Can Science and Religion co exist?

• WebFire

  cruiser_96;1609917 wrote:sleeper: In your mind, is it possible to distinguish between religion and theism?

  I would say they go hand-in-hand, because most people would not believe in theism if not for religion.
• Devils Advocate

  

  The "theists" are in a bind because when they argue the existence if a God and yet have to acknowledge science.
  
  The agnostics and atheists can point to science and prove that there is no need for a God in their beliefs.
  
  Atheist: "Gravity is a scientific fact".
  
  Theist: "Somebody had to create gravity".
  
  
  Rinse, lather, and repeat.......
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1609917 wrote:sleeper: In your mind, is it possible to distinguish between religion and theism?

  Yes it is possible.
• HitsRus

  

  I think what is clear here is that people shouldn't use religion to make scientific assertions....and people shouldn't use science to make religious assertions.
• dlazz

  HitsRus;1610009 wrote:I think what is clear here is that people shouldn't use religion to make scientific assertions....and people shouldn't use science to make religious assertions.

  It's easy to make that comment but not when:
  
  1. science proves religion wrong at a rate greater than 0%
  
  and
  
  2. religion proves science wrong never.
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^LOL. What? science proves that some parts of the bible are metaphorical stories? I think anyone with enough intelligence to debate this point 'scientifically' can figure that out.
• sleeper

  

  HitsRus;1610030 wrote:^^^LOL. What? science proves that some parts of the bible are metaphorical stories? I think anyone with enough intelligence to debate this point 'scientifically' can figure that out.

  Convenient to have the option of turning any story in the bible to a metaphor. Why can't we just cut the crap and just call the entire book a metaphor and a piece of historical fiction?
• Heretic

  

  sleeper;1610035 wrote:Convenient to have the option of turning any story in the bible to a metaphor. Why can't we just cut the crap and just call the entire book a metaphor and a piece of historical fiction?

  Maybe a disclaimer before each book to let people know if they're getting the Allan Eckert treatment (fictionalized account of real happenings) or something more along the lines of the Iliad?
  
  Or since the book is so good at weaving the two together inside the same chapter, maybe use a sliding scale to indicate how far along the "lol, this didn't happen" meter things are in that book, so a person knows if they're getting some amount of legit (if religion-biased) history (ie: I and II Chronicles) or pure metaphorical fantasy (Genesis, Job, Jonah).
• cruiser_96

  

  sleeper;1609999 wrote:Yes it is possible.

  Cool. Because I pretty much agree with everything you've written about religion.
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1610143 wrote:Cool. Because I pretty much agree with everything you've written about religion.

  Yet you believe in Jesus Christ and his stories.
• cruiser_96

  

  Most certainly!
  
  I see religion as man's attempt to reach God by doing things. Jesus was God doing all the work (John 3:14-16, Romans 5:8, etc) because we can't. Following rules, doing "right", or helping others is better than not doing throes things, or doing the opposite, but they won't get you any closer to God than you were before doing them.
  
  But thanks for the clarification. I honestly do appreciate it, and thanks for the discussion.
• BoatShoes

  cruiser_96;1610159 wrote:Most certainly!
  
  I see religion as man's attempt to reach God by doing things. Jesus was God doing all the work (John 3:14-16, Romans 5:8, etc) because we can't. Following rules, doing "right", or helping others is better than not doing throes things, or doing the opposite, but they won't get you any closer to God than you were before doing them.
  
  But thanks for the clarification. I honestly do appreciate it, and thanks for the discussion.

  Jesus didn't die for your sins. Early Jews who became what we call Christians gave him the Bill Braski treatment and then while delusional christians were getting slaughtered and such Constantine the Great got a great idea and pretended that he saw a cross in the sky in order to justify his argument for being the next emperor of Rome and that's the only reason you ever heard of Jesus who was both a lunatic and a liar conflated into an exaggerated legend. Lunatic. Liar. Legend...but not Lord and never rose from the dead. Feel free to believe otherwise but that's what really happened.
  
  It sucks. We have to wear the weight of our sins all on our own on this rock.
• Rotinaj

  

  Im most interested in the magical bridge that animals took to get from the middle east to Australia. Sounds like a moneymaker.
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1610159 wrote:Most certainly!
  
  I see religion as man's attempt to reach God by doing things. Jesus was God doing all the work (John 3:14-16, Romans 5:8, etc) because we can't. Following rules, doing "right", or helping others is better than not doing throes things, or doing the opposite, but they won't get you any closer to God than you were before doing them.
  
  But thanks for the clarification. I honestly do appreciate it, and thanks for the discussion.

  Quotes bible, believes in Jesus as Savior, only a theist.
• sleeper

  

  Rotinaj;1610167 wrote:Im most interested in the magical bridge that animals took to get from the middle east to Australia. Sounds like a moneymaker.

  Everyone knows that this was caused by a massive global flood for 40 days and 40 nights where one man built a large enough ship to hold 2 of every animal on the planet including baby dinosaurs. The water all went back to heaven after god was done with it along with the dinosaurs but he left some bones that are millions of years old just to give humans something to do in their free time.
• Devils Advocate

  

  
• jmog

  Rotinaj;1610167 wrote:Im most interested in the magical bridge that animals took to get from the middle east to Australia. Sounds like a moneymaker.

  The same "magical bridge" they would have had to use if life started from a single cell hundreds of millions of years ago.
  
  It's called Pangea, whether you believe in billions of years or 10s of thousands of years, it doesn't matter, the world most likely had all of the land centered in one area at some point in time.
  
  So to answer your question, the "magic bridge" would have been land or, depending on when the animals made it there low lying water/ice/etc. Either way they walked on land/ice/whatever, not a "magic bridge".
  
  To answer the next question from the militaristic atheist crowd in this thread, check Dr. Baumgartner's (PhD in geophysics) Terra model on how it COULD be possible for the continents to shift must faster due to a cataclysmic event rather than over billions of years.
• Devils Advocate

  

  
• redstreak one

  

  The thing about this argument is, one day every one of us will find out the truth! Over bearing narrow minded people on both sides of the aisle.
• Devils Advocate

  

  redstreak one;1612666 wrote:The thing about this argument is, one day every one of us will find out the truth! Over bearing narrow minded people on both sides of the aisle.

  I was going to start this reply with " No Offense " But then decided that I didn't care. The above post only represents one side of the aisle.
  
  You are presupposing that as soon as one dies that there will be some sort of answer to life after death as opposed to dying then nothing. If you are dead and there is nothing, you will never know the answer.
• WebFire

  Do animals have souls that go to heaven?
• sleeper

  

  redstreak one;1612666 wrote:The thing about this argument is, one day every one of us will find out the truth! Over bearing narrow minded people on both sides of the aisle.

  We already know the truth. When you die, you either get buried in the ground for eternity or burned into tiny pieces of Carbon. What more proof do you need?
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;1610163 wrote:Jesus didn't die for your sins. Early Jews who became what we call Christians gave him the Bill Braski treatment and then while delusional christians were getting slaughtered and such Constantine the Great got a great idea and pretended that he saw a cross in the sky in order to justify his argument for being the next emperor of Rome and that's the only reason you ever heard of Jesus who was both a lunatic and a liar conflated into an exaggerated legend. Lunatic. Liar. Legend...but not Lord and never rose from the dead. Feel free to believe otherwise but that's what really happened.
  
  It sucks. We have to wear the weight of our sins all on our own on this rock.

  Run-on sentence notwithstanding, I'm forced to give the bulk of this post a hearty +1.
  
  Very few people either know or mention the role of Constantine in this...which is interesting, since as you said he's pretty much the dude that officially proclaimed JC's deity.
• jmog

  fish82;1612774 wrote:Run-on sentence notwithstanding, I'm forced to give the bulk of this post a hearty +1.
  
  Very few people either know or mention the role of Constantine in this...which is interesting, since as you said he's pretty much the dude that officially proclaimed JC's deity.

  Would Catholicism have spread so fast if not for Constantine? Obviously no.
  Does that mean that it is all made up and that Constantine is the one that officially proclaimed Christ's deity? Obviously no.
  
  Unless you are referring to him being the first politician of a major government to do so, then I can see that comment as being true. But the way it sounds to some people is that you meant that Christ wasn't discussed as being a deity before Constantine at all, while his followers had proclaimed it from the beginning (as well as JC himself).
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1612946 wrote:Would Catholicism have spread so fast if not for Constantine? Obviously no.
  Does that mean that it is all made up and that Constantine is the one that officially proclaimed Christ's deity? Obviously no.
  
  Unless you are referring to him being the first politician of a major government to do so, then I can see that comment as being true. But the way it sounds to some people is that you meant that Christ wasn't discussed as being a deity before Constantine at all, while his followers had proclaimed it from the beginning (as well as JC himself).

  Do you ever get tired of defending the multitude of broken logic and outlandish stories to justify your erroneous indoctrinated belief system? When are you going to grow up and accept that your entire beliefs are made up to swindle money and influence from you and your children?