Science ... NOT God ...

[ratiocinator]

I accept that you use emotions, because that works for you, but that is not a reasoned argument.

I've tried reasoning with you and I just get disjointed waffle (waffle with word salad ) for my trouble. How about you try using reasoning, just for a change?

 

[Jollybear]

Really? And we are wise enough to tell the difference? Dream on!

SOME are wise enough to tell the difference and SOME are stupid!

I'm sure that is a great comfort to all those who died from infections and abominable medical practices we endured for centuries while God decided the appropriate moment to enlighten us!

Again, let me re say it, since you are not "wise enough" to hear what i actually said. SOMETIMES God enlightens a few people. Sometimes he lets man figure things out.

Also, again, if God stepped in EVERYTIME there was suffering, hed be taking away liberty and hed be crippling us. Your not "wise enough" to comprehend this simple, logical point.

Hardly. There is no comparison between the two. One based in reality, the other in supposition.

Again, a failure to realize false prophets vs true.

See above, and faith-healing has no evidence for being factual apart from any placebo effect that might occur.

False misrepresentation.

Great. As above. How can we tell the difference?

Logic, reason, time, intuition, knowledge.

Science is like that. It is not always a smooth progress towards the truth, but nothing else has come forward to overturn science.

Religion is like that. It is not always a smooth progress towards the truth, but nothing else has come forward to overturn religion.

Some religions might not seemingly even recognise the existence of DNA - that which tends to disprove their claims.

I dont care about "some religions". I care about MY religion. DNA does not disprove my religion. It PROVES my religion.

And we are truly grateful. Amen.

Your not grateful at all. Thats an utter mockery! You do nothing but complain at and about God! If God did step in everytime you suffer or are about to do something stupid in your life, youd complain saying "let me have liberty for once! Let me figure something out!"

Stop lying to yourself.

Science is the teacher.

Science isnt a teacher, just as religion isnt a teacher. People who have brains, figure things out with a combination of logic, reason, intuition, experience, experimentation come to conclusions and THEY teach something. Simetimes that something is true, sometimes it isnt. And both of those sometimes are both under the umbrella of religion or science!

Except when these texts were written, the difference was not known. They really did believe the stars would fall.

The difference was known. They did not believe that. Thats your interpretation of there words.

And yet that was how it was understood until the *science* said otherwise. Interesting, eh?

Again, gunhole on your misrepresentation. No, the earth being the center of the universe was not what the bible said nor was it understood that way. You won't find one passage saying otherwise.

God didn't seem to reveal *anything* of value in understanding the universe until *science* came along and started testing ideas.

Thats simply false.

Um, no. Astrology was a mystical attempt to look at the magical influences of the stars and planets on humans as a means to predict the future or to time important life events. Astronomy is the scientific investigation of the cosmos. Rather different in both goals and techniques.

Yea, i get that. But, you missed it, false and true prophets.

It is the *way* we learn about how to heal that is relevant here. Do we test our ideas, exploring different possibilities while learning how the body and diseases work, or do we rely on revelation and pray for miracles?

BOTH. We do BOTH.

Funny how God never revealed anything of value until *scientists* started asking questions and testing their ideas.

Thats simply false and i get tired of hearing this "scientists" as if "religionists" cant test stuff. There just labels! The reality is, both are people.

There is always controversy around the edges. But we have answered questions that were unanswered for thousands of years under religion.

Some things have been answered, some have not, yet keep being pretended they have. Thats a problem.

Your assumptions about DNA are not shared by those who actually study it.

Thats false, weve had this debate before. SOME scientists do believe its actually a code and granted some believe its not.

Except that he *doesn't* heal the child with cancer, or feed those who are hungry because of crop failures, or help the needy, or even make conditions where their lives are easier. Sorry, but the 'moral' standing of God is terrible here.

Ill say to you what i said to the other guy.

You do nothing but complain at and about God! If God did step in everytime you suffer or are about to do something stupid in your life, youd complain sayong "let me have liberty for once! Let me figure something out!"

And with that, im running out of time, i got to go to work. Have a great day!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Just a side point... Isaac Newton, one of the smartest men who ever lived, loved science. I’m sure you’d agree.

He also loved the Bible.

What he didn’t like, were the religious institutions!


You really can’t blame the Bible, just because it’s been misrepresented and misinterpreted— by both its supporters, and its detractors.

As for Hitchen’s saying, ‘Heaven has folded it’s hands’ .... the Bible provides the explanation (I.e., why God has, for the most part, not intervened in human suffering).

If you want to understand why, I can link an article.

BTW, I did enjoy some aspects of that video.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Also the bible does not say the universe is not big. It also does not say earth is its center.

The real point to take away here is that people DID believe that Earth was the center of the universe for a long span of time. And they did so in exactly the way that people believe in the stories presented as the underpinnings of religion. And that is - without proper evidence, and based only on what they were told by someone else.

So do you see how it is related? The same sort of thinking must necessarily be employed to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe that is employed to believe that God created the universe from nothingness, or that Jesus rose from the dead and floated up into the clouds, etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[Quintessence]

Don't like watching videos. Can anyone tell me if the video actually covers religion or if it is yet another one of those shallow presentations that conflates religion with Christianity, monotheism, or a bunch of other things that don't actually apply to religion as a whole? If it actually addresses non-Western religions and/or new religious movements I might be bothered to watch it. Otherwise, meh...

 

[Polymath257]

Don't like watching videos. Can anyone tell me if the video actually covers religion or if it is yet another one of those shallow presentations that conflates religion with Christianity, monotheism, or a bunch of other things that don't actually apply to religion as a whole? If it actually addresses non-Western religions and/or new religious movements I might be bothered to watch it. Otherwise, meh...

It conflates religion with Christianity.

 

[ratiocinator]

Just a side point... Isaac Newton, one of the smartest men who ever lived, loved science. I’m sure you’d agree.

He also loved the Bible.

Newton, great scientist as he undoubtedly was, was not god(!), his science didn't make him immune from the most prevalent superstition of his culture and time.

 

[ChristineM]

Just a side point... Isaac Newton, one of the smartest men who ever lived, loved science. I’m sure you’d agree.

He also loved the Bible.

What he didn’t like, were the religious institutions!


You really can’t blame the Bible, just because it’s been misrepresented and misinterpreted— by both its supporters, and its detractors.

As for Hitchen’s saying, ‘Heaven has folded it’s hands’ .... the Bible provides the explanation (I.e., why God has, for the most part, not intervened in human suffering).

If you want to understand why, I can link an article.

BTW, I did enjoy some aspects of that video.

A side point to your side point

Newton was wrong: Scientists dismiss Newton's theory of gravity and warn Einstein is next | Science | News | Express.co.uk

 

[Audie]

Just a side point... Isaac Newton, one of the smartest men who ever lived, loved science. I’m sure you’d agree.

He also loved the Bible.

What he didn’t like, were the religious institutions!


You really can’t blame the Bible, just because it’s been misrepresented and misinterpreted— by both its supporters, and its detractors.

As for Hitchen’s saying, ‘Heaven has folded it’s hands’ .... the Bible provides the explanation (I.e., why God has, for the most part, not intervened in human suffering).

If you want to understand why, I can link an article.

BTW, I did enjoy some aspects of that video.

But you do like institutionalized religion.

Do you suppose Newton would have been smart enough to
give up alchemy if he could br shown real chemistry?

And surely he had the intelligence( never shown by
contemporary fundies) to realize that genesis is just
a fairy tale when shown relevant data.

After all, an intelligent man who actually loves the bible
would surely want to love it for what it is, not for what he
can pretzel it into the way all the religions do.

Oh, and not just that-an honest investigator who does his
due dligence never clings to garbage when it is shown for
what it is. Actually, anyone with a bit of dignity would not either.

 

[Augustus]

Don't like watching videos. Can anyone tell me if the video actually covers religion or if it is yet another one of those shallow presentations that conflates religion with Christianity, monotheism, or a bunch of other things that don't actually apply to religion as a whole? If it actually addresses non-Western religions and/or new religious movements I might be bothered to watch it. Otherwise, meh...

Religion bad, people stupid, Genesis not true! Live in darkness, religion, boooo. 16thC wow, did you see that dude totally science the heck out that telescope bro? Facts! Wisdom! Science FTW! Man on the moon! In your face religion! Pow!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Real : actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

I think the definition says it is completely objective

Now something about definitions versus usage.
Once in dictionaries you could find the following - Atheism: Amoral.
Does that make it a fact that atheism is amoral. Not, dictionaries and definitions are about how words are used. Not that is a fact or true.

So here is how I learned that the word "real" works:
Imagine a lake. It is not a real lake, but it is real that you can imagine a lake. Now imagine 2 ducks in the lake. One is a real duck and the other one is not real. It is a decoy duck, but it is a real decoy duck.

So here is the absurd usage of a definition as a fact. ChristineM means non-existent. See, it is a fact that ChristineM doesn't exist. The definition says so.

Words are tricky. The meaning of the word "real" is context dependent and not objective.

 

[Polymath257]

Seen it before. Can't say it compelled me to watch again

If you would like a more scholarly discussion on religion and the emergence of modern science, there's a series of lectures here:

Science, Religion and Modernity

I'm working my way through these, but it is clear already that this guy doesn't really understand what it means to do science. So, for example, when he notes that Newton was a natural Philosopher, he failed to note that Newton actually *did* science: observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing, modification of hypothesis. That *is* the scientific method.

He does have a point in that the *words* religion and science have changed over time. If you don't want to think of this as a war between science and religion, think of it as a war between skepticism and faith.

There were *very* few people who actually did the scientific method prior to 1600. I can think of al-Haytham, for example. Natural Philosophy was mostly NOT science simply because the idea of testing via observation was absent.

 

[ChristineM]

Now something about definitions versus usage.
Once in dictionaries you could find the following - Atheism: Amoral.
Does that make it a fact that atheism is amoral. Not, dictionaries and definitions are about how words are used. Not that is a fact or true.

So here is how I learned that the word "real" works:
Imagine a lake. It is not a real lake, but it is real that you can imagine a lake. Now imagine 2 ducks in the lake. One is a real duck and the other one is not real. It is a decoy duck, but it is a real decoy duck.

So here is the absurd usage of a definition as a fact. ChristineM means non-existent. See, it is a fact that ChristineM doesn't exist. The definition says so.

Words are tricky. The meaning of the word "real" is context dependent and not objective.

Ok, you go by what you imagine, i will use dictionary definitions as accepted across the world

Atheism is a straw man.

Then you use contradiction to describe real. Imagination is imagination, not reality. You may imagine pugs could fly, it doesn't mean the price of pork would take off.

Now in reality, the lake is a real lake, one duck us a real living duck, one duck us a facsimile. No context involved in reality

 

[Audie]

A side point to your side point

Newton was wrong: Scientists dismiss Newton's theory of gravity and warn Einstein is next | Science | News | Express.co.uk

Funny how creationidts have to ho back that far to
find a real intellectual who ( can be concocted into)
agrees w creonotions.

 

[Prestor John]

Why do most atheists respect science over religion?
Here's why:

I love this video.

Why does this question say "God" but the OP says "religion".

Not all religions know God or speak on His behalf.

The God I know is a God of Science.

 

[viole]

Yeah, science is great bs-exposer.

Biblical Scholarship exposer?

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Why do most atheists respect science over religion?

I like what philosopher Ken Wilber has to say about this. I paraphrase;

'Narrow Science' trumps 'Narrow Religion' but an integrative 'Broad Religion-Science' trumps them both.

​

 

[ChristineM]

Funny how creationidts have to ho back that far to
find a real intellectual who ( can be concocted into)
agrees w creonotions.

True, in 17th century the vast majority if the population wore bible blinkers. Thank god ;-) for progress

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've tried reasoning with you and I just get disjointed waffle (waffle with word salad ) for my trouble. How about you try using reasoning, just for a change?

Reason is not objective as such. It is a process in a brain, which produces "that it makes sense", but that is dependent on what you take for granted. Reason is the process and what you take for granted provides the result. To you religion doesn't make sense. I accept that. But you are not the judge for all humankind. Your reasoning don't have to be mine and in reverse.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I do wish people would stop claiming to speak on behalf of other "atheists". It makes it some much more difficult to discuss my own beliefs and opinions when people have been given such definitive (and often wrong) preconceptions of who I am.

I said "most". This was not an all-inclusive statement. There will always be non-atheists who conflate all atheists into one lump sum just as there will always be non-christians who assume all christians are the same, etc. Using the word "most" was intentional to help prevent exactly what you are accusing me of doing.

Prophets reveal the will of the gods. There wer false prophets as well as true.

Stars falling is nothing more then alligorical language for meator and commets.

Also the bible does not say the universe is not big. It also does not say earth is its center.

As for science progressing, as in technology, that was good. That in no way says religion is false. God does not need to reveal everything at once. In fact, in the bible hes clear that this is not how he does things.

Astrology replacing astronomy. Again, misrepresented. There wer false prophets as well as true. Astrology and astronomy wer one in the same.

Medicine replacing miracle healing. This also does not do away with the fact that some people get healing. Yes, again, theres false healing out there.

Electricity replacing alchemy. Again, alchemy was a forerunner to chemistry. God lets people figure things out by progression. He SOMETIMES reveals things and sometimes he dont. And sometimes people lie in his name.

Discovered the secrets of the universe. They say it like its all figured out and with no controversy in between. THATS misleading.

DeCODED the fabric of life. A CODE implies in its very self, a coder, an intelligence behind it. But, hey, atleast the video admits our DNA is a code! Lol

All the suffering that heaven sees with folded arms and yet looks back. Again, a foolish statement. If God did everything for us, hed cripple us. Learn LIBERTY.

I was going to respond to this list, but thankfully, a couple others did it already. By the way, I grew up in a Pentacostal-type environment. I have heard multitudes of claims of miraculous healings. Never seen one though. Neither have you.

To see a contradiction between faith and science is false, it assumes religion presents a version of outdated science, when in fact all too many people who claim a high level of knowledge in the field of science have little knowledge in Biblical faith beyond that of a child. Aquinas puts it that one should 'not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that make it ridiculous, 'irrisio infidelium, the mockery of unbelievers, because they are in obvious contradiction with reason.'

The YECs and Biblical Literalists should take heed to these words. Not all Christians believe in 7 day creation or a worldwide flood. Those that do make the entirety of Christianity look quite foolish.

The decline in Western religion can be largely attributed to just one thing -
wealth. You can't see church pedophiles impacting attendance graphs,
and the basic science of evolution hasn't changed in 150 years.

The bible doesn't engage questions of how things work. Galileo said
"the bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Where religion -- Christianity in particular here -- fails is when it does. The Bible does give explanations on "how things work". It tells us to slaughter doves and spread the blood around as a treatment for leprosy, for example. It tells us that bats are birds and whales are fish, thus upending the classification systems of modern biology.

I have less frustration with most sects of Toaism and Buddhism, for example, because these belief systems do not make such scientific claims then feign innocence then scream "persecution" when they're told that they're wrong.

But being bs-exposer is not just science and it only matters to you, because it matters to you. I like my version of bs.

That doesn't make your version of BS "true". You know, I rather liked the idea of believing I was in the palm of the hand of an omnipotent god. Liking that idea and that idea mattering to me, didn't make that idea true.

What does love have to do with science?

What does "love" have to do with religion? "Love" brings others together (You know, I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony!) Religion is among the most divisive forces known to man; which is contrary to love.

Now something about definitions versus usage.
Once in dictionaries you could find the following - Atheism: Amoral.
Does that make it a fact that atheism is amoral. Not, dictionaries and definitions are about how words are used. Not that is a fact or true.

So here is how I learned that the word "real" works:
Imagine a lake. It is not a real lake, but it is real that you can imagine a lake. Now imagine 2 ducks in the lake. One is a real duck and the other one is not real. It is a decoy duck, but it is a real decoy duck.

So here is the absurd usage of a definition as a fact. ChristineM means non-existent. See, it is a fact that ChristineM doesn't exist. The definition says so.

Words are tricky. The meaning of the word "real" is context dependent and not objective.

Yes, yes, and you love to play with words as it feeds your ego.

You do understand that dictionaries are descriptive and not prescriptive, yes? That words are defined according to how people are using those words, and is not an authority source on what those words are supposed to mean?

You should also understand that a lake being "real" and it being "real" that you can imagine one is a grotesque false equivocation, right?

Nevermind ...

Why does this question say "God" but the OP says "religion".

Not all religions know God or speak on His behalf.

The God I know is a God of Science.

Then why has not one scientific achievement in all of humanity stemmed from reading his word?