Science or Religion...which is the true enemy?

[Guitar's Cry]

I don't think any respectable scientists believe in pop-culture of UFO sightings, alien abductions, alien invasions, until there are definite and testable evidences.

Do not confuse science with science fiction.

I wouldn't go so far as that. While most scientists wouldn't go so far as to say that aliens have visited the earth, there are some respected scientists who are also into Ufology.

Jacques Vallee is one. Jacques Vallée - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[pkearney06]

Painted_wolf...mass and weight are different, so yes to say that God is a particle that causes changes in active state would be vastly different than saying God is a particle that gives mass to all things. (Mass being all things that are measurable or that we can interact with...not what we can weigh).

LuisDantas: I'm goin to say that you saying I'm grasping as straws is about as true as Christians, Muslims or Jews interpreting their Holy Books the way they do. It's all the same way. Speculation and theory. Also, I don't think this argument was about breaking down the meaning of the word theory as I used it (as I think everyone got) as the typical conversational english word meaning an educated or well directed guess. We definately differ in our opinions, but Dietists agree that God created all things and that's it. No will, no purpose. There are plenty of religions that believe this and just because they aren't Jewish, Christians, Muslims or any other large religion we believe they're not true, so please don't make a bold assumption and say God does indeed have a will...when some believe he doesn't. You keep speaking as if you're positive you know who and what God is.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, literal Abrahamists do indeed grasp at straws quite often. That is very true.

I still see no point in your speculations, and I still fear you misunderstand and misuse the word "theory".

 

[painted wolf]

Painted_wolf...mass and weight are different, so yes to say that God is a particle that causes changes in active state would be vastly different than saying God is a particle that gives mass to all things. (Mass being all things that are measurable or that we can interact with...not what we can weigh).

I was being factious... but the point still stands. What makes mass more meaningful than active states? Except that we have extensively studied one and the other is being sought after right now?
(ie... why is this not simply a "God of the Gaps" argument?)

wa:do

 

[pkearney06]

Painted_wolf: Very true...I'm not going to pretend under which physics property God had a hand in created the universe (if at all). The Higgs was just a comparison. My comparisons were just examples. The point of the argument was that isn't it possible that language has scewed science and religion apart when actually they are describing the same things. My examples were just that...examples.

 

[gnostic]

The point of the argument was that isn't it possible that language has scewed science and religion apart when actually they are describing the same things. My examples were just that...examples.

Actually religion and science are 2 different things.

Religion has to do with believing in something, worshipping something, without questioning and without reasoning. Religious people expect people what is written, like the creation/flood, talking serpent or donkey and creator being and his horde of spirits, angels and demons, and accept all this as been real and true.

Science tried to explain nature, from observation, logic, testing and examining any piece of evidence with other evidence. The conclusions can only made, if there are enough tests or evidences that verify a theory, can be considered scientific theory (the best explanation for the phenomena).

In science, all the supernaturals and divine interventions are taken out of the equation.

Your comparison is too generalized at best, but poor comparison, with seeming no understanding about what science and what is science fiction (like your comparison of angels and extraterrestrials).

 

[pkearney06]

Ever piece of science is science-fiction till proven so please stop tossing around "science-fiction" for everything that is unexplained. Maybe I take extra-terrestrials on faith...now it's religion not science fiction, right? Secondly...even religion would jump at the chance to prove their point of view correct. Faith is something religions have because they don't NEED proof, but I don't think there is a holy man alive who wouldn't jump at the chance of being able to prove his religion correct.

 

[painted wolf]

Painted_wolf: Very true...I'm not going to pretend under which physics property God had a hand in created the universe (if at all). The Higgs was just a comparison. My comparisons were just examples. The point of the argument was that isn't it possible that language has scewed science and religion apart when actually they are describing the same things. My examples were just that...examples.

You asked for opinions on your examples and I provided mine.
Religion and science may describe many of the same things... but they do so in fundamentally different ways... and science can not touch the supernatural at all.

wa:do

 

[BruceDLimber]

>Science or religion--which is the true enemy?

How about NEITHER?

BOTH science and religion are important and have a lot to contribute; and properly viewed, they dovetail very nicely!

Science answers the "how" of existence, while religion answers "Who" and "why."

Science without religion is gross materialism (bigger and better nukes); religion without science is superstition and witch-burning.

And the quickest way to get into trouble is to try to use either in the role of the other!

Best!

Bruce

 

[PolyHedral]

(Mass being all things that are measurable or that we can interact with

The properties of massless particles are well known.

science can not touch the supernatural at all.

I would say that this is because once science can study something, it stops being supernatural.

 

[painted wolf]

I would say that this is because once science can study something, it stops being supernatural.

Actually it is because science can only test the natural. If it can test it, then it wasn't supernatural to begin with.

wa:do

 

[PhosphorylatedHypnoMonkey]

You can't compare Angels and extra-terriestrials.
Angels comes from the greek "messenger" as they are messengers of god.

And lol, to say they not only EXIST they also have a hierachial system???
God and Satan adverseries? They are the same entity SURELY (presuming they exist)?

Personally, my problem with religion is they have no unbiased proof of god.
I.E Christianity, there only proof of god is a book "the Bible", which has been written and rewritten over the millenia. To a point where none of it can be beilieved.

Until someone can say "heres some hard evidence" I'm going to have to believe against the entire concept...