Is Science Better Than Religion?

[Unification]

Speak for yourself.

You have no credibility to speak for the rest of us.

Not surprising the question after the comma was left out so you can take another low blow at someone.

 

[Unification]

Um....no mate. Not when the 'information' in that case is a reference to units of electronic data. The fact there has been an increase since computers have existed is hardly a surprise is it?

Not at all, always happy to see the revelation and increase of knowledge and life, the infinite potential of mankind.

 

[outhouse]

Not surprising the question after the comma was left out so you can take another low blow at someone.

Asking you to not speak for others is not a low blow.

Asking you for credible academic sources, and then not to pervert the ones you do post, is also not a low blow.

 

[Unification]

Asking you to not speak for others is not a low blow.

Asking you for credible academic sources, and then not to pervert the ones you do post, is also not a low blow.

No one is speaking for others. I'm an other, please don't speak for me. Why don't you answer the question? Have you experienced many lives or is this the only one you have and will?

I don't pickle-kiss credibility, or do this to please your needs. All beings are a credible source, including you individually and myself individually. According to science, we are an equal extension of one another, why deem others more credible than others? Your abstract way of thinking is pseudo-science.

 

[Shad]

Then we die, living one life under control and rules with no purpose, and it not mattering if something was true or false, correct? so why debate?

Simply for the reason that many people inject their religious beliefs into society and demand everyone follow their beliefs or it's laws. People inject their beliefs into science, like you have done.

A drug is also chemicals, and in order for delusion to exist, the combination of physical chemicals creating a single delusive thought would be creating something from nothing still. Balance or imbalance, still physical chemicals in a physical brain. You've just states pseudo-science. Please provide a credible source for the imbalance creating a delusive thought. You're under your own rules too.

Nope as the drug chemicals and brain chemistry are both presents in the scenario these are two sources for the delusion. It was never nothing.

DrugFacts: Hallucinogens - LSD, Peyote, Psilocybin, and PCP | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
Hallucinations and hearing voices - NHS Choices
Hallucinations: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

According to science, the brain is immaterial.

Nope. Otherwise any surgery on the brain would be pointless.

Of course I accept the abstract, however, most of the abstract is indirect pseudo-science to science. My problem isn't anything out of my comfort zone. I'm not limited. I have no rules or regulations. One cannot weave their way in and out of science as they please and demand someone else not. It is hypocritical. The only way to fully accept the abstract is is to leave science.

The abstract is not science it is philosphical thus you point has no merit

You have no standards thus you have no criteria to use to provide evidence for your views to others.

 

[Shad]

Is it a coincidence that knowledge, information, and advancements accelerated at great rates since 1987?

Twenty-five years after supernova 1987A

Funny, your source says nothing about the Nova being the cause of all advancement. Do you read what you link? Do you assume that no one else reads what you fail to read. You are grasping a straws

 

[Unification]

Simply for the reason that many people inject their religious beliefs into society and demand everyone follow their beliefs or it's laws. People inject their beliefs into science, like you have done.



Nope as the drug chemicals and brain chemistry are both presents in the scenario these are two sources for the delusion. It was never nothing.

DrugFacts: Hallucinogens - LSD, Peyote, Psilocybin, and PCP | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
Hallucinations and hearing voices - NHS Choices
Hallucinations: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia



Nope. Otherwise any surgery on the brain would be pointless.



The abstract is not science it is philosphical thus you point has no merit

You have no standards thus you have no criteria to use to provide evidence for your views to others.

The entire point is that science does the same. It's beliefs and laws, rules and control induced into minds and society.

Just as in the link that I sent:

"1. Hallucinations cannot be the source of real information .

Western knowledge considers hallucinations to be at the
best illusions and at the worst morbid phenomena."

"So Dr. Narby, right there realized his dilemma."

"But on the other hand as Dr Narby states, its origin
cannot be discussed scientifically because it contradicts
the axioms of Western Knowledge."

"Its like alternative medicine. It works but it shouldn't because
it is not taught in medical school."

Bringing up articles of hallucinations, delusion, etc. is being hypocritical and falls in pseudo-science itself.

My points are not to point out the abstract hypocrisies of science, it is to point out the individual's lack of awareness to all of this and how blaming and pointing fingers at others and religions is weak and one needs to look in the mirror themselves, and that they are under control to systematic science of religion themselves, limiting their conscious potential to themselves and others creating divide and bias.

You've dismissed that link completely, yet are ignorant/unaware that you're doing the same thing here.

I can enjoy life, science, consciousness, and others without being under controls, rules, forced to comply and the feeling of need to fit into groups. I fit into all humanity as one and unique, collectively. In the middle.

"Not science, no merit, no standards, evidence"... I'm not a rock. I choose not to be limited, under control, under rules, create biased divide, and be ignorant to others.

 

[Shad]

The entire point is that science does the same. It's beliefs and laws, rules and control induced into minds and society.

Nope as science and it's standards are not enforced in every part of society. Most people do not use these standard in their day to day activities nor required to do so. These rules only apply to the scientific scope and it's fields. It is nothing like the justice system with it's laws which apply to everyone within a society.

Just as in the link that I sent:

"1. Hallucinations cannot be the source of real information .

Western knowledge considers hallucinations to be at the
best illusions and at the worst morbid phenomena."

"So Dr. Narby, right there realized his dilemma."

"But on the other hand as Dr Narby states, its origin
cannot be discussed scientifically because it contradicts
the axioms of Western Knowledge."

"Its like alternative medicine. It works but it shouldn't because
it is not taught in medical school."

In which he never produced a experiment showing any reliability of this "information transfer". He just admitted he can not meet the standards of science thus has dismissed the standards only to produce empty assertions.

Bringing up articles of hallucinations, delusion, etc. is being hypocritical and falls in pseudo-science itself.

Nope. You asked for examples of chemistry and drug use which I provided. One follows a standard in which drugs cause hallucinations while your idea is that hallucinations communicate information. This is not the same thus not hypocritical.

My points are not to point out the abstract hypocrisies of science, it is to point out the individual's lack of awareness to all of this and how blaming and pointing fingers at others and religions is weak and one needs to look in the mirror themselves, and that they are under control to systematic science of religion themselves, limiting their conscious potential to themselves and others creating divide and bias.

So everyone else is wrong but you and those that support your religious bias? Good to see you only have a bias which to ground all your claims upon. you can not prove or provide factual evidence of your claims. Rather than this being your problem it's everyone's fault but your own.

You've dismissed that link completely, yet are ignorant/unaware that you're doing the same thing here.

I dismissed the link as it take scientific quotes and retrofits this quotes into saying what Narby wants it to say, nothing more.

I can enjoy life, science, consciousness, and others without being under controls, rules, forced to comply and the feeling of need to fit into groups. I fit into all humanity as one and unique, collectively. In the middle.

Good for you? However this is nothing more than a creative excuse of "I have no standards thus can not prove or provide evidence for any of my claims"

"Not science, no merit, no standards, evidence"... I'm not a rock. I choose not to be limited, under control, under rules, create biased divide, and be ignorant to others.

Again, good for you?

 

[Unification]

Nope as science and it's standards are not enforced in every part of society. Most people do not use these standard in their day to day activities nor required to do so. These rules only apply to the scientific scope and it's fields. It is nothing like the justice system with it's laws which apply to everyone within a society.



In which he never produced a experiment showing any reliability of this "information transfer". He just admitted he can not meet the standards of science thus has dismissed the standards only to produce empty assertions.



Nope. You asked for examples of chemistry and drug use which I provided. One follows a standard in which drugs cause hallucinations while your idea is that hallucinations communicate information. This is not the same thus not hypocritical.



So everyone else is wrong but you and those that support your religious bias? Good to see you only have a bias which to ground all your claims upon. you can not prove or provide factual evidence of your claims. Rather than this being your problem it's everyone's fault but your own.



I dismissed the link as it take scientific quotes and retrofits this quotes into saying what Narby wants it to say, nothing more.



Good for you? However this is nothing more than a creative excuse of "I have no standards thus can not prove or provide evidence for any of my claims"



Again, good for you?

Just a bunch of justifying for the religion of science, ironically most religions do the same thing. Hold on at all costs. Unaware and ignorant consciously to this.

Let's review:

Science labels hallucinations and delusions at pseudo-science yet is trying to treat them with worthless drugs. When any other brings up hallucinations, delusions, they are not credible, they are labeled beneath a credible being. Only science can talk about hallucinations which they label as pseudo-science and not be hypocrites. They say they are not real yet treat them as if they are real.

Meanwhile, people on forums label and call others delusional, etc while delusional people give science work.

Then there is QM, which states everything is immaterial and the observer creates their own reality. Yet to others of science, their reality is delusional.

These drugs and everything else the stupid forms of science has done to mankind for thousands of years has affected genetics, severely. The food we eat, the drinks we drink, the drugs and treatments we get, the pollution, endless list. Then they blame God.

We came from stardust and coded information from DNA via celestial bodies and light/energy but it's pseudoscience to know that we are still receiving light/energy and DNA with new coded information via the same exact way. Because science has not shown what already IS and has been.

I not only have to foreit my conscious being, freedom, I have to die never knowing anything in the one life that science says that I have. I have to wait in them in order for anything to be knowledge, and then die. I have to be a robot, with no freewill. I can't experience life, love, peace, bliss, oneness with other minds because all of that needs defined and labeled and under control. It's not real. It is chemicals and scientific. I have to rely on a system of control and rules to tell me what IS.

We have a conscious mind with infinite potential, yet to be in the click of science we have to forfeit that mind of infinite potential and be under regulations, rules, and a system. We have to sacrifice freedom.

Science and members on forums are the only ones allowed to break every single physical scientific rule, use pseudo-science themselves to attack others and label them as pseudoscience and delusional.

While the best and greatest healing to cure any mental problems, divide, problems in the world, genetic problems, diseases passed down from generation to generation is free. It's called consciousness and cosmic energy. Science doesn't like this. They lose ego and control. Not allowed to break their rules. It's a no-no.

 

[Shad]

Just a bunch of justifying for the religion of science, ironically most religions do the same thing. Hold on at all costs. Unaware and ignorant consciously to this.

Let's review:

Science labels hallucinations and delusions at pseudo-science yet is trying to treat them with worthless drugs. When any other brings up hallucinations, delusions, they are not credible, they are labeled beneath a credible being. Only science can talk about hallucinations which they label as pseudo-science and not be hypocrites. They say they are not real yet treat them as if they are real.

No it does not. It labels these as medical conditions and events.

Meanwhile, people on forums label and call others delusional, etc while delusional people give science work.

Argument from authority. Most people on forums have no medical credentials.

Then there is QM, which states everything is immaterial and the observer creates their own reality. Yet to others of science, their reality is delusional.

No, QM merely showed the idea of materialism is flawed and misused by people such as your self. QM is separate from other sciences. You are comparing one field with another. Yet other field define a delusion due to experiments showing there is a delusion at the time or that a substance caused it. You are conflating fields of science but ignore the reason in which one defines a delusion and the way one defines physics.

These drugs and everything else the stupid forms of science has done to mankind for thousands of years has affected genetics, severely. The food we eat, the drinks we drink, the drugs and treatments we get, the pollution, endless list. Then they blame God.

There are causes that have nothing to do with or are produces of science. Also often science is used to correct a situation we places ourselves in. For example we modified food in order to establish a more reliable food supply while increasing the yeild to feed a growing population. This population growth is not caused by science as it does not force people to breed like rabbits.

We came from stardust and coded information from DNA via celestial bodies and light/energy but it's pseudoscience to know that we are still receiving light/energy and DNA with new coded information via the same exact way. Because science has not shown what already IS and has been.

It is pseudoscience as no experiment has established that DNA between different objects communicates.

I not only have to foreit my conscious being, freedom, I have to die never knowing anything in the one life that science says that I have. I have to wait in them in order for anything to be knowledge, and then die. I have to be a robot, with no freewill. I can't experience life, love, peace, bliss, oneness with other minds because all of that needs defined and labeled and under control. It's not real. It is chemicals and scientific. I have to rely on a system of control and rules to tell me what IS.

You forfeited every standard other than assertions as a method evaluating any claim. You are projecting your own personal issues as if everyone is effected by your depressing outlook on life and the world.

We have a conscious mind with infinite potential, yet to be in the click of science we have to forfeit that mind of infinite potential and be under regulations, rules, and a system. We have to sacrifice freedom.

Empty assertion.

Science and members on forums are the only ones allowed to break every single physical scientific rule, use pseudo-science themselves to attack others and label them as pseudoscience and delusional.

Nope, your are only producing a strawman as you can not back your own assertions so you feel that no one can. You avoided doing any work to support your claims then make an assertion as an excuse.

While the best and greatest healing to cure any mental problems, divide, problems in the world, genetic problems, diseases passed down from generation to generation is free. It's called consciousness and cosmic energy. Science doesn't like this. They lose ego and control. Not allowed to break their rules. It's a no-no.

Let's see an experiment in which cosmic energy healed anything. Otherwise another empty assertion

Another rant about how you have no standards, dismiss any standard which you do not agree with thus leaving you unable to convince anyone not gullible of your position. You make up your own standards as you go then seem surprised people do not agree.

 

[Unification]

I don't care to get very technical, rather, to reason.

I'd love for you to be aware of the good and of the evil with science, just as religions have good and evil. We were formed to have knowledge of both, now just have to find the life.

Neither is better than the other. Eliminate the evils, divide, and control from both, and the two are like a divine marriage. The two become one.

Just as the material world and the immaterial world can become one.

Everything in the universe is built on opposites, everything needs to balance and unite. If all stays opposite and divided and doesn't meet in the middle, individually and collectively, there will be no such thing as science and religion anymore.

That is all.

 

[gnostic]

You make a lot of assumptions and speak for others, may I ask why? Why the need to judge and label and list what you think that other minds want? Indirect and unaware superstition oneself? Using your religion of faith, it would just be determined by nature of chemicals in ones brain creating superstition and reality from scientific law that they have no control over, so judging or labeling anyone as anything is illogical and impossible and hypocritical.

Unification. You have absolutely no idea what LOGIC is!!!

Everything you wrote were themselves "assumptions", in this reply.

What you wrote about conscious were "assumptions".

What you wrote about the bible were assumptions.

The science is behind the mythology.

Right there, you are making an assumption.
And these assumptions of yours are based on your delusional fantasy that there is "science" behind the myths.

And you have got "logic" ALL BACKWARD!

Everything about logic is about making "assumptions".

Logic without evidences, are nothing more than opinions

And if I go by your illogical assumptions then...If you seriously believe this about myths in the bible has "science" behind them, then every myths from Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece would have "science" behind them.

Because the creation myths of the bible (Genesis1 to 8), including John 1's Word or Logos are nothing more than rip-offs of other cultures' myths.

 

[gnostic]

I can easily say that my conscious brain has 12 cranial nerves that got together, and that the 24 elders in Revelation are the pairs of these 12 cranial nerves. That would be getting even more internalized of mind.

Holy COW! You are one of those creationists!

Those like to play with numbers; associating numbers with something that are not there.

I hate numerology and I hate numerologists. They like twisting things around, that I could just scream out in frustration. Don't like debating with them, because it is fruitless and they are unreasonable and illogical.

Don't mind me, I'm out-of-here. I am taking myself off this thread...well, at least when it concern you and your crazy idea.

 

[outhouse]

Holy COW! You are one of those creationists!

I think its POE

 

[1AOA1]

If dependence on the earth is what you seek, materialism will be progressive to you.

 

[DoubtingNate]

I'm not forcing a conclusion: I'm forcing you to look at evidence. Humankind itself is evidence that a Creator was at work. It's common sense.

Common sense is not a reliable method of discovering truths about the universe. Our common sense led us to believe that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. It is through science, not common sense, that we discover otherwise!

 

[RossRonin]

Our common sense led us to believe that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it.

Actually that is partly a myth. Mariners have understood for millennia (by common-sense observation of ships and other large objects that appear and disappear on the horizon) that the earth is not flat.

Maybe instead of the term common sense I should say "our innate capacity for inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning". Look, I realize that evolution is the next best thing to having no theory of the origin of life at all. But it really is becoming sillier and sillier by the day. Epigenetics is ever becoming the correct explanation for things our brilliant scientists have long been calling micro-evolution.

When will atheistic and agnostic scientists peer at that beautiful double-helix mysteriously engineered out of 3,164,700,000 nucleotide bases and then, using a little common sense, conclude that complexity must be the product of design, and hence a designer? When will they ponder the human genetic code and then, in a eureka moment of common sense, inquire wisely: "If we call this code, should we not be asking who wrote it?"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Look, I realize that evolution is the next best thing to having no theory of the origin of life at all.

Actually, it's not even that. Because evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution is the process by which life diversifies over time, not the process by which the initial lifeforms came to be.

But it really is becoming sillier and sillier by the day. Epigenetics is ever becoming the correct explanation for things our brilliant scientists have long been calling micro-evolution.

Can you give any examples of scientists stating this?

When will atheistic and agnostic scientists peer at that beautiful double-helix mysteriously engineered out of 3,164,700,000 nucleotide bases and then, using a little common sense, conclude that complexity must be the product of design, and hence a designer?

Complexity does not imply design; Your logic is entirely circular.

Also, what makes you think only "atheistic and agnostic" scientists wouldn't say that? There are countless theistic scientists who would just as strongly disagree that the complexity of life on any level is an indicator of necessary design.

When will they ponder the human genetic code and then, in a eureka moment of common sense, inquire wisely: "If we call this code, should we not be asking who wrote it?"

Because that's like saying "If I call this tree a cake, should we not be asking who baked it?"

Calling DNA a "code" doesn't mean it is LITERALLY a code. It's called description. It's what you do when you use a word to describe something as having an appearance of something else. For example, if you and I were walking through a forest and came to a line of trees so thick that I described it as a "wall of trees", would you immediately start asking what contractor worked on building it? We describe DNA as a "code" because it is a convenient and simplified way of describing how DNA functions - it is not a literal definition of what DNA actually is.

Do you follow?

 

[Bunyip]

Actually that is partly a myth. Mariners have understood for millennia (by common-sense observation of ships and other large objects that appear and disappear on the horizon) that the earth is not flat.

Maybe instead of the term common sense I should say "our innate capacity for inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning". Look, I realize that evolution is the next best thing to having no theory of the origin of life at all. But it really is becoming sillier and sillier by the day. Epigenetics is ever becoming the correct explanation for things our brilliant scientists have long been calling micro-evolution.

When will atheistic and agnostic scientists peer at that beautiful double-helix mysteriously engineered out of 3,164,700,000 nucleotide bases and then, using a little common sense, conclude that complexity must be the product of design, and hence a designer? When will they ponder the human genetic code and then, in a eureka moment of common sense, inquire wisely: "If we call this code, should we not be asking who wrote it?"

Well I guess the answer to that is pretty obvious. When will scientists look at DNA and assume some great wizard in the sky must have made it? A:When they abandon all pretence at being scientists and collectively lose their minds.

 

[psychoslice]

Science isn't better than religion, and religion isn't better than science, both can be used wrongly, both can also be used constructively.