Science vs Religion

Originally posted by The Omega
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 🙂

Yes, now that I think about it, you're very right... Kinda like how the guy who invented dynamite didn't want to tell other people about it because he was afraid they'd start using it in wars. Which they did 🙁

Einstein spent much of his later life as an anti atomic bomb activist. It seems that many scientists strive for the betterment of humanity, but there is often a perversion of their achievements. This is not really there fault, although it does show that sometimes scientists are very naive.

That's just the mercury vapour talking...

I think you have mistaken physicist for hat maker.........

The two are very similar. Just say "thread" instead of "vector" and "brim" instead of "photon," and you're set.

So Einstein was actually trying to make a hat when he split the atom, thus changing the face of science as it was known......... quite a mistake I think you will agree "I say, instead of sowing the hat band on I have inavertadly caused a nuclear reaction........."

Yes. He was aiming to make a collosal hat, one so massive that it would, once and for all, hide his hair. It would be idea for the relaxing pursuits he loved so much, hence the term "nuclear fishin'," misspelt by later physicists with no sense of propriety.

FE> You skipped my point that the NT's first books DO contain contradictions

FE> http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.c...a/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.c...prisonment.html
Or here http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.c...ostbaptism.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.

my head is really confused right now... i....dunno how 2 explain!
i think the bi8ble is like a guide line book
i think through the years it has been ...modified
for example if god exist I like REALLY REALLY doubt that he says that homosexuality is bad... so i dunno... i think is just sort of a s\guide line book, but like i said i thjink it mightve been modified but some ppl... so... am not very sure what to believe anymore...

(i still believe in a greater thing tho'😉

If your source of information is flawwed how can you really follow what it teaches? If the Bible [i[has[/i] been modified and changed, and has inaccuracies (which I believe it does) how do you know the religion you practice isnt a perversion of the teaching of Christ?

Omeag I have never looked at that site. I did try to look at it 3 times tonight and I haven't been able to bring it up, so it must be down tonight.

^ yeah it doesnt work for me either

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

search around. You'll be surprised what's found in the king James version, that's been changed from the other transaltions.

An interesting article came up in our reputable Aussie newspaper, the Sydney morning herald which is relevant to this:

"More the a quarter of Australians believe the bible offers a more likely explanation of the origins of life then evolution, an opinion poll shows. More people-43% compared to 28%- preferred science to religion, another 12% were inclined towards a combination of both, while 17% were undecided as to whether the earth was made in six days or millions of years. The poll by UMR research for Hawker Britton, found that women, older people, liberal voters and Queenslanders were less inclined to believe in evolution. People from NSW, people living in inner cities and those earning over $80,000 preferred evolution as an explanation of how we got here. Asked where they thought they would go when they died, 46% of respondents answered heaven, while 16% said somewhere else and 11% said nowhere. Only 3% said hell and and 2% said purgatory. Reflecting the excesses of youth, or perhaps the possibilities of redemption in old age, 7% of people under 30 believed they were heading for purgatory. People earning over $80,000 were less inclined to believe they were headed for heaven, but this group registered the biggest score for "somewhere else". Dr Tom Hubble, a lecturer at the University of Sydney's school of geoscience, who tackled Anglican ArchBishop Peter Jensen on creationism earlier this year, said he was slightly surprised and gratified by the survey. He expected there would be an increase in the number of creationist believers. Hawker Brittons managing director, Bruce Hawker, contrasted the results with the United States, where the poll had shown 50% of people believed in the Biblical account and only 15% for the theory of evolution as it stands now. He said this might be due to the the fact the US had more religious institutions in both education and politics. "There have even been cases of all mention of evolution being banned in schools in the US" he said.

Originally posted by Turbo-Cajun
If your source of information is flawwed how can you really follow what it teaches? If the Bible [i[has[/i] been modified and changed, and has inaccuracies (which I believe it does) how do you know the religion you practice isnt a perversion of the teaching of Christ?

We have scholars to look at the Greek, or Hebrew fragments and retranslate it. Greek and English don't perfectly meld. For instance, the word they use for meek, is the one used for a powerful horse that lets itself be ridden.

Yes, and those scholars have found several misinterpretations, and several counts of "creative editing".

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Yes, and those scholars have found several misinterpretations, and several counts of "creative editing".

Yes, and now we can look at the original meaning thanks to those scholars, if we see one. The creative editing era has ended.

Of course. But do most people do that? No, they still use the incorrect english translations.

To illustrate my answer you're going to have to give me a quote. I'm aiming to point it at the fact that it doesn't matter what the small print of the bible says (e.g. where one bit says that two bears mauled forty two kids, to protect one of the Is, you could suggest that most people would skim over, and others would point out the leprosy insult and the sheer number. Now of course we just observe that they were young men, over 16). But then I don't know enough about what quotes you're going to give, whether you're going to summon up the mythical Q beast, or any of that

There have been wholesale changes to the bible over the centuries and not all of what's been removed has been rediscovered to my knowledge. So we don't know for sure whether the current version is really what the writers intended when they put into words.