Science kills religion.

It's true if you think about it.

In the beginning of time people didn't understand what made their crops grow, so they put the blame on a sky-daddy, or something else. They thought that plagues were caused by sky-daddy, or the equivalent.

This time and age we know why crops grow, we know the reason for plagues, we can make alternatives for these things too. As in we can grow crops without sunlight, and we can make/replicate viruses/diseases whatever.

Science is always growing, and has more than likely infinite possibilities.

So, my question is.. do you think centuries from now, maybe longer, maybe less, religion will be totally gone? Of course science will never be able to disprove some Gods, but it will definitely shine glimpses of light on places people believe is caused by the hand of a supernatural being.

And before anyone says it, yeah, yeah, science isn't the only reason. We all know intellect has evolved over the centuries, and people are smarter and think for logically now than before, but still science plays a major role in that too. :]

So just give your opinions on if you believe religion will ever die! I really don't think it ever will, and if it does I believe it will be thousands of years before it does. But at least some people are opening up their eyes now and seeing how ridiculous some religions are. :]

I believe religion may die out, but I do not think spirituality and the like will.... I think many spiritual beliefs about consciousness will be confirmed by science...

I hope religion dies out, one day. However I have no problem with spirituality surviving. Religion is just sick and controls people. Spirituality, on the other hand, largely comes from inside yourself and not some cardboard Ritz cracker you eat at church.

science already tried it

still alive!


spirituality will give the final blow

Brain science can give spirituality a run for their money.

I haven't seen any brain science give spirituality a run for its money?

not even the studies behind NDE

spirituality does NOT separate the physical from the spiritual. its all interconnected. just because science says "we've discovered a chemical reaction that does x". that is not an argument against a spiritual understanding.

"Christian mythology" will eventually be studied in schools. It will be viewed the way we view the ancient Greek paganism with Zeus and the gang. It was the big religion of ancient Greece, but now we call it "Greek mythology" without it coming across as offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"Christian mythology" will eventually be studied in schools. It will be viewed the way we view the ancient Greek paganism with Zeus and the gang. It was the big religion of ancient Greece, but now we call it "Greek mythology" without it coming across as offensive.

---

Nice, I hadn't thought of that yet. :]

If trends continue, religion may die out completely, yes.

Personally I find this a very good thing. The universe is still incredibly mysterious when you attempt to study it rationally; all religious superstitions do is belittle it.

However, trends may not continue. I think it's likely that this civilisation will be completely destroyed in a few centuries or so. Then we will look back on Christianity as some kind of crazy cult of the oil age, whilst succumbing to entirely new strains of mysticism ourselves; exactly like how we look back upon the ancient Greeks today whilst believing Christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"Christian mythology" will eventually be studied in schools. It will be viewed the way we view the ancient Greek paganism with Zeus and the gang. It was the big religion of ancient Greece, but now we call it "Greek mythology" without it coming across as offensive.

---

Took the words right out of my mouth. Good observation Universal.

I did have one politically correct teacher that always referred to as the Greek religion. But maybe she believed in Zeus!

honestly, would it be so wrong to learn about all religions at high school level? Religion is such a huge cornerstone of mankind and has propelled how our culture has developed since it's been with us. I also hate the christian white male lectures on foreign religions. Always making them appear as retarded as possible and never going into how deep other religions are

They're not deep. They're primitive superstitions. If they all shone light on some kind of mystical truth, then they wouldn't all contradict each other. It has indeed been a cornerstone of our culture, but then so has war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

I did have one politically correct teacher that always referred to as the Greek religion. But maybe she believed in Zeus!

honestly, would it be so wrong to learn about all religions at high school level? Religion is such a huge cornerstone of mankind and has propelled how our culture has developed since it's been with us. I also hate the christian white male lectures on foreign religions. Always making them appear as retarded as possible and never going into how deep other religions are

---

Yes. Because separation between church and state is mandated by the constitution. Also, it would be really, really annoying for someone like me who doesn't give a shit about religion. Learning about ancient cultures and their belief system is one thing, but having a class devoted to the study of religions is something I can't stomach. Plus in-depth knowledge of religions is completely, absolutely useless in the long run. So there would be no point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Plus in-depth knowledge of religions is completely, absolutely useless in the long run. So there would be no point.

---

I'm an atheist. I hate religion. I'm all for seperation of church and state. But this has to be the dumbest and most ignorant thing I've read here, and that's saying something.

Religion is part of the history of humankind, whether you like it or not. Theology has its place in society as part of our history, something we can look at, learn from, and study. Our history is an important part of our advancement as a race, and religion is part of that history whether you like it or not.

You ignore religion and pretend like it didn't ever exist, you've just erased a pivotal portion of humanity. Congratulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExoByte

I'm an atheist. I hate religion. I'm all for seperation of church and state. But this has to be the dumbest and most ignorant thing I've read here, and that's saying something.

Religion is part of the history of humankind, whether you like it or not. Theology has its place in society as part of our history, something we can look at, learn from, and study. Our history is an important part of our advancement as a race, and religion is part of that history whether you like it or not.

You ignore religion and pretend like it didn't ever exist, you've just erased a pivotal portion of humanity. Congratulations.

---

Let me clarify. I considered this and that's why I put the in-depth. I figured general knowledge of religion is in fact a historical part of mankind and fulfills the role you've outlined above, but I can't see how intricate knowledge of religious rituals and practices could be useful in someone's life.

Edit: I also should have stated "religious practices" instead of just stating "religion" by itself. Having a class in highschool would most likely teach students about religious practices seeing as the history of religion is already taught in history classes. All in all, I agree with your post, I just should have phrased that better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

I haven't seen any brain science give spirituality a run for its money?

not even the studies behind NDE

spirituality does NOT separate the physical from the spiritual. its all interconnected. just because science says "we've discovered a chemical reaction that does x". that is not an argument against a spiritual understanding.

---

Atleast with brain science there is an answer to some of those questions, whereas spirituality does not have any except meditating and thinking what you see is really dead people in heaven.

Quote:

---

not even the studies behind NDE

---

Yes it does....you ever hear of those neruo experts talk about why you feel calm, why you have a sensation of moving, why there is a bright light, etc? go watch that Pam Reynolds story, then listen to the person discrediting Pams expierience in being real.

edit- Actually i am not sure if you will be able to find it...it was part of the BBC documentary that was taken off their site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Atleast with brain science there is an answer to some of those questions, whereas spirituality does not have any except meditating and thinking what you see is really dead people in heaven.



Yes it does....you ever hear of those neruo experts talk about why you feel calm, why you have a sensation of moving, why there is a bright light, etc? go watch that Pam Reynolds story, then listen to the person discrediting Pams expierience in being real.

edit- Actually i am not sure if you will be able to find it...it was part of the BBC documentary that was taken off their site.

---

you dont understand


you separate the physical from the spiritual

spiritual people however, do not

there is a physical reason for everything you experience in the brain, AND a spiritual side to the physical realm. the two are not separate, but interrelated. there is no science that has gone against spirituality. on the contrary.

theres no point in going in deph here

what needs to be understood is spirituality becomes a point of view, a way of viewing reality, not a set of standardized beliefs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Yes. Because separation between church and state is mandated by the constitution. Also, it would be really, really annoying for someone like me who doesn't give a shit about religion. Learning about ancient cultures and their belief system is one thing, but having a class devoted to the study of religions is something I can't stomach. Plus in-depth knowledge of religions is completely, absolutely useless in the long run. So there would be no point.

---

what does separation of church and state have anything to do with learning about religion at school?

we already learn about religion at school every time we learn about different cultures

how is learning about different religions any more useless than learning about past and extinct cultures? religion still has a historical value, and is a necessary cornerstone in light of how cultures have developed. you can't understand one without the other

if you hate religion so much you are offended learning about it, thats your problem. And seriously, A SAD PROBLEM. Get over it!

I enjoyed learning about the egyptians, the mayans, and the greeks! It would have been nicer however, to learn about these cultures from the most unbiased point of view, not tainted by the white christian. For example.....greek mythology. Clearly white man christian terminology!

Can you imagine how different high school would be, if all students knew about all major religions. Do you realize what an impact that would be on the bible belt? There is nothing illegal about schools teaching religion. But according to the american as I understand it, it has to be unbiased. And teach them all. Even agnosticm, atheisticm. TEACH THEM ALL.

Wouldnt that be best? To learn the truth on how diverse religion actually is? Wouldn't a few bubbles burst?

Do you know how many christians out there, that think hindus are pagans?

Religion is already an elective in a lot of schools across the western world. Forcing it on people as part of the curriculum means we're taking time away from WORTHWHILE subjects to focus on 'fairytales of the world'.

No thanks. Keep it in chuch and in the history classes. It doesnt need a subject of its own. There's already enough pointless subjects taught in the current curriculum without needing to add more. At least at my high school, Physical Education needs a complete overhaul. Needs to be less "here's a ball, go kick it/throw it/catch it" and more on structuring your diet, understanding Energy In vs Energy Out and what that means for weight gain/loss. And at the very least some weights training, for boys and girls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

what does separation of church and state have anything to do with learning about religion at school?

we already learn about religion at school every time we learn about different cultures

how is learning about different religions any more useless than learning about past and extinct cultures? religion still has a historical value, and is a necessary cornerstone in light of how cultures have developed. you can't understand one without the other

if you hate religion so much you are offended learning about it, thats your problem. And seriously, A SAD PROBLEM. Get over it!

I enjoyed learning about the egyptians, the mayans, and the greeks! It would have been nicer however, to learn about these cultures from the most unbiased point of view, not tainted by the white christian. For example.....greek mythology. Clearly white man christian terminology!

Can you imagine how different high school would be, if all students knew about all major religions. Do you realize what an impact that would be on the bible belt? There is nothing illegal about schools teaching religion. But according to the american as I understand it, it has to be unbiased. And teach them all. Even agnosticm, atheisticm. TEACH THEM ALL.

Wouldnt that be best? To learn the truth on how diverse religion actually is? Wouldn't a few bubbles burst?

Do you know how many christians out there, that think hindus are pagans?

---

Please read my revised response instigated by Exo.

If you're talking about histories of religions and vaguely what they believe in, then you should know that they already teach that in highschool. I do know about major religions, I also know about other religions that weren't quite so great. I know of Christianity and quite a few of its sects, Judaism, Islam and its sects, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism (which is my favorite by far), Greek polytheism, Roman polytheism, Egyptian polytheism, Norse polytheism, Hinduism, and vaguely about the Native American beliefs (which includes all peoples native to the Americas before the white man came). All of this has been taught to me in public school. I find quite a bit of it interesting.

Quote:

---

if you hate religion so much you are offended learning about it, thats your problem. And seriously, A SAD PROBLEM. Get over it!

---

I've taught myself about the Druids, Mormonism, Scientology, Satanism, and expanded my knowledge of Buddhism in my spare time. You know, the stuff I was interested in hearing about that they didn't talk about so much in school.

I assumed you already knew they taught about religion in schools so long as it ties into history/geography and that you were for teaching about religion's more intricate practices. That, I would argue with you, IS useless.

And why do you say the term "Greek Mythology" is White man Christian terminology? Personally, I look at nearly all of religion as mythology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Religion is already an elective in a lot of schools across the western world. Forcing it on people as part of the curriculum means we're taking time away from WORTHWHILE subjects to focus on 'fairytales of the world'.

No thanks. Keep it in chuch and in the history classes. It doesnt need a subject of its own.

---

Really? What exactly is involved in the curriculum of these electives?

I like being the instigator.

At least in Australia, it's always either an elective or a mandatory subject in religiously motived privately funded high schools (anything named St-Whatever), and always relating to the religion of the school. So mostly all catholics.

To the best of my understanding, they only teach about the Catholic faith. Not the other 2500 sects of Christianity or Islam, Buddism or anything else.

I have a non-religious friend that went to a religious school, and he took Religion as an elective out of pure curiosity. He says it actually turned him more AWAY from religion after taking the class.

In Tennessee it was against the policy for religion to be in our schools. It couldn't be taught, teachers couldn't speak about it.

Of course you can learn about some religions through studying history, but that's just part of history.

I believe it's ok for a school to talk about religion as long as it's linked to history, say the Salem Witch Trials. Or how people came to America to escape prosecution. But, religion wasn't talked about a lot in those types of things. Maybe you covered it just a tad, but went on to more relevant things about the study.

I wouldn't want religion taught in schools though, like teaching kids about Christianity, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or any of that. Religion isn't going to get you anywhere after school. Unless you plan on taking a job that deals with religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

you dont understand


you separate the physical from the spiritual

spiritual people however, do not

there is a physical reason for everything you experience in the brain, AND a spiritual side to the physical realm. the two are not separate, but interrelated. there is no science that has gone against spirituality. on the contrary.

theres no point in going in deph here

what needs to be understood is spirituality becomes a point of view, a way of viewing reality, not a set of standardized beliefs

---

Found it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s25L1...eature=related

Check from 7:33 untill the end and few seconds of part 3.

That is an answer for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

I assumed you already knew they taught about religion in schools so long as it ties into history/geography and that you were for teaching about religion's more intricate practices.

---

a good half of the religions you mentioned, I never learned about in school :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Found it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s25L1...eature=related

Check from 7:33 untill the end and few seconds of part 3.

That is an answer for you.

---

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening in their emergency room? when they were clinically dead? later confirming it with doctors or others?

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening else where in the hospital, or at home? when they were clinically dead?

it doesnt

when science finds something that pisses it off, it calls it a hallucination, or a lie, or a delusion

spiritual people don't need to treat science in that matter. they accept scientific discoveries, with a grain of salt. that grain of salt is knowing that scientists can have clouded judgements and make false statements that they have put the lid on something. when really, they have just found one tiny little point of view of the truth, but lack the whole picture

there is no discovery in the brain that goes against the depth of spirituality

you just can't understand it, unless you understand spirituality

So...where is your proof that science is wrong, and you are right? science does not have proof, but they have an answer. You can't skip over what they know as "a grain of salt", when the functions actually do work in the way that look to produce NDE's.

Quote:

---

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening in their emergency room? when they were clinically dead? later confirming it with doctors or others?

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening else where in the hospital, or at home? when they were clinically dead?

---

I've read a book once about a scientist who was fascinated by NDEs and went out to investigate them with an open mind. It turns out when they asked the patients to describe a specific detail about any specific object in the room, they invariably failed; i.e. they were hallucinating.

He basically ended up concluding that it's due to various physiological effects in the brain, such as oxygen starvation; not a genuine extrasensory experience.

It's really quite obvious anyway; if we could see without eyes, why would nature have gone to all the trouble to evolve them in the first place? It makes no sense at all.

This is the point, see. Perform a conclusive test that will enable you to determine the truth, instead of madly jumping on any random story which supports what you want to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I've read a book once about a scientist who was fascinated by NDEs and went out to investigate them with an open mind. It turns out when they asked the patients to describe a specific detail about any specific object in the room, they invariably failed; i.e. they were hallucinating.

He basically ended up concluding that it's due to various physiological effects in the brain, such as oxygen starvation; not a genuine extrasensory experience.

It's really quite obvious anyway; if we could see without eyes, why would nature have gone to all the trouble to evolve them in the first place? It makes no sense at all.

This is the point, see. Perform a conclusive test that will enable you to determine the truth, instead of madly jumping on any random story which supports what you want to believe.

---

Well, i do hear we got parts in us that are basically useless, so the eye thing really does not matter much.

As for the NDEr's being wrong. They are probably just hallucinations. You also gotta be EXACT, and people do sometimes tend to forget some stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

a good half of the religions you mentioned, I never learned about in school :)

---

That's reasonable I suppose. Perhaps it's a regional thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

It's true if you think about it.

In the beginning of time people didn't understand what made their crops grow, so they put the blame on a sky-daddy, or something else. They thought that plagues were caused by sky-daddy, or the equivalent.

This time and age we know why crops grow, we know the reason for plagues, we can make alternatives for these things too. As in we can grow crops without sunlight, and we can make/replicate viruses/diseases whatever.

Science is always growing, and has more than likely infinite possibilities.

So, my question is.. do you think centuries from now, maybe longer, maybe less, religion will be totally gone? Of course science will never be able to disprove some Gods, but it will definitely shine glimpses of light on places people believe is caused by the hand of a supernatural being.

And before anyone says it, yeah, yeah, science isn't the only reason. We all know intellect has evolved over the centuries, and people are smarter and think for logically now than before, but still science plays a major role in that too. :]

So just give your opinions on if you believe religion will ever die! I really don't think it ever will, and if it does I believe it will be thousands of years before it does. But at least some people are opening up their eyes now and seeing how ridiculous some religions are. :]

---

This the the typical athiest trying to prove there is no god because of science.
You believe in science....i do too...but we differ in, i believe in a god. I dont know what god is, i dont think he is "in the sky" but there is a god and we wont understand it until we die. I follow no "religion" besides my own spirituality.
I dont understand how some athiest just believe in science...that is like a thiest saying he only believes in god and doesnt trust science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening in their emergency room? when they were clinically dead? later confirming it with doctors or others?

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening else where in the hospital, or at home? when they were clinically dead?

it doesnt

when science finds something that pisses it off, it calls it a hallucination, or a lie, or a delusion

spiritual people don't need to treat science in that matter. they accept scientific discoveries, with a grain of salt. that grain of salt is knowing that scientists can have clouded judgements and make false statements that they have put the lid on something. when really, they have just found one tiny little point of view of the truth, but lack the whole picture

there is no discovery in the brain that goes against the depth of spirituality

you just can't understand it, unless you understand spirituality

---

The hallucinogenic chemical DMT is released in very large amounts by the pineal gland at these moments. I don't know for sure, but that may be the scientific answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening in their emergency room? when they were clinically dead? later confirming it with doctors or others?

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening else where in the hospital, or at home? when they were clinically dead?

it doesnt

when science finds something that pisses it off, it calls it a hallucination, or a lie, or a delusion

spiritual people don't need to treat science in that matter. they accept scientific discoveries, with a grain of salt. that grain of salt is knowing that scientists can have clouded judgements and make false statements that they have put the lid on something. when really, they have just found one tiny little point of view of the truth, but lack the whole picture

there is no discovery in the brain that goes against the depth of spirituality

you just can't understand it, unless you understand spirituality

---

You clearly have no understanding of science or how it works, this unfortunatly makes your points on science invalid.
Educate yourself about the scientific community and method before you make comments about how it works. You are simply uneducated on the subject and are making incorrect statements.
I seriously suggest you watch this video to educate yourself about the basics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro


As for how science explains NDEs read the later work of Susan Blackmore for a very interesting take on the subject. She was a trained scientist who had an NDE, so dedicated 20 years of her life to "prove other small minded scientists wrong"... in the end, she had to conclude that there was no evidence to support it. Research her.

Science never EVER finds something that "pisses it off" - that is absurd. Educate yourself before you criticise the very way of thinking that has allowed you to post on this forum, watch TV, call your friends, get medical help, sent men to the moon etc. etc. etc.
You can't pick and choose the science that suits you. If you disagree with science go live in a cave and let your "spirituality" sustain you. You wont need a mobile phone because you'll just be able to astrally contact your other spiritual friends.
No? oh why not? BECAUSE ITS NONSENSE.

Live in a delusion if you like. But don't get defensive when you share your delusional views with the rest of the world and they start pulling it apart with facts and evidence to the contrary.

Of course you'll have to accept science to be able to reply to me, which must really piss you off.
Or was the internet born from a spiritual revelation?

^ genius.

Such a tragedy that it goes unrecognised in this area of the forum which is right where a dose of common sense is most needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

^ genius.

Such a tragedy that it goes unrecognised in this area of the forum which is right where a dose of common sense is most needed.

---

This is called a "religion/Spirituality" forum, this is dedicated to religious, and spiritual people, and beliefs. This is not a science forum, but this is also a debate forum, but science does not hold the whole forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

This is called a "religion/Spirituality" forum, this is dedicated to religious, and spiritual people, and beliefs. This is not a science forum, but this is also a debate forum, but science does not hold the whole forum.

---

You should read the rules and advice section on this part of the forum!
It's actually a Lucid Dreaming forum. And the religious forum is an area for open debate not "for spiritual people" only... it's for everyone, wth any views to discuss the topic. Go to beyond dreaming if you want a little safe haven where no one ever questions your delusions.


Anyway: science is the study of reality.
So unless you yourself are choosing to put religion into the category of the imaginary or fictional, then science has a perfect right to assess the claims made by the religious. If they do not hold up against reality, evidence and testing... then well... it'll end up in the imaginary and fictional category anyway.

And my personal opinion is it should have ended up in fiction hundreds of years ago... certainly before the invention of the atomic bomb!

Quote:

---

when science finds something that pisses it off, it calls it a hallucination, or a lie, or a delusion

---

No, science says "Where's your evidence that the things you saw were real?". Listening to a spooky story doesn't count, because people AUTOMATICALLY will distort the truth, even if reporting an event in good faith. Why? Because we miss things, are unaware of things, forget things. We tend to exaggerate the truth to make a better story. In short, because we're human. These are things we KNOW.

When someone says "I saw X happen when I was unconscious", how is anyone supposed to know how accurate that is without access to independant information? And furthermore, why does it automatically mean something? The patient might have known what was going on before they started seeing things, and in the case of conversations, it's actually possible that outside stimuli was being incorporated into the imagery; we already know this happens to normal people when they dream/hallucinate as well. Or they might have seen something highly regular which was very likely to happen anyway.

And I do find it amusing that someone can come on to a lucid dreaming forum, and have not picked up on the realistic nature that dreams/hallucinations/whatever can take. I mean, if I dream something that happens I MUST HAVE MAGIC POWERZ, right?

Oh and then there's the nonsense about stuff "pissing science off", which again shows your lack of understanding on the subject. Science cares about finding facts about our reality. Provide it with adequate evidence that the moon is really made of cheese or that unicorns exist and it will accept it. But if you expect it to accept annecdotes - a person's word - when it comes to determining these facts, then you're insane, and if we all did that, then we'd be stuck in the stone age.


Oh, and I've been meaning to comment on your sig for a while now:

Quote:

---

Scientists have no problem seeing the process of life in a puffball bursting to scatter its spores, but they do tend to have difficulty seeing the process of life in a star bursting to scatter its dust, for all that we are made of that dust

---

I find it very funny, given it was scientists who discovered supernovae, information on planetry formation, and generally found out this stuff in the first place, and accept that such events are responsible for Earth's formation and thus life's formation, even though those events are not actually life. Yes, scientists are so closed minded and find it difficult to see that they actually accept it played a part in the creation of life!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening in their emergency room? when they were clinically dead? later confirming it with doctors or others?

how does conventional science explain the phenomenon of NDErs witnessing events happening else where in the hospital, or at home? when they were clinically dead?

it doesnt

---

There are a lot of things that science does not explain. What makes up a quark, for example. Or where all that pesky dark matter is.

But as of yet I see no empirical evidence confirming that "NDE" even happens. :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

You should read the rules and advice section on this part of the forum!
It's actually a Lucid Dreaming forum. And the religious forum is an area for open debate not "for spiritual people" only... it's for everyone, wth any views to discuss the topic. Go to beyond dreaming if you want a little safe haven where no one ever questions your delusions.

---

Don't be a tard now. You said it yourself, it's open to debate, what did i say? it's to be debated....please read before you respond, or you look pretty bad. The person was saying this forum needs a dose of common sense, if there was common sense this wont be a religious/Spiritualist forum, now would it? this is a place for common sense, and non sense to be, not only for common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Don't be a tard now. You said it yourself, it's open to debate, what did i say? it's to be debated....please read before you respond, or you look pretty bad. The person was saying this forum needs a dose of common sense, if there was common sense this wont be a religious/Spiritualist forum, now would it? this is a place for common sense, and non sense to be, not only for common sense.

---

No need to be offensive.

This is partially my view on religion. All of those things mankind blamed God for, because they didn't know how they worked, were eventually figured out. The reasons theists give for believing such as consciousness and thoughts are just those same reasons. If we have scientific reasons for disease and crop growing now that we didn't 2,000 years ago, why is it so out of the question that there is one for these as well.

I'm an optimist: Organized religion will die out, but spirituality will live on.

people will always want to cling to the idea that there is something greater than themselves....doesnt matter how many things science figures out...I am not of the belief that science and spirituality cant live side by side. who knows, some day we may invent a divice that CAN detect some kind of etheric energy of sorts. Organized religion as WE know it will surely die out...but might just be replaced by groups of spiritualist gathering for open discussion. Which would be much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bosco

This the the typical athiest trying to prove there is no god because of science.
You believe in science....i do too...but we differ in, i believe in a god. I dont know what god is, i dont think he is "in the sky" but there is a god and we wont understand it until we die. I follow no "religion" besides my own spirituality.
I dont understand how some athiest just believe in science...that is like a thiest saying he only believes in god and doesnt trust science.

---

I'm not an Atheist.

Atheist's only believe in science because they have no proof of a God existing and therefore have no need to believe in it. Should I start believing if a God exists, that means there's a chance for me to travel at the light of speed, with no protection what so ever, and not be destroyed by it?

You shouldn't believe in everything possible. You need to question some things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Atheist's only believe in science because they have no proof of a God existing and therefore have no need to believe in it.

---

I disagree.

The scientific method yields verifiable data. This alone is the appeal (and reason) that draw people (both atheist and religious alike) to its process.

To suggest that the appeal of the scientific method is due solely to the atheist's lack of belief in a higher being is to assume that science's popularity comes from the failure of other systems of belief to produce hard evidence, which is not the case. Its popularity comes from its ability to produce hard evidence on its own. There's a great difference between the two.

Religion will die out.

























When our race does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

At least in Australia, it's always either an elective or a mandatory subject in religiously motived privately funded high schools (anything named St-Whatever), and always relating to the religion of the school. So mostly all catholics.

To the best of my understanding, they only teach about the Catholic faith. Not the other 2500 sects of Christianity or Islam, Buddism or anything else.

I have a non-religious friend that went to a religious school, and he took Religion as an elective out of pure curiosity. He says it actually turned him more AWAY from religion after taking the class.

---

We are talking about all faiths being taught not just Catholic... That is a huge difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

It's really quite obvious anyway; if we could see without eyes, why would nature have gone to all the trouble to evolve them in the first place? It makes no sense at all.

---

You really ask a question when you should already know the answer. Evolution picks the most useful routes for us correct? So of course our eyes would be given precedence as its far more accurate than sensing it some other way. But that doesn't mean that we don't have the ability. It's really not hard for me to imagine that over thousands and thousands of years the majority of society would be unable to control an ability that could have been overtaken by our eyes many ages ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

I'm not an Atheist.

Atheist's only believe in science because they have no proof of a God existing and therefore have no need to believe in it. Should I start believing if a God exists, that means there's a chance for me to travel at the light of speed, with no protection what so ever, and not be destroyed by it?

You shouldn't believe in everything possible. You need to question some things.

---

For some reason, i always seem to question everything, i am never content with something unless it's proven by science, or people here say something that makes sense to me and it can be backed up scientifically. It's kind of brutal in a way, sometimes all you need is a dose of pure fantasy to get by the day, and you can't if it's proven wrong. Then again, who says what is right and wrong? always seem to be 2 sides to a story, so what makes 1 side right when someone can argue the other (assuming they do it backing themselves up). It kind of makes you question everything, even when you think some things are right. It is also weird how in an argument, the other side alays point things they missed out, and the other guys always point things THEY missed out, and it's a never ending battle. How can you even believe in something 100%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

For some reason, i always seem to question everything, i am never content with something unless it's proven by science, or people here say something that makes sense to me and it can be backed up scientifically. It's kind of brutal in a way, sometimes all you need is a dose of pure fantasy to get by the day, and you can't if it's proven wrong. Then again, who says what is right and wrong? always seem to be 2 sides to a story, so what makes 1 side right when someone can argue the other (assuming they do it backing themselves up). It kind of makes you question everything, even when you think some things are right. It is also weird how in an argument, the other side alays point things they missed out, and the other guys always point things THEY missed out, and it's a never ending battle. How can you even believe in something 100%?

---

Well, some things are impossible to prove 100%.

So understanding how things work disproves God?

You don't even know what you mean by the WORD God.

Our relatively little understanding of the abstract universe - what we call "science" is limited to the intelligence of humans. I think it is safe to say that religion is something that will never die out as man's explanations of things "science" will always be behind the ever-complex universe and its containing galaxies.

And while I am at it... why can't God exist, and he had been the one to create the things we explain by "science". Maybe science is just the simplified human explanation of the things God has created.

I agree with sephiroth clock. How does understanding something disprove God?

Science will cleanse religion.

What we currently call religion is nothing more than a distorted reflection of something that was once great. There was a time when all religions were one. Trace any and all religious traditions back and you find the same symbols and stories. Like the telephone game over thousands of years, what we have now is not what religion was meant to be.

Just because people lived thousands of years ago doesn't make them any less intelligent than us, even with our allmighty scientific method. My guess is that religion was originally based on some fundamental realizations about the universe and reality. Discovered either by some kind of Einstein genius or some one really high on drugs.

My money's on science making sense of religions, unifying them, and explaining the source. And I don't think that will undermine religious belief in any way or make it any less miraculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spaceexplorer

You clearly have no understanding of science or how it works, this unfortunatly makes your points on science invalid.
Educate yourself about the scientific community and method before you make comments about how it works. You are simply uneducated on the subject and are making incorrect statements.
I seriously suggest you watch this video to educate yourself about the basics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro


As for how science explains NDEs read the later work of Susan Blackmore for a very interesting take on the subject. She was a trained scientist who had an NDE, so dedicated 20 years of her life to "prove other small minded scientists wrong"... in the end, she had to conclude that there was no evidence to support it. Research her.

Science never EVER finds something that "pisses it off" - that is absurd. Educate yourself before you criticise the very way of thinking that has allowed you to post on this forum, watch TV, call your friends, get medical help, sent men to the moon etc. etc. etc.
You can't pick and choose the science that suits you. If you disagree with science go live in a cave and let your "spirituality" sustain you. You wont need a mobile phone because you'll just be able to astrally contact your other spiritual friends.
No? oh why not? BECAUSE ITS NONSENSE.

Live in a delusion if you like. But don't get defensive when you share your delusional views with the rest of the world and they start pulling it apart with facts and evidence to the contrary.

Of course you'll have to accept science to be able to reply to me, which must really piss you off.
Or was the internet born from a spiritual revelation?

---

wow

your anger is really childish

what I meant was when I said science, was the overall work of scientists. I aplogzie for the confusion. scientists who have biases, scientists born into a certain culture, or religion, scientists who are human. and its only human nature to get angry or feel threatened when faced with something that goes against your beliefs.

you didn't answer my question, but you took the time to show me that it upset you.

how does science explain individuals witnessing real time events in the emergency room, when their heart wasn't even beating? detailed events that the doctor can profess to be true? and even events happening in other emergency rooms? that not even the doctor knew about?

the only answer given is that its a lie

but what if its not a lie?

someone has to have the balls and consider the testimony of these individuals and ask the bold question "what if they are telling the truth?"

outside stimuli doesn't do it. not when someones heart isn't beating, not when someone's brain wasn't even lighting up the machines. were not talking about people who were just sleeping. were talking about individuals, many of which were CLINICALLY DEAD before being revived.

clinically dead is VERY DIFFERENT from the ACTIVITY your brain is in in REM sleep

all too often skeptics just cry out hallucination. but even hallucinating is a brain ACTIVITY. the vivid, detailed 'hallucination' of the NDE would require a fairly active brain

but what if the brain is so dead it can't even dream?

If the NDE was just a hallucination, why aren't NDEs wild and crazy where anything goes? Where anything happens? Why are there strong themes prevelant in the experience instead? After all, if NDEs were just hallucinations, they would all be so random we would not be able to view them as a body of near death experiences

Now some people have suggested that the individual is merely dreaming what they expect death to be like. I agree with this to an extent, but theres a problem with this suggestion.

Not everyone who had an NDE was consciously aware they were dying. How do you expect something you didn't know you were supposed to be expecting?

Many also experienced an after life they were not expecting, making them question their own religious beliefs

Now another suggestion is that the brain has incoded within it this death program. A program it instantly turns on when it realizes its dying. This program is some sort of dream given to the conscious individual before ceasing to exist. This would explain why NDEs seem to have this format, rather than being random as we would expect from a decaying dying brain.

It would also explain why the experience can defy culture, religion and expectation.

This is a very interesting suggestion. And I agree with it to a point.

However, atheists have used the death program to end the debate on NDE's without questioning what this death program would mean.

Let's question it. What is its purpose?

What is the purpose of our brain making us believe we are about to go some place magical, when the next moment we won't even exist?

If the death program is merely a dream, why not make us dream of the life we wanted to live before we die? I mean, if our brain is out to lie to us, why not lie to us some more? Why not give us everything we want?

What role do NDE themes play if we have a death program that makes us dream of death as we die?

The first is the life review. Who the hell wants to relive every horrible moment in their life on their death bed? Why doesn't the dream just skim over the bad parts and just make us relive all the good parts in life?

It's important to understand that in the life review you are not merely reliving memories. As some would like to think, that its just the brain throwing up information as it dies.

Often they are photographic, 3D experiences, in concise chronological order. Not only relived, but examined. Where the individual can comment over their own memories. Judge their life so far. Showing how alert and conscious they are.

What is the purpose of a life review?

The next strong theme is letting go. Especially letting go of the physical body. Seeing it as merely old worn clothes that no longer fits you. And ultimately, letting go of life as a human.

Why? Why is it so important that the individual acknowledges their own death?

The next strongest theme, is returning to life, that famous phrase heard by thousands "It's not your time". Often this happens after a person has let go of their earthly life. Many are sooooo happy to be in heaven they protest being returned to earth.

You made the mistake of thinking that science gets in the way of spirituality. Science can never get in the way of spirituality, and it never will.

Even if a scientist were to tell me that there is death program encoded in our DNA, it would not go against my spiritual beliefs. Why? It is believed that in natural death, an individual can not die unless the soul willingly departs from the body.

It would be perfectly okay in spirituality for the body to have this design within it, to help the individual let go. And what would be the purpose of our brain to help us let go...............except to move on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I find it very funny, given it was scientists who discovered supernovae, information on planetry formation, and generally found out this stuff in the first place, and accept that such events are responsible for Earth's formation and thus life's formation, even though those events are not actually life. Yes, scientists are so closed minded and find it difficult to see that they actually accept it played a part in the creation of life!

---

Then you should realize my quote isn't my words, which is why I have it in quotation

It's actually the quote of a scientist

In nature, the stronger devours the weaker.

I wonder how it will go with these two.

The human will for ignorance is pretty strong compared to the will for wisdom.

Or you could say that human will for self-comfort is stronger than need to obtain the truth.

Either way, it is quite interesting.

Quote:

---

Then you should realize my quote isn't my words, which is why I have it in quotation

It's actually the quote of a scientist

---

I'm well aware it was a quotation. It's just a stupid one.

I looked it up, and apparently it was written by one Elisabet Sahtouris

http://futurepositive.synearth.net/2002/05/15/

Quote:

---

Many scientists still unwilling to accept consciousness as the source of creation, rather than its late product, will continue for some time to vacillate between ideas of accident and purpose in attempts to explain how non-life becomes life. It took time to see matter and energy, wave and particle, time and space, as aspects of the same underlying unity; it may be even more difficult to see life and non-life as aspects of the cosmic process or as relative organizational states of cosmic matter. Scientists have no problem seeing the process of life in a puffball bursting to scatter its spores, but they do tend to have difficulty seeing the process of life in a star bursting to scatter its dust, for all that we are made of that dust.

The further development of a conscious, organic model of the universe clearly requires the cooperative efforts of biologists and physicists as well as other scientists, not to mention philosophers and spiritual leaders in a great co-creative process. With so much to learn and co-create as new stories, or worldviews, this is a most exciting and challenging time of discovery and new understanding. Most important in these developing efforts is the promise of seeing ever more clearly just how we humans fit into the great cosmic holarchy of life and how we may learn to cooperate in creating its greatest health and fulfillment.

---

Assuming the attribution is accurate, I have to question how such a person can be a scientist, given the extremely unscientific nature demonstrated in the quote I provide above. One based on a lack of evidence, on disciplines that do not use evidence, an ignorance of science and what scientists believe, and fundamentally wrong ideas.

In short, it's a load of bullshit.

If I could just take this moment to comment juroara; I've always found the quote in your signature extremely irritating in its ignorance.

If it weren't for the scientific method we would have absolutely no idea that our heavier elements came from nuclear fusion in supernovae in the first place. It wouldn't even make sense to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Science will cleanse religion.

What we currently call religion is nothing more than a distorted reflection of something that was once great. There was a time when all religions were one. Trace any and all religious traditions back and you find the same symbols and stories. Like the telephone game over thousands of years, what we have now is not what religion was meant to be.

Just because people lived thousands of years ago doesn't make them any less intelligent than us, even with our allmighty scientific method. My guess is that religion was originally based on some fundamental realizations about the universe and reality. Discovered either by some kind of Einstein genius or some one really high on drugs.

My money's on science making sense of religions, unifying them, and explaining the source. And I don't think that will undermine religious belief in any way or make it any less miraculous.

---

To understand religion, you have to go one step further. To understand anything you have to go one step further than everyone. Then one step further again. And AGAIN. How many steps have YOU taken?

Edit: -Many Actually in my opinion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

So understanding how things work disproves God?

You don't even know what you mean by the WORD God.

---

Understanding how things work makes God unnecessary. You cannot prove God, and you cannot disprove imaginary things; that's why science is sceptical. Without scepticism there is no scientific validity.

The problem is that people automatically believe that all scientists are not corrupt.

That their is no way possible a large group could mux the situation and tests as they see fit, usually to gain a profit...

Science would be perfect if it was autonomous, or if we had robots that could not possibly be corrupted.. But human beings... Well we all know the stories of our cultures, why would Science be free of such idiocy?

(All of life is an illusion, nothing is actually as it seems only what our eyes allow us to see)
No one has all the answers, neither spiritualist nor scientists, nor the majority of internet jockeys on this forum.
Everyone can lie, and liars exist in all facets of life. Calling people delusional solves nothing and just shows a feeling of superiority and a supposed correct view of life compared to others. You all live in a delusion because what we know for fact is quite slim.

Scientists can be corrupted, that's true. But with not only the results, but also the methods used to obtain the results, available for criticism to thousands of scientists across the globe a lot of scientists need to be in on some sort of conspiracy for your objection to hold any water. Scientists often have to go up against other scientists who would like nothing more than to disprove one theory and promote their own.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."

"Science Kills Religion"
Paper covers rock.
Aliens obliterate paper with space rays.

Game over.

Set, Match, Run. :D

To more serious discussion without reading the entirety of the thread:

I'd say the scientific method and phenomenology kills supernatural assumptions and orthodoxy, but there is some reason in madness?

And maybe no reason in my post. :>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by l000needles

Scientists can be corrupted, that's true. But with not only the results, but also the methods used to obtain the results, available for criticism to thousands of scientists across the globe a lot of scientists need to be in on some sort of conspiracy for your objection to hold any water. Scientists often have to go up against other scientists who would like nothing more than to disprove one theory and promote their own.

---

Not really, just watch the state of our medicine field and the drugs being pushed by scientist throught to the market. The recent pull of Zicam being just one.

Obviously something tested by a large majority of science is less likely to be faked, but a lot of science is not so rigiourisly tested.

I don't think religion will ever end. And the reason why is simple:

There is absolutely no way in which we could ever get to know everything about everything. Thus, humankind will keep needing an explanation for that which we don't know about. Cue in a god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Patient

I don't think religion will ever end. And the reason why is simple:

There is absolutely no way in which we could ever get to know everything about everything. Thus, humankind will keep needing an explanation for that which we don't know about. Cue in a god.

---

Why is such an explanation for the unknown necessary?

I doubt Religion will suddenly disappear. It will probably continue slowly dissolving until it only exists in the pages of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Licity

Why is such an explanation for the unknown necessary?

---

I think that we, as humans, can't stand having any "blank spots" in our conception of the world, and thus we let religion fill in the blanks that aren't explained by science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

If I could just take this moment to comment juroara; I've always found the quote in your signature extremely irritating in its ignorance.

If it weren't for the scientific method we would have absolutely no idea that our heavier elements came from nuclear fusion in supernovae in the first place. It wouldn't even make sense to us.

---

I have nothing against the scientific method, nor does the scientist of whom I quoted

I have something against the idea that the scientific method gives us the final word on the absolute truth.

But the quote doesn't pertain to that.

The fact that many great scientists were religious proves that the existence of a God can still coexist with the discoveries of man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exhalent

The fact that many great scientists were religious proves that the existence of a God can still coexist with the discoveries of man.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...atheism#Trends

I think God is clearly contradictory to the scientific method. No questions.

Thanks for the link. Interesting to see the decline of religion, but I think religion will not die out, since there needs to be a way to explain the unknown that cannot be currently explained by science. Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exhalent

Thanks for the link. Interesting to see the decline of religion, but I think religion will not die out, since there needs to be a way to explain the unknown that cannot be currently explained by science. Cheers.

---

Organized religions are just a tool to make people think they understand what in reality, no one understands. It's just a way to give people a false idea of what's going on.

I do not see your point. Since there will always be the unexplainable, there will always be a religion (beliefs) that fills in that gap, logical or illogical, organized or not, it will continue to exist.

Who is to say that that shall not continue to diminish until it is negligible?

Interesting graph, it shows a linear rise of about 1% a year... so by 2060 religion will be pretty much gone, if trends continue.

It fills the gap by giving people the wrong idea. There is no proof or supporting evidence of religion, but there is supporting evidence for other ideals. Religion is basically ignoring everything logical and following it for a strange need to belong. There are ways of explaining the unknown wiht more logic than religion.

Depending on your definition of religion, science is religion before it becomes 'fact'. Before something becomes science, it is just a belief- just religion.

No, words do not have arbitrary definitions.

And note that the rise in atheism is definitely not correlated with a rise in 'gaps' filled by science; such gaps have not increased for the public for at least half a century.

The major leaps in understanding stopped coming a century ago (the Big Bang, evolution, plate tectonics, etcetera).

Quote:

---

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality

---

Science is not religion.

Religion: re⋅li⋅gion
  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
Use religion in a Sentence
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

DP you are missing my point. Before anything is 'fact' it is 'religion'. Therefore, religion can become science. They go hand in hand.

Well are you going to conclude that argument or just post unexplained information?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exhalent

Religion: re⋅li⋅gion
  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
Use religion in a Sentence
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,"

---

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Science does not involve superhuman agencies or moral codes governing the conduct of human affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demon Parasite

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Science does not involve superhuman agencies or moral codes governing the conduct of human affairs.

---

Notice how it says "especially".
But, this is a silly argument. It is just semantics now. Belief is religion , and science is belief before fact. That is it.

We're arguing over the dictionary definition of terms here, the dictionary definition isn't the same one that is used normally. Science isn't a religion because it's not a "set of beliefs", it's things that have been proven or at least backed up by a good amount of evidence. At that point it's not just a belief.

What if I said that organized religions like Christianity are just a tool to get people to think they understand what no one actually does?

What does that have to do with anything? Of course no one understand certain things. I will settle with science is not religion, but it is religion before it becomes science. Happy now?

Quote:

---

science is belief before fact

---

Er.

Therefore, Science depends on religion, otherwise no new ideas would emerge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exhalent

What does that have to do with anything? Of course no one understand certain things. I will settle with science is not religion, but it is religion before it becomes science. Happy now?

---

Science accepts that certain things are not understood, and works to help understand them better. Religion ignores all contradicting evidence and claims to understand everything. Do you see the difference now?

It commonly does do that - in organized religions. This I cannot deny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exhalent

in organized religions.

---

Organized religions of which you are a member of and are defending.

I am not defending any organized religions. Just the idea of belief itself, be it a belief in anything. You believe in a god, without proof. You are part of a religion. The way you talk about science is contradictory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exhalent

I am not defending any organized religions. Just the idea of belief itself, be it a belief in anything. You believe in a god, without proof. You are part of a religion. The way you talk about science is contradictory.

---

I don't believe in a God.

Here we go at semantics again. God- the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exhalent

Here we go at semantics again. God- the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

---

I believe in a higher power, who played a part in the creation of the universe. Not like the God of Christianity, an omnipotent being who watches and controls over the Earth.

Quote:

---

Therefore, Science depends on religion, otherwise no new ideas would emerge.

---

Apparently you have absolutely no idea what the definition of science is.

Science is the exact opposite of 'belief before fact'.

I cease to argue in this thread

Oh my. Science is the opposite of religion.
http://apexnaturalism.org/wp-content...s_religion.gif

Exhalent, science is based on a method that is inherently different from the method used by religion. Religion is not a step in science.

In simple terms:

- In science,
1. Identify problem;
2. Gather evidence and test hypothesis;
3. Make conclusions based on the results.

- In religion,
1. Make conclusions;


#edit#

Oops Bonsay beat me to it, and with a pretty pic.

I would laugh at that image if I had not seen it a million times before. However my original intention was to convince that science and religion go hand in hand to explain everything that the other cannot, since it is obviously impossible to prove everything.

Religion is used for things that have no other explanation. Which is fair enough.

But when religion tries to prove something science already has then its just stupid. :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exhalent

I would laugh at that image if I had not seen it a million times before. However my original intention was to convince that science and religion go hand in hand to explain everything that the other cannot, since it is obviously impossible to prove everything.

---

Making up magic elements isn't explaining. Even if it was, science wouldn't need religion for that, anyone can make things up.

Even with everyones confidence that all religion must be bunk, it continues to exist since the dawn of time.

Not that that proves anything, but let me know when science figures everything out.

Science has figured out a lot more than religion has. Let me know when religion provides evidence for anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exhalent

However my original intention was to convince that science and religion go hand in hand to explain everything that the other cannot, since it is obviously impossible to prove everything.

---

Oh? What does religion explain that science cannot? Ok, perhaps not science, but philosophy can do the trick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Even with everyones confidence that all religion must be bunk, it continues to exist since the dawn of time.

Not that that proves anything, but let me know when science figures everything out.

---

If "that" doesn't prove anything, then why did you post it?

And you let me know when religion figures everything out.

I'd rather ask him to just let me now when religion figures something out, anything at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

it continues to exist since the dawn of time.

---

Religion existed during the big bang? :shock:

It should be noted that during man's existence the prominent religion hasn't always been the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I'd rather ask him to just let me now when religion figures something out, anything at all.



Religion existed during the big bang? :shock:

It should be noted that during man's existence the prominent religion hasn't always been the same.

---

Guess I should have specified the dawn of man.


Obviously, that's because all of religion is trying to compensate for the unknowable.

Quote:

---

If "that" doesn't prove anything, then why did you post it?

And you let me know when religion figures everything out.

---

Because you are able to converse without something being 100% proof, otherwise you might as well shut this whole forum down.

Why the crybaby attitude? Religion will never figure everything out, and neither will science.. In fact let me know when anyone figures everything out.

Quote:

---

Science has figured out a lot more than religion has. Let me know when religion provides evidence for anything.

---

Religion proves the power of faith.

What ever happened to humanity, you are all so stuck on... I'm right and your wrong, it's kind of sickening.

Hoping for molten rain..

science and spitituality can explain everything religion can. The difference, science and spirituality make an effort to prove or disprove things, whereas religion usually takes it's ideas as fact immediately. Science makes an effort to increase knowledge and it's accuracy. If a new discovery is made and proven, they replace the old ideas with the new. Religion maintains the same ideas, regardless of how contrary they are to current knowledge. i.e., there are still people who believe that the earth is 12,000 years old. True, there will always be things that science simply cannot explain, here is where you can choose either spirituality or religion to fill in the gaps. Personally I find spirituality makes much more sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Because you are able to converse without something being 100% proof, otherwise you might as well shut this whole forum down.

Why the crybaby attitude? Religion will never figure everything out, and neither will science.. In fact let me know when anyone figures everything out.

---

Amazing. Pointing out a fallacy is equal to crybaby attitude.

Do we really need to converse the fact that religion is still here? I would, but I'd come off as too arrogant for speaking the obvious truth (ha). Ok then. I'd say because people lacked sufficient knowledge of just about anything, religions provided answers everybody wanted. They eventually got to the point where not believing was wrong one way or the other. That continued to this day, when we can dispose of most of the problems for which religion was made to answer (not the ones religion keeps making up to make it seem it's more important than it is). Using reason we can transcend old, banal interpretations of our existence and replace it with science, philosophy or in the end even spirituality. Those who are unlucky enough to be indoctrinated or indoctrinate themselves into any cult/religion are the ones who keep religion going. Lets face it, most religious people are ignorant and ignorance is what keeps it alive.

If you come here and say "Aha, I'm religious, yet not stupid" all I can say is, sadly you're not a majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"Christian mythology" will eventually be studied in schools. It will be viewed the way we view the ancient Greek paganism with Zeus and the gang. It was the big religion of ancient Greece, but now we call it "Greek mythology" without it coming across as offensive.

---

+100.

I hope science kills religion. Maybe we'll actually contact alien life forms or something else that disproves most of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

It's true if you think about it.

In the beginning of time people didn't understand what made their crops grow, so they put the blame on a sky-daddy, or something else. They thought that plagues were caused by sky-daddy, or the equivalent.

This time and age we know why crops grow, we know the reason for plagues, we can make alternatives for these things too. As in we can grow crops without sunlight, and we can make/replicate viruses/diseases whatever.

Science is always growing, and has more than likely infinite possibilities.

So, my question is.. do you think centuries from now, maybe longer, maybe less, religion will be totally gone? Of course science will never be able to disprove some Gods, but it will definitely shine glimpses of light on places people believe is caused by the hand of a supernatural being.

And before anyone says it, yeah, yeah, science isn't the only reason. We all know intellect has evolved over the centuries, and people are smarter and think for logically now than before, but still science plays a major role in that too. :]

So just give your opinions on if you believe religion will ever die! I really don't think it ever will, and if it does I believe it will be thousands of years before it does. But at least some people are opening up their eyes now and seeing how ridiculous some religions are. :]

---

Although I'm a Christ Follower, it makes sense to me that SOME religions might die out, possibly even my own. I would argue that intellect hasn't really evolved all that much from the time of the first modern Homosapiens. Technology certainly has, but that is kind of inevitable with how naturally curious man is.

Anyway, as far as all religion goes, I doubt it will die off. Religion provides hope, an outlet for grief, and a place for people to go to make themselves feel better. Religion provides light when a person feels like they are going through a tunnel...even if that light is a fake man made light that is not fact but fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Oh my. Science is the opposite of religion.
http://apexnaturalism.org/wp-content...s_religion.gif

---

I disagree with your chart Bonsay, at least the part about religion. I would say that not all religious people follow your little arrow pointed pathway to "Ignore contradictory evidence". As far as I and some others are concerned, our religious beliefs are fluid and change when we learn new concrete facts. Not all Christians deny evolution for example.

In what way does that change anything?

It doesn't have to, all the OP was looking for was our opinion on the belief that science would kill religion. I gave my opinion, gave evidence (however flimsy) to support my beliefs, and left it out there for the world to see. My posts were more solid than some, not as solid as others.

It changes your chart in several ways for one, and shows that for some religion and science aren't so far apart, that they are both constantly changing systems that attempt to do the same thing.

Science does not even have all the answers so how does it kill religion? Lastly, logic is not full proof.

If we're thinking on a level that only guides and explain our perception of the universe,
how can we question things that go beyond that level of perception
and our comprehension of it as human beings? How do you use logic to explain the
supernatural.

Logic is bivariate. That is to say that there can be only two values to a statement, viz., 'true' and 'false'. Logic also says all that is not false is true. It works well when you are dealing with the limited universe as defined by your premises. But the real question is, how valid can this be in reality? Not very. Consider the statement 'It will rain tomorrow', is it true? It is possible, but we cannot say it is true. This is not allowed in traditional logic. A statement can either be true or false, nothing else.

How are we to try and understand the world, the natural, the supernatural or the divine with something as limited (and bias) as this? Logic as a system can be employed only under the existence of premises, i.e., statements that are assumed to be true. In mathematics, they are referred to as axioms. What if we don't have any assumptions? What we seek is the ultimate truth, the truth above and beyond all truth.
Science was always a quest for explanations, never the truth. But people think if they have theories then we have truth. Again, we have to truth to theories that are based on our assumptions. But, what is the ultimate truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

Consider the statement 'It will rain tomorrow', is it true? It is possible, but we cannot say it is true. This is not allowed in traditional logic. A statement can either be true or false, nothing else.

---

That's because this is not an example of logic. The statement is just a conclusion. The logic enters before the conclusion. No conclusion is inherently logical or illogical when presented by itself. We could suppose hypothetical premises which differ from what we find in our reality and arrive at a conclusion which is both logical and not representative of our world "If the Earth had been destroyed millions of years ago, Dreamviews would not exist." Likewise, we could illogically arrive at a conclusion that is representative of our world. "Bees make honey, therefore tomorrow will have 24 hours." In the case of your example, you did not provide a premise such as "If the Earth's weather continues to function as it has for the past X years, it will rain on certain parts of the Earth." Now it would be a matter of proving that the weather will continue to function as it has. Of course there's so much information to consider, we can't actually certainly say the premise is true. This is not a failing of logic. This is a result of humans not being omniscient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

How are we to try and understand the world, the natural, the supernatural or the divine with something as limited (and bias) as this? Logic as a system can be employed only under the existence of premises, i.e., statements that are assumed to be true. In mathematics, they are referred to as axioms. What if we don't have any assumptions? What we seek is the ultimate truth, the truth above and beyond all truth.
Science was always a quest for explanations, never the truth. But people think if they have theories then we have truth. Again, we have to truth to theories that are based on our assumptions. But, what is the ultimate truth.

---

Do you think explanations are not a way of understanding what is true? And what method do you propose we use to find "ultimate truth"? Further, you call premises assumptions, which in a sense is true. But the purpose of logic is to make a conclusion based on premises, and then to demonstrate that the premises are true or false. If you can do that... they aren't really assumptions any more.

I don't really care what ends up happening because my faith is strong in the Christian beliefs and will not crack over anything, not even science.

It's funny watching people so attached to their religion..

Too bad Christ isn't even as old as the world, after Eve god waited a long time to contact the Jews..... Just ask a history book when Judaism started, not at the creation of the world...


Oh science your silly!

There is actually less proof of evolution than there is of a God. But that doesn't stop faithful followers of evolution from making up things. It's them filling in blanks, knowing they have no answer, and running with it like it's fact, very similar to religions. Everything they can't explain, they make up something. They fill the gaps, as if the theory has no holes.The Big Bang theory is just a theory, as well.We simply don't know how species originated or how the universe was formed. It doesn't mean choose from the crappy answers people created. It means we just don't know.

Both science and religion takes a "know-it-all" stance, but people who are turned off by religion act as if science is more credible. No one has all the answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davej

I don't really care what ends up happening because my faith is strong in the Christian beliefs and will not crack over anything, not even science.

---

And you no doubt consider this to be a virtue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

There is actually less proof of evolution than there is of a God.

---

Care to supply some proof of a god?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

But that doesn't stop faithful followers of evolution from making up things. It's them filling in blanks, knowing they have no answer, and running with it like it's fact, very similar to religions. Everything they can't explain, they make up something. They fill the gaps, as if the theory has no holes.

---

Do you mean forming hypothesis, searching for evidence (either positive or negative) for said hypothesis, and adapting their views to fit the evidence?
What holes are there in evolutionary science?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

Both science and religion takes a "know-it-all" stance, but people who are turned off by religion act as if science is more credible. No one has all the answers.

---

Science readily admits when it doesn't have an answer and good scientists differentiate fact from theory. For example, most scientists will readily admit that the big bang theory is just that; a theory. Evolution is fact. It has been witnessed on a small scale, we have fossil records of large scale changes and the logic of natural selection would require a god to actively intervene for it to not be true. Even Pope John Paul II admitted evolution into catholic dogma.

Yes I do find it to be one of my virtues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Care to supply some proof of a god?

---

The God concept is an illogical paradox. Such an idea cannot be proven scientifically. But if you ignore that flaw and challenge your thinking, then it becomes quite evident. You're looking for a shouting match of "look it here...see it's in the bible or this and that place." when proof of the supernatural doesn't work like that, logically speaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Do you mean forming hypothesis, searching for evidence (either positive or negative) for said hypothesis, and adapting their views to fit the evidence?
What holes are there in evolutionary science?

---

You'll find tons but that's beside the point right now. I just used evolution as an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Science readily admits when it doesn't have an answer and good scientists differentiate fact from theory. For example, most scientists will readily admit that the big bang theory is just that; a theory. Evolution is fact. It has been witnessed on a small scale, we have fossil records of large scale changes and the logic of natural selection would require a god to actively intervene for it to not be true.

---

The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable, I understand that. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. Evolution is not fact. It's only a theory that has been backed by many examples that supports the theory.

There is a difference between Darwinian evolution and natural selection.
You seem to think otherwise according to your post. Lastly, I'm not talking about what science admits, I'm talking about how people hold science to some golden standard as if it's full-proof, when it's not. I have the right to be a skeptic and question all things. Science is not exempt. That doesn't make me irrational for doing so, which is a common view held by those who hug textbooks.

Quote:

---

"There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."

Ranganathan, B.G. Origins

---

...and yet scientists magically continue to find these missing links, that just pop up every now and then. Give me a break.

User - if something cannot be proven scientifically, it cannot be called real. The scientific method is flawless if it is obeyed.

You think science cannot observe the small information and suggest an explanation for the larger picture? Oh yes it can. It can so well that it's called a theory, and the more data a theory has to back it, the more accurate it is. You think geologists dug until the center of the Earth to know what was Earth's composition? No. They analysed data and created theories.

Darwinian evolution is an incomplete theory made by Darwin. Neodarwinism is what can be called right nowadays, since Darwin never mentioned genetics on his work. Genetics came to fill in the gaps of Darwin's work, and made Neodarwinism flawless.

It's pretty sure all species in the Earth evolved from a common ancestor, what lacks light is some very specialized bits of how it happened.

A scientific theory isn't "just a theory". It takes a lot for something to be called scientific theory. Also, scientific theories are potential facts, only awaiting for more information to be found before so. What happens is that a scientist cannot be arrogant enough to call his theory a fact, as that'd be unscientific.

Science is fail-proof, although works can be more or less scientific.

You think people only support science because they read their textbooks? I can tell you many people who thought up the same scientific method before learning about it (myself included).

Of course there are no transitions in evolution. There is only adaptation. There are many mysteries in how exactly evolution happened, because fossils are pretty damn rare. Only because we don't know how it happened exactly doesn't mean it didn't happen. Only because we don't have fossil records of when pink and red butterflies became different species doesn't mean it didn't happen. Flies didn't adapt into dogs, you can be pretty sure of that.

Evolution is much more certain than you think. Go study it before you make your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

All the stuff you said

---

smh...Way to prove my point. As for something not being able to be considered "real" because it can't be scientifically proven. Says who, logic? I thought we went over this? What is "real"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Only because we don't know how it happened exactly doesn't mean it didn't happen.

---

LMAO
"Oh it happened alright, we don't know how, but it happened."
--Sounds more like religious quackery to me.

Let's back up for a minute though. How did we get here? From where did all of these species that are supposedly evolving emerge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

Let's back up for a minute though. How did we get here? From where did all of these species that are supposedly evolving emerge?

---

Goddunit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Goddunit.

---

Fail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

Fail

---

Why would you ask that question if you claim you know it all. Get to the point. Please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Why would you ask that question if you claim you know it all. Get to the point. Please.

---

You obviously misunderstood all of my posts. All I've been doing is asking questions. I never claimed to have any answers. In fact, I said the total opposite. I said that we don't have all of the answers, but people act as if science has all of the answers. It's funny you say that I claim to know it all, but you didn't quote me on where I even said that. :roll:

smh...@ you Making up stuff.

I didn't care to understand all of your posts. All I wanted to know was what was the point of that question. I guess it was too funny for you to concentrate. After all, I did falsely claim you know it all and quote the "wrong" post at the same time.

Anyway I gave you what the majority of the worlds population might consider a valid answer to the question. Would you now respond with your enlightened version of specie creation? I really want to know what's so better than any theory of evolution.

Whoops, I didn't notice a new page in the thread, and replied to an old post.

nevermind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I didn't care to understand all of your posts. All I wanted to know was what was the point of that question. I guess it was too funny for you to concentrate. After all, I did falsely claim you know it all and quote the "wrong" post at the same time.

Anyway I gave you what the majority of the worlds population might consider a valid answer to the question. Would you now respond with your enlightened version of specie creation? I really want to know what's so better than any theory of evolution.

---

:roll: pfft

It doesn't matter if there's anything better than the thoery of evolution because we simply don't know. Taking a "know-it-all" stance, like most evolutionists is arrogant. I'm done.

Taking the "this is all we can deduce at the moment" stance is rational. Sitting there saying "we simply don't know" won't get us closer to the answers we seek or anything at all for that matter. Science is the only way (beside Jesus), to get anywhere in that respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

:roll: pfft

It doesn't matter if there's anything better than the thoery of evolution because we simply don't know. Taking a "know-it-all" stance, like most evolutionists is arrogant. I'm done.

---

I'm sorry, what has been deduced wrongly about evolution? It has been proven: organisms evovle to fit their surroundings, organisms are also all made of teh exact same base components, therefore they must all be related in some way and must share a common origin.

This has been proven: The elements that make up organisms can all be found in nature; The chemicals that form the basic components for our definition of an organism all can be found in nature, the fossil record shows a huge cascade of living creatures inhabiting the earth and appearing and disappearing and changing, and this can even be seen today!

What is your explanation? Magic? Or selective pressures working organisms into nieches?

Btw, Macro evolution and Micro evolution are terms that haven't been in use since the late 60's. Please try to stay current if you wish to debate science.

Humans and apes? I don't see the resemblance.

http://www.ormtb.com/graphics/bush_monkey3.gif

thats like comparing mcintosh apples with gala apples.

@UM, eh, it's easy to take snapshots of people when they're talking and find dumb faces.

it's equally easy to take snapshots of apes when they're vocalizing and find the same dumb faces

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demon Parasite

@UM, eh, it's easy to take snapshots of people when they're talking and find dumb faces.

---

Why is it that dumb human faces look so much like dumb chimp faces? You would think humans and chimps are closely related or something.

So how do religious people explain the dinosaurs?
A species that was around before humans and there's evidence of them.

Just a general question :)

They lived in the garden of Eden 6000 years B.C. Duh. Also they were herbavores back then, before the evil sin of apple eating.

Its funny how God made Humans in the image of himself. When clearly Dinosaurs are better than us in every possible way.

@bonsay

no no, that's not it! They were put there by god to test our faith! It's sort of like the joke were you open the can of chips and a bunch of fake snakes jump out at you. Only now it's eternal damnation. It's funnier because it's more extreme, get it? God is so goddamned funny I ruitinely almost shit my pants laughing at all his crazy antics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why is it that dumb human faces look so much like dumb chimp faces? You would think humans and chimps are closely related or something.

---

Probably.

Quote:

---

But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence.

---

Spending 10 seconds doing a google search would show you how wrong you are.

You really care that little about your ignorance to correct it?

Examples of Speciation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Spending 10 seconds doing a google search would show you how wrong you are.

You really care that little about your ignorance to correct it?

Examples of Speciation

---

Nice

:bowdown:

Quote:

---

Taking the "this is all we can deduce at the moment" stance is rational. Sitting there saying "we simply don't know" won't get us closer to the answers we seek or anything at all for that matter.

---

Science is a great tool, but it can be so dogmatic.

smh...

Quote:

---

“But in the end, science does not provide the answers most of us require. Its story of our origins and of our end is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. To the question, “How did it all begin?”, science answers, “Probably by an accident.” To the question, “How will it all end?”, science answers, “Probably by an accident.” And to many people, the accidental life is not worth living. Moreover, the science-god has no answer to the question, “Why are we here?” and, to the question, “What moral instructions do you give us?”, the science-god maintains silence.” – Neil Postman

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

Nice

Science is a great tool, but it can be so dogmatic.

---

How are you defining dogmatic here? I don't understand that statement in relation to the quote it is a response to. At any rate, it seems as if science is one of the least dogmatic systems of knowledge out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

How are you defining dogmatic here? I don't understand that statement in relation to the quote it is a response to. At any rate, it seems as if science is one of the least dogmatic systems of knowledge out there.

---

Science itself but the people around it perhaps :)

So when you don't know the answer to a question, you make one up instead of accept that you do not know the answer and search for one? That's pretty lame.

Wait, you're talking about the people that think that there is a man in the sky that made everything in seven days right? I just need to clarify because that charge gets leveled at both sides ;) Sometimes the 'scientists' deserve it but the scientists never do: by definition in fact.

Me? I'm talking about anyone who says that Science doesn't have an answer for everyhting and that religion is a substitute for an answer. Not the people who blatantly ignore proven facts. Those people are beyond hope and reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

So when you don't know the answer to a question, you make one up instead of accept that you do not know the answer and search for one? That's pretty lame.

---

Sounds like evolution.

AHhhAaaaHHHAaaaAHhAhAHhAaa Ok. Ok



Just a second. Ok. I'm cool now. *takes deep breath*

The problem with saying that evolution is a made up anshhAAAhhhAAAAhhhaaaaHhaaAAAaaaAHHAaaAaaAAAAHAHHH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

AHhhAaaaHHHAaaaAHhAhAHhAaa Ok. Ok



Just a second. Ok. I'm cool now. *takes deep breath*

The problem with saying that evolution is a made up anshhAAAhhhAAAAhhhaaaaHhaaAAAaaaAHHAaaAaaAAAAHAHHH

---

Forget evolution in general, I'm talking about all of the leaping and stretching that is used when trying to prove it. If scientists say they "found" something that helps prove some blind theory, why do I have to believe it. Why can't I question whether they found it or not.

Oh that's right, they're scientists. :bowdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

Sounds like evolution.

---

Oh, and what's made up in evolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

Forget evolution in general, I'm talking about all of the leaping and stretching that is used when trying to prove it. If scientists say they "found" something that helps prove some blind theory, why do I have to believe it. Why can't I question whether they found it or not.

Oh that's right, they're scientists.

---

You can question anything you want. That alone doesn't make you smart. Study biology, physics, chemistry etc. Then you'll have the right to seriously question it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Oh, and what's made up in evolution?

---

There is no direct and gradual transition between fossils. The fossil record ascribed to the human past actually reveals no evolution, evolutionists refuse to abandon the idea and continue, whatever the position might be, to tell tall tales of human evolution. Naturally, that approach is not scientifically consistent. This now faith.

suppose I have a species b and a species c. I claim c evolved from b. You say, show me d that's between b and c. I find d. now instead of one gap, I have two. You say, now show me e between b and d and f between d and c. Do you see how that works.

We have the austrolopithecenes. We have homo habilis. We have homo erectus. We have homo florensis. we have homo sapiens neanderthalis. Plenty of variation. Do you see why I don't take you seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Oh, and what's made up in evolution?

You can question anything you want. That alone doesn't make you smart. Study biology, physics, chemistry etc. Then you'll have the right to seriously question it.

---

That's way too involved. Nobody needs a degree to point out bullshit.

Its strange that I have to gain a right to question something, but the supernatural, being that it's beyond our comprehension, gets questioned all the time. Is it the people that are well versed in spirituality that are questioning it, or is it science buffs?

Quote:

---

suppose I have a species b and a species c. I claim c evolved from b. You say, show me d that's between b and c. I find d. now instead of one gap, I have two. You say, now show me e between b and d and f between d and c. Do you see how that works.

We have the austrolopithecenes. We have homo habilis. We have homo erectus. We have homo florensis. we have homo sapiens neanderthalis. Plenty of variation. Do you see why I don't take you seriously?

---

Where'd they come from and why aren't they around today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

That's way too involved. Nobody needs a degree to point out bullshit.

Its strange that I have to gain a right to question something, but the supernatural, being that it's beyond our comprehension, gets questioned all the time. Is it the people that are well versed in spirituality that are questioning it, or is it science buffs?

---

How can you point out bullshit, if you don't even know what's going on?
Forget the fossils then! Where is the bullshit in evolution as a theory, in theory itself, where?

And about your supernatural. There is no technique to measure the supernatural. You can test that which is claimed to have effect on an objective level, the domain of science. But when a psychic tells me that his energies are being channeled from this and that etc. etc. ... How the hell am I supposed to do anything with that? Yes, yes, just believe them on no basis whatsoever. The supernatural is, in my opinion, illogical. Before you tell me to go study magic, I think I'm entitled to question things that claim to be happening in my universe. The only logical way is the scientific method. So I'd rather measure how often a psychic gets something wrong, then fall into some crystal energy channeling class, which is more often than not, proven to be hogwash. If I want to experience "supernatural" I'll just meditate, or get high on something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

Where'd they come from and why aren't they around today.

---

From a common ancestor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

That's way too involved. Nobody needs a degree to point out bullshit.

---

No but you do need an education to be able to identify bullshit. see the .999~ = 1 thread in SB for a nice example of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

Its strange that I have to gain a right to question something, but the supernatural, being that it's beyond our comprehension, gets questioned all the time. Is it the people that are well versed in spirituality that are questioning it, or is it science buffs?

---

Supernatural doesn't exists. If astral projection exists, then it's natural. If ghosts or reincarnation exist, then it's natural. So when you say super natural, I say bullshit. I don't know that they don't exist but I want to see evidence. You list a phenomenon, I'll list conditions for me to accept it as real. That's how this works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

Where'd they come from and why aren't they around today.

---

As I understand it, the austrolopithecines came from earlier apes that I don't know, homo habilis came from them, homo erectus came from habilis, homo florensis and homo sapiens came from erectus and the others are extinct because the environment changed and they weren't able to keep up. Our branch got lucky and accumulated mutations that adapted them. I think that that might be out of date in that it was the best conjecture at the time and new evidence might have come to light. When you ask why they aren't around today, are you implying that they didn't exist? Cause we have skeletons you know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No but you do need an education to be able to identify bullshit. see the .999~ = 1 thread in SB for a nice example of that.



Supernatural doesn't exists. If astral projection exists, then it's natural. If ghosts or reincarnation exist, then it's natural. So when you say super natural, I say bullshit. I don't know that they don't exist but I want to see evidence. You list a phenomenon, I'll list conditions for me to accept it as real. That's how this works.

As I understand it, the austrolopithecines came from earlier apes that I don't know, homo habilis came from them, homo erectus came from habilis, homo florensis and homo sapiens came from erectus and the others are extinct because the environment changed and they weren't able to keep up. Our branch got lucky and accumulated mutations that adapted them. I think that that might be out of date in that it was the best conjecture at the time and new evidence might have come to light. When you ask why they aren't around today, are you implying that they didn't exist? Cause we have skeletons you know?

---

You're obviously caught up on the term 'supernatural' itself and you do not know its meaning. You say the supernatural doesn't exist, though millions of people say otherwise, and then turn around saying that you don't know that it does't exist? :?

- The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe.


Lastly, skeletons don't prove a thing. How do you know that they aren't made up just to support the theory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

You're obviously caught up on the term 'supernatural' itself and you do not know its meaning. You say the supernatural doesn't exist, though millions of people say otherwise, and then turn around saying that you don't know that it does't exist? :?

---

re-read what I said with an open-mind if that confuses you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

- The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe.

---

That's a lame definition and I don't need you to translate latin for me, thank you very much.Like I said, present some supernatural phenomenon that you would like me to accept and I will present a list of conditions that will make me accept it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

Lastly, skeletons don't prove a thing. How do you know that they aren't made up just to support the theory?

---

answer 1)Lastly, millions of people saying something doesn't prove a thing. How do you know that they aren't making it up just to support a theory.

answer 2) I've at least seen pictures. It would be pretty hard to do and I don't understand the motive comes from. scientists want truth. Yes they want to get famous and yes you can find examples of them falsifying evidence but what you are talking about is just ridiculous. Enough scientists look at them and enough skeletons have been found to take it seriously.

answer 3) ahHHHAaaahHhaaaHHHHHaaahHHHaaaahhhHHHhaaaHHHH
Seriously dude? I mean, do you enjoy being ignorant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

re-read what I said with an open-mind if that confuses you.



[/I]That's a lame definition and I don't need you to translate latin for me, thank you very much.Like I said, present some supernatural phenomenon that you would like me to accept and I will present a list of conditions that will make me accept it.





answer 1)Lastly, millions of people saying something doesn't prove a thing. How do you know that they aren't making it up just to support a theory.

answer 2) I've at least seen pictures. It would be pretty hard to do and I don't understand the motive comes from. scientists want truth. Yes they want to get famous and yes you can find examples of them falsifying evidence but what you are talking about is just ridiculous. Enough scientists look at them and enough skeletons have been found to take it seriously.

answer 3) ahHHHAaaahHhaaaHHHHHaaahHHHaaaahhhHHHhaaaHHHH
Seriously dude? I mean, do you enjoy being ignorant?

---

You obviously do need a translation because your interpretation was way off. There are supernatural experiences all over this board. Make your own case, since you're the one refuting the existence of the supernatural.

Saying that enough scientists look at the fossils doesn't prove anything. You weren't there to confirm that. In a world dull of technology that can be used to manipulate images and other media, the best you come up with is "I've seen pictures?":? I guess I am ridiculous because I'm questioning things and seeking answers. Your education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism.

I'm sure the unexplained experiences of millions are falsified to support a supernatural theory and push some grandiose agenda. These people, scattered abroad the globe, can meet daily. Get over yourself. For someone so quick to call others ignorant, you sure are naive. smh... :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

You obviously do need a translation because your interpretation was way off. There are supernatural experiences all over this board. Make your own case, since you're the one refuting the existence of the supernatural.

---

above nature? bullshit. Everything is in nature. Nothing exists outside of nature. We're having a semantic argument, that's all. You can't even name one phenomena that you want me to give you criterion for acceptence. You aren't interested in finding truth, you're interested in having what you already think be right. Most of the experiences on this board can be explained by SP and HH. Simple as that. It is not the onus of one refuting something to prove it's non-existence (that's impossible as it would require infinite knowledge you fucking moron) but is the onus of the one who would like it accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

Saying that enough scientists look at the fossils doesn't prove anything. You weren't there to confirm that. In a world dull of technology that can be used to manipulate images and other media, the best you come up with is "I've seen pictures?":? I guess I am ridiculous because I'm questioning things and seeking answers. Your education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism.

---

We'll, i've seen pictures in old books from before the days of photoshop but I suppose that 'they' manufactured them and put them in my attic. You aren't questioning shit. You are denying it. To satisfy you, you would have to go to the rift lakes and dig the fossils up yourself. You probably still wouldn't believe it. You would think that the scientists went around and buried a bunch of fossils for you to find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

I'm sure the unexplained experiences of millions are falsified to support a supernatural theory and push some grandiose agenda. These people, scattered abroad the globe, can meet daily. Get over yourself. For someone so quick to call others ignorant, you sure are naive. smh... :roll:

---

Probably because they feel so bad about their pathetic lives (or are pissed off that their daddy didn't get them a pony for their sweet 16) and so they want attention and decide that they are witches or some bullshit.

The fact that people like you exist pisses me off to no end. How can a member of my species be so goddamned stupid?!?! It blows my mind

For the record, I think that reincarnation is probable, work on my chakras in my lucid dreams and think that there are fundamental connections between conciousness and physical reality. I am intelligent enough to recognize that there is no way, as of yet, for science to accept these things and that in the meantime, the findings of science trump speculation and personal experience where they do conflict. The Dalai Lama agrees. If there is a scientific explanation for something, accepting it does not make me, or my life, less "special". Therefore, I would not call someone ignorant for not believing in chakras. I would call someone ignorant for not accepting evolution. You are just stupid. You play games with words as if they are synonymous with reality. I'm done with this conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User

There is no direct and gradual transition between fossils. The fossil record ascribed to the human past actually reveals no evolution, evolutionists refuse to abandon the idea and continue, whatever the position might be, to tell tall tales of human evolution. Naturally, that approach is not scientifically consistent. This now faith.

---

No it isn't.

At least attempt to do research before continuing to make yourself look like an ignorant fool: http://evolution.berkeley.edu <-- Start here. If there was no evidence of Evolution, why would it be inferred? What other explanation is there for the fossil record, then? Pretending it doesn't happen/ exist is pretty childish and idiotic.