Is Science Better Than Religion?

[Bunyip]

Science is great in describing what is, how the stars are made, but looking at the stars without this knowledge and seeing the stars as they truly are, is another story, knowledge cannot give you that poetic feeling of how we see the stars, feeling we are a part of the stars, no science can do that, this inner feeling is what I can true religion, not the religion that has been organized, that's dead religion, as also science is dead without the poetic stream of life.

I would think that it is exactly, that sense of wonder and awe that drives scientists.

 

[Bunyip]

I made the claim in my post #187...correct....and you in the very next post #188 claimed that......"This thread is about science and religion, your definition of God relates to neither"

That is not an admission that you believe the cosmos/Brahman/the universe exists...it says my definition does not relate to either religion or science...

Correct. As I said, nobody here is denying the existence of the cosmos. And yes, your definition does not relate to either religion or science.

 

[psychoslice]

I would think that it is exactly, that sense of wonder and awe that drives scientists.

Oh yes that can be true, look at Einstein, he was a mystic at heart, but not religious as we know it is.

 

[Bunyip]

Oh yes that can be true, look at Einstein, he was a mystic at heart, but not religious as we know it is.

I feel exactly the sense of awe, wonder and mystery when talking to a friend of mine who is an astronomer as I used to feel listening to the choir in Church.

 

[psychoslice]

I feel exactly the sense of awe, wonder and mystery when talking to a friend of mine who is an astronomer as I used to feel listening to the choir in Church.

I see you as a Mystic, not religious, that would be insulting you lol.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Correct. As I said, nobody here is denying the existence of the cosmos. And yes, your definition does not relate to either religion or science.

So show me why my understanding of the concept off Brahman as the Cosmos does not relate to religion?

 

[Bunyip]

I see you as a Mystic, not religious, that would be insulting you lol.

Sure, I can live with that. Cheers

 

[Bunyip]

So show me why my understanding of the concept off Brahman as the Cosmos does not relate to religion?

Sure, it is simply a different label for 'cosmos'. As I said a couple of times before Ben - call it whatever you like. Call it the universe, Brahman, Larry I accept it exists. Applying a different name to the cosmos is not religion pers se Ben.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sure, it is simply a different label for 'cosmos'. As I said a couple of times before Ben - call it whatever you like. Call it the universe, Brahman, Larry I accept it exists. Applying a different name to the cosmos is not religion pers se Ben.

The academic site shows you that the concept of Brahman is considered as the Cosmos, for thousands of years....Brahman and the Cosmos are one and the same...

 

[Bunyip]

The academic site shows you that the concept of Brahman is considered as the Cosmos, for thousands of years....Brahman and the Cosmos are one and the same...

Yes Ben, I know that. Brahman and the cosmos are the same.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes Ben, I know that. Brahman and the cosmos are the same.

...and is a recognized religious understanding of God?

 

[Bunyip]

...and is a recognized religious understanding of God?

Correct Ben. And of course a recognised understanding of god and a religion are not the same thing are they?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Correct Ben. And of course a recognised understanding of god and a religion are not the same thing are they?

Culturally, religious sects may differ in the understanding of what the concept of God represents...and the truth is that the ultimate reality is forever on the other side of all conceptual understanding regardless... It is the religious practice that is important...that is a subjective journey....not a conceptual intellectual one...

 

[Bunyip]

Culturally, religious sects may differ in the understanding of what the concept of God represents...and the truth is that the ultimate reality is forever on the other side of all conceptual understanding regardless... It is the religious practice that is important...that is a subjective journey....not a conceptual intellectual one...

Agreed.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What exactly did I say that made no sense...and provide the context as you understood it....

No, I wrote "You and Bunyip had an exchange which ended with you basically telling them that what they said made no sense"

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I wrote "You and Bunyip had an exchange which ended with you basically telling them that what they said made no sense"

I still have no idea what you are talking about....back in post #137...you said this ...."Really? What they said was extremely clear. You're asserting that atheists make claims about "big bang theory, zero point energy, dark matter, quantum vacuum", but these claims are neither required of nor exclusive to atheism."

My response was to imply that you did not understand the context...and you keep accusing me of something that is not true... I have been asking you to provide context...surely since you are upset that I asserted that atheists make claims about "big bang theory, zero point energy, dark matter, quantum vacuum....you are able to go back and find the incriminating posts, quotes and context... I would do it if it were there, but I have no idea where you got your idea....it just doesn't exist outside your misunderstanding..

Do it or shrink away....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I still have no idea what you are talking about....back in post #137...you said this ...."Really? What they said was extremely clear. You're asserting that atheists make claims about "big bang theory, zero point energy, dark matter, quantum vacuum", but these claims are neither required of nor exclusive to atheism."

My response was to imply that you did not understand the context...and you keep accusing me of something that is not true...

What have I accused you of? That comment was in response to you posting this:

Why are you like outhouse and other atheist members replying with multiple posts...a lot of this stuff you post is redundant, unclear, confusing, and is simply not good enough for an honest debate..

In response to this exchange:

Well atheism and agnosticism make no claims , so that is - as you say redundant.

What on earth are we supposed to be talking about....do you think religious folk are the only members here that reference scientific claims like big bang theory, zero point energy, dark matter, quantum vacuum, etc.?

All of those fields are the same regardless of atheism, agnosticism or theism. They are a different issue. Science is the same whether atheist, agnostic or theist. It is irrelevant.

You quite clearly wrote "do you think religious folk are the only members here that reference scientific claims like big bang theory, zero point energy, dark matter, quantum vacuum, etc" in response to Bunyip explaining "Well atheism and agnosticism make no claims", implying that atheists and agnostics "make claims" about those things you listed.

This really isn't that difficult understand.

I have been asking you to provide context...surely since you are upset that I asserted that atheists make claims about "big bang theory, zero point energy, dark matter, quantum vacuum....you are able to go back and find the incriminating posts, quotes and context... I would do it if it were there, but I have no idea where you got your idea....it just doesn't exist outside your misunderstanding..

Do it or shrink away....

Again, acting rude and patronizing when I made no accusations whatsoever - and merely CLARIFIED a point made by another poster - does not do you any favours. You're behaving like a ridiculous child. Either deal with me respectfully or stop dealing with me at all. I have been nothing but respectful and polite with you, and I expect decency in return.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You quite clearly wrote "do you think religious folk are the only members here that reference scientific claims like big bang theory, zero point energy, dark matter, quantum vacuum, etc" in response to Bunyip explaining "Well atheism and agnosticism make no claims", implying that atheists and agnostics "make claims" about those things you listed.

Bunyip post #117 Religious teachings do not need to be amenable to the scientific method - but scientific claims made by the religious do.

Ben post # 118 Of course,,,,that's how science works....

Bunyip post # 119. No, that is how honesty works.

Ben post # 120 Hold on...you made a statement that implied scientific claims by religious people should amenable to the scientific method...yes? I replied that yes, that's the way science works...yes? And now you contradict your first post and instead imply it is honesty, and not scientific claims that should be amenable to the scientific method, because that's the way honesty works?

Bunyip post # 121 What contradiction? You must have misread. That scientific claims made by religious people must be amenable to the scientific method is a simply question of honesty.

Ben post # 124 Look, lets keep everyone honest with this addition....It is simply a question of honesty that scientific claims made by atheists, agnostics, and especially agnostic atheists, must be amenable to the scientific method..

Bunyip post #125 .Well atheism and agnosticism make no claims , so that is - as you say redundant.

Bunyip post # 126 What claim did you have in mind?

Ben post # 127 What on earth are we supposed to be talking about....do you think religious folk are the only members here that reference scientific claims like big bang theory, zero point energy, dark matter, quantum vacuum, etc.? (In response to #125)

Ben post # 128 What scientific claims do you have in mind? (In response to # 126)

Bunyip post # 130 All of those fields are the same regardless of atheism, agnosticism or theism. They are a different issue. Science is the same whether atheist, agnostic or theist. It is irrelevant.

Ben post # 132 I know that...but you said in response to my commenting that is was a question of honesty that scientific claims made by atheists, agnostics, and especially agnostic atheists, must be amenable to the scientific method...."Well atheism and agnosticism make no claims , so that is - as you say redundant."....So anyway...we now agree that the same honesty is required by all parties...yes.. Btw, I dislike wasting time....can you try and concentrate before you post? No need to answer....

Bunyip post # 133 Nice. And yes, atheists, agnostics and theists all bear the same burden of evidence for whatever claims they make.

...and that is where the exchange ends with no loose ends that I could see except for the run around I had to go through to get closure where we had agreement....so I gave Bunyip a serve for that when I posted # 135 "Why are you like outhouse and other atheist members replying with multiple posts...a lot of this stuff you post is redundant, unclear, confusing, and is simply not good enough for an honest debate."

Now if you bother to read through this exchange, and can make sense of it...you may now understand why I was short with Bunyip.....what a lot of posts to get agreement that the rules are the same fora all....and you hopefully understand how unhappy I am to have to waste my time compiling all this nonsense to clear up your misunderstanding....

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip post #117 Religious teachings do not need to be amenable to the scientific method - but scientific claims made by the religious do.

Ben post # 118 Of course,,,,that's how science works....

Bunyip post # 119. No, that is how honesty works.

Ben post # 120 Hold on...you made a statement that implied scientific claims by religious people should amenable to the scientific method...yes? I replied that yes, that's the way science works...yes? And now you contradict your first post and instead imply it is honesty, and not scientific claims that should be amenable to the scientific method, because that's the way honesty works?

Bunyip post # 121 What contradiction? You must have misread. That scientific claims made by religious people must be amenable to the scientific method is a simply question of honesty.

Ben post # 124 Look, lets keep everyone honest with this addition....It is simply a question of honesty that scientific claims made by atheists, agnostics, and especially agnostic atheists, must be amenable to the scientific method..

Bunyip post #125 .Well atheism and agnosticism make no claims , so that is - as you say redundant.

Bunyip post # 126 What claim did you have in mind?

Ben post # 127 What on earth are we supposed to be talking about....do you think religious folk are the only members here that reference scientific claims like big bang theory, zero point energy, dark matter, quantum vacuum, etc.? (In response to #125)

Ben post # 128 What scientific claims do you have in mind? (In response to # 126)

Bunyip post # 130 All of those fields are the same regardless of atheism, agnosticism or theism. They are a different issue. Science is the same whether atheist, agnostic or theist. It is irrelevant.

Ben post # 132
I know that...but you said in response to my commenting that is was a question of honesty that scientific claims made by atheists, agnostics, and especially agnostic atheists, must be amenable to the scientific method...."Well atheism and agnosticism make no claims , so that is - as you say redundant."....So anyway...we now agree that the same honesty is required by all parties...yes.. Btw, I dislike wasting time....can you try and concentrate before you post? No need to answer....

Bunyip post # 133 Nice. And yes, atheists, agnostics and theists all bear the same burden of evidence for whatever claims they make.

...and that is where the exchange ends with no loose ends that I could see except for the run around I had to go through to get closure where we had agreement....so I gave Bunyip a serve for that when I posted # 135 "Why are you like outhouse and other atheist members replying with multiple posts...a lot of this stuff you post is redundant, unclear, confusing, and is simply not good enough for an honest debate."

Now if you bother to read through this exchange...you may now understand why I was short with Bunyip.....what a lot of posts to get agreement that the rules are the same fora all....and you hopefully understand how unhappy I am to have to waste my time compiling all this nonsense to clear up your misunderstanding....

What was the problem? Reading the exchange again I was polite, on topic and perfectly rational. The point that atheism makes no scientific claims remains apparently lost to you. I stand by everything I said and am happy to clarify whatever has confused you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

(edited for brevity)
Now if you bother to read through this exchange...you may now understand why I was short with Bunyip.....what a lot of posts to get agreement that the rules are the same fora all....and you hopefully understand how unhappy I am to have to waste my time compiling all this nonsense to clear up your misunderstanding....

And, yet again, I fail to see where my misunderstanding lies. I was clarifying a post made by Bunyip which YOU CLEARLY STATED WAS CONFUSING. Where is the misunderstanding, exactly?