Jump to content

Can you mix science with god?


Recommended Posts

One of us is free because one of us is not here to do God's work. I hold no hope that you will unchain yourself from the imaginary concepts you espouse, but at least we both recognize that those concepts strip away your freedom and make you a slave. Yes, you are right, you are a slave.

 

You're mistaken if you think you're in control of your life and if you think you can shape your own future, the future has already happened.

 

EDIT...

 

as an aside... ketamine isn't a psychostimulant. Caffine is a psychostimulant. Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic which is why I mentioned it. It separates a person's consciousness from their senses which is what you've been talking about. "psychostimulant" I wonder if you had any idea what that meant before you typed it.

 

You still don't know what I'm talking of and my answer is the same whether it is ketamine or Caffine I need neither of them to access the noumenon,

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Religion + Science = Pseudo-science Yes, if you mix religion with science what you get at best is pseudo-science. Science deals with the phenomena and religion deals with the noumena, their epistemol

"Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful. Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good"   - Lao Tzu   You can hate me all you want just because I speak t

But, religion is not the noumena. Given the map / territory relationship, religion is not the territory.   If it is impossible to know what is in a box then it doesn't matter if I use my senses to

If religions didn't attempt to act like science they wouldn't get hated on (for the most part). It would be like me walking into a sushi place and telling the chefs that they don't know what they're doing and my way is correct as I make a fish sandwich. I deserve to be hated on by those chefs.

 

My version: If science/religion didn't attempt to act like nature they wouldn't get hated on (for the most part).

 

Some religious people do make valid suggestions regarding the errors in the science albeit their lack of understanding of the man-made names of organisms.

 

Certainly, and it's called bad science. The difference is when scientists do it they tend to get blasted by other scientists.

 

Its called hypocrisy. I've never seen scientists blasting other scientists. I usually see scientists agreeing on the same bias to a degree and ganging up on others who disagree.

 

First, you are describing a problem with education, not necessarily science. That being said, science is always wrong, but it's wrong by degrees. We are less wrong now than we were 2 years ago and we will be less wrong 2 years from now. That's the difference, science knows it's wrong and actively works to show where it is wrong.

 

Its the science. Once you see an error; you see them all.

 

If science works to show where it is wrong as you state... why not include suggestions from religious people?

 

What's a non-religious god?

Because it is by it's nature not part of science. If it's a natural phenomena it's not god by any definition I've ever seen used.

 

Nature is god and god is nature.

 

 

I could certainly have been gentler above, but I remain firm in my stance that this position is misguided at best:

Scientists should be respectful of religious people since there is religious people who have no interest in science but still have an interest in being part of a group.

 

Place yourself in the shoes of religious people. My grandma is a person that goes to church because she doesn't know anyone else. So.. she goes to church to be a part of a group. Should she pick up a biochemistry book?

 

What about those who lack the intelligence and money to study science in an institution and still want to be part of a peaceful group?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me of the end of Tim Minchin's "Storm":

Tim Minchin said

Isn't this enough?

 

Just this world?

 

Just this beautiful, complex

Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?

How does it so fail to hold our attention

That we have to diminish it with the invention

Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?

If you're so into Shakespeare

Lend me your ear:

To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,

To throw perfume on the violet is just "really" silly

Or something like that.

I agree with his sentiments, and would add a quote from Richard Feynman:

[The Big Bang] is a much more exciting story to many people than the tales which other people used to make up, when wondering about the universe we lived in on the back of a turtle or something like that. They were wonderful stories, but the truth is so much more remarkable. And, so, whats the wonder in physics to me is that its revealed the truth is so remarkable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Place yourself in the shoes of religious people. My grandma is a person that goes to church because she doesn't know anyone else. So.. she goes to church to be a part of a group. Should she pick up a biochemistry book?

I said nothing about studying biochemistry, only that your comment was misguided. Further, you should acknowledge that church is not required to have a strong social network or peer group.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're mistaken if you think you're in control of your life and if you think you can shape your own future, the future has already happened.

 

The future has already happened? The dictionary disagrees with you.

 

Besides, I thought you said you were raised catholic... now you're talking calvinist predestination nonsense.

 

Hum... There's something about you I don't get, Mr. Immortal.

 

[edit... my apologies. I was thinking of Ewmon who said he was raised catholic. So, can I assume, Mr. Immortal, that you were raised in the protestant church?]

 

 

You still don't know what I'm talking of and my answer is the same whether it is ketamine or Caffine I need neither of them to access the noumenon,

 

Well, no, my point remains the same. If you want to lock yourself in a cave and meditate for a couple years that's fine too. My only point is that you can't live there. That world isn't real is my only point.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its called hypocrisy. I've never seen scientists blasting other scientists. I usually see scientists agreeing on the same bias to a degree and ganging up on others who disagree.

Clearly you haven't spent much time in the Sciences section. The debates there are sometimes spectacular.

 

Instead of saying "I usually see scientists agreeing on the same bias" you would have been better served to say 'I usually see scientists agreeing on the same evidence'. Because they do. It is not bias if it is based on evidence.

 

If you are really interested in seeing scientists go at it, here is a whole course you can take, and to make it a manageable sized course it limits itself to debates regarding the Rise of Humans:

 

Each lecture of The Rise of Humans focuses on a single

profound question about human origins and the sometimes surprising,

sometimes fierce, and always illuminating debates surrounding them.

 

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1612

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're mistaken if you think you're in control of your life and if you think you can shape your own future, the future has already happened.

Well, if that's true then there's no point in you posting is there?

 

BTW, rather than telling me that I need to look at the context in which you tacitly assert that your otherwise absurd assertion makes sense; why not tell me what you think that context is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly you haven't spent much time in the Sciences section. The debates there are sometimes spectacular.

 

Instead of saying "I usually see scientists agreeing on the same bias" you would have been better served to say 'I usually see scientists agreeing on the same evidence'. Because they do. It is not bias if it is based on evidence.

 

If you are really interested in seeing scientists go at it, here is a whole course you can take, and to make it a manageable sized course it limits itself to debates regarding the Rise of Humans:

 

 

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1612

 

This is off topic but I haven't seen any actual debates... the link you offered is a parrot talking nonsense with no education in bacteriology and neurogenesis.

 

I stand corrected and you shouldn't tell anyone what they would have been better served to say.. I am not a parrot that regurgitates nonsense like this guy...http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoz5r3_lecture-5-the-dietary-hypothesis-the-rise-of-humans-great-scientific-debates-john-hawks-ph-d_tech#.UTqB8EqRf94 <- He is wrong... we have microbes in the colon which can convert cellulose(not whole vegetation) to short chain fatty acids. Go ask any qualified bacteriologist.

 

The problem I see in the religion/science debate is how scientists have come in egotistically and have labelled and categorized everything they could get their hands on and called it "science" or "evidence" like its all "factual". And no I am not defending religion.

 

The OP would have been better of to say if we can mix God with science...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My version: If science/religion didn't attempt to act like nature they wouldn't get hated on (for the most part).

Science doesn't act like nature, it attempts to explain it. Your version is incorrect at first glance.

Some religious people do make valid suggestions regarding the errors in the science albeit their lack of understanding of the man-made names of organisms.

They may, but it's not religion or faith that is doing that. Science is all about dissent against the standard (within evidence), faith is about following the standard (god of choice's word).

Its called hypocrisy. I've never seen scientists blasting other scientists. I usually see scientists agreeing on the same bias to a degree and ganging up on others who disagree.

Then you have never been around scientists talking science. As I said, the main purpose of science is to find out where it is wrong and part of that is destroying every argument that isn't correct. Most aren't correct so most are destroyed. That is why many of us trust science, it stands strong after being held in the fire.

 

Its the science. Once you see an error; you see them all.

So if you saw an error in an author's conclusion of homologous recombination you could then determine another author's mistake deriving the gravitational force?

If science works to show where it is wrong as you state... why not include suggestions from religious people?

They have, you seem to forget most of human history when biblical texts were thought to be truth. There isn't much reason to go back and show something is incorrect when it was shown incorrect over a hundred years ago.

 

Nature is god and god is nature.

Then god is unnecessary because it's just nature. We have a word and definition for nature, it's nature. Adding to that is unnecessary and unhelpful.

 

Place yourself in the shoes of religious people. My grandma is a person that goes to church because she doesn't know anyone else. So.. she goes to church to be a part of a group. Should she pick up a biochemistry book?

Then she's not being religious, she is using religion as a proxy to be around people. This has nothing to do with faith, religion, or science.

What about those who lack the intelligence and money to study science in an institution and still want to be part of a peaceful group?

Again, this has nothing to do with religion, science, faith, or anything we have been discussing. It is both a non-sequitor and moving the goal posts
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ringer,

 

Well Consistency has a good point. God is nature and nature is God. When you say we already have a name for nature and it is not God, you are discounting all the people, myself included who consider the one synonymous with the other.

 

If the thread question, is whether or not you can mix science with God, and you have the thought that God and nature are two words with similar meaning, then the thread question is also can you mix science with nature, which no scientist would have any question about answering in the affirmative.

 

As an atheist, I have no requirements to go through any middlemen to associate with God, if God is nature. And if belief in nature is the only requirement to being a believer, then I am one. If I do not subscribe to Mohammed's particular imagined association with nature, or that of the Vedic masters, or that of Moses, or Jesus, or that of any other man that now lives or ever lived, I STILL have direct access to nature, am made completely of it, and have no where to go where I would not be with it.

 

I can not get closer to God, if I am already here. In and of nature.

 

It would appear, that if God is nature, and nature God, then we are all, automatically believers, with total access to, ownership of, and responsibility for it, whether it be called God, or called nature. And if this is true, then religion is a hoax, insomuch as a preist or a wiseman of a religion would claim a special key or access to nature, or claim to have its ear, and be held in special favor by it.

 

This being held in special favor by God, is the separation point, between Science and Religion. The scientist claims no special rights from God/nature, the religious person claims to know nature personally, in a manner inaccessible to someone who does not know the right ritual to perform, or who does not know the Hindi word for an idea. Or basically speaking, the scientist, when he wants to commune with nature, just does, where the religious person needs to ask permission, and wonder if he/she is worthy of its audience.

 

So if God is nature, and nature God then anyone who thinks they are the only one with access, is mistaken. And God and Science can certainly mix freely.

 

But if God is thought to be a privately held thing, then that God, and Science definitely do not mix.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

The future has already happened? The dictionary disagrees with you.

 

Besides, I thought you said you were raised catholic... now you're talking calvinist predestination nonsense.

 

Hum... There's something about you I don't get, Mr. Immortal.

 

[edit... my apologies. I was thinking of Ewmon who said he was raised catholic. So, can I assume, Mr. Immortal, that you were raised in the protestant church?]

 

I don't have a Christian background, I belong to the religion of Julian the Apostate and I worship Helios and we make no connections with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions. I have an ancient religion to follow which pre-dates Christianity.

 

Hymn to King Helios, dedicated to Sallust.

 

Against the Galilaeans.

 

But I have a big problem with this man St. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles.

 

I was taught that Hiranyagarbha, the Sun-god is the first born of all creatures.

 

 

Hiranyagarbha: samavarthaagre
Bhuuthasya jaatha: pathireka aaseeth
Sadaadhaara Prudhwivim dyaamuthemam
Kasmai devaaya havisha vidhemam”
(Rig Veda X: 121:1)
Translation - In the beginning, God and his supreme spirit alone existed.
From the supreme Spirit of God proceeded Hiranyagarbha, alias Prajapathy, the first born of God in the form of light.
Hiranyagarbha forms the very basis or the foundation of Indian philosophy and all our knowledge.
Now here comes St. Paul and says Christ is the first born of all creatures. Not to forget the claims that he makes of making an ascent to heaven to attract the gentiles.
“He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him, all things hold together.” Col 1:15-17
I was taught, in fact I worship Helios as holding all the totality of divine powers in him means all the Aeons reside in him and form his body which is a highly esoteric knowledge.
"Savithru deva is the lord and master of Agnishoma mandala and He is in Samashti Brahmanda(Macrocosm). The same presiding deity(Savithrudeva) rules the microcosm Pindanda(human body)"
Agnishoma mandala is nothing but the Pleroma of the Gnostics.
Here comes St. Paul and says this in Colossians 2:9.
"In Christ dwells all the pleroma of deity in bodily form" Col 2:9
Valentinians who claim that their theology was derived from Paul have everything in common with the Vedic Aryans from espousing God is androgynous and comes in dyad forms to worshipping 33 Aeons and hence it begs the question who was Christ really? Christ belongs to the pagans and the Gentiles as much as he belongs to the catholic Christians.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ringer,

 

Well Consistency has a good point. God is nature and nature is God. When you say we already have a name for nature and it is not God, you are discounting all the people, myself included who consider the one synonymous with the other.

God, in every sense except this one it seems, is supernatural. Nature isn't supernatural by definition. If you say nature is god you are changing definitions and making an equivocation fallacy.

If the thread question, is whether or not you can mix science with God, and you have the thought that God and nature are two words with similar meaning, then the thread question is also can you mix science with nature, which no scientist would have any question about answering in the affirmative.

If they have similar meanings that means they are different, meaning god isn't nature. If god is nature then science studies god, which makes the opening question pointless. But again you're equivocating, you know as well as I do that the definition of god being used isn't nature.

 

Boss tangle needle twins bull title many two hip, sit none beach total.

 

^ This is equivalent of changing the definition of go to nature does to a discussion, because if you can use different definitions so can I and we won't be the least bit productive. Any argument can be made if I change the definition of any given word. Creationism is true so long as Creationism means evolution.

But if God is thought to be a privately held thing, then that God, and Science definitely do not mix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Immortal,

 

Nature has not yet done what it is going to do tomorrow. Not exactly what it is going to do tomorrow.

 

There was a time when the Earth was molten and life had not yet emerged. It had a future then, it had stuff to do, that it had not yet done. Such is still the case. The universe has not yet done what it is going to do next.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the hate towards religion in this thread. Scientists should be respectful of religious people since there is religious people who have no interest in science but still have an interest in being part of a group. Hence following a religion serves them even though they don't believe in everything about that religion. All in all.. Religion is excellent form of free therapy.

When I was a youngster I played the violin in the school orchestra. During the holidays we played Christmas music and other seasonally appropriate selections like Jingle Bells. As you suggest, this activity filled a genuine need we children had for group participation in an enjoyable activity. Religious beliefs didn't really enter into it. This was back before Christmas music in public schools became a contentious issue.

See: Concerned parents label elementary schools holiday concert a form of bullying

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/20/concerned-parents-label-elementary-schools-holiday-concert-a-form-of-bullying/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ringer,

 

If a word has different meanings and you specify the different meanings and compare and contrast the differents meanings and look for the similarities and differences, in an effort to understand what is meant by someone when they use the term you are not being guilty of this...

 

  • wrong logical conclusion: an invalid conclusion based on statements in which one term has two different meanings


Ringer,

 

When you are talking about God, a word that has about a zillion different meanings, one of them being "nature", I think it logical to assume that a person talking about God, if God is to be considered in any real sense, must be talking about nature. Or as you say, they must be talking about something "supernatural", which by default would have to be an imaginary, unreal, unnatural thing.

 

Immortal was just talking about Helios, which I guess is the Sun God, or Ra. It is not an unreal, unnatural idea for an Earthly human to consider the Sun an important source.

 

You and I certainly would be lost without it. Here what is figurative, and what is literal IS conflated. It is not me, that is doing the conflation, or introducing the ambiguity. Just me, pointing out that when the Egyptians referred to RA, or I refer to the sun, we probably mean the same life giving entity.

 

Regards, TAR2



As Brahman cannot be other than the All.

And Atman cannot be other than the self.

 

The All and the self are real, common considerations for everybody on the thread. We can talk about them, because they are real and we all have a certain understanding of them both.

The words we use to describe them, are still under construction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a Christian background

 

I don't believe you. Nobody chooses the kind of damage you are displaying for themselves. Sentient choices don't end a person up where you are. Unless you are seriously mental, but you don't seem to be... no... I don't believe you. Your parents were Christian. I'm sure of it.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Iggy,<br /><br />Parents were.<br /><br />An important consideration to this argument. At least for me.<br /><br />My father was taken to church "religiously" by his parents, and he is an atheist.<br />My mother was taken to church, but I do not remember either of my maternal grandparents as "religious" and my mother was very much a believer in Christ.<br /><br />My sister and I are both atheists.<br /><br />If I would address the thread question, putting my father in the role of science, and my mother in the role of God, I would be left with a little ambiguity as to the answer to the thread question. On the one hand, my parents divorced about 40 years ago, which would be an indication, that in this case, science and God did not mix very well. Except, on the other hand they mixed well enough to spawn me. And I think that is an indication that they do mix, science and God. Although that makes me more of an emulsion than a solution. More mayonaise than sugar water. It still suggests that they mix, science and God.<br /><br />And while it is true that oil and water don't mix. We still drink milk as if the water and fat have mixed well enough to solve our hunger and thirst.<br /><br />The "mixture" is still a solution, in the one sense of the word solution, although it is not a solution in the other sense of the word solution.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

 

Immortal,<br /><br />Your "man that plays with fire" needs no water, but drinks milk "instead".<br />Your "man that plays with fire" needs no food, but drinks milk "instead".<br /><br />He has, in actuality, by drinking milk, both eaten oil and drunk water, and has not risen above the need for both.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe you. Nobody chooses the kind of damage you are displaying for themselves. Sentient choices don't end a person up where you are. Unless you are seriously mental, but you don't seem to be... no... I don't believe you. Your parents were Christian. I'm sure of it.

 

I have interests in both religion and science. I did watched the National Geographic program just out of curiosity back in 2006 on the Gospel of Judas and had heard names like Marvin Meyer and Elaine Pagels but at that time I wasn't aware of many things and I did not saw the big picture. I used to watch God TV and listen to good Christian conferences and these influences are enough to end me up where I am, my parents doesn't necessarily have to be Christians for that. My parents are not Christians and I don't come from a Christian background.

 

I have my own reasons as to why I hold this radical position and its my studies and reading which has brought me here and nothing else.

Nature is god and god is nature.

 

Science and religion are incompatible, you have got two choices, either take the creation myths as it says seriously and be a strong theist or reject religion and be a strong atheist any compromise pantheistic position mixing God and science isn't feasible.

 

Chamberlainites are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's 'NOMA' - 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:

 

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by itslegitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.

 

This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.

 

- Dawkins

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Dawkins has criticized Gould's position on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, be divorced from scientific matters or the material world. He writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."[9] Gould's observation that "These two magisteria do not overlap..." does not consider the claims of many religions upon material reality, such as miracles or prayer.

 

Dawkins also argues that a religion free of divine intervention would be far different from any existent ones, and certainly different from the Abrahamic religions

Edited by immortal
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have interests in both religion and science. I did watched the National Geographic program just out of curiosity back in 2006 on the Gospel of Judas and had heard names like Marvin Meyer and Elaine Pagels but at that time I wasn't aware of many things and I did not saw the big picture. I used to watch God TV and listen to good Christian conferences and these influences are enough to end me up where I am, my parents doesn't necessarily have to be Christians for that. My parents are not Christians and I don't come from a Christian background.

 

You did watched and you did not saw? My God, man! If you weren't drunk when you typed that grammatical nightmare, you certainly should have been.

 

Whatever. It's fine. "God TV" broke you. It wasn't your parents. I'm beyond arguing the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You did watched and you did not saw? My God, man! If you weren't drunk when you typed that grammatical nightmare, you certainly should have been.

 

I'm sorry, I don't know higher English but I do my best to convey my thoughts.

 

Whatever. It's fine. "God TV" broke you. It wasn't your parents. I'm beyond arguing the point.

 

Ridiculing me or mocking me like that just because you don't like my posts will not vindicate the validity of your position, its the world that needs a fixing not me, especially the atheists and the catholic church.

 

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called orthodox Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics."

 

- Thomas Paine.

 

Thomas Paine said many things but I don't like to post it here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for your advice but I don't need it, I have a far better way to access the noumenon without requiring any psycho-stimulants.

Prove it.

Show us that you can really access a real noumenon.

Prove that it isn't just imagined stuff.

 

Also, you have talked a few times about "revealed truth".

What truths have been revealed?

How can you be sure that they are the "truth", rather than religious propaganda?

The various holy books may say some things which are true, but they also say many things which are false so it's impossible to tell whether something is true or not, just based on whether it turns up in one of those books. They simply are not reliable.

As far as I can tell, there are no revealed truths.

 

Also, would anyone like to explain why I should have any more respect for someone's belief in God than I would do if they professed a belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus?

 

 

(Just to avoid a repeat of an earlier misunderstanding, not the Turkish guy who died about 1700 years ago, the one in a fur trimmed red suit with the sleigh. So, obviously, I'm talking about the Santa who doesn't exist, but whom little kids believe in, rather than the patron saint of prostitutes. Well, I thought it was obvious, but someone managed not to understand this idea earlier in the thread)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Science doesn't act like nature, it attempts to explain it. Your version is incorrect at first glance.

Attempts to explain nature? You mean science(the man-made kind) manipulates nature and destroys nature's biodiversity with pesticides?

They may, but it's not religion or faith that is doing that. Science is all about dissent against the standard (within evidence), faith is about following the standard (god of choice's word).

"Evidence" can easily be misinterpreted.

 

Which standard? Religious standard? Natures standard?

 

God didn't write the bible; man did.

 

Faith is not about following the man-made bible, its about letting go of the ego and giving control of your life over to God however in reality people let go of their ego and start feeling the energies inside themselves.

Then you have never been around scientists talking science. As I said, the main purpose of science is to find out where it is wrong and part of that is destroying every argument that isn't correct. Most aren't correct so most are destroyed. That is why many of us trust science, it stands strong after being held in the fire.

Its called confirmation bias.

So if you saw an error in an author's conclusion of homologous recombination you could then determine another author's mistake deriving the gravitational force? They have, you seem to forget most of human history when biblical texts were thought to be truth. There isn't much reason to go back and show something is incorrect when it was shown incorrect over a hundred years ago.

You keep talking to me like I am a religious person. Why do you hate religion so much?

 

I follow natures law and no one elses.

Then god is unnecessary because it's just nature. We have a word and definition for nature, it's nature. Adding to that is unnecessary and unhelpful.

So.. nature is unnecessary?

 

If you read the OP's question thoroughly... you'll see that he is not talking about religion at all!

Science and religion are incompatible, you have got two choices, either take the creation myths as it says seriously and be a strong theist or reject religion and be a strong atheist,

Just because people like to go far right(science-atheism?) or far left(religion-theism?) in extremes, it doesn't mean I have to join a group which doesn't agree with my personal values. I am staying in the middle, natures middle, the non man-made middle.

 

note: far right/left has nothing to do with politics.

any compromise pantheistic position mixing God and science isn't feasible.

Yes it is. Symbiosis and bacteriological symbiosis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean science(the man-made kind) manipulates nature and destroys nature's biodiversity with pesticides?

Maybe, just maybe, you should find out what the f*** you are on about before you post gibberish like that.

 

"Just because people like to go far right(science-atheism?) or far left(religion-theism?) in extremes, it doesn't mean I have to join a group which doesn't agree with my personal values. I am staying in the middle, natures middle, the non man-made middle."

 

OK, is the world roughly 6000 years old?

There are exactly two answers to that question.

One is science's view, and the other is religion's.

There is no " middle". You don't have to "join" a group- you are in one.

 

But, since you have no real idea what science is, i guess you couldn't be expected to get that right

 

"note: far right/left has nothing to do with politics."

I rather think you will find it has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I don't know higher English but I do my best to convey my thoughts.

 

Your thoughts are well conveyed.

 

Ridiculing me or mocking me like that just because you don't like my posts will not vindicate the validity of your position

 

My position doesn't need vindication, and it isn't your posts I dislike. It is you. I hate you to your very core. Let's have that straight.

 

 

its the world that needs a fixing not me

 

I don't think more conceited words have ever been said. You're alright, but "the world" needs fixing? When you're dead and gone the world will probably stop spinning, eh? Whatever. I can't deal with this nonsense. The best of luck to you,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iggy,<br /><br />Parents were.<br /><br />An important consideration to this argument. At least for me.<br /><br />My father was taken to church "religiously" by his parents, and he is an atheist.<br />My mother was taken to church, but I do not remember either of my maternal grandparents as "religious" and my mother was very much a believer in Christ.<br /><br />My sister and I are both atheists.<br /><br />If I would address the thread question, putting my father in the role of science, and my mother in the role of God, I would be left with a little ambiguity as to the answer to the thread question. On the one hand, my parents divorced about 40 years ago, which would be an indication, that in this case, science and God did not mix very well. Except, on the other hand they mixed well enough to spawn me. And I think that is an indication that they do mix, science and God. Although that makes me more of an emulsion than a solution. More mayonaise than sugar water. It still suggests that they mix, science and God.<br /><br />And while it is true that oil and water don't mix. We still drink milk as if the water and fat have mixed well enough to solve our hunger and thirst.<br /><br />The "mixture" is still a solution, in the one sense of the word solution, although it is not a solution in the other sense of the word solution.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

 

Immortal,<br /><br />Your "man that plays with fire" needs no water, but drinks milk "instead".<br />Your "man that plays with fire" needs no food, but drinks milk "instead".<br /><br />He has, in actuality, by drinking milk, both eaten oil and drunk water, and has not risen above the need for both.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

 

I should have said earlier... I read (I did read) every word of that and appreciated and believed every word too.

 

I'm glad to say, in other words, that your parent mixed well enough to span you. I appreciate the tightrope you seem to walk. I wish you didn't bury the lead when you say "my sister and I are both atheists". I wish you planted a flag there and argued from it with conviction. But, I've seen you do the pantheist thing where you say that the universe is god. I don't get that, and I don't know why you insist on it... but... I appreciate it nonetheless. It rings honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.