Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

2 Quick question

VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 6:02:28 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I've often seen religious people coming into the Science forums with topics that could have been interesting both debate and knowledge wise. But the usual response I see when a reply was given from the scientific community is to be met with scepticism, ridicule and a total ignorance of proper conduct.

So 2 quick questions if you dont mind.

1. Why bother coming to the Science forums if you are so toxic with a mind so closed up that u are unable to accept new ideas to view things from a different perspective?

2. Does anyone from the Scientific community does the same, coming to the religion forums and go sh!t @ss crazy on your faith?
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
bulproof
Posts: 25,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 6:18:01 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:02:28 AM, VelCrow wrote:
I've often seen religious people coming into the Science forums with topics that could have been interesting both debate and knowledge wise. But the usual response I see when a reply was given from the scientific community is to be met with scepticism, ridicule and a total ignorance of proper conduct.

So 2 quick questions if you dont mind.

1. Why bother coming to the Science forums if you are so toxic with a mind so closed up that u are unable to accept new ideas to view things from a different perspective?

2. Does anyone from the Scientific community does the same, coming to the religion forums and go sh!t @ss crazy on your faith?
As a general rule you'll find many of those with a religious bent displaying their ignorance loudly and proudly as if it's a badge of honour. see post #2
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 6:18:41 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.

doesnt answer either of my 2 questions...
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 6:21:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:18:41 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.

doesnt answer either of my 2 questions...

Then extrapolate.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 7:06:29 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:02:28 AM, VelCrow wrote:
I've often seen religious people coming into the Science forums with topics that could have been interesting both debate and knowledge wise. But the usual response I see when a reply was given from the scientific community is to be met with scepticism, ridicule and a total ignorance of proper conduct.

So 2 quick questions if you dont mind.

1. Why bother coming to the Science forums if you are so toxic with a mind so closed up that u are unable to accept new ideas to view things from a different perspective?

2. Does anyone from the Scientific community does the same, coming to the religion forums and go sh!t @ss crazy on your faith?

It wouldn't matter what forum you went to, you could not talk civilly to save your life, and that is why you draw the retorts. Advice: Don't use the mirror that shows you as a legend in your own mind, use the one that shows you as you really are.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 9:42:48 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:02:28 AM, VelCrow wrote:
I've often seen religious people coming into the Science forums with topics that could have been interesting both debate and knowledge wise. But the usual response I see when a reply was given from the scientific community is to be met with scepticism, ridicule and a total ignorance of proper conduct.

So 2 quick questions if you dont mind.

1. Why bother coming to the Science forums if you are so toxic with a mind so closed up that u are unable to accept new ideas to view things from a different perspective?

2. Does anyone from the Scientific community does the same, coming to the religion forums and go sh!t @ss crazy on your faith?

A: 1. That's a science question.mate.
Don't come here pedaling your crazy has to be on paper proven 100% error free data collection agency. way of life. It seems that some kind of god should be present in the science forum. I've seen it . You can't even prove what a hole is. Go on get , get you.
Can you believe that guy. ?

A. 2. Yet again I say. Get a couple of your guys from your science department to check the data on that. Then run the stats over. Also can we get 3 or 4 regular science forum posters. These theists come up with some weird stuff , as do you lot . It's kind of like you can't trust your eyes and mind. Anyway Thx for the advice neighbourino. Now go on get.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 3:12:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.

Please provide links to threads pointing out specific members and their posts from the Science forum that support your claim.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 7:21:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 3:12:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.

Please provide links to threads pointing out specific members and their posts from the Science forum that support your claim.

Oh look, here is one of those religious fanatics right now.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 7:33:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 7:21:07 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/5/2016 3:12:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.

Please provide links to threads pointing out specific members and their posts from the Science forum that support your claim.

Oh look, here is one of those religious fanatics right now.

LMAO @ that. You need to drop the word "truth" from your name.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 8:00:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 7:33:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/5/2016 7:21:07 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/5/2016 3:12:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.

Please provide links to threads pointing out specific members and their posts from the Science forum that support your claim.

Oh look, here is one of those religious fanatics right now.

LMAO @ that. You need to drop the word "truth" from your name.
hahaha +1 Annie.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
AnnaCzereda
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 10:09:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:02:28 AM, VelCrow wrote:
I've often seen religious people coming into the Science forums with topics that could have been interesting both debate and knowledge wise. But the usual response I see when a reply was given from the scientific community is to be met with scepticism, ridicule and a total ignorance of proper conduct.

It's hard to answer your post since you didn't give any links to the discussions or any examples.

1. Why bother coming to the Science forums if you are so toxic with a mind so closed up that u are unable to accept new ideas to view things from a different perspective?

First of all, science forums are dedicated to science, not religion. So when you discuss something, your posts should be on topic and relate to science. Your religion is irrelevant.

2. Does anyone from the Scientific community does the same, coming to the religion forums and go sh!t @ss crazy on your faith?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Whether Atheists can join religious forums depends on their owners. Probably they can as long as they abide by the given rules of conduct. On every forum/network there are written terms of service and also some sort of unwritten etiquette you'd better figure out or you'll have troubles. Joining the science forums and starting to talk about some crazy stuff, like creationism or intelligent design for example, will surely get you ridiculed, if not banned.
He wished to turn his countenance from the smoldering rubble, but saw from amidst the embers that a few chaff would not burn away. To these, he stared into the eye of God sneering, and called them, 'Promethean.'
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 1:10:49 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 10:09:25 PM, AnnaCzereda wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:02:28 AM, VelCrow wrote:
I've often seen religious people coming into the Science forums with topics that could have been interesting both debate and knowledge wise. But the usual response I see when a reply was given from the scientific community is to be met with scepticism, ridicule and a total ignorance of proper conduct.

It's hard to answer your post since you didn't give any links to the discussions or any examples.

just take a quick trip to the science forums and u will see what im talking about. there are too many to quote but heres an examples. Do read the entire trail of the discussion.

http://www.debate.org...


1. Why bother coming to the Science forums if you are so toxic with a mind so closed up that u are unable to accept new ideas to view things from a different perspective?

First of all, science forums are dedicated to science, not religion. So when you discuss something, your posts should be on topic and relate to science. Your religion is irrelevant.


your posts should be on topic
Agreed. But misrepresenting other peoples posts for the sake of mudslinging is so toxic. Just read the example I gave earlier.


2. Does anyone from the Scientific community does the same, coming to the religion forums and go sh!t @ss crazy on your faith?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Whether Atheists can join religious forums depends on their owners. Probably they can as long as they abide by the given rules of conduct. On every forum/network there are written terms of service and also some sort of unwritten etiquette you'd better figure out or you'll have troubles. Joining the science forums and starting to talk about some crazy stuff, like creationism or intelligent design for example, will surely get you ridiculed, if not banned.

Joining the science forums and starting to talk about some crazy stuff, like creationism or intelligent design for example, will surely get you ridiculed, if not banned.

Apparently not. the science forums is no longer a place where intelligent discussions happen thanks to the religious mobs on a trigger happy mudslinging fest there.
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:12:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:02:28 AM, VelCrow wrote:
I've often seen religious people coming into the Science forums with topics that could have been interesting both debate and knowledge wise. But the usual response I see when a reply was given from the scientific community is to be met with scepticism, ridicule and a total ignorance of proper conduct.

So 2 quick questions if you dont mind.

1. Why bother coming to the Science forums if you are so toxic with a mind so closed up that u are unable to accept new ideas to view things from a different perspective?

2. Does anyone from the Scientific community does the same, coming to the religion forums and go sh!t @ss crazy on your faith?

Bump
Meh!
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 3:15:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.

Throughout history, science has clashed with religion. The scientific community used to believe in nutty things like the earth wasn't the center of the universe and seizures weren't caused by demon possession. The big bang and evolution are just more scientific discoveries that religion has a bias against. Religion NEEDS these discoveries to be wrong.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 4:11:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:02:28 AM, VelCrow wrote:
I've often seen religious people coming into the Science forums with topics that could have been interesting both debate and knowledge wise. But the usual response I see when a reply was given from the scientific community is to be met with scepticism, ridicule and a total ignorance of proper conduct.
As you may be aware, Vel, Science isn't natural philosophy. It's systematic empiricism using best-practice methods. But consequently, a lot of ideas valid philosophically (e.g. because they fit logic and intuition) aren't valid scientifically because they're not systematically testable using observation and experiment. And many once-popular conjectures have now been eliminated from consideration simply because they fail to predict what is observed, or predict other than what is observed.

Members who understand and accept this normally just ask for mechanisms, models and evidence. But members who dislike science, or like pseudoscience, or who have nonscientific doctrine they'd prefer to peddle instead, argue about it like a lawyer appealing a conviction -- shamelessly looking for any excuse, while never admitting error.

The worst part is such members typically don't uphold the same standard of transparency, accountability, independence and best practice that science itself does. Essentially, they're participating in bad faith. And some members do this serially, so of course they'll be shown the door by regular members who understand and accept science better than they do, and of course they'll respond with sanctimony and scorn rather than admit they're being conceited, dishonest and malignant.

So 2 quick questions if you don't mind.
1. Why bother coming to the Science forums if you are so toxic with a mind so closed up that u are unable to accept new ideas to view things from a different perspective?
Since you're asking that of the Religion forum, I assume you're asking why the antiscientific religious go there to troll.

You won't get a straight answer from the offending members, but the fact is that religious doctrine has claimed absolute authority over its history -- to the point where people could be killed just for arguing with religious canon. Yet religious doctrine has failed in virtually every significant, observable prediction it could make. It's been wrong in astronomy, geology, biology, cosmology, medicine, psychology, sociology, geography, meteorology, climatology and history. When a body of knowledge that admits ignorance makes a mistake (as science does at times) it need merely acknowledge the mistake, learn from it and improve its methods.

But when some absolute, supremacist doctrine makes a howler it's deeply embarrassing, and the doctrine itself has nowhere to retreat. So it evades accountability, makes excuses, pleads special circumstances, and most importantly, those who love the absolute authority claimed by their doctrine shoot the messenger rather than admit that they're wrong.

So the Science forum sees serial visits by members who want to criticise the results but either don't understand or don't accept the methods.

Essentially, like the Religion forum, Science is plagued by bad-faith participation, and needs active moderation.

2. Does anyone from the Scientific community does the same, coming to the religion forums and go crazy on your faith?
In principle, there's no reason science can't co-exist amiably with religion. But for it to do so needs one of two conditions, neither of which are under the control of scientists. Either:
1) Religious revelations must be reliable; or
2) The religious must not claim that revelations have any authority.

Historically, religious revelations have been so unreliable that you're actually better off admitting abject ignorance than saying God spoke to you -- because even trial-and-error is more reliable than believing a holy scripture. So while ever religious adherents claim the absolute authority of their doctrine, they're setting themselves up to be serially debunked by science.

Science can do nothing about that. The problem lies with the ignorant conceit of the devout. They have to learn to admit their ignorance or be laughed at on the margins.

Smarter adherents have already adapted. They got there slowly and reluctantly but today, the heads of all the larger religious denominations and most smaller ones accept the major scientific results just fine. But the dumb atavists still like to come and troll Science instead.

Complaining about it won't alter things, Vel. It's either that or abandon cherished doctrines and to the egotist, rock-chucking is cheaper than change.

As I said, both Science and Religion need active moderation.

Good questions, though. :)
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:13:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 3:15:43 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.

Throughout history, science has clashed with religion. The scientific community used to believe in nutty things like the earth wasn't the center of the universe and seizures weren't caused by demon possession. The big bang and evolution are just more scientific discoveries that religion has a bias against. Religion NEEDS these discoveries to be wrong.

nope. not all.

" if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

https://en.wikiquote.org...
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:30:57 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:13:38 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 6/7/2016 3:15:43 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.

Throughout history, science has clashed with religion. The scientific community used to believe in nutty things like the earth wasn't the center of the universe and seizures weren't caused by demon possession. The big bang and evolution are just more scientific discoveries that religion has a bias against. Religion NEEDS these discoveries to be wrong.

nope. not all.

" if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

https://en.wikiquote.org...

Science didn't set out to prove religion wrong. It just set out to gain new information. New discoveries only prove people wrong that deny those new discoveries. If someone wants to believe in the big bang, evolution and god, so be it.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 5:03:42 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 3:15:43 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.

Throughout history, science has clashed with religion. The scientific community used to believe in nutty things like the earth wasn't the center of the universe and seizures weren't caused by demon possession. The big bang and evolution are just more scientific discoveries that religion has a bias against. Religion NEEDS these discoveries to be wrong.

This is a false narrative pushed by perverse people. It simply isn't the truth.

And for the record, most physicists believe in God, they just like to troll people who don't understand mathematics. Like the guy who came up with the Big Bang Theory. Did you know he was a Catholic Priest?

Now, I say these things knowing that they are identity fallacies. The problem is, you aren't identifying these spirits accurately. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, a good saying attributed to Albert Einstein was that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I agree with that statement.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:19:33 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 5:03:42 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/7/2016 3:15:43 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.

Throughout history, science has clashed with religion. The scientific community used to believe in nutty things like the earth wasn't the center of the universe and seizures weren't caused by demon possession. The big bang and evolution are just more scientific discoveries that religion has a bias against. Religion NEEDS these discoveries to be wrong.

This is a false narrative pushed by perverse people. It simply isn't the truth.

And for the record, most physicists believe in God, they just like to troll people who don't understand mathematics. Like the guy who came up with the Big Bang Theory. Did you know he was a Catholic Priest?

Now, I say these things knowing that they are identity fallacies. The problem is, you aren't identifying these spirits accurately. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, a good saying attributed to Albert Einstein was that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I agree with that statement.

Correction: Science and the concept of some kind of "higher power" (some may say god) are not mutually exclusive. Science and religion are definitely mutually exclusive.

If a Catholic priest came up with the big bang theory, then he came up with a brilliant theory. The big bang theory and the story of creation in Genesis are mutually exclusive however.

Many catholic priests also believe in evolution which also means they reject the literal story of creation. The problem is that once you decide that the bible shouldn't be taken literally, doesn't that start to discredit the rest of the whole concept of believing sins are forgiven via human sacrifice?

You might be interested in a few other Einstein quotes if you like Einstein:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:29:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Scientific Method is defined as...

"principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses'"

Religion is defined as...

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Can you see how being a follower of the Scientific Method is the same as following a religion?

Your understanding of the definition is wrong. Atheists don't believe in The Ultimate Reality. Their very position is a testament to their lack of conviction. They don't deserve to be taken seriously. Don't let these people define your words, they are fools.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 2:37:58 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
The sad thing is, most people who claim to be "believers of science" are actually believers of so called scientists.

If they really believed in science, they'd be out there performing experiments. Instead, they'd rather just believe what they read.

Never mind the fact that scientific breakthrough tends to happen when people actually start questioning things.

You know what? I love science. Science is what pointed me to God.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:02:54 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 2:29:05 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Scientific Method is defined as...

"principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses'"

Religion is defined as...

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Can you see how being a follower of the Scientific Method is the same as following a religion?

No, not necessarily. When those "system of beliefs" are contrary to scientific knowledge, that is the definition of mutually exclusive.

A respected biologist may believe that a "higher power" exists, but they do not believe that snakes can talk, nor do they reject evolution.

If you don't think snakes can talk, then you have to either admit that the Bible lacks credibility or you have to do some kind of song and dance about why the Bible SAYS that but it really didn't MEAN that. To someone without a bias, it sounds ridiculous.


Your understanding of the definition is wrong. Atheists don't believe in The Ultimate Reality.

Your Ultimate reality? The Mormon's ultimate reality? The Muslims' ultimate reality? How do you know which one is right? Did a voice whisper in your head or was it just hearsay from a third party?

Their very position is a testament to their lack of conviction.

Conviction in what???
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:23:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:02:54 AM, matt8800 wrote:
Your understanding of the definition is wrong. Atheists don't believe in The Ultimate Reality.

Your Ultimate reality? The Mormon's ultimate reality? The Muslims' ultimate reality? How do you know which one is right? Did a voice whisper in your head or was it just hearsay from a third party?


Look there is no "Mormon's ultimate reality" or "Muslim's ultimate reality".

There is One Ultimate Reality. There is One God, and there is none like this God.

Their very position is a testament to their lack of conviction.

Conviction in what???

In anything. Why should I take anyone seriously when they are saying, "Prove to me that it is true that there is such a thing as truth!"

That is what it is like when an atheist demands evidence for God. Then they try to make positions built up on facts as if their worldview wasn't entirely destructive of them attempting to do so.

It's a really stupid position, I'm serious. Really stupid. It's a position of ignorance.

It is not written in vain,

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord. There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous."
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:32:33 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:23:05 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/9/2016 3:02:54 AM, matt8800 wrote:
Your understanding of the definition is wrong. Atheists don't believe in The Ultimate Reality.

Your Ultimate reality? The Mormon's ultimate reality? The Muslims' ultimate reality? How do you know which one is right? Did a voice whisper in your head or was it just hearsay from a third party?


Look there is no "Mormon's ultimate reality" or "Muslim's ultimate reality".

There is One Ultimate Reality. There is One God, and there is none like this God.

If Christianity is true, then the Muslim goes to hell. If Islam is true, then the Christian goes to hell. Can you define "ultimate reality" please?


Their very position is a testament to their lack of conviction.

Conviction in what???

In anything. Why should I take anyone seriously when they are saying, "Prove to me that it is true that there is such a thing as truth!"

I know there is truth. Here are some examples:

Water boils at 100c at sea level.

Water freezes at 0c.

I consider anything that is empirically evident to be true. Everything else is conjecture with varying degrees of substantiation.

That is what it is like when an atheist demands evidence for God. Then they try to make positions built up on facts as if their worldview wasn't entirely destructive of them attempting to do so.

It's a really stupid position, I'm serious. Really stupid. It's a position of ignorance.

It is not written in vain,

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord. There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous."

It is not written in vain:

"Eeny Meeny Miny Mo, catch a tiger by the toe."
bulproof
Posts: 25,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:39:03 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:23:05 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
There is One Ultimate Reality. There is One God, and there is none like this God.
Your god is just one of thousands of gods who all have one thing in common, they were all created by humans.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:41:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
It's so amazing to me that people put so much faith in the way they've organized their reality.

I'm telling you that God is The Ultimate Reality. Why do you attach baggage to that? Why do you say, "The Ultimate Reality is *insert insert*". You are redefining things arbitrarily. You are asking me to redefine things arbitrarily.

The word God with a capital G means "The Ultimate Reality".

It's so very simple, yet for some reason it seems to be the hardest thing in the world for atheists to accept. I wonder why?

I certainly can't do all this work. God is the one who heals, not me.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 3:56:08 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/9/2016 3:41:10 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
It's so amazing to me that people put so much faith in the way they've organized their reality.

That's what I'm sayin'!

I'm telling you that God is The Ultimate Reality.

Wait...what? You just said "It's so amazing to me that people put so much faith in the way they've organized their reality."

Why do you attach baggage to that? Why do you say, "The Ultimate Reality is *insert insert*". You are redefining things arbitrarily. You are asking me to redefine things arbitrarily.

If you cant use logic to formulate an opinion on reality, what do you have left? Is it logical to believe things with no tangible evidence other than it just "feels" true because other people told you?

If your five senses and logic evaluating empirical evidence is not enough to formulate an opinion on reality, what other things do you need exactly? You couldn't define anything if you tried. Theists can only speak in obscure generalities with a refusal to analyze the details.

The word God with a capital G means "The Ultimate Reality".

It's so very simple, yet for some reason it seems to be the hardest thing in the world for atheists to accept. I wonder why?

If there is a god, he can tell me or show me. I mean really show me. Not that face of the virgin mary in toast stuff. Wouldn't an all-powerful, interventionist god be able to appear to me and speak audibly to me? I know...that's not the way it works because (you fill in the blank with long and nonsensical explanation)

I certainly can't do all this work. God is the one who heals, not me.

I wanted to say "He needs to heal your ability to critically think" but then I decided that would be rude.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 4:04:08 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Truly, only a wicked generation demands a miracle.

Seek and you will find. Ask and it will be given. What do you think The Way is about? It's about the relationship you have with God.

You don't understand what you are saying. That is the faith. Without that very simple faith, you've lost it. The faith is in God. If you are a seeker of Truth, you faith is in God. If you do not have that faith, you will be spiritually dead. You will be cursed with strong delusion, and you will deserve it. You chose it.

God is forgiving. Repent and believe!
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 4:30:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:13:11 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Science the way it is understood contemporary fits into the definition of "religion".

Believe it or not, the scientific community is not immune to wing nuttery. Indeed, people who call themselves "scientific" but rarely if ever perform any actual scientific experiments can be just as dogmatic and close minded as any religious fanatic.

They often times are not much better. They believe what they read.

Lol what? Science is verifiable and requires peer review. Religion does not. Just because the media sensationalizes the results of an experiment and people take it at face value doesn't mean the people behind the study are forming a cult around it.