Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 26. (Read 6490 times)

Science in a way begins and ends with human curiosity to certain questions. These questions leads to discoveries but if you ask me, those discoveries are not just random occurrence but predestined divinely to be so. Religion on the other hand is based on faith in the supernatural that may not require scientific prove to verify it. It exists in itself. Like a little comedienne gigged “a science lecturer told his class to proof the existence of a supreme being, and when they could not prove it, he told the class that such being or religion does not exist. The comedienne and other students thought what to do to prove the lecturer wrong. They came up with something. Approached the lecturer and ask, sir, please, do you have senses, the man not discerning, answered yes, I have many senses, the student now went ahead to ask him to show them where his senses are. At the end he could not prove he had senses. So they conclude for him that he does not have senses just like he told them there is no God or such thing as Supreme Being since they could not prove it. Science is based on facts and experiment, but no evidence to Divine Being. Religion is faith based, beliefs in supernatural and super powers. Etc.
The debate pertaining science and religion has been on for ages and will last till eternity. My conclusion is that whatever view point you are, be true to it. I love what is written in Revelation 22:11 King James Version (KJV) “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Be on your lane if you are scientist and you dont want anything to do with religion, be on your lane if you a religious person.

I was wondering how long it would take BADecker to show up and completely miss the point.


Firstly, that wouldn't be a religion, and secondly, it's completely irrelevant.



That's entirely the point. Science adjusts its views to new evidence. Religion doesn't. However, if science was wiped out and started again, it would find exactly the same evidence for the big bang, the age of the Earth, evolution, etc. New religions would be entirely different, as has been historical proven many times.



1 + 1 = 2 is absolutely provable, and has been done so many times. Silly word play about things being different doesn't change a mathematical proof.


Perhaps you should take your own advice to learn about things before talking about them.

I appreciate the eloquence of Richard Dawkins, so I will defer to his answer for the nature of scientific evidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtFSDKrq88


tl;dr -
Q: How do you justify using the scientific method?
A: It works, bitches

Why do religious people have problems with reading and comprehension?

When did I say "it" won't be around in the next 1000 years?

Since you have trouble scrolling to the top of the page and reading it... I'll copy and paste here for you to read again:

If you could take all the other religions of the world and destroy them, you still would have your religion of destruction of religions. But that is what you are trying to do, isn't it?

As long as science has science theory as part of it, science is never the same. Why not? Because science theory changes daily as it is adapted to new findings in science.

1 + 1 = 2 is not a provable concept. It might be a provable in a virtual, visualized way. But 1 + 1 does not = 2 in reality, because there are no two things that are exactly the same. This means that 1 + 1 will always = 1 + 1.

Wake up and learn the things you talk about before you start spouting them out.

science is moving, while religion is staying;
science is knowing, while religion is believing;
science is developing, while religion is stagnating, etc.

Egyptian gods were worshiped for a few thousand years. Now gone. Greek gods. Now gone. Old Norse religion. Gone. Semitic religion. Gone. Mesopotamian religion. Gone. Babylonian. Gone. Celtic polytheism. Gone. Etc. Etc. Etc.

The number of extinct religions vastly outnumbers the number of practicing religions. On what basis then do you say that Christianity will still be around in 1000 years, especially since we are proving more and more of Christian doctrine demonstrably false?

You forget so easily how much religion has added to the world too. In fact, the truth is I doubt there will be any science today without religion. Most of the knowledge we have come to be exposed to now was sponsored by institutions religion set up. So, stop throwing baseless claims around. Some of what is called science today will not be around in some years. The likes of the evolution theory and Big Bang theory are concepts I'm certain will die out. Christianity for example has lasted more than 2000 years. On what basis then do you say that it won't be around in the next 1000 years?

Both are parts of our life. No matter what we think about them, they regulate our daily life. Science and religions are together actually. Science is for the physical body and religion for the spiritual one. As you know, we are made of flesh and spirit. Nobody has ever proved that we are made of spirits. We can see our flesh. We cannot see our spirit. We can feel it. When we dream, we know what we can see and we understand that we are not only flesh and bones. It is thus obvious that science and religion must work together to discover and solve the mysteries of our civilizations. They must not fight but cooperate.

Religion and science are too different and opposing phenomena.

Religion preaches Faith and believe in the supernatural and the unseen. It promotes belief in the existence of a supernatural being or entities that supposedly has power to influence human life course.

Sciences preaches reason, experiment and observation. In science, every event and situation has a logical and reasonable explanation. Any phenomenon that can not be observed doesn't exist.

^^

Watching his Science Guy documentary on Netflix, I think the saddest part was rather than open minds it earned Ham millions to build his "museum of facts".

---

Religion is not a permanent rigid construct either. It changes constantly, based on who wrote or rewrote the sections of any religious text. I do not care what people believe in, but some of my most memorable conversations used to fall apart around the point where I would call a central idea of many religions of "love and peace" into question based on religious leaders actions.

I can't think of a single scientist or science enthusiast I have derailed a conversation with when mentioning things like gravity as a constant, laws of thermodynamics, Or why water is just a weird compound based on it's properties.

I don't want to overly generalize, as I have been able to speak with some open minded individuals who find comfort in the core ideas of their religion and can accept that there are flaws and faults that happen along the way. It's just with scientists, there can be an agreement based on facts and methodologies, up to the point where it's a hypothesis. Then they work to either disprove or prove this and final result can be universally accepted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyvYMgdDej0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h4m7s

This section of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate sums it up perfectly.

"What, if anything, would ever change your mind."

Religious answer - nothing.

Scientific answer - evidence.

Well, one big difference is science accommodates to any new "reality". That's how we switched from Ptolemaic to Copernican. There's always something new.

Quite the opposite, religion is supposed to be the same for all time, unchanging.

science is what can immediately be proven, at any time. problem is many scientific proof or evidence is to expensive and to complicated to explain

religion can be quite though too proof and stays subjective.

If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not