3 points:
1) it would not render scientific understanding void, nor even atheism. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Some religious doctrines and some science are mutually exclusive.
2) Faith is believing something which is not yet proven so, yes, I guess I am. So are you. You have faith that there is no soul, for example.
3) 'Because it is a load of bollocks' is the same argument as 'because God says so' and is, frankly, not a valid scientific argument.
My assumption is that you are an anti-religious fundy and, as such, I shall not try and talk to you rationally.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:37,
Share,
Reply)
being anti relegion is just breing anti making shit up
the whole problem with relgion is that the relgious beilfs are carefully constructed so that they cant be proved or disproved. if you look at carl popper he wil say that you should hold a theory intill its disproven but if that theory can not be proved or disproved then its not a scintific theory. materlism is the best theory we have at the moment. is it worth testing that theory? of course, but faith and all that shit will always get in the way of science
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:44, Share, Reply)
But we are not in any position to test whether or not Hawkins Radiation is real at the moment, but that does not invalidate it.
Likewise, many of us accept that the level of data in favour of evolution is strong enough to accept. That alters the belief of many who previously might have followed doctrine which dictates ID.
In the future more elements of religious belief will be either confirmed or rejected (not everything in the Bible (for example) is wrong, it is just old knowledge).
The fundamental centre of religion 'is there a divine force' does not really enter into science at all, since it doesn't really matter a fig whether a black hole radiates because someone wants it to or just because it does. What matters is whether it radiates and how that affects the universe around it.
Science is being used as an anti religious tool lately and, frankly, I think it demeans science.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:56,
Share,
Reply)
YES
Science and religion are not polar opposites.
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:38,
Share,
Reply)
Why?
I myself am a Christian. However, I am also a fully signed up member of the earthicans.
My religion however, is my interpretation. You can not tarnish the whole religious world with the views of a minority of people. And at the same time, I will not tar the whole scientific community with your fundamentalism.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:59,
Share,
Reply)
It never ceases to amaze me
how upset religious types get when the facts are stated
It is simply a fact that religion and science are incompatible. Science seeks to disprove theories by experiment, religion seeks to perpetuate theories by faith.
You can label me as as a fundy if you wish; my stance is based in rationality alone after all. It would appear that yours is rather more emotive and subjective. Emotions and subjective opinion are fallible and provide no credible basis for scientific decision-making, unlike facts and probability.
(
chart cat has an itch, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:11,
Share,
Reply)
OK,
well explain to me how I can believe in Evolution and such, but at the same time treat people in a way that I would like to be treated myself? Because that is what my religion is for me.
Surely that makes them compatible?
It is a silly person who confuses Doctrine with Religion.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:14,
Share,
Reply)
Can you explain
why an atheist like me also treats others as I would like to be treated myself. Some of us do it because it's the right thing to do, religion has nothing to do with it.
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:04, Share, Reply)
I totally agree,
being a nice person is not the sole right of religious people. However, I take guidance from my religion on how to live my life. Exactly the same way as I am sure that you, as me, also learnt from society how to be a thoroughly nice chap!
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:11,
Share,
Reply)
Could you please explain your argument as it relates to quakerism?
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:17,
Share,
Reply)
Could you offer some detail on why you think they are?
(
gronkpan https://twitter.com/VomitingLarry, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:12,
Share,
Reply)
I hate to pop in here,
but can you please start writing materialism. It is starting to grate.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:56,
Share,
Reply)
I am an an athesist but agree with you
though I'm not sure that your argument 2)
really stands up, the same point could be made about not believing that there are little blue aliens living in the core of the moon, I don't believe there are, but I have no proof that there are not, the same applies to my lack of belief in God, to me its best to use Occam's Razor: No more things should be assumed to exist than are absolutely necessary
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:49, Share, Reply)
In a test to see whether there are people floating above their bodies,
the assumption that they might be is necessary.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:52,
Share,
Reply)
I agree in this case there is a phenomena to be explained
so assumptions/ideas/theories should be put to the test, people do have weird experiences when near death, and there seems to be some concordance between the experiences that different people have, why is this the case? lets try and find out...
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:59, Share, Reply)
with Derek Acorah
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:32,
Share,
Reply)
I use this theory for my underpants
I have 8 pairs, which essentially is one too many for the week, but the eighth is there in case I shit myself, therefore God doesn't exist, QED.
(
Brandy_Bumwinkle, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:54,
Share,
Reply)
