Can Science and Religion co exist?

• TedSheckler

  

  ernest_t_bass;1599276 wrote:One county at a time could take a while.

  lul'd
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1599229 wrote:Trying to replicate something that may or may not have happened at all? Sounds like what you complain about religious hocus pocus.

  Science is looking for the truth rather than relying on a book written by zealots trying to promote their 'savior' for money and influence. Sorry you got hoodwinked into believing your fairy tale is real.
• Firad

  

  Mohican00;1599272 wrote:And replaced with based god flying spaghetti monster.

  
• cruiser_96

  

  So I should believe in spontaneous generation???
  
  All this talk of science, yet you believe that nothing created something!
• HitsRus

  

  All this talk of science, yet you believe that nothing created something!

  It's a matter of faith just as it is for the religious. Science only reveals the creators work. It can't prove or disprove what/who created it.
• jmog

  sleeper;1599318 wrote:Science is looking for the truth rather than relying on a book written by zealots trying to promote their 'savior' for money and influence. Sorry you got hoodwinked into believing your fairy tale is real.

  1. Typically philosophical studies are searching for "truth". Science is about gaining knowledge by experimentation and observation, by definition. It is gaining knowledge about how the universe works. By strict definition, origin discussions fit more into philosophy discussions than science discussions, but that doesn't mean scientists don't get involved as well.
  
  2. I am also sorry that you got hoodwinked into believing a statistically impossible fairy tale is real. See, we can both do that and be equally correct.
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1599348 wrote:So I should believe in spontaneous generation???
  
  All this talk of science, yet you believe that nothing created something!

  I don't believe in anything. The correct answer is "I don't know" because that is the truth; no one currently knows how life was started or how the universe was created. However, religious zealots 'know' yet where is the proof? You're not even making a simple 'I think there is a higher power and he created everything'; you are actually saying that god did it this way and it took 7 days(Using Catholicism as my example although the fact that there are thousands of religion who have a creation story my point stands) and living your entire life based on this unproven mythology.
  
  I guess we can be thankful that science is more concerned about the truth rather than spreading ignorance for money and influence over poor and stupid people.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1599374 wrote:1. Typically philosophical studies are searching for "truth". Science is about gaining knowledge by experimentation and observation, by definition. It is gaining knowledge about how the universe works. By strict definition, origin discussions fit more into philosophy discussions than science discussions, but that doesn't mean scientists don't get involved as well.
  
  2. I am also sorry that you got hoodwinked into believing a statistically impossible fairy tale is real. See, we can both do that and be equally correct.

  1. Semantics. Truth is a high standard but that is ultimately the goal of science; to discover the truth using experimentation and observation.
  
  2. I'm only interested in facts and logic. Religion lacks both of those aspects; it's MADE UP. When are you going to grow up jmog?
• sleeper

  

  HitsRus;1599358 wrote:It's a matter of faith just as it is for the religious. Science only reveals the creators work. It can't prove or disprove what/who created it.

  LOL
• hilliardfan

  sleeper;1599378 wrote:I guess we can be thankful that science is more concerned about the truth rather than spreading ignorance for money and influence over poor and stupid people.

  Global warming, anyone? Lots of science there and lots of $$$ to be made!
• jmog

  sleeper;1599378 wrote:I don't believe in anything. The correct answer is "I don't know" because that is the truth; no one currently knows how life was started or how the universe was created. However, religious zealots 'know' yet where is the proof? You're not even making a simple 'I think there is a higher power and he created everything'; you are actually saying that god did it this way and it took 7 days(Using Catholicism as my example although the fact that there are thousands of religion who have a creation story my point stands) and living your entire life based on this unproven mythology.
  
  I guess we can be thankful that science is more concerned about the truth rather than spreading ignorance for money and influence over poor and stupid people.

  Actually those of faith are saying something quite similar to those on 'your side'.
  
  I say I believe that God created the universe.
  You say you believe natural processes created the universe.
  
  The difference is that I state my beliefs without feeling the need to denigrate those who hold different beliefs. You act like an idiot when discussing anything else.
  
  And that wasn't semantics, it was facts. Science may try to answer origin of life and the universe questions but by definition those are philosophical questions to be answered where science is MUCH more well equipped to determine how the universe operates NOW, in the present. Since, again, science relies on observation and experimentation. You can not observe the past and you can not experiment on the past. You can make some predictions based on major ASSUMPTIONS, but the distant past is not observable or able to be experimented on.
  
  Those are facts, and you can try to act smarter and tell people to grow up, but it just makes you look foolish.
• sleeper

  

  hilliardfan;1599424 wrote:Global warming, anyone? Lots of science there and lots of $$$ to be made!

  Climate change is a fact. I'm okay with money being made by scientists studying its effects and drawing a possible solution to the issue. Religion is purely snake oil sold to the poorest of minds for their influence and money.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1599427 wrote: You say you believe natural processes created the universe.
  

  I said "I don't know". Always have to twist words in order to make yourself feel better about your erroneous beliefs.
• sleeper

  

  The difference is that I state my beliefs without feeling the need to denigrate those who hold different beliefs. You act like an idiot when discussing anything else.

  My apologies for denigrating ignorance and trying to help the brainwashed individuals such as yourself realize the obvious flaws in their belief system.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  sleeper;1599430 wrote:Climate change is a fact. I'm okay with money being made by scientists studying its effects and drawing a possible solution to the issue. Religion is purely snake oil sold to the poorest of minds for their influence and money.

  Religion =/= believing in creationism
  
  An agnostic can despise religion, yet still believe in a divine creator.
• jmog

  sleeper;1599432 wrote:My apologies for denigrating ignorance and trying to help the brainwashed individuals such as yourself realize the obvious flaws in their belief system.

  If you have truly graduated from college, as you say you have, you would know that just as much brainwashing goes on by many college professors as by religious institutions.
  
  For your information, but you know I have stated this many times, there was a point that I fully believed in single cell to human evolution, was I brainwashed at that point too?
• sleeper

  

  ernest_t_bass;1599433 wrote:Religion =/= believing in creationism
  
  An agnostic can despise religion, yet still believe in a divine creator.

  Religion implies organization around a set of similar beliefs. Belief in a divine creator is independent of religion. I believe the term you are looking for is 'deism' which is the belief in a higher power without the strings of an organized belief(ie. you don't believe in creationism stories or any of the other doctrines such as heaven or going to church, etc.). I'm absolutely confident that organized religion is a sham and designed to hoodwink poor people for money and influence however deism seems slightly more defensible because we simply DON'T KNOW how the universe was created or how life was created. I think that's something that I think about a lot is what started everything; does there have to be a start? The problem with organized religion is that it knows and ignores the cliche question "If god created everything, then who created god?". A lot of religious people will just say something like "God has always been there and he doesn't follow the natural rules of our universe" which make it EVEN EASIER to make the leap that everything has always existed and there doesn't even need to be a creation event. Religious people are the worst; the only nice part is it gives me an easy filter for identifying the stupid people in which I have no interest in associating with on any level.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1599434 wrote:If you have truly graduated from college, as you say you have, you would know that just as much brainwashing goes on by many college professors as by religious institutions.
  
  For your information, but you know I have stated this many times, there was a point that I fully believed in single cell to human evolution, was I brainwashed at that point too?

  Brainwashing happens all the time but its usually easy to spot out by anyone with a modicum of intellectual integrity. Religion is designed to circumvent any logic and reason within the brain and therefore relies solely on fear tactics in order to keep the believers in line.
  
  I don't know if you were brainwashed or your merely had seen enough evidence at that point in your life to make that conclusion. The fact that you have since relinquished that position is okay with me since science is an ever evolving institution that constantly is being tested and changing opinions is part of it. However, given your religious background, there's a good chance that you dismissed it because it conflicted with your indoctrinated religious beliefs and thus I would conclude that you are indeed brainwashed. Do you tell your work colleagues that you believe the Earth was created in 7 days and is only 10,000 years old? I bet they laugh at you and rightfully so.
• cruiser_96

  

  Intellectual integrity equalling "I believe in spontaneous generation"!?!?! Yes, sleeper. That's a boat load of intellectual integrity.
  
  Recognizing a creator who is outside of the realm time might be above your (my) level of thought, but it doesn't make it impossible.
  
  It is rather childish to hide behind "I don't know" and then bark at people for reaching a logical explanation of a creator. If, in the vein of "intellectual integrity", you indeed do not know, how is it that you can know, with great certainty, that a creator doesn't exist!?
• jmog

  sleeper;1599442 wrote:
  I don't know if you were brainwashed or your merely had seen enough evidence at that point in your life to make that conclusion. The fact that you have since relinquished that position is okay with me since science is an ever evolving institution that constantly is being tested and changing opinions is part of it. However, given your religious background, there's a good chance that you dismissed it because it conflicted with your indoctrinated religious beliefs and thus I would conclude that you are indeed brainwashed. Do you tell your work colleagues that you believe the Earth was created in 7 days and is only 10,000 years old? I bet they laugh at you and rightfully so.

  1. I changed my mind originally because of evidence that was fed to me by professors, not facts, but they were presented as so.
  2. I investigated things on my own scientifically with no assumptions of which side was 'true' since I had once believed in evolution.
  3. The evidence I found showed way too many holes in the theory, way too much 'bad' science being used as fact to spread a message that the scientists wanted to spread. Things like falsifying fossil records, modifying fossils to make it look like what they thought it should, knowingly "carbon dating" something to millions of years when carbon dating can't date anything past about 50,000 years, and the list goes on. The problem is, and this is true on both sides, TOO MANY scientists these days make a hypothesis and instead of proving or disproving said hypothesis (like the scientific method states) the prove the hypothesis as fact no matter what type of data they have to 'create' or 'modify'. Piltdown Man was modified as an ape jaw and human skull to fool the masses. Nebraska man was a freaking pig tooth ONLY that somehow turned into a whole "missing link" family picture that is still in text books today. That's right, a freaking pig tooth was all that was found, but it is now still in text books as a "Nebraska Man" whole family.
  
  So, I ask you, who is more brainwashed? Kids growing up reading stories about Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man (I could list others) that are known hoaxes, but are taught them as fact in their text books...or a man who evaluated both sides of the argument scientifically and logically and came to a conclusion/belief.
  
  I have most definitely discussed my beliefs with any colleagues that are so inclined to ask. And no, no one laughs, because they are scientists too and know the holes in the theory and can see why someone would come to a different conclusion. Also, they are not assholes, like those that would ridicule someone for something they came to a believe in a logical fashion.
• Heretic

  

  pmoney25;1599210 wrote:I think it is easier to believe in a God than it is religion, if that makes sense.

  As do I.
  
  One is a way to explain the unexplainable; the other is a man-made construct designed to put all those unexplainable things into a nice, handy package, while also controlling the people with "holy laws" and the like.
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1599467 wrote:Intellectual integrity equalling "I believe in spontaneous generation"!?!?! Yes, sleeper. That's a boat load of intellectual integrity.
  
  Recognizing a creator who is outside of the realm time might be above your (my) level of thought, but it doesn't make it impossible.
  
  It is rather childish to hide behind "I don't know" and then bark at people for reaching a logical explanation of a creator. If, in the vein of "intellectual integrity", you indeed do not know, how is it that you can know, with great certainty, that a creator doesn't exist!?

  This post made me laugh because its chalkful of the idiocy that I've heard numerous times before with religious zealots.
  
  1. I don't know of anyone here, myself included, that expresses a belief in 'spontaneous generation'.
  2. I don't think a creator is impossible; however I do think a religious based creator is out of the question. Do you understand the difference? I guess it depends on how you define creator but when someone uses that word I immediately associated it with a religious based god.
  3. "I don't know" isn't childish; its humble and accurate. There is no current logical explanation of a creator and if you have this logical progression, I'd be happy to hear it as well as the entire world which would probably win you a Nobel prize. Your argument that since I can't PROVE that a god doesn't exist that he must exist has been used over and over again but delusional religious zealots and is easily countered. The cliche 'You can't prove invisible unicorns in the sky aren't controlling everything or the flying spaghetti monster so therefore it must exist' is all you need. Part of the reason that I can express with great certainty that there is no religious based god is a complete lack of proof for any religious based god in any religion. I also find it hilarious that you have 1000's of religions all claiming they know something when in reality they know nothing and are desperate to hoodwink people into that belief system(again money and influence are the driving factors).
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1599468 wrote:1. I changed my mind originally because of evidence that was fed to me by professors, not facts, but they were presented as so.
  2. I investigated things on my own scientifically with no assumptions of which side was 'true' since I had once believed in evolution.
  3. The evidence I found showed way too many holes in the theory, way too much 'bad' science being used as fact to spread a message that the scientists wanted to spread. Things like falsifying fossil records, modifying fossils to make it look like what they thought it should, knowingly "carbon dating" something to millions of years when carbon dating can't date anything past about 50,000 years, and the list goes on. The problem is, and this is true on both sides, TOO MANY scientists these days make a hypothesis and instead of proving or disproving said hypothesis (like the scientific method states) the prove the hypothesis as fact no matter what type of data they have to 'create' or 'modify'. Piltdown Man was modified as an ape jaw and human skull to fool the masses. Nebraska man was a freaking pig tooth ONLY that somehow turned into a whole "missing link" family picture that is still in text books today. That's right, a freaking pig tooth was all that was found, but it is now still in text books as a "Nebraska Man" whole family.
  
  So, I ask you, who is more brainwashed? Kids growing up reading stories about Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man (I could list others) that are known hoaxes, but are taught them as fact in their text books...or a man who evaluated both sides of the argument scientifically and logically and came to a conclusion/belief.
  
  I have most definitely discussed my beliefs with any colleagues that are so inclined to ask. And no, no one laughs, because they are scientists too and know the holes in the theory and can see why someone would come to a different conclusion. Also, they are not assholes, like those that would ridicule someone for something they came to a believe in a logical fashion.

  That doesn't happen.
  
  Nebraska man was retracted when it was discovered that they had made a mistake. In fucking 1927. That's your basis for your belief that current scientific consensus is incorrect?
• sleeper

  

  Heretic;1599473 wrote:As do I.
  
  One is a way to explain the unexplainable; the other is a man-made construct designed to put all those unexplainable things into a nice, handy package, while also controlling the people with "holy laws" and the like.

  This is 10,000 trillion times more defensible than any religious based god. I wish people would just use 'god' as an easy way to conceptualize what we currently do not know instead of using what we currently do not know to drive fear into people to extract money and influence; as well as restricting rights of individuals on this planet based on that belief system.
• Tiernan

  I'm banking on all the slutty fun chicks will be in Hell.