You have your assumed creator...I will wait for evidence before believing in such. Since you cannot/will not provide any, responding to--even reading--your posts seems...a waste of time...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science vs Faith
- Thread starter Thief
- Start date
Sapiens
Polymathematician
or anything else that a rational being would classify as evidence of any kind.
Ah ... the contemplation of nothing.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and then contemplation about Someone Greater than yourself
I don't believe you are top of the line form
do you?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
you don't think that science could have dogma?
there have been people that have been thrown out, told not to investigate. funds pulled, even killed, or even just simple told that once we call it fact we cant change that.
I don't think anyone said that assumptions aren't useful...but their value is, once assumed to develop a line of reasoning, in being verified, to demonstrate that the reasoning was correct. Reasoning without this testability is perhaps entertaining, but of no other value...
Who are these people being denied a voice in Scientific Discourse? I'm curious.
McBell
Unbound
Hehe Expelled. Even a layman such as myself could see through that farce. Also reminds me of my genuine disbelief of Ben Stein somehow becoming a semi successful actor. Like I swear to god he was in all the movies I saw as a kid.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
I'll give you some examples that mean that sometimes we are even taught science dogma. Which I find fascinating it could mean more than what we typically think from science.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
Notice that even during ww2 the measure by which they claim is consistent, speed of light slowed down and varied.
Yes I'm a creationist.
VioletVortex
Well-Known Member
I believe the logical portions of science, but I do not believe it's completely illogical teachings, such as the big bang, the big bounce, etc.
It is also completely illogical to think that DNA could have somehow assembled itself by random coincidence. Even if it did that, life would not be brought about without some kind of unexplainable energy.
My beliefs are rooted in logic as opposed to scientific dogma.
It is also completely illogical to think that DNA could have somehow assembled itself by random coincidence. Even if it did that, life would not be brought about without some kind of unexplainable energy.
My beliefs are rooted in logic as opposed to scientific dogma.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
I really like your post it stands as logic or logical as you defined.
"science already understands the nature of reality in principle leaving only the details to be filled in"
No, I don't think that's how science works, actually. Course I haven't done any sciencing since High School so. Still sounds wrong somehow. You know, like when you hear anti vaxxer "science" and you know it's wrong, but you don't have enough training to articulate exactly why. This is why I usually like to leave such discussions to the pros. I'm simply not informed enough to try.
And "banned" is a bit of a stretch. Seeing as how it's readily available on YT, one of the biggest video sharing platforms of the 21st century. TED moved it due to concerns with scientific accuracy. Which is kind of their responsibility as an information sharing thingy.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Top and bottom are irrelevant and wrong headed thought processes since we all share the same common ancestor.
Jeff Strehlow
Member
I'm a person of science myself. I enjoy science, but I'm also a spiritual person. Some see this as a contradiction, but I don't. To me science is the study of cause and effect in the world--in other words how things interact in the world and how the world functions. Cause and effect are usually verifiable; there is actual physical proof. Scientists are human; they aren't perfect and make mistakes, yet science is very useful and is a good thing.
Religions such as Buddhism are the study of the fundamental nature of all things: emptiness. Serious adherents of Buddhism have faith that Buddha had found that all things are empty some 2500 years ago and seek to achieve the same understanding as he did. Emptiness is very difficult to understand, so even though it is already understood by some it takes a long time for an individual to gain a deep understanding of it. I don't believe that emptiness can be physically proven, because being the fundamental nature of all phenomenon, it doesn't depend upon what happens physically. Even if it can't be physically proven, that doesn't mean that emptiness isn't true, in fact it can be comprehended and understood as being true.
Religions such as Buddhism are the study of the fundamental nature of all things: emptiness. Serious adherents of Buddhism have faith that Buddha had found that all things are empty some 2500 years ago and seek to achieve the same understanding as he did. Emptiness is very difficult to understand, so even though it is already understood by some it takes a long time for an individual to gain a deep understanding of it. I don't believe that emptiness can be physically proven, because being the fundamental nature of all phenomenon, it doesn't depend upon what happens physically. Even if it can't be physically proven, that doesn't mean that emptiness isn't true, in fact it can be comprehended and understood as being true.
Last edited:
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Or even better, drop the crude anthropomorphising and look at nature in all it's awesomeness.
Science is actually not in conflict with religion. Aristotles Prime Mover is often said to start the school of logic, and so science. Both religion and science is misunderstood, however for a highly intelligent person, they are really the same. Ofcourse logic, but also things we call social science today. Indeed many scientists agree that learned men should really be the ones who run a society, and that really was a theocracy, that voices truth in a way commonly accessible.
Many intelligent people today find the democracy a feeble idea, and the idea of listening to "the man in the streets", and his promiscuous culture.Obviously not something that works.
If one would ever underestand the popularity of Abraham, or Ibrahim as really was his name, and "Ahura has no other", which is why abrahamic religion is called so, one would indeed tap into that ultimate space of monotheism.
Many people try to get there through self-development techniques, or by following standard religion such as in The Quran. But many get stuck in paradigims such as pantheism, that seems just as religious to atheists and "believers" alike.
Truth is, not many people believe anymore. They are happy with society as it is. There is no big political factions organised online. Revolution is a myth, and statistically everything is normal. And one may wonder if there is any such thing at all.
But definately the individual can go there. And something I particulary notice today, is the popularity of transcendent meditation, and the idea that "Buddha" has some idea of such things.
Which really is a typical thing in our times, regardless of if the Buddha really originally knew anything, or just wanted to claim desirelessness for himself, in a yellow robe.
Still, the hypertranscendence can be meditated on, and paradoxes and letters of the divine.
Salute.
Many intelligent people today find the democracy a feeble idea, and the idea of listening to "the man in the streets", and his promiscuous culture.Obviously not something that works.
If one would ever underestand the popularity of Abraham, or Ibrahim as really was his name, and "Ahura has no other", which is why abrahamic religion is called so, one would indeed tap into that ultimate space of monotheism.
Many people try to get there through self-development techniques, or by following standard religion such as in The Quran. But many get stuck in paradigims such as pantheism, that seems just as religious to atheists and "believers" alike.
Truth is, not many people believe anymore. They are happy with society as it is. There is no big political factions organised online. Revolution is a myth, and statistically everything is normal. And one may wonder if there is any such thing at all.
But definately the individual can go there. And something I particulary notice today, is the popularity of transcendent meditation, and the idea that "Buddha" has some idea of such things.
Which really is a typical thing in our times, regardless of if the Buddha really originally knew anything, or just wanted to claim desirelessness for himself, in a yellow robe.
Still, the hypertranscendence can be meditated on, and paradoxes and letters of the divine.
Salute.
Dave Smith
Member
Self defeating argument
Dave Smith
Member
Science is a system of enquiry, this system supplies data. Facts are what is found in the light of interpretation of data and give data meaning, how you interpret data, and come to define your facts, entirely depends on your a priory belief in a self evident truth i.e.it depends on your axiom of reference. Self evident truths are not able to be proved but rely on a persons choice to believe it. This is why it is not possible for everyone to agree upon the meaning of the same data (unless of course everyone chose to believe in the same self evident truth)