Total Posts:152|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science > religion

InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 12:46:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ok, here's a question addressed to all theists. Why believe in thousand year old fairy tales when you have science to explain the world around you? Religion is an old out-dated concept that no longer has any relevance in today's world.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 12:58:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Indeed, to be a religious believer you have to ignore all scientific evidence - you're basically stuck in the dark ages.

Dawkins (my hero with his MASTERFULLY written book, the God delusion) says:

"Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion,"

That about settles it. There's no challenging St. Dawkins.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mason0612
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 1:01:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
These are my two favorite videos of Richard Dawkins. I think he sums up the concepts of God and intelligent design in these videos pretty well.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 1:02:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 12:58:34 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Indeed, to be a religious believer you have to ignore all scientific evidence - you're basically stuck in the dark ages.

Dawkins (my hero with his MASTERFULLY written book, the God delusion) says:

"Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion,"

That about settles it. There's no challenging St. Dawkins.

I love Dawkins. :D

He said that God is a bully and that is true, considering the fact that he throws all non-believers into hell, calls for the stoning of homosexuals, subjugates women, and allows the molestation of children.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 1:34:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Science is inept at explaining the whys of our existence, or existence itself. There is no method, no instrument, no calculation, no ability whatsoever in science to address the whys; therefore there is absolutely no data at all to support any sort of conclusion. To say there is no purpose on the basis of nothing is a bit thin in my humble opinion.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 1:34:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 1:02:35 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

I love Dawkins. :D

Dawkins is a fool, he needs to accept that the Easter bunny of the Western star DOES exist. He gives us power from above.
kfc
Mason0612
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 1:46:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 1:34:00 PM, innomen wrote:
Science is inept at explaining the whys of our existence, or existence itself. There is no method, no instrument, no calculation, no ability whatsoever in science to address the whys; therefore there is absolutely no data at all to support any sort of conclusion. To say there is no purpose on the basis of nothing is a bit thin in my humble opinion.

Science isn't inept, we just aren't at the right time to prove existence. People used to think the world was flat, but that didn't mean science was inept. As time goes on, we learn new things about the world. And religion doesn't address existence either. Their argument is an all powerful spooky ghost figure created everything.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 1:55:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 1:46:26 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 8/8/2010 1:34:00 PM, innomen wrote:
Science is inept at explaining the whys of our existence, or existence itself. There is no method, no instrument, no calculation, no ability whatsoever in science to address the whys; therefore there is absolutely no data at all to support any sort of conclusion. To say there is no purpose on the basis of nothing is a bit thin in my humble opinion.

Science isn't inept, we just aren't at the right time to prove existence. People used to think the world was flat, but that didn't mean science was inept. As time goes on, we learn new things about the world. And religion doesn't address existence either. Their argument is an all powerful spooky ghost figure created everything.

I think you misunderstand me. Science is really good at figuring out the how's. How things came into being, but yes, on the whys it has nothing at all to approach these questions. And seriously, don't you think the question of why we exist is far more intriguing than how we came to exist?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 2:03:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 1:55:08 PM, innomen wrote:
I think you misunderstand me. Science is really good at figuring out the how's. How things came into being, but yes, on the whys it has nothing at all to approach these questions. And seriously, don't you think the question of why we exist is far more intriguing than how we came to exist?

I'm afraid innomen is right here. Science explains how, not why.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 2:05:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 2:03:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/8/2010 1:55:08 PM, innomen wrote:
I think you misunderstand me. Science is really good at figuring out the how's. How things came into being, but yes, on the whys it has nothing at all to approach these questions. And seriously, don't you think the question of why we exist is far more intriguing than how we came to exist?

I'm afraid innomen is right here. Science explains how, not why.

You're back to your normal self now too? I am. Haha.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 2:06:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 2:03:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/8/2010 1:55:08 PM, innomen wrote:
I think you misunderstand me. Science is really good at figuring out the how's. How things came into being, but yes, on the whys it has nothing at all to approach these questions. And seriously, don't you think the question of why we exist is far more intriguing than how we came to exist?

I'm afraid innomen is right here. Science explains how, not why.

High praise from Geo.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 3:50:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 12:46:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, here's a question addressed to all theists. Why believe in thousand year old fairy tales when you have science to explain the world around you? Religion is an old out-dated concept that no longer has any relevance in today's world.
No, it is not in conflict with my beliefs and period. I see no reason to deny God even if we use science to explain all sorts of things, which we do. And, as has already been said, science is good at why, but not how. When it comes to how, it takes many u-turns.

I got my belief in God as much as people hate it sometimes. Also, there are tons of things that science, as we know it, can hardly explain.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 3:51:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 3:50:42 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 12:46:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, here's a question addressed to all theists. Why believe in thousand year old fairy tales when you have science to explain the world around you? Religion is an old out-dated concept that no longer has any relevance in today's world.
No, it is not in conflict with my beliefs and period. I see no reason to deny God even if we use science to explain all sorts of things, which we do. And, as has already been said, science is good at why, but not how. When it comes to how, it takes many u-turns.

I got my belief in God as much as people hate it sometimes. Also, there are tons of things that science, as we know it, can hardly explain.

Shhhh! This was for opposite day. I was trying to sound atheistic.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 3:57:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Clearly, believing that whatever you want to be true is true, is the only way to go about things.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 3:59:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 3:51:30 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Shhhh! This was for opposite day. I was trying to sound atheistic.
Opposite day?

YOU seriously need TO grow UP.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 4:00:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 3:59:37 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/8/2010 3:51:30 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Shhhh! This was for opposite day. I was trying to sound atheistic.
Opposite day?

YOU seriously need TO grow UP.

It's this: http://www.debate.org...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 4:16:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 1:34:00 PM, innomen wrote:
Science is inept at explaining the whys of our existence, or existence itself. There is no method, no instrument, no calculation, no ability whatsoever in science to address the whys; therefore there is absolutely no data at all to support any sort of conclusion. To say there is no purpose on the basis of nothing is a bit thin in my humble opinion.

to say god provides a purpose on the basis of something someone made up is...?

sorry if that makes me sound arsey but honestly, thats how it appears. the evidence for god is largely lacking. the fact that you want an explanation for "why" doesn't make him any more likely to exist.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 4:23:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 4:16:41 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/8/2010 1:34:00 PM, innomen wrote:
Science is inept at explaining the whys of our existence, or existence itself. There is no method, no instrument, no calculation, no ability whatsoever in science to address the whys; therefore there is absolutely no data at all to support any sort of conclusion. To say there is no purpose on the basis of nothing is a bit thin in my humble opinion.

to say god provides a purpose on the basis of something someone made up is...?

sorry if that makes me sound arsey but honestly, thats how it appears. the evidence for god is largely lacking. the fact that you want an explanation for "why" doesn't make him any more likely to exist.

First, you don't know my understanding of God, so you cannot really say that it's based on "something someone made up". If you take existence itself as evidence and cross that small line to accepting purpose in existence, it then opens a door. However, science is not able to provide any help at all in this, so it's fairly useless to rely on something that is irrelevant in approaching the reason why we exist. Spirituality can offer answers to questions that science is unable to. The initial post is Science > religion, and i am explaining where science is fairly inept. Science is inept at approaching the question of why we exist and what is our purpose. In this question, which is a fairly weighty question, religion>science.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 4:28:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 4:23:57 PM, innomen wrote:
First, you don't know my understanding of God, so you cannot really say that it's based on "something someone made up". If you take existence itself as evidence and cross that small line to accepting purpose in existence, it then opens a door.

So is God really the only thing that can answer the question of purpose and whys of existence?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
the-good-teacher
Posts: 444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 4:31:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 12:58:34 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Indeed, to be a religious believer you have to ignore all scientific evidence - you're basically stuck in the dark ages.

Dawkins (my hero with his MASTERFULLY written book, the God delusion) says:

"Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion,"

That about settles it. There's no challenging St. Dawkins.

Dawkins was a high degree Freemason = Satanist = totally unreliable in matters relating to God !....... your "Hero" ? ...get a grip !
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 4:32:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 4:23:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/8/2010 4:16:41 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/8/2010 1:34:00 PM, innomen wrote:
Science is inept at explaining the whys of our existence, or existence itself. There is no method, no instrument, no calculation, no ability whatsoever in science to address the whys; therefore there is absolutely no data at all to support any sort of conclusion. To say there is no purpose on the basis of nothing is a bit thin in my humble opinion.

to say god provides a purpose on the basis of something someone made up is...?

sorry if that makes me sound arsey but honestly, thats how it appears. the evidence for god is largely lacking. the fact that you want an explanation for "why" doesn't make him any more likely to exist.

First, you don't know my understanding of God, so you cannot really say that it's based on "something someone made up". If you take existence itself as evidence and cross that small line to accepting purpose in existence, it then opens a door. However, science is not able to provide any help at all in this, so it's fairly useless to rely on something that is irrelevant in approaching the reason why we exist. Spirituality can offer answers to questions that science is unable to. The initial post is Science > religion, and i am explaining where science is fairly inept. Science is inept at approaching the question of why we exist and what is our purpose. In this question, which is a fairly weighty question, religion>science.

missing my point, which is that while religion may provide answers, that doesn't make the answers true, or valuable. you seem to be saying that religion is valuable because it attempts to provide answers to questions that science cannot answer; however there is no guarantee that those answers are accurate and philosophy can serve most of the same purposes with the added benefit that it is constantly checked for accuracy rather than being passed down as divine inspiration. i would say that science and religion are equally useless at answering the "why" questions, one because it doesn't address them and the other because it addresses them in a seemingly unverifiable way. of course a religious person would not think so... but to bring it up in a thread of "religion vs science" as if you can even compare them on that particular issue is foolish. if you're talking about whys it becomes "religion vs philosophy"- and in that case its not obvious that the answered offered by various religions are in any way superior.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 4:37:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 4:31:23 PM, the-good-teacher wrote:
At 8/8/2010 12:58:34 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Indeed, to be a religious believer you have to ignore all scientific evidence - you're basically stuck in the dark ages.

Dawkins (my hero with his MASTERFULLY written book, the God delusion) says:

"Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion,"

That about settles it. There's no challenging St. Dawkins.

Dawkins was a high degree Freemason = Satanist = totally unreliable in matters relating to God !....... your "Hero" ? ...get a grip !

LOL.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 4:41:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 4:37:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/8/2010 4:31:23 PM, the-good-teacher wrote:
At 8/8/2010 12:58:34 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Indeed, to be a religious believer you have to ignore all scientific evidence - you're basically stuck in the dark ages.

Dawkins (my hero with his MASTERFULLY written book, the God delusion) says:

"Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion,"

That about settles it. There's no challenging St. Dawkins.

Dawkins was a high degree Freemason = Satanist = totally unreliable in matters relating to God !....... your "Hero" ? ...get a grip !

LOL.

I did it for opposite day....I thought the whole "St. Dawkins" and "masterfully written book" thing would give it away....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 4:43:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 4:41:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/8/2010 4:37:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/8/2010 4:31:23 PM, the-good-teacher wrote:
At 8/8/2010 12:58:34 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Indeed, to be a religious believer you have to ignore all scientific evidence - you're basically stuck in the dark ages.

Dawkins (my hero with his MASTERFULLY written book, the God delusion) says:

"Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion,"

That about settles it. There's no challenging St. Dawkins.

Dawkins was a high degree Freemason = Satanist = totally unreliable in matters relating to God !....... your "Hero" ? ...get a grip !

LOL.

I did it for opposite day....I thought the whole "St. Dawkins" and "masterfully written book" thing would give it away....

prolly woulda come off better if the guy right after you hadn't been serious :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 5:40:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's funny because I'm not really aware of a single atheist that "omg just love love love"s Dawkins or anyone like that.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 5:55:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 5:40:30 PM, Yvette wrote:
It's funny because I'm not really aware of a single atheist that "omg just love love love"s Dawkins or anyone like that.

Geo, but he doesn't declare himself as an athesit. :P
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:05:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 5:40:30 PM, Yvette wrote:
It's funny because I'm not really aware of a single atheist that "omg just love love love"s Dawkins or anyone like that.

I like Dawkins a lot. And Christopher Hitchens. And Sam Harris. And Daniel Dennett. What's wrong with that?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:07:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 5:55:58 PM, Puck wrote:
At 8/8/2010 5:40:30 PM, Yvette wrote:
It's funny because I'm not really aware of a single atheist that "omg just love love love"s Dawkins or anyone like that.

Geo, but he doesn't declare himself as an athesit. :P

Nah. Although he's a buddhist he's still an atheist.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 6:08:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 4:31:23 PM, the-good-teacher wrote:
Dawkins was a high degree Freemason = Satanist = totally unreliable in matters relating to God

Non-sequitur it up, great job.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown