Religion or Science

Religion or Science?

Which is more important to our society? Do they need or deserve the same amount of respect in the world at large? Is one an outdated form of thinking, the other a step forward? Is this thread going to be banned a minute after conception? Are they two sides to a coin? Do people put too much faith in science?

A friendly discussion so that we can draw off those who would try to destroy the other thread about Science being the New Religion.



(Seems strangely reminiscent of another article)

Quote:

---

Which is more important to our society? Do they need or deserve the same amount of respect in the world at large? Is one an outdated form of thinking, the other a step forward?

---

Well my position is they are both needed equally for balance and understanding.

here I shall briefly summarize how science is superior to religion in terms of improving the lives, health, and welfare of humanity on a very basic level and all around the world. If man did not question the foolishness of religion and turn to science, we'd still believe the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, flies came from god's displeasure, diseases are caused by the same, etc, etc etc.

Sanitation & Cleanliness:

What has religion done in the past millennia to improve sanitation and cleanliness? Little to nothing. Science, however, has informed us of the ways in which disease can be spread through improperly handled water and poor hygiene. Science has also provided the tools to make water safer to drink and to clean up both ourselves and our surroundings to greatly reduce the risk of disease. Countless people have been saved from sickness and death through this information.

Fighting Disease:

Disease in general is not something which religion has helped fight; on the contrary, myths about the origins of disease have only made things worse. Science, however, has identified the bacteria and viruses which cause disease, how they work, how to fight them, and more. Through evolutionary theory we know that the fight against pathogens is endless because they will constantly evolve, but science gives us the tools to continue the fight with. Religion does not and often inhibits the effort.


Human Longevity:

Humans today live much longer on average than they used to, with the longest lives occurring in the industrialized West. This is not a coincidence: it is due to the use of science to fight disease, improve hygiene, and most importantly to improve the chances of survival in childhood. People are living longer because they use science to better understand and manipulate the world around them. Religion has not contributed to this.

Communication & Community:

People today can communicate with each other across vast distances in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. This facilitates not only the transmission of useful information, but also the development of new and dynamic human communities. All of this is possible through the use of science to create new technology. Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.

Food Production & Distribution:

People need to eat to survive, and while religion might encourage giving food to those who need it most, it does nothing to help grow more of it and more efficiently. Humans have used basic scientific tools to improve food production for millennia, but in recent times that has increased geometrically through the use of chemical analysis, satellite records, and even genetic manipulation. Science makes it possible to feed more people more efficiently with less land.

New Materials:

Everything we make must be made from some raw material. In the past the options were limited; today, however, there is a wealth of materials that are lighter, stronger, and often better than what was available before. Religion did not create plastics, carbon fiber, or even steel. Science and the scientific method allow people to develop new materials for new tasks, making it possible to do so much that we take for granted today.

Understanding Sexuality & Reproduction:

Science has provided invaluable insights into how human sexuality and reproduction work. We understand not only how and why things function, but also how and why they fail to function. This makes it possible to correct for errors and for people who previously were unable to have children to now successfully do so. Religion not only has not contributed to this, but in the past it has inhibited our understanding through myths and fables.

Understanding Our Real Place in the Universe:

It should go without saying that we cannot improve our position if we don't know what that position really is. Science has provided tremendous information about our place in nature, about our planet's place in the solar system, and about our galaxy's place in the universe. There is much to learn, but what we know already has been put to great use. Religion has only ever offered myths, all of which have proven to be wrong and misleading.

Humanity Needs More Science, Not More Religion:

It can be argued that there is much more to life than improved sanitation, improved hygiene, fighting disease, increased food production, new materials for building things, improved communication, and so forth. On the other hand, there isn't nearly as much life without those things — and those who are alive will have to endure more hardship and suffering as well. The ability of science to improve the very basic necessities of life is without question. The fact that religion doesn't even come close is also without question.

Why does such an extreme difference exist? Science's success depends upon the scientific method and upon methodological naturalism. The scientific method ensures that new ideas are thoroughly tested and vetted before being accepted. Methodological naturalism ensures that science conforms to the boundaries of the natural world rather than the boundaries of wishful thinking.

Religions neither incorporate nor value either of these methods. The diversity of religion prevents us making many generalizations about all religions, but I am unaware of any that develop and test their claims on the scientific method or rely upon methodological naturalism when examining the world.

This doesn't require the conclusion that religion is valueless because not everything in life can, does, or needs to incorporate the principles of science to be worth anything. What we can conclude, however, is that in the past couple of centuries science has done far more to improve the basic living and survival standards of humanity than religion has in the past several millennia. Religious leaders like to claim that we need more religion in order to solve our problems, but with most problems we could probably benefit from more science instead.

I would submit that science, while great for the body, provides nothing for the soul. The mind gets a kick from both.

What does science tell us about ourselves? That we are animals? Does it gives us ethics? Does it teach us compassion? Does it give us something to hold onto when we need it?

I would submit that it doesn't. When I have a problem personal I need to solve I will either sit down and read philosophy or I will get down on my knees and prey. I've never fealt the need to do equations to sort out my problems.

The current problems in the Public Sector in Britain and America are excellant evidence that science (mathematics) cannot predict human behaviour. They said we were all out for what we can get and that if you give civil servants targets and rewards they will work better.

It didn't work. Which suggest the econimists were wrong and Civil Servants were actually out for more than power or money.

The title itself is an affront to common sense. Like it or not most people feel there is more to all this than just being born, living and dying. Were not exactly sure what it is but its there all the same. Thats why theres that thread on what is spirituality? Others call us insane. But whos to judge?

well like it or not thats foolish. im not going to deny anyone the chance to believe in what they want to make them feel like their lives mean something or that they're special; whatever it takes to make you be a good person is fine with me as long as its moral and peaceful. but randomness and chaos rule the universe, your life is only a flicker in the cosmic span of time, and in the end all you are or ever were is a collection of molecules made of star-dust in millenia past. thats why you should make the most of the life you have, do good works, understand the universe you live in, and enjoy yourself.

Well, I don't need a book to tell me right from wrong, I can figure that out for myself. However, I can't figure out how to cure myself of diseases other than the most common ones, what the weather is likely to be tomorrow, and hundreds of other things.

So, I have absolutely no need for religion, in fact I have a need for the absence of religion, but I depend on science to live.

Quote:

---

well like it or not thats foolish. im not going to deny anyone the chance to believe in what they want

---

How nice of you. Thanks. Im not either. You really think you belief in aliens is superior to a belief that we all came from some grand design. It makes more sense that all this was an accident?

Quote:

---

Well, I don't need a book to tell me right from wrong, I can figure that out for myself.

---

Does that apply to everyone. Do you think you could if it hadnt been drilled into you since birth?

Quote:

---

I can figure that out for myself. However, I can't figure out how to cure myself of diseases other than the most common ones, what the weather is likely to be tomorrow, and hundreds of other things.

---

Ancient man could. Tribes in the amazon can.

Quote:

---

So, I have absolutely no need for religion, in fact I have a need for the absence of religion, but I depend on science to live.

---

Which makes you a proud member of the Church of Science.:laugh4:

Yes. there is an astounding amount of evidence that evolution of life is accidental and random based on outside influences. the belief in extraterrestial life is only logical given the number of stars in the universe. hopefully it will soon be proven beyond any doubt with the latest vehicles on mars and around jupiter, not to mention the discovery of "new earth" so close to our own. But im sure that then the creationists will find some way to squeeze these new discoveries into their theologies too, just like they did when science proved the truth of our solar system, etc.

I fail to see how a belief in a higher being is any more foolish than a belief in anything else, such as the existane of extra-terrestrial life.

We have zero real evidence for either. With respect Zak I think you should stop presenting your beliefs as facts and flat rejecting everyone else's it destroys your arguement.

Quote:

---

With respect Zak I think you should stop presenting your beliefs as facts and flat rejecting everyone else's it destroys your arguement.

---

A few weeks of getting bashed around in the back room should cure that :laugh4: I keep telling him moderation is key. You cant just say Im right and your wrong because your foolish although I support your right to be a fool and get away with it back here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I fail to see how a belief in a higher being is any more foolish than a belief in anything else, such as the existane of extra-terrestrial life.

We have zero real evidence for either. With respect Zak I think you should stop presenting your beliefs as facts and flat rejecting everyone else's it destroys your arguement.

---

because belief in a higher being is like believing in a unicorn. there is no evidence that it exists, and the empirical data we have suggests it does not exist. alien life, on the other hand, is supported by empirical data and basic logic. the two are not equatable.

Quote:

---

and the empirical data we have suggests it does not exist.

---

Oh please do tell more?

Quote:

---

alien life, on the other hand, is supported by empirical data and basic logic.

---

It is? So then your position is most people in the world are illogical?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

It is? So then your position is most people in the world are illogical?

---

Uh, well yes, I think most people would agree that the large majority of people on the earth are, well, stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

because belief in a higher being is like believing in a unicorn. there is no evidence that it exists, and the empirical data we have suggests it does not exist. alien life, on the other hand, is supported by empirical data and basic logic. the two are not equatable.

---

I'm not going to argue with you about Alien life. I know of no empirical data that suggests God does not exist however.

What do we mean when we say that something exists? As far as human beings are concerned, nothing exists unless it manifests itself in some form, shape or manner to man or to his extended sensory perceptions.

If something is claimed to exist but does not impinge on man in any way whatsoever, we can safely say that it does not exist as far as human existence is concerned. This purported mirage may still exist somewhere in the universe or another universe. However, since this alleged object or event does not manifest itself to us, it does not affect us in any way whatsoever and we must simply state that it does not exist as far as human beings are concerned.

Religious people argue that, although they cannot prove that god exists, atheists cannot prove that god does not exist. This argument is inherently faulty.

It is logically impossible to prove that an object or event does not exist. However, it is the essence and the backbone of science to provide evidence that something does exist. If something exists, such as energy, matter or space, it manifests itself to us by objective evidence. We can measure such manifestations or we can take objective images of them.

It is axiomatic in the affairs of man, and steeped in common sense that, whoever makes a claim, has to prove its validity. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If a person should claim that the moon is made of green cheese, he has to prove that the moon actually consists of green cheese, instead of rock, as established by previous, hard, factual, objective evidence. It is logically impossible and absurd to demand that, whoever does not accept the claim that the moon is made of green cheese, should disprove the claim.

Only persons, who do not utilize logic, will accept as true statements that are completely unsupported by factual evidence. Yet, this form of irrationality and lack of fundamental logic is the foundation of all religions. Since approximately 80 % of the world population accepts the completely unsubstantiated statements of various religions, 80 % of the world population suffers from a severely distorted and thus ineffective worldview.

Christian dogma expects people to believe the fairy tale of Noah’s ark, although it is patently impossible to squeeze even samples of billions of the world’s animals into one small ark. Rational persons consider such stories ludicrous. And yet, such is the brainwashing power of religion, that the majority of the people on earth accept such fairytales as facts.

The bible account of the creation of man and the universe, as set forth in the Book of Genesis, is in such contradiction to irrefutable facts that a rational person cannot help but laugh about such fantasies. It may be all right for children to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but functional adults are expected to outgrow such fairy tales.

Another absurdity is imbedded in the fact that every religion claims to pray to the one and only true god. How can such contradiction be rationalized? Who is the true god? Allah, or Jesus, or Jehovah, or Buddha, or Krishna?

Where was the Jewish God Jehovah, when Hitler incinerated five million of his chosen people; where was the Buddha when Truman vaporized 250,000 Japanese women and children; where was the Christian God when Stalin killed thirty million Christians?

It defies rationality when religious persons pray to these same gods for individualized help and salvation.

It is pointless to get involved in endless discussions regarding the existence or non-existence of god and the moral qualities of such a god. Such nonsensical and unproductive discussions have raged for the last three thousand years.

One of the problems in theism, the belief system involving a personal god, revolves around the allegedly benign nature of god, the existence of evil, and the resulting inconsistency in the concept of an omnipotent god.

The mere existence of evil in this world makes the existence of a benign god impossible: If god were omnipotent, he could eliminate evil and if he were benign, he would want to do so. Furthermore, if god were all-good, as he is supposed to be, he could not sin. However, if he were all-powerful, he could sin.

The Greek philosopher Epicurus illuminated this dilemma in 300 BC:

If God is willing to prevent evil but is not able to prevent evil, then he is not omnipotent.

If God is able to prevent evil but is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not benevolent.

Evil is either in accordance with God’s intention or contrary to it.

Thus, either God cannot prevent evil or he does not want to prevent evil.

Therefore, it follows that God is either not omnipotent or he is not benevolent. He cannot be both omnipotent and benevolen

Okay, laying aside the Epicuran part for a second.

God(s) do(es) not impact our reality? Okay, but we're talking about it, so it is present in our conciousness, we just can't detect it with our senses. If everything is a mirage and God is an idea rather than a physical manifestation then you cannot say he doesn't exist because we are arguing about his existance. Therefore the issue of his existance is part of our reality.

Two further problems arise:

1. God created our reality and therefore is by definition not a part of it. If I make a table at no point am I part of the table, though my hand it evident in the making, as is my intent.

2. Logic is obviously broken because it creates paradoxes which it cannot resolve.

As to Noah's Ark, Genesis and Epicurus; consider the following. God is outside our understanding and therefore anything we know about God is imperfect. When Genesis was written it was not possible to concieve of the way in which the world was created, so the story is a missinterpretation. Similarily understanding God's benevolence assumes that we understand God's intent and long term plan. The death of 5 million Jews led to the creation of modern Isreal. You can use that arguement, or even better, you can say that God gave us free will and is not responsible for our actions.

Therefore any evil act is not the responsibility of God, because he chose to give us free will and therefore cannot stop us from doing anything. I find it difficult to believe there was no small voice in the back of Hitler's head, he just didn't listen.

I personnally subscribe to the concept of free will, in which case how can God be directly responsible for my actions or my good or evil intent.

You are cherry picking man. God is ominiptent but he gives us free will also the reward we get after death is much better than anything on this earth. Therefore you should not fear death becuase its just a step

OK what atheists site is this opinion of yours :beam: taken from? Also would you like me to start posting pages of stuff that refutes that from christian and other religious sites?

Now I see why others hate my cut and paste jobs :laugh4:

Phillipvs is at least logical about his arguments. But you know good and well Phil my good man, that there are scores of radical Christians who believe that the Genesis account is 100% accurate and literal. They're what we call crazy people :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Phillipvs is at least logical about his arguments. But you know good and well Phil my good man, that there are scores of radical Christians who believe that the Genesis account is 100% accurate and literal. They're what we call crazy people :)

---

Well, people who totally reject the idea of God out of hand and leave open no room for the possibility he might exist aren't my favourite people, but then I like determined agnostics less. I had this discussion with a girl I know last year and she said that people that don't believe in God break her heart. Especially her friends.

We can deal with the religious extremists together Zak.:beam:

:knight:

On another note, I wonder if the hardline nature of many American Christians flying in the face of common sense is really counter-productive. They aren't able to accept contradiction in the Bible, while I just put it down to human incompetance.

Oh, and don't call my Phil, I don't like how it translates.

You have to ask?

Quote:

---

But you know good and well Phil my good man, that there are scores of radical Christians who believe that the Genesis account is 100% accurate and literal. They're what we call crazy people :)

---

Now thats what Im talking about. Do I believe hat the Genesis account is 100% accurate and literal? Hell no. But I still dont think their crazy. You should be more careful how you phrase things and label people. Some might take offense.

Im guilty of the same in many a topic I must admit. Those concerning Islam come to mind.

Apologies :) And yes, I beleive that the work of scores of cosmologists and physicists and the large amounts of studies done on the expnansion of the universe and the power of prayer and the placebo effecft and the evolution of life on earth has done much to empirically prove "God" as the Judeo-Christians define it, does not exist. Physicist Victor Stenger has done some great work in this area, his newest book is enlightening. "God: The Failed Hypothesis".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Two further problems arise:

1. God created our reality and therefore is by definition not a part of it. If I make a table at no point am I part of the table, though my hand it evident in the making, as is my intent.

2. Logic is obviously broken because it creates paradoxes which it cannot resolve.

---

That's why you use Occam's Razor. A universe that just appears is one incredible happening. A Creator that just appears and then creates the universe by means unknown is two incredible happenings. Therefore the first option is the logical choice until we know more about it.

Tables, on the other hand, are often man-made. We don't need to see the guy who built it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

That's why you use Occam's Razor. A universe that just appears is one incredible happening. A Creator that just appears and then creates the universe by means unknown is two incredible happenings. Therefore the first option is the logical choice until we know more about it.

Tables, on the other hand, are often man-made. We don't need to see the guy who built it.

---

That's a fallacy. You only know tables are man made because you have been told men make them. How do you know all tables are made by men, maybe 90% are actually made by rabbits.

Who said the creator ever appeared, further, if you have already accepted one incredible happening what does one more matter?

Quote:

---

you know all tables are made by men, maybe 90% are actually made by rabbits.

---

More likely they were made by robots.:whip: Now If i didnt know that the robots were made by man I might assume that tables are made by robots and if you tell me their made by man Ill tell you your crazy I saw the robots making them.

Don't disrespect the rabbits, remember Monty Python.

well thats venturing into the realm of ridiculousness--like saying "I dont know China exists since I've never been there."

Which was a perfectly reasonable position in Mediaeval Europe, or Ancient Greece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Does that apply to everyone. Do you think you could if it hadnt been drilled into you since birth?

---

My morals contradicts every religion I know of. So yes, I am able to form opinions that haven't been drilled into me from birth. Besides, there is a difference between learning morals from a religion, and from a society. The former is set in stone, the latter is changing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Ancient man could. Tribes in the amazon can.

---

Uhm, no, they cannot. They can deal with the very basics, not the complicated stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Which makes you a proud member of the Church of Science.:laugh4:

---

Again, "uhm, no". I prefer either socialist or agnostic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

well thats venturing into the realm of ridiculousness--like saying "I dont know China exists since I've never been there."

---

That's philosophy for you. Perhaps your dinner table doesn't exist when you don't look at it? Perhaps things only exist in your own mind?

There's only one way to debate people who claim all exists only in their imagination: kick them in the crotch, then ask them why they hate themself so much!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

My morals contradicts every religion I know of. So yes, I am able to form opinions that haven't been drilled into me from birth. Besides, there is a difference between learning morals from a religion, and from a society. The former is set in stone, the latter is changing.

---

Actually morals don't change, you reject old morals and take up modified ones. Changing morals are moral.

Quote:

---

Uhm, no, they cannot. They can deal with the very basics, not the complicated stuff.

---

You're not any smarter than they are and you don't know any better, you just have too much time on your hands to think about these things.

Quote:

---

My morals contradicts every religion I know of. So yes, I am able to form opinions that haven't been drilled into me from birth

---

I doubt you can support that claim.

Quote:

---

Besides, there is a difference between learning morals from a religion, and from a society. The former is set in stone, the latter is changing.

---

Not much really. In many cases their the same. In fact Id venture in most. And do we still sacrifice people to the sun god? Do we still worship Thor and Odin or Odin? Religion evolves just like everything else that deals with human endeavor . Nothing is written in stone and even if it were there is still the matter of erosion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Not much really. In many cases their the same. In fact Id venture in most. And do we still sacrifice people to the sun god? Do we still worship Thor and Odin or Odin? Religion evolves just like everything else that deals with human endeavor . Nothing is written in stone and even if it were there is still the matter of erosion.

---

Some people still do. How can you say your religion is superior to those who worship the Aesir? Hell, some people still worship Jupiter and Venus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Some people still do. How can you say your religion is superior to those who worship the Aesir? Hell, some people still worship Jupiter and Venus.

---

They do? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You can call religions better than each other like this example

-based on morality

-which morals you live by. Which ever points out the way to live by on those morals the most wins.

Other than that no way to...

So Columbus actually arrived in east India?
I mean he had the empirical data from his route, the logic that the world is round and the knowledge(following out of his logic) that India had to be west of Europe, thus he arrived in east India.:idea2:

It's funny how all religious people are stupid when most of my friends in church actually study at universities, including myself.
Oh wait, that's not a measurement anyway, we'll have to go by the rule of "those who don't believe what I believe are stupid because I say so and I cannot err".

Please allow me to retreat into the corner of shame and stupidity now.:clock:

well if you believe a giant invisible old man with a beard created the universe just for you because you're special...

Who say's he's giant, old or has a beard?

:juggle2:

heh. Uh, this?

EDIT: Removed picture of Terry Gilliam's god from Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Please note: If you want to post pictures, you must host them yourself, not link directly to a web site.

BG

"Though Shalt not make thyself an Idol or any graven Image"

:oops:

:laugh4:

EDIT: Removed Zaknafien's picture. BG

Somebodies been watching too many episodes of South Park :laugh4:

You mean Monty Python.

Christianity has been changing, and for a perfect example the idea of a Christian god being
-Old
-Bearded
-Caucasian

Those are all the symbols of the Roman god Jupiter, who was adapted for the Christian religion. The god Jupiter, adapted from the god Zeus of Greek mythology, adapted from either the Celtic gods or an Asian god.

Quote:

---

here I shall briefly summarize how science is superior to religion in terms of improving the lives, health, and welfare of humanity on a very basic level and all around the world. If man did not question the foolishness of religion and turn to science, we'd still believe the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, flies came from god's displeasure, diseases are caused by the same, etc, etc etc.

---

Completely invalid statements crossed out. Dubious ones italicised.

1) The flat earth thing is a myth invented by Washington Irving. Notable members of the medieval clergy did know and stated that it was spherical.
2) As I recall, in the book of Job, disease is attributed to Satan's work as an attempt to turn man against God, not God's displeasure.
3) It isn't stated (afaik) in the bible that the sun revolves around the earth. This isn't about questioning religion, but about questioning a widely held view.

So, you're prepared to ignore the amount of positive welfare work done by Christians and other religious groups because of their faith? Similarly, there are civil rights and anti-violence movements initiated frequently by the religious.

Communication/Community

These new technologies have also wrecked the traditional communities in many places and are resulting (according to some) in a decline in physical fitness and social skills. This seems to coincide with a rise in crime rate. I know some people who, because of faith and religion, have given up drugs, changed from a violent past and recovered their lives. This is a hell of a lot more important to the community than having more luxury goods with annoying adverts. Additionally, the church itself is a community, which actively does things to help people. Something I doubt most fora do (no insult intended to fora. I love them). Another community influence you could suggest is that people are inspired by religion to produce superior cultural works.

Food

Having excess food in the hands of the middle class isn't exactly as important to the beggars on the streets of Leamington as having dedicated people working to help feed them. Science isn't helping the people who need more food get more food, it's providing a luxury more cheaply.

Science also results in Asian people accidentally starving themselves by spending 45,613,892 hours in a row on World of Warcraft. Should we hold science responsible for these deaths?

Human longevity:
1 - what's the importance of said longevity, if there's no point to it? Senility isn't pleasant (at best embarrassing, at worst maddening), and presumably this longevity contributes to it.
2 - 'whoever believes in me will not perish but receive eternal life' (roughly John 3:16 or something like that. Could have the verse or chapter number off.

If Christianity is right, then it is contributing far, far more vastly to human longevity than any science.

Fighting Disease
Largely irrelevant if the previous quote from John 3:16 is taken into account as fact.

New materials
Yes, useful new materials, for things like killing people. New material production was never hindered by religion and is entirely seperate to it.

'If God is able to prevent evil but is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not benevolent.'

Alternatively, he wants people with personalities and with freedom of choice. If he takes away those choices to prevent evil, noone can choose the right thing and thus be good and thus fit to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Quote:

---

It can be argued that there is much more to life than improved sanitation, improved hygiene, fighting disease, increased food production, new materials for building things, improved communication, and so forth. On the other hand, there isn't nearly as much life without those things — and those who are alive will have to endure more hardship and suffering as well. The ability of science to improve the very basic necessities of life is without question. The fact that religion doesn't even come close is also without question.

---

If you have an eternal life in heaven, then you have a QOL higher than anything science could possibly give you. If you approach something from the assumption that a religion is right, rather than that it is wrong, then religion trumps science.

However, the two can, and do, coexist, and compliment each other and do not need to be compared.

I would say that religion is more important than science, because of the eternal salvation idea.

'Communication & Community:

People today can communicate with each other across vast distances in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. This facilitates not only the transmission of useful information, but also the development of new and dynamic human communities. All of this is possible through the use of science to create new technology. Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.'

Which has resulted in the decline of the traditional community. Additionally, the improved communications have led to a far greater scale in modern slaughters/genocides/terrorism than ancient ones.

Quote:

---

Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.'

---

You mean like the printing press ? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You're not any smarter than they are and you don't know any better, you just have too much time on your hands to think about these things.

---

I have a doctor to cure me when I'm sick, and that doctor has a scientist to come up with the thing he needs to cure me.

As for an example to the moral issue, I don't know of any religion who promotes promiscuity, homosexuality, the rejection of the family and marriage. I do.

Quote:

---

I have a doctor to cure me when I'm sick, and that doctor has a scientist to come up with the thing he needs to cure me.

---

And this differs from a witch doctor how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

And this differs from a witch doctor how?

---

uh, because it generally works.

So do many of the witch doctors cures.

Come on. Seriously? Are you seriously comparing witch doctors to modern medicine? :laugh4:

Yes I am. We just heard people , I believe even yourself say that science is looking into these things. Where do you think a lot of cures come from? Again your making my point. If its not our science its junk.

Wow, a real lovely thread here.

My toss into the mix. I don't see any valid reason for religion. Many, many, people lead very good, productive, peaceful, and fulfilling lives without the need for any kind of 'religion'. As for the concept of a soul, suffice to say I do not believe one exists, and as much as I'd like to believe in some concept of an afterlife, I have seen and read nothing in my many years that remotely leads me to this conclusion, in fact it's lead me more towards the opposite.

As for being a part of the "church of science", if that's what people choose to categorize it as then so be it. As for my 'god'... I can touch my god, understand it, interact with it, test and verify it. I believe in the power of the human mind and it's will and ability to understand and learn, and to reject old broken ways and means as they become obsolete or disproved as we progress. I believe that mankind has the ability to learn from past mistakes, and be kind/understanding to each other WITHOUT the need for made-up fairy tales and superstition. THIS is my faith. I can show you my faith, demonstrate it to you. Can you all say the same? Please spare me the peanut butter, banana, and "just look around you" arguments in advance. ~;)

Cheers all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I have a doctor to cure me when I'm sick, and that doctor has a scientist to come up with the thing he needs to cure me.

As for an example to the moral issue, I don't know of any religion who promotes promiscuity, homosexuality, the rejection of the family and marriage. I do.

---

God gives you eternal life and I haven't needed a doctor for about a decade. Not that I'm saying medicine isn't important, it is, but it's hardly top of my list. You might also want to think about the impetus behind the hippocratic oath.

As far as the moral issue I have to say I can't see any actual morals in your post. Given that morals are generally rules to live by and you are rejecting the traditional moral outlook I'm more concerned to know what you're replacing it with.

Zak: Shame on you, you wrote our Roman medical descriptions. You know that most traditional cures have some basis in fact.

[Tongue in cheek]:

Quote:

---

Sanitation & Cleanliness:

What has religion done in the past millennia to improve sanitation and cleanliness? Little to nothing. Science, however, has informed us of the ways in which disease can be spread through improperly handled water and poor hygiene. Science has also provided the tools to make water safer to drink and to clean up both ourselves and our surroundings to greatly reduce the risk of disease. Countless people have been saved from sickness and death through this information.

---

Yeah.. tell that to those women that died in childbirth by the hands of scientists… as for the religious midwifes who knew to wash… this was another story.

Quote:

---

Fighting Disease:

Disease in general is not something which religion has helped fight; on the contrary, myths about the origins of disease have only made things worse. Science, however, has identified the bacteria and viruses which cause disease, how they work, how to fight them, and more. Through evolutionary theory we know that the fight against pathogens is endless because they will constantly evolve, but science gives us the tools to continue the fight with. Religion does not and often inhibit the effort.

---

Bollocks… by the laying on of hands and by utilizing the priesthood they brought back the dead…

Quote:

---

Human Longevity:

Humans today live much longer on average than they used to, with the longest lives occurring in the industrialized West. This is not a coincidence: it is due to the use of science to fight disease, improve hygiene, and most importantly to improve the chances of survival in childhood. People are living longer because they use science to better understand and manipulate the world around them. Religion has not contributed to this.

---

Heh… who lived to see 900 years? Not the people of science.

Quote:

---

Communication & Community:

People today can communicate with each other across vast distances in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. This facilitates not only the transmission of useful information, but also the development of new and dynamic human communities. All of this is possible through the use of science to create new technology. Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.

---

Bah… In the blinking of an eye, prophets could hie to Kolob and call down Angels from across the multiverse.

Quote:

---

Food Production & Distribution:

People need to eat to survive, and while religion might encourage giving food to those who need it most, it does nothing to help grow more of it and more efficiently. Humans have used basic scientific tools to improve food production for millennia, but in recent times that has increased geometrically through the use of chemical analysis, satellite records, and even genetic manipulation. Science makes it possible to feed more people more efficiently with less land.

---

Balls.. who took five bread and two fishes and fed 5000?

Quote:

---

New Materials:

Everything we make must be made from some raw material. In the past the options were limited; today, however, there is a wealth of materials that are lighter, stronger, and often better than what was available before. Religion did not create plastics, carbon fiber, or even steel. Science and the scientific method allow people to develop new materials for new tasks, making it possible to do so much that we take for granted today.

---

Yeah right… And who made the elements?

Quote:

---

Understanding Sexuality & Reproduction:

Science has provided invaluable insights into how human sexuality and reproduction work. We understand not only how and why things function, but also how and why they fail to function. This makes it possible to correct for errors and for people who previously were unable to have children to now successfully do so. Religion not only has not contributed to this, but in the past it has inhibited our understanding through myths and fables.

---

Right… and were does these spirit children come from? And who made the woman out of a rib?

Quote:

---

Understanding Our Real Place in the Universe:

It should go without saying that we cannot improve our position if we don't know what that position really is. Science has provided tremendous information about our place in nature, about our planet's place in the solar system, and about our galaxy's place in the universe. There is much to learn, but what we know already has been put to great use. Religion has only ever offered myths, all of which have proven to be wrong and misleading.

---

The position is clear… We are the children of God and it is to his kingdom we return.. at least those who believe. The rest of you heathens will live on the darkside of the moon… Forever!!
[/Tounge in cheek]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

So do many of the witch doctors cures.

---

Yes, people in Africa don't need antibiotics, or vaccinations, or anti-retroviral drugs to fight aids, or modern obstetric care! They've got their witch doctors and traditional tribal medicine, and it would clearly be an example of evil cultural hegemony to "impose" our own practices on them.

You'll be telling me you think homeopathy works next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Yes, people in Africa don't need antibiotics, or vaccinations, or anti-retroviral drugs to fight aids, or modern obstetric care! They've got their witch doctors and traditional tribal medicine, and it would clearly be an example of evil cultural hegemony to "impose" our own practices on them.

You'll be telling me you think homeopathy works next.

---

Homeopathy is placebo at best, but there are certainly traditional cures that work. The witchdoctor just has little or no knowledge of why it works or if it could work better. There could be unnecessary components because of that old tradition, either unnecessary or creating harmful side effects.

That's one reason for science checking out old cures. You might find some refinable drug to make money on and save people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

God gives you eternal life and I haven't needed a doctor for about a decade. Not that I'm saying medicine isn't important, it is, but it's hardly top of my list. You might also want to think about the impetus behind the hippocratic oath.

---

Medicine is after food the most important thing for us. Without it, we die. The reason we live longer today, is because of medicine. As for eternal life, that will only happen if you choose the correct god, won't it? If Islam is the correct one, for example, then you'll probably burn in hell for an eternity...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As far as the moral issue I have to say I can't see any actual morals in your post. Given that morals are generally rules to live by and you are rejecting the traditional moral outlook I'm more concerned to know what you're replacing it with.

---

Well, I thought it would be fairly obvious that my morals say that sex is good, any time, any place, with anyone. I don't know of a single religion who doesn't put great restrictions on sex. The only restriction I have, is that all those involved consent to it.

Quote:

---

Well, I thought it would be fairly obvious that my morals say that sex is good, any time, any place, with anyone.

---

Then may I suggest that your a degenerate :laugh4: Seriously you dont see the fallacy in that position? If you follow your morals you will wind up in jail for one thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Then may I suggest that your a degenerate :laugh4: Seriously you dont see the fallacy in that position? If you follow your morals you will wind up in jail for one thing.

---

Fortunately for me, there are no longer any laws against having sex before marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Fortunately for me, there are no longer any laws against having sex before marriage.

---

What he is saying Tore... is that consent isn't enough. You can't have sex with a 15 year old, with consent or not, without risking jail and/or bancruptcy. You can't have sex anywhere you wish without risking jail and/or fines, not even in Norway.
And I haven't even mentioned infidelity issues.

He is right, your morals are under par even in Scandinavia.

[edit]: Oh and VIF sux.. (just had to get that in too) :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

What he is saying Tore... is that consent isn't enough. You can't have sex with a 15 year old, with consent or not, without risking jail and/or bancruptcy. You can't have sex anywhere you wish without risking jail and/or fines, not even in Norway.
And I haven't even mentioned inidelity issues.

He is right, your morals are under par even in Scandinavia.

---

Uhm, I thought it was obvious that that wasn't what I was talking about. A minor isn't old enough to give consent. As for the public thingy, that would require the consent of everyone involved, and anyone watching, as well as those owning the place in question, surely count as involved.

The religious moral, of for example christianity, is that sex is restricted to marriage. My moral is that it is not.

And all we really need is a decent striker. A good target man like ivers or jostein flo, I've been saying that for the last 5 years...

I'm not saying that some traditional cares don't work. THe ones that do are what? You guessed it--science.

The Science that helps with all those diseases also caused diseases. One unfortunate example of this is the drug thalidomide (if I remember correctly). A drug for depression, it caused birth defects to any children born. That is some science.
What of this science? Why is this better than religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm, I thought it was obvious that that wasn't what I was talking about. A minor isn't old enough to give consent. As for the public thingy, that would require the consent of everyone involved, and anyone watching, as well as those owning the place in question, surely count as involved.

The religious moral, of for example christianity, is that sex is restricted to marriage. My moral is that it is not.

---

This statement compared to your first statement (under) is completely different. Hard to get consent from the public eye. Consent does not equal age limit but do imply it (age of consent). But you can get tricked.. the law works as good.

But I agree with the out of wedlock thing... I too am guilty of such a transgression.

Quote:

---

...my morals say that sex is good, any time, any place, with anyone. I don't know of a single religion who doesn't put great restrictions on sex. The only restriction I have, is that all those involved consent to it.

---

Quote:

---

And all we really need is a decent striker. A good target man like ivers or jostein flo, I've been saying that for the last 5 years...

---

Yeah right...

I'd say that sure science makes mistakes, but scientists learn from their mistakes and prevent future ones from happening for the benefit of all mankind. (hehe, unless they're a mad scientist). religion is set in its ways and will not change based on outside influences. look at the catholic church's denouncement of condoms. how many millions have gotten AIDS as a result of this? not only do they claim condoms are worthless, they translate that message into the language of the poor in many countries around the world. In fact, Cardinals in Africa have actually told their flocks that condoms CAUSE AIDS. In Muslim countries its even worse, where condoms are only allowed for married couples--despite that in Iran you can buy temporary marraiges (sort of like prostitution), and in Pakistan religious law allows a woman to be sentenced to gang rape for a crime committed by her brother.

Religionists were opposed to the smallpox vaccination because they regarded it as an "Interference" with God's so-called design.

Top tip: Theist is a nice neat word.

Theists are not opposed to the smallpox vaccine. In India it was considered a blessing by some but they still all took the vaccine.

On the other hand Science created AIDS.

Quote:

---

On the other hand Science created AIDS.

---

Plus all those miracle drugs like cocaine, heroin, morphine and LSD to name a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

Yeah right...

---

I'll keep saying it for the next 5 years too. Unless we change our tactics, we are bound to remain in the lower half of the league without a target man. With such a player, we are contenders for the title. Just look at the match against rbk, when Lange came on, holm suddenly had all the room in the world, and could play with his strengths. While Sørensen was on, he was forced into duels, and never had room to do anything.

Quote:

---

I'll keep saying it for the next 5 years too. Unless we change our tactics, we are bound to remain in the lower half of the league without a target man. With such a player, we are contenders for the title. Just look at the match against rbk, when Lange came on, holm suddenly had all the room in the world, and could play with his strengths. While Sørensen was on, he was forced into duels, and never had room to do anything.

---

Is this religion or science? :laugh4:

Most likely religion :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Is this religion or science? :laugh4:

Most likely religion :)

---

Well, one of our songs is called "Vålerenga, you're my religion"....

Damn I though you were talking soccer.

It's not one or the other - both can coexist happily.

Quote:

---

both can coexist happily.

---

Both must coexist happily or you have big problems.

Quote:

---

On the other hand Science created AIDS.

---

What on earth?

You never heard the story that it was a biological weapons program gone wrong

AIDS: 'The Manufactured Virus'
AIDS as a weapon of war
Thu Jun 28 10:59:13 2001

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

On the other hand Science created AIDS.

---

Really? According to this guy, God created AIDS:

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's chariotters".
-Jerry Falwell

I have heard it. But it's a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Hence my surprise.

Goofball: by chance that Israelite is named Jesus? :beam:

Sorry, can't resist.