Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #363 - balloketchup (09/23/2013) [-]
Understanding how the world works is science.

Understanding why the world works is Religion. Both are important to me.
User avatar #370 to #363 - MosKunas (09/24/2013) [-]
Religion in now way accurately explains how the world works. God you are so inaccurate in what you just said, make me sick to my stomach.
User avatar #381 to #370 - balloketchup (09/24/2013) [-]
You lost me, English please? I said Religion doesn't explain how the world works, it explains why it works, or for what purpose. Science explains how.
#382 to #381 - rodion (09/24/2013) [-]
Religion attempts to explain why the world works as it does, but that doesn't mean it has any foundation that isn't, at the very least, extremely contentious. Authority hardly counts.

Science ignores considering why things happen, in favour of why we are owed any justification and intrinsic meaning to begin with. That's mainly because science fails to ground the former in much at all. Some might call that a "win". Others would quite decisively not.
User avatar #383 to #382 - balloketchup (09/24/2013) [-]
People are different man, I prefer Religion to Science anyday. And I'm a math major.
#386 to #383 - rodion (09/25/2013) [-]
Nobody ever said you weren't free to choose, but it was just something worth noting. Personal preference has nothing to do with facts, after all.
User avatar #387 to #386 - balloketchup (09/25/2013) [-]
But how can you say it is FACT that Science dwarfs Religion? You can't. There is no foundation for such a claim, other than spite and arrogance. I'm sure you're one of those Atheists that hides behind the claim that religion (namely Christianity) is intolerant, but look at you man. Hit me with these 'facts' you speak of, or just stop.
#388 to #387 - rodion (09/25/2013) [-]
No need to put words in my mouth, buddy. That will doubtless achieve little. Same to the personal attacks. Anyway, I'm refering to that which is measurable and repeatable when I speak of facts. Facts give credence to theories. There are no religious theories that are not replaced by scientific ones when enough evidence comes to light. Everything else is not well enough understood yet by humanity.

Anyway, as we all know, disproving a negative is impossible, so the "no foundation" accusation, whilst accurate, only paints a pretty picture of what science readily ADMITS it has no clue about (but may well do in the future).
User avatar #389 to #388 - balloketchup (09/25/2013) [-]
The only fact you just said was 'fact gives credence to theories',which is true. But you can't replace religion with science. This is pointless, you've veered off onto the 'I'm an atheist so I'm automatically superior in my beliefs' train, and I'm done with it. Believe what you want, I don't really care.
#392 to #389 - rodion (09/25/2013) [-]
Much of humanity once believed that the world was flat and that the sun orbited around it. Now we do not. Some of humanity believed that the world was created roughly 6000 years ago (give or take a few thousand). Thanks to mountains of evidence in the contrary, science can conclude that either it is VASTLY older...or that some (miraculous?) contrivance has made the world appear many millions of years younger than the cumulative efforts of all modern science has understood it to be. Science does not deal in certainties; only in likelihood. Guess which of the above is more likely, by current standards. Looking into the future, perhaps one day, we will have a strong answer to the problem of abiogenesis, or even the origins of our quaint little universe. Science has replaced tradition and faith on innumerate occasions. I'm betting that this trend carries on.

You know what the funniest part in all of this is? It was never about belief to begin with. You can believe what you want; that doesn't mean you have the right to be free of scrutiny, when you assert that they are correct. You said that religion gives us an understanding of why the world works. How can you even begin to justify that? Belief? On what grounds? I'm DESPERATE to hear a valid response!
User avatar #393 to #392 - balloketchup (09/26/2013) [-]
What else would Religion try to answer? It's obviously not how. Any religious text is about why we're here, that's evidence enough. And what you said about people believing the world was flat is true; that was a wrong scientific belief. Science changes every day. And if you choose to limit yourself from religion based on a few outdated or poorly preached Scriptures, that's on you. The message Genesis conveys is 'why are we here?' not 'how did we get here'. Sure, some people choose to believe that God created everything in 7 24 hour days, I choose to believe otherwise, based on scriptural evidence, and the fact that he most likely spoke in terms that the people of those times would understand. Continue this please, I'm actually enjoying it.
#395 to #393 - rodion (09/27/2013) [-]
I think we are very much at ends with many different concepts. The definition of evidence, for instance, we do not agree on for one. Roman and Greek mythology has plenty of literature relating to the supernatural powers of their Gods. More modern examples include the holy texts of every religion out there, including Islam and Judaism (the three abrahamic religions, having plagiarised one another to death and back, along with pilfering much of their "original" material from older religions). The Bible is no more valid or authoritative a resource than any other holy book.

If you want to talk about Genesis and it's discussion of why we are in this state of affairs, it bears mention that original sin is one of the most disgusting concepts ever devised. Christopher Hitchens sums it up far better than I ever could in "The God Delusion", so I recommend you start there, if you want to look into it.

Okay, onto the topic of the flat world, again. First off, I'd like to point out that science doesn't necessarily believe anything. "Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence", after all. With that being said, allow me to point out that whatever form of reasoning was used to come to the conclusion that the earth was flat all those years ago, as soon as it was debunked by rationally minded people, it was completely abandoned...but not by everyone. Religion is well documented to be one of the greatest suppressive forces against scientific progress. The catholic church, in centuries gone by, would actively seek out and destroy anything that threatened the worldview it provided for the masses. Though not as extreme, religion still plays quite a hefty role in retarding science in so many critical areas. Stem cell research being one, which has untold potential for improving the lives of all people on this planet.

Running low on characters. The ball is in your court. =D
#398 to #395 - rodion (09/30/2013) [-]
Oops. Hitchens' book is "God is not Great". The other is also worth a read.
#396 to #395 - balloketchup (09/30/2013) [-]
This has gone on far too long. You believe that you shouldn't believe in something without evidence. The mere statement 'you shouldn't believe something that you can't prove scientifically' is illogical; you can't prove you shouldn't believe something that you can't prove scientifically.

As far as recommending a book with a cynical (and biased) religious view, I think I'll pass.

Onto the 'flat world' point; new evidence emerges constantly, and scientific beliefs change substantially every century. Our modern age is no exception.

And finally, yes, the Catholic Church is well known for it's ex-communications, the brutal onslaught of the Crusades, and rapin' lil boise. I'm not gonna defend this, not because I'm not Catholic but simply because the sin mentioned in Genesis corrupted absolutely (to my non-scientifically proven belief), and it includes the Church, of whatever form. It wasn't God or the Bible leading them to become 'holier than thou' or commit murder, it was those who abused the Bible, going in with their own beliefs and trying to find verses to back it up. That's how a cult is born. The Bible is supposed to speak to you, not the other way around.

The scariest people in my eyes are those who pray a prayer or recite a verse and think they're 'saved'. The Bible is against this belief, yet it I've heard it preached dozens of times. Biblically, Christians are called to live a holy life, holy meaning 'set apart for a purpose'. If you pray a prayer and keep doing...whatever it is you did that landed you in a place to ask for forgiveness, what's the point? Anyhoo my point in that; I fear less for the Atheists' soul than I do for those that fool themselves with this skin-deep belief.

I'm done man. I really enjoyed this; you had many valid points. Not gonna lie, I don't have a decent answer for them all. Last thing I'll say: I was you 2 years ago.

Aaaand now I'm gonna use this site for it's intended purpose...mediocre humor..
#397 to #396 - rodion (09/30/2013) [-]
One small point, and then I'll leave you in peace:
A belief in drawing conclusions from that which is observable and reproducible is not at all unsound, logically; having NO empirical basis for one's assumptions has the potential to be extremely dangerous, though. The fact of the matter is that science has been getting things wrong ever since the advent of the scientific method, but not because of hard-nosed and defiant resistance to new ideas. The two things that often stand in the way of accurate conclusions are 1) a lack of understanding and presently inadequate explanations of current evidence, and 2) an inadequate amount of evidence to support theories that fit well with current facts. No true scientist would be ashamed to admit such things, since they are perfectly intellectually honest...unlike trying to defend the inability to disprove a negative as a valid response.

This has indeed been entertaining. It seems we both got some practice out of this. Should we meet again, lets hope the circumstances are more friendly. Until next time.
User avatar #365 to #363 - balloketchup (09/23/2013) [-]
meant to italize 'how', stoned mistake.
 Friends (0)