BF2S Forums Happy x day(s) after easter

HaiBai wrote:

All the problems you guys have pointed out about religion are present in scientific advances too.

Choose what you want to beleive in, wether it be a God, a Football team, or whatever random shit..

If it makes you happy, motivates you to be a 'better' person so be it..

I worship the alcohol & nicotine gods. Arguing about it is futile, nobody has the answers so nobody will win.

(oh and happy easter.. i got no choccy eggs )

HaiBai wrote:

Science and religion originated from the same origins: a "theory" based on observations of the world. One is not inherently better or worse

Um, no.

Science is a theory which is based on observations and then that theory is tested with experiments. The observations then alter the hypothesis which is again tested and the theory refined.

Religion says don't test. Don't question. Don't change the hypothesis. Don't question the theory.

The Earth revolves around the Sun. This is an observable fact. Religion fought against those who tested the theory the Earth was the center of the universe.

Ergo, Science is inherently better.

The point of science is to keep an open mind, and welcome challenges to your theory.

Either it survives and is accepted as a good theory, or is beaten by a better one. Either way its an advance in understanding.

Whereas religion.....

AussieReaper wrote:

HaiBai wrote:

Science and religion originated from the same origins: a "theory" based on observations of the world. One is not inherently better or worse

Um, no.

Science is a theory which is based on observations and then that theory is tested with experiments. The observations then alter the hypothesis which is again tested and the theory refined.

Religion says don't test. Don't question. Don't change the hypothesis. Don't question the theory.

The Earth revolves around the Sun. This is an observable fact. Religion fought against those who tested the theory the Earth was the center of the universe.

Ergo, Science is inherently better.

Religion was based off of people observing the phenomenon around them and coming up with a theory to explain that phenomenon (God). And sure, religion during the Middle Ages and a short while afterward did try to stem scientific reasoning, but only because they thought it was bad. If you believed something to be harmful, would you not try to stop it? That's the problem faced by science. What is beneficial, and what is harmful. Understanding of nuclear physics? Is it good or bad? On one hand it gives us nuclear energy, on the other, nuclear bombs. I believe that the church attempted to stop scientific advancement because it viewed them as being harmful, which is understandable since religion was what, essentially, brought the peasants through the Dark Ages with hope that there was something good for them after their suffering. So anything that challenged that institution would be viewed negatively, whether it was truely bad or not.

Ergo, not INHERENTLY worse.

Last edited by HaiBai (2011-04-24 20:09:43)

AussieReaper wrote:

Religion says don't test. Don't question. Don't change the hypothesis. Don't question the theory..

eh. not always. but yea it does that plenty. fkn

AussieReaper wrote:

HaiBai wrote:

However, after a theory has been in place for a long time it is generally accepted as fact and would take a lot of evidence to dislodge it. Gravity for instance.

The theory of gravity can be proven by scientific experiment. Newtons Laws demonstrate the observable facts can be summed up into equations.

Even still, the theory is still tested. And is still incomplete as the sub-atomic force of gravity is not understood.

Just because it's been around for awhile, doesn't mean it is instantly accepted. And the theory of gravity is not accepted at the sub-molecular level.

The evidence to "dislodge" it, is ongoing. For religion, what experiment is there?

If the witch drowns then she wasn't a witch.

HaiBai wrote:

Religion was based off of people observing the phenomenon around them and coming up with a theory to explain that phenomenon (God).

God isn't a theory. It can't be tested. This is basically God of the gaps. God fills the void of understanding. The lack of knowledge. Can't explain it? Ergo, God did it.

How is that a theory?

HaiBai wrote:

And sure, religion during the Middle Ages and a short while afterward did try to stem scientific reasoning, but only because they thought it was bad.

You still see it today. Stem cells for example. Condom use (or lack there of). Religion still places "rules" that have no place in society.

HaiBai wrote:

If you believed something to be harmful, would you not try to stop it? That's the problem faced by science. What is beneficial, and what is harmful. Understanding of nuclear physics? Is it good or bad? On one hand it gives us nuclear energy, on the other, nuclear bombs.

Just because something is harmful does not mean that it should not be researched. Fire is harmful. I'm thankful that neanderthals decided to continue and use it. The Greeks thought fire was stolen from the Gods it was so powerful. Should they have seriously decided against using fire because it was potentially harmful?

HaiBai wrote:

I believe that the church attempted to stop scientific advancement because it viewed them as being harmful, which is understandable since religion was what, essentially, brought the peasants through the Dark Ages with hope that there was something good for them after their suffering. So anything that challenged that institution would be viewed negatively, whether it was truely bad or not.

Your last line says it all. "Anything that challenged that institution would be viewed negatively."

Anything that challenges the church, is shot down. This includes knowledge. Of any kind. Because the God of the gaps has a smaller void to fill, all knowledge hurts that institution.

Ergo, Religion is INHERENTLY worse.

HaiBai wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

HaiBai wrote:

However, after a theory has been in place for a long time it is generally accepted as fact and would take a lot of evidence to dislodge it. Gravity for instance.

The theory of gravity can be proven by scientific experiment. Newtons Laws demonstrate the observable facts can be summed up into equations.

Even still, the theory is still tested. And is still incomplete as the sub-atomic force of gravity is not understood.

Just because it's been around for awhile, doesn't mean it is instantly accepted. And the theory of gravity is not accepted at the sub-molecular level.

The evidence to "dislodge" it, is ongoing. For religion, what experiment is there?

Ok, so people are still challenging the theory of gravity. People are still challenging the ideals put in the Bible. How many Christians do you know that believe EVERY SINGLE part of the bible? Not many, if not none. There are challenging parts of the Bible they do not agree with (No that doesn't make them a hypocrite, one does not have to agree with every premise to agree with an idea as a whole.) And if enough people challenge it, then the Church will reform (Council of Trent).

Who the fuck is challenging the theory of gravity? It's a fact. If you account for friction (i.e. a vacuum), an object will fall at ~9.81 meters per second on Earth at sea level.

Like most religious folks you're caught up on the whole 'theory' bit. Stop being ignorant.

1: There are different ways to test theories. You have to test this spiritually. If you don't want to, theres no way I can prove to you he exists.

2: They're trying to stem (haha nice pun with the stem cell research) science because they view it as negative. How does anyone know if stem cells (which could've eventually become a human with thoughts and feelings) research is good or bad? Sure it's good to the people who are being hurt NOW, but what about the people who we are essentially killing to further this research? And yes, they would advocate not to use condoms or any contraceptives, since the point of humans were to procreate. Sex just to satisfy oneself is selfish and a sin.

3: Fire also had many, many positives. Positives that would be hard to do away with. Nuclear power, on the other hand, there's wind, solar, coal, water, etc.

4: So, any and all knowledge is shot down by the church? Really? Can you provide a specific example? Because the church does NOT shoot down ALL knowledge. If I have my history right, monks were some of the first teachers during the dark ages and after. And they did not just teach religion, they taught the classics, vernacular and the Latin/Greek language, scripture, reading,  etc.

Last edited by HaiBai (2011-04-24 20:26:36)

War Man wrote:

Can't we all just stfu for one day and at least give some respect for the Religion, I don't go bashing religions on their holidays.

That's because in your insulated world you wouldn't know what day other religions celebrate their holidays anyway

AussieReaper wrote:

HaiBai wrote:

Ok, so people are still challenging the theory of gravity. People are still challenging the ideals put in the Bible. How many Christians do you know that believe EVERY SINGLE part of the bible? Not many, if not none. There are challenging parts of the Bible they do not agree with (No that doesn't make them a hypocrite, one does not have to agree with every premise to agree with an idea as a whole.) And if enough people challenge it, then the Church will reform (Council of Trent).

There are people that don't agree with every single part of the Bible, because that is an impossible task. The bible contradicts itself, time and time again. You cannot logically agree with everything in the Bible because of that.

Here's a quick 101 examples of that

http://www.thinkatheist.com/notes/101_C … _the_Bible

I'm sure you're aware that the Bible is a translated text from different men (the Disciples). It's basically a history book from the points of different people. Inaccuracies can occur which could lead to contradictions. Does that mean all the premises in the Bible are wrong then? No. The laws governing slaves, such as segregation, were contradictory to "all men bring born free" clause of the Constitution. Even now we have contradictory laws, as do many countries. However, these countries are all still running.

In short, contradictions can occur, but that does not mean the whole is bad.