What contributes more - science or religion???

[Orias]

It isn't dragging society down

It provokes more malevolence than most realize.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I use the word "God" simply because of its popular (dictionary) usage even though I know that name is inaccurate and misleading and it is seldom that I find another person which can communicate with me on a higher level then the base necessities.

Even I am subject to peer pressure.

I didn't actually ask you why you use the term "God"; I asked you what you mean by it.

An example of what I mean can be described from "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and its principle character of "V ger" link HERE.

The V-ger was hunting for its "creator" its God and had no idea of what the creator would look like or what the creator might be but it had to seek out its creator anyway.

Humanity can be viewed as a Vger and when we find our creator / God then I believe that we too will be pleasantly surprised at what we did not know.

Another analogy is in the US Space Shuttle program, in that the scientist and engineers are the creator of the best machine they could possibly create. As such the creators of the Space Shuttle did not want one to blow up and another to burn up and in such cases the creator(s) cried along with the dysfunctions of the created.

So now in our life the real thing "God" is really our "Father" / our Creator and humanity is its greatest creation of all. This God thing has extended itself to its maximum in creating humanity and we are separate as like the Space Shuttle is a separate entity from its creators and yet still connected anyway.

And there's no room in this viewpoint for the possibility that "God" and "nature" can be two different things?

The Bible and other world scriptures are like instruction manuals for humanity which do give us insight as to what our creator really is but as yet we do not know it all.

What leads you to believe that they give insight into our creator at all?

 

[Orias]

What leads you to believe that they give insight into our creator at all?

It was written by the guys who created it.

 

[Know it all.]

And it is only religious people that kill each other because Scientist believe in "mutual assured destruction" so Scientist remain non violent.

Ha ha ha .....

Find me a source that says that scientists (Do you mean all of them or just some?) "believe" in mutually assured destruction.

Please provide sources for this statement.
I think you are confusing science with the cold war political thinking of the '80's.

The post of mine # 68 on page 7 linked HERE was meant to be funny.

You two really do need to work on a sense of humor here.

What I said in that posting was a sarcastic rebuttal pointing out the absurdity of the other poster's claim.

Duh.

:sad:

 

[jarofthoughts]

The post of mine # 68 on page 7 linked HERE was meant to be funny.

You two really do need to work on a sense of humor here.

What I said in that posting was a sarcastic rebuttal pointing out the absurdity of the other poster's claim.

Duh.

:sad:

Fair enough.
The reason we might have misunderstood you is because we deal with some rather outrageous claims on a daily basis on this forum, and it is sometimes hard to distinguish when people are making a sarcastic joke and when they are serious...
Apologies.

 

[Know it all.]

I didn't actually ask you why you use the term "God"; I asked you what you mean by it.

They two are the same - what I mean by the word is why I use it.

It you might stop trying to attack the messenger and properly evaluate the message then you might find that I gave you a truly in depth and substantial answer to your question.

There is no proven definition of God and so anyone claiming to know what "God" is or what "God" means is just a pretender.

Of course I know many religions and many people and dictionaries all claim to have the absolute facts concerning the God thing, but I say a proper scientific approach to the subject needs to be a bit more skeptical of those claims.

And there's no room in this viewpoint for the possibility that "God" and "nature" can be two different things?

Actually I totally do agree that "nature" and "God" are indeed two different things but most people fail to separate the two.

As like saying a hurricane is a "natural phenomenon" is giving a certain controlling power to "nature" as nature being some kind of personality controlling our weather which is making "nature" into a type of a God.

Hurricanes simply happen because of the rotation of the earth and weather dynamics and thermal causes but not because of any "nature" making it to happen.

What leads you to believe that they give insight into our creator at all?

I know about the correct parts of world scriptures through severe research and experimentation and fact checks.

Including from "Biblical Criticism" and Bible prophesy , and religion coherency worldwide, and personal experience, and more.

:clap

 

[MathewJames]

And it is only religious people that kill each other because Scientist believe in "mutual assured destruction" so Scientist remain non violent.

Ha ha ha .....

I do not see it as a joke, but a serious comment. I have known many scientists over my 50 plus years on this earth and have never met one scientist that killed anyone. IMO scientists have a huge respect for life...IMO most very religious people have no concern for other religions and they have no problem with going to war...IMO christians do this more than any other religion.

 

[outhouse]

again I will state , so far it has not been refuted

science does not drag humanity down it improves it.

Religion drags humanity down.

how so ?????

I can take you to atleast 100 different threads here at this site alone with people so lost from reality they domnt know which end is up. EVERY last one is in the religious camp. So far the science camp holds pretty fast to accountability within reality.

The religious camp cannot agree on how to read the bible, no new new's there
The religious camp fights science that is valid and still wants myths taught in schools.

the religious camp for the most part are hypocrites, they denounce the science parts they want without thought or merit and yet accept science when it suits them.

The sickening part is the do the same exact thing with religion and the bible. Pick and choose.


Funny part is there exactly like atheist, they denounce every other god but there own. The only difference is atheist believe in 1 less god then they do

 

[Know it all.]

I do not see it as a joke, but a serious comment. I have known many scientists over my 50 plus years on this earth and have never met one scientist that killed anyone. IMO scientists have a huge respect for life...IMO most very religious people have no concern for other religions and they have no problem with going to war...IMO christians do this more than any other religion.

So now I must repent as I have often said that sarcasm is not a healthy way of communicating and I fell into it again.

Therefore I apologize for my unfunny sarcasm.

So you see only (or primarily) that religious people kill and war and do evil while scientist do not or do far less.

My point in "mutual assured destruction" is that scientist and particularly scientist in fact created the nuclear bomb and it destroyed 2 Japanese cities and has threatened the entire face of our earth ever after.

So scientist have created ICBMs and the space program was a means of testing the rocket motors for the nuclear tipped ICBMs and yet scientist are not violent indeed.

How-about fighter jets and precision bombing or a large 9mm magazine or science fiction which depicts the conquest of space with lazars and fazers and warships?

And why would you not know that many if not most scientist are religious? being Christians, Jews, Hindu, Muslims and even native American Indian?

 

[jarofthoughts]

So now I must repent as I have often said that sarcasm is not a healthy way of communicating and I fell into it again.

Therefore I apologize for my unfunny sarcasm.

So you see only (or primarily) that religious people kill and war and do evil while scientist do not or do far less.

My point in "mutual assured destruction" is that scientist and particularly scientist in fact created the nuclear bomb and it destroyed 2 Japanese cities and has threatened the entire face of our earth ever after.

So scientist have created ICBMs and the space program was a means of testing the rocket motors for the nuclear tipped ICBMs and yet scientist are not violent indeed.

How-about fighter jets and precision bombing or a large 9mm magazine or science fiction which depicts the conquest of space with lazars and fazers and warships?

And why would you not know that many if not most scientist are religious? being Christians, Jews, Hindu, Muslims and even native American Indian?

Short question here: Do you think that science has contributed to saving more lives than it has contributed to destroy?

 

[Know it all.]

Short question here: Do you think that science has contributed to saving more lives than it has contributed to destroy?

I do not know the answer to that, and I do not know how to separate the various sciences from the various consequences.

What I do say is that I like science just as I like religions and I like people, but I do not like the evils thereof.

My position here is best given in my post # 12 page 2 of this thread, linked HERE.

:yes:

 

[MathewJames]

"mutual assured destruction" is that scientist and particularly scientist in fact created the nuclear bomb, ICBMs, fighter jets, and warships?

And why would you not know that many if not most scientist are religious?

I see a difference between creating the weapon and pulling the triger. If you ever had to pull the triger and watch someones body get destroyed because of it, the difference becomes very clear.

Good point, but I have never met a very religious scientist.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I do not know the answer to that, and I do not know how to separate the various sciences from the various consequences.

What I do say is that I like science just as I like religions and I like people, but I do not like the evils thereof.

My position here is best given in my post # 12 page 2 of this thread, linked HERE.

:yes:

High end estimates puts the total death toll in all the wars in the 20th century to something in the range of 394 million casualties.
I'm willing to attribute all those deaths to science if you like.

The discovery of penicillin alone is estimated to have saved over 200 million lives.
The Green Revolution is estimated to have saved over a billion.
Then you have sanitation systems, medicines, medical technology and so on and so forth.

It's not even close...
Science has hands down contributed to saving more people than it has contributed to being killed.

 

[Know it all.]

High end estimates puts the total death toll in all the wars in the 20th century to something in the range of 394 million casualties.
I'm willing to attribute all those deaths to science if you like.

The discovery of penicillin alone is estimated to have saved over 200 million lives.
The Green Revolution is estimated to have saved over a billion.
Then you have sanitation systems, medicines, medical technology and so on and so forth.

It's not even close...
Science has hands down contributed to saving more people than it has contributed to being killed.

I truly am not against science as I love my computer and my cell phone and without certain medications then I myself would have been dead years ago.

I just refuse to see it as an equal equation when we know that science does not and can not make a better society on such scientifically meaningless issues as love and justice and defense of the weak.

Today in Egypt the crisis there was done by the Internet and cell phones so the people used science technology for political purposes and I cheer the people onward even if there is violence involved. Of course religion is involved over there too as is social injustices and I do not blame science nor give credit to science but now that technology has impressed and inspired me as it has done to many other people world wide.

I just can not see any debate as to which is worse or which is better.

IMO, Albert Einstein truly did say it best and brilliantly with: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

:clap

 

[Bismillah]

It's not even close...

What about the threat that science brings? The Cold War would be a prime example. Or perhaps the mere fact that "science" or the prevalence of agrarian societies which facilitated scientific progress has lead Humanity to very closely approach the carrying capacity of our planet. So if we and all our intellectual faculties lead to our destruction what is the verdict on science.

Science and religion are simply tools what is important is the manner in which one uses them.

 

[outhouse]

What about the threat that science brings? The Cold War would be a prime example.

would you rather have a hot war????? yeesh

Or perhaps the mere fact that "science" or the prevalence of agrarian societies which facilitated scientific progress has lead Humanity to very closely approach the carrying capacity of our planet. So if we and all our intellectual faculties lead to our destruction what is the verdict on science

so we should stop advancing and let people suffer and die horrible deaths to disease???


you make little sense here bud

Science and religion are simply tools

this is false and poorly stated

religion is a simple tool

science is anything but a simple tool

 

[Bismillah]

would you rather have a hot war????? yeesh

I'm not sure if you are joking, but my example still stands until you refute it.

so we should stop advancing and let people suffer and die horrible deaths to disease???

You have managed to completely miss the point and bring up an irrelevant question.

this is false and poorly stated

religion is a simple tool

science is anything but a simple tool

Until you present a sensible argument that is. Science is a tool for the advancement of humans. Religion is a tool for the advancement of humans.

Ironically your religious worship of science makes you sound like a total tool.

 

[outhouse]

I'm not sure if you are joking, but my example still stands until you refute it.

You have managed to completely miss the point and bring up an irrelevant question.

Until you present a sensible argument that is. Science is a tool for the advancement of humans. Religion is a tool for the advancement of humans.

Ironically your religious worship of science makes you sound like a total tool.

thast funny because you sound like someone who would wallow in myth since you cannot see how science advances humanity

each is own, i wont resort to name calling.

 

[Bismillah]

each is own, i wont resort to name calling.

thast funny because you sound like someone who would wallow in myth since you cannot see how science advances humanity

It's ok I see you couldn't make any definitive argument and decided not to pursue it, don't worry I'll let you keep the last jab seems the only thing you've managed to accomplish.

 

[outhouse]

you attack science, it does not bring a threat. a false uneducated statement.

you also say science has led to over population, a false uneducated statement, people have led to over population. not science.

you also state advancement may lead to our destruction.

all I see is a lack of education in the big picture. the rest of your rebuttle doesnt warrant a responce