpheusSandman]

All it takes is one person of authority to sway the opinions of those around him/her.

I don't know how you think this "swaying of opinions" can happen when the name of the game is observation, prediction, testability, and repeatability. A great many scientists do nothing by attempt to repeat the results of others, so in such cases there would be no "swaying of opinions," either they could reproduce the results or they couldn't. While there are SOME areas of science that rely on a certain amount of opinion (the interpretations of quantum mechanics being one example), even there scientists are quick to distinguish between theory (a tested/supported hypothesis) and interpretation (an opinion on how to consider the observations). So you don't hear scientists going around declaring their opinion as fact on such matters.

OK, fair enough, archaeology hasn't proven any Biblical miracles to be true, I agree. But science hasn't proven them to be false either.

Errr, there's no way to prove that most of the things written in The Bible didn't happen. What we can say is that, eg, archeology shows no sign of a Global flood and, what's more, all the data in existence is inconsistent of what we'd expect if such a thing happened. Same thing with the Jews' exodus from Egypt. Really, besides saying "there's no evidence that such things happened," there's no way to "prove" they didn't.

[glennr25]

I don't know how you think this "swaying of opinions" can happen when the name of the game is observation, prediction, testability, and repeatability. A great many scientists do nothing by attempt to repeat the results of others, so in such cases there would be no "swaying of opinions," either they could reproduce the results or they couldn't. While there are SOME areas of science that rely on a certain amount of opinion (the interpretations of quantum mechanics being one example), even there scientists are quick to distinguish between theory (a tested/supported hypothesis) and interpretation (an opinion on how to consider the observations). So you don't hear scientists going around declaring their opinion as fact on such matters.

Errr, there's no way to prove that most of the things written in The Bible didn't happen. What we can say is that, eg, archeology shows no sign of a Global flood and, what's more, all the data in existence is inconsistent of what we'd expect if such a thing happened. Same thing with the Jews' exodus from Egypt. Really, besides saying "there's no evidence that such things happened," there's no way to "prove" they didn't.

Well, I posted a link to an article showing how flawed the whole peer review system is. Not sure if you read it or not, but this scientist from Harvard wrote up a study on a new anti-cancer drug, only thing was that it was fake. He then went ahead and sent it out to over 300 journals, more than half of them accepted the study without checking for flaws. This shows that journals--for the sake of keeping their readership--are accepting papers just for the idea alone. Not saying this happens all the time, but it's a problem that should definitely be looked into. Here's the link so you can read up on it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bo...laws-1.2054004

Of course, and I'm not saying the flood ever happened. Both sides make good points and bad points. The fact is that we will probably never know for sure. Hopefully, one day evidence does turn up that shows it did or didn't happen. Science and religion aren't bad for society. Both have done great things and bad things for mankind. We have to look at the bigger picture instead of saying who's right and who's wrong. There are things science or religion will never explain because they are both limited to human thinking. I think if scholars and scientists got together and put away their differences, it would definitely make it a lot easier to try and figure out the mysteries of the universe.

EDIT: Found a good article about the great flood. Robert Ballard (you might know him as the scientist who found the Titanic) has unearthed evidence that a Great Flood did happen in the Black Sea around 5,000 BC: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evi...ry?id=17884533

[MorpheusSandman]

Well, I posted a link to an article showing how flawed the whole peer review system is.

Quite hilariously, that paper proves something quite different:

In the end, what he concluded was that “a huge proportion” of the journals were not ensuring their papers were peer reviewed.

The problem, quite clearly, isn't in the "peer review system," it's with the magazine that AREN'T DOING PEER REVIEWS AT ALL!

Of course, and I'm not saying the flood ever happened. Both sides make good points and bad points.

There are no "good points" for a world wide flood. There's not a stitch of evidence it happened and all the evidence that exists is irreconcilable with such an event. Your attempt at putting religion and science on the same level ground with platitudes like "they've both done good things and bad things for society" is rather feeble. Science has given us the modern world as we know it, with advances in technology, medicine, and understanding that far surpass anything religion has ever given us. Show an unbiased observer two different world: one with only religion, the other with only science, and one would be foolish to think they'd choose the former.

Found a good article about the great flood. Robert Ballard (you might know him as the scientist who found the Titanic) has unearthed evidence that a Great Flood did happen in the Black Sea around 5,000 BC: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evi...ry?id=17884533

Actually, because of the prevalence of "great floods" in many mythologies and religions that were circulating around the same time and place that the OT was written, a great many historians have assumed that some major flood probably happened at some point in history in that era. However, Noah (and Gilgamesh) are examples of how a historical event gets subsumed by fiction and allegory. This is not unlike how Shakespeare fictionalizes his historical kings, or modern Hollywood just fictionalized the 47 Ronin. These things are based on real people and real events, but have become so distorted by fiction it's hard to separate the two. That said, we can draw some reasonable limits, such as calling the notion that the flood was worldwide, lasted for 40 days, and that someone built an enormous ark that housed two of every living creature, almost certainly fictional.