CharonY Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 No. Such a discovery would be contingent on vague definitions. And in Biology we do not prove things in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 8 hours ago, genio said: Why do you equate religion with god(s)? OP specifically said religion. OP also specifically formulated it in terms of god/gods and supernatural beings or agencies: On 10/1/2020 at 10:05 AM, Mnemonic said: According to the bible Jesus Christ was a supernatural character who could walk on water, occasionally talked to Satan, and could turn water into wine, amongst many other marvels. Can you be a scientist and still believe in this stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harlock Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 On 10/1/2020 at 10:05 AM, Mnemonic said: According to the bible Jesus Christ was a supernatural character who could walk on water, occasionally talked to Satan, and could turn water into wine, amongst many other marvels. Can you be a scientist and still believe in this stuff? As far as I am concerned, you should not be called a scientist or be allowed anywhere near any scientific endeavour if you believe in fictitious myths. Am I being too aggressive in my attitude? Probably, however science and the scientific approach to research application is a serious technical field that should not be sullied by ridiculous fairy tales. >Please move to the Religion section.. Here the logic is this: I do 'impossible' things to make people believe that I come from God. It was really important because Jesus brings eternal life, that is, forgiveness from original sin. Jesus time is the last about Daniel 70 weeks to be forgiven from original sin. It's an incredible importance. I think it's logic. It's not a scientific question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 1 hour ago, harlock said: Here the logic is this: I do 'impossible' things to make people believe that I come from God. It was really important because Jesus brings eternal life, that is, forgiveness from original sin. Jesus time is the last about Daniel 70 weeks to be forgiven from original sin. It's an incredible importance. I think it's logic. It's not a scientific question. Indeed, that's why it's not important... 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Kretschmer Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 (edited) I think yes Many scientists used to be religious especially in the past. Religion and science are not incompatible... well, at least most of science. Isaac Newton spent as much time studying the Bible as he did studying physics. Edited May 27 by Otto Kretschmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 Believe in Religion, or a use for Religion ? I myself, don't believe in Religion. My life has been good, and I've never suffered some thing like the death of a child, that would cause me to question the point of it all, and start believing in a higher power with a higher purpose. Some other people, on the other hand ... Do I believe in a purpose for Religion ? Of course. As explained above, it can provide a 'crutch' to support people who are suffering terribly; always a good thing. If not taken literally ( and adjusted for the times ), it can provide people with a moral compass to guide them through life. And, if you want to take advantage of others, there is nothing better than an easily corruptible institution, like Religion, which will allow you to prey on those who are weak and suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 4 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said: I think yes Many scientists used to be religious especially in the past. Religion and science are not incompatible... well, at least most of science. Isaac Newton spent as much time studying the Bible as he did studying physics. Isaac Newton kept his occult studies from the Church. He was into alchemy, and his mystic pursuits convinced him that seven was a more important number than five, so in his color theory he added orange and split purple into indigo and violet. So you might be able to be a scientist and still believe in this mystic garbage, but I think you're negatively affecting your objectivity when it comes to theory. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted Wednesday at 12:58 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 12:58 PM On 5/28/2024 at 12:07 AM, Phi for All said: Isaac Newton kept his occult studies from the Church. He was into alchemy, and his mystic pursuits convinced him that seven was a more important number than five, so in his color theory he added orange and split purple into indigo and violet. So you might be able to be a scientist and still believe in this mystic garbage, but I think you're negatively affecting your objectivity when it comes to theory. Indeed, but it could have set us back a few year's, if when the apple fell he said "therefore magic happens"... 🧐 On 5/27/2024 at 6:55 PM, Otto Kretschmer said: I think yes Many scientists used to be religious especially in the past. Religion and science are not incompatible... well, at least most of science. Isaac Newton spent as much time studying the Bible as he did studying physics. I think you're thinking of Neitzche... 😉 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now