The age old argument...

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

IMO religions were made because people wanted something to believe in, to have faith in something so that they can be strong. It may exist, it may doesn't. As we know during the centuries people have formed groups and those groups were led by leaders. That's what I think God, Buddah, etc. really are.

They are leaders that give hope to people for a better day. Just think of this: If you have cancer, science will say that you will probably die, however religion will say pray for the better. What would you choose?

That's the role religions play. However, how some people take advantage of that in order to make money is a very different subject and a pretty bad one. I won't talk about it here.

People believing or not believing isn't the problem. Being fanatic, is the problem. Your friend of yours shouldn't have snapped.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

IMO religions were made because people wanted something to believe in, to have faith in something so that they can be strong. It may exist, it may doesn't. As we know during the centuries people have formed groups and those groups were led by leaders. That's what I think God, Buddah, etc. really are.

They are leaders that give hope to people for a better day. Just think of this: If you have cancer, science will say that you will probably die, however religion will say pray for the better. What would you choose?

Are you serious? Science. It can potentially find a cure. Surgery could cut the cancer out. Medicine (chemotherapy) could potentially kill the cancer. Prayer sure as fuck can't do any of these things. In fact, they've done studies on it, and it's proven to be of absolutely no influence. In fact, one study done on patients going into surgery years ago showed that the health of the patients knowing they were being prayed over worsened.

That's the role religions play. However, how some people take advantage of that in order to make money is a very different subject and a pretty bad one. I won't talk about it here.

People believing or not believing isn't the problem. Being fanatic, is the problem. Your friend of yours shouldn't have snapped.

I see this done all the time — saying that religious "extremists" are just "extremist", or "fanatics". You realize that the Bible commands these things, right? As does the Qu'ran? Being devout is a requirement. I'd argue that Muslims killing "infidels" are actually doing what they were commanded to by the Qu'ran, just as Christians killing/bashing homosexuals are doing the same as their holy book is commanding them to.

Neither is moral, clearly, but they're following the word of their Gods to a tee. If anything, they're better Muslims/Christians/whatever than their peers.

 

[lenguy]

When it comes down to it, aren't Science and Religion just two sides of the same coin? They both ask the same fundamental questions. Who are we? Where do we come from? Why are we Here? How did it all begin? How will it all end? Ect, ect...

Of course, the difference is religion is based of evidence formed in belief where as science is belief based off evidence. Religion assumes it has all the answers and science is ignorant towards all the answers. It really is two sides of the same coin. I personally have no ill will against religion. People are free to believe and express themselves anyway the choose. I'm personally a man of science since I think its rather arrogant of man to just assume we have all the answers.

Religion should be about faith, not faith in a god, but faith and belief in each other. I can't see god, I can't see any other god, however, I can see you, I can see my friends, my family, my neighbors and my community. Faith in each other in my opinion is more important than faith in a divine deity that may or may not exist.

This is just how I feel. As I've said, I'm not against the idea of religion, you are all born free to decide your own belief on life and its origins and how to live. I just think its kind of an old fashion idea that may have served a purpose at a time but doesn't really serve much purpose in the modern era. At least, not the ideas of old. It doesn't really matter though I guess. Believe what you want to believe! Just try not to be a discriminatory bigot and disrespectful of other people because they have a different belief than you.

 

[smizzy]

IMO religions were made because people wanted something to believe in, to have faith in something so that they can be strong.

I think there has more to do with the fact that it is human tendency to believe in a higher power. For instance, Native Americans, with no connection to the outside world, worshiped gods well before they ever made contact with Europeans.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

Are you serious? Science. It can potentially find a cure. Surgery could cut the cancer out. Medicine (chemotherapy) could potentially kill the cancer. Prayer sure as fuck can't do any of these things. In fact, they've done studies on it, and it's proven to be of absolutely no influence. In fact, one study done on patients going into surgery years ago showed that the health of the patients knowing they were being prayed over worsened.

Bullshit, while I won't get into a vast religious debate here mostly because I'm not a religious person this is just flat out wrong. Pray has been proven to be effective in more studies than it's prove to not be effective. Some get worse, but from a faith base position, prayer has to be from the heart and sincere. And since you can't tell the sincerity of someone's prayer, or what kind of effect a placebo could have on these people. If it has no effect you can't follow that up with people have "worsened" because it does show an effect. By your standards of whats real. should I believe in medications? Since there is no cure for cancer and the vast majority of people with cancer end up dying due to some complication of cancer I could say. People who have had surgery get worse, people who have had radiation get worse. Have they proven to be effective? Yes but so have a placebo. Which has no science to it at all.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

For believers, faith comes before proof.

Well IDR just claimed thw word "facts" doesn't mean "facts" as we know in the english language anymore, so.....A lot of science requires quite a bit of faith as well. Actually, im way unsure as to what exactly IDR is trying to prove in this thread by this point. What the hell is this thread even supposed to be about, exactly?

To me, the closest thing to proof you will get when it comes to religion is the sheer number of people over time that beleived, to the point of being perfectly willing to lay their life down, that SOMETHING was up there, and an afterlife was to follow. The splintering of so many religions, faiths, and their customs (along with the embattlement with science at times) says to me that God and the afterlife are things simply so monumental that humans can't fully comprehend it.

There has already been shown to be a lot of connective tissue between science/history and various major religious texts, and I think if more serious attempts were made to marry the two up, we could find a lot of explanation.....Though its obviously the religous folks who impede that particular process much more than anything else.

I will always have a tough time with finding much difference between the "buy-in" that religous people have, and the "buy-in" that the scientific community has.....Far more scientific "facts" have been buried than major religous texts proven definitively wrong.

People should be able to believe whatever it is they would like to, and private schools should be able to teach whatever they would like to. No one's beliefs should have any bearing on public policy whatsoever.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Prayer sure as fuck can't do any of these things. In fact, they've done studies on it, and it's proven to be of absolutely no influence. In fact, one study done on patients going into surgery years ago showed that the health of the patients knowing they were being prayed over worsened.

Do you read what you write back to yourself?

I see this done all the time — saying that religious "extremists" are just "extremist", or "fanatics". You realize that the Bible commands these things, right? As does the Qu'ran? Being devout is a requirement. I'd argue that Muslims killing "infidels" are actually doing what they were commanded to by the Qu'ran, just as Christians killing/bashing homosexuals are doing the same as their holy book is commanding them to.

Neither is moral, clearly, but they're following the word of their Gods to a tee. If anything, they're better Muslims/Christians/whatever than their peers.

Sure, if you take the books 110% literal and try to apply them to a modern world, which only...

Extremeists and fanatics...and well, idiots....

Would do.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Bullshit, while I won't get into a vast religious debate here mostly because I'm not a religious person this is just flat out wrong. Pray has been proven to be effective in more studies than it's prove to not be effective. Some get worse, but from a faith base position, prayer has to be from the heart and sincere. And since you can't tell the sincerity of someone's prayer, or what kind of effect a placebo could have on these people. If it has no effect you can't follow that up with people have "worsened" because it does show an effect. By your standards of whats real. should I believe in medications? Since there is no cure for cancer and the vast majority of people with cancer end up dying due to some complication of cancer I could say. People who have had surgery get worse, people who have had radiation get worse. Have they proven to be effective? Yes but so have a placebo. Which has no science to it at all.

By all means, send me links to these studies, because everything I’ve ever read on it has shown that in best case scenarios, they “work” (as in have a “positive” influence on any situation when they occur) as often as a coin lands on heads. Or in other words, 50/50. At worst, as I noted, the health of patients being prayed over actually worsened.

If prayer worked half as well as it’s claimed to work, those numbers would be much more in favor of it than a best-chance of 50%.

Well IDR just claimed thw word "facts" doesn't mean "facts" as we know in the english language anymore, so.....A lot of science requires quite a bit of faith as well. Actually, im way unsure as to what exactly IDR is trying to prove in this thread by this point. What the hell is this thread even supposed to be about, exactly?

Ask for clarification if you are confused. Like I’m about to do with your line about me claiming the word “facts” doesn’t mean “facts” as we know it in the English language. Where in this thread did you see me make such a claim? Or are you confusing my response to Jack-Hammer over the term "theory" with regard to evolution?

To me, the closest thing to proof you will get when it comes to religion is the sheer number of people over time that beleived, to the point of being perfectly willing to lay their life down, that SOMETHING was up there, and an afterlife was to follow. The splintering of so many religions, faiths, and their customs (along with the embattlement with science at times) says to me that God and the afterlife are things simply so monumental that humans can't fully comprehend it.

This is a slippery slope/false cause fallacy, and isn’t actually fact or proof. It’s proof that people believe, sure, but it’s not proof that what they believe is true, or justified.

People have fought and died for a slew of things in history — not all of which was true or justified, or even moral. Sheer numbers aren’t actually proof of anything of value or of substance, and are only proof of the numbers themselves. Case in point? Nazi Germany. And no, I’m not comparing religion to Nazism, so before you cry outrage over it, understand that point clearly. My point is that “the sheer number of people over time that believed” is proof of nothing, other than maybe that they were devout. It says nothing of the veracity of their claims, or whether or not what they were “willing to lay down their life” was morally correct, justified or true.

There has already been shown to be a lot of connective tissue between science/history and various major religious texts, and I think if more serious attempts were made to marry the two up, we could find a lot of explanation.....Though its obviously the religous folks who impede that particular process much more than anything else.

Connective tissue? Fancy term for “loosely related”. Of course they’re loosely related. So are a lot of things that in reality are enemies, or at polar ends of the same spectrum, which in the majority of cases, science and religion are for the simple fact that science is the process of asking questions, and religion is the rejection of question in place of a finite answer (God). Science is the method we use to determine the veracity of claims in search of answers. Religion is the rejection of that method, as the answer is already in hand.

I will always have a tough time with finding much difference between the "buy-in" that religous people have, and the "buy-in" that the scientific community has.....Far more scientific "facts" have been buried than major religous texts proven definitively wrong.

I’m not sure what this means? Could you clarify?

People should be able to believe whatever it is they would like to, and private schools should be able to teach whatever they would like to. No one's beliefs should have any bearing on public policy whatsoever.

Sure. I’m not arguing against any of this. But this doesn’t mean greater efforts shouldn’t be made in our educational processes to prevent more people from believing false things in the future. This doesn’t apply just to religion, either. It applies to any false thinking — especially the kind that is harmful and/or violent in nature.

Sure, if you take the books 110% literal and try to apply them to a modern world, which only...

Extremeists and fanatics...and well, idiots....

Would do.

And why wouldn’t you take the books literally? They are supposedly the written, inspired word of God — an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being of perfection. Those texts are, per the claim of nearly every religion, his/her/it’s commandments. Who are you, a fallible being, to question even so much as a punctuation mark of them? More over, who are you to determine what is literal, and what isn’t? The Ten Commandments should be followed with impunity, but Leviticus doesn’t fit our social model any more, so we should just go ahead and write that one off?

This is an argument I see made all the time, and it’s actually a spin-off version of the Ever-diminishing God theory, where the Bible, or holy texts in general, are held up as sacrament until humanity surpasses their immorality to an event horizon, at which point the aspects of them that no longer conform to society’s will are allowed to dissolve into the past, written off as “misinterpretations” or “mistakes”. Talk about convenient. Everything I say goes, until I don’t say it anymore. Then it’s just because it was misinterpreted. Oh, but these parts? They still apply… until they don’t.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I see this done all the time — saying that religious "extremists" are just "extremist", or "fanatics". You realize that the Bible commands these things, right? As does the Qu'ran? Being devout is a requirement. I'd argue that Muslims killing "infidels" are actually doing what they were commanded to by the Qu'ran, just as Christians killing/bashing homosexuals are doing the same as their holy book is commanding them to.

Shows a very poor working knowledge of the actual contents of both books.

By all means, send me links to these studies, because everything I’ve ever read on it has shown that in best case scenarios, they “work” (as in have a “positive” influence on any situation when they occur) as often as a coin lands on heads. Or in other words, 50/50. At worst, as I noted, the health of patients being prayed over actually worsened.

If prayer worked half as well as it’s claimed to work, those numbers would be much more in favor of it than a best-chance of 50%.

Sooo first it was no influence whatsoever, then it was "proven" it actually makes things worse, and now, its about 50/50.

What?

This is a slippery slope/false cause fallacy, and isn’t actually fact or proof. It’s proof that people believe, sure, but it’s not proof that what they believe is true, or justified.

People have fought and died for a slew of things in history — not all of which was true or justified, or even moral. Sheer numbers aren’t actually proof of anything of value or of substance, and are only proof of the numbers themselves. Case in point? Nazi Germany. And no, I’m not comparing religion to Nazism, so before you cry outrage over it, understand that point clearly. My point is that “the sheer number of people over time that believed” is proof of nothing, other than maybe that they were devout. It says nothing of the veracity of their claims, or whether or not what they were “willing to lay down their life” was morally correct, justified or true.

I never said it was definitive proof. Also, I would wager to say just a few more people have held belief in the "Gods and Afterlife" thing than Nazism in the history of earth.

Just a few. But HEY....you know better. You know everything there is to know about existance, post, present, and pre. All of it.

Connective tissue? Fancy term for “loosely related”. Of course they’re loosely related. So are a lot of things that in reality are enemies, or at polar ends of the same spectrum, which in the majority of cases, science and religion are for the simple fact that science is the process of asking questions, and religion is the rejection of question in place of a finite answer (God). Science is the method we use to determine the veracity of claims in search of answers. Religion is the rejection of that method, as the answer is already in hand.

No, I mean quite a few things have been proven historically acurrate, or can be easily explained by an array of scientific / historical theories. The things in these books are OBVIOUSLY descriptions of things the ancients saw/stories they were told. Any logical person can see this....thus, there is nothing wrong to find out what was actually occuring when these stories were created. They aren't enemies, the people on both sides with their heads stuck in the sand are enemies. Its like saying cookies are enemies of cookie batter. One is the "what" the other is the "how"

Sure. I’m not arguing against any of this. But this doesn’t mean greater efforts shouldn’t be made in our educational processes to prevent more people from believing false things in the future. This doesn’t apply just to religion, either. It applies to any false thinking — especially the kind that is harmful and/or violent in nature.

People are allowed to learn, and believe, whatever the HELL they want to, not have it be confined to what YOU feel is "false thinking".....THis coming from someone flying the science flag in opposition to religion is hilariously hypocritical.

And why wouldn’t you take the books literally?

Oh, I dont know, because im not a fucking moron? Because they were written by PEOPLE, thousands of years ago, and for the most part, ALL have major revisions over thousands of years?

Sure, they may be INSPIRED by a supreme being, but how do you pick which one is true? Did God have a sincere conversation with Isrealites, but not with Indians/Norse/Arabs? To say so is supreme arrogance, just like the arrogance most atheists exhibit by acting like they know everything that exists in our universe, both physical and existential.

Talk about convenient. Everything I say goes, until I don’t say it anymore. They still apply… until they don’t.

Once again....

This, coming from someone flying the science flag? Laughable.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Shows a very poor working knowledge of the actual contents of both books.

Are you denying that both books contains commandments to kill, maim and commit horrific acts of genocide, all sanctioned by and/or commanded by God/Allah?

Sooo first it was no influence whatsoever, then it was "proven" it actually makes things worse, and now, its about 50/50.

What?

When I wrote “no influence whatsoever”, the inference was positive influence. Not influence in general. But since you want to get semantic, I’ll gladly clarify, as I have.

And yes, nearly every study I’ve come across has shown conclusively that prayer “works” as a “positive influence” at a 50/50 rate. Meaning if your grandmother has cancer, and you pray, you have a 50/50 chance of having any positive influence on her cancer that she is being medically treated for. If your grandmother has cancer and is not receiving medical treatment, no amount of prayer will prevent it from killing her, and there isn’t a scientifically documented case on the planet that’s actually been verified by peer review where someone was “cured” of a terminal illness simply because someone prayed for it.

I never said it was definitive proof. Also, I would wager to say just a few more people have held belief in the "Gods and Afterlife" thing than Nazism in the history of earth.

Again, so what? If the entire world believed in a Flying Spaghetti monster that orbits the earth, that claim still needs to be demonstrated before I’m going to accept it, because there is no evidence of any kind supporting it.

You can cite whatever population of believers you like — one or one million — it is of no added benefit in either direction. I don’t care how many people believe something that cannot be demonstrated to be true. Until it can, the default position is to reject it as false.

Just a few. But HEY....you know better. You know everything there is to know about existance, post, present, and pre. All of it.

Tu quoque, ad hominem nonsense. I’m here to have a discussion, not field e-jabs from people who are upset because they don’t agree with what I’m saying.

In the future, I’m simply going to ignore these comments. I’ll continue to discuss any on-point discussions/points you make, however.

No, I mean quite a few things have been proven historically acurrate, or can be easily explained by an array of scientific / historical theories. The things in these books are OBVIOUSLY descriptions of things the ancients saw/stories they were told. Any logical person can see this....thus, there is nothing wrong to find out what was actually occuring when these stories were created. They aren't enemies, the people on both sides with their heads stuck in the sand are enemies. Its like saying cookies are enemies of cookie batter. One is the "what" the other is the "how”

Yes, and quite a number are probably total works of fiction, like the birth of Christ, or the claim he even existed at all. The Roman Census in accordance with when he was purported to have existed has no record of him. Pontious Pilate, the man responsible for supposedly executing him, never mentions him. There is no contemporary record showing Pilate executed him. Not a single scholar from the time, including those in Rome who were known for keeping meticulous records of the time, made a single mention of him either, and every Biblical account about his life was written by men who did not actually know him. The earliest Books of the New Testament (Mark, Thessalonians, Galatians) were all written more than 48 years after his supposed death. They’re hearsay accounts of a man who may have never have existed in the first place.

And this says nothing of the fact that even if the Bible were correct about whatever historical accounts its books recorded, none are proof of the existence of God or even Jesus.

And yeah, religion and science are enemies. At least right now. Every study conducted currently is proving that the higher the rate of religiosity, the lower the rate of scientific innovation.

Here’s a quite from a recent study:

"Places with higher levels of religiosity have lower rates of scientific and technical innovation, as measured by patents per capita," comments Bénabou. He adds that the pattern persists "when controlling for differences in income per capita, population, and rates of higher education.”​

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/religion-quashes-innovation-patents

People are allowed to learn, and believe, whatever the HELL they want to, not have it be confined to what YOU feel is "false thinking".

Sure they are. Just don’t expect me, or anyone interested in scientific advancement and education to lay down and accept it.

Racists, for example, should be able to learn and believe whatever the hell they want. When they attempt to forbid black students from entering a public school, however, they’re going to have a problem, and it's also in the better interest of the U.S. to educate its citizens against racism. On a related note, Creationists can also believe and learn whatever the hell they want. When they attempt to remove the teaching of evolution and replace it with Creationism in public schools, however, they’re going to have a problem, and it's in the better interest of the U.S. to educate its people against claims that cannot be demonstrated.

Oh, I dont know, because im not a fucking moron? Because they were written by PEOPLE, thousands of years ago, and for the most part, ALL have major revisions over thousands of years?

Sure, they may be INSPIRED by a supreme being, but how do you pick which one is true? Did God have a sincere conversation with Isrealites, but not with Indians/Norse/Arabs? To say so is supreme arrogance, just like the arrogance most atheists exhibit by acting like they know everything that exists in our universe, both physical and existential.

My point exactly. If none are true, then none are to be believed. If this is not the inspired, infallible word of God, why should I believe and worship any of it? Either it is the inspired, infallible word of God, and no fallible men should have sway over the interpretation of “His” words, or the texts are books written by fallible men, and should be treated as such, and subjected to the same levels of criticism and skepticism as any other text purporting to be a moral compass.

As to the arrogance, I’d claim there is nothing more arrogant than claiming to know the answer to life is something you cannot demonstrate, and that the answers as to why are not for us to know. That is the championship of ignorance.

 

[ThePurge]

Here in the US about 90% of people believe in "God" or a god and that is how many people are raised here. But my parents were both born in Mexico. Where the catholic religion is very prominent and they were catholic until they came to the US. So for example if I was born in perhaps INDIA I probably would believe in ALLAH and be Muslim and I would believe with all my heart that such religion is the right and only way. So I believe that'll depends how we were raised is what we are usually going to believe.

 

[ThePurge]

A lot of people find it hard to believe that there is no purpose in life and that nothing is going to happen after death. So heaven and eternity are very popular and are a much better story to tell our kids. But sometimes comfort comes at the cost of truth. I refuse to believe that an allmighty god can't provide water to children who are denying in Africa, while a pastor can say that he has been blessed with his 3rd car. The problem of evil is very hard to explain In religion. And it's a

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Are you denying that both books contains commandments to kill, maim and commit horrific acts of genocide, all sanctioned by and/or commanded by God/Allah?

Allah granted rights to Muhammed and his army ONLY. THe only excuse for jihad otherwise is to battle back extreme opression.

As for the old testament encouraging all the genocide, its mostly comprised of re-told anceint stories and laws which encourage various things for various groups of people.

In any case, I think anyone with a bit of logic in their head can see that killing in the name of a pascifist is fucking ******ed. It is pretty obvious how all that came to be a part of the books....If you wanted everyone to join/PAY MONEY TO your club, wouldn't you encourage violence against other groups?

When I wrote “no influence whatsoever”, the inference was positive influence. Not influence in general. But since you want to get semantic, I’ll gladly clarify, as I have.

And yes, nearly every study I’ve come across has shown conclusively that prayer “works” as a “positive influence” at a 50/50 rate. Meaning if your grandmother has cancer, and you pray, you have a 50/50 chance of having any positive influence on her cancer that she is being medically treated for. If your grandmother has cancer and is not receiving medical treatment, no amount of prayer will prevent it from killing her, and there isn’t a scientifically documented case on the planet that’s actually been verified by peer review where someone was “cured” of a terminal illness simply because someone prayed for it.

Well sorry, when I see "no influence whatsoever" its generally pretty clear what is being inferred.

So wait, is it no positive influence whatsoever, or 50/50?

This is the third time you have failed when concerning this point.

Also, way to go on using CANCER for the example. Oh, there isn't an immense success rate concerning CANCER and prayer to get better? YOU DONT SAY? I shall now consult my statistics on all the people who get better after they catch a cold, and then proceed to pray their way out of it.

Again, so what? If the entire world believed in a Flying Spaghetti monster that orbits the earth, that claim still needs to be demonstrated before I’m going to accept it, because there is no evidence of any kind supporting it.

You can cite whatever population of believers you like — one or one million — it is of no added benefit in either direction. I don’t care how many people believe something that cannot be demonstrated to be true. Until it can, the default position is to reject it as false.

Well, not one or one million, more like billions over thousands of years.

But hey, you know better.

Tu quoque, ad hominem nonsense. I’m here to have a discussion, not field e-jabs from people who are upset because they don’t agree with what I’m saying.

In the future, I’m simply going to ignore these comments. I’ll continue to discuss any on-point discussions/points you make, however.

Slamming your clipboard on the ground, I see.

Yes, and quite a number are probably total works of fiction,

Well, DUH. Either that, or misunderstanding of ancient peoples of what exactly they were seeing/interpreting.

like the birth of Christ, or the claim he even existed at all. The Roman Census in accordance with when he was purported to have existed has no record of him. Pontious Pilate, the man responsible for supposedly executing him, never mentions him. There is no contemporary record showing Pilate executed him. Not a single scholar from the time, including those in Rome who were known for keeping meticulous records of the time, made a single mention of him either, and every Biblical account about his life was written by men who did not actually know him. The earliest Books of the New Testament (Mark, Thessalonians, Galatians) were all written more than 48 years after his supposed death.

And this says nothing of the fact that even if the Bible were correct about whatever historical accounts its books recorded, none are proof of the existence of God or even Jesus.

The things that are completely false in this part of the post outnumber the level of motivation I have to look them all up.

Take it from a student of history, and in no way from someone who has any connection to religion. Both of which you seem to have little knowledge of, since you keep running back to the security blanket of christianity, not worldwide theology.

Sure they are. Just don’t expect me, or anyone interested in scientific advancement and education to lay down and accept it.

Direct me to were I said I did expect that? You dont need to accept or believe anything you do not want to, just as you don't get to go around telling people what they should see as "false thinking"

Racists, for example, should be able to learn and believe whatever the hell they want. When they attempt to forbid black students from entering a public school, however, they’re going to have a problem, and it's also in the better interest of the U.S. to educate its citizens against racism. On a related note, Creationists can also believe and learn whatever the hell they want. When they attempt to remove the teaching of evolution and replace it with Creationism in public schools, however, they’re going to have a problem, and it's in the better interest of the U.S. to educate its people against claims that cannot be demonstrated.

Did I not say people should teach the way they want in PRIVATE institutions, and that NO ONE's belief structure should effect PUBLIC policy? Not mine, not yours, not Christians, not Muslims, not Jews, not anyone.

Pay attention. Its a waste of time to repeat things I have clearly stated already.

And yeah, religion and science are enemies. At least right now. Every study conducted currently is proving that the higher the rate of religiosity, the lower the rate of scientific innovation.

Here’s a quite from a recent study:

"Places with higher levels of religiosity have lower rates of scientific and technical innovation, as measured by patents per capita," comments Bénabou. He adds that the pattern persists "when controlling for differences in income per capita, population, and rates of higher education.”​

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/religion-quashes-innovation-patents

Oh, next are you going to post a study showing that in places with mostly freezing weather, there are less warm days than average in a caledar year?

WELL NO SHIT!

Didnt I already say it is not Religion and science which necessarily clash, but the intentions of those involved?

Again, actually try to comprehend the conversation, not just froth at the mouth for another stereo-type filled argument on the subject.

For instance, one of my great passions in life is the study of various theology, and their connections to actual history and science. If people were more concerned with exploration and discovery than just "NO IM TOTALLY RIGHT AND YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG" we could get some things accomplished.

My point exactly. If none are true, then none are to be believed. If this is not the inspired, infallible word of God, why should I believe and worship any of it?

Says who? Why the absolutes? They all happen to be texts written by men, revised over one hundred times. Why wouldnt such a document include fabrication, exaggeration, but also large quanities of things which are close to the truth? You know, like every historical document pretty much ever? (besides ones which have been conclusively debunked of coure)

or the texts are books written by fallible men, and should be treated as such, and subjected to the same levels of criticism and skepticism as any other text purporting to be a moral compass.

Well yea, hello? Why does that then mean that 100% of them worldlwide are all entirely false?

As to the arrogance, I’d claim there is nothing more arrogant than claiming to know the answer to life is something you cannot demonstrate, and that the answers as to why are not for us to know

Please feel free to demonstrate the big bang for me. Go ahead and whip one up real quick. Or get some millions-year old fossil action going. Or some carbon dating. Or some evolution. Right here, right in front of me, this moment.

Ill wait. Maybe God will walk in the front door during that time.

OH!...You mean that isnt possible? No one has ever actually witness these things step for step? You buy into it because its your accepted theory? Damn, that sounds familiar.

I also never said it "wasnt for us to know".....I said the true keys are probably of a magnitude were humans will never even scratch the surface of it. The continual updates in scientific theory on a multitude of things and species(new species weekly, having explored 1% of the ocean, the infancy of space travel) says im probably right.

Because of your arrogance, and need for security, this is simply not something you want to conisder or comprehend. Thats willful ignorance if I have ever heard it.

 

[Alastor]

The way I see it, both science and religion requires a leap of faith somewhere. Science is not infallible just as religion is not. In the end both are just simply trying to explain the physical nature of our world. Just that religion is also dealing with morals and human values more prominently and is often hijacked by the elites for power that made many numb to it.

science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

I think this Einstein quote explains how both have the same goals. To try to completely debunk the other just because you believe in one side to me is pure arrogance.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Allah granted rights to Muhammed and his army ONLY. THe only excuse for jihad otherwise is to battle back extreme opression.

As for the old testament encouraging all the genocide, its mostly comprised of re-told anceint stories and laws which encourage various things for various groups of people.

In any case, I think anyone with a bit of logic in their head can see that killing in the name of a pascifist is fucking ******ed. It is pretty obvious how all that came to be a part of the books....If you wanted everyone to join/PAY MONEY TO your club, wouldn't you encourage violence against other groups?

That doesn’t make the texts any less immoral, regardless of whatever perceived intentions you think they intend. In fact, that’s part of the problem. Intent and meaning are too subjective, which is why it’s so easy to justify atrocities through any of the three major monotheistic religions.

Well sorry, when I see "no influence whatsoever" its generally pretty clear what is being inferred.

So wait, is it no positive influence whatsoever, or 50/50?

This is the third time you have failed when concerning this point.

Also, way to go on using CANCER for the example. Oh, there isn't an immense success rate concerning CANCER and prayer to get better? YOU DONT SAY? I shall now consult my statistics on all the people who get better after they catch a cold, and then proceed to pray their way out of it.

Once again, positive influence. As in influence that actually aids the person being prayed for. And Cancer was simply one of a myriad of avenues. AIDS, Heart Disease, Global Starvation, territorial/religious genocide, child abuse, rape, etc. It really doesn’t matter which street you walk down. At the end of the day, prayer isn’t actually helping. In the case of disease treatment, however, science does. It’s how cures and vaccines are developed. Small Pox was essentially eradicated because of scientific advancement, not because Ma and Pa prayed real hard for Timmy to get better. It was the shot in the arm that cured him.

Well, not one or one million, more like billions over thousands of years.

But hey, you know better.

You are still missing the point.

It doesn’t matter how many. It can be 400 trillion over millennia. At the end of the day, the claim cannot be demonstrated, and as such, should be rejected as false until it can.

The supernatural world in general (gods, ghosts, hauntings, whatever) is subject to the same logical demands as any other claim, and they all fail on the same marker, in that none can be demonstrated to even exist in the first place.

Direct me to were I said I did expect that? You dont need to accept or believe anything you do not want to, just as you don't get to go around telling people what they should see as "false thinking”

Sure I do. It’s part of that lovely First Amendment of ours. The same freedom you are granting to all to believe and say what they will applies to those who disagree with them as well.

Think 2+2 is 5? Well, guess what? You’re wrong. Whether you agree with me or not. Everyone is entitled to an opinion (which can, in fact, be wrong) — no one is entitled to their own facts.

Did I not say people should teach the way they want in PRIVATE institutions, and that NO ONE's belief structure should effect PUBLIC policy? Not mine, not yours, not Christians, not Muslims, not Jews, not anyone.

How then, exactly, do you propose we legislate public policy and educational standards if “no ones” beliefs should affect them? You realize that even the most hardened of scientific theories, like Gravity, or relativity, are still a set of beliefs, right? They’re simply demonstrable, which is why they belong being taught in schools.

Didnt I already say it is not Religion and science which necessarily clash, but the intentions of those involved?

For instance, one of my great passions in life is the study of various theology, and their connections to actual history and science. If people were more concerned with exploration and discovery than just "NO IM TOTALLY RIGHT AND YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG" we could get some things accomplished.

Sure could, and it’s been mostly religious institutions holding us back from that for centuries now. No force has had a greater negative affect on the advancement of science than religion. When you take that and couple it against the data coming out of studies showing that religiosity rates decrease scientific advancement rates, you start to see a pretty clear pattern that science is of greater social benefit than religion.

And to be clear, I really couldn’t possibly give less of a shit what anyone believes. What I care about is when what they believe begins to negatively impact the quality of life of everyone else around them. You want to teach your children they’re worthless sinners who should grovel their way through life begging for a deity’s forgiveness? By all means. Mentally cripple them at your own will. Just don’t step up to the microphone and lead the charge for others to do the same.

Says who? Why the absolutes? They all happen to be texts written by men, revised over one hundred times. Why wouldnt such a document include fabrication, exaggeration, but also large quanities of things which are close to the truth? You know, like every historical document pretty much ever? (besides ones which have been conclusively debunked of coure)

Because its the infallible word of God. It shouldn’t be subject to such things. And if it’s not the infallible word of God, because it’s been written, re-written, translated and re-translated over hundreds of years, then we have no reason to believe any of it, because the credibility of the entire book rests on the infallibility of its author. All claims made in it are justified through the answer that is God, so if even one claim in it can be thrown away, recast or remodeled, then all other claims in it are subject to the same.

Well yea, hello? Why does that then mean that 100% of them worldlwide are all entirely false?

I never claimed they’re “100% entirely false”. I claim they aren’t divine, as divinity hasn’t been proven. The Bible, the Torah, the Qu’ran, etc. are all simply passed-down texts written by mostly Bronze Aged scribes who existed in a social structure that simply doesn’t fit the morality of today.

Without divinity to justify and preserve the “sanctity” of the texts, they become no better or worse than any other historical account, and are merely books of allegorical value (or lack of value). They belong on the shelf right there next to the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Please feel free to demonstrate the big bang for me. Go ahead and whip one up real quick. Or get some millions-year old fossil action going. Or some carbon dating. Or some evolution. Right here, right in front of me, this moment.

Ill wait. Maybe God will walk in the front door during that time.

OH!...You mean that isnt possible? No one has ever actually witness these things step for step? You buy into it because its your accepted theory? Damn, that sounds familiar.

I also never said it "wasnt for us to know".....I said the true keys are probably of a magnitude were humans will never even scratch the surface of it. The continual updates in scientific theory on a multitude of things and species(new species weekly, having explored 1% of the ocean, the infancy of space travel) says im probably right.

Because of your arrogance, and need for security, this is simply not something you want to conisder or comprehend. Thats willful ignorance if I have ever heard it.

Of course I can’t demonstrate the Big Bang theory, because no one can. It’s a theory, the same as Gravity, which also cannot be “proven” in the way you are demanding, because proof in the world of science isn’t iron-clad. Ever. But if you’re feeling confident in challenging it (Gravity, that is), by all means, rest your head on the guillotine and see if you can be the first to debunk it. In science, theories and facts don’t have the same meaning as most people think. Especially the term “fact” which is often used as an immoveable pillar. Theory, on the other hand, is often dismissed as being “not proven”, because it isn’t good enough to be “fact”. Both are false positions to take.

Stephen J. Gould has one of the best, and simplest definitions I’ve come across to explain how both work in the world of science (as part of the argument for Evolution):

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.​

So you are correct in stating that I cannot demonstrate the BBT, and currently no one can, but that disprove it either. This is an argument from ignorance. Yet to be proven ≠ false, or not true. Evolution is a prime example there. It exists. This is a scientific fact, even if science is yet to determine the exactitudes of the mechanisms that drive it. With regard to the BBT, it is simply one of a handful of commonly accepted theories based on the expansion of the universe, and I have no problem with admitting that it’s not a universal truth. The idea is to strive for it, not to lay claim to the easiest possible solution, by claiming it is the work of a being you can’t prove to exist.

 

[CyberPunk]

Science, by definition, is a way of systematically organizing knowledge in the form of testable explanations. Science doesn't determine evil or good. It simply presents facts and testified theories. Religion on the other hand does that. Religion tries determining meaning of life through organizing beliefs and cultural system. I believe in science because it leaves it upon me how to use a specific scientific method. Religion doesn't give me that freedom, at least in the way it is presented.

Religion determines what is 'sacred' and what is not. Science, on the other hand, is morally ambiguous in the sense that it leaves it upon you. My question from the beginning was how much should religion interfere in someone's way of living. Questioning is not encouraged by religion. It gives you 'set of duties' to perform. On the other hand, science doesn't have any such thing stuck to it. What I have observed around me that over time, religion tends to narrow your vision as there is not much room for interpretation. I mean, the latest riots in my city started over someone sticking picture of their deity over a different religion's sacred place. These types of incidents make me question the validity of religion. So much intolerance over difference in opinions makes me skeptical of any religious belief.

People have the right to believe whatever they want to. They, however, don't have the right to make someone else believe in the same thing without providing any testified evidence. Religion can be easily manipulated because it doesn't require any evidence. Science is based on evidence and justifiable theories which requires sound reasoning and thus can't be manipulated in the same way.

 

[Alastor]

Science can be easily manipulated too if the subject matter touches close to home. Majority of us layman do not have the resources or the intellect to really comprehend the various more complicated theories and experiments conducted. Look at the vaccine/autism controversy in recent years.

Science just like religion requires a leap of faith somewhere since we can't see or hear or feel most of the even most basic theories. I think normal religious people are more defensive about their faith because they strongly identify with a set of faith. While normal folks that are in the science camp usually have no say in whichever theory is proven correct and could care less. Of course there are the minority scientists who are strongly invested in certain theories over others. They can be just as fanatical about stuff too.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Science can be easily manipulated too if the subject matter touches close to home. Majority of us layman do not have the resources or the intellect to really comprehend the various more complicated theories and experiments conducted. Look at the vaccine/autism controversy in recent years.

Not by experts, it can't. And those are the only people you should be listening to about subjects that complex to begin with, for the same reason you trust your doctor's diagnosis of your sickness over a homeless guy, or just some random guy off the street.

You say to look at the vaccine/autism controversy as an example. An example of what — who to believe and who not to? I mean, no offense, but if you are taking your scientific/medical queues and influences from Jenny McCarthy and Rob Schneider over accredited doctors and scientists, then I’d question your mental capacity to begin with.

The same would apply across the board, no matter the subject — evolution, geology, astronomy, whatever. If the subject at hand has an overwhelming support from an accredited scientific/medical community, and common citizens are refuting those results, I have much more reason to question them, rather than the scientific/medical community’s findings. This is especially true of the battle between science and religion.

Science just like religion requires a leap of faith somewhere since we can't see or hear or feel most of the even most basic theories. I think normal religious people are more defensive about their faith because they strongly identify with a set of faith. While normal folks that are in the science camp usually have no say in whichever theory is proven correct and could care less. Of course there are the minority scientists who are strongly invested in certain theories over others. They can be just as fanatical about stuff too.

No, it doesn't. As Dawkins quipped, faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, a lack of evidence. When theists use the term, they are almost always using it as a defense of, or justification of their beliefs in spite of the overwhelming lack of evidence. In bridging this back to science, even if you account for the wildest ideas in physics and astronomy, for example, what they still own that religious faith doesn’t is a foundation in demonstrable evidence. They are theorized using mathematics that can, and are calculated. Using the theory of Black Holes as an example, the reason their existence is largely accepted despite the fact that they aren't actually visible is because science can deductively presume their existence based on things like emitted radiation readings, gravitational lens effects and mass emanation from the observed objects orbiting where they believe a black hole to exist. You don't have to dive head first into one for the theory to be plausible, and for the data to be strong enough to support the concept they exist.

Furthermore, the veracity of theories in the scientific/medical community are subject to peer review. When a scientists claims a new theory, that theory is torn apart, rebuilt and tested for demonstrability by all of his peers. It's only until after the overwhelming majority agree with the theory that it's accepted from hypothesis to theory (fact). This is why when you see Creationists talking about how “not all scientists agree” about evolution, they’re often referencing an incredible minority of “Creationist Scientists” who refute the evidence. Think of it as the 9/10 dentists agree. If 9/10 dentists agree that cavities are bad, isn’t it safe to presume that as a truth, versus the one dentist who disagrees with 90% of his “constituents”?

 

[Alastor]

Not by experts, it can't. And those are the only people you should be listening to about subjects that complex to begin with, for the same reason you trust your doctor's diagnosis of your sickness over a homeless guy, or just some random guy off the street.

The same can be said about interpretations of sacred text in various religions is it not?

You say to look at the vaccine/autism controversy as an example. An example of what — who to believe and who not to? I mean, no offense, but if you are taking your scientific/medical queues and influences from Jenny McCarthy and Rob Schneider over accredited doctors and scientists, then I’d question your mental capacity to begin with.

The point was that science can be used to forward an individual's or a group's agenda purely based on blind faith in science just as much as blind faith in religion. Those celebrities were using works from some scientist that were later discredited.

The same would apply across the board, no matter the subject — evolution, geology, astronomy, whatever. If the subject at hand has an overwhelming support from an accredited scientific/medical community, and common citizens are refuting those results, I have much more reason to question them, rather than the scientific/medical community’s findings. This is especially true of the battle between science and religion.

Do you not see the parallel in this mindset and the religious people choosing to believe in their religious leaders?

No, it doesn't. As Dawkins quipped, faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, a lack of evidence. When theists use the term, they are almost always using it as a defense of, or justification of their beliefs in spite of the overwhelming lack of evidence. In bridging this back to science, even if you account for the wildest ideas in physics and astronomy, for example, what they still own that religious faith doesn’t is a foundation in demonstrable evidence. They are theorized using mathematics that can, and are calculated. Using the theory of Black Holes as an example, the reason their existence is largely accepted despite the fact that they aren't actually visible is because science can deductively presume their existence based on things like emitted radiation readings, gravitational lens effects and mass emanation from the observed objects orbiting where they believe a black hole to exist. You don't have to dive head first into one for the theory to be plausible, and for the data to be strong enough to support the concept they exist.

Furthermore, the veracity of theories in the scientific/medical community are subject to peer review. When a scientists claims a new theory, that theory is torn apart, rebuilt and tested for demonstrability by all of his peers. It's only until after the overwhelming majority agree with the theory that it's accepted from hypothesis to theory (fact). This is why when you see Creationists talking about how “not all scientists agree” about evolution, they’re often referencing an incredible minority of “Creationist Scientists” who refute the evidence. Think of it as the 9/10 dentists agree. If 9/10 dentists agree that cavities are bad, isn’t it safe to presume that as a truth, versus the one dentist who disagrees with 90% of his “constituents”?

The use of maths to be a basis is a form of a leap of faith in itself. The belief that an experiment can be conducted 1000 times with the same control and environment and the results will be within the same expectations in the 1001th time is also a leap of faith. There is always a presumption when crafting theories that some laws or theories have to be true. We know just as much about the big bang as we know about whether a giant spaghetti created our world. We just don't know for sure. To say one is definitely correct just seem wrong to me.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

The same can be said about interpretations of sacred text in various religions is it not?

Interpretation is, by default, subjective. You do have experts on historical religions who can and do confirm and refute beliefs related to those religions, but being an expert on interpretation is a little bit of a non-starter, or is at least a bit disingenuous.

For example, someone who has an expert background/education on Ancient Rome can speak to whether a particular Book was actually written during that time period, or can speak to other historical accounts within that text in verifying other aspects of it, but how would you determine who is or isn’t an “expert” on actually interpreting a holy book? Who gets final say on what any particular passage or verse actually means? The only person on the planet I can think of who you might make an argument for there is the Pope, and that would only apply to Roman Catholicism. I’m sure every other Christian sect would (and probably do) disagree with his interpretations. And that says nothing of the fact that one Pope can actually contradict another, like his predecessor. You are seeing that now with Pope Francis, and how much his views conflict with those of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI.

The point was that science can be used to forward an individual's or a group's agenda purely based on blind faith in science just as much as blind faith in religion. Those celebrities were using works from some scientist that were later discredited.

Science isn’t blind, though. That’s my (counter) point. I’m sure there are individuals who blindly adhere to some of its’ findings, sure, but provided those findings were rigorously tested and subjected to peer review, why does it matter? Peer review and demonstrability are what set it apart from religion. The term “blind” refers to a refusal to accept criticism, regardless of its merit, and is used as a qualifier in assigning that opinion in a negative manner. “Blindly” accepting the Theory [Law] of Gravity, for example, isn’t a bad thing because that theory has already been proven to be demonstrable, and was subject to hundreds of years’ worth of peer review. There isn’t an intelligent mind on the planet, let alone in the scientific community, who refutes this. So why label it “blind” to simply accept it as truth?

Do you not see the parallel in this mindset and the religious people choosing to believe in their religious leaders?

Sure. It’s in the why that matters though, and that’s where the rift occurs. I agree that religious folks trust their religious leaders in the same way that skeptics and non believers often trust scientific minds, academics, etc, but why this is is of the upmost importance, not that it actually is the case, and this all ties back to what I said just before about peer review and demonstrability.

Generally speaking, religious folks trust in religious leaders because they’re taught to. The question is already answered (God), so trust/faith is placed in the elected leaders of your religion to explain why (regardless of whether it is demonstrable or not). The opposite is true of science, where the question is often not answered (at least not the answer religion provides), and in seeking that answer, trust is put into the brightest minds of a society to find one that can then be torn up, down and through via peer review of other bright minds/experts who can then determine the veracity of any claim (hypothesis) as a means to determine theory (fact).

The use of maths to be a basis is a form of a leap of faith in itself. The belief that an experiment can be conducted 1000 times with the same control and environment and the results will be within the same expectations in the 1001th time is also a leap of faith. There is always a presumption when crafting theories that some laws or theories have to be true. We know just as much about the big bang as we know about whether a giant spaghetti created our world. We just don't know for sure. To say one is definitely correct just seem wrong to me.

It’s not a leap of faith. Again, faith is the belief in something in spite of, or because of lack of evidence. If you are using your 1000 times model, and something occurs 1000 times out of 1000, it’s not “faith” that tells you it will occur on the 1001st occurrence — it’s reason and logic. Using the Theory of Gravity as an example, if you take a rock in your hand and drop it 1000 times, it will hit the ground at your feet every single time. We know this because the Theory of Gravity has been demonstrated to exist, and function in exactly this way. This is why the theory is actually considered a LAW in the scientific community. You choosing the believe that the rock will fall and hit the ground at your feet on the 1001st occurrence is determined by the reason and logic supported by the fact that it did exactly that in accordance with the Theory of Gravity for every preceding occurrence. “Faith” has nothing to do with it, though if you are really adamant about the use of the word, then sure, you could have “faith” that it will happen again, because that faith is being supported by reason and logic. This is not the same thing, in tying to your comment about the Big Bang Theory, as having “faith” that it is in fact true. I know of absolutely no scientist or astronomer who believes that beyond any shadow of doubt, the BBT is in fact the cause of the universe. It’s simply the most widely accepted claim based on the evidence supporting it which includes the redshift of galaxies, microwave backgrounds, mixture of elements and the measured expansion of the universe (that suggests that anything expanding had to have been smaller at some point).

We know much more about the BBT because there is evidence to support the hypothesis that can actually date back the expansion of the universe. “Giant spaghetti” isn’t demonstrated to exist, so we “know” nothing about it. This is an illusory correlation.

 

[Alastor]

Interpretation is, by default, subjective. You do have experts on historical religions who can and do confirm and refute beliefs related to those religions, but being an expert on interpretation is a little bit of a non-starter, or is at least a bit disingenuous.

All data without interpretation is just random numbers...

For example, someone who has an expert background/education on Ancient Rome can speak to whether a particular Book was actually written during that time period, or can speak to other historical accounts within that text in verifying other aspects of it, but how would you determine who is or isn’t an “expert” on actually interpreting a holy book? Who gets final say on what any particular passage or verse actually means? The only person on the planet I can think of who you might make an argument for there is the Pope, and that would only apply to Roman Catholicism. I’m sure every other Christian sect would (and probably do) disagree with his interpretations. And that says nothing of the fact that one Pope can actually contradict another, like his predecessor. You are seeing that now with Pope Francis, and how much his views conflict with those of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI.

I don't know...maybe someone who spent years studying the holy books could be deem an expert? Just like one who spent years studying Ancient Rome can be called an 'expert' according to you. Isn't history just as subjective as religious text? As to who gets the final say, I'll agree there is a difference there. The highest authority figure in most religion has the most sway in public.

Science isn’t blind, though. That’s my (counter) point. I’m sure there are individuals who blindly adhere to some of its’ findings, sure, but provided those findings were rigorously tested and subjected to peer review, why does it matter? Peer review and demonstrability are what set it apart from religion. The term “blind” refers to a refusal to accept criticism, regardless of its merit, and is used as a qualifier in assigning that opinion in a negative manner. “Blindly” accepting the Theory [Law] of Gravity, for example, isn’t a bad thing because that theory has already been proven to be demonstrable, and was subject to hundreds of years’ worth of peer review. There isn’t an intelligent mind on the planet, let alone in the scientific community, who refutes this. So why label it “blind” to simply accept it as truth?

Again your defence of science cannot be used the same way as religion is the same defence religious people use to defend against their faith.You don't see that parallel?

Sure. It’s in the why that matters though, and that’s where the rift occurs. I agree that religious folks trust their religious leaders in the same way that skeptics and non believers often trust scientific minds, academics, etc, but why this is is of the upmost importance, not that it actually is the case, and this all ties back to what I said just before about peer review and demonstrability.

It matters because it can be hijacked to push an agenda just as religion used to on even the educated population.

Generally speaking, religious folks trust in religious leaders because they’re taught to. The question is already answered (God), so trust/faith is placed in the elected leaders of your religion to explain why (regardless of whether it is demonstrable or not). The opposite is true of science, where the question is often not answered (at least not the answer religion provides), and in seeking that answer, trust is put into the brightest minds of a society to find one that can then be torn up, down and through via peer review of other bright minds/experts who can then determine the veracity of any claim (hypothesis) as a means to determine theory (fact).

Yes.

It’s not a leap of faith. Again, faith is the belief in something in spite of, or because of lack of evidence. If you are using your 1000 times model, and something occurs 1000 times out of 1000, it’s not “faith” that tells you it will occur on the 1001st occurrence — it’s reason and logic. Using the Theory of Gravity as an example, if you take a rock in your hand and drop it 1000 times, it will hit the ground at your feet every single time. We know this because the Theory of Gravity has been demonstrated to exist, and function in exactly this way. This is why the theory is actually considered a LAW in the scientific community. You choosing the believe that the rock will fall and hit the ground at your feet on the 1001st occurrence is determined by the reason and logic supported by the fact that it did exactly that in accordance with the Theory of Gravity for every preceding occurrence. “Faith” has nothing to do with it, though if you are really adamant about the use of the word, then sure, you could have “faith” that it will happen again, because that faith is being supported by reason and logic. This is not the same thing, in tying to your comment about the Big Bang Theory, as having “faith” that it is in fact true. I know of absolutely no scientist or astronomer who believes that beyond any shadow of doubt, the BBT is in fact the cause of the universe. It’s simply the most widely accepted claim based on the evidence supporting it which includes the redshift of galaxies, microwave backgrounds, mixture of elements and the measured expansion of the universe (that suggests that anything expanding had to have been smaller at some point).

We know much more about the BBT because there is evidence to support the hypothesis that can actually date back the expansion of the universe. “Giant spaghetti” isn’t demonstrated to exist, so we “know” nothing about it. This is an illusory correlation.

And many scientific theories start from a belief in spite of or because of lack of evidence. What if we tweak this formula like this? It is easier to disprove something more than to prove something. But that is also part of the scientific method. There is an inherent faith in the laws of physics that can neither be proven nor disproved until we have the capabilities in the future just to simplify the mathematical language in physics. BBT was a leap of faith until much later when we have the capability to observe supporting data. What I am trying to say is scientists need that leap of faith to further test any hypothesis even when initial observational data disproved it. Do they tweak the hypothesis or conduct another experiment?

 

[CyberPunk]

All data without interpretation is just random numbers...

I don't know...maybe someone who spent years studying the holy books could be deem an expert? Just like one who spent years studying Ancient Rome can be called an 'expert' according to you. Isn't history just as subjective as religious text? As to who gets the final say, I'll agree there is a difference there. The highest authority figure in most religion has the most sway in public.


Again your defence of science cannot be used the same way as religion is the same defence religious people use to defend against their faith.You don't see that parallel?

It matters because it can be hijacked to push an agenda just as religion used to on even the educated population.

Yes.

And many scientific theories start from a belief in spite of or because of lack of evidence. What if we tweak this formula like this? It is easier to disprove something more than to prove something. But that is also part of the scientific method. There is an inherent faith in the laws of physics that can neither be proven nor disproved until we have the capabilities in the future just to simplify the mathematical language in physics. BBT was a leap of faith until much later when we have the capability to observe supporting data. What I am trying to say is scientists need that leap of faith to further test any hypothesis even when initial observational data disproved it. Do they tweak the hypothesis or conduct another experiment?

I get where you're coming from, I really do. Leap of faith, as you state it, is involved in science as well. However, the difference really lies in reasoning of a set theory or belief. Science allows that. Scientific communities are more open or tolerant to different ideas. Religion, while it should be, isn't open to that.

I am not saying that any person or community who has certain beliefs can't be open to other beliefs or ideas. The key word is reason. While religious text should be subject to scrutiny, people often put no rational thought in how or why something is stated the way it is. On the other hand, science's very base is reasoning. Curiosity makes you seek answer. It lies upon you how you seek it. People seek it in different ways. I've stated this many times before as well. Having belief or faith is not wrong. But shouldn't there be logical thinking behind that faith? Let me give you an example.

Existence of god has been told to us. From ancient scriptures to modern interpretations, all are based on hypotheticals like vision, word of God, etc. Charismatic leaders over time led people to believe in their beliefs. That led to creation of Deity in corporal form. When you challenge that belief in Deity, conflict arises. It is because whoever led the creation of Deity didn't leave much room for reasoning.

Now let's take a scientific theory. You don't believe in a theory? You have all the rights to gather your tools and conduct experiments to find a counter theory. The whole process is, however, set in reasoning and rational thinking.

Again, I am not saying believing or following a religion is bad. It just doesn't sound rationale to me but that is how I see it. As you say, disproving something is far more difficult than proving something. In science though, you need cold hard facts and data to disprove something. Religion, well as history suggests, we know how it goes.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

All data without interpretation is just random numbers…

Of course, but we’re talking about two very different types of interpretation. The interpretation of allegory (like the Bible, or other holy texts) is not at all the same as the interpretation of mathematical data using proven theories and laws of science, so the level of “faith” required for both is not at all the same.

Two plus two will always be four.

What God actually meant or intended by commanding Abraham to kill Isaac, and what the value of telling such a story is will not always be the same answer, because it is inherently subjective. So how do you determine the veracity of anyone’s claim to its meaning? Whose meaning is true, whose meaning is false, and why?

I don't know...maybe someone who spent years studying the holy books could be deem an expert? Just like one who spent years studying Ancient Rome can be called an 'expert' according to you. Isn't history just as subjective as religious text? As to who gets the final say, I'll agree there is a difference there. The highest authority figure in most religion has the most sway in public.

An expert in what, though? Interpretation? I wouldn’t go that far. I’d say they are an expert in religious studies, and would be very reliable as a source on religious history, but only so far as to tie it to culture, not meaning. There are certain aspects of meaning you might be able to derive from a religious historian, like the cultural/time period definition of a specific term, for example, but Person A being a religious historian doesn’t give them any more power over Person B, the plumber, in determining the subjective “value” or “meaning” of passages. Allegory is designed to not have meaning in this way. This is why religion is such a conflict within its own walls, and why so many sects of the same “faith” can exist. They all determined that their interpretation is the right one, and yet they can all be right or they can all be wrong, or some can be right and some can be wrong because we have no way of verifying the existence of God in the first place, who is the only actual authority on any claims made in a holy text.

Again your defence of science cannot be used the same way as religion is the same defence religious people use to defend against their faith.You don't see that parallel?

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Could you clarify?

It matters because it can be hijacked to push an agenda just as religion used to on even the educated population.

OK, but anything can be hijacked to push an agenda. The issue isn’t over potential, but precedent. Is there any actual precedent to the type of danger you are referencing here? What I mean by that is, can you show me even one case where the scientific community maliciously pushed an agenda to benefit themselves, and/or those like them, by intentionally lying about findings, for example? If not, why are we bringing it up?

And many scientific theories start from a belief in spite of or because of lack of evidence. What if we tweak this formula like this? It is easier to disprove something more than to prove something. But that is also part of the scientific method. There is an inherent faith in the laws of physics that can neither be proven nor disproved until we have the capabilities in the future just to simplify the mathematical language in physics. BBT was a leap of faith until much later when we have the capability to observe supporting data. What I am trying to say is scientists need that leap of faith to further test any hypothesis even when initial observational data disproved it. Do they tweak the hypothesis or conduct another experiment?

Name one. You’re doing the same thing you just did above by assigning a qualifier like “many” without citing even a single example.

What Theory starts from a belief that’s footed in a lack of evidence? I think what we’re bordering on here is a lack of understanding as to what a Theory is again.

The BBT is a theory, which means it began as a hypothesis, was tested upon using demonstrable mathematic calculations, and became Theory once a significant peer review was unable to debunk it’s original proposal. It’s widely accepted as the most plausible/reasonable answer as to the beginning of our existence. That does not make it a universal truth (no such things exist). It makes it an accepted Theory.

I think the problem we are having here your unrelenting insistence on using the term “faith”, which I consider a loaded word that’s too often associated with religion for it to have an unbiased effect in a discussion like this. The same way “agnostic” has preexisting connotations that would make it seem contradictory to religion, even though it’s not. It’s actually possible that someone is an Agnostic Christian, though you will see almost no one admit this, because the way the term has been used makes the two together seem contradictory (even though they aren’t).

I already said before, yes, if you are absolutely insisting on using that term, of course we have faith in the laws of physics, but it’s in the WHY that matters. Because the why behind why someone believes in a religion is almost certainly not the why behind why someone else believes in the Theory of Gravity. There’s reason and logic behind the Theory of Gravity that have come over countless studies and cases where it’s proven to exist and work and function in exactly the manner you think it will. You don’t go putting your neck on guillotines or jumping off buildings to test it because you know (or have “faith” ) that you’d die in doing so. The reason you know this is because the law has been tested to exhaustion, and no other answer is more feasible. Everyone who has put their neck on a guillotine has almost certainly died as a result. Everyone who has jumped off the building has suffered a similar fate. Neither is beneficial or has a positive effect on your well being. The same does not hold true for religious faith (like having faith God exists), because there is no measure of demonstrability to work from. You having faith is your way of rejecting all the evidence presented that would suggest otherwise, because you don’t want your own illusions shattered.

You see this often when a believer makes their case for God, is presented with a rejection of those claims based on a lack of demonstrability, for example, and then rebutting with “well, I have faith”. Of course you do, because you’re still a believer, but it’s in the why that matters, and it’s in the why that causes you to continue to believe despite the utter lack of evidence to support you doing so in the first place. This is simply not the case with widely accepted scientific Theories (gravity, evolution, special relativity, plate tectonics, statistical mechanics, general relativity, heliocentrism, etc).

 

[Cereal Killer]

It's all down to opinions really. One can provide facts on both sides of the argument while one can also try to disprove them. So several religious scientists may still go against the theory of evolution and TBBT while evolutionists can also try and disprove the miracles of various religions.

I can provide you with this link: http://space.io9.com/have-physicists-detected-gravitational-waves-yes-1545591865

Or I can provide you with this one: http://www.islamreligion.com/category/33/

One can ask how the elements that started TBBT were formed or placed there.

One can also ask where God came from.

It depends on your outlook and how you interpret the various evidences given to you.

Personally, I'll stick with the religious side. As a Muslim, I feel like I have purposes in life. If I rejected religion I'd feel very empty with no real purpose in this world. I think that when we die, there's a hereafter and we shall all be accountable for our actions. Even if Islam is false, I'll know that when I die, I'd had lived a good life of principles and avoiding all bad I've been instructed to keep away from.

Sure, there have been several conflicts as a result of religion, but is that the religion's fault or just extremists and racists?

If science can't explain something and people say because it can't, religion must be the only other reason, what's wrong with that? What other alternative is there? Vise versa. Again, all opinion.

 

[Navi]

I'm not a religious person, in meaning I don't go to church every Sunday. But you don't have to go to church to believe in God.

The way I see it is there are two forces, one good and one evil, and they sort of counter balance each other. The church has given them names, no one else did. They tell you to worship the good force and cast out of the evil. Which is all fine with me.

And I never argue religion or politics with anyone. Everyone has their own opinions and they are entitled to them. And opinion isn't fact, it's just that an opinion, usually based on life experience. Some who have had problems will turn to the church, just to make themselves feel better about what they've been going through, and you can't fault them for that. Whatever makes you feel better as a person, no one can say that's a bad thing.

The paranormal is another thing entirely. I've never had an experience, at least I don't think I've had, but I know others that have. I've been in a house that a friend of mine lived in, and the lights turned on by themselves and doors opened and closed on their own. Never while I was there, but I can tell you the place gave me the creeps, and I was never comfortable when we went to visit. I also have other friends and a couple of family members who have experienced weird shit and i wouldn't call them liars.

I think most who do have things happen to them don't say anything in fear of being asked to prove it or being called crazy. So a lot of what happens goes unsaid. You have to have an open mind about things, and there are just somethings that happen that neither religion or science can't answer. They are unexplained phenomena and are meant to be left that way.