Science as a religion? - Armor Games Community

134	27103

offline

Masterforger

1,824 posts

Peasant

Posted April 11, '11 8:39pm UTC

I believe science can not be a religion because science SPEAKS OUT against religion. science is the opposite. oh, Mr Moderator, with the deranged monkey as your armatar, i agree with magegraywolf.

offline

TackyCrazyTNT

1,936 posts

Peasant

Posted April 11, '11 8:53pm UTC

I believe science can not be a religion because science SPEAKS OUT against religion. science is the opposite. oh, Mr Moderator, with the deranged monkey as your armatar, i agree with magegraywolf.

What does that have anything to do with what MageGrayWolf said? And it's not a deranged monkey. It's a monkey. Period.

If you read a legal document with intent to find loopholes, then is it the legal document's fault, or your own? Maybe the reason atheists read it is because they're reading it to find loopholes. One more thing: If you write a grammatically perfect paper, and an idiot comes along and says you did it wrong, which of you is right?

Well, if you find loopholes, then it must not be written well, eh? You shouldn't be able to find loopholes if it's all factual. And are you calling us idiots for looking for contradictory statements in the Bible?

offline

loloynage2

4,206 posts

Peasant

Posted April 11, '11 9:13pm UTC

2: That's because of the diversity, most large cities want to appear open to everyone who wants to come.

Could you explain more? I don't think I'm making the connection with your point.

3: It's not about the amount of maniacs, it about the percentage. America is one of the largest (geographically speaking) countries in the world. So it's expected to have a higher amount. But if we have a lower PERCENT, then we're totally sane compared to everyone else.

The US homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991, is still among the highest in the industrialized world.

wiki

It's making progress, not as much as Europe, but still.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted April 11, '11 9:48pm UTC

1: Please cite source.

Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations
Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God

Not sure if this will work.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg/500px-LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg.png

If you read a legal document with intent to find loopholes, then is it the legal document's fault, or your own?

The document for containing said loopholes to find.

One more thing: If you write a grammatically perfect paper, and an idiot comes along and says you did it wrong, which of you is right?

However the paper in question is far from perfect and does contain demonstrable inaccuracies. So it's not just an idiot with an opinion.

I believe science can not be a religion because science SPEAKS OUT against religion.

Science doesn't specifically speak out against religion. Though the methods used by the two are hardly compatible.

[quote]1: Please cite source.[/quote]\r\n\r\n[url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4SD1KNR-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ae750d9100eeb3ef20018c305fc98891&searchtype=a]Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html]Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God[/url] \r\n\r\nNot sure if this will work.\r\n[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg/500px-LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg.png[/img]\r\n\r\n[quote]If you read a legal document with intent to find loopholes, then is it the legal document's fault, or your own?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe document for containing said loopholes to find.\r\n\r\n[quote]One more thing: If you write a grammatically perfect paper, and an idiot comes along and says you did it wrong, which of you is right?[/quote]\r\n\r\nHowever the paper in question is far from perfect and does contain demonstrable inaccuracies. So it's not just an idiot with an opinion.\r\n\r\n[quote]I believe science can not be a religion because science SPEAKS OUT against religion.[/quote]\r\n\r\nScience doesn't specifically speak out against religion. Though the methods used by the two are hardly compatible.

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted April 11, '11 10:03pm UTC

That IQ graph doesn't go up very high Mage, 110 is only 10 above the average. Also, your first link (Not 100% sure) looks to me that you have to pay to view the article.

offline

Darkroot

2,763 posts

Peasant

Posted April 11, '11 10:50pm UTC

That IQ graph doesn't go up very high Mage, 110 is only 10 above the average. Also, your first link (Not 100% sure) looks to me that you have to pay to view the article.

Yeah I agree, also are people posting articles that they didn't even reading thought? If yes they don't even bother or we will just get a bunch of non peer reviewed pay to read articles that are absolutely useless here.

Science doesn't specifically speak out against religion. Though the methods used by the two are hardly compatible.

There are religions were they are completely in compatible because they ignore observation so it doesn't conflict with their faith or just twist it. But there are others like Buddhism were Science is very compatible since they don't make up random facts about the universe.

I'll just throw this out here since what ever-sources I re-post most likely will come from here. I'm to lazy to save some of the interesting research paper that show up.

[quote]That IQ graph doesn't go up very high Mage, 110 is only 10 above the average. Also, your first link (Not 100% sure) looks to me that you have to pay to view the article.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nYeah I agree, also are people posting articles that they didn't even reading thought? If yes they don't even bother or we will just get a bunch of non peer reviewed pay to read articles that are absolutely useless here.\r\n\r\n[quote]Science doesn't specifically speak out against religion. Though the methods used by the two are hardly compatible.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThere are religions were they are completely in compatible because they ignore observation so it doesn't conflict with their faith or just twist it. But there are others like Buddhism were Science is very compatible since they don't make up random facts about the universe. \r\n\r\n[url=http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/?count=26&before=t3_gngkv]I'll just throw this out here since what ever-sources I re-post most likely will come from here. I'm to lazy to save some of the interesting research paper that show up.[/url]

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted April 11, '11 11:06pm UTC

This is a translated version
http://trance.nu/v4/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1834301

Of this.
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2007/01/28/490228.html

Is atheism linked to intelligence?

offline

Kevin4762

2,420 posts

Nomad

Posted April 11, '11 11:09pm UTC

It can be. If you think of all scientists your diety, but that could also make you a deity.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted April 11, '11 11:15pm UTC

It can be. If you think of all scientists your diety

Who does that?

offline

Kevin4762

2,420 posts

Nomad

Posted April 11, '11 11:17pm UTC

Who does that?

It can be.

Just sayin'

offline

TackyCrazyTNT

1,936 posts

Peasant

Posted April 11, '11 11:17pm UTC

It can be. If you think of all scientists your diety

Who does that?

Mega-nerds.
I'm joking, of course.

offline

Wafflesquad

170 posts

Peasant

Posted April 11, '11 11:53pm UTC

However the paper in question is far from perfect and does contain demonstrable inaccuracies. So it's not just an idiot with an opinion.

Prove it, please. Show me which archeological dig (NOT geological, archeological) contradicts something the Bible says. Science may infer and theorize, but if you can show me what the Bible has that is factually incorrect (other than the miracles and resurrections, which are true).

The document for containing said loopholes to find.

So you assume the person is perfect (you blame the document, which is written by the person, who could have seen all the loopholes)and then call them imperfect (i.e. not filling all of what you call loopholes) because you think they're wrong. In short, you think there are loopholes because you are looking for them, which causes you to redefine loopholes until you "find them". Everyone does it subconsciously, it's how we as (sinful/rebellious) people work (due to our own decisions).

[quote]However the paper in question is far from perfect and does contain demonstrable inaccuracies. So it's not just an idiot with an opinion.[/quote]\r\nProve it, please. Show me which archeological dig (NOT geological, archeological) contradicts something the Bible says. Science may infer and theorize, but if you can show me what the Bible has that is factually incorrect (other than the miracles and resurrections, which are true). \r\n\r\n[quote]The document for containing said loopholes to find.[/quote]\r\nSo you assume the person is perfect (you blame the document, which is written by the person, who could have seen all the loopholes)and then call them imperfect (i.e. not filling all of what you call loopholes) because you think they're wrong. In short, you think there are loopholes because you are looking for them, which causes you to redefine loopholes until you "find them". Everyone does it subconsciously, it's how we as (sinful/rebellious) people work (due to our own decisions).

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted April 12, '11 1:18am UTC

Prove it, please. Show me which archeological dig (NOT geological, archeological) contradicts something the Bible says.

There's the part in Jasua where they burn Ai to the ground, but archeological evidence indicates that the city burned to the ground and had been abandoned for about 1,000 years before this event.

Just from a perspective of physics it states the Earth and plants existed prior to the existence of the sun.

Not to mention the slew of internal Biblical contradictions.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/bible_contradictions.html

(other than the miracles and resurrections, which are true)

No you don't get to just assert those as true.

So you assume the person is perfect (you blame the document, which is written by the person, who could have seen all the loopholes)and then call them imperfect (i.e. not filling all of what you call loopholes) because you think they're wrong.

No I'm saying the facts speak for itself.

In short, you think there are loopholes because you are looking for them, which causes you to redefine loopholes until you "find them".

No they aren't being redefined to be "loopholes" they are simply being looked at, just as it reads. I would say many theists do this for just the opposite reason, redefining (interpreting) the text so it can continue to fit their preconceived notions. If theists didn't do this apologetics wouldn't exist.

[quote]Prove it, please. Show me which archeological dig (NOT geological, archeological) contradicts something the Bible says.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThere's the part in Jasua where they burn Ai to the ground, but archeological evidence indicates that the city burned to the ground and had been abandoned for about 1,000 years before this event.\r\n\r\nJust from a perspective of physics it states the Earth and plants existed prior to the existence of the sun. \r\n\r\nNot to mention the slew of internal Biblical contradictions.\r\n[url=http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/bible_contradictions.html]http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/bible_contradictions.html[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote](other than the miracles and resurrections, which are true)[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo you don't get to just assert those as true.\r\n\r\n[quote]So you assume the person is perfect (you blame the document, which is written by the person, who could have seen all the loopholes)and then call them imperfect (i.e. not filling all of what you call loopholes) because you think they're wrong.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo I'm saying the facts speak for itself. \r\n\r\n[quote]In short, you think there are loopholes because you are looking for them, which causes you to redefine loopholes until you "find them".[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo they aren't being redefined to be "loopholes" they are simply being looked at, just as it reads. I would say many theists do this for just the opposite reason, redefining (interpreting) the text so it can continue to fit their preconceived notions. If theists didn't do this apologetics wouldn't exist.

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted April 12, '11 1:21am UTC

In short, you think there are loopholes because you are looking for them, which causes you to redefine loopholes until you "find them".

No they aren't being redefined to be "loopholes" they are simply being looked at, just as it reads. I would say many theists do this for just the opposite reason, redefining (interpreting) the text so it can continue to fit their preconceived notions. If theists didn't do this apologetics wouldn't exist.

Hey Mage, how about round 3 for your context video?

offline

qwerty1011

554 posts

Peasant

Posted April 12, '11 3:09pm UTC

here's another definition of science and religion.

IN science a scientist has an idea which is either disproved by another scientist or accepted as a likely theory and if proved well enough, fact. Ideas are always being thought up and this happens to all of them.

In religion some priest has an idea and writes a long book about it. 2000 years later it is the same book and incredibly out of date but since old people are supposedly "wise", a 2000 year old book must be wise and since there is a social taboo against questioning it most people don't.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Science as a religion?