War between Science and Religion

[gmase]

Ok but usually if you worship god, you don't call yourself a devil.

It's called ignorance and faith is a copout to avoid the burden of proof. Here are a couple answers; 1, god doesn't exist and shouldn't be worshiped. 2, god doesn't care and shouldn't be worshiped.

Calling other members ignorant is rarely acceptable. It is uncalled for here.

We may disagree with each other, but with items of faith a ‘burden of proof’ is impossible.

What if god and the devil were one in the same? 🤯

 

[Mr. Daystar]

When I was a child, my mom (who was a religious peros, she used to teach catechism for the kids of our neighborhood) told me that Religion and Science could co-exist and do not have to fight each otrher if each one agrees to stay in its "realm of expertise" : namely that Science was there to tell us "How" while religion tells us "Why". I still think she was right.
Unfortunately, Religion often times tries to trespass Science "territory"

That's actually a very good thought. I agree, they MUST go hand in hand.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Calling other members ignorant is rarely acceptable. It is uncalled for here.

We may disagree with each other, but with items of faith a ‘burden of proof’ is impossible.

What if god and the devil were one in the same? 🤯

Geez dude, cool it with that shit, I'm almost out, and my guys out of town.

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

What if god and the devil were one in the same? 🤯

 

[freeryan]

Calling other members ignorant is rarely acceptable. It is uncalled for here.

We may disagree with each other, but with items of faith a ‘burden of proof’ is impossible.

What if god and the devil were one in the same? 🤯

Not if they make an ignorant statement. "I don't know therefore god" Is literally called the argument from ignorance.
Not exactly. It's pretty clear.
In the context of god being the all knowing and all powerful creator, they are the same. Not to mention in the biblical sense, god admits to being the bringer of evil.

 

[gmase]

Prove there is god or prove there is no god. We do not know the answer.

One person’s ignorance is another’s enlightenment. And vice versa.

 

[xfire]

Who said I was a Saint? More importantly, MY WAY of believing, or the faith I have, includes a God with a great sense of humor, and an understanding of each persons way of thinking....so he knows I'm a twisted, fucked up individual, and HE will judge me when it's my time.

And hey, if I was wrong, the worst thing that happens is I'm worm food....but if YOU ARE WRONG, well, you'll be really fucked.

And just because, FUCK YOU, for calling me ignorant, and I have enough proof IN MY MIND....your mind, well that's your little problem.

Pretty much sums up my personal religious views.

 

[freeryan]

Who said I was a Saint? More importantly, MY WAY of believing, or the faith I have, includes a God with a great sense of humor, and an understanding of each persons way of thinking....so he knows I'm a twisted, fucked up individual, and HE will judge me when it's my time.

And hey, if I was wrong, the worst thing that happens is I'm worm food....but if YOU ARE WRONG, well, you'll be really fucked.

And just because, FUCK YOU, for calling me ignorant, and I have enough proof IN MY MIND....your mind, well that's your little problem.

Nobody. What a silly question. Looks like you already judged yourself. Also, if god is all knowing, judging is pointless. "How dare you do what I predestined you to do?" So Irrational.
Another argument from ignorance. If you're wrong and those other religions are right, you're as fucked as me. All can't be right but all can be and are wrong.
You are ignorant and saying 'fuck you' is pathetic and childish. Belief isn't proof, deistic fool who calls himself white devil on a porn site.

 

[freeryan]

When I was a child, my mom (who was a religious peros, she used to teach catechism for the kids of our neighborhood) told me that Religion and Science could co-exist and do not have to fight each otrher if each one agrees to stay in its "realm of expertise" : namely that Science was there to tell us "How" while religion tells us "Why". I still think she was right.
Unfortunately, Religion often times tries to trespass Science "territory"

The problem is science continues to disprove religious claims so the 'why' isn't even necessary.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

The problem is science continues to disprove religious claims so the 'why' isn't even necessary.

It could be that science and religion/spirituality don't have to be at war, Taoism and similar beliefs such as Druidic and alchemy etc used what they must have believed to be scientific methods or at least empirical methods when trying to make discoveries etc.

The 'why' is the start of both scientific and religious/spiritual reasonings, so even if science can disprove things, they'll always be more questions than either science or religion can answer on their own.

Especially religions such as Taoism are accepting of all other religions/beliefs/etc - so that it is never in conflict with anything including modern science.

 

[D-rock]

Prove there is god or prove there is no god. We do not know the answer.

One person’s ignorance is another’s enlightenment. And vice versa.

No, basing one's strength of beliefs off of another person's inability to prove a negative is a pretty faulty way of thinking. The people making a claim something exist have the burden of proof not the other way around.

I don't have a problem with spirituality, and consider myself spiritual, but I also recognize that science can prove a shit ton of stuff to a high degree of accuracy and probability. Religion can prove nothing. They are not equivalent. I never try to pretend otherwise, and I compartmentalize the two because they are so incompatible at what they do. I try not to win arguments using religion because it's not as logical, unless the person I'm arguing with is religious and I'm calling them out on their bullshit and hypocrisy.

At best one might say that religion can teach somebody how to be a good decent person (and then most religious people totally ignore their own teachings and make the point sort of moot.) and religious text aren't science textbooks and were never meant to be. The opposite is also true. Science isn't a tool to teach others to be good people.

One however is VERY superior when it comes to dealing with logical facts and how things work. Science is by far the greatest tool humanity has ever come up with to understand the nature of the universe and reality. It's not even close, and I say that as a religious person. Bad things happen when religion is used for that purpose instead.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Nobody. What a silly question. Looks like you already judged yourself. Also, if god is all knowing, judging is pointless. "How dare you do what I predestined you to do?" So Irrational.
Another argument from ignorance. If you're wrong and those other religions are right, you're as fucked as me. All can't be right but all can be and are wrong.
You are ignorant and saying 'fuck you' is pathetic and childish. Belief isn't proof, deistic fool who calls himself white devil on a porn site.

Okay, I see what the deal is hear. You're one of those whiny little shit bags, that can't accept anyone else's point of view, or accept anything anyone else might believe, if it doesn't agree with you. See, I could give 2 flying fucks less, what you believe, or anybody else for that matter. I believe what I want, it works for me. As far as being childish, and pathetic, yeah, but since I couldn't actually reach across the table, and bitch slap you, it was all I had to work with. So basically, put me on ignore, I'm not having a battle of the wits, with an unarmed dip shit.

 

[Johan]

The problem is science continues to disprove religious claims so the 'why' isn't even necessary.

It disproves Religion when Religion tries to do Science, when ity tries to explain how things work. Alos, sacred texts contain very few "scienticic" material. For example the geocentric model that was disproved by Galileo and Copernicus isn't established in the Bible or the Talmud (I don't know enough about Islam to say wether it is or not established in the Quran).. It was established by some religious scholars

 

[mikexmoran]

Live and let live, I’ve always thought was a good strategy.
The problem is that many who are “religious” and many who consider themselves “scientific” don’t seem to agree with me. I guess I’ll refer to my own strategy.

Ol’ Ben Franklin said that he believed in God. He thought it was better to do so in case he ended up meeting him. If he was wrong it wouldn’t matter.

“I believe in the soul..the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman’s back, the hanging curveball, high fiber, good scotch, that novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitution Amendment outlawing Astroturf And the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography , opening your presents on Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep soft wet kisses that last for three days. “

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Live and let live, I’ve always thought was a good strategy.
The problem is that many who are “religious” and many who consider themselves “scientific” don’t seem to agree with me. I guess I’ll refer to my own strategy.

Ol’ Ben Franklin said that he believed in God. He thought it was better to do so in case he ended up meeting him. If he was wrong it wouldn’t matter.

“I believe in the soul..the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman’s back, the hanging curveball, high fiber, good scotch, that novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitution Amendment outlawing Astroturf And the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography , opening your presents on Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep soft wet kisses that last for three days. “

See, I agree with that, if you want to disregard a higher power, that's on you, but don't treat me like I'm a dip shit because I have faith, I don't go around trying to save souls, or picket abortion clinics. I'm just trying to make it through life, like everyone else. Oh, and I got the hank venture line in your post, good job.

 

[mikexmoran]

See, I agree with that, if you want to disregard a higher power, that's on you, but don't treat me like I'm a dip shit because I have faith, I don't go around trying to save souls, or picket abortion clinics. I'm just trying to make it through life, like everyone else. Oh, and I got the hank venture line in your post, good job.

Lol..the last quote was actually Kevin Costner’s Crash Davis from Bull Durham.

 

[freeryan]

Some just can't handle their beliefs being criticized. It's really sad and pathetic but to be expected. Emotional attachments to beliefs bring emotional responses towards criticism. Truly shows the lack of conviction.

 

[freeryan]

It could be that science and religion/spirituality don't have to be at war, Taoism and similar beliefs such as Druidic and alchemy etc used what they must have believed to be scientific methods or at least empirical methods when trying to make discoveries etc.

The 'why' is the start of both scientific and religious/spiritual reasonings, so even if science can disprove things, they'll always be more questions than either science or religion can answer on their own.

Especially religions such as Taoism are accepting of all other religions/beliefs/etc - so that it is never in conflict with anything including modern science.

The problem is when religion asserts claim a-z as fact. The foundation of the religion is based on an infallible authority and once the claims under that authority are proven wrong, the religion denies it or makes excuses. Science never claims to know everything but it is a self-checking method.

 

[freeryan]

Okay, I see what the deal is hear. You're one of those whiny little shit bags, that can't accept anyone else's point of view, or accept anything anyone else might believe, if it doesn't agree with you. See, I could give 2 flying fucks less, what you believe, or anybody else for that matter. I believe what I want, it works for me. As far as being childish, and pathetic, yeah, but since I couldn't actually reach across the table, and bitch slap you, it was all I had to work with. So basically, put me on ignore, I'm not having a battle of the wits, with an unarmed dip shit.

You're clearly not intellectually or emotionally ready for these types of discussions. How ironic given your banner condemning political correctness. Also you subtly threatened me with eternal damnation so stop crying. You have beliefs you can't defend. Period.

 

[VillellaMcMeans]

The problem is when religion asserts claim a-z as fact. The foundation of the religion is based on an infallible authority and once the claims under that authority are proven wrong, the religion denies it or makes excuses. Science never claims to know everything but it is a self-checking method.

I agree. Furthermore, the problem is when religion starts to govern - like governments that infringe on individual rights and freedoms, when religions start to police others like government do, when religion and fascism become the same thing.

Some religious groups are fascist, others less so.

So I think the adversarial problem is not with science or with religion, the adversity problem is with the people that use science or religion to control others.

As I mentioned above, religions such as Taoism and other similar indigenous spiritually/religions do not have the same adversity with science that the Christian sects do, probably because the Catholic Church is as powerful in controlling people as many governments are.