Thread: The Scoreboard

Ummm, so do you want us to explain why we oppose one of the items?

That would be nice. It would help convince everyone that you really do

Just to be fair, I don't think we should include items of morality. Science can't really argue good and evil, and religion can't exactly back it up all that well either. Those things are not static qualities of the universe, as it were. I say this in response to bathing being evil.. I've never heard of that claim, but it sounds pretty ridiculous, aye? Otherwise we could add a point for science in regards to disbelief of God being evil, in which case we'd sound biased.

How about the creation of the Universe/Earth with respect to time? I imagine we've all heard those arguments before.

Good point. I wasn't really considering the bathing to be a point of morality but rather health. I used sloppy wording. It is a myth that I just relieved myself of the burden of believing that the church maintained that bathing was bad for you because of something or other to do with the devil. I second your request to take it down. I'll assume that a third person will request it and take it down pre-emptively.


I would also think that science has convincingly demonstrated that the universe is older than 6,000 years. Does anybody refute this?

Should we put that the earth was created in seven days down as a victory for science as well?

I would really like it if religion got something as well. Can anybody think of anything where religion has trumped science? I've been scratching my head about it, but can't come up with anything.

Not that I agree but the common argument is that it's 7 "GOD" days.... Not human.

Alrighty.

Evolution does occur. Evolution has been observed in very tiny organisms and does occur in nature. The question is not whether or not evolution occurs, but rather if it occurs within larger organisms like humans or whales or a species of giant dark-colored eagles that claw other animals to death for the pure pleasure of it. The fossil record, which is always being expanded, shows a transition from one organism to another. It doesn't show a smooth transition because that would require thousands if not millions of fossils. Also, evolution is what happens when both natural selection and mutation occur. Both natural selection and mutation have been proven to occur, therefore evolution happens.

The Earth is not flat. Space photos, people going to space and seeing the Earth firsthand, the undersides of boats and ships seemingly sinking down into the water as they sail off into the distance, etc.

Originally Posted by Invader

How about the creation of the Universe/Earth with respect to time? I imagine we've all heard those arguments before.

I don't really like that argument. I think God worked on a different time scale. I know there's probably no way to prove this, but I sometimes wonder if the scale of time is kind is more of a spiral than linear. Where Day 1 is twice as long as Day 2. And Day 2 is twice as long as Day 3; which is twice as long as day 4...etc.

This thread is bias as fuck. Here's my contribution:

Jesus existed.
Religion provides hope to people incapable of believing in themselves.
The Bible provides a framework of morality for people to follow.

Originally Posted by Abra

This thread is bias as fuck. Here's my contribution:

Jesus existed.
Religion provides hope to people incapable of believing in themselves.
The Bible provides a framework of morality for people to follow.

Biased in what way? I'm really doing my best to just stick to facts. Is dealing with facts biased in some way that I'm not aware of?

As far as your suggestions, I'm not sure that science ever denied that jesus existed. He probably did.

It may be true that religion gives people hope. Has anyone heard of science attempting to deny this? What was the result?

With your third point, I'm again not sure that science has ever denied this. Some of us on the board have questioned the efficacy with which it does so and the value of that particular framework of morality but you would have to be insane to question its existence.

I personally am going to veto all three. If data can be brought forth showing that a majority of scientists did try to contest any of those facts, then I will of course change my vote. Does anybody else have an opinion on them? If there aren't two more vetoes sometime soon, I'll go ahead and stick them up.

First, a note on bias:

In contradiction to the above rule, I may decide that FableFlame doesn't reeaally think that the earth is flat and disregard his post.

Here is where you are blatantly bias.

We'll play it by ear, but if you guys think that I am playing biased, just let me know.

And here's where you think that, because you wrote a disclaimer, you are suddenly free of bias.



Atheistfag here, and my point is, you aren't meant to compare science and religion like this. Religion is based on faith--that's the point. The rest of it is lifestyle. Science is based on fact and evidence. So, in a competition between science and religion, when facts and evidence get you more points, who the fuck do you think will win? All this thread does is make you look like a pretentious asshat.

well...I suppose you could consider the thing about auras starting in eastern religions being denied by western science at first, and then later we find these electromagnetic fields surround every living thing. yay or nay?

I think God worked on a different time scale. I know there's probably no way to prove this

The argument is that being in a higher energy state changes the flow of time for the individual. It may be comparable to traveling at near light speeds, I really don't know.

@Abra, Your example of my bias is lacking in the sense that it was a) an excuse for me to poke fun at someone in a playful way and b) a safeguard against people making ridiculous claims for the luls. I would have publicly ignored their vote so that everyone could see what was going on. As for your second point, religion does make factual claims about the origin of the the universe, the origin of life and in some cases, best medical practice. If it doesn't think that it can compete with science, then it shouldn't step in the ring. I certaintly didn't tell it to. On reflection, I decided not to stick your points up there unless there is popular demand as we don't have enough data to say that there ever was a contest on those points.

@Black Eagle. I agree with you. However just looking around the board there are enough people that feel that organisms "adapt" but don't evolve so that a claim of evolution would be taken down. I personally don't see the difference but we'll take what we can get on that front. If two other people veto it, I'll take it down of course.
As far as the earth being flat goes, It's in the victory for science part as in "the earth is round". Does anybody else think that it would be better worded like that? I'll go ahead and change it.

@tdko. I'm not sure that auras have been proven to exist in the sense that they are visible with the naked eye. On the other hand, tibeten monks can significantly change their body temprature through meditation. That is something that many scientists assumed wasn't possible. I'll go ahead and toss that up if three people don't object.

@DeathCell and Lucky27. I'll go ahead and vote with you guys. I can certainly understand the notion of a change of coordinates.

--------------------------------------------

Here's the new score. Science: 4, Religion: 1

science gets "The age of the universe is greater than 6,000 years"
religion gets "meditation can change metabolism"

If there are any objections, just let me know.

I have to agree with PS. Lots and lots of religious people do state things as fact to back up their belief and some also invent pseudo-science to go along with it. But it's true, in the realm of facts, science will always win. But then again, not all of the things stated here fall under the realm of religion. "Flat Earth" for example was believed by many intellectuals, but as we soon figured out, that was false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Ea...edieval_Europe

Damn this thread has been educational for me. I'll take down the flat earth point. We're at science: 3, religion: 1

I think this thread is less of Science vs. Religion and more of Science vs. Pseudo-Science.

I'd like to know where the bible explicitly states that the world is flat. I know there is a passage somewhere that Jehovah's Witness showed me to disprove this claim. I'd find it if my room wasn't shaped like ADDs locker.

I'd also like to know what religion still preaches that the world is flat, so I can pee on them.


Edit: DISREGARD...

I thought the only reference to the shape of the world in the bible is when they described it as a circle.
They used the word circle rather than sphere because at the time there was no direct translation from Hebrew for sphere. So they improvised and used Circle.

I think anyhow. but what do I know =]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

@Abra, As for your second point, religion does make factual claims about the origin of the the universe, the origin of life and in some cases, best medical practice. If it doesn't think that it can compete with science, then it shouldn't step in the ring. I certaintly didn't tell it to. On reflection, I decided not to stick your points up there unless there is popular demand as we don't have enough data to say that there ever was a contest on those points.

You're missing the point completely. My "points" have as little to do with science as your "points" have to do with religion.

I'm trying to say, that very few people take the Bible literally anymore. On Dreamviews, you aren't going to find backwater fundies. So, aside from revealing a few of OP's insecurities, what is the purpose of this thread again?

Ive already been in debates with multiple backwater fundies on this site. The point of this thread is simply to keep track of which framework of thought is best suited to understanding the physical world. That is a valuable question after all, isn't it?

What insecurities are you referring to? I think you might be barking up the wrong tree on that one.

The problem is, it's in the religion/spirituality subforum. Seeing as this thread seems to be focused on scientific reasoning...

Well, I'm pretty much done here.

Finis.

It's in the religion forum because it concerns both. Seeing as religion concerns itself with the domain of science but not vice versa, R/S seemed the logical place to put it.

And what if the essence or phenomenon that is labeled "God" is indeed that which science measures through its infant means?

...and this same "God" , by many different names, is also that which religions build themselves around?

Religion must yelid bit by bit to scientific fact, but science must eventually yield to a quality that religions place upon the phenomenon that both are looking at. That being a quality of livingness that this phenomenon which religion calls "God" is.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

And what if the essence or phenomenon that is labeled "God" is indeed that which science measures through its infant means?

...and this same "God" , by many different names, is also that which religions build themselves around?

Religion must yelid bit by bit to scientific fact, but science must eventually yield to a quality that religions place upon the phenomenon that both are looking at. That being a quality of livingness that this phenomenon which religion calls "God" is.