Conquer Club

well its hardly news.. but as our scientific understanding of the natural world has increased it seems to be aligning more and more with theological interpretations of the universe, particularly in light of recent research on sub-atomic particles, causality and randomness. i like that this redresses the balance between supposedly polar opposites but i find it worrying that people are still happy enough to claim the earth is ten thousand years old. darwin had the right idea i think, he always seemed to write with deference to his god.. which makes creationism a very nasty train of thought. a bit like donkey sex on a sunday. there was a question somewhere..

'to what extent do you feel that science and religion are the same thing?'

found it! right on.

keep it lively gents

Science is a religion for many people, nothing wrong with it as long as people admit it. The problem is that for many people, they cannot come to terms with their faith in science because it means science requires the same kind of belief required for religion.

I do find it entertaining that the more our knowledge grows the more convergent religion and science become. It is disturbing to the extremist of both camps (atheist and Godders) that the more we learn the closer and closer science and religion become.

Somewhere in modern Christianity the logical conclusion of the belief that we are all children of God got lost.

Every parent wants their children to grow up and be as smart, wealthy, successful, happy as the parent. The two conclusions that get lost by most Christian faiths are:

1. If we are children of God, we will eventually grow up to become like God.

2. We are going to have to grow up and get to the reality of our potential by research, experience, and education.

As a Christian and a firm believer in science and evolution I am disturbed by mainstream Christians willing ignorance of our responsibility, potential, and purpose as children of God. Christianity has been twisted into an excuse as to why we do not have to work, and why our spiritual and intellectual laziness is exactly what God wants.

Not all Christians think this way, but the Christian religion of excuses is the most popular interpretation.

Religion, like science, is not supposed to be easy.

nice hari...

wait.. what am i saying?!

ban all PCs.

khazalid wrote:nice hari...

wait.. what am i saying?!

ban all PCs.

lol. Amen to that. I might actually get some work done.

Harijan wrote:Science is a religion for many people, nothing wrong with it as long as people admit it. The problem is that for many people, they cannot come to terms with their faith in science because it means science requires the same kind of belief required for religion.

I do find it entertaining that the more our knowledge grows the more convergent religion and science become. It is disturbing to the extremist of both camps (atheist and Godders) that the more we learn the closer and closer science and religion become.

Somewhere in modern Christianity the logical conclusion of the belief that we are all children of God got lost.

Every parent wants their children to grow up and be as smart, wealthy, successful, happy as the parent. The two conclusions that get lost by most Christian faiths are:

1. If we are children of God, we will eventually grow up to become like God.

2. We are going to have to grow up and get to the reality of our potential by research, experience, and education.

As a Christian and a firm believer in science and evolution I am disturbed by mainstream Christians willing ignorance of our responsibility, potential, and purpose as children of God. Christianity has been twisted into an excuse as to why we do not have to work, and why our spiritual and intellectual laziness is exactly what God wants.

Not all Christians think this way, but the Christian religion of excuses is the most popular interpretation.

Religion, like science, is not supposed to be easy.

I'm not sure how much I want to get into this with you, because your use of complete sentences is intimidating, but I'd like to reassert that religion and science are different in the realm of repetitive testing. We can define science as a religion all we want; the main factor is that one is based (not necessarily entirely) on revelation, and the other is based on observation. Neither of those is infallible, but one is certainly more reliable, taken on the whole (all of science as compared to all, particularly the most popular, religions), than the other.

Personally I believe both. I think a lot of the evidence provided by science is increasingly undeniable (regarding the universe, big bang, etc) but I believe that there is still space for "proper" religion (Christianity personally but perhaps each religion is just another interpretation of the same stuff). I think the Bible is figurative. The Big Bang theory had to have a massive energy source from somewhere and there is evidence to suggest that it could have been a celestial being - ie God. In my opinion, sensible or not, through the Big Bang God created our world. First the sun and stars, then sea, then plants, then fish, then land animals, then us (don't ask me to recount the seven days perfectly). This all happened as in the order that is in the Bible, just over a greater time period

Neoteny wrote:I'm not sure how much I want to get into this with you, because your use of complete sentences is intimidating, but I'd like to reassert that religion and science are different in the realm of repetitive testing. We can define science as a religion all we want; the main factor is that one is based (not necessarily entirely) on revelation, and the other is based on observation. Neither of those is infallible, but one is certainly more reliable, taken on the whole (all of science as compared to all, particularly the most popular, religions), than the other.

Your argument is valid. However, I would counter that we, as a species simply are not yet intelligent or competent enough to replicate and test what religion asserts to be true. Even according to scientific law, we can neither refute or accept those hypotheses that we cannot test. Science cannot touch religious theory because of this basic scientific rule....yet.

On the flip side, religion has millions of scientifically valid observations, but cannot test those observations because humans lack the ability to replicate such complicated conditions for a test.

And so the debate will continue.

Ummm...I really trying to find a history book about these "facts" of yours, but cannot locate any...please make sure that you cite any of your "knowledge" with the appropriate references from a well-known historian.

mmmk?

Guistard wrote:Ummm...I really trying to find a history book about these "facts" of yours, but cannot locate any...please make sure that you cite any of your "knowledge" with the appropriate references from a well-known historian.

mmmk?

Not sure if this is directed at me. In my mildly paranoid reality I suspect it is, and that you are pissed because I called into question something you said on another thread.

The reason I think this is because you are asking for historical facts on a thread that has virtually no disputed historical references. I post enough that you could have waited for a better opportunity for your tiny blue-dart of a flame.

I like your posts, I find your writing intelligent and interesting, but I am not going to sit back and take everything you say as gospel (pardon the pun) like most do on this site.

When Tanked called into question something I said on that thread I didn't take it personally, I acknowledged that I might be wrong and promised to look into it (which I have not done yet). Apparently, you are unable to act with the same level of maturity which I find mildly...disappointing.

Now, if I am wrong feel free to correct me.

If I am right, I am still waiting for you to back up what you said with at least one reference, and until then, I will continue to discount whatever you have to say.

Just because you have a "fan club" is no reason to go all academically flaccid on us.

Guistard wrote:Ummm...I really trying to find a history book about these "facts" of yours, but cannot locate any...please make sure that you cite any of your "knowledge" with the appropriate references from a well-known historian.

mmmk?

MEGALOLZ

You really are a history noob. Just because you have developed some form of thinking that is not neccassarily written down in a history book, doesnt mean to say it is "alternative" in any way.

Seriously, half of your "facts" arent even looked at by my senior historian buddies on my post-grad course...if it isnt written by somebody, with an esteemed, politically correct agenda, it isn't true, ok?

ROFL - hehe I am a victim of my own funny.

LOL hook....line...sinker

swallowed it all.

Norse! You came back! We've missed you. I think suggs has suspected two other people of being you already since you dropped by the last time, he's been showing serious symptoms of withdrawal.

Absolute lol, i literally read the entire thing untill i noticed the post count (then the username)

Back on topic, I actually agree with almost all that has been said. However, I would also debate that science is a religion. Agreed, some people treat it as such, but only because it provides useful arguments against creationists. Science is the logical and experemental process for deducting the most probable explanations for the workings of the universe. Any good scientist has to admit that there is a possibility that every theory they know of is wrong, but also knows that the proberbility of this is small (with that proberbility being larger the less established a theory is) , and should a theory be proved wrong, it is more likely to be proved wrong by another scientific theory than a religious text.

This is not to say I find the existence of a creator entirely unlikely, I think it is quite possible, but the chances of it being the christian god (or any other god/s of a major religion) seem extreamly unlikely. However, if scientific advancement continues at their current rate, I may one day find somthing that changes what i think. I doubt however that the is there a god question will ever be answered finally.

Harijan wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I'm not sure how much I want to get into this with you, because your use of complete sentences is intimidating, but I'd like to reassert that religion and science are different in the realm of repetitive testing. We can define science as a religion all we want; the main factor is that one is based (not necessarily entirely) on revelation, and the other is based on observation. Neither of those is infallible, but one is certainly more reliable, taken on the whole (all of science as compared to all, particularly the most popular, religions), than the other.

Your argument is valid. However, I would counter that we, as a species simply are not yet intelligent or competent enough to replicate and test what religion asserts to be true. Even according to scientific law, we can neither refute or accept those hypotheses that we cannot test. Science cannot touch religious theory because of this basic scientific rule....yet.

On the flip side, religion has millions of scientifically valid observations, but cannot test those observations because humans lack the ability to replicate such complicated conditions for a test.

And so the debate will continue.

I believe the requisite response has something to do with the fact that there is no reason to posit any of these things in the first place if they cannot be refuted or accepted. But I'll let this one lie. It's my holy day and I might not be coherent later...

Science is a good thing but it's way too easy to distort.

Gregrios wrote:Science is a good thing but it's way too easy to distort.

As opposed to, say, religion?

Religion = old way of unification/acquiring power
Science = improving the human race through development of Technologies..

i thinking maybe science is better?

harijan i feel like its worth mentioning....i didnt want to call you out. I was just surprised given the amount of things that were brought up in collapse that you remembered a seemingly less relavant thing such as sexual procivility and the fall of said civilization. It was more a testament to your powers of retention than a shot.

got tonkaed wrote:harijan i feel like its worth mentioning....i didnt want to call you out. I was just surprised given the amount of things that were brought up in collapse that you remembered a seemingly less relavant thing such as sexual procivility and the fall of said civilization. It was more a testament to your powers of retention than a shot.

yeah, except I tried to find the section last night and couldn't. Now I have to figure out where I pulled that from and correct myself.

Harijan wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:harijan i feel like its worth mentioning....i didnt want to call you out. I was just surprised given the amount of things that were brought up in collapse that you remembered a seemingly less relavant thing such as sexual procivility and the fall of said civilization. It was more a testament to your powers of retention than a shot.

yeah, except I tried to find the section last night and couldn't. Now I have to figure out where I pulled that from and correct myself.

lol well in that case...let me shift my stance to "I was calling you out" to get the maximum amount of street cred until you find the section and i will then change my stance back to "I wasnt calling you out" to save maximum face.

khazalid wrote:...a bit like donkey sex on a sunday... keep it lively gents

...