Why Religion and Science are opposed to eachother

[.ViciouS.]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

It proves my point because it states that if god existed, the universe would be completely different. It is not different that what it is and it infallibly adheres to the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. If god existed, it would not.

Really? And you know this how?

If you're gonna try to convert believers into non-believers, you best find another approach because what mr.goodstuff said is true, it's arrogant.

I'd also suggest not defacing religion by saying it's illogical or unreasonable, because not everyone cares about logic and reason such as you all do. You ask for evidence but you'll never find it because it's not right for you. Until you have irrefutable evidence that God does not exist, you wont hold much weight for many.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by .ViciouS.

I'd also suggest not defacing religion by saying it's illogical or unreasonable, because not everyone cares about logic and reason such as you all do. You ask for evidence but you'll never find it because it's not right for you. Until you have irrefutable evidence that God does not exist, you wont hold much weight for many.

How is it defacing religion by saying things that are true about it? Just because not everyone cares about logic and reason is no reason for people to turn a blind eye to its utter lack of it. It is a big thing, they certainly get pissy and in the face of science if science does not answer every single question they can come up with. It is okay for them to do that, but not okay for us to point out simple truths? Seems like a really fucked double standard to me.

We do not need to find irrefutable evidence that God does not exist, because, quite simply, if he does not exist, it would be impossible to find evidence to prove that. You cannot prove a negative. So really, the burden of proof is not on the skeptic, it is on the person who is trying to say that our lives are ruled by an invisible man in the sky who will judge us and damn us to hell if we do not blindly believe in his existence. This has been repeated time and time again by many many people and it is continually ignored because, I do not know why, perhaps it is ignored because it is an easy argument to deflect the burden or proof and demand the impossible? I do not know really, perhaps you do?

[Azimuthal]

Originally Posted by Zylark

But to put things a bit on it's head, exactly what indication is there that there is a god. And since that is a positive claim (god exist), what is the evidence?

Don't have any, sorry. Based on what I know, I could not say 'there is a god' with any more or less certainty than saying 'there is no god'. It is not really just a matter of simple probability, because we have zero data points. We only have one observable universe, and no knowledge at all to indicate if there is a god/deity/supreme ruler squad or not.

It's also a bit premature to say religion is dying, it's role in society is shifting, but that could be said at many, many points in our history. Nature is not selecting the religious out. It's more of a meme than a gene, subject to sticking around for long time, for better or worse.

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by Azimuthal

Don't have any, sorry. Based on what I know, I could not say 'there is a god' with any more or less certainty than saying 'there is no god'. It is not really just a matter of simple probability, because we have zero data points. We only have one observable universe, and no knowledge at all to indicate if there is a god/deity/supreme ruler squad or not.

It's also a bit premature to say religion is dying, it's role in society is shifting, but that could be said at many, many points in our history. Nature is not selecting the religious out. It's more of a meme than a gene, subject to sticking around for long time, for better or worse.

I completely disagree. Those children brought up lacking a religion do not usually find reason to become religious. They simply aren't brainwashed into believing in it. Check out the graphs on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism . Seems Europe is leading the way. Maybe the atheist movement will be mostly led by Europe and be looked back upon even later in history as just another time a great movement (like Renaissance) that stemmed from Europe. Hmm..Europe...they're pretty smart.

[RaoulDuke]

Check out the graphs on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism . Seems Europe is leading the way. Maybe the atheist movement will be mostly led by Europe and be looked back upon even later in history as just another time a great movement (like Renaissance) that stemmed from Europe. Hmm..Europe...they're pretty smart.

That just got me thinking about what exactly it would be like reading a history book in the future, going through the section on America. To be honest the chapter seemed a bit negative.

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by Azimuthal

Don't have any, sorry. Based on what I know, I could not say 'there is a god' with any more or less certainty than saying 'there is no god'. It is not really just a matter of simple probability, because we have zero data points. We only have one observable universe, and no knowledge at all to indicate if there is a god/deity/supreme ruler squad or not.

It's also a bit premature to say religion is dying, it's role in society is shifting, but that could be said at many, many points in our history. Nature is not selecting the religious out. It's more of a meme than a gene, subject to sticking around for long time, for better or worse.

I agree on pretty much all you say. And eventhought the trend, in western society (and developed parts of asia) at least do tend toward increasing non belief, religion isn't going anywhere soon.

Which is entirely ok. Point is to remove religion from politics and public decision making. Not to mention discredit at least the worst dogmas that religion wrap themselves in. What people believe in private, is nobodies business. And free expression is for all

[g0pher]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

"Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?" -Epicurus

God is supposed by Jews, Christians and Muslims to have at least three characteristics: omniscience (that is, He is all-knowing), omnipotence (He is all-powerful) and supreme benevolence. But it seems impossible to reconcile the existance of such a being with the fact that there is a great deal of suffering in the world. Yes, God, if He exists, made 'all things bright and beautiful.' But let's not forget that He also made cancer, earthquakes, famine, the Black Death and haemorrhoids. By such means God inflicts great pain and misery on us His children. Why?

As God is supremely benevolent, He can't want us to suffer. As He is omniscient, He knows we suffer. Yet He is omnipotent, so He can prevent the suffereing if He wants to. God could have created a much nicer universe for us to inhabit: a universe free of disease and pain, a universe in which earthquakes never happen and people never go hungry. God could have made earth as heaven is meant to be. Why didn't he?

It seems that if the universe was designed by some sort of being/creator, then either that being is not all-powerful (He was unable to make a better universe for us to inhabit) or not all-knowing (He didn't know it would produce such suffering) or not all-good (He knew we would suffer, but didn't much care).

[Mr.GoodStuff]

This is really getting ridiculous.

Originally Posted by MGS

By making fun of people's beliefs you think it's going to teach anybody anything???

Originally Posted by LT

Explain how that is not what religion does?

Two wrongs don't make a right, the wrongs are making fun of each other.

And Zylark- the flaw in your reasoning was using a joke about another's thought process to stress your point.

"look at how much more reasonable we are! Look at the alternative!" hahahaha

Lets discredit all faith because of a few religious convictions? Where is the logic in that?

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

Two wrongs don't make a right, the wrongs are making fun of each other.

And Zylark- the flaw in your reasoning was using a joke about another's thought process to stress your point.

"look at how much more reasonable we are! Look at the alternative!" hahahaha

Lets discredit all faith because of a few religious convictions? Where is the logic in that?

I think you are missing Zylark's point, which is, the flow chart is accurate, that when listed in such a way, happens to be funny. So, it was not using a joke per say, it was using fact that was presented in an obvious manner, that does also happen to be humorous when it is broken down in such a way. There is logic in discrediting illogic...

[Zylark]

Still think the flow chart is a joke I see Mr.GoodStuff? Then tell me how it is wrong.

I'm not denying that it brings to clarity the absurdness of relying more on religion than science when looking at how nature works, and is why it produce chuckles.

A valid argument that happens to also be funny, is still a valid argument. That it made you feel like you obviously do about it, tells me a great deal. You recognize the absurdness, but you deny yourself acknowledgment of the thought process it spawned. As such you dismiss it, not by reasoning, since the flow chart got no flaws, but by telling yourself it is just a joke and not to be taken serious.

I'm not really surprised you get defensive and rambling (the last post made no sense whatsoever), but you should perhaps ask yourself if this is out of genuine indignation, or out of fear that what you hold true just might be wrong.

[Mr.GoodStuff]

I know it is a joke because it was posted in the humor section Come on man, stop grasping for straws trying to look like you were trying to teach something. All that chart does is mock the thought process involved in faith- plain and simple.

I'm sorry that everyone who is wrong is commiting some Latin fallacy to you and that I'm rambling once I actually have a problem with how you go about proving your point... But hey, the flowchart is disrespectful and was posted as such, trying to make it seem like it isn't is very foolish and I'm sure there is a Latin word in your vocabulary for it- but I'm not going to spend the time looking up big words for something that is right in plain sight.

It's disrespectful and was posted as a joke. Period.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

I know it is a joke because it was posted in the humor section

lol, dude, seriously. If I posted an article about world hunger in the humor section it becomes a joke? It is funny because it is true. It is accurate. So, I do not know why you are simply trying to dismiss it as a joke with no basis in reality. It is not simply a joke, and it does not matter where it was posted. If it is true, it is true. If it is true and it is funny, it is still true.

It is not disrespectful, it does not go out of its way to be insulting, it simply states that religion gets an idea, ignores evidence that contradicts that idea, then holds onto the idea for as long as possible. What is disrespectful about the flow chart? People have said a lot worse in this forum and disrespect has not been called. Stop focusing on the idea of it being a joke and take a look at it with a critical eye.

George Carlin is a comedian, but he uses a lot of facts in his humor. Just because he is a comedian does not mean he is not being truthful. This seems like quite the slippery slope with a lot of cherry picking thrown in for good measure.

You keep ignoring the question. How is the flow chart wrong? You just say it is a joke without actually answering the question or showing why the flow chart should be dismissed as nothing serious. Even a joke can be serious, oddly enough.

[Mr.GoodStuff]

The flowchart isn't what I have a problem with- it was the attitude in which it was presented. I never once said the flowchart was wrong. I said I thought it was disrespectful and annoying.

I'm treating the fucking thing as serious, it's not a joke it was just posted in the humor section like it was supposed to be one.

[Azimuthal]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

This indicates a decline of religion in the g8, which I already mentioned. But it really doesn't appear to be on it's way out on a world wide scale. The centre's of religious idolotry (your israel, your vatican city, all over the middle east,..) are showing no signs of slowing down the battle for hearts and minds.

Religion is as strong as ever in the majority of the world (of which the g8 makes up a small portion), the most generous estimate to be found on le wiki is 14.7% of the human population is non-religous.