Will science destroy religion

#26
#26
armchair said:
You prove that science and religion can't really coexist. There is a //strong scientific consensus// that global warming is occurring--and yet you want to pretend that it is not. Are you a global warming expert? The people who oppose the idea of global warming are not scientists--they are energy industry executives, leaders of massive companies, who don't want to spend extra money on environmental regulations--and they've spent big sums to spread disinformation about climate change. That's a fact. Conservative politicians have joined in spreading the disinformation because they've always been in bed with big business and always opposed to environmental regulations--why, I'm not sure, because protecting our environment--and the health of the American people and people all over the world--should be both a high moral and practical priority. This disinformation about global warming then gets spread by right-wing media outlets and yahoos who tend to be conservatives. Virtually no one who claims that global warming isn't real is a scientist. So who is believable and who not? The polar ice caps are quite clearly melting, Alaska's tundra is disappearing--and yet yahoos with no scientific background want to declaim about something they know nothing about.

We were also told for 40 years that cigarette smoking was perfect safe--no worries about health issues. So we have conservatives with an agenda trying to pretend that scientists have an agenda. Science is completely based in fact--that's the point of it. Religion has no basis in fact--ZERO. And politics often has little to do with fact; it has to do with politicians spouting nonsense to keep getting contributions from energy companies so they can get elected. Religion and issues like global warming underscore the fact that America is actually a pretty seriously backward country, because we have a lot of people who are too thick to realize they're being manipulated. When you stop believing scientists, you've got a very serious problem. Meantime, we have religion leaders trying to tell us what "god" thinks--some wacky southern baptist poobah said recently that "god" set national boundaries. Really? Complete and utter nonsense, obviously--embarrassing and scary, really, and this kind of craziness has become constant in America. We can only hope that science reduces the influence of religion and religious nonsense--the world would be more peaceful and much better off, but it's a mighty struggle because so many people--in American and all around the world--are heavily invested in their own ignorance.
Click to expand...


Climate change is the most politically flawed form of study. It's hard to trust the people doing the study who've been caught faking the data and throwing out the results they disagree with more than once.


Doesn't me we should stop studying......just change hands on those performing those studies
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#27
#27
MaxamusXIII said:
It was a thought expressed in the article that I don't disagree with but can not support with actual data.
If the USA is not the most technologically advanced then we are clearly near the top. And with 3% of the population claiming to be atheist leaving 97% believing is some form of a higher power....that makes a strong argument for most religious as well.
Click to expand...

The article said the US was the most religious "westernized" country.

There are not 97% that believe in some higher power.

You are leaving out the ever growing segment of people who claim to be agnostic. This will continue to be the fastest growing group because the obvious conclusion is that the existence of a higher power can neither be proven or disproven, thus...nobody knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
MaxamusXIII said:
It was a thought expressed in the article that I don't disagree with but can not support with actual data.
If the USA is not the most technologically advanced then we are clearly near the top. And with 3% of the population claiming to be atheist leaving 97% believing is some form of a higher power....that makes a strong argument for most religious as well.
Click to expand...

We've only got about 56% who consider themselves religious and that number has been falling for decades. I don't think that we are the most religious. For that, I would probably look to less advanced and less prosperous countries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#30
#30
luthervol said:
The article said the US was the most religious "westernized" country.

There are not 97% that believe in some higher power.

You are leaving out the ever growing segment of people who claim to be agnostic. This will continue to be the fastest growing group because the obvious conclusion is that the existence of a higher power can neither be proven or disproven, thus...nobody knows.
Click to expand...


Until it can be proven that there is a higher power, there is no higher power--meaning there is no "god," which of course is quite obvious. You are suggesting that because no one has proven that "god" doesn't exist, that we can't know whether there is a "god" or not. No, we do know--there isn't, because there is not a scintilla of evidence that there is and, of course, there never will be. \

It is like saying that we don't know whether there is a purple elephant in our back yard because nobody can prove that there isn't. Uh, no: the burden of proof lies with the person who claims--against all evidence--that there is. If you look and do not see a purple elephant, //there is no purple elephant./// If you want to believe anyway that there is a purple elephant in your backyard because you have some sort of need to believe that, that is your prerogative---but it doesn't change the fact that there is no purple elephant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#31
#31
armchair said:
You prove that science and religion can't really coexist. There is a //strong scientific consensus// that global warming is occurring--and yet you want to pretend that it is not. Are you a global warming expert? The people who oppose the idea of global warming are not scientists--they are energy industry executives, leaders of massive companies, who don't want to spend extra money on environmental regulations--and they've spent big sums to spread disinformation about climate change. That's a fact. Conservative politicians have joined in spreading the disinformation because they've always been in bed with big business and always opposed to environmental regulations--why, I'm not sure, because protecting our environment--and the health of the American people and people all over the world--should be both a high moral and practical priority. This disinformation about global warming then gets spread by right-wing media outlets and yahoos who tend to be conservatives. Virtually no one who claims that global warming isn't real is a scientist. So who is believable and who not? The polar ice caps are quite clearly melting, Alaska's tundra is disappearing--and yet yahoos with no scientific background want to declaim about something they know nothing about.

We were also told for 40 years that cigarette smoking was perfect safe--no worries about health issues. So we have conservatives with an agenda trying to pretend that scientists have an agenda. Science is completely based in fact--that's the point of it. Religion has no basis in fact--ZERO. And politics often has little to do with fact; it has to do with politicians spouting nonsense to keep getting contributions from energy companies so they can get elected. Religion and issues like global warming underscore the fact that America is actually a pretty seriously backward country, because we have a lot of people who are too thick to realize they're being manipulated. When you stop believing scientists, you've got a very serious problem. Meantime, we have religion leaders trying to tell us what "god" thinks--some wacky southern baptist poobah said recently that "god" set national boundaries. Really? Complete and utter nonsense, obviously--embarrassing and scary, really, and this kind of craziness has become constant in America. We can only hope that science reduces the influence of religion and religious nonsense--the world would be more peaceful and much better off, but it's a mighty struggle because so many people--in American and all around the world--are heavily invested in their own ignorance.
Click to expand...

You know scientists created the modern cigarette right?...........

And you do know there is something called superseded scientific theory right? You know, where a once accepted scientific theory (or fact) turns out to be wrong. Oops..

Hell Armchair, going with your line of thinking I bet you still believe in a geocentric universe. Earths flat right? Are you still a practicing alchemist?

But whats more important is how are you helping the environment? You are obviously using a computer so that is helping further the destruction of the environment through fossil fuels. Do you drive a car? Do use plastics? Do you use roads? Air conditioning? Do you eat food that someone else farmed? Do you wear clothes made overseas? Do only subside on water from lakes and streams? Is your zoloft bottle recyclable? Is your straight jacket made from locally sourced hemp?
 
#32
#32
ClearwaterVol said:
We've only got about 56% who consider themselves religious and that number has been falling for decades. I don't think that we are the most religious. For that, I would probably look to less advanced and less prosperous countries.
Click to expand...

Again it comes down to your definition of religious. I know several people who defined themselves as not religious but they clearly are.
 
#33
#33
armchair said:
Until it can be proven that there is a higher power, there is no higher power--meaning there is no "god," which of course is quite obvious. You are suggesting that because no one has proven that "god" doesn't exist, that we can't know whether there is a "god" or not. No, we do know--there isn't, because there is not a scintilla of evidence that there is and, of course, there never will be. \
Click to expand...

.
 
#34
#34
armchair said:
Until it can be proven that there is a higher power, there is no higher power--meaning there is no "god," which of course is quite obvious. You are suggesting that because no one has proven that "god" doesn't exist, that we can't know whether there is a "god" or not. No, we do know--there isn't, because there is not a scintilla of evidence that there is and, of course, there never will be. \
Click to expand...

3c4b6f4dc4f3dbc2ba6d56ee60227076fcc92c28e1eb09c5a158823aa6f096d3.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#36
#36
armchair said:
Until it can be proven that there is a higher power, there is no higher power--meaning there is no "god," which of course is quite obvious. You are suggesting that because no one has proven that "god" doesn't exist, that we can't know whether there is a "god" or not. No, we do know--there isn't, because there is not a scintilla of evidence that there is and, of course, there never will be. \

It is like saying that we don't know whether there is a purple elephant in our back yard because nobody can prove that there isn't. Uh, no: the burden of proof lies with the person who claims--against all evidence--that there is. If you look and do not see a purple elephant, //there is no purple elephant./// If you want to believe anyway that there is a purple elephant in your backyard because you have some sort of need to believe that, that is your prerogative---but it doesn't change the fact that there is no purple elephant.
Click to expand...

And that's what puts you in the 3%. Hat's off to you. I'm not quite there. I put myself in the agnostic category. If I was forced to place odds, I'd say there is about a 98% chance there is no "god". I look at it more like alien life forms than purple elephants. Are there alien life forms in the universe? If so, are they more intelligent than us? Personally, I'm not sure.
 
#37
#37
n_huffhines said:
God and science can comfortably coexist. It's certain ideas about God that can't coexist with science.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. There are certain groups of Christianity that go with mystical God that is not presented in their scriptures.

Young earthers are the ones are usually pick on.
 
#38
#38
luthervol said:
And that's what puts you in the 3%. Hat's off to you. I'm not quite there. I put myself in the agnostic category. If I was forced to place odds, I'd say there is about a 98% chance there is no "god". I look at it more like alien life forms than purple elephants. Are there alien life forms in the universe? If so, are they more intelligent than us? Personally, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

To be fair if most people were Armchair they would probably think there is no way there could be a god.
 
#39
#39
MaxamusXIII said:
Climate change is the most politically flawed form of study. It's hard to trust the people doing the study who've been caught faking the data and throwing out the results they disagree with more than once.


Doesn't me we should stop studying......just change hands on those performing those studies
Click to expand...

This so much. I'm not a climate change denier, and am very worried about the environment since we just have the one planet to work with. I just don't have full confidence because of the perspectice of ideologues wanting and pushing for specific outcomes from studies with what appears to be manipulation of data for their purposes.

I also don't trust the scientists working for the Gillette razor company with their studies that we need to add more blades to our razors. I must be a razor burn denier too.
 
#40
#40
ClearwaterVol said:
Can you really define yourself as not religious and be religious?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If you're definition is different than mine you can clearly think you're not religious while I'll believe you are.

Ex: I'm a Torah observant Jew who believes Yeshua is the promised last prophet and Messiah. I spent a decent amount of time on it. I have a good friend that is more dedicated to his study of science (he's not a scientist by trade) than I am to my G-d. He seeks science that fits his world view. That study gives him comfort, Pease, and meaning. He would say he's not religious and I say he's more religious than I am.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#41
#41
Madscientistvol said:
This so much. I'm not a climate change denier, and am very worried about the environment since we just have the one planet to work with. I just don't have full confidence because of the perspectice of ideologues wanting and pushing for specific outcomes from studies with what appears to be manipulation of data for their purposes.

I also don't trust the scientists working for the Gillette razor company with their studies that we need to add more blades to our razors. I must be a razor burn denier too.
Click to expand...

And flodgers coffee has proven that coffee is good for my liver.
 
#42
#42
PKT_VOL said:
Of course. I used it to illustrate the potential for extreme differences.



I agreed in my post. It's an (unanswerable) metaphysical question, although plenty on both sides will tell you they know for certain.

As I stated in my post, where science has made the most difference is in the discussion on the nature of a potential creator; not whether one actually exists.



As I said in my post, I don't think he coherently argued such. His strong argument was against secular historicism; not secularism working against science.
Click to expand...

I guess I was more exploring the idea than his actual conclusion as it hadn't occurred to me to consider his angle before
 
#43
#43
MaxamusXIII said:
Again it comes down to your definition of religious. I know several people who defined themselves as not religious but they clearly are.
Click to expand...

Are those who define themselves as not religious but clearly are going to Heaven? Seems like they'd be running around telling other souls I really shouldn't be here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#45
#45
MaxamusXIII said:
Again it comes down to your definition of religious. I know several people who defined themselves as not religious but they clearly are.
Click to expand...

Myself, I'm a firm believer but will not participate in organized religion and I do not believe the bible is the literal word of God (it was written by men with agendas).
 
#48
#48
I consider those that adhere to a particular sect and organize with them as religious.

Someone that has a belief in a higher power but doesn't belong to a group is spiritual.

Just my perspective as a former Catholic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#49
#49
ClearwaterVol said:
I would define it as "those attempting to get into some divine afterlife."
Click to expand...

See I'd define it as participating in a belief system in order to bring purpose to your life and/or meaning/understanding of life.

I know of 2 people personally that are both self defined as "atheists ". One I consider religious the other is not.
Similarly I know people who define themselves as Christian. One religious the other not so much.

To me it's about actual actions and motivations rather than self definition.

I could define myself as an apache attack helicopter but that doesn't mean it's true
 
#50
#50
zeppelin128 said:
I consider those that adhere to a particular sect and organize with them as religious.

Someone that has a belief in a higher power but doesn't belong to a group is spiritual.

Just my perspective as a former Catholic.
Click to expand...

Catholic????
No wouber you're so screwy.

(I'm kidding louder )
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top