Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 10. (Read 6610 times)
every people reject reality all the time, why would this be any different?
I will use an example from medical science. Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye. After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually. Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.
Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost. Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel. It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations. All the science would return one step at a time.
Physics would return the same if lost. The force of gravity would be the same. We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity. All this would return exactly the same as before.
Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form. Religions today are nothing like ancient time.
I will use an example from medical science. Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye. After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually. Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.
Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost. Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel. It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations. All the science would return one step at a time.
Physics would return the same if lost. The force of gravity would be the same. We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity. All this would return exactly the same as before.
Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form. Religions today are nothing like ancient time.
But it is the religious beliefs of people that cause them to look for things that work, whether or not these things fall into the realm of science. So, religion is the greater foundation of science.
every people reject reality all the time, why would this be any different?
I will use an example from medical science. Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye. After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually. Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.
Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost. Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel. It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations. All the science would return one step at a time.
Physics would return the same if lost. The force of gravity would be the same. We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity. All this would return exactly the same as before.
Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form. Religions today are nothing like ancient time
I will use an example from medical science. Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye. After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually. Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.
Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost. Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel. It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations. All the science would return one step at a time.
Physics would return the same if lost. The force of gravity would be the same. We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity. All this would return exactly the same as before.
Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form. Religions today are nothing like ancient time
Fuck off you cunt. That's not what science says. You obviously lack any scientific insight. You're just a troll that needs to kill themselves.
I advise anger management courses meditation or perhaps formal counselling.
They're just trolls who get paid to mouth off. Anger management doesn't work on cold, political science trolling.
Children... please stay on topic
This thread is about the differences between science and religion, not who is the bigger cunt
Thanks
Science has investigated emotions, mind, etc... Science has concluded that these are chemical reactions taking place in the body...
Can you precisely explain how is God is an explanation for any of this?
Actually, science simply has shown that chemical processes are part of the body connection to spirit, mind and soul. That's why there are continual scientific investigations into how the connection works.
Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.
There is no data; no science can be done on the subject of spirits, souls, and supernatural.
They do not exist.
The data starts with a person's emotions, his mind, and his drive. These are in great evidence all over the place all the time.
Science has investigated emotions, mind, etc... Science has concluded that these are chemical reactions taking place in the body...
Can you precisely explain how is God is an explanation for any of this?
Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.
There is no data; no science can be done on the subject of spirits, souls, and supernatural.
They do not exist.
The data starts with a person's emotions, his mind, and his drive. These are in great evidence all over the place all the time.
Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.
Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
Religion has the answers. Science is simply far behind in trying to find out why the answers are what they are.
Religion changes very slowly if at all to the world around us making it difficult to apply its knowledge to new problems and circumstances. Science is self-correcting, constantly challenging ideas, throwing out old ones in place of new and better ones.
Most religions reflect the worldview and knowledge of ancient people who are long gone. Science is being created today, right now.
Most religions reflect the worldview and knowledge of ancient people who are long gone. Science is being created today, right now.
Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.
The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.
And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?
Whatever Fucktard!
Can't be eyewitness observations!
The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.
Imaginary people don't count. They are only real to you and therefore don't exist.
I truly believe you need a better book to read, one which has more semblance of reality.
A perfect book for you, would be, "Little Miss Contrary". The story of a young child who always says the opposite of what she means.
You really need to look into what the nation of Israel is all about. They are extremely fastidious people who over the last 3,500 years kept meticulous records. These records, and the way they were kept, and whose records were accepted by them, show that God is real, and that the things He says in the Bible are real.
Your mistake is underestimating God and Ancient Israel.
Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.
The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.
And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?
Whatever Fucktard!
Can't be eyewitness observations!
The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.
Imaginary people don't count. They are only real to you and therefore don't exist.
I truly believe you need a better book to read, one which has more semblance of reality.
A perfect book for you, would be, "Little Miss Contrary". The story of a young child who always says the opposite of what she means.
The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit.
Ahh nice. The "God did it" fallacy.
1) Present an argument
2) Your opponents prove your argument is obviously false
3) Simply state "You are wrong because God did it/God can do anything"
It is impossible to argue against, because we can break the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, maths, space, time, even logic, by simply stating "God did it". Every argument presented can be refuted by simply stating "God did it".
"How come all the evidence proves the Universe is >13 billion years old" - "Ahhh, God did it"
"How come all the evidence proves evolution" - "Ahhh, God made it that way"
"How come fossils exist" - "Ahhh, God put them there"
It truly is the last bastion of the stupid and ignorant.
Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.
The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.
And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?
Whatever Fucktard!
Can't be eyewitness observations!
The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.
Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.
The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.
And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?
Whatever Fucktard!
Can't be eyewitness observations!
Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.
The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.
The difference between religion and science is the same between sanity and insanity.
When you are sane you can use your sanity (same as science) to make educated predictions about what will happen next.
When you are insane your insanity will prevent that. You might think that the government is made up of aliens, and no new facts will disprove that.
If you are sane and someone presents you with the conspiracy theory that the government is full of aliens that are all powerful and are hungry for human flesh, you will most likely ask for evidence. There is no such evidence so you will dismiss it.
The insane (religious) man will live in fear of his mayor eating him alive and will avoid government buildings based on his misconceptions of the world.
When you are sane you can use your sanity (same as science) to make educated predictions about what will happen next.
When you are insane your insanity will prevent that. You might think that the government is made up of aliens, and no new facts will disprove that.
If you are sane and someone presents you with the conspiracy theory that the government is full of aliens that are all powerful and are hungry for human flesh, you will most likely ask for evidence. There is no such evidence so you will dismiss it.
The insane (religious) man will live in fear of his mayor eating him alive and will avoid government buildings based on his misconceptions of the world.
"In heaven, all interesting people are missing." - Friedrich Nietzsche
In Hell, the most interesting is the fragrance of burnt flesh.
Jump to: