The difference between science and religion - page 22.

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18748

Quote from: BADecker on September 03, 2018, 05:20:18 PM

My meanings are as the dictionary meanings are.

Quote from: BADecker on September 03, 2018, 10:02:31 AM

Let people see that by the definitions, all people are religious

Collins: Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping

Oxford: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

Merriam Webster: the service and worship of God or the supernatural

I (and millions others) do not believe/worship/pray to a god/gods/superhuman/supernatural power. Therefore, you are wrong yet again.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on September 03, 2018, 11:22:02 AM

Quote from: BADecker on September 03, 2018, 10:51:41 AM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on September 03, 2018, 10:19:07 AM

Quote from: BADecker on September 03, 2018, 10:02:31 AM

-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

Thank you for agreeing with me, finally. Cheesy

Since in your world "fact" means "belief", "evidence" means "faith", and "atheist" means "religious", I can only assume that "agree" means "disprove".

My meanings are as the dictionary meanings are. Since you want to ignore the dictionary meanings, which I even pointed out to you, how can anyone even begin to know what you are really talking about?, since you ignore the dictionary, and proceed to express stuff with your own meanings?

In fact, it is kinda useless for you when I even respond to what you say... because you don't use the dictionary definitions of words, and don't clarify what you even mean, or if you even understand what I am saying. You seem to be speaking in your own weird language that is similar to English in some ways. But for the benefit of the rest of the forum readers who read your posts, I am simply showing them from the dictionary that you don't use standard meanings.

Cool

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

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

Quote from: Moloch on September 03, 2018, 01:12:57 AM

.....

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

Not an anecdote. Saying "That man is a criminal" is stating a fact.

It's true, another party might say "I don't believe it. Prove it." Then it's incumbent upon the first to state the underlying details.

Just go attend a chemistry class. Nothing but exposition of facts without underlying support. All of science is this way.

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18748

Quote from: BADecker on September 03, 2018, 10:51:41 AM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on September 03, 2018, 10:19:07 AM

Quote from: BADecker on September 03, 2018, 10:02:31 AM

-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

Thank you for agreeing with me, finally. Cheesy

Since in your world "fact" means "belief", "evidence" means "faith", and "atheist" means "religious", I can only assume that "agree" means "disprove".

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on September 03, 2018, 10:19:07 AM

Quote from: BADecker on September 03, 2018, 10:02:31 AM

-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

Thank you for agreeing with me, finally. Cheesy

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18748

Quote from: BADecker on September 03, 2018, 10:02:31 AM

-snip-

Thanks for the perfect example. I rest my case.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on August 31, 2018, 09:30:02 AM

Quote from: BADecker on August 30, 2018, 08:48:39 PM

It was the morals of the religious that were trying to stop the scientists who were developing the first atomic bombs

You mean like Lt Gen Leslie Groves, son of a pastor, who directed the Manhattan project? Or J. Robert Oppenheimer, a Jew, who was lead scientist? Or maybe Robert Serber, also a Jew, who wrote The Los Alamos Primer?

Not only were the morals of the religious not trying to stop the development, but they were the ones who were in charge of the development.

Another 100% made up lie brought to you by BADecker. Do you not realize that people know how to use Google? Your nonsense can be refuted by a 5 year old.

You don't seem to realize the trauma in the minds of religious people who developed these weapons. Their first idea was to use this science for good, like in atomic power plants. But they debated hard and long with themselves and with each other regarding the dangers of unleashing such knowledge among the military powers of the world.

BUT...

As I have often stated in the gun control thread - A 250 pound muscleman can easily kill a 90 pound granny; but if Granny has a gun, she has a chance.

The world full of nukes is the only way to peace. Why? Because the threat is the world disaster that would happen if the world used any of those nukes. No world leader wants destruction of his own source of wealth... his own nation. And such is what would happen if he started to use his nukes against anyone else.

Wake up and think.

Cool

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on September 03, 2018, 04:45:00 AM

Quote from: Moloch on September 03, 2018, 01:12:57 AM

I REALLY hate that religious people try to change the meaning of words to confuse everyone

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.

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.

Cool

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18748

Quote from: Moloch on September 03, 2018, 01:12:57 AM

I REALLY hate that religious people try to change the meaning of words to confuse everyone

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.

needcryptos

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

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.

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: Spendulus on September 02, 2018, 03:13:20 PM

Quote from: Moloch on September 02, 2018, 12:29:24 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on September 02, 2018, 09:42:54 AM

Quote from: Moloch on September 02, 2018, 08:28:23 AM

Quote from: Avengers360 on September 01, 2018, 03:26:35 PM

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

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.....

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?

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

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.

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

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Moloch on September 02, 2018, 12:29:24 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on September 02, 2018, 09:42:54 AM

Quote from: Moloch on September 02, 2018, 08:28:23 AM

Quote from: Avengers360 on September 01, 2018, 03:26:35 PM

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

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.....

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?

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

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.

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: Spendulus on September 02, 2018, 09:42:54 AM

Quote from: Moloch on September 02, 2018, 08:28:23 AM

Quote from: Avengers360 on September 01, 2018, 03:26:35 PM

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

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.....

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?

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

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Moloch on September 02, 2018, 08:28:23 AM

Quote from: Avengers360 on September 01, 2018, 03:26:35 PM

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

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.....

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?

Getadaaa

jr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 3

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?

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: Avengers360 on September 01, 2018, 03:26:35 PM

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

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)

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

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.

Cool

Avengers360

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

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

jak3

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1004

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.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: De Mukerere on September 01, 2018, 05:30:10 AM

Proof please.

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.

Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 22. (Read 6507 times)