Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
troy

science vs religion

1,010 posts in this topic

:yep: I agree with every single word he says there.

Share this post


Link to post

Both are sects/offshoots of magic.

In todays world magic and science are bitter enemy's, it wasn't always so...

Biggest problem with science, is that it can explain everything inside the box, but not the actual box itself.

Biggest problem with religion is lack of proof, for meaning and purpose of the universe. Thats what a religion means.

So when the major religions all believe god comes from the sky, created things and the meaning and purpose of the universe are to obey his words/orders/wills,they are basicly believing in aliens.

They're either to unintelligent or brainwashed by altered holy books, to understand this.

Thats it, reality, hard to cope with for sure, but its about time we started imo.

I totally agree with you there mucka.

Religion to me is a farce whereas science has brought us some great inventions but at the same time some evil and devastating inventions.

Share this post


Link to post

Did the religious community try and stop stem cell research, I thought it was the ethical questions raised that presented the resistance. Just because you think you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

As for empiricism being the beginning of theory, no empiricism is the beginning of proof, deduction/speculation is the beginning of theory, then you move to empiricism to prove the theory, bit silly/dangerous to conduct an experiment then to theorise about it. If the theory says something goes bang, then when you experiment you would have taken some precautions rather than creating and bang and regretting it. Theory, ethical review, experiment, data and peer review to prove that the data is replicable

Share this post


Link to post

the key word is discovery ...evidence and peer review tend to come after

Either way, science comes up with a theory then tests it. Religion just comes up with a theory.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Religion - you're in a temple, life expectancy, eternal

Science - you're in a factory, life expectancy, ask your Actuary

Share this post


Link to post

the key word is discovery ...evidence and peer review tend to come after

Either way, science comes up with a theory then tests it. Religion just comes up with a theory/story

Share this post


Link to post

I think a discussion centred around a divide between 'science' and 'religion' does a serious disservice to both of those facets of human life. It's entirely specious. To say that 'science says...' or 'religion says...' is about as helpful as claiming that 'artists say...' or 'philosophers say..'. Both positions have have within in them branches/sects/factions/divisions that contradict and conflict with one-another. Also, it is vague and misleading to suggest that science and religion are diametrically opposed, given that their boundaries are constantly changing due to discoveries in history and archeology, for example, to point of almost converging at times.

11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

`i'll come back later but a statement can be specious but not a discussion that contains many points of view. It sounds like a pejorative statement with no substance. the op is a question not a statement. How is religion changing ? the whole point is that it is dogmatic.

eta great vids scouser

Edited by troy

Share this post


Link to post

the key word is discovery ...evidence and peer review tend to come after

Either way, science comes up with a theory then tests it. Religion just comes up with a theory.

isn't religious theory tested when the follower applies it to their life?

Share this post


Link to post

the key word is discovery ...evidence and peer review tend to come after

Either way, science comes up with a theory then tests it. Religion just comes up with a theory.

isn't religious theory tested when the follower applies it to their life?

It's tested in as much as it's effectiveness to the believer, not in regards to it's 'truth'. Placebos work in tests.

e2a I realised the other night, after taking part in few of these sorts of discussions on here and at home/with friends, that I really want to believe in a spiritual dimension and in some sort of meaning to life and the universe. But I just don't. Every religion or theory that attempts to provide me with one just sets alarm bells ringing and makes me suspect that I'm just too willing to believe. If I then re-read it all rationally I see that it's patently bollocks designed to appeal to that desire within me for order and justice and meaning.

Edited by ~nobody~
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

`i'll come back later but a statement can be specious but not a discussion that contains many points of view. It sounds like a pejorative statement with no substance. the op is a question not a statement. How is religion changing ? the whole point is that it is dogmatic.

eta great vids scouser

Sorry, I meant to say that to claim that 'science/religion says...' is specious.

Religion does not exist in and of itself. It can't. Humans create a religion, alter it through the ages – wittingly or unwittingly – and sometimes let it die (Norse Paganism, for example). Sometimes they change because of external reasons – instead of say, conversion – such as archeological discoveries. For example, for academics/archeologists attempting to find evidence for an ancient Jewish nation in modern day Israel to concede that there is no evidence to support such a hypothesis, has encouraged some of those who read the bible literally to revise their views.

Due to the human centre of religion and the religious experience, a person can accept, reject and interpret in any way s/he pleases. It is a fundamentally subjective experience. Therefore, a religion can be as dogmatic or as open as the individual wants it to be.

Sorry, a bit rushed. Hope the point is clear enough.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Science certainly changes as new discoveries are made but religion changes very litlle and when it does it is often in response to scientific discoveries. Religion is very closed to change , I think you would struggle to find examples ! Religion is certainly in conflict in some areas including stem cell research, abortion, use of condoms, hpv immunisation. Religious leaders and their followers actively try to interfere in these areas putting lives at risk and helping disease to spread. Religion is the enemy of reason and therefore will come into conflict with science long as religious followers believe their faith to be beyond science.

Certainly religious people vary as to their adherence to the faith but when you consider that 50 percent of Americans believe in the creation myth it gives you some idea how dogmatic believers can be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

The human brain copes with unexplainable events by creating stories about them that help explain and predict these events.

Thor the god of Thunder, Vulcan for volcanoes and posiden for floods. These stories are not true but they help explain these events.

This is hard programmed into humans. Science is just the latest story we tell ourselves whilst hiding from the forces of nature.

The problem is people get annoyed when you pop that balloon of comfort and tell then the "new" truth. While science does improve our lives, we give too much credit to science. Accepting a theory as fact when it is just a guess.

The current theory of climate change is an example. There is no proof but when it is repeated endlessly we start to accept it.

In the 1920's there way a very popular theory called Eugenics. Funny how that theory is not very popular or even spoken of nowadays. A lot of leading figures supported the "sterilization" of imbeciles in Germany before the the second world war. Now nobody is a Nazi.

So what do you believe.

Me.... I believe I will have another spliff.

Blank

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

a system of hunches, guesswork and pure fantasy

pretty good description of scientific discovery

Hardly, its backed up by evidence and experimentation and peer review. When is the next god experiment ?

Saw some dude on horizon who's conducting experiments to determine if the universe is in fact a holographic projection from information at the edge of the universe.

e2a.. just watched the Richard Feynman vid. "it's much more interesting not knowing" :yep:

Edited by sam-i-am

Share this post


Link to post

So when the major religions all believe god comes from the sky, created things and the meaning and purpose of the universe are to obey his words/orders/wills,they are basicly believing in aliens.

They're either to unintelligent or brainwashed by altered holy books, to understand this.

Thats it, reality, hard to cope with for sure, but its about time we started imo.

1st - I do not believe, nor does Christianity teach, that "God came from the sky".

God is Omnipresent and Eternal, so comes from and came from nowhere as he is already everywhere and for all time.

And as for the cheap gibes and insults - keep them to yourself, please. They are insulting and inaccurate. Why on earth do you think anyone would want to talk to you if that is your attitude. Its disgusting, rude and inappropriate.

Religion deals with thing of which there is no evidence. You can believe quite literally what you like about things that can't be proven eitherway.

Which is fine, infact, I think we all do it. It's when it gets all organized and the notion that we should start to agree, in groups, about things of which there is no evidence and that can't be proven eitherway that you run into problems. It's just not healthy, organized religion.

I think people that adhere to organized cults are mentally ill and they should be prevented from holding any position of responsibility. But as long as beliefs don't contradict reason and evidence, limited as they are, I don't see a problem with religion in itself.

And as for this, really what utter drivel to post. Obviously you've never read a single word of serious Apologetic religious writing.

I am not mentally ill, and your suggestion is extremely offensive and insulting.

I wont even begin to address your words as they are worthless, rude, and just plane ridiculous.

I think a discussion centred around a divide between 'science' and 'religion' does a serious disservice to both of those facets of human life. It's entirely specious. To say that 'science says...' or 'religion says...' is about as helpful as claiming that 'artists say...' or 'philosophers say..'. Both positions have have within in them branches/sects/factions/divisions that contradict and conflict with one-another. Also, it is vague and misleading to suggest that science and religion are diametrically opposed, given that their boundaries are constantly changing due to discoveries in history and archeology, for example, to point of almost converging at times.

Thank you, a voice of sanity and reason at last.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0