Science

[botmaster]

So many people have been debating about God in this forum, it is almost a classic to post something stating his existence or nonexistence. Let's take this problem from the other side of the spectrum and ask about SCIENCE. So:

Do you believe science will solve all mysteries of the universe and help humankind?

Me personally, I believe no. Simply because the use of science is controlled by us humans. There are two ways to use it: Warfare and destruction, and to help humans. For example, nuclear physics can be used both to build an atom bomb and to build a nuclear power plant providing power for thousands of people.

About the mysteries of the universe: Science will never be able to accurately describe what happened at the big bang. Simply because, it is outside of time. Time didn't exist at the time of the big bang. We will only be able to make an estimate based on the probability of what happened.

This is very similar to quantum physics. We will never be able to know the exact location of a waveparticle, we can just make probabilistic assumptions about it - the limits of science.

I personally believe that science will not solve all our problems. Looking back, human history has told us several times that knowledge gained is soon lost by the carelessness of those gathering it. The burning library of Alexandria, for example, set back humans hundreds of years. The middle ages were so dark because of lack of all that science, which had been lost in the destruction of the roman empire.

I wanna see your opinions on this!!!

[Harry]

I think sience can .

[Here]

Uh, no, it can't. I'll explain more later, when I feel like it. Or when there are a few people with stupid arguments that say whichever side.

[botmaster]

Cool. At least some responses. I wasn't expecting any, looking at how confrontational I sounded in my post :p.

No, really, I highly doubt that science will solve all problems. It may solve all materialistic problems, but the social problems such as racism, war, sexism, and many many other "isms" will remain.

[Here]

If you solve all those things, then humanity's struggles are no more. What then, would we live for? We have solved all problems, and are gods in our own right.

But you seem to think that something else can solve all problems. I hope that something is not religion.

[botmaster]

Religion itself creates more problems for us than it solves. Conflict can't be solved by fueling the fire with more conflict. It's like trying to solve the Iraq crisis with a war. It's just gotten worse. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, but more conflict isn't the answer.

The thing is, all religions to me seem the same. The goal of most religions is a sort of world peace, the only real differences are the way these religions try to achieve it. Islam tries to achieve it by creating a world empire, Christianity by using the power of love to convert everyone, Hinduism tries to do it another way, etc. etc. But most people seem to ignore this and keep on bickering what way is the best, and all of the ways create conflict with each other.

That's what I'm trying to say. I'm also trying to advocate to people to STOP BICKERING. If the world goes on killing each other over a few lines of scripture, imagine what happens if an entire system of belief broke down?

And to answer your question Here: I don't think anything can solve our current problems, not without completely reorganizing the priorities of the human race. Which ain't gonna happen.

Also, just a question: How would that make me a god, if there are no more challenges to be overcome? I don't think it would, because I don't have the power, nor the right, to command anyone, or anything.

[lolpie]

"Do you believe science will solve all mysteries of the universe and help humankind?"

ALL mysteries? Not for a long time. Most? Yes. Science has already helped us in so many ways its unbelievable. It's literally in every field (medicine, automobiles, food, military, etc...).


Uh, no, it can't. I'll explain more later, when I feel like it. Or when there are a few people with stupid arguments that say whichever side.

Don't jump to conclusions so fast. It's not like science isn't making any progress anymore.

[crossback7]

Don't jump to conclusions so fast. It's not like science isn't making any progress anymore.

True, but it's more about the proportion of the discoveries that science is making. I'm just wondering what the next huge one will be. Where do we go from here? I'm just not sure if anything we discover will be quite as dramatic as say the discovery of fire, or the invention of electrity, or the invention of the automobile and airplane, etc, etc.

Science has always been in every field. Since the stone ages. And we'll always find new mysteries to try and solve. I highly doubt that science will ever solve all of the universe's mysteries, especially since I don't think we know of all of them yet.

[lolpie]

True, but it's more about the proportion of the discoveries that science is making. I'm just wondering what the next huge one will be. Where do we go from here? I'm just not sure if anything we discover will be quite as dramatic as say the discovery of fire, or the invention of electrity, or the invention of the automobile and airplane, etc, etc.

Science has always been in every field. Since the stone ages. And we'll always find new mysteries to try and solve. I highly doubt that science will ever solve all of the universe's mysteries, especially since I don't think we know of all of them yet.

The next great ones will hopefully be:
-Curing cancer
-And AIDS
-Traveling to Mars in under 3 hours (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/06/hyperdrive/), as opposed to the usual 9-11 months
-Better energy sources

That's all I can think of right now

[Here]

Religion itself creates more problems for us than it solves. Conflict can't be solved by fueling the fire with more conflict. It's like trying to solve the Iraq crisis with a war. It's just gotten worse. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, but more conflict isn't the answer.

The thing is, all religions to me seem the same. The goal of most religions is a sort of world peace, the only real differences are the way these religions try to achieve it. Islam tries to achieve it by creating a world empire, Christianity by using the power of love to convert everyone, Hinduism tries to do it another way, etc. etc. But most people seem to ignore this and keep on bickering what way is the best, and all of the ways create conflict with each other.

That's what I'm trying to say. I'm also trying to advocate to people to STOP BICKERING. If the world goes on killing each other over a few lines of scripture, imagine what happens if an entire system of belief broke down?

And to answer your question Here: I don't think anything can solve our current problems, not without completely reorganizing the priorities of the human race. Which ain't gonna happen.

Also, just a question: How would that make me a god, if there are no more challenges to be overcome? I don't think it would, because I don't have the power, nor the right, to command anyone, or anything.

I agree, control through religion is wrong, and won't solve anything.

About becoming gods, if all problems were gone, would we not be perfect in a way? And isn't being perfect an aspect of godliness? You don't need all that power or bullshit. You just need to be free of all problems.


"Do you believe science will solve all mysteries of the universe and help humankind?"

ALL mysteries? Not for a long time. Most? Yes. Science has already helped us in so many ways its unbelievable. It's literally in every field (medicine, automobiles, food, military, etc...).



Don't jump to conclusions so fast. It's not like science isn't making any progress anymore.

I actually can jump to conclusions. Because I'm not jumping, I took baby steps. I didn't look at this thread and go, "Hey, I'm just going to respond to this with something I made up right now". I've been thinking about this my whole life.

First thing. Science can't do anything if there's no one to support it. Also, if there is no world to conduct these so called "sciences" on, then how do we do it? The time constraints are too restricting. I don't believe ANYTHING will be the universal solution. There will ALWAYS be differing opinions.


True, but it's more about the proportion of the discoveries that science is making. I'm just wondering what the next huge one will be. Where do we go from here? I'm just not sure if anything we discover will be quite as dramatic as say the discovery of fire, or the invention of electrity, or the invention of the automobile and airplane, etc, etc.

Science has always been in every field. Since the stone ages. And we'll always find new mysteries to try and solve. I highly doubt that science will ever solve all of the universe's mysteries, especially since I don't think we know of all of them yet.

Science is just a noun for the understanding of life. Don't know how this applies, just typed that.


The next great ones will hopefully be:
-Curing cancer
-And AIDS
-Traveling to Mars in under 3 hours (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/06/hyperdrive/), as opposed to the usual 9-11 months
-Better energy sources

That's all I can think of right now

Cancer is already easily curable, but if the U.S. allows an immediate cure to be available to all citizens at low cost, then the medical industry fails (as health institutions rely on these terminally ill patients to pay them). Thus why the answer to cancer is not widely spread.

Don't know about AIDS, but I'm pretty sure it's the same thing there.

As for energy sources, we do need better ones, but more than sources, we need to change people's minds about how to use them.

[lolpie]

Have you read Angels & Demons by Dan Brown? I wish we could use antimatter to power cars. As long as they don't explode it's all good

[Here]

They won't explode. Much more like...be gone.

[lolpie]

Somehow that's worse than exploding, IMO

[crossback7]

Towards the end of that book, it gets incredibly unbelievable.

[lolpie]

I know, I thought the priest guy was the good guy :(
Plus I hated how Langdon survived the jump from the plane

[Here]

I hate Dan Brown and his filthy "novels", I'm sorry. They're just too...sensationalist. Reminds me of J.K. Rowling. No point in either of those people's books, just a plot (a predictable one too).

[Esteban]

For now i will only say that science creates problems when they try to answer all the questions to the world. And when they do, they get themselves into a situation where they have to create a BS theory in order to not admit that they are wrong and that there is the possibility of a creator. I will base everything i post on later on this thread from the book, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist," as it totally owns science and their BS theories and in return provides evidence in support of a creator.

[Here]

You know Esteban, religion did the exact same thing a few hundred years ago.

[crossback7]

Crusades anyone?

[Dunceiam]

I hate Dan Brown and his filthy "novels", I'm sorry. They're just too...sensationalist. Reminds me of J.K. Rowling. No point in either of those people's books, just a plot (a predictable one too).

Clive Cussler? Tom Clancy? Jack Reacher?


Cancer is already easily curable, but if the U.S. allows an immediate cure to be available to all citizens at low cost, then the medical industry fails (as health institutions rely on these terminally ill patients to pay them). Thus why the answer to cancer is not widely spread.

Don't know about AIDS, but I'm pretty sure it's the same thing there.

Once someone gets AIDS, it cannot be cured, you can slow it down, but you cannot remove it. So, really all you can do to stop AIDS is to educate others on how to either use preventative measures, or not have sex. So, simply, there is no cure as of now.


For now i will only say that science creates problems when they try to answer all the questions to the world. And when they do, they get themselves into a situation where they have to create a BS theory in order to not admit that they are wrong and that there is the possibility of a creator. I will base everything i post on later on this thread from the book, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist," as it totally owns science and their BS theories and in return provides evidence in support of a creator. As Here said, "religion did the exact same thing a few hundred years ago." There are so many flaws within the Bible, it's come to the point that I cannot trust it. A book that old, translated that many times, edited so often, it's not valid anymore in my opinion.
For now i will only say that science creates problems when they try to answer all the questions to the world. What problems exactly?

And when they do, they get themselves into a situation where they have to create a BS theory in order to not admit that they are wrong and that there is the possibility of a creator.
Alright, smart dude tell me one way in which the Big Bang theory is incorrect.


I will base everything i post on later on this thread from the book, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist," as it totally owns science and their BS theories and in return provides evidence in support of a creator If he's so powerful then why doesn't he help the 40 children that die daily due to no clean water, why does he not help the people in poverty, why does he not stop Global Warming? Let me guess, let us solve our own problems? Let everyone who supports him die? I'm not sure that's a good approach.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist Wait...so by that phrase you're basically saying that Atheists are less important then people with Faith. You're comparing Atheists to rats in the sewers. If the author is that extreme, then he needs to blast open his little box and take a good look at the world.

Esteban, if you're basing all your facts on an extremists book, then please, just think about your argument before you say it. Because very likely there's a gaping flaw right in the middle of it.

Personally, I think that Religion is just a face. Something that someone made up because they were afraid. Afraid of the unknown. They couldn't accept what they didn't know, and made up stories to reassure themselves. I'm not trying to alter anyones beliefs, all I want is for people explain to me how and why you think that your argument is true. Such as if you say, "God is Mighty" I want you to tell me why, how, and where you got that. Instead of posting, "Science is BS and their theories are BS." Tell me why their theories are BS and I might believe you.

-Dunceiam

[crossback7]

I actually liked the novels with Jack Reacher. . .They were entertaining at least.

[Dunceiam]

I agree, I have a stack of them right next to me. :p.

-Dunceiam

[Here]

About the Dan Brown novel's I was referring to the ones he became famous for, his Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons.

Next, thanks for giving me the facts about AIDS, I didn't know.

I only disagree with you upon how "Religion is just a face", made up by someone who was scared of what they didn't know. Religion can be used to bring people together MUCH better than science can. It can be used to explain metaphysics, a place in which science is lacking. It fills in the parts of the soul that science cannot. But I'm still nonreligious, because I find all the world's current religions very lacking and unsupportive of each other nor of the people who make up the denominations.

[lolpie]

I hate Dan Brown and his filthy "novels", I'm sorry. They're just too...sensationalist. Reminds me of J.K. Rowling. No point in either of those people's books, just a plot (a predictable one too).

Dan Brown, Rowling, and Dave Barry are awsome. However Stephen King is the greatest author alive.

[Here]

Terry Pratchett and Isaac Asimov > All of them.

[crossback7]

Dean Koontz. My personal favorite by far.

He has a couple kind of shoddy ones, but tons of great ones to make up for them.

Edit: Daniel Silva is very good too.

[Dunceiam]

Terry Pratchett and Isaac Asimov > All of them.

Love Isaac Asimov.


I only disagree with you upon how "Religion is just a face", made up by someone who was scared of what they didn't know. Religion can be used to bring people together MUCH better than science can. It can be used to explain metaphysics, a place in which science is lacking. It fills in the parts of the soul that science cannot. But I'm still nonreligious, because I find all the world's current religions very lacking and unsupportive of each other nor of the people who make up the denominations.


It can be used to explain metaphysics, a place in which science is lacking. Yes, but the need to explain metaphysics comes from fear of the unknown or even a humans natural instincts that nothing is impossible and there's always a reason? So, since we know that, "metaphysics" is real, we then have that instinct that tells us there must be a reason, therefore the creation of religion? (Don't know much at all about metaphysics so correct me if I'm wrong :))


Religion can be used to bring people together MUCH better than science can. Agreed, but I believe that those people are brought together with/on an unstable foundation. But yes, you are correct.


It fills in the parts of the soul that science cannot. Once again, the human instinct. Afraid of the unknown I guess..

-Dunceiam

[the flea]

True, but it's more about the proportion of the discoveries that science is making. I'm just wondering what the next huge one will be. Where do we go from here? I'm just not sure if anything we discover will be quite as dramatic as say the discovery of fire, or the invention of electrity, or the invention of the automobile and airplane, etc, etc.




how can you tell? 2 years before people dicovered fire they had no-idea what it was... your obviously not going to know if anything we discover will be very dramatic because it hasnt happend yet to see what effect it has on the world.

[Dunceiam]

how can you tell? 2 years before people dicovered fire they had no-idea what it was... your obviously not going to know if anything we discover will be very dramatic because it hasnt happend yet to see what effect it has on the world. Fire was discovered in China, back with the cavemen. They supposedly found out about fire when lightning hit a tree, and it caught fire. So 2 years before they may never even had seen fire.


see what effect it has on the world. That's what super-computers are for :). To predict the future.

Personally I think the next major thing will be H2O engines, which already are developed I believe, but once people start to know about them, it will be the new craze. Either that or invisibility, that would change the future dramatically, which I think is already being developed for soldiers mostly because I'm reading multiple, "Popular Science" magazines :).

-Dunceiam

[lolpie]

Yep, invisibility already exists, but right now it's being hogged by the DoD. Wonder what would happen if a robber got hold of one...

[Here]

Invisibility hasn't been perfected yet, and as far as I know, carelessness will get him/her killed and robbed back in no time.

[lolpie]

Seriously, I would pay a lot to get my hands on one of those things

[crossback7]

I'm sure quite a few third world countries would too.

[Drip]

Science can and will solve some problems but not all. I watched this thing on the discovery channel, and it was saying that once we make it to mars we could put plants that mass generate pollutants so it warms up the planet mars and in a matter of a decade it would be livable and there would be water. and after 50 to 100 years it would start to form life, making it another earth! so if or when the earth is destroyed we can go chill out on mars.

[Dunceiam]

Yep, invisibility already exists, but right now it's being hogged by the DoD. Wonder what would happen if a robber got hold of one...

DoD...?


Science can and will solve some problems but not all. I watched this thing on the discovery channel, and it was saying that once we make it to mars we could put plants that mass generate pollutants so it warms up the planet mars and in a matter of a decade it would be livable and there would be water. and after 50 to 100 years it would start to form life, making it another earth! so if or when the earth is destroyed we can go chill out on mars. I'm not too good on my astronomy, but isn't Mars closer to the Sun then Earth? Making it hotter not colder then Earth? Would it not having an atmosphere lead to it being colder?

Plus, plants need oxygen and since Mars doesn't have an atmosphere which would make oxygen not leak out to space. (Does Mars have an atmosphere? :p)


in a matter of a decade it would be livable and there would be water.
How would water get there? :)


so if or when the earth is destroyed we can go chill out on mars.
With lots of sun-screen :p. Also, how will you get 10,000,000,000 (Guessed for 50-100 years) people into space, and onto Mars? My only guess is the theory of a space elevator...


Science can and will solve some problems but not all. That's attempting to predict the future, we don't know where Science will go, as far as we know, it may solve every single problem. Unlikely, but plausible. :)


Invisibility hasn't been perfected yet, and as far as I know, carelessness will get him/her killed and robbed back in no time. Are you talking about a person?

-Dunceiam

[~alex~]

No mars is the next planet further from the sun.

[botmaster]

For now i will only say that science creates problems when they try to answer all the questions to the world. And when they do, they get themselves into a situation where they have to create a BS theory in order to not admit that they are wrong and that there is the possibility of a creator. I will base everything i post on later on this thread from the book, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist," as it totally owns science and their BS theories and in return provides evidence in support of a creator.

Errm... No. Most theories science comes up with are correct. And if the theories are BS, then go ahead and disprove them! Science is a system that constantly changes as new data about our universe comes in, meaning that theories CAN and DO actually change. Science can be wrong, true, but it is normally corrected within 100 years, and recently as fast as 24 hrs.

Also - how can you say that atheists lack faith - they do believe in something. If they don't believe in anything (i.e. no god), they believe in something. Meaning that they have faith that they are correct, even though it is from their perspective. They may not have faith in your beliefs. But they do have faith in themselves and their beliefs.


As Here said, "religion did the exact same thing a few hundred years ago." There are so many flaws within the Bible, it's come to the point that I cannot trust it. A book that old, translated that many times, edited so often, it's not valid anymore in my opinion. What problems exactly?


Hmm... No way. The bible is still valid in SOME points. At least the original scripts and even a fraction of the translated and edited material have philosophical and historical significance. Philosophical, because one can see how people had the same questions about life, the universe, and everything 10000 years ago, and how we still keep on asking the same questions. Historically, because it shows how early humans developed. Just as an example, the number pie (3.14... ) is mentioned in the bible, when humans didn't even have the knowledge/intelligence to calculate the number by themselves. And I trust radiocarbon dating to be very very accurate...

Spiritually, the bible is still the number one book sold. But then again, you have to admit - no other book has caused so much controversy. No other book has caused wars, paradigm shifts and other significant events. At least no book on science I know of...



Alright, smart dude tell me one way in which the Big Bang theory is incorrect.


Well, for one thing, it's just a theory and hasn't been proven yet. And plus, it's based on subjective facts. If you like it or not, science isn't objective. It's subjective, because HUMANS interpret the data. HUMANS develop theories. Objective computers are still too dumb to do it. And plus, if science can't tell what happened before the big bang, the entire theory ammounts to nothing because it doesn't really help in figuring out the ultimate origin of people. All it basically tells me is that the universe is constantly expanding. Maybe it isn't expanding, but matter is shrinking? It all depends on perspective. Maybe our world is entirely subjective and all that really counts are your beliefs. I've got the impression that it is.



If he's so powerful then why doesn't he help the 40 children that die daily due to no clean water, why does he not help the people in poverty, why does he not stop Global Warming? Let me guess, let us solve our own problems? Let everyone who supports him die? I'm not sure that's a good approach.


Well, if this world were perfect, if you just had to ask and everything would happen, it would be just like heaven... If you read a bit of scripture and did your homework, you'd know that religion doesn't work that way. After all, without challenge, we'd be godlike, as HERE said. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And for the greediness and selfishness of human nature, this applies 100%. Look at politics, and see why shit happens daily. So basically, its an internal struggle to "shut out" your instincts, and become rational.



Personally, I think that Religion is just a face. Something that someone made up because they were afraid. Afraid of the unknown. They couldn't accept what they didn't know, and made up stories to reassure themselves. I'm not trying to alter anyones beliefs, all I want is for people explain to me how and why you think that your argument is true. Such as if you say, "God is Mighty" I want you to tell me why, how, and where you got that. Instead of posting, "Science is BS and their theories are BS." Tell me why their theories are BS and I might believe you.

Okay, some religions are just a face. People created religions to surpress their fear of the unknown. Fear promotes irrationality. Definetly true. But - not ALL religions try to do that. You actually have to look at religions to sort out the bullshit from the stuff that is actually true. Religions has been corrupted as to keep a bunch of people with similar spiritual belief together. Reason being, so that in difficult times (i.e. war, famine, etc.) they wouldn't kill each other. Most religions did this by manipulating people with their worst fear (i.e. fear of the unknown). This banding together also resulted in the effect of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. Fanaticism is the worst thing that can happen to religion, but it's inevitable, with this 13th century attitude. Today, this is a problem, because the world is international. In a way, atheism is a new international religion with this attitude against nonatheists (i.e. trying to disprove their religion). But it's a religion which uses science as "The face" to shut out fears.

But if you look at the big picture, this entire system is just a wrapper. Inside the shell is always the same: A spiritual component that is ALWAYS the same, no matter at which religion you look. The only thing that's different is the wrapper and the way this wrapper is connected to the spiritual component.

The thing is, religious people or scientific people don't look at this spiritual component. It's sorta like believing in/criticising the color of a car instead of looking under the hood and seeing whats inside. Most cars have the same basic components (i.e. motor, carburator, coolant, etc.). It's the same with religions. Maybe the company name or method of presentation differ. But they're still the same basic object.




Instead of posting, "Science is BS and their theories are BS." Tell me why their theories are BS and I might believe you.

Science isn't BS. No one is trying to say "these theories are bullshit, I WANNA KNOW TEH TRUTH". It's just that the "wrapper" of religions has to say that they know better, so people band together. It's not their fault nor the fault of the scientists, it's the fault of a poorly designed system based on the lack of knowledge before the dawn of scientific advancement in the 17th century.

If you read all that, congratultations and thanks for your patience. My fingers hurt :S.

[Dunceiam]

Glad I'm using one of my last few posts til' my millenium on something important in my mind :).


Hmm... No way. The bible is still valid in SOME points. At least the original scripts and even a fraction of the translated and edited material have philosophical and historical significance. Philosophical, because one can see how people had the same questions about life, the universe, and everything 10000 years ago, and how we still keep on asking the same questions. Historically, because it shows how early humans developed. Just as an example, the number pie (3.14... ) is mentioned in the bible, when humans didn't even have the knowledge/intelligence to calculate the number by themselves. And I trust radiocarbon dating to be very very accurate...

Spiritually, the bible is still the number one book sold. But then again, you have to admit - no other book has caused so much controversy. No other book has caused wars, paradigm shifts and other significant events. At least no book on science I know of...


The bible is still valid in SOME points. At least the original scripts and even a fraction of the translated and edited material have philosophical and historical significance.

True, it could be valid in some points, but the problem is, is seperating the valid points from the unvalid points, and in a book of, say 600 pages (Guess...) with every page surrounded by claims of sightings/happenings that came to us all from one single book, there have been no memories passed on through the centuries, there has been nothing except for 600 pages and a lot of ink. Seperating the valid from invalid would prove very very difficult. Also having that as a basis of religions spread worldwide, seems to me like a water-tower held up by one stand, it's bound to fall over.


And I trust radiocarbon dating to be very very accurate...

What is radiocarbon dating...? :). I'm guessing that is has something to do with the Earth, and what does that have to do with Pi? :).


Spiritually, the bible is still the number one book sold. But then again, you have to admit - no other book has caused so much controversy. No other book has caused wars, paradigm shifts and other significant events. At least no book on science I know of..

As you say later on, people surround themselves with religion, and the, "If you're not with us, you're against us" starts. All these wars happen because of religious fanatics that don't accept anyone that isn't following their religion. And as far as I know, no wars have been started because of atheists :).



Well, for one thing, it's just a theory and hasn't been proven yet. And plus, it's based on subjective facts. If you like it or not, science isn't objective. It's subjective, because HUMANS interpret the data. HUMANS develop theories. Objective computers are still too dumb to do it. And plus, if science can't tell what happened before the big bang, the entire theory ammounts to nothing because it doesn't really help in figuring out the ultimate origin of people. All it basically tells me is that the universe is constantly expanding. Maybe it isn't expanding, but matter is shrinking? It all depends on perspective. Maybe our world is entirely subjective and all that really counts are your beliefs. I've got the impression that it is.

Some people could call religion a theory as well, it also has not been proved, and I repeat, it's all based on a single book, while science on the other hand uses facts, and attempts to really discover the truth. So in my mind, science is trying to work toward discovering the real truth, while religion, they're afraid of the possibility of not having a God, they don't want to know the truth. And if science does stumble upon that truth, their religion/most religions will crumble, which I believe is the reason that religious people try to, "diss" science, they try to discontinue science. (I'm not trying to stereotype if anyone feels offended...)


And plus, if science can't tell what happened before the big bang, the entire theory ammounts to nothing because it doesn't really help in figuring out the ultimate origin of people. All it basically tells me is that the universe is constantly expanding. Maybe it isn't expanding, but matter is shrinking? It all depends on perspective. Maybe our world is entirely subjective and all that really counts are your beliefs. I've got the impression that it is.

Science may not be able to tell us exactly what happened, but neither can religion. Religion is, "helping" us to find out the ultimate origin of people, it's merely giving us something to try and make us believe what happened, whether it be true or not. At least science is attempting to get the facts, and not put on a face. :).


Well, if this world were perfect, if you just had to ask and everything would happen, it would be just like heaven... If you read a bit of scripture and did your homework, you'd know that religion doesn't work that way. After all, without challenge, we'd be godlike, as HERE said. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And for the greediness and selfishness of human nature, this applies 100%. Look at politics, and see why shit happens daily. So basically, its an internal struggle to "shut out" your instincts, and become rational.

Yes, but by saving a childs life, the child's life is still not perfect, it's merely better then it was before, so God could save the childs life, without the child thinking he/she was in heaven. The child still has challenges, the child is nothing near Godlike, so I repeat:

"If he's so powerful then why doesn't he help the 40 children that die daily due to no clean water, why does he not help the people in poverty, why does he not stop Global Warming? Let me guess, let us solve our own problems? Let everyone who supports him die? I'm not sure that's a good approach."

Some may argue, humans are animals, and many times, if there is not enough food for the whole pack, the pack will start killing it's own in order for the pack to survive. They sacrifice others for the sake of everyone else. This might be Gods way of keeping the rest of us alive, how cruel it may be, I honestly don't know. For all I know, once other planets become habitable God might stop letting people die, because now there's more food for all the animals.

Also, I was just thinking, "Where did God get created, where did he come from?" Matter cannot be either created nor destroyed. So, how was God created? Is God a physical being? Or is he the diamond glint on snow? The light Autumn rain? The wind over the valleys of hay? Also, where did he get the matter to create Adam and Eve? Their garden? Science has proved that matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed, or can God alter the very basic laws of physics?


Okay, some religions are just a face. People created religions to surpress their fear of the unknown. Fear promotes irrationality. Definetly true. But - not ALL religions try to do that. You actually have to look at religions to sort out the bullshit from the stuff that is actually true. Religions has been corrupted as to keep a bunch of people with similar spiritual belief together. Reason being, so that in difficult times (i.e. war, famine, etc.) they wouldn't kill each other. Most religions did this by manipulating people with their worst fear (i.e. fear of the unknown). This banding together also resulted in the effect of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. Fanaticism is the worst thing that can happen to religion, but it's inevitable, with this 13th century attitude. Today, this is a problem, because the world is international. In a way, atheism is a new international religion with this attitude against nonatheists (i.e. trying to disprove their religion). But it's a religion which uses science as "The face" to shut out fears.

But if you look at the big picture, this entire system is just a wrapper. Inside the shell is always the same: A spiritual component that is ALWAYS the same, no matter at which religion you look. The only thing that's different is the wrapper and the way this wrapper is connected to the spiritual component.

The thing is, religious people or scientific people don't look at this spiritual component. It's sorta like believing in/criticising the color of a car instead of looking under the hood and seeing whats inside. Most cars have the same basic components (i.e. motor, carburator, coolant, etc.). It's the same with religions. Maybe the company name or method of presentation differ. But they're still the same basic object.


Okay, some religions are just a face.

By saying, "Some" you're basically throwing away other religions that you do not believe in?


People created religions to surpress their fear of the unknown. Yet here you seem to contradict your previous statement and say that all religions are a face? If something is created just to stop others from seeing what's really inside, that could be called a face :).


You actually have to look at religions to sort out the bullshit from the stuff that is actually true. Religions has been corrupted as to keep a bunch of people with similar spiritual belief together. I'm not too familair with the actual difference, but I belive that Sunnis and Shiites (Spell?) in fact believe in exactly the same thing except for one small difference. The names of Mohammad's family. (Correct me if wrong). That religion was created to keep the whole religion together, yet the fanatics who watch the details very closely started to argue, and wallah, they split up. A religion created to keep people together, eventually led to splitting up mostly because of people who believed in that religion with their whole heart.


Fanaticism is the worst thing that can happen to religion, but it's inevitable.

Totally agree with that :).


In a way, atheism is a new international religion with this attitude against nonatheists (i.e. trying to disprove their religion). But it's a religion which uses science as "The face" to shut out fears.

Faces are things that want to stop people from seeing what's really going on. While, science I repeat for the n-th time, is actually trying to discover if there is a God or not, and it's showing people along the way. That is not a face :). As for atheism, I'm not trying to offend anybody, and please do not take notice of what I say if it does in fact offend you, but I consider people that believe in some crazy religions, "silly". I'm not trying to convert people, I'm not a missionary, I'm just pointing out some things. Sometimes I wonder if God really does exist, many times I hold arguments like this in my head, they go on forever and ever. And many times I resort to just asking God, if he really does exist then make a red car come down the street next, or make me get an email from a long-lost friend next-week. Sometimes the results are coincidence, sometimes nothing comes, and sometimes things do happen. I'm torn between atheism and religion, I'm just trying to point out the flaws in both of them.


The thing is, religious people or scientific people don't look at this spiritual component. It's sorta like believing in/criticising the color of a car instead of looking under the hood and seeing whats inside. Most cars have the same basic components (i.e. motor, carburator, coolant, etc.). It's the same with religions. Maybe the company name or method of presentation differ. But they're still the same basic object. Yet some religions have a V8 engine, instead of a V6. The V8 is a higher quality, and it's more powerful.


Science isn't BS. No one is trying to say "these theories are bullshit, I WANNA KNOW TEH TRUTH". It's just that the "wrapper" of religions has to say that they know better, so people band together. It's not their fault nor the fault of the scientists, it's the fault of a poorly designed system based on the lack of knowledge before the dawn of scientific advancement in the 17th century.


For now i will only say that science creates problems when they try to answer all the questions to the world. And when they do, they get themselves into a situation where they have to create a BS theory in order to not admit that they are wrong and that there is the possibility of a creator. I will base everything i post on later on this thread from the book, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist," as it totally owns science and their BS theories and in return provides evidence in support of a creator.

Esteban is being hostile toward science, and calling their theories BS. The scientists that developed those theories must be BS too, and since scientists like Science, that means that science is BS, in Estebans point of view.He's also calling scientists, "wrong" when he does not have a better idea of what happened. "I will base everything i post on later on this thread from the book, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist," as it totally owns science and their BS theories and in return provides evidence in support of a creator" Again, calling science BS, and saying his religion is superior, and others are inferior.

This is what I'm talking about, some serious believers just close down their minds to other possibilties because they're afraid that they might be wrong. I know I might be wrong, if someone gives me some cold hard facts about why Religion is superior, I might believe them, my mind is open to new possibilities. :).

Once again, I'm glad I'm using my last few posts on something that's important to me.

-Dunceiam

[kaustav_002]

My head hurts..*.^75. why dont we all just blame what we cant figure out on god and be happy, please.

[botmaster]

This is what I'm talking about, some serious believers just close down their minds to other possibilties because they're afraid that they might be wrong. I know I might be wrong, if someone gives me some cold hard facts about why Religion is superior, I might believe them, my mind is open to new possibilities.


Maybe you should open your mind and study the other side more in detail. You're confusing religion with spirituality. It's so common these days...


Faces are things that want to stop people from seeing what's really going on. While, science I repeat for the n-th time, is actually trying to discover if there is a God or not (...)

Yep. Definetly right. But there is shit happening right now that science just simply can't explain (yet), and probably never will. Believe it or not. And we still haven't figured out all that shit about perception and reality. So before I go and entrust my life to science, believing something that may be false because it was perceived in a distorted way or interpreted incorrectly, I'll be skeptical about science. Instead of becoming a fully fledged science believer, I'll stay in the limbo of indecision.


Faces are things that want to stop people from seeing what's really going on.

Also correct. But have you ever considered science trying to stop people from knowing what's going on? We've come CLOSE to the limit of knowing what's happened at the beginning of the universe (10 to the -8 nanoseconds away from big bang). At the end of this year, in my city, a newly built particle accellerator will attempt to recreate what happened even earlier. It is the most powerful particle accellerator ever built. And yet - be it as powerful as you want, you will NEVER EVER EVER EVER be able to recreate the big bang. And if it does happen - we all die. I call that a serious limitation. That's a face - something that stops people from seeing the real thing. I'm not saying religion doesn't have faces - it has many. I'm just saying, that science isn't the answer either - at least not in the long term.

[Distort]

Science has already helped human kind.

Yay for tractors, yay for water works, yay for everything else.

Who cares if it managed to go from "oh, fissuring these atoms makes a lot of energy" to "MUHAHA, A-BOMB FOR JAPAN!" or something else such as "these pitch forks make great stabbing tools".

Sure its engineering, but we need science to advance it and understand it, thus making humanity better.

[Ersatz]

I believe in science,
Only because I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, though, Lamarck's Theory is also correct, but it just wouldn't work out by swapping genetic features.

I mean, Stanely Miller did do that experiment which stimulated conditions on early Earth, proving that life could have been created in pools of water that contained the right molecules of life, but most people think the gases he used were in different concentrations at the time..

Gosh I sound like a nerd.

Though last thing, scientists have found the molecules and DNA or whatever on meteorites needed to create life. So life could come from outer space. Though Mars is the most likely candidate for that because it was created from the same substances and at the same time as the Earth.

Also remember, palaentologists don't look for intellegent life forms or aliens, they look for bacteria that can live in remote places throughout the universe.

I hope I've gotten most of my facts right..

But yeah, Science is the answer!

[n3ss3s]

I also think Science > God... (no offense anyone, its an opinion)



Gosh I sound like a nerd.

You sound wise.

[R0b0t1]

I think science might be the answer. But then again, religious people don't like to believe that... Even though its got proof.

Religion is just people in a large group:


http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/idiocy.jpg