Why Religion and Science are opposed to eachother

Discussion in 'Religion, Beliefs and Spirituality' started by mrblonde77, Oct 2, 2007.

  1. Often people say that science and religion are separate and can both co-exist. I disagree and Richard Dawkins calls it like it is. From his essay
    "Why There Almost Certainly is No God"

    This for me closes the argument. I don't see how it can be any other way. Anyone want to offer up an argument?

  2. I'm not sure how this proves your point
  3. An arguement for what? Against his opinion that he really, really, really doesn't think it exists?

    Sorry, what can I say? I think God exists because of personal experiences? :confused:

    Uh, what has been asserted that I can refute I guess would be a better question?
  4. The fundamental difference between science and religion is method.

    Science observe and measure, weigh evidence and then reach a conclusion.

    Religion is a foregone conclusion, asserted by personal revelation and tradition.

    To lift a flowchart from the humour section (which I in all modesty used about half a year or so ago, just glad to see it used again by someone else :) )

  5. Oh ya, that ridiculous piece is going to help people understand Zylark, really :rolleyes:

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

    I wonder if they are trying to teach or just trying to make themselves feel better that they don't believe in some higher power like so many others.
  6. "Be skeptical about everything. Ask questions. Because once you stop asking questions it becomes a religion."

    -Bill Maher
  7. Explain how that is not what religion does? Are you saying the people who wrote the Bible, or the Quran, or any other religious book had evidence to base their positions off of? If so, why do they not mention it and why do we not have it?
  8. I believe there could possibly be some greater force of the universe but it is 100% illogical to believe theres a man in the sky watching everything everyone does. And this supposedly all loving god continues to let massive genocides occur quite often and let people starve to death everyday in Africa.
  9. 2 wrongs don't make a right. I stand in the middle because of how radical the sides can be.
  10. lol, I have no idea what you mean at all. What are the two wrongs?

  11. Oh please, instead of going ad-hominem on my ass, try to argue the points made. Find a flaw in my reasoning, then point them out.

    And FYI, I was not making fun of anything. The argument stands, and it is serious. That you do not like the comparison do not make the argument less valid.

    Though I will admit than when put side to side like that, the difference, contrast, between religion and science do stand out. And it may very well produce a chuckle or two.

    As was intended in all it's seriousness.

    So again, point to flaws in my reasoning, do not attack me personally.
  12. I do not see any argument presented that would indicate a non-existence of god.

    Science is based on causal reasoning, which imposes many obvious limits to what it can express. You'd be crazy, at any point, to say that science has observed all there is to observe.

    I decree that religion and science are both alive, and coexistent.
  13. science is all about proving hypothesis' through repeated observations.

    religion (god) cannot be proven or disproven.

    this is why science and religion oppose each other imo

  14. That might be because that is not argumented :)

    It is merely argumenting the difference between science and religion, and how (and here I agree with the religious fundamentalists) science deems any deity highly unprobable, to the degree that the notion can be dismissed.

    Proving a negative is as we know, quite impossible, so one have to work from probability.

    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?
  15. 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.

    The argument is that his existence is highly improbable.

    Indeed they currently are, but religion is gradually dieing out, and we are expanding our field of knowledge. I bet you could come up with some sort of inverse proportion graph showing that the more we discover through the science, the less religious people are. Religion is dieing out and will eventually be extinct. Natural selection will take it's course. It just sucks that natural selection takes so fucking long compared to the average human life span.

    "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

  16. 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.
  17. 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?
  18. 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.

  19. 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.
  20. 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.

Share This Page