QFEATG wrote:
Of course, who wouldn't want to know the truth?
Poll
If you had the chance... would you do it?
| Yes | 81% | 81% - 77 | ||||
| No | 18% | 18% - 17 | ||||
| Total: 94 | ||||||
Um I hate to break it to you but you can disprove science, as science is purely theoretical. All you need is one piece of data to disprove anything. Nothing in science is 'proven', they are merely 'widely supported'.chittydog wrote:
You can't disprove a science. Science is a collection of facts. Introducing new facts will never be anything but helpful to science. The only thing you could disprove would be a theory, which is called a theory because it's their best guess based on evidence. Besides, any reasonable or credible scientist would welcome your evidence regardless of what it proved or disproved. Facts, ftw!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If I had the chance to disprove a science with irrefutable and undeniable evidence, I would. Only because possession of such information would invalidate said science, and its continued existence would be detrimental to research.
For example, saying gravity exists is a rushed conclusion.
Even if you drop a ball and see it fall three thousand times, all you need is one time where the ball flies up to disprove gravity.
Gravity most probably exists.
I feel one of the biggest differences between disproving a science and disproving a religion is if you offer proof that a scientific theory is incorrect then the scientific theory will be changed. If you offer proof that a religion is wrong it'll be ignored eg. the world being 5,000 years old.Coolbeano wrote:
Um I hate to break it to you but you can disprove science, as science is purely theoretical. All you need is one piece of data to disprove anything. Nothing in science is 'proven', they are merely 'widely supported'.chittydog wrote:
You can't disprove a science. Science is a collection of facts. Introducing new facts will never be anything but helpful to science. The only thing you could disprove would be a theory, which is called a theory because it's their best guess based on evidence. Besides, any reasonable or credible scientist would welcome your evidence regardless of what it proved or disproved. Facts, ftw!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If I had the chance to disprove a science with irrefutable and undeniable evidence, I would. Only because possession of such information would invalidate said science, and its continued existence would be detrimental to research.
For example, saying gravity exists is a rushed conclusion.
Even if you drop a ball and see it fall three thousand times, all you need is one time where the ball flies up to disprove gravity.
Gravity most probably exists.
If you offer irrefutable, undeniable evidence that a religion is wrong it'll be refuted and denied.
I'd be in the streets with a megaphone before you could say "Religion is Bullshit!"...
Def a NO, These people who put their faith in a higher being have the right to give their live meaning by their religion, as long as they dont bother other people with it, let alone try converting them with violence.
So if in this sense you saw something that made you believe in any particular religion, would you go around telling that or try to keep your credibility by not having your claims disproven? ---Posed to all who are saying this sortCameronPoe wrote:
I'd be in the streets with a megaphone before you could say "Religion is Bullshit!"...
You forget the premise on which this thread is based: irrefutable evidence. I can't entertain your hypothetical situation because I find it absolutely ridiculous to consider there ever being 'irrefutable' evidence in support of a religious belief. The converse is true as well I suppose - i.e., it is probably impossible to 100% tear apart a religious belief - so I guess I'm just shouting my allegiance out here. My allegiance to logic and reason.DesertFox423 wrote:
So if in this sense you saw something that made you believe in any particular religion, would you go around telling that or try to keep your credibility by not having your claims disproven? ---Posed to all who are saying this sortCameronPoe wrote:
I'd be in the streets with a megaphone before you could say "Religion is Bullshit!"...
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-13 05:34:05)
Well, if hypothetically I found irrefutable proof that a certain major religion were false, I'd disclose that information. People need to know the truth, whether they believe it or not. But in theory, one can't disprove religion. Mankind won't survive long enough to unravel all the mysteries the universe has to offer and thus, won't be able to scientifically explain the phenomenon that religion currently preaches. For example, the case of Moses' staff turning into a snake. No matter how much mankind progresses, it won't be able to provide an irrefutable scientific explanation to the occurance, since ancient Eqyptians are obviously not capable of genetically modifying a dead plant branch into a living reptilian organism.
Gah. I have a headache.
Gah. I have a headache.
Your first sentenced disproved your point. Heaven and hell would be located in the unknown universe, or do you claim to know the entire universe?HeavyMetalDave wrote:
Since everything in the known universe is matter and has physical properties....
then where exactly would Heaven and Hell be located?????
And UMMMM......
If there are other forms of intelligent life in the universe, when they die do they go to the same place????
Just wondering......duh.
Last edited by EVieira (2006-11-13 07:33:41)
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Science can not be disproven as it is not the laws or theories. Science is a methodology of understanding what we experience. Disproving one theory does not make a difference, a new theory will just replace it as we strive to understand how things work. Western Religions ask you to belive with out real evidence. Eastern Religions base things on your personal experences and inner knowledge of the self. The concepts of Karma and reincarnation were not just part of the religion but a means to justify/explaine the cast system in India. No Religion is with out trying to shape society (some are to keep the wealth in power, others are to increase the number of followers).Coolbeano wrote:
Um I hate to break it to you but you can disprove science, as science is purely theoretical. All you need is one piece of data to disprove anything. Nothing in science is 'proven', they are merely 'widely supported'.
For example, saying gravity exists is a rushed conclusion.
Even if you drop a ball and see it fall three thousand times, all you need is one time where the ball flies up to disprove gravity.
Gravity most probably exists.
Also its not so easy disprove gravity. One ball flying up instead of down does not prove anything unless you can show that there were no other forces acting on the ball. To disprove gravity you would have prove that nothing exists as we know it because all of the laws of science are built on other scientific observations. If things started falling up the law of gravity would still be valid for previous interactions but new theorys would have to be developed and/or modified to work with the new interactions.
Oh yes.
I voted NO because it is a tenant of my religion to not be contentious about the things of God. It is considered to be contentious if you tear down another's religious beliefs..regardless of how corrupt, backwards, or unsensable they may seem.
However, I have debated heavily with people of other religions and it's quite easy to dispute validity of the main ones and the newbie religions. Truth confounds... so if you have truth, and you're but a wee youngster, you can baffle learned pastors and priests with years at the pulpit and in seminary or learning institutions. But again, the point is to not be contentious or you've failed at living your religion. It's better to let someone argue against you and silently declare victory because you held your tongue.
However, I have debated heavily with people of other religions and it's quite easy to dispute validity of the main ones and the newbie religions. Truth confounds... so if you have truth, and you're but a wee youngster, you can baffle learned pastors and priests with years at the pulpit and in seminary or learning institutions. But again, the point is to not be contentious or you've failed at living your religion. It's better to let someone argue against you and silently declare victory because you held your tongue.
Science Damnit!
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I wish we had some kind of a science jihad we could lay down on these religious types!!!
But not doing this makes us look way more saneCameronPoe wrote:
I wish we had some kind of a science jihad we could lay down on these religious types!!!
If its scientology or WBC.
Ask your friendly local religious representative how old the world is.
Then read Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" for info about how long it took to work out and how many bad guesses were made before it was determined.
Note the difference....
Then read Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" for info about how long it took to work out and how many bad guesses were made before it was determined.
Note the difference....
The bible sais / claim through calculations it all started about 5000 years ago, but doesnt claim the world didnt excist before. So off course there was an ice age and other life forms before that.
So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell,
Blue skys from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
And did they get you to trade
Your heros for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?
How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl,
Year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found?
The same old fears.
Wish you were here.
Heaven from Hell,
Blue skys from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
And did they get you to trade
Your heros for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?
How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl,
Year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found?
The same old fears.
Wish you were here.
Love is the answer
Religion has been disproved before, and what happened? It only got stronger. Poor Galileo was nearly burned alive for prooving the Sun, and not the Earth is the center of the solar system. He had to make a public retraction, lest he face the stake. Then he was proved right and religion survived. Then came along this nutcase named Darwin, prooving that god didn't make us out of clay and other peoples ribs, but actually we evolved from apes and ameaba. Its true, and most christians believe in Darwin and are still religious people. And now there is this argument that the world is much older then what the bible says. Well, that depends on where you say our world began. It began with the stone age or or with the dawn of civilization? Or did it begin when the first unicelular organism appeared in our oceans? Or when the world was a bulk of hot lava?
It dosen't matter, in the end religion will still survive. Its part of our nature. Even those who don't have a religion believe in something, even if that something is that there's no afterlife.
It dosen't matter, in the end religion will still survive. Its part of our nature. Even those who don't have a religion believe in something, even if that something is that there's no afterlife.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)