science vs religon, which one is important and needed ? Rating Options

[demolished]

i think this is a tricky question if you think about it.

is science important or .. religon ? why tho .. ?

Religon helps make people safer . It help you to become a better person. Religon is mainly about beliefs and how to become a better person . . . the problem is . . did anyone prove that gods existed ? etc ..

Science helps people to be safe. Science tell us what to aware of. Without science, we wouldnt know where we are, what is safe? .. such as planets or universe ..... etc ..


if you think carefully, it could be tricky, you dont know which one is " more " important

do you people understand what i'm saiding ? just think bout it.

tell me what you think ?

[Spirited Away]

Religion has been the reason for many wars and persecution of innocents throughout history, and it persists to be a reason for many kinds of segregation in our contemporary world. So I wouldn't say that it makes people, in general, safer. I would say, however, that religion provides answers for individuals who believe that having those answers can make them a better person or give them a sense of security.

One can be good/bad with or without being involved with religion.

Science is necessary for the advancement, in many aspects, of mankind.

Whether or not science and religion are good/bad depends on how people practice them.

[demolished]

i meant overall , which is important ? science or religon ?

[Spirited Away]

i meant overall , which is important ? science or religon ?

They're both important, overall. If you mean which is more important, then the answer depends on the things that you value.

As in, if you care for your health, comfort, luxury, convenience, then science seems more important. On the other hand, if you care what happens after death (ie your soul), ethics... etc then you'd think religion weights more. However, as I have said before, people can be morally motivated with or without religion.

[sammi rules you]

it depends on the person. religion (yes, there's TWO i's in that word) is more important to some, and science is more important to others. mainly it depends on your upbringing.

you need a dictionary, my dear.

[loveylovely]

i can't choose just one.. they are both equally important.

[darkphyre]

I believe religion played an essential role in getting us to where we are today. However, I believe that many of the religions that exist today are outdated and have a detrimental effect on human development. Science, however, is still more-or-less beneficial.

Thus, I feel that science is generally more beneficial, and thus important, than religion in the present day. However, the creation of new, more up-to-date religions may change this in the future.

[azn_r4pf4n]

50/50. they're both good the same way.

yes thats true about science that it explains about the world and stuff.

religion is basically faith in my opinion.. well im christian.


i believe in science as long as it doesnt go beyond biblical scriptures. so they're both good 50/50.

[Spirited Away]

i believe in science as long as it doesnt go beyond biblical scriptures. so they're both good 50/50.

So if we happen to chance upon a life altering science that goes beyond biblical scripture, then that science is bad? I don't really get it, can you explain?

[azn_r4pf4n]

So if we happen to chance upon a life altering science that goes beyond biblical scripture, then that science is bad? I don't really get it, can you explain?

well. what i mean by that is that i believe in the type of science that doesnt go too far that it somehow contradicts my beliefs, like the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I do believe in some sorts of science like technology.

[demolished]

darkphyre Posted on Dec 24 2004, 10:05 PM

I believe religion played an essential role in getting us to where we are today. However, I believe that many of the religions that exist today are outdated and have a detrimental effect on human development. Science, however, is still more-or-less beneficial.

Thus, I feel that science is generally more beneficial, and thus important, than religion in the present day. However, the creation of new, more up-to-date religions may change this in the future.

well, its true what you said about the up-to-date .... Religon affected alot of people already tho .. ? its help people alot and protects others.

[Tung]

i think science is much more important. but why listen to me? im just an asian guy whos an athiest. ahahhaha.

[demolished]

tungtwista Posted on Dec 25 2004, 12:55 AM

i think science is much more important. but why listen to me? im just an asian guy whos an athiest. ahahhaha.

lol, i'm expecting a reasonable answers

[azn_r4pf4n]

i think science is much more important. but why listen to me? im just an asian guy whos an athiest. ahahhaha.

lol, i'm expecting a reasonable answers

sounds like an opinion from the "asian guy whos atheist"

[darkphyre]

darkphyre Posted on Dec 24 2004, 10:05 PM
its help people alot and protects others.

Explain.

[Spirited Away]

well. what i mean by that is that i believe in the type of science that doesnt go too far that it somehow contradicts my beliefs, like the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I do believe in some sorts of science like technology.

So if there is science that could advance mankind that might contradict the Bible, then you would disagree with it?

I can't think of any kind of science right now only because I'm no scientist, nor do I possess a great imagination so I cannot say that such science exist. Though, people have said that cloning is playing God, so they are against it. So if you are against cloning because it's "playing God", do you think that it is bad science? How about stem cell research? Is that bad science, too?

Someone said that the religion isn't up-to-date. Let us be more specific and say that the Bible isn't up-to-date, after all it holds the archaic verse that women should be subservient to men.

There were many changes to the Bible since its inception. There were additions and shedding due to mistranslations.. etc. But all in all, the Bible hasn't changed drastically for centuries. Now then, science changes every year, every month, everyday even. I really don't see how anyone can think that science should be kept in check by the Bible, or rather, those who interpret the Bible.

The people who condemned Galileo consisted of quite a few who were many times more intelligent than you and I. Yet, through their insistence, science and knowledge suffered because they interpreted that the Bible states the earth was squared while Galileo discovered things that seemingly contradicted the Bible.

What if one day there is a science that is good or possibly good, but is condemned as bad because people interpreted that the Bible says it's bad. That is what happened with Galileo, so who's to say it won't happen again?

[aznxdreamer]

science is more believable and also, theres proof.

[sadolakced acid]

science doesn't incude text telling it's followers to kill others, to mistreat others, or otherwise declare themselves better.

religion however...

[sammi rules you]

^ i don't think the bible does either. people just interpret it differently.

[xquizit]

^ i don't think the bible does either. people just interpret it differently.

exactly. and some people dislike the koran saying it supports killing and terrorism to achieve their ends but that, too, also depends on how its interpreted.

[demolished]

darkphyre Posted on Dec 25 2004, 3:38 PM

Explain.

okay, example if you belive in buddha, you must follow the eightful prophet. the eightful prophet contain eight useful infomation to be a better person and not to try to suffer more. one of the prophet saids " respect others ", then monk and buddism will also repect others but not all of buddism respect. it still helps out buddism. another example, one of the eightful prophet saids " be calm, dont be angry, or sad. " if your calm, you wont cuase alot of problems to people, if you get angry .. of course your gonna start causing more troubles. another example from the eightful prohpet .. " dont be nervous " .. becuase if your nervous, you cannot concertrate correctly and focus. It also affect you and what you do to other people

and etc ..is it enough reason ?



aznxdreamer Posted on Dec 25 2004, 4:42 PM

science is more believable and also, theres proof.

what about religons? do they do any good and help people ? does it make them them feel safer ?

[darkphyre]

^ i don't think the bible does either. people just interpret it differently.

People can read into the Bible whatever the want to. Its adaptability is what makes Christianity such a "popular" religion. It also means that it is open to extreme abuse.

[darkphyre]

darkphyre Posted on Dec 25 2004, 3:38 PM


okay, example if you belive in buddha, you must follow the eightful prophet. the eightful prophet contain eight useful infomation to be a better person and not to try to suffer more. one of the prophet saids " respect others ", then monk and buddism will also repect others but not all of buddism respect. it still helps out buddism. another example, one of the eightful prophet saids " be calm, dont be angry, or sad. " if your calm, you wont cuase alot of problems to people, if you get angry .. of course your gonna start causing more troubles. another example from the eightful prohpet .. " dont be nervous " .. becuase if your nervous, you cannot concertrate correctly and focus. It also affect you and what you do to other people

and etc ..is it enough reason ?



aznxdreamer Posted on Dec 25 2004, 4:42 PM


what about religons? do they do any good and help people ? does it make them them feel safer ?

Point 1: I don't get what you're saying, but that's probably because of your use of grammar/spelling.

Point 2: Is a false sense of safety better necessarily a good thing?

I think I get what you're saying. Religion helps people get through life by providing hope. Religion does do this, and it is very important. However, it is not necessary to belong to an organized religion to receive this help.

Furthermore, organized religion encourages "sheep." People follow the doctrines in which they believe mindlessly and don't question whether such patterns of belief and behaviour are still applicable in modern society. It is this "sheep" mentality that I believe makes religion more of a hindrance than a help.

[Tung]

like they say. you can never debate about religion and science. its too vast and complicated =\

[Spirited Away]

okay, example if you belive in buddha, you must follow the eightful prophet. the eightful prophet contain eight useful infomation to be a better person and not to try to suffer more. one of the prophet saids " respect others ", then monk and buddism will also repect others but not all of buddism respect. it still helps out buddism. another example, one of the eightful prophet saids " be calm, dont be angry, or sad. " if your calm, you wont cuase alot of problems to people, if you get angry .. of course your gonna start causing more troubles. another example from the eightful prohpet  .. " dont be nervous " .. becuase if your nervous, you cannot concertrate correctly and focus.  It also affect you and what you do to other people

Your grammar bothered me at first, but the fact that you didn't even get the Noble Eightfold Path right, and called it "eightful prophet", greatly overshadows my initial annoyance with your grammar.

If you're Buddhist, then I'm disappointed. If you're not Buddhist, please try to learn how to spell things correctly about the religion. It's hard, I know, but it's kind of disrepectful and people will get the wrong idea from what you say.

[relicwcircuits]

religion is basically belief in our ignorance

[Teesa]

science is more important and needed, because all the research benefits our knowledge, and there is actual proof. religion is just beliefs.

[gelionie]

You spelled religion wrong.

Well, I think both of them are important.
Scientists can have their own religion too.

[Sumiaki]

Science.

Both cause violence. But overall Religion causes wars. For humans to advance as a whole we need science. Religion doesn't necessarily instill morals into us. Even the most un-religious person can see whats right and wrong. Religion just slows down the advancement of science. It's just my opinion.

[TreesTurnMeOn]

Dear me...this is a tuffy. Here it goes.

Religion...It is really really important to me and I am very close with God. (please don't be offended )

Science...It depends on what type of science you mean. I think most of science is just bullshit. Ex. The whole "We evolved from monkeys" epidimic.

It all depends on what type of person you are. To me, religion is more important.

Science may explain to us how many things happen but it is leading us to loads of problems, like the stem cell research and such. Most of science is inhumane and the only way I agree with science is if it is stating facts, not some mythological bullshit.

[*Weird addiction*]

To me,well uuh science is more important,considering the fact that i dont have a religion

1500th post,woot!!!

[ApunBindaas]

This is hard, no doubt about it. I think people who want a logical reason choose the scientific way because they want facts. With religion, it's all about faith

[Ataryu]

Well...if you want to get literal, then science is more important period. You can live with out religion, but you can't live with out science.

Science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

In other words, science is our ability to question and answer, to wonder and to keep wondering.

If we didn't have science we would be mindless drones. With out science, there would be no religion.

[can0_reo]

SCIENCE is Defintely more important than religion. Religious people that ignore science are ignorant, only trying to cling to old/outdated beliefs. My parents and grandparents are religious, but they believe in science.

I think scientific discoveries advance humans. Like we have been learning in AP Euro. People were extremely religious during medieval times, ppl lived in cespits w/ terrible lives, being worked like crazy just clinging on to hope that they will achive salvation someday after they die. Lives of the Europeans didn't get better until SCIENCE came along with Industrial Revolution and all the events after that, they lived a much better life w/ adequate food supplies and new opportunities.

It seemed wierd to me, how the serfs were willing to work for their lords w/out saying anything. I noticed that the only thing that kept them alive was the hope of salvation. Some ppl might say that it was good, and "helped" them. But that is wrong, because if they were smart they would have revolted. Instead of living the terrible lives they lead. That's why I think religion played a bad role, used by the lords use to keep the serfs down and control them.

If you and your family are in poverty, running out of food, dying. Praying won't help you. Smart ppl using science, finding new methods on agricultural production and ways to find food will keep you alive. No higher being is going to come down from "heaven" and feed you. Religion just help people become lazy and not do things for themselves.

You probably think, that I'm an evil person that hates religion or something. But I'm not, I'm buddist and I go to the temple often and I believe the saying that "No man in the trenches is atheist." But this does not mean that I think religion is more important then scientific discoveries. Religion has its place, thats true. But we would be nowhere w/out science. Probably only living to 60 before we die.

Also side note: I believe in evolution, and Charles Darwin's theory - Survival of the fiittest. Also evolution, is why Neanderthals were so ugly, humans get better looking as time progresses. (ignore plastic surgery - differnet topic)

[QUOTE] Denial is a very effective coping mechanism.

[darkphyre]

Science...It depends on what type of science you mean. I think most of science is just bullshit. Ex. The whole "We evolved from monkeys" epidimic.

Right... As opposed to the well though-out, logical arguments of Creationists.

"The Earth is only 6,000 years old! All the radioactive dating data are LIES!!!" (<- that smilie should have a frown)

[TreesTurnMeOn]

Right... As opposed to the well though-out, logical arguments of Creationists.

"The Earth is only 6,000 years old! All the radioactive dating data are LIES!!!" (<- that smilie should have a frown)

Was this supposed to be an insult?

[Spirited Away]

^^ If you didn't really know... yes, yes, it was.

It was an insult to counter YOUR insult so it seems fair.






"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Einstein

[sadolakced acid]

Science...It depends on what type of science you mean. I think most of science is just bullshit. Ex. The whole "We evolved from monkeys" epidimic.

that bullshit has already saved your life. it doesn't matter who you are. you're using a computer (from science), which means you are not shunning technology. which means, of course, that you have been saved multiple times by bullshit.

you might as well start worshipping bullshit, as it has saved your life just as much as god, if not more.

(yes, yes, sorry. i'm being harsh. but i just can't stand it when people say science is crap, or anything like that, and then sit there typing on their computer, and then when they get sick go to a doctors office, or ride in a car, or anything that science allows them to do.)

[Spirited Away]

(yes, yes, sorry.  i'm being harsh.  but i just can't stand it when people say science is crap, or anything like that, and then sit there typing on their computer, and then when they get sick go to a doctors office, or ride in a car, or anything that science allows them to do.)

Yea! It's funny though that they call it crap and they USE IT... haha, shows how smart they are.

[demolished]

can0_reo Dec 28 2004, 7:55 PM

Religious people that ignore science are ignorant, only trying to cling to old/outdated beliefs. My parents and grandparents are religious, but they believe in science.

I think scientific discoveries advance humans. Like we have been learning in AP Euro. People were extremely religious during medieval times, ppl lived in cespits w/ terrible lives, being worked like crazy just clinging on to hope that they will achive salvation someday after they die. Lives of the Europeans didn't get better until SCIENCE came along with Industrial Revolution and all the events after that, they lived a much better life w/ adequate food supplies and new opportunities.

It seemed wierd to me, how the serfs were willing to work for their lords w/out saying anything. I noticed that the only thing that kept them alive was the hope of salvation. Some ppl might say that it was good, and "helped" them. But that is wrong, because if they were smart they would have revolted. Instead of living the terrible lives they lead. That's why I think religion played a bad role, used by the lords use to keep the serfs down and control them.

If you and your family are in poverty, running out of food, dying. Praying won't help you. Smart ppl using science, finding new methods on agricultural production and ways to find food will keep you alive. No higher being is going to come down from "heaven" and feed you. Religion just help people become lazy and not do things for themselves.

You probably think, that I'm an evil person that hates religion or something. But I'm not, I'm buddist and I go to the temple often and I believe the saying that "No man in the trenches is atheist." But this does not mean that I think religion is more important then scientific discoveries. Religion has its place, thats true. But we would be nowhere w/out science. Probably only living to 60 before we die.

Also side note: I believe in evolution, and Charles Darwin's theory - Survival of the fiittest. Also evolution, is why Neanderthals were so ugly, humans get better looking as time progresses.  (ignore plastic surgery - differnet topic) 

TRUE ! i never thought religon makes people lazier. i also never thought people rely to God that much. excellent explantion. i learn a couple of opinins from yours belives!

[melancholyfruiti...]

Is religion or science important? I think...they are both important. Without religion, we would've never gotten to where we are--little, if no morals, virtues, sense of what's right and wrong, and the like. In my opinion, we'd be in a lot of trouble if we were without those. People running amuck, killing what they wished, doing what they wanted--no sense of order. (Why would the government or police be any different if nothing taught them to be virtuous?)

Think back, far back in the Middle Ages...if there was no religion, people would have no purpose. Their only hope was to live as best they could (which was horribly at most) for a chance at salvation. Then, religion was their life. Religion that stated morality and what was right. The same religion that influences many of us today, consciously or not. What do they have to do with us, you ask? A seedling with weak roots cannot grow into a stable tree, can it?

Don't get me wrong, I love science--knowing why things work the way they do and applying that knowledge. Without science, we'd have no technology and that would be simply horrid, no? Imagine, no way of getting food (tools are a form or technology, more or less), less communication; life would be much more difficult. Diseases would wipe out entire continents, and I wouldn't be able to enjoy the special effects of my favorite movie. Science has many practical uses for the individual as well as the whole. It makes life more understandable, in a way.

They say...religion is cosmic purpose and science is cosmic order. Both are important in various ways, each with their pros and cons. To ask which is more important is somewhat like asking which is better, apples or oranges. They're two different things with different uses.

Some final words. All of the above is my opinion, my speculation. I'm neither a devoutly religious person nor a grounded scientist, but a bit of both. Everyone will most likely have their own ideas, stemming from their differing backgrounds and personality. I do not intend to force these thoughts onto you, but humbly ask you to consider it all--consider with an open mind. (I didn't elaborate much on science, seeing how many other posts defend it already.) As for the overlapping beliefs, I believe them both. Perhaps they connect somehow, someway. Flame me, if you will--everyone does.

[Spirited Away]

They say...religion is cosmic purpose and science is cosmic order. Both are important in various ways, each with their pros and cons.

I like that idea, but what about those without religion? Do we not have purpose?

[can0_reo]

Oranges are better.

Religion = false hope, set of guides to live life, by the government. For us to OBEY! lol.
Science is still better.






[QUOTE] "realization that, to put it as mildly as possible, millions of English men, women, and children were living in shit." - My history book

[melancholyfruiti...]

I like that idea, but what about those without religion? Do we not have purpose?

*blinks* I guess you'll just have to find some other purpose... (or just live life to the fullest?) o.o; But still, you have morals and such, no? Those were most likely formed through religion.

As for the false hope thing.... Are you sure? There are people out there who truly do believe in a heaven and the other place or reincarnation and such. And um, I think you've got that government part mixed up with laws. Perhaps our government was formed with some influence from religion, but religion is not wholly our government. It came with that separation of Church and State thing, if I recall correctly.

One last thing. Religion and science are two different things. With different variables. Different uses. Different aims. Too many things that vary. If we take out the foundation of our values, what would happen? If we never "got smarter" and make tools, where would we be? Religion reigned then, science now. Past and present. (Not that religion isn't still here, I just find it...not what it once was?)

All I'm trying to say is, if you're trying to find one definite answer. One certain, no opposition, crushing answer...I don't think there's one. (Seeing it varies per person) Perhaps for someone whose life isn't all that great, religion is more important. Maybe for a practical person, it's science. (Now, in no way am I saying all or only these people are like that.) As for me, I like both science and religion. Perhaps science a bit more, but...I can't ignore religion.

I'd have agreed with oranges too. ^.^ But that's just me.

[abstracted]

I don't think that you can say one is more important than the other. Religion and science depend on each other, even if it's only a little bit.

I'm not very religious, to be honest...I participate in all the religious festivals, but I've began to just doubt religion, mostly because my life hasn't been too great. So, I don't think that people who think religion is more important have not-so-great lives.

I'm more practical...science is definitely important.
I've read Angels and Demons...I dunno how much is true, but it makes so much sense to me that maybe energy is God. After all...isn't God who created the world? So, according to science, energy was involved in the creation of the universe.
If any of that is true...then science and religion can't be thought of as two completely different things. They're both important.

To ask which is more important is somewhat like asking which is better, apples or oranges. They're two different things with different uses.

Exactly! But...I like oranges. ^_^ I love orange juice, too....

Religion isn't false hope--it's given hope to so many people, and it has saved lives in its own ways.

I couldn't answer this...I'd say science, but without religion, science can come to destroy morals. We don't really think twice when we find something bigger, faster, and smarter, do we?

[comeupon]

Science...It depends on what type of science you mean. I think most of science is just bullshit. Ex. The whole "We evolved from monkeys" epidimic.

No but the whole a greater being created everything is much more plausible right? At this point with the fact being proven that micro evolution exists the idea that macro evolution could have occured is much more plausible than the fact that a greater being created the universe. I think somebody touched on it earlier but without science we probably wouldnt be here right now. If you didnt recieve all the vaccinations you did as a baby you could have easily died from a diease that was basically stopped ages ago. Science has virtually eliminated diseases such as the black plague and polio. How would you like having polio right now. You very well could be if science as you so put is bullshit. How do you think you get the food you eat? Over the years farmer and scientists have been able to develop techniques that help purify the food you eat, help develop new techniques of finding food, and even new techniques of how to prepare it. Science helps prepare the world for emergencies that could happen. You know how many people are saved a year from meteorologists, geologists, seismologists and etc when they predict natural disasters.

[Spirited Away]

*blinks* I guess you'll just have to find some other purpose... (or just live life to the fullest?) o.o; But still, you have morals and such, no? Those were most likely formed through religion.

...

Oh, I'm fully aware of my own purpose in life and I have strong values and ethics, however, they did not resulted from any one specified religion. But I digress.

What about those who lived before religion. Did they not have purpose? My question was intended to expand the idea of what "they say" about religion being a cosmic purpose. Do you think religion begets morality?

[can0_reo]

*blinks* I guess you'll just have to find some other purpose... (or just live life to the fullest?) o.o; But still, you have morals and such, no? Those were most likely formed through religion.

I dissagree on that too. To some ppl morality can depend on their religion. But ppl w/out a religion can definitly be moral. And there are millions of ppl that DO have a religion that are NOT moral. If you compare a kid that goes to church every weekend w/ a kid thats never been to church. It doesn't mean that the kid that goes to church will turn out more moral. (usually when a kid is forced to go to church) It comes from w/in. Its like "you can take the girl out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the girl."

I agree w/ comeupon, 100%.

Religion isn't false hope--it's given hope to so many people, and it has saved lives in its own ways.

I still think it is false hope. I never said it didn't give ppl hope. And true - life isn't good w/out hope. But the hope is fake. God isn't going to come and save your life if you are broke and living on the streets. Then all of a sudden become rich again. You have to do that yourself. And trust yourself. - be smart. You can't depend on the guy up there all the time.

[darkphyre]

Was this supposed to be an insult? 

No. It was supposed to point out that you don't know what you're talking about.

[*Zyryll*]

science vs. religion. HAHA great topic.

okay... well since religion is always right. (that's what i was taught at chuch) i think, religion is better!

[DaTru KataLYST]

science vs. religion. HAHA great topic.

okay... well since religion is always right. (that's what i was taught at chuch) i think, religion is better!

Please, this is debate..

Make a statement, and back it up with concrete evidence.

[Spirited Away]

science vs. religion. HAHA great topic.

okay... well since religion is always right. (that's what i was taught at chuch) i think, religion is better!

"Chuch" sure is smart to teach you that religion is right all the time... but "Chuch" should really teach you how to think for yourself first.

[mechwarrior1989]

Science is of course more important. What if we didn't have science and relyed merely upon religion? Great, you are now in a position to contract small pox and die. There goes your life. Because of science, deadly diseases have been virtually eliminated. I hardly see that happening during the middle ages with the out break of the Black Plague seeing as how 1/3 of Europe's population died even though they were all highly religious. I'm sure all that praying helped to save them.

Religion cannot be confused with ethics, ethics are what we aquire as we grow up which determain what we believe to be right or wrong. Religion can sometimes govern our ethics, but then we can look at certain religions that teach people to kill. The Taliban uses religion as a reason to kill Americans and other infidels. Good job religion, way to screw us over again. The good that religion can do though are things like bringing people together or giving people hope, but other things can do that as well, so what does religion ultimatly do? Nothing, just a waste of time, and money.

[mechwarrior1989]

aznxdreamer Posted on Dec 25 2004, 4:42 PM
what about religons? do they do any good and help people ? does it make them them feel safer ?

Key word, feel. So religion lulls us into a false sense of security. What if barbarians with technology superior to our own were to threaten to destroy us? Would us having more religion save us? I think not. Suppose a nuke was heading at your house, sent by people who have absolutly no belief in religion, only personal gain, would you praying save you? During the times of the Roman Empire, they would throw Christians into the Colossium and let out hungry lions. Of course the Christians would get in a circle and they'd star praying their hearts out, but eventurally they would all be eaten and the crowds would roar and everyone would leave cheerful, except the Christians who are now ripped to pieces and leave in the bellies of the lions.

[mechwarrior1989]

Religion...It is really really important to me and I am very close with God. (please don't be offended )

I am so offended, you are closer to God than I am, so who's keeping score exactly? How many points do you have and how exactly do you find out? So what do you get after you win? Can you even win? So how do you score points? Do you get a point everytime you go to church? Do you get a point when you pray? Do you get a point when you go on those retreats which are basically for having fun with the coverup as being a way to get "closer" to God? If I were to stand on stilts, I'd be taller than you, wouldn't I then be closer to God? Because you're closer to god, does that mean a halo of light glows around you constantly? Has God given you any special powers to convert the heathens? So has God whispered in your ear and told you of the future? What in the world gives you the idea that you're closer to God? Oh yea, you're tight with God so he probably told you that you're his number one right? ARe you even thinking when you say that or are you just blurting out the crap that they brainwash you with at church?

Science may explain to us how many things happen but it is leading us to loads of problems, like the stem cell research and such. Most of science is inhumane and the only way I agree with science is if it is stating facts, not some mythological bullshit.

So do you believe that EVERYTHING in the bible is true? Both old and new? Or only new? And since when did you decide what was fact and what was not? What if evolution was a fact? You would then be contradicting yourself. Do you know what mythological means?

Main Entry: myth·o·log·i·cal
Pronunciation: "mi-th&-'lä-ji-k&l
Variant(s): also myth·o·log·ic /-jik/
Function: adjective
1 : of or relating to mythology or myths : dealt with in mythology
2 : lacking factual basis or historical validity : MYTHICAL,

So either you're saying that the theory of evolution relates to myths or that it lacks factual basis or historical validity. Well I can assure you that it doesn't fit into either of those catagories. HOWEVER, I can think of certain Christian ideals that do fit into one of those two, for example, the belief that there is a God. I believe that that lacks a great deal of factual basis. The theory of Adam and Eve being the first two humans and then populating the earth, yea bit of a problem with that as well. Where are the facts or historical validity for that matter? Seems like a myth to me. So if I understand you correctly, you'd be calling you're own religion bullshit which is right since that's exactly what it is.

[Mireh]

I'm starting to read Angel and Deamons, [dan brown, author of da vinci code]. This dude in the book had a theory that god and science corresponded with one another, -like, it balances each other out. I think that science is a way to help us uncover the answers that we are always asking (how did the universe come to be? why are we here? do we have a purpose?), but in the end, it leads to god.

sorry for my vaugueness.

[illriginal]

Both.

[Tweeti]

I think they're both important, i'm a christian but science has advanced us alot. I've heard things on the news scientifically proving the bible right, like with the finding of Noah's ark.

[illriginal]

I think they're both important, i'm a christian but science has advanced us alot. I've heard things on the news scientifically proving the bible right, like with the finding of Noah's ark.

o.O can you source that? I thought scientists were still having a hard time with findin it?

[Tweeti]

o.O can you source that? I thought scientists were still having a hard time with findin it?

i heard it on the news, i went to kctv.com and they deleted the article because it is over 2 weeks old, but here iss somthing that i googled. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...7_noahsark.html

[NoSex]

i heard it on the news, i went to kctv.com and they deleted the article because it is over 2 weeks old, but here iss somthing that i googled. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...7_noahsark.html

You may want to learn how to actually research, as opposed to cherry picking what you like... same site, easy google find, four months later:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20..._noahs_ark.html


Noah's Ark has never been found and there is all evidence to the contrary that the flood even ever occurred.

Science wins, sorry.

[Melissa]

There's no use arguing against a religion using science. Most religions are based on faith, so it doesn't matter if there's scientific proof that Noah's Arc never happened. Therefore, you can't really say science wins. I can't really think of an example right now, but if you were in some sort of abstract, psychological competition based on beliefs and were told that the other side won because, in their logic, everything points to what they believe, you'd probably tell them to stfu.

While there may be claims of scientific findings supporting events in the Bible, in the end, it all comes down to faith. And science can't really shake that.

And... I'm not speaking as a Christian or an Atheist, since at the moment, I'm really... nothing. I don't claim to be agnostic, religious, atheist, whatever. I'm just confused.

[datass]

thinking of how you word your sentences now, and how you did back in 2004.. makes me laugh.

anyways.

science is much better. science is basically what has changed our world from farming and sword fighting to cars without the horse. without scientific knowledge, and just plain faith, it just wont get us far.

[NoSex]

There's no use arguing against a religion using science. Most religions are based on faith, so it doesn't matter if there's scientific proof that Noah's Arc never happened. Therefore, you can't really say science wins. I can't really think of an example right now, but if you were in some sort of abstract, psychological competition based on beliefs and were told that the other side won because, in their logic, everything points to what they believe, you'd probably tell them to stfu.

Here, I'll try to construct a more obvious analogy for you:

If you're playing the game of basketball, you follow a certain set of rules (these rules help the game along). Well, imagine that you decided that, for whatever reason, you wanted to invent a contrary set of arbitrary (maybe nondescript) rules for basketball. Now, that's fine and all, but those rules might not be conductive to the spirit of the game (consider the reality of epistemology and the scientific method). If you try to implement those rules, against the rules of the original game, you're going to look like an ass. Further, you aren't going to convince anyone that you're a good or fair player. Essentially, you'll just ruin the game for everyone.

It's sort of like science and faith. The principles of science are demonstrative; they are tested and work very well. We can make predictions using science, and can, using strict rationalism, find out exactly where we might have gone wrong in a specific hypothesis. In the case of faith, none of this is true. We can not form meaningful predictions using faith. We can not demonstrate faith. We can not point out precisely where one may or may not go wrong in their own practice of faith. In fact, we don't even have a semblance of an idea of what faith truly is (aside from an emotional substitution for reason).

So, science does win. Just because you try to change the rules in the middle of the game don't mean shit. Science wins.

[Reidar]

Ben Stein: "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."

I couldn't agree more, which is why science wins.

[Tweeti]

You may want to learn how to actually research, as opposed to cherry picking what you like... same site, easy google find, four months later:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20..._noahs_ark.html


Noah's Ark has never been found and there is all evidence to the contrary that the flood even ever occurred.

Science wins, sorry.

Well, maybe you may want to learn how to actually research things... this is as of 2008.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1972044/posts


Found Material evidence... science doesn't win, sorry.

[Tung]

like they say. you can never debate about religion and science. its too vast and complicated =\

I posted this 4 years ago, and I still stand by it.

Science is an ideology, and has it's limitations. Science is a social institution just like religion is. Science is a method of empirical observation, they have a vast body of knowledge. However, you can't take for word what science have said, as science is also a personal experience and there's bias on how you view the world. Science has two functions. 1.) to inform 2.) to answer how and why.
Science is constantly explaining the world, and there's a series notion of legitimatization on the "facts" and theories they state.

Nate, is right when he states that religion is all about faith. However, how can you prove that these things religion claims are true without possibly trying to prove it like science does? You can't. So how have the Church been able to have such an impact on so many people for so long? I think it's because of how they articulate their power, and they have persuaded people of it's appearances of natural order.

Is science ever 100% certain? No
Is religion ever 100% certain? No

Science can't ever be the answer, as much as religion can't be. Nobody wins in this debate.

[brooklyneast05]

Well, maybe you may want to learn how to actually research things... this is as of 2008.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1972044/posts
Found Material evidence... science doesn't win, sorry.

^ explain to me how you think a wooden structure can survive 4,000 + years

maybe you should learn how to actually give credible sources

A panel of experts, comprising Turkish authorities, veteran mountaineers, archaeologists, geologists and members of Hong Kong-based Noah’s Ark Ministries International, also displayed an almost one-metre-long peice of petrified wood before the media and specially invited international experts.

do you know how long it takes to petrify wood? i'll promise you it takes a whole lot longer than the bible claims the world has even existed for.


i'm failing to see how a piece of wood would prove noah's ark

[Reidar]

Yet another piece of petrified wood found to be Noah's Ark? He must have had a fleet of the things.

The comments seem to coincide with that sentiment: "Look, I’m pretty religious, but we hear these 'they found Noahs’ ark!' things about twice a year now."

science is also a personal experience and there's bias on how you view the world.

Hardly. Science is about uncovering the objective truth. In the process of doing so, we must be tentative and receptive to improvements and developments because science is, by definition, self-corrective, when need be. That does not make it a relative, personal concept, susceptible to individual bias. The only bias science holds is to that which is correct.

[freeridefight]

Science.


Science has progressed us through the ages. With the variety of branches (biology, chemistry, physics) we have come to understand the world around us much more clearly. Overall, it has better our lives much more than religion ever will.

Religion can be interpreted in so many ways, which in my eyes is so retarded. Why the hell would you want to follow principles and rules that could of been misinterpreted by a group of people or person in the past where the circumstances were so much different.

I'm not saying we should denounce these morals and values, but science is way more important.

Overall, isn't that was religion is? Understanding the world around us?

[Tung]

^ u can say the same for religion.

[freeridefight]

^ u can say the same for religion.

How has religion allowed us to find true solid facts about the world around us?

There have been to many wars or violence for that matter because one person interpreted this and another didn't. That, Tung, is not science.

[Tung]

Re-read your post douche. You never said anything about "solid facts about the world around us" And that's why I said you could say the same about religion.

I'm atheist, so don't think I support religion. I'm just saying you can't say science is better than religion and that they win. Nobody wins in this case.

[freeridefight]

Re-read your post douche. You never said anything about "solid facts about the world around us" And that's why I said you could say the same about religion.

I'm atheist, so don't think I support religion. I'm just saying you can't say science is better than religion and that they win. Nobody wins in this case.

that is what it's saying. Science gives us solid information that we use everyday. Science is way better than religion.

Where was religion ever more important than science? No where. Science wins.

[Tung]

Sigh..you just don't get it. Let me break this down for you..and I hope you do actually read everything before replying.

Do you know what an ideology is?

Science is a social institution about which there is a great deal of misunderstanding, even among those who are part of it. We think that science is an institution, a set of methods, a set of people, a great body of knowledge that we call scientific, is somehow apart from the forces that rule our everyday lives and that govern the structure of our society. We think that science is objective. Science has brought us all kinds of good things. It has tremendously increased the production of food. It has increased our life expectancy from a mere 45 years at the beginning of the last century to over 70 in rich places like North America. It has put people on the moon and made it possible to sit at home and watch the world go by.

At the same time, science, like other productive activities, like the state, the family, sport, is a social institution completely integrated into and influenced by the structure of all our other social institutions. The problems that science deals with, the ideas that it uses in investigating those problems, even the so-called scientific results that come out of scientific investigation, are all deeply influenced by predispositions that derive from the society in which we live. Scientists do not begin life as scientists, after all, but as social beings immersed in a family, state, a productive structure, and they view nature through the lens that has been molded by their social experience.

Above that personal level of perception, science is molded by society because it is human productive activity that takes time and money, and so is guided by and directed by those forces in the world that have control over money and time. Science uses commodities and is part of the process of commodity production. Science uses money. People earn their living by science, and as a consequence the dominate social and economic forces in society determine to a large extent what science does and how it does it. More than that, those forces have the power to appropriate from science ideas that are particularly suited to the maintenance and continued prosperity of the social structures of which they are a part. So other social institutions have an input into science both in what is done and how it is thought about, and they take from science concepts and ideas that then support their institutions and make them seem legitimate and natural.

It is this dual process, on the one hand, of the social influence and control of what scientists do and say, and, on the other hand, the use of what scientists do and say to further support the institutions of society--that is meant when we speak of science as ideology.

Not saying, that science is a bad thing, we just have to realize the bias and limitations science do have. And the same could be said about religion. Nobody wins.

/debate

[Melissa]

thinking of how you word your sentences now, and how you did back in 2004.. makes me laugh.

Are you talking to me? I'm in college now, I was in high school then. Of course the way I word my sentences would be different.

Here, I'll try to construct a more obvious analogy for you:

If you're playing the game of basketball, you follow a certain set of rules (these rules help the game along). Well, imagine that you decided that, for whatever reason, you wanted to invent a contrary set of arbitrary (maybe nondescript) rules for basketball. Now, that's fine and all, but those rules might not be conductive to the spirit of the game (consider the reality of epistemology and the scientific method). If you try to implement those rules, against the rules of the original game, you're going to look like an ass. Further, you aren't going to convince anyone that you're a good or fair player. Essentially, you'll just ruin the game for everyone.

It's sort of like science and faith. The principles of science are demonstrative; they are tested and work very well. We can make predictions using science, and can, using strict rationalism, find out exactly where we might have gone wrong in a specific hypothesis. In the case of faith, none of this is true. We can not form meaningful predictions using faith. We can not demonstrate faith. We can not point out precisely where one may or may not go wrong in their own practice of faith. In fact, we don't even have a semblance of an idea of what faith truly is (aside from an emotional substitution for reason).

So, science does win. Just because you try to change the rules in the middle of the game don't mean shit. Science wins.

Look, I understand what you're saying and I'm telling YOU that just because you and the rest of the world decided that science wins, etc., that argument is never going to work with people who are religious, so why even bother trying? They firmly believe in whatever it is they do, so no matter how much logic and rationalization you use, it's not going to do much good in their limited little worlds. I, personally, agree that "science wins." However, you're fighting a useless battle. It's like trying to teach someone who was born blind what the color red looks like; it just ain't gonna happen.

That, and please don't speak to me condescendingly. You aren't any better than me and I'm not an idiot.

Thank you and goodbye.

[freeridefight]

Sigh..you just don't get it. Let me break this down for you..and I hope you do actually read everything before replying.

Do you know what an ideology is?

Science is a social institution about which there is a great deal of misunderstanding, even among those who are part of it. We think that science is an institution, a set of methods, a set of people, a great body of knowledge that we call scientific, is somehow apart from the forces that rule our everyday lives and that govern the structure of our society. We think that science is objective. Science has brought us all kinds of good things. It has tremendously increased the production of food. It has increased our life expectancy from a mere 45 years at the beginning of the last century to over 70 in rich places like North America. It has put people on the moon and made it possible to sit at home and watch the world go by.

At the same time, science, like other productive activities, like the state, the family, sport, is a social institution completely integrated into and influenced by the structure of all our other social institutions. The problems that science deals with, the ideas that it uses in investigating those problems, even the so-called scientific results that come out of scientific investigation, are all deeply influenced by predispositions that derive from the society in which we live. Scientists do not begin life as scientists, after all, but as social beings immersed in a family, state, a productive structure, and they view nature through the lens that has been molded by their social experience.

Above that personal level of perception, science is molded by society because it is human productive activity that takes time and money, and so is guided by and directed by those forces in the world that have control over money and time. Science uses commodities and is part of the process of commodity production. Science uses money. People earn their living by science, and as a consequence the dominate social and economic forces in society determine to a large extent what science does and how it does it. More than that, those forces have the power to appropriate from science ideas that are particularly suited to the maintenance and continued prosperity of the social structures of which they are a part. So other social institutions have an input into science both in what is done and how it is thought about, and they take from science concepts and ideas that then support their institutions and make them seem legitimate and natural.

It is this dual process, on the one hand, of the social influence and control of what scientists do and say, and, on the other hand, the use of what scientists do and say to further support the institutions of society--that is meant when we speak of science as ideology.

Not saying, that science is a bad thing, we just have to realize the bias and limitations science do have. And the same could be said about religion. Nobody wins.

/debate

Religion and Science are both ideologies. However, I am saying that Science is the better of the lesser pair because the evidence of it's accomplishments are right in front of us. The basic scientific principle shows this. You always end up with an exact answer, even if it wasn't the one that you intended. You always find out something about your problem, and therefore are making progress.

Religion does NOT do this. Religion does not have pure basic evidence of whatever they claim to be right or true over the human society and race. Religion goes off the ideas that were based on a human society that can no longer be based upon ours' today, because of how long ago they were made.

I understand that science can be misinterpreted by the many people that are scientists and/or involved in the many connections with the ideology. However, science's ideas would have a much more basis on today's society than religions'.

Science wins, because it is based on today's society and can always be revised.

Religion's ideas are far to out of date of apply to today's society. Today, we all just have philosophies that can be revised accordingly to the ever changing society.

Go ahead and break that down.

[Reidar]

Tung is equivocating the concept of science and what comprises it, which is indisputably an objective method, with how science is socially appertained. That's a syllogistic fallacy.

Society is subjective.
Science is a part of society.
Therefore, science is subjective.

No. The application of science is part of society. That is obviously subjective. More obviously, that does not define what science is.

If a scientific procedure is influenced in any way, shape, or form by discretionary variables, then it is not science. It will be refuted and discredited by anyone with a sharp eye. That doesn't mean there's susceptibility to relativism. Like philosophy, science admits to be self-corrective in the aspiration to objective truth.

Thankfully, there exist far more exercisable measures to eliminate unwanted outside vacillations than that post would have one believe.

[freeridefight]

Tung is equivocating the concept of science and what comprises it, which is indisputably an objective method, with how science is socially appertained. That's a syllogistic fallacy.

Society is subjective.
Science is a part of society.
Therefore, science is subjective.

No. The application of science is part of society. That is obviously subjective. More obviously, that does not define what science is.

If a scientific procedure is influenced in any way, shape, or form by discretionary variables, then it is not science. It will be refuted and discredited by anyone with a sharp eye. That doesn't mean there's susceptibility to relativism. Like philosophy, science admits to be self-corrective in the aspiration to objective truth.

Thankfully, there exist far more exercisable measures to eliminate unwanted outside vacillations than that post would have one believe.

then are you telling me that religion itself is not objective? Religion was made by society, therefore in your own words itself is objective.

And how does the scientific method influence that it is lower or the same level than religion? Yes it is self-corrective, which only establishes a higher platform on which science is better. Religions do not self-correct themselves. It says this is the way, and you are wrong. Science says I may be wrong, let's redo this.

[Reidar]

then are you telling me that religion itself is not objective? Religion was made by society, therefore in your own words itself is objective.

No. That's the exact opposite of my point in demonstrating what a syllogistic fallacy amounts to. The sum does not equate to the whole.

And how does the scientific method influence that it is lower or the same level than religion?

It doesn't.

Yes it is self-corrective, which only establishes a higher platform on which science is better.

You're reiterating my points. The fact that science is subject to amelioration makes it a logical process. It has to be able to accommodate newfound information.

[NoSex]

Look, I understand what you're saying and I'm telling YOU that just because you and the rest of the world decided that science wins, etc., that argument is never going to work with people who are religious, so why even bother trying?

I didn't realize you were arguing that scientific thought is futile in the course of convincing the faithful. I thought you were proposing some sort of strange fundamental stalemate between faith and reason - as if faith had any merit whatsoever.

But, now that I do realize your point, I'll have to respectfully disagree. "The argument" has numerous uses and is surely worth "trying." You just have to look at it from a different angle. But, as for the narrow angle you seem to be deploying here: Yes, science can "work with people who are religious." I was once religious. I know many other people who were once religious - they no longer are. This is thanks, in large, to scientific thought. So, you're wrong.

Further, I find a great deal of offense in the idea you're positing. Are you encouraging ignorance or do you just have a great deal of sympathy towards bliss?

[Melissa]

Okay, so now I'm an advocate for ignorance. Great.

Let me just say this. When I say that using scientific thought to "convert" religions people doesn't work, I am talking about the religious people who zealously believe in their relationship with God (etc) and actually dig into so-called scientific thought to find cases that support their belief and give reason to cases that don't. At the end of the day, the basis behind their belief is faith and science - though valid - is a force trying to shake them of their faith. I'm not talking about the everyday, run of the mill Christian who goes to church on Sundays and believes what his or her parents tell them to believe.

I've known plenty of people who were once religious as well, but at the same time, I've had conversations with priests and well-known speakers at my old church, asking about science. These people knew a lot about scientific discoveries and were able to work through every obstacle presented. Why do you think so many people are religious?

There are plenty of scientists that are religious as well. There are tons of engineers at my school, and a great number of them are religious. Science and religion, in my opinion, aren't two things that can successfully be brought head to head. If science alone can shake your religious beliefs, I'm sorry to say, but your belief must have been incredibly shallow.

And I'd also like to defend the "ignorance" you claim that I am encouraging. Do you really think that people who are religious are ignorant in scientific thought? Do you really think you're teaching anybody things that they don't already know? As I said - many people who are religious are also scientists. Try bringing in your "scientific thought" and making it change their beliefs.

[Reidar]

If scientific evidence was enough to quell somebody's theistic beliefs, that would, ironically, be closer to a mutual compatibility than religion existing despite science, unamenable to correction.

[shoryuken]

BUTHH.. closee thradd..

[huskar]

Well I know what actually helped to sit before this computer and typ this message . Athiests are living a pretty happy life compared to someone who is without technology living in a isolated place cutoff from civilization with religion .

[SammyTheHeadbutt]

This topic got me thinking about something my Archaeologu teacher said the other day..

we in the west have one of the scariest religions in the world; it's called science.

if you think in many ways science has many things a religion has in the sense there is a belief, a reason for life beginning and a prediction of the afterlife or rather lack of it. Science is just based on experiment and truth or "truth" rather than belief.

May sound like an odd thing to say, but if you think about it, i recken it makes sense? prehaps it's just me?

[brooklyneast05]

how is science scary? it's giving you proof/logical explanations to how the world works without condemning you to eternal suffering. that doesn't sound half as scary as religion to me.


i don't think your teacher makes very much sense.

[SammyTheHeadbutt]

I'm not saying he was right or anything..
i am simply saying it is an iteresting view on the subject.

[tripod]

It is said that science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.Both science and religion are two sides of the same coin. One cannot develop without the support of other.Both are equally important to me.

[NoSex]

One cannot develop without the support of other.Both are equally important to me.

How can science not develop without religion? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Tung]

^ Word. Science isn't base off beliefs and hope. It's base off actual physical experimentation to prove hypothesis's that are brought up. You don't need religion for scientific experimentation's.

What? Are you going to pray to God and hope that a certain chemical will react with another chemical? No.

[*cakedout*]

Lol, you also can't explain love using numbers and statistics.

[NoSex]

Lol, you also can't explain love using numbers and statistics.

Some people may disagree with such a summation, you do understand?

[Blaqheartedstar]

^not joining in on the argument there.

Religion helps make people safer . It help you to become a better person. Religion is mainly about beliefs and how to become a better person . . . the problem is . . did anyone prove that gods existed ? etc ..
Science helps people to be safe. Science tell us what to aware of. Without science, we wouldn't know where we are, what is safe? .. such as planets or universe ..... etc ..

If both have the intention to make us safe then why argue over it? I have a religious grandmother who just can't stop her obsession over it.
I think that if God has a plan or has the power to make us safe then he will fix the major problems thats wrong with the earth now. We are obviously in danger and it can help.
But seeing how thats not going to happen its up to science to tell us what we are doing wrong, and what we need to do to fix it.
I lean more towards science because without it we wouldn't have the things we have now. yes granted it has its downs but we aren't oblivious to the world's wonders.

[fameONE]

Over the past couple years, I've drifted away from religion. I don't knock anyone who is devout to their faith of choice as long as they can be good person. Then again, who am I to judge? Being here, in a place where religion is the cause of senseless killings has brought me to my own personal belief that 'God' doesn't exist. I suppose you could say that the straw broke the camel's back (no pun intended).

[x3missy]

"The religion is responsible for its followers: therefore can be held accountable for these actions."

Religion has become a key aspect that shapes peoples' morality (For example: If you _____, _____ will result as a punishment/reward.)
We have become so dependent on religion for answers that we no longer trust our instincts to influence our judgment. Instead of a strong sense of morals created solely by instinct, religion now plays a key role. This however, varies depending on how the religion is interpreted by its follower(s). When you have people who base their morals/values/ethics entirely on a religion, there will be extremists. (Saddam Hussein, inflicted terror to unbelievers who contended against Allah and His Messenger. His actions are done “in the name of Allah”. You also have the pro-life Christian group with a history of bombing clinics (killing many, especially doctors) but, “view of themselves as heroic rescuers aligned against Godless fornicators.”)

Ex: A teenager gets pregnant after being raped by one of her family members and wants an abortion.

According to pro-life and other anti-abortion groups, abortion should not be allowed unless the mother’s life is in danger. In this situation, would you rather be religiously correct and force the teen to keep the baby against her every will? Or because of the trauma she went through, and the major lifestyle shift that results in a teen pregnancy, should she be allowed to abort the baby? Morally speaking, it would be wrong to force any women no matter what, to have a baby against her will.

I think i just turned my argument into an irrelevant one.
Mmm, later I will some how tie this all into science vs religion.

[Blaqheartedstar]

^ women should have the choice. Tired of all these religious people thinking that they rule the world and "know" what god wants.
Same with Gay marriage. Tired of signs saying that god hates gays... how do they know that? did got whisper that into their ears?
back on topic. I believe that if science and religion can co exist together, religious people needs to real up to the world and its problems and not be a blatant fool thinking that god can save us when it is ALL us that has put us in this mess in the first place.

totally focusing on the main religions here in the states... mainly Christians... all other religions are totally cool and all and i hardly ever hear anything on them.

[SammyTheHeadbutt]

I agree that when some religious people prechng about gay marriage and abortion and even getting their kids involved is highly odd, and to be completely honest i don't think its any of their business.
But saying all Christians are like that would be a very wrong assumption as it is actually only a small number. I'm a christian by choice not because i was brought up to be like that, and i attend church and no christian i have ever met is like that. Although im not sure what its like in America, all the tv shows show the extremist christians it seems.

But anyway on the topic of science Vs. religion, i don't think you can clearly have a winner, and there will always be followers of both, and why bother putting down something you do not personally believe? It wont stop anyone else believing it.
humans will neve be able to prove one side better than the other, because while we may never be able to prove if there is a god, or many gods we cannot really prove that there aren't.

[Reidar]

humans will neve be able to prove one side better than the other, because while we may never be able to prove if there is a god, or many gods we cannot really prove that there aren't.

You don't need to prove or disprove the concept of a god in an absolute regard to explain how one system is more useful, applicable, and realistic than the other.

[mipadi]

When you have people who base their morals/values/ethics entirely on a religion, there will be extremists. (Saddam Hussein, inflicted terror to unbelievers who contended against Allah and His Messenger. His actions are done “in the name of Allah”.

Actually, under Hussein, the government of Iraq was largely secular, and Hussein was anything but a devoted Muslim. I don't believe he invoked the name of Allah to justify any of his actions, unless he was perhaps pandering to religious conservatives.