What contributes more - science or religion???

[Bismillah]

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

Are you particularly oblivious to the spending on R&D of weapons? Just because it has negative side effects doesn't discount it as anything less than scientific progress.

The Cold War is an example, you have yet to offer anything less than generalities.

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

Just read Jared Diamond's work, it's an entire thesis that effectively deconstructs your argument.

you also state advancement may lead to our destruction.

Scientific advancement is not always humanistic advancement, of course science is good science is pure, hail science

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

Translating into your inability to construct one, the mere fact that you cannot grasp that science is a tool is shocking. I wish you could see just how ironical it is.

 

[outhouse]

without science you would already be dead from disease due to the population at hand.

you have no clue how much you owe science.

science isnt pure and i dont worship it or any old myth ancient man imagined.

this is about science and a myth nothing more. Science doesnt strap bombs on its chest and head to crowded places in the name of science and murder people. Religion does however.

science is busy advancing the tool's to save the victims of religious violence.

when its not busy working on disease control

 

[Bismillah]

you have no clue how much you owe science.

Just what the hell type of backwater mongrel do you take me for?

Are you naive enough to assume that I automatically reject science?

this is about science and a myth nothing more. Science doesnt strap bombs on its chest and head to crowded places in the name of science and murder people. Religion does however.

You are quite ignorant to actually believe that.

science is busy advancing the tool's to save the victims of religious violence.

It is also busy investing much more in upgrading the amount and potency of ordnance that so often is the cause of religious violence.

when its not busy working on disease control

Yes what other qualities doe the wondrous demigod posses?

Of course when our scientific advances allow for the collapse of our society and deaths of billions, will science be to blame?

 

[Vendetta]

It provokes more malevolence than most realize.

You are generalizing based off scriptural and media tales. Religions themselves don't drag society down, the fanatics and zealots who overanalyze their faith do.

 

[atanu]

you have no clue how much you owe science.

That is some assertion.

Just as some scientific discoveries are used by malevolent to kill, similarly some religious precepts are misused.

IMO, science and religion are what they are -- natural outcome of intellect that enquires, and are more or less harmonius when understood as complementary.

...

 

[atanu]

The question in OP is almost like (well, almost like) asking which contribute more: women or men? Men will shout "men" and women will counter but ... well, you know what they do to each other.

Go argue that out.

But not all are like that. For instance, atanu. He is a scientist by profession who cherises the knowledge of scriptures because that alone helps when the ego is beaten down by circumstance.

.....

 

[Know it all.]

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

So Einstein was correct and it applies well to this thread question.

Neither science nor religion contributes more, and each are far better when they each work together in harmony.

:clap

 

[ninerbuff]

Well let's see:
We're living longer, finding cures, have better technology and still advancing, able to study the universe................
And that ain't from praying, so I'll go with science.

 

[bobhikes]

without science you would already be dead from disease due to the population at hand.

Untrue science is relatively new to humans. There's also the 10% rule; whereas, no matter what the disease because of our diversity a large enough portion of humans will survive to spawn further generations.

you have no clue how much you owe science.

I personally owe very little to science I would love to be a farmer just growing things and feeding things. It is because of science that I have been unable to attain my goal.

this is about science and a myth nothing more. Science doesnt strap bombs on its chest and head to crowded places in the name of science and murder people. Religion does however.

But science creates all the weapons that these people use for what ever violence they want.

science is busy advancing the tool's to save the victims of religious violence..

Science does not care about victims at all only where the next paycheck is coming from. It is the governments of the world that front most of the scientists pay checks not the humanitarians.

when its not busy working on disease control

Yeah! Who has the problem with myth's. You certainly buy into a quite a few.

 

[waitasec]

Of course when our scientific advances allow for the collapse of our society and deaths of billions, will science be to blame?

no, man will...

yes, science has found cures for diseases and it has also been used to create WMD's.
ultimately man is responsible for both...

they both contribute the same, question is, what kind of contribution?
one would contribute the ideal of not knowing based on skepticism the other contributes knowledge based on things not seen.

it's a matter of investigation versus revelation. evidence or faith.

 

[atanu]

it's a matter of investigation versus revelation. evidence or faith.

That is not fully correct. No one has stopped any one from investigating the truth of scripture that all you want is there within. Only, there will be a critical moment for each individual when such an investigation will be triggered.

In wrong hands, both science and religion can be destructive.

...

 

[Vendetta]

When people kill the critics say "blame religion." Just because we find cures doesn't mean science is the ultimate answer. To the man that criticized praying, there have been accounts where prayer helped people get better and this isn't a placebo effect. Religion and science are two different categories and if you prefer to put science as your faith if choice say that. But don't make broad sweeping statements as factual, if there is no factual support for it. Someone strapping a bomb to themselves which accounts for less than 5% of that faith doesn't make the religion dangerous or dragging society down. Some of the best science in early history came out if Africa and the middle east, societies in which religion was dominant.

 

[waitasec]

That is not fully correct. No one has stopped any one from investigating the truth of scripture that all you want is there within. Only, there will be a critical moment for each individual when such an investigation will be triggered.

In wrong hands, both science and religion can be destructive.

...

that's very interesting...
i never said one stops the other, you did. i mentioned what they each contribute...
from 800 - 1100 bagdad was the center of the world as far as scientific discovery. in this particular period all walks of faith worked together exchanging ideas...christians and jews and even doubters (the skeptics of religion).
they made advances in engineering, biology, medicine and mathematics... algebra... arabic numbers, the concept of 0 was discovered
celestial navigation and naming rights of the stars was all traceable to this period in this region.
until iman hamid al ghazali, a philosopher, said math was the work of the devil. can anything good come out of this philosophy?
thusly compromising the entire intellectual foundation of this region.

i pretty much paraphrased from this lecture...

[youtube]0vrpPPV_yPY[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY

if you have 30 minutes....

 

[atanu]

that's very interesting...
i never said one stops the other, you did. i mentioned what they each contribute...

Oh, Sorry. It seems i misunderstood the 'versus' thingy..

it's a matter of investigation versus revelation. evidence or faith.

I agree that one should not stop the other.

...

 

[waitasec]

I agree that one should not stop the other.

...

has it ever been found in history that they complimented each other?
and was it for the good of mankind?

 

[atanu]

has it ever been found in history that they complimented each other?
and was it for the good of mankind?

One is resposible for oneself and that goes a long way, IMO.

...

 

[outhouse]

that's very interesting...
i never said one stops the other, you did. i mentioned what they each contribute...
from 800 - 1100 bagdad was the center of the world as far as scientific discovery. in this particular period all walks of faith worked together exchanging ideas...christians and jews and even doubters (the skeptics of religion).
they made advances in engineering, biology, medicine and mathematics... algebra... arabic numbers, the concept of 0 was discovered
celestial navigation and naming rights of the stars was all traceable to this period in this region.
until iman hamid al ghazali, a philosopher, said math was the work of the devil. can anything good come out of this philosophy?
thusly compromising the entire intellectual foundation of this region.

i pretty much paraphrased from this lecture...

[youtube]0vrpPPV_yPY[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY

if you have 30 minutes....

excellent video I watched it all.

It shows exactly how religion drags humanity down.

it is undesputable truth

 

[ninerbuff]

When people kill the critics say "blame religion." Just because we find cures doesn't mean science is the ultimate answer. To the man that criticized praying, there have been accounts where prayer helped people get better and this isn't a placebo effect. Religion and science are two different categories and if you prefer to put science as your faith if choice say that. But don't make broad sweeping statements as factual, if there is no factual support for it. Someone strapping a bomb to themselves which accounts for less than 5% of that faith doesn't make the religion dangerous or dragging society down. Some of the best science in early history came out if Africa and the middle east, societies in which religion was dominant.

Acoounts about prayer "healing" have no way to proven. They aren't scrutinized with science. If prayer worked then everyone would be happy or healthy.

 

[jarofthoughts]

To the man that criticized praying, there have been accounts where prayer helped people get better and this isn't a placebo effect.

Really? Let's see what we can find...

Ah!

There was a study done in early 2005 that was financed by the Templeton Foundation (Who according to themselves is "a philanthropic catalyst for discoveries relating to the Big Questions of human purpose and ultimate reality". Basically they are Christians trying to find evidence of God through science.) and which dealt with intercessory prayer in relation to patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

The patients were separated into three groups; one who was not prayed for and didn't know it, one that was prayed for and didn't know it, and one who was prayed for and did know it. The results were measured one the basis of complications and recovery time.

The results?

Of the two groups who didn't know whether they were being prayed for or not complications occurred in 52% of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% of those who did not.
And the group that knew they were being prayed for?
Complications occurred in 59% of the patients.

The conclusion?

Prayer, at best, doesn't work, and at worst, can make your recovery worse.

Not exactly the result you were claiming... :sarcastic


Link to the abstract: Elsevier

 

[Vendetta]

Really? Let's see what we can find...

Ah!

There was a study done in early 2005 that was financed by the Templeton Foundation (Who according to themselves is "a philanthropic catalyst for discoveries relating to the Big Questions of human purpose and ultimate reality". Basically they are Christians trying to find evidence of God through science.) and which dealt with intercessory prayer in relation to patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

The patients were separated into three groups; one who was not prayed for and didn't know it, one that was prayed for and didn't know it, and one who was prayed for and did know it. The results were measured one the basis of complications and recovery time.

The results?

Of the two groups who didn't know whether they were being prayed for or not complications occurred in 52% of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% of those who did not.
And the group that knew they were being prayed for?
Complications occurred in 59% of the patients.


The conclusion?

Prayer, at best, doesn't work, and at worst, can make your recovery worse.

Not exactly the result you were claiming... :sarcastic


Link to the abstract: Elsevier

Well that is only one article. Read the following: How prayer works Jana AK - Indian J Psychiatry

(Sarcasm) guess athiests running out if excuses.