Religion V Science

[Habakure]

You don't get rich writting sci-fi, I call ###### on that. Look at the empire created by George Lucas, he is (well was) his own film studio. James Cameron is also another example. I find quotations can be as bad as using lines from the bible (to justify a persons resolve).

 

You what always makes me go "hhmmm"? The explanation for John F Kennedy going back and to the left when he was assassinated. One is he was shot from the front. The other, he was shot from an angle that caused his head to snap back at an awkward angle, and that's what made it look like, he was shot from the front.

[Tinkerton]

Just a reminder to people to keep things civil in here please. As a mod I don't want to have to edit or remove peoples posts, or lock the thread, but I will if I think it's getting out of hand.

 

With that in mind, please can we keep from using derogatory words to describe both religious and non-religious people. I've never heard the term 'duckhead' before, but I don't want to hear it again.

 

 

As a normal member, i personally take offence to being called a moron because of my personal faith. You've no idea who I am, or what I'm like in real life. How does my personal belief of various aspects of life, the universe, and everything affect my intellectual capacity?

 

Yes, many bad things have been done in the name of 'religion', but on the other side of that coin, 'science' isn't exactly squeaky clean either.

 

 

With regards to 'you don't get rich writing sci-fi' being wrong, have you any idea the sheer number of science fiction authors out there? Big whoop, you can name 2. Even the more 'well known' writers such as Iain M Banks, Alastair Reynolds, Douglas Adams and myriad others don't make *that* much. Just because you've happened to pick two who've managed to break into the movie industry doesn't mean they're all that successful.

 

I also know about the residual heat experiment, and as a religious person, I'm excited by it. The more i look at experiments like that, and the LHC at CERN who have both 'discovered' the Higgs Boson, and also managed to make things go faster than the speed of light, the more it solidifies my belief in a higher power.

 

Because realistically, the other option (being, there is no 'creator') is that it all happened by some gigantic cosmic accident. I know which one sounds more preposterous to me

[WhiteHawksan]

tbf, for all the conspircay theorists, if I was assassinating a president, I'd have more than one shooter.

 

Here's an interesting question, what about scientifically impossible miracles? There's one that I have found in my travels, looking for proof of and against various things.

 

There are 2 cases I think are interesting here, the first is the colarado woman who either suffered a miracle or got lucky. Depending on your point of view, I like to explain things like that, The short of it, she got shot to hell including a bullet to the brain, it entered at the perfect point/angle/etc to do no damage to her brain. A miracle or just good luck?

 

Now, the case I want to find but is eluding me, is of a woman who was security for a church.

 

A lone gunman came in to the church and when challenged opened fire at the security guard, she returned fire (why there was armed security at a church I don't honestly know) but, this was all on CCTV, despite the range etc, he missed, and she didn't. some would say that's miraculous, I would of course ascribe, lucky.

 

Now where it gets interesting was in the crime scene reconstruction. It's on CCTV, so people's exact positions can be ascertained. What they found, was the for her not to have been hit was impossible, the bullets passed straight through her, or at least, they should have. It's still unexplained. Her only explanation was that she felt she had a guardian angel.

 

Food for thought I reckons,

 

If anyone can find a link it would be rather helpful as I can't find it anywhere only on the Dark Knight shooting.

[Habakure]

Seeing as this post was aimed at me (mostly), I'll respond in a manner befitting, what I tried to do with this thread.

 

Firstly, I said the bible was written for morons. Which is a term I would use, to describe people who threw rocks at the moon.

Secondly, duckhead was used because the swear filter didn't pick up the swear word which menas when a person is acting ungentleman like (you just change one letter).

 

Amendment to the first explanation. The bible was written in many stages throughout the last 2 centuries for people who, compared to us, would not comprehend or believe science as it stands today. Now, what I was saying, was that the bible (in parts), tried to explain who we are and where we are going, at that time, not today. Not that people who follow religion or the bible are morons. Why would I call my wife a moron? I wouldn't.

 

Also see my first post, as I have asked to be correct on grammical errors. I would see that as explaning myself and why I have said certain things. As soemtimes, my lack of understanding grammar, can lead to people getting the wrong end of the stick

 

Now, I mentioned two writers who got rich by writing sci-fi. It was to show that you can get rich, I was providing proof to back up what I said.

 

Edit:- Now, if this thread is to stay open, that would be great. If my post(s) offend, please feel free to tell me, and maybe it is because what I meant to say, was not worded correctly.

[WhiteHawksan]

you just come across a little strongly. Try and avoid derogatory terms. Just keep it civil, it's easy to assume that someone of the opposite viewpoint is wrong, but the simplest of facts is, no-one has solid proof of either.

[Habakure]

Thats fair enough. What I was trying to point out (About the head incident, and using a derogatory term), was what had been covered earlier about how religion is used by politicians and kings of old, for thier own ploitical or wealthy gain. Not the bloke sitting at home reading the bible and going on his own personnal discovery of enlightenment.

[Habakure]

ACk double post.

EDit:- Also, I don't think fundamentalist christians are morons or anything else, that could be seen as derogatory.

[WhiteHawksan]

OH i see how it is clogging up the thread with double posts now?!

 

For me, one of the things I've always disliked about religion is how it's packaged for you, Here's the bible, and here's our interpretation of it. Woah there, dont' THINK, just accept that this denomination/islamist sect/bhuddist monastary/etc have got it right and do as you're told.

 

The same goes for science. Where peopel go, well so-and-so already did a paper on that, don't re-invent the wheel man. Who said he did it best? Who said it was accurate? Why is their theory more valid than mine?

 

My amazing girlfriend is a criminal psychologist, a lot of psychology used to be (until scarily recently) based upon Sigmund Freud's work. Any look at his work will tell you he was a incestuous peadophile. How such a derranged individual could form the basis of psychology for so long is beyond me.

[Habakure]

He did also say "I cake is just a cake", but maybe thats what he wanted us to believe.

 

My wife goes to church every sunday and tries to go to lourdes once a year to help sick pilgrims (works on a ward, push a wheel chair about, that sort of thing. She pays for it her self). Next year, I will be going with her and our (at the time next year) 2 year old daughter. People have asked me, if I don't follow the catholic faith, why go on a pilgrimage to Lourdes? The simple answer is, I like to help people. My wife has done it for years and she too likes to help people, but there is also a religious meaning for her. Which I won't go into, as she may not want me telling strangers about it.

 

I consider myself as an agnostic (that spelt correctly?), I'm on the fence watching both sides. I see good and bad on both sides, as am sure most people do. But the majority, on both sides, are good.

[mimesis]

The bible was written in many stages throughout the last 2 centuries for people who, compared to us, would not comprehend or believe science as it stands today. Now, what I was saying, was that the bible (in parts), tried to explain who we are and where we are going, at that time, not today.

 

Edit?

 

Basically, I agree, but don't limit it to the Bible. This is essentially how all religions grew up in the first place. Anyone read Rudyard Kipling's Just-So Stories? Or Ovid's Metamorphoses? They're called aetiological myths.

 

Given how inscrutable the universe must have seemed to primitive humans, it's no surprise that they invented something to try and explain it, even if many of the "explanations" were nominalistic. (The god of lightning makes lightning flash.)

 

Scientific knowledge is based on facts that are repeatable. Unfortunately--or perhaps fortunately--no one's yet figured out how to repeat the big bang... though they are trying.

[Habakure]

Ah lightening. Thats is still being studied today. Thats is something that interests, and scares the hell out of me.

[Danke]

A religion is dogmatic by its nature.The established beliefs are authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from by the believers. The beliefs must be accepted without evidence.

 

Science must move forward and discard past theories when evidence counters them. It lives and dies by evidence.

 

Of course within science you can find dogmatic scientists who will not be swayed from their views and within religion you can find open minded belivers who doubt some of the creed or and willing to change.

[vorpalbunnie]

I don't want to get involved in this thread, but I do question why the thread is called "Religion V Science".

Does one have to choose?

 

The title is very baiting. But at least Arnies is more mature than the average forum.

[FireKnife]

The title is very baiting. But at least Arnies is more mature than the average forum.

 

Wait what? I am here remember

 

At the end of the day i still stand by the 'we have had 2000 years of religion, but science is having to push it back'. As each new theory is proved and evidence is given something that many years ago we would have taken the religious answer on we don't anymore. Gravity, before we knew what it was the church would have us believing we could float away in the night, however it was proved and no-one has disputed it and succeded as it is correct. The same goes for many things before but science still has a long way to go to prove these things. We will one day, but we will always have those of a stern religious belief that can't accept fact over opinion.

 

Really this is one that could go to the end of time, or could actually reach a point, certainly in the West where we prove all of religions faults and the faiths begin to die out. We will still have religious people but i feel that from when i was younger to now a lot, lot less people are following the main Christian religions and are turning to agnostics or atheists (the reason why i am an atheist is i question everything and science doesn't fail in providing me with answers).

 

'FireKnife'

[spetsnazdave87]

Yeah if we got rid of Fireknife we'd probably increase in maturity by about 300%. Far above Pipe Smokers' International.

[FireKnife]

Yeah if we got rid of Fireknife we'd probably increase in maturity by about 300%. Far above Pipe Smokers' International.

 

You say it like it is a bad thing

 

'FireKnife'

[renegadecow]

You don't get rich writting sci-fi, I call ###### on that. Look at the empire created by George Lucas

I just want to correct you on an erroneous example. George Lucas didn't write science fiction. He made a romance flick on a shoestring budget and was lucky enough to make it big. Gene Roddenberry wrote sci-fi, and yes, he got pretty damn rich from it.

[WhiteHawksan]

An interesting point is this, science does not disprove the bible, and in fact proves sections of it. But, what science believers who have faith in science above all else often quote is religious teachings, usually from much later texts, from the church.

 

Pour exemple, there is a question raised in the kings court and science and religion must answer, so science goes to develop a theory, priests get a 'message from god', at the time, of course, science was in it's infancy, and proof was very shaky at best.

 

I'm always amused by both sides, people belief that science will answer all their questions, and peoples belief that god is the answer to all their questions.

[scorch]

An interesting point is this, science does not disprove the bible, and in fact proves sections of it.

 

But how much of that is science actually saying, "yes, this thing in the bible probably really happened" and how much is religion saying "that fairly common natural phenomenon known as flooding that you discovered happened at some point in the past in the desert before it was really a desert though is totally proof that Noah existed"

 

I reckon there's more claiming and making fit on the part of religion than science.

[FireKnife]

people belief that science will answer all their questions

 

It will, but it won't happen overnight

 

I mean you go back 1000 years, we didn't know what gravity was, we didn't know the exact shape of the earth, we had no true idea of how many planets we have in the solar system. Also remember invention is a form of science, we had no film, no television, no bigger weapons of war. The telephone is science answering a question, can man talk to others from far away, the church would not be able to answer but invention and science did by making it possible based on a hypothesis they began with.

 

I do believe that science encompasses eveything on our planet, from the smallest lifeform to a whole solar system and can do it's best to explain all, with it being most of the way there. But if you believe that it is accomplished by a higher power or spirit, fine, but if you come up to me and start claiming we evolved from two humans that only had two male children, which causes accepted incest i will do my best to prove you wrong, as that is my opinion which i can provide fact for.

 

Though this reminds me of a few lines in The Big Bang Theory:

 

Sheldon: I'm going to stay here and teach evolution to creationists.

Mum: Now now Sheldon everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Sheldon: Evolution isn't opnion, its a fact.

Mum: And that is your opnion.

 

Now who there is wrong? The science side for challenging someones faith or the religious side for trying to put fact and opnion together when the two are seperate things?

 

'FireKnife'

[WhiteHawksan]

I don't doubt there is, but what science believers usually put forth, and see stunt and fireknife for examples, is that science disproves religion, or at least enough of religion to make it silly to have faith, yet when it actually comes down to it, it doesn't, really hardly at all. It's 2 separate playing fields.

 

And I meant things like places and events, the bibles 'factual' accounts are only good for storytelling I think.

[FireKnife]

is that science disproves religion

 

It is not that science disproves religion, but it disproves those that have used religion and the 'messages from God' to explain what we never had a reason for. The Bible is just a series of accounts made up by some to make a religious text, science could disprove these but why bother, they are fiction or twisted factual accounts to explain what, back then, could not be explained. If that is what you see the Bible as, stories to live a better life from then good (except the murder and incest that happens in it) but if you take it as cold, hard fact then you need to be proved wrong and while science has not always tried to prove religion wrong, just as a by product it does. Some scientific discoveries were moare about proving a hypothesis that someone had set up, the fact they disprove an old religious belief was not the intention but it does happen.

 

I just feel that there are those that take what they should from religion, a way to improve ones life and those that take the wrong things from it, an excuse to deny others and there beliefs, an excuse to harm others or an excuse to spout rubbish and claim it as the will of God are those i am happy to stand up to and say 'no here is proof that you and your ideas are wrong'.

 

EDIT: I know i use the Bible and Christianity as the main religion that i mention but that is due to it being the main religion of this country, and that of the people i know. Plus if i mentioned another and some of the ame issues i know i would attract the idiots that would accuse me of insighting racism and disrespet to others, it appears that religion classes as a race in the mind of others, hmmm.

 

'FireKnife'

[Habakure]

About the title, if anyone can come up with a better title, please do so, I'm all for it. I'm begining to think, some of my posts don't show up (this is not typed in an angry manner, I generally think people can't see all of the posts in this thread)? The title is more about, most people are one of the other. Its rare if they are felxible, to have both in thier life.

 

Also, again, the title was an attempted to be funny, quirky etc. Not a "be damned you sinners of science" or "the big bang disproves the bible". It was more a "can't we all just get along". I was aiming for satire, with the title, and failed miserably ( I just realised I left out the question mark). My hypothesis sucked, my method had holes in it and my conclusion is, please someone come up with a non-threatenng title.

[FireKnife]

'Noah or Newton, Satan or Schrodinger? Which way do your opions swing?'

 

Might be a bit better .

 

'FireKnife'

[Habakure]

Bingo, maybe a mod could change it?