|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 3:46 pm
Emily`s_Gone_Mad
If you don't feel you were name calling that's fine, but someone felt you were, I don't think that she was accusing you of anything, simply stating what she FELT when she read your statement. At least that's how I understand it. Well you know, it's not like I FELT strongly about it...
I just thought it was a little uncalled for but like you said...call it whatever.
I didn't mean for this to go on and on. xp
I was mearly criticising the statement... (which we should all know
anything we post in a discussion forum is subject to criticism....
by anyone.)
heart
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 4:05 pm
Akhiris Jubillie A hypothesis can be an educated guess, but doesn't have to be. Like Emily said, whether or not a guess is educated is subject to oppinion.
One of the online dictionary meaning is a mear guess.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation to some phenomenon or event. A useful hypothesis is a testable statement which may include a prediction. (I never did say her hypothesis was useful.)
Anyhow I don't even know why we are arguing about hypothesis, I simply said, and if I didn't say it right well I meant to say that her "inflamitory" statement could of just been her own personal hypothesis. Which you then judged by your opinion to be inflamitory and named it "atheistic". Which I felt was name calling and felt like I should call you on it.
'tis all.
whee heart
I was not attacking the person, but the argument. Saying that abolishing religion would eliminate war and death is a common, unfounded piece of propaganda mostly promulgated by atheists with an anti-religious agenda. This is what I meant by "atheistic propaganda". You should be very careful not to accuse people ad hominem attacks where there are none. I did not call her any names or attack her character. I have no problem with atheists except where they confuse political agendas for scientific ones. I did not say you were attacking.
And I most deffinatly didn't acusse you of anything...or at least I didn't mean to.
I though what you said was a bit uncalled for, but Miss T (for short) also made an unfounded statement. So maybe the two cancel eathother out, xp I'm not an expert at debating, but I think Miss T took some offence to you calling her an Atheist (even though you say you didn't direct it at her) by her shortly followed comment- which also mentioned she would not drop in this thread again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:41 pm
personal opinion i believe more in science since its a more straight forward
science covers the hole history so to be more exact am a non religion believer its just not my thing i rely on science to give facts if i am wrong about god i will pay every single sin and i will be punished as accordingly thats is all
so in conclusion science is better or whatever you where looking to accomplish
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:18 am
Ok normally I stay out of talk of religion but since this is the science guild, this topic is ok, I will warn ahead of time, if I sound like I'm bashing christianity, I apologize, but I'm on the side of science here. I think Science has much more credibilty then religions in that most religions only have their holy texts as evidence, where as various sciences have so much more physical evidence to prove various things that if this were a court case religion would be hard pressed to win on evidence alone.
In fact if any of you have the History channel or shop at Historychannel.com then I urge you to look for The Exodus Explained, I watched it and couldn't have been more thrilled to have seen it, They gave a thorough explaination about how the ten plagues of Egypt came to be, from the nile turning red and like blood all the way to the death of the first born sons. It was all because of a massive volcanic eruption on the other side of the Mediterainian. The show goes into full details and sites a modern day example that perfectly matches the same results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:25 pm
I feel science makes more sence....
I really dont feel like religon makes much sence
(and if your going to bother explaining im not going to listen)
I mean all that talk of gods and godesses making the earth....it cant be explained...
science is really the only thing that makes sence to me...
(and if I offended anyone then....why are you on this subject anywas!? this is a science guild this is what your going to hear when you joined it..well this is what your going to hear from me)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:39 pm
Well if you read through out the thread, we have discussed plenty on how science and religion do not have to meet eachother head on.
You can still have faith and belive in the facts presented by science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:29 pm
It took me a while to read through this thread (new member). Since I am a scientist and also religious I have thought long and hard about the relationship between these two. There are a million things I could post here, but I'll stick to a few introductory thoughts and (hopefully) keep my post short for now - saving more for later. First a quote I feel sums things up really well... Religion teaches men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. —Galilei Galileo, c. 1630 This is how I feel about science and religion. Their spheres are completely opposite. Religion is intended to help people find peace with God, perfect themselves, and of course have a peaceful afterlife. Religion is not intended to describe the physical world in which we live. Of course this has not always been the case. In the past people believed that God or Gods were directly responsible for all kinds of natural phenomena from earthquakes to lightning bolts - events which nowdays even religious people rarely credit God for directly. I think this is a good thing too, since I saw oon TV how before Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, if lightning stuck someone's house people would just let it burn because everyone assumed God did it which meant those people deserved to have their house burn down. Anyway, as science grows and answers more and more questions God seems to become what Carl Sagan referred to as a "God of the Gaps" meaning that science explains everything it can and religion just gets the leftovers. This does seem a good comparison between our modern age dominated by science and earlier ages dominated by religion, when people lacked scientific explanations for a lot of things and had to explain them somehow. But what about how science and religion coexist today? That's where I think that the quote from Galileo I used above becomes relevant. It is true that religion adapts to science. People no longer think that Heaven is up in the clouds (where any old Boeing 747 might plow headlong into it) but instead ponder it possibly being in a parallel dimension ( a concept ancient people probably lacked). This does not mean the truth changed - only that people didn't fully understand - as we very well might still not. People of all ages have been so certain that their knowledge was correct, however it was obtained. Afterall the Ptolemaic model of an Earth centered universe was a scientific (not religious) idea based on plenty of objective evidence that celestial bodies could be observed to circle the earth. It just turned out that peoples' understanding of the observations wasn't complete. Who is to say that we might not be in the same boat now? Anyway I promised to try and keep this short. I have more to say, but should say it later. But before I do I saw one post I want to reply to: Miss TiramiZu I'm just atheic because I don't wanna give my life and my soul to something what is static and false. For me, heaven and hell don't exist, there's just a place where souls go, and that's all. After, if they keep there or if they are reincarned, I don't care. Good and Bad are so subjective. There is no white nor black, there's a nuance of many different colors. There is no more proof in the existence of souls than there is in God. And belief in souls begs the question of where they come from, and what happens to them, because there is no physical explanation for any of this. Nobody can, in my opinion, believe they have a soul and really be an atheist, Believing, but not caring, is agnosticism at least. This reminds me of another quote: "cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") from René Descartes. Initially, Descartes arrives at only a single principle: thought exists. "Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist." And I'll leave things here for now. P.S. Thanks Wikipedia for being my source of little tidbits of information. heart My wife would like to add that absence of proof is not proof of absence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:44 pm
I agree with your post Sir.
And what your wife say's is true,
that is why religion is heavily based on your faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:48 pm
SirKirbance, you have stated what I would have stated had I not read through this thread and just posted my opinion, or atleast to a degree. I shall put this straight forward, I am Deist and proud of it. Science and God could very well be more closely related than people think, why Science and Religion/God are seperated most of the time in our modern world I do not know. Newton himself was extremely devoted to God, and most of his time was actually spent deciphering the Bible and Christian texts to seperate the crap from the possibly real. God was a huge part of Newtons life, and also influenced his work, he believed(as I do) that God created the universe through complex laws and rules of Science. Unfortunately Religion does not follow this Rational belief of God, and sticks to it's old belief and tradition of things.
What SirKirbance has stated + what I have just stated= part of my whole opinion.
@SirKirbance: Your Wife's statment is totally awesome, and so was the whole of your post. I look forward to see what else you have to say in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:15 am
So I guess I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in anything.
I think that science and religion are two things that can be put together, but cannot exactly work together. A lot of the concepts of religion go totally against science, there is no physical proof of some of the things, such as a supreme being of some kind. As said previously, religion is based on belief, if you don't believe, then it doesn't exist for you.
Science, however, has proof and it can be shown to you. That's one thing I really like about science: if you can't prove it, it isn't true because you can't support it.
I don't mind religion, it's not like I go around bashing all of the religions or anything. It's the followers of the religion that I don't like. Some people are just fine and don't take it to an extreme. However, I am not ok with those that take it to an extreme. I was once cornered in a pool by about four Christian girls when I was about 9 or 10 and they wouldn't stop trying to convert me. When people assume that others all follow their religion and that it is the only way to live, I get irritated because they assume that the world is only the way that they see it.
Neither religion or science should ever be forced upon someone, but parts of both sides try to do exactly that. They just need to learn to live with each other, but it may never happen because both are constantly trying to disprove the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:06 am
I'm an agnostic, so science is more credable. Science actually has proof. If you can find proof of any of the claims that any religion makes, and I may beleave them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:03 pm
I don't think anyone will ever find any kind of proofs for "God" and when and if ...we ever do...then I guess he woudln't be "God anymore...?
I don't know if anyone has seen The Hitchhikers guide to the Galexy..but they have some extra's in there and I thought this one thing was soo cool.
You know that fish that they stick in Arthurs ear, well the little extra they had was about how that fish proved God's existance.
I don't remeber it too well, but I thought it was funny and thought there was truth to it.
I'll see if I can find it on youtube or something and link it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:02 pm
Ok, Normally, I do not EVER discuss religion, especially when it is being compared with science. But I have read everyone's posts, and thought about all of them, and decided to break my own rule. I will either make you laugh, make you think, or make an enemy, but I hope not the last one!! I will not tell you what I believe. I will tell you what I think.
Nothing I say is intended to offend or argue with anyone, it is just my thoughts.
Religion, by its very nature is always going to be subject to differences of opinion. One cannot nail jello to a wall, and since religion (FAITH) is an intensely personal thing, even within "organized religion", it will be different for every single person. This is not to say that ANY religion is right or wrong, and even for each individual, their own faith adjusts as they live their lives. Even Athiests and Agnostics have their own intense Personal beliefs. None of us in our lifetimes will find the answers to this debate. (Unless the rapture comes or the politicians blow us up using science!)
Both religion and science have good and dangerous points.
Science, too is ALWAYS changing. When I was in school, the hubble had not been invented. HIV had not been diagnosed. Prayer was allowed in school, and Darwin was not.
By the way, before Darwin died, he stated his belief in God. (Just a trivia note)
Now. Suppose none of us are right. There are references in the bible about other races (seraphim for one). There are pictographs of things that look like space ships. The ancient Egyptians had working batteries! The line drawings in Peru that cannot be seen from the ground, only from the air.The missing link is still missing..... SUPPOSE we are just a science or sociology colony/ project/experiment?? Maybe "god" is just someone more advanced than us, and we do not yet have the knowledge or ability to know it? Who is to say that an "omnipotent" being doesn't use genetic engineering (i.e. evolution) to make changes. Just because humans only live a short time and we are always in a hurry, doesn't mean everything else is! eek Maybe the Sci fi channel has it figured out? mrgreen
MAYBE When all is finally over, and we know everything we need to know, we will find out that all of you were right and I am the only one that was wrong. stressed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:31 pm
rofl eek rofl eek rofl
Although this is not debate, and although it is not a comparison of science and religion, I have got to tell you what happened to me tonight!
I went grocery shopping wearing jeans and a t- shirt. The shirt was plain except for the sentence "Normal people scare me". It was light blue.
As I am leaving the store, the door greeter (yes, I was at Walmart) comes up to me and Yells "WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH NORMAL? YOU KNOW WHAT SCARES ME? PEOPLE WHO ARE AFRAID OF NORMAL!! I THINK YOU ARE CRAZY! NO, PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE POSSESSED BY THE DEVIL! "(She was serious, by the way)
I just calmly answered her, "Hmm, maybe you are right!" and walked out.
I wonder what she would have said if I was wearing my black, skulls, chains, dragons?
I also wonder what science OR religion she based her findings on? mrgreen And I bet she's never seen my avi! rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
