• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can Religion Ever Hope To Stop Science From Science From Probing?

CLAX1911 said:
Not in the realm of the unknown.
Click to expand...

So if I say the god Thor exists and he has a hammer that shoots lightning bolts that no one can lift but him and you say that Thor, based on a lack of evidence, probably doesn't exist, you equate these two beliefs/ opinions as equal?
 
Last edited:
csbrown28 said:
So if I say the god Thor exists and he has a hammer that shoots lightning bolts that no one can lift but him and you say that Thor, based on a lack of evidence, probably doesn't exist, you equate these two beliefs/ opinions as equal?
Click to expand...
Neither one can be proven. So they are equally meaningless.
 
rhinefire said:
As time continues so do Christian religion followers numbers throughout the world, yet science expands with sometimes mind numbing discoveries. Science to me feeds on it's progress (work) while religion seeks to maintain and grow the status quo despite what science learns. So far both sides respect each other and leave well enough alone. Will it last for another say, one thousand years or will when science learns about "The Beginning" (presuming here they do) will the majority of the worlds Chrisitians shrug it off saying simply, "So you found the God Particle and who do you think made it"?
Click to expand...

There is nothing in and of themselves that makes science and religion incompatible save for humans. Science is about the how and, to a limited extent, why. Religion looks at what is behind the mechanics of it all. If we compare reality to a car, science seeks to learn how the combustion works and how that in turn provides motion. Religion looks deeper and asks why 6 and not 10 cylinders, or why the plether interior over the vinyl. It's not a great analogy, but hey it's been a long day.

With religion we are looking at the creator of the universe. Science does nothing to debunk that creator. All it can do, at least for now, is to show how the mechanics of the universe operate.

Tim the plumber said:
There was never a world flood.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there? I seem to recall a certain strata that is common over a extremely large area of the mid-east, Africa, Europe and parts of Asia. At the supposed time of the "Flood", the world didn't encompass the whole of the planet. Man hadn't spread out that much, relatively speaking. The concept of the world and the planet not being the same is where we get such sayings as "the known world". The word has a variable scope determined by context and intent.

The various stories of creation in the book are wrong. That's no matter how you wish to redefine the word day.
Click to expand...

In what manner is it wrong? Seems to me that the Genesis account is an extremely simplified version of the billions of years of the universe coming into being. Looking at the planet alone, we start with a bunch of gasses and other dust like material and then gather it together (separating the heavens and the earth). Then it cools down and forms land masses and water gathers into huge bodies (separating the land and the sea). Then life develops first in the waters and then on land (same order as Genesis).

Man's comprehension capacity was extremely limited back then. So simplified explanations and instructions were needed. Then we throw into all this, translation error potential, transcription error potential, and power hungry humans in charge issue and yeah the details can get muddled, what few there are. Any one who doesn't take a religious text with a grain of salt is an idiot.

grip said:
Not to you or in general?

I would think a God could be whatever 'It' chooses. A people, creation or singular male personality, since this Being would essentially be pure energy.
Click to expand...

Maybe not even that. It's not beyond reason that the being that created the universe, essentially stands outside of it, where our concepts of matter and energy are meaningless, or at least simplistic in comparison.

tpphd said:
Of course there are limitations. The post asked about a living god. If something is living then it will die whether it is god or not if it lives it dies. If you are going to tell me that jesus is still walking around then where is he. Jesus is considered a god and believe it or not died. There are limits to a living being. Every living being eventually dies it is something that cannot be disproven.nothing lives forever.
Click to expand...

If you are talking in the physical sense then you are indeed right. All individual life processes will stop for every physical being. The concept of life after death presumes that the physical life is just one type and that we possess some other type of "life" that would continue the existence of that self-aware part of us that animals do not seem to possess. So in the sense that some type of consciousness continues on after the physical body fails and dies, yes you have something that can lives forever.

BTW, not all Christians denominations hold that Jesus himself is a god. A spiritual being, and the top one at that. Some place him as the first spiritual being created by God, hence his place as the "Son of God".

Jerry said:
How has Wicca changed with science over the last century or so?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Wicca in and of itself is new, although it is based upon ancient ways and traditions. So it combines the old and new and as such hasn't needed to change much with relation to scientific advancement.
 
maquiscat said:
Keep in mind that Wicca in and of itself is new, although it is based upon ancient ways and traditions. So it combines the old and new and as such hasn't needed to change much with relation to scientific advancement.
Click to expand...
So then explain how witchcraft has changed science.
 
What if at some point in the future we decide that what we know points to a god. Heads will explode. The issue with atheism is that most see science as an authority that will eventually know all that is to be known - over time, of course. This is a simple leap of faith.


William Rea said:
No, like I said, I wasn't referring to a popularity contest and I gave plenty of examples but I'll take one non-Christian one to further explain. It was thought for a long time in many Nordic countries that thunder was caused by Thor striking his hammer because they had no idea how or why thunder happened. We know the nature of thunder and lightning now and so we no longer need (G)god(s) to fill that gap for us just as we no longer need (G)god(s) to explain many things; although people that are unable to cope with saying, 'we don't know but, we may know at some point in the future' still cling to religion.
Click to expand...
 
countryboy said:
Every ideology has it's negatives. Is that a good reason to dismiss the positives?
Click to expand...

The guy doesn't read the posts he responds too, don't Waste Your time.
 
maquiscat said:
There is nothing in and of themselves that makes science and religion incompatible save for humans.

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
There was never a world flood.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there? I seem to recall a certain strata that is common over a extremely large area of the mid-east, Africa, Europe and parts of Asia. At the supposed time of the "Flood", the world didn't encompass the whole of the planet. Man hadn't spread out that much, relatively speaking. The concept of the world and the planet not being the same is where we get such sayings as "the known world". The word has a variable scope determined by context and intent.
Click to expand...

What strata are you talking about?

Remember that the world flood story has the Arc landing on a known mountain.

No flood has ever been across all of the land from Syria to Egypt. And those are mostly the flatter bits.

If you knew anything of geology, physical geography, archeology or lots of other disciplines you would know that there has never been a world flood.
 
TobyOne said:
What if at some point in the future we decide that what we know points to a god. Heads will explode. The issue with atheism is that most see science as an authority that will eventually know all that is to be known - over time, of course. This is a simple leap of faith.
Click to expand...

No, it's a prediction based on the trend of science progressing.
 
maquiscat said:
There is nothing in and of themselves that makes science and religion incompatible save for humans. Science is about the how and, to a limited extent, why. Religion looks at what is behind the mechanics of it all. If we compare reality to a car, science seeks to learn how the combustion works and how that in turn provides motion. Religion looks deeper and asks why 6 and not 10 cylinders, or why the plether interior over the vinyl. It's not a great analogy, but hey it's been a long day.
Click to expand...

Religion creates cartoon cars.
 
Jerry said:
So then explain how witchcraft has changed science.
Click to expand...

You have it backwards. Science adds to our understanding of the universe as well as opens up new questions and mysteries. As such all aspects of life adjust around the new discoveries. We learn of rounded earths and helio centric solar systems and long distance instant communications and so much more and religion makes use of it all. In today's world many pagans are conducting cyber circles. Christians are outreaching with multimedia presentations during services. But that's not where you have it backwards.

Science and religion compliment each other. Neither one changes the other as far as their essential selves goes. Oh sure details can change, but then we have to wonder where those wrong details might come from. Religion and science are both non-living non-thinking "things", for lack of better term. They have no agenda or reasoning. Like any other tool, they can be used or abused, help or harm, depending upon who is making use of them. Science provides us with a better understanding of what mechanics the creator (whether that be a "he", "she", "it" or "they") put into place when the universe was created. Religions provides us with the morals and guidance to grow and thrive in this universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom