Science vs Religion

[Pete]

Seems to be a much larger debate as technology improves over the years...Genome research, the cracking of the DNA code etc.

Some how the fanatics of 911 thought they killed themselves on Gods behaf, suicide bombers do the same thing only to look like a bunch of fuck ups.

As far as I'm concerned, Santa Claus is more real than God...sorry to break it to you.

[fallenmuffin]

This just in... SCIENCE WON

Santa Claus and Jesus (most Christians call him God, lol morons) are pretty much the same. Both based on people that existed and did a few good things. But somehow they've transformed into flying, super natural beings.

[Lazonby]

There's a 'creative entity' and if you want to refer to it as 'god' then fine, so in that sense god exists. However, the notion that there is an intelligent designer who sends down books full of rules and prophets to enforce them is ridiculous.

[Pleasurepays]

science often requires just as much faith as religion. science is built on faith as well. the only difference is that science possesses the flexibility to change and adapt its beliefs to new evidence and facts, whereas, religion simply can't or most often doesn't.

[StuartD]

You're no more a scientist than you are the pope.... making you an authority on neither... much less both.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

science often requires just as much faith as religion. science is built on faith as well. the only difference is that science possesses the flexibility to change and adapt its beliefs to new evidence and facts, whereas, religion simply can't or most often doesn't.

Sorry but science is built on fact, where religion is based on fairy tales and make belief

[fallenmuffin]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

science often requires just as much faith as religion. science is built on faith as well. the only difference is that science possesses the flexibility to change and adapt its beliefs to new evidence and facts, whereas, religion simply can't or most often doesn't.

How does science require faith? If you don't believe something go prove it yourself. There is no belief you have rules and facts.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by fallenmuffin

How does science require faith? If you don't believe something go proven it yourself. There is no belief you have rules and facts.

until something is proven to be fact... its faith. period. why is that hard to understand? or have you touched a sub atomic particle lately... do you know how the world behaves on a sub atomic level because you have witnessed it? or are there just theories and beliefs built on mathematical models that line up with what can be observed, tested and what is thought to be fact? thats faith. science or "the totally unflawed world of facts" as you seem to think it is ... is wrong all the time.

often those "facts" are proven to be completely wrong. its "faith" that leads one to believe they are fact... just as one believes god is fact because it can explain their world view and what they observe.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

until something is proven to be fact... its faith. period. why is that hard to understand? or have you touched a sub atomic particle lately... do you know how the world behaves on a sub atomic level because you have witnessed it? or are there just theories and beliefs built on mathematical models that line up with what can be observed, tested and what is thought to be fact? thats faith. science or "the totally unflawed world of facts" as you seem to think it is ... is wrong all the time.

often those "facts" are proven to be completely wrong. its "faith" that leads one to believe they are fact... just as one believes god is fact because it can explain their world view and what they observe.

Wow, looks like the church ladies already got to you.

[fallenmuffin]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

until something is proven to be fact... its faith. period. why is that hard to understand? or have you touched a sub atomic particle lately... do you know how the world behaves on a sub atomic level because you have witnessed it? or are there just theories and beliefs built on mathematical models that line up with what can be observed, tested and what is thought to be fact? thats faith. science or "the totally unflawed world of facts" as you seem to think it is ... is wrong all the time.

often those "facts" are proven to be completely wrong. its "faith" that leads one to believe they are fact... just as one believes god is fact because it can explain their world view and what they observe.

Un-grip your Bible and maybe you can think a little clearer. Of course they are wrong from time to time and then either proven correct or discarded. Tell a Christian something is flawed or wrong and shit hits the fan. Narrow minded, because anything outside their spectrum of God could cause a rip in their deviated following.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by Pete

Wow, looks like the church ladies already got to you.

i dont believe in god.

i am however, starting to believe that you are not a very bright person... for the moment, thats just a belief rooted in faith, based on observation. you can keep posting however, to attempt convince me that its fact. as you continue, i might begin to believe its fact as you continue to prove my assumption correct with a pattern of behavior that lines up with my observation and assumptions. i am also wise enough however, to realize that is nothing more than subjective opinion no matter how often you prove my assumption and belief to be correct.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by fallenmuffin

Un-grip your Bible and maybe you can think a little clearer. Of course they are wrong from time to time and then either proven correct or discarded. Tell a Christian something is flawed or wrong and shit hits the fan. Narrow minded, because anything outside their spectrum of God could cause a rip in their deviated following.

sorry... now you are talking about christians? i wasnt talking about christians. the conversation wasn't about christians. we were talking about your general view that science is "fact". since you are changing the discussion, i can imagine that you know where your arguments were headed.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i dont believe in god.

i am however, starting to believe that you are not a very bright person... for the moment, thats just a belief rooted in faith, based on observation. you can keep posting however, to attempt convince me that its fact. as you continue, i might begin to believe its fact as you continue to prove my assumption correct with a pattern of behavior that lines up with my observation and assumptions. i am also wise enough however, to realize that is nothing more than subjective opinion no matter how often you prove my assumption and belief to be correct.

Your attempt to sound intelligent makes you look like a retard..... Please leave

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by Pete

Your attempt to sound intelligent makes you look like a retard..... Please leave

sure thing genius. you've really humbled me with your witty, well reasoned, well thought out replies and rock solid arguments like "the church ladies have got to you" and "you look like a retard".

[fallenmuffin]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

sorry... now you are talking about christians? i wasnt talking about christians. the conversation wasn't about christians. we were talking about your general view that science is "fact". since you are changing the discussion, i can imagine that you know where your arguments were headed.

Christianity is one of the largest and most practiced religions. Therefore I used it to make a point and a vaild point at that. Alright I've had a enough debating for one night. Blieve, don't believe, buy some test tubes, don't.. I don't care. Just don't confuse the two.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

sure thing genius. you've really humbled me with your witty, well reasoned, well thought out replies and rock solid arguments like "the church ladies have got to you" and "you look like a retard".

You seem like a very confused human.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by fallenmuffin

Christianity is one of the largest and most practiced religions. Therefore I used it to make a point and a vaild point at that. Alright I've had a enough debating for one night. Blieve, don't believe, buy some test tubes, don't.. I don't care. Just don't confuse the two.

christianity has zero to do with the statement that "science is fact". i can sit here and point out that water is wet all day long... it still has nothing to do with anything.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by Pete

You seem like a very confused human.

right... being that the opinion expressed is coming from a low rent, clown trying to rent out a sig by starting threads like "vaginal vs anal", i think i'll survive.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

right... being that the opinion expressed is coming from a low rent, clown trying to rent out a sig by starting threads like "vaginal vs anal", i think i'll survive.

You have no idea what I've done in this business as well as others. Go away punk.

[fallenmuffin]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

christianity has zero to do with the statement that "science is fact". i can sit here and point out that water is wet all day long... it still has nothing to do with anything.

See, I was under the impression the debate was Science vs Religion. I guess now it's Science: Fact vs Ficition.

The definition of 'fact' is 'a truth known by actual experience or observation' ... 'something said to be true or supposed to have happened' so yes SCIENCE IS FACT. thanks for playing...

[$5 submissions]

Let's just move on. Here's Stephen Jay Gould's spin on this issue and I agree with him:

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain those facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve. Similarly, while scientists must operate with ethical principles, some specific to their practice, the validity of these principles can never be inferred from the factual discoveries of science.

Source: "Rocks of Ages"

One thing to ponder though: as biosciences and evolutionary psychology/psychobiology progress, more and more of our "psychological needs" like the Need for Meaning have been argued to have biological (hence subject to evolutionary pressures) bases. Maybe, at some point, Gould's dichotomy won't hold. I'll be ready to change my mind once the data rolls in

[fallenmuffin]

Just to rebuttal any religious statement following the definition of fact...

Jesus lived, fact. Jesus did good things, fact. God... BELIEF.

[E$_manager]

This is a useless debate. Because there is no evident answere. You can't prove that God exists and that is why you believein him. That is why it is called - believe. .... I wrote something complicated even for myself....

[sacX]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

science often requires just as much faith as religion. science is built on faith as well. the only difference is that science possesses the flexibility to change and adapt its beliefs to new evidence and facts, whereas, religion simply can't or most often doesn't.

Science doesn't require faith. The whole point of science is that you should be able to test and prove or disprove any hypothesis put forward. Sure some scientific theories may require some faith, but at its core scientific method is the polar opposite of faith.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by fallenmuffin

Just to rebuttal any religious statement following the definition of fact...

Jesus lived, fact. Jesus did good things, fact. God... BELIEF.

Thank you

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by sacX

Science doesn't require faith.

Originally Posted by sacX

Sure some scientific theories may require some faith

this was my point. science does require faith. it requires faith that string theory or some version of it is correct - no matter how many times the math works out. science demands that it be tested. until its tested, its not proven. until its proven, its faith. its just a belief based on whats known at the time. that is one example that highlights the connection between science and philosophy and illustrates how the lines between the two can begin to fade or breakdown completely.

i wasn't defending religion or science, god or NASA. i was just making the point that science isn't always "fact". science is often faith and often what is thought to be "fact" is disproven and proven wrong... so it never was "fact" to begin with even though it was firmly believed to be.

i am not commenting on religion or defending it. i was simply trying to point out that its not as simple as "fact" vs. "fiction" - both sides, their reasoning and their arguments are often quite flawed.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by Pete

You have no idea what I've done in this business as well as others. Go away punk.

haha... uh yeah. only the cream of the crop actively try to sell sigs and start moronic threads backed with moronic reasoning purely for page views. i am sure you will be beaking into 50 million a year in revenue this next year. you're obviously a genius.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

haha... uh yeah. only the cream of the crop actively try to sell sigs and start moronic threads backed with moronic reasoning purely for page views. i am sure you will be beaking into 50 million a year in revenue this next year. you're obviously a genius.

You obviously havent been around for long fella. Keep up the hard work in PR, you'll go far.

[sacX]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

this was my point. science does require faith. it requires faith that string theory or some version of it is correct - no matter how many times the math works out. science demands that it be tested. until its tested, its not proven. until its proven, its faith. its just a belief based on whats known at the time. that is one example that highlights the connection between science and philosophy and illustrates how the lines between the two can begin to fade or breakdown completely.

i wasn't defending religion or science, god or NASA. i was just making the point that science isn't always "fact". science is often faith and often what is thought to be "fact" is disproven and proven wrong... so it never was "fact" to begin with even though it was firmly believed to be.

i am not commenting on religion or defending it. i was simply trying to point out that its not as simple as "fact" vs. "fiction" - both sides, their reasoning and their arguments are often quite flawed.

No.

Science != a specific scientific theory.

Science doesn't say you have to believe in string theory in a dogmatic way. It says here is our theory on it, do with it what you want!. Believe it or don't, in fact if you could prove it's wrong we'll love you for ever and give you a fancy ass Nobel Prize.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by sacX

No.

Science != a specific scientific theory.

Science doesn't say you have to believe in string theory in a dogmatic way. It says here is our theory on it, do with it what you want!. Believe it or don't, in fact if you could prove it's wrong we'll love you for ever and give you a fancy ass Nobel Prize.

i am not comparing science to religion. you are. i understand the difference between the two. i was saying that science also often requires faith just as religion requires faith. theories... which represent the foundation of science and are nothing more than a belief of what is true. people work hard to test and prove/disprove those theories and that is almost never done without a personal conviction as to what the end result will be. i understand that religion doesn't test to prove or disprove anything or modify their belief system as new evidence comes to light. i am not talking about religion.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by Pete

You obviously havent been around for long fella. Keep up the hard work in PR, you'll go far.

more not so surprising ignorance from an aspiring sig whore. my simple advice to you from my 9 years in this biz... don't give up. you can sell it. don't let anyone tell you that you can't... never let anyone tell you that you're not worth the 200.00 that someone is willing to pay for your time.

[sacX]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i am not comparing science to religion. you are. i understand the difference between the two. i was saying that science also often requires faith just as religion requires faith. theories... which represent the foundation of science and are nothing more than a belief of what is true. people work hard to test and prove/disprove those theories and that is almost never done without a personal conviction as to what the end result will be. i understand that religion doesn't test to prove or disprove anything or modify their belief system as new evidence comes to light. i am not talking about religion.

theories do not represent the foundation of science. Scientific method is the foundation.

[fallenmuffin]

Originally Posted by sacX

theories do not represent the foundation of science. Scientific method is the foundation.

Don't waste your time. As soon as you proven your point he'll just wait for someone else to come in and comment and start ranting to them.

Science is fact.. I proved that above.

Good night

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by sacX

theories do not represent the foundation of science. Scientific method is the foundation.

so back to my other point. is String Theory fact because it can be proven mathematically? or is it a faith and philosophy because it can't be tested? the worlds greatest minds are agressively working on String Theory and Unification Theory... are they doing so with complete scientific objectitivity? or because they believe they are close to linking quantum physics and newtonian physics together into one, simple formula that explains everything and believe in the outcome?

i believe that both religion and science require a great deal of faith (religion, more than science). the singluar difference between the two is that science will usually adjust its views based on whats discovered, regardless of the outcome, whereas religion usually cannot/doesn't.

[sacX]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

so back to my other point. is String Theory fact because it can be proven mathematically? or is it a faith and philosophy because it can't be tested? the worlds greatest minds are agressively working on String Theory and Unification Theory... are they doing so with complete scientific objectitivity? or because they believe they are close to linking quantum physics and newtonian physics together into one, simple formula that explains everything and believe in the outcome?

i believe that both religion and science require a great deal of faith (religion, more than science). the singluar difference between the two is that science will usually adjust its views based on whats discovered, regardless of the outcome, whereas religion usually cannot/doesn't.

Well firstly, string theory is not a fact, it is far from being one.

If they're working inline with scientific principles then yes they are working on it with objectivity. If they're not then they're not pracitising true science.

[iNNOVADEA]

this is going to be a long conversation.

[lambpie]

ive never been on a forum that so often discusses religion!!

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by sacX

Well firstly, string theory is not a fact, it is far from being one.

If they're working inline with scientific principles then yes they are working on it with objectivity. If they're not then they're not pracitising true science.

what "scientific principles"?
its just math

its something that people pursue out of passion for the subject and which many pursue in the hopes of being the first to figure things out. something most do because they believe its right and believe that can do it. its something that einstein was staunchly against because it challenged many of his own views and beliefs.

anyway... need to get some work done.

[notabook]

If I ever meet that science guy I'm going to punch him in the kidneys for not curing Polio faster.

[sacX]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

what "scientific principles"?
its just math

its something that people pursue out of passion for the subject and which many pursue in the hopes of being the first to figure things out. something most do because they believe its right and believe that can do it. its something that einstein was staunchly against because it challenged many of his own views and beliefs.

anyway... need to get some work done.

scientific method.

[Dirty Dane]

Im a believer of scientists

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by sacX

scientific method.

what scientific method? since there is no possible way to test and prove the existence and behavior of strings of energy that are millions of times smaller than an atom, they should just stop?

[Kimo]

you mean jesus isnt my daddy?