There is no science without the use of religion. Do you agree with this statement?

Asked by: kronos5250
  • More humans believe in gods then the science that denies them.

    Just a plain old obvious factoid. No scientist can disprove faith, or can they? Can scientists create life from the not living? Not yet. Not ever. Which scientist exactly, was created from something not alive, and was created from another scientists experiment? Only the scientist created by something they cannot explain, which must be a ............... God? Scientist Atheist, where is your origin? A soup of chemicals created you for what?

  • As I have stated in my previous post, science will prove the existence of God and the account of creation as recorded in the bible.

    In the beginning was the Big Bang which spewed out liquid like electromagnetic energy in the trillions of degrees. It was from the quantum of that cooling liquid like electromagnetic energy that this universe and all therein was created. The quantum being wave particles that are really not particles at all, having zero mass and no electric charge and yet they carry angular and linear momentum.
    The universe at that time was formless and void.
    As the universal temperature dropped to some billions of degrees, the dark energy which was the expansions acceleration force began to form into dark matter. With the expansion of the wave particles, they collided in nclear fusion reactions to form hydrogen and helium, with trace quantities of lithium, beryllium and boron. As the evolving universe expanded and cooled more hydrogen molecules were formed and from these after thirty million years [God said, "Let there be light] the first generation stars were born. This was the first day, the first period of universal activity.

  • Religion is un-needed.

    Religion has no place in science. Religion makes extraordinary claims while presenting no evidence to the table. Science on the other hand has findings based on evidence. Not only is religion un-needed in science, but it's also harmful to science and to scientists. Most notably evolutionary scientists who are constantly being told they are wrong when there is mountains of evidence backing them up.

  • Science and religion are in entirely different businesses

    Science and religion are completely different in approach and purpose. Science is focused on obtaining and integrating information about how the natural world works while religion is supposed to be about the spiritual well being of its adherents. They are most often not compatible since science demands evidence that can be tested while religion demands faith that what its holy book, priests, and other representatives is the direct word of some supernatural being in charge of things.

  • No? There is a difference. Science is actually right

    Science is right. Religion is wrong. Duh. There is obviously science without religion wtf duh obviously there is. Science has nothing to do with the bible or the existence of any god or deity. It is science its the human body. Its the study of things that existed before humans were even beginning to evolve

  • The two are typically exclusive.

    The unfortunate nail in the coffin of "religious science" is that religion is typically much too outdated and much too specific about their claims.

    People attempt to rationalize impossible actions from impossible beings with impossible scenarios being played out at impossible times in impossible locations.

    Try as they might, you simply can't "bend" cold logic to fit religion. Instead, people are forced to bend their religion to fit the science.

    While this secular overwrite is good (forcing the religion to either die or update with the times) sometimes people confuse their own religious texts.

    Science does not need religion, as it discovers truth independent of previous claims.

    Religion needs science because people use religion to seek the truth, and now have a much more dependable alternative. That means religion needs to find itself very intimate with science or face extinction. (Or at least endangerment)

  • What are you even doing?

    There is nothing I despise more than Religion and Science being mixed. The two are not compatible, because they are at completely opposite ends of a spectrum I like to call "Reality".
    Science is for things that are proven, religion only requires blind faith.

    "More humans believe in gods then the science that denies them."
    This is literally one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from a creationist, and that's saying a lot. The fact that a lot of people believe in something doesn't mean that it exists.

    "No scientist can disprove faith, or can they?"
    Uh, disprove "faith", or God? Because I can easily disprove faith. Someone has faith that I won't punch them? Yeah, that's gone now.
    However, if by "faith", you mean God, then you've repeated one of the only true things that creationists argue with. The matter of fact is, that God cannot be disproved (And also can't be proven). Don't get excited, though, because that doesn't mean anything. Let's say that I know a guy named Jed. (I don't really know anyone named Jed, I just thought that Jed was a pretty cool name.) Now, you can't disprove the existence of Jed, can you? That's because proof is based of evidence, and in order for evidence to exist, things surrounding the subject must exist. Nothing does. Likewise, I can't prove that Jed exists, because there's nothing connecting him to anything. (Also, pointing to the bible is not a valid argument, as the bible is not a trustworthy document.) Do you understand? I'm assuming you understand.

    "Can scientists create life from the not living? Not yet. Not ever."
    Ah, but that's not true. Scientist created life a long, long time ago during an experiment that attempted to explain how life emerged on Earth. It worked, and tiny microscopic life was created inside the tiny biosphere.

    "Which scientist exactly, was created from something not alive, and was created from another scientists experiment? Only the scientist created by something they cannot explain, which must be a ............... God?"
    Could you please proofread your comments? The wording is a bit awkward, so I didn't really get what you were trying to say. Actually, I still don't, but I'll try my best.
    I think you're trying to say that God is a scientist? Or that a scientist that can create creates life is a God? Well, if God exists, they're not supernatural, so they must be a scientist. And if a scientist were to create life like that, it seems like they would be godlike, so I guess you're kind of right about that. Unfortunately, I don't understand what that could do for your argument.

    A soup of chemicals created you for what?
    Well, if the fact that life has no set goal is not proof for whatever point you're trying to make. Now, I ask you this: An omni-potent, all knowing, perfect being created you for what? Why would there be any reason for God to create us?

  • Scientists are not concerned about religion...

    Science makes more sense than religion does in my opinion. I am not against anyone who is religious, but I don't see how one doesn't question everything they learn about their religion. Scientists do their research for an answer, and can provide proof. Religion? The answer is in a book (or another sacred source) where it is further interpreted into different meanings. I know faith and religion are two different things, but faith seems to be the root of many religious people's belief system.

  • Religion is not a motivation for the advancement of science

    Scientists aren't countering religious practices because they are pr*cks. Science advancement is motivation for itself. You discover one new thing, you ask questions about that and you continue to want and do discover new facts. It is a never ending cycle of questions, theory, and discoverey. Religion does not motivate scientists to prove it wrong.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.