Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 19. (Read 6621 times)

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

Look up the word religion in the dictionary - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. You will see that religion is something that everybody has, by definition. So, everybody is religious, one way or another.

Let the religious atheists stop trying to change the meanings of words just so that they can try to strengthen their own faith that they are atheists, while trying to keep atheism outside of the religion that it is.

Let the religious scientists who are attempting to believe that certain scientific theories are fact, when such isn't known that these theories are fact, stop trying to change the meanings of words just so that they can try to strengthen their own faith that the theories are facts... thereby turning science into religion for themselves.

Let people see that by the definitions, all people are religious, so that we can recognize that the differences between science and religion are academic, and not real.

It's because they don't have any actual evidence or proof to support their position, and they know they can't even begin to argue against the mountains of evidence that proves they are wrong. Their only defense is to resort to petty semantics and try to claim that somehow facts aren't facts and that evidence isn't evidence.

We have a clear distinction between religion and science: religion is for the whole of society or all groups, while science applies only to some. Now the question is how religion can sustain its identity in the doctrinal and the doctrinal sense. This is done only through faith. The root of religion is faith, using faith to preserve its essence.
Science is limited to the number of accomplished, thinkers. They preserve the nature of science through proven truth, use results-based test methods, and spread the word through wisdom, accuracy, and scientific methods.

Anecdotes are not facts... you are still wrong, just stop with your nonsense

I REALLY hate that religious people try to change the meaning of words to confuse everyone... that's such bullshit I cannot begin to describe how evil it is

Except that you are wrong. In the example of the two kings discussion, each asserted the existence of a fact. "Can be proven with evidence" does not mean "was proven".

Every day, we state facts briefly. You might say "That man is a criminal." You don't cite the cases and details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"A fact is a statement that is consistent with objective reality or can be proven with evidence."

Given zero evidence is provided, neither statement is a fact

The fact that you asked the question tells me that you don't even understand the word, fact

In ancient times, one king might have said to another...

"It's a fact that my zealous religious cult soldiers are not afraid to die".

The other might have said,

"My populations are taught that homosexuality is evil, and that sex with a virgin is wonderful. It's a fact that this increases the birth rates and maximizes the number of soldiers for my troops. Let's combine these two methods."

Facts?

Science is purely earthly. And religion is heavenly. The both could coexit if we let it. There’s no need separating one from the other. Instead we can learn from the both. They both checkmate each other. When religions disagree then science comes to settle it out. When science is going beyond ethics, then religion checkmates it. And that’s peace. Who doesn’t like that?

If science is faith in facts, what is religious faith?  Faith without facts?  How is that better?

"Faith in facts" is an oxymoron... the word faith implies lack of evidence/facts

According to dictionary.com, religious faith is "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

The only way to find truth is through facts and evidence.  People can believe literally anything on faith.  You could have faith that the moon is made from green cheese, but that does not make it true



In this venn diagram, faith can only lead to "Beliefs", or "Poorly justified true beliefs" if they get lucky and are correct without evidence... Faith cannot possibly lead to Truths or Knowledge (both of which require facts and evidence)

Actually, we can see that science is very faith based. When anyone believes a scientific theory to be true, he is believing it by faith. Why? Because the fact that it is scientific theory means that it can be changed as new info is found out. So, believing it as fact, when it is not known to be fact, involves faith.

As for religions, the major factors in religions may not be known to be true... making believing them to be done by faith. But aspects of all religions are factual... their writings, their religious buildings, the number of people who accept a particular religion, some of the wisdom in some of their writings, etc.

The thing that is opposite in the two, might be their basics... like faith in God vs. factual chemical formulae.

Religion and science are actually very related, and have gone hand in hand for several decades, up till the concept of creation and the source.

Both comprises of zealots, who are totally opposed to the other.

Although one is based on faith, and the other faith in facts

That's absolutely true they will not only make new religions but they can make you their religion if they found you destroyed those old rules. They will start a business and surviving on your name. So human beings need both the science and religion to service except me. I only need science and I am in religion for making others happy not for me.

The only proof is when you visit and see them probably make rain in a place where meteorological report has forecasted there will be no rain. Or withhold rain for days in the middle of rainy season. Road Construction Companies hire them for the job. It might sound rocket science to you but it is very simple only that they wouldn't reveal the secrete to anyone outside their circles. I guess you would be shocked to see it happen but that's not all they can do.
[/quote]

Show a hundred years of rainfall data, or more. This is part of what modern science DOES.

Then show a record of dates, times, and places proving cause and effect.

Then show that this "man induced shaman rainfall" is statistically signifcant WHEN COMPARED to a control group, which might be a similar region some distance away.

You see? The scientific process is not the enemy of your shaman. It can prove your assertion, or it can refute it. But your assertion is not proved by your words alone.

Proof please.
[/quote]

The only proof is when you visit and see them probably make rain in a place where meteorological report has forecasted there will be no rain. Or withhold rain for days in the middle of rainy season. Road Construction Companies hire them for the job. It might sound rocket science to you but it is very simple only that they wouldn't reveal the secrete to anyone outside their circles. I guess you would be shocked to see it happen but that's not all they can do.

Proof please.

Don't get so excited about weather forecast 10 days ahead cos in my local traditional religion, those guys can't just only forecast weather, they can as well control it. On a rainy day, they can stop the rain. In the midst of rainy season, the can withhold rain for days up to a week and beyond. That's what I'm talking about. Paradventure our central government was committed to scientific developments, they would have sent guys to go check how those people are producing such results and see if they could refine it scientifically. Now, if they had done so and published it on journals you would celebrate the end product relegating the source to junk. And like I said, this is one of their numerous abilities.
However, scientific forecast is limited. There are areas of life you can't predict the future on but religion is doing marvellously well. I guess you know "Nostrademus!". He is a global figure. You may check out his predictions or forecast then you will understand what I am talking about. Note that he is just one man. There are several men like him. It's just that his work gained global prominence. These conflict in ideas has been hampering our harnessing our potential because one group will think they are better than the other. They will want to strive for suproirity rather than seek partnership.
Let's see these two regions of ontology as different means to one end. Let us not discard religion on one or few premise like most people do.

Science is the answer to the questions in the world. It's basically saying that every phenomena has a reason for its existence. Religion on the other hand, is saying that something exists because it was created. And who created that creator? Religion would then say he exists because he exists. This would be the basic idea of their reasoning in every argument. Basically, Science and Religion should or rather would never meet. They are completely on the opposite ends of a spectrum.

On some subject you just need to shut it. The ignorance is profound...

Pick your favorite location at Weather Underground - https://www.wunderground.com/. Check the 10-day forecast. The forecast changes as many as 6 or more times a day, and certainly every day to the next.

I expect that there are tranquil locations where the 10-day barely changes throughout the whole 10 days. But there are other place where the weather is wilder, and predictions can change hourly, throughout the day.

There isn't as much known about the weather as we think.

I recommend that, as part of their training, forecasting meteorologists be required to earn $100,000 in the stock market, in the year that they are accepted on the weather job. This would weed out the fakers from those who really know how to forecast accurately. We might wind up without a weather channel, which would be beneficial to us all.