Science vs Religion

Started by Ytaker17 pages

Re: Re: Science vs Religion

Originally posted by hana_skywalker
I'll give my opinion here. 😉

I'm a person who believes in science rather than religion (my 1st career choice was Biology), but I'm convinced that none of them will be able to be better than the other since they need each other. They just cannot be separated. Albert Einstein's phrase about them says it clearly (I think it was already mentioned here, but...): "SCIENCE WITHOUT RELIGION IS LAME. RELIGION WITHOUT SCIENCE IS BLIND".

There are many things that science cannot explain and probably will never be able to. Most of these are just not meant to be discovered. And religion... well, I think that the Church is making too many mistakes.
So, I had to choose and answer, I would say that science is further than religion right now.

Science is making many mistakes too. Take the television; billions of IQ points down the drain...tv_happy

Re: Science vs Religion

Originally posted by Ytaker
Science is making many mistakes too. Take the television; billions of IQ points down the drain...

Nice use of an ad hominem abusive fallacy of logic, "Religion is correct because science is flawed too." 🙄

^ i think u were missing the finer points of Ytaker's point 😛

Originally posted by Morningstar
^ i think u were missing the finer points of Ytaker's point

hana_skywalker stated, "well, I think that the Church is making too many mistakes," and instead of refuting this claim, Ytaker responded with a criticism of her own, "Science is making many mistakes too."

In the scope of a discussion or argument, this is the equivalent of childish fingerpointing, "I know I am but what about you?"

Originally posted by Morningstar
just wondering, why were you quoting me saying 'ok'? I simply decided not to argue with finti on that particular point. *shrugs*

If you've never heard of Jesus/God or havent heard of sin or anything, at judgement day (from a Christian perspective) they would be judged on how pure their heart is.

I was really quoting finti's post, otherwise it would have seemed like I was talking to myself or something 😛

You're missing my point. Very few people in the European/American countries have not heard of Christianity and Jesus. That is not the point. The point is, if somebody is already, say, Hindu, they are not going to simply convert to Christianity because they know it exists. They believe their religion to be the correct one, and Christianity and all others to be false. There is enormous fallacy in the Christian way of thinking that says "one day everyone will know of Jesus's teachings and there will be no excuse to not be a Christian!" Until God himself decides to show everybody beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is the one true religion, there are going to be perfectly decent people who will have gone from cradle to grave without any interest in converting to Christianity. Most, if not all, Muslims know what a Christian is. But they will never actually become Christians, because their religion tells them that Islam is the more correct path. See what I mean?

Adam_PoE> I'm fairly sure that what Ytaker said was intended as a joke 😛

Oh, yes. Science has made MANY mistakes during the ages… Fortunately science – unlike religion – has NO problem correcting mistakes when better data arrives new observations and new test-results.

And this – the ability to say “Oh, look, THIS is how it works” is what makes science much stronger than religion. Not to mention the fact, that no scientist has EVER prosecuted a religions person based on science – the opposite however, has taken place countless times.

FE> http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seejesus.html
Which one is correct?
So, you are wrong. There ARE contradictions in Matthew and John. Deal with it.
Or here http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/imprisonment.html
Or here http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/postbaptism.html And here, for a longer account http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html
Want me to go on?

However I was referring to the historical errors and flaws as well. Herod died in 4 BC for example. And the census conducted under Quirinius didn’t happen until 6 AD.

Arachnoidfreak> Yeah, I know. Just re-stating the obvious… 😉

Ytaker> I already showed you Testimonium Flavianum isn’t worth a thing. So why do you keep using it?

When Christians try to find any bit of evidence for Jesus outside the NT, they ALWAYS point to the following:
1) Testomonium Flavianum
2) Antiquities
3) Suetonius
4) Cornelius Tacitus
5) Mara Bar Serapion’
6) Pliny the Younger

Can YOU find any other?

Suetonius, writing about AD 120, mentions that emperor Claudius "banished the Jews from Rome, since they had made a commotion because of Chrestus," and that during the reign of Nero (54-68), "punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."
The second reference is to the existence of Christians. No one disputes the existence of Christians. The first reference may be to Jesus. However, there were many messiahs making their appearance during this period and "Chrestus" was a common name, not necessarily a variant of "Christ." It should be noted that nowhere in his writings does Suetonius specifically mention a Jesus of Nazareth.

Tacitus: Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.).
In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing

And the Tacitus quotation wasn’t used by Christians until the 15th century.

Mara Bar Serapion: In the second or third century this gentleman wrote a letter to his son in jail. The letter mentions that the Jews had killed their "wise king." It is not clear who this is referring to. Mar Bar Serapion certainly was not a contemporary of Jesus so it is hard to see how this is a confirmation of Jesus.

Pliny the Younger: Pliny corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan (98-117). In his letters, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan's advice about what action to take against them, if any. Pliny's writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but just show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor around 100.

SO NO:
1) there is not a ”ton” of evidence outside the Bible, you guys just keep clinging to the same few passages, hoping they will give you evidence, which
2) they do not.

I gonna hafta break down for all of you:

Science and Religion Don't make mistakes. But Scientists and Religious people do make mistakes! Why? Because they both are HUMANS! Humans are NOT perfect beings they make mistakes all the time! Get it in your heads! Humans make mistakes!. What's the point of correction when a mistake has been done? the damage has already been done.

Holy wars were caused by Religious fanatics. Pollution and Destructive weapons were made by Military Scientists! Both sides have being at fault before. No one is perfect! Please, for the sake of humanity let's become one race and stop pointing fingers at each other. There will never be understanding between humans until both sides work together! Yes, it can be done!

Humans are NOT perfect beings they make mistakes all the time!
talk for yourself 😉 😛 😮‍💨

Pollution and Destructive weapons were made by Military Scientists
pollution?

Originally posted by finti
talk for yourself 😉 😛 😮‍💨

hehe...

Originally posted by finti
pollution?

Well.....I was thinking more like Chemists. Some of them dump their toxic waste into the gutter and ends up in the sea. Contaminating the beaches is a bad thing. Fortunally, laws are getting made.

Yep, Winddancer is very right... Both scientists and religious people make mistakes. But I think that if we had to break down the real difference between the two, scientists will generally admit their mistakes more readily than religious people. But then again, some of the mistakes scientists make end up being hugely detrimental in their long-term effects... Like nuclear waste and such.

Well, nuclear waste wasn't a mistake, just an unfortunate by-product. The differenc is that scientists make mistakes about facts while religious people make mistakes with stories...

Originally posted by Darth Revan
I was really quoting finti's post, otherwise it would have seemed like I was talking to myself or something 😛

You're missing my point. Very few people in the European/American countries have not heard of Christianity and Jesus. That is not the point. The point is, if somebody is already, say, Hindu, they are not going to simply convert to Christianity because they know it exists. They believe their religion to be the correct one, and Christianity and all others to be false. There is enormous fallacy in the Christian way of thinking that says "one day everyone will know of Jesus's teachings and there will be no excuse to not be a Christian!" Until God himself decides to show everybody beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is the one true religion, there are going to be perfectly decent people who will have gone from cradle to grave without any interest in converting to Christianity. Most, if not all, Muslims know what a Christian is. But they will never actually become Christians, because their religion tells them that Islam is the more correct path. See what I mean?

Yeah i understand what u mean 😄 and u have a really good point. I guess u just need faith in ur religion. I see without a shadow of doubt that Christianity is the one true religion but thats because i believe in it with my whole heart. I guess its the same with any religion. *shrugs* its a hard qn to answer. 😄

Originally posted by Cipher
Well, nuclear waste wasn't a mistake, just an unfortunate by-product. The differenc is that scientists make mistakes about facts while religious people make mistakes with stories...

Heh, interesting way to put that, but very true.

Morningstar> Wow, I actually agree with you partially... 👆

IT HINK THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC REASON FOR EVERY THING IN THE WORLD,RELIGION IS JUST A CREATIVE WAY OF PUTTING IT.

WD> Actually chemists don’t go around dumping toxic wastes anywhere. Factories do.

Darth> You can’t blame nuclear waste on scientists. Yes, it were physicists who discovered radioactivity – people like Madame Curie, Becquerel, and Rontgen. And physicists who discovered how nuclear fission worked, and how we could utilise it in power-plants and bombs.
But the decision to use the bomb, the decision to dump nuclear waste was never made by a scientist. Without these scientists we wouldn’t have X-ray to help at hospitals, or the new ion-drive to power Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter to the Galileian satellites in 2015.
Scientists are supposed to discover facts about nature. That’s what we get paid to do. What’s perhaps unfortunate is if society is not ready to handle a powerful scientific discovery.
But the discoveries can’t be halted. A scientific discovery happens when time is ripe. When research done by many scientists point in THAT direction. Had it not been Curie, some contemporary scientist would’ve discovered radioactivity. Had it not been Einstein, someone else would’ve found the theories of relativity… etc 🙂

Originally posted by The Omega
WD> Actually chemists don’t go around dumping toxic wastes anywhere. Factories do.

That's like saying that Holy Wars were not fought by soldiers, but instead by Popes. Someone has to organize the process of dumping toxic waste into an area. I doubt that CEO of those factories are intellegent enough to do it themselves.

Darinda> Why are you using caps?

Cypher>
"Well, nuclear waste wasn't a mistake, just an unfortunate by-product. The differenc is that scientists make mistakes about facts while religious people make mistakes with stories..."

I don't see a difference, they both still humans despite their knowledge.

Since when does it take any intelegence to dump a bunch of shit in a hole?

Since when does it take any intelegence to dump a bunch of shit in a hole?
you never attended church on Sundays did you

My point was that scientists deal with the real world and the other group deals with fables.
Science isn't supposed to be a replacement for religion (contrary to the beliefs of some) but rather a study of the world around us.

Apparently all religion is in part based upon five monolithic theories, one of which is very closely related to science, in that religion is aimed at explaining the world around us, why it is as it is, indeed giving reason to the cause and event. So both science and religion share important aims which come down to personal interpretation.