Science and religion is a recognized field of study (atheism, gospels, faith)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science (when it's done right) has a concrete basis for its conclusions.
Religion is -- as many religionists admit -- based on faith (which varies from person to person), fables, and other things which are mostly impossible to delineate with any certainty. That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong, but at least with science we tend to say something like, "Based on the information we have at this time..."
And I include that differentiation in my own religion. I think that reincarnation makes sense, but I don't call it a fact. I think nibanna makes sense, but I don't call it a fact. But what do we have on this forum from religionists -- including today -- the old argument that Adam & Eve was a fact versus Adam & Eve was a story. And we can go through the same thing with the Biblical flood and even crucifixion and resurrection. Is Jesus's demise crucifixion or crucifiction?
And let me make this clear. If someone proved any of these christian stories to be factually true, I'd accept them.
Demanding they be proven is too high a standard for such things, especially the metaphysical. (Do not bring up the non-existent supernatural nonsense. It is a dodge designed to unfairly characterize the metaphysical with the imaginary.) Absent my experiences, I would never have sought scientific validation of the possibility they were legitimate and would be where you are intellectually.
But having done the effort of pursuing a scientific explanation, I have discovered more than enough to accept their plausibility and a semi-validation of my experiences as feasible. That also makes the "fables" you decry have a modicum of rationality rendering them plausible as well. That does NOT meet the proven standard, but it is a hell of a long way from pure fiction, made-up, wishful thinking, or pure imagination.
Demanding they be proven is too high a standard for such things, especially the metaphysical. (Do not bring up the non-existent supernatural nonsense. It is a dodge designed to unfairly characterize the metaphysical with the imaginary.) Absent my experiences, I would never have sought scientific validation of the possibility they were legitimate and would be where you are intellectually.
But having done the effort of pursuing a scientific explanation, I have discovered more than enough to accept their plausibility and a semi-validation of my experiences as feasible. That also makes the "fables" you decry have a modicum of rationality rendering them plausible as well. That does NOT meet the proven standard, but it is a hell of a long way from pure fiction, made-up, wishful thinking, or pure imagination.
Sorry, but when you folks demand that others believe in what you believe, then we're going to demand some conclusive evidence.
OK, care to expand on that? It's too early for me.
What would the significance be in relation to the thread topic?
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just asking for clarification from your perspective.
From the OP
Quote:
Much has been discussed, debated and argued in this forum about the relationship between science and religion. Some even believe the subject of science has no place in a Religion and Spirituality forum. Others like me feel the topic of science and religion are inextricably intertwined from the standpoint of establishing the universal truth that is reality for all of us.
The bolded sentence is an opinion that I disagree with.
Science, like religion, deal with beliefs. No truth is established. Beliefs are theories and the universities are filled with stacks of papers on theories that are dead, many not even tested. New beliefs replace old beliefs as science discovers more about how the observable universe functions.
Religion is not based on science, regardless of how much some religionists try to establish that their religious beliefs are scientific. They are wrong.
Religion is based on a trust in an unknown power. Science has nothing to do with that. The best it can do is observe the effect this trust may or may not have on a person.
Finally spirituality is not the same as religion as it is commonly understood as having a creed and a creator god. There are as many kinds of spirituality as there are people who seek.
Monotheism is not the only kind of religion. Some have no creator god, some have no deity.
Sorry, but when you folks demand that others believe in what you believe, then we're going to demand some conclusive evidence.
I realize You suffer from a Christian privilege allergy fostered by years of proselytizing and nagging, but no one is really demanding that you believe what we believe. What is desired is a little less hubris and certainty about your atheism as if there is no reasonable or scientific basis for even thinking a God exists. It is an unwarranted arrogance based largely on ignorance.
I realize You suffer from a Christian privilege allergy fostered by years of proselytizing and nagging, but no one is really demanding that you believe what we believe. What is desired is a little less hubris and certainty about your atheism as if there is no reasonable or scientific basis for even thinking a God exists. It is an unwarranted arrogance based largely on ignorance.
Oh really?
The statements that if I don't accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior, I'll go to hell.
The hand-written letters from the JWs.
The Mormons who have, on occasion, "graced" my doorstep.
They weren't stopping by for tea.
But I'm glad you can at least admit that America is drowning in christian privilege.
Oh really?
The statements that if I don't accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior, I'll go to hell.
The hand-written letters from the JWs.
The Mormons who have, on occasion, "graced" my doorstep.
They weren't stopping by for tea.
But I'm glad you can at least admit that America is drowning in christian privilege.
I guess I should have said that I personally am not demanding that you believe what I believe, Phet.
Why do atheists always use the plural personal pronoun? Are the afraid of expressing their own opinion?
We do not. We use it when we are talking about a group of people, and we use the singular when we are talking about single people. That is how grammar works.
This even happened in the post you quoted, so once again you are simply attacking atheists for no valid reason.
Science is a method for the examination of observable facts and data.
Religion is complete conjecture, that relies 100% on confidence in unsubstantiated claims of divine revelation
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
