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

[firechild]

My Religion Post

Just read it, its funny actually

[dannyordinary]

I think that Science is more important than religion.
To me, religion is lazy. It doesn't question what's around us. Sure, it questions character and value, but that's not everything. In order to advance in this world, and this universe, science is more important.

I really haven't heard of Christianity curing a disease. But science has.

[Stuckie]

I really haven't heard of Christianity curing a disease. But science has.

You must not heard of Jesus then. You know, the son of God. The man that cured lepers. I dont think science ever found an effective cure for leprosy. He also fed thousands people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fish. Even with all our scientific advancements, after 3 years, we seem to have a problem feeding and providing shelter for Katrina victims. And finally, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. But he wasnt done there. He rose from the dead three days after his own death. I dont think science can top that one.

[brooklyneast05]

You must not heard of Jesus then. You know, the son of God. The man that cured lepers. I dont think science ever found an effective cure for leprosy. He also fed thousands people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fish. Even with all our scientific advancements, after 3 years, we seem to have a problem feeding and providing shelter for Katrina victims. And finally, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. But he wasnt done there. He rose from the dead three days after his own death. I dont think science can top that one.

yeah it can top it, because science can actually provide evidence of what it has and hasn't done. that stuff you just named is useless unless you accept the story as true to begin with. i don't think you have any hard evidence of a leper being cured, other than a story thats really old.


old stories aren't necessarily facts.

[Stuckie]

You're right an old story told by one source isn't reliable. But an old story told by hundreds of people is. The recordings read in the Bible were written by Jesus's disciples, but there are other recordings from ordinary citizens that witnessed Jesus's miracles. Just because its old doesnt mean it isnt true.

[brooklyneast05]

what ordinary citizens? i've never heard of there being any non christian mention of jesus except for writings from historians like Josephus which have been identified as not really his writing but later add ins by someone else trying to make up proof for jesus.

i think like every non christian writing of him i've ever heard of has been disproved.

i mean many people make a believable case that jesus didn't exist as a historical figure at all. i'm not saying i necessarily side with that, but i don't believe there are any non christian mentions of him that aren't under serious fraud question.

there are pieces that refer to generic "christ" terms which meant messiah but not necessarily jesus christ.



it does become really strange that roman history fiends didn't record accounts of him when it was all going on .

[Stuckie]

what ordinary citizens? i've never heard of there being any non christian mention of jesus except for writings from historians like Josephus which have been identified as not really his writing but later add ins by someone else trying to make up proof for jesus.

i think like every non christian writing of him i've ever heard of has been disproved.

i mean many people make a believable case that jesus didn't exist as a historical figure at all. i'm not saying i necessarily side with that, but i don't believe there are any non christian mentions of him that aren't under serious fraud question.

there are pieces that refer to generic "christ" terms which meant messiah but not necessarily jesus christ.
it does become really strange that roman history fiends didn't record accounts of him when it was all going on .

What do you mean no records in roman history? Where do you think the book of Romans came from? No, Im serious. Its not a rhetorical question. I can give you recordings from an ordinary, non christian, Roman citizen.

[dannyordinary]

What do you mean no records in roman history? Where do you think the book of Romans came from? No, Im serious. Its not a rhetorical question. I can give you recordings from an ordinary, non christian, Roman citizen.

Also, for all we know, Jesus could've been the leader a cult that eventually became a religion. You say that he's cured all these diseases, and that he's real because millions of people have told his story. So is Snow White real, because that story has been read and told countless number of times.

I side with science because there is proof. To me, there is no proof of Jesus. Jim Jones is a better cult leader than Jesus, because I've actually seen proof that he was real. Sure, he hasn't had as much impact as Jesus, but I have proof he was there.

And also, the Bible . We don't even know who wrote it . Again, sounds very cult like to me . Science can probably prove that this is fake, but because of special interest and the fear of anarchy, and the fact that man needs to cling to spiritual things, have prevented this.

[brooklyneast05]

What do you mean no records in roman history? Where do you think the book of Romans came from? No, Im serious. Its not a rhetorical question. I can give you recordings from an ordinary, non christian, Roman citizen.

are you trying to tell me that you think the book of romans was written by roman citizens?

[Stuckie]

Also, for all we know, Jesus could've been the leader a cult that eventually became a religion. You say that he's cured all these diseases, and that he's real because millions of people have told his story. So is Snow White real, because that story has been read and told countless number of times.

The tale of Snow White was told by and written by one man. There are no other recordings or witnesses of Snow White, so you only have one man's word. The story of Jesus Christ was written and told by several men. But for kicks, we'll say one man wrote the story. You have other forms of documentation other than the Bible that witnessed Jesus and his miracles. So the reason why the tale of Snow White will always remain a tale is because no one was around when she ate that apple.

[dannyordinary]

The tale of Snow White was told by and written by one man. There are no other recordings or witnesses of Snow White, so you only have one man's word. The story of Jesus Christ was written and told by several men. But for kicks, we'll say one man wrote the story. You have other forms of documentation other than the Bible that witnessed Jesus and his miracles. So the reason why the tale of Snow White will always remain a tale is because no one was around when she ate that apple.

Still sounds like a cult. Just because a lot of people know about him and his "miracles" doesn't make him real. The fact that people where there to see his miracles .. they could've been lying, to aid him because they thought he was their messiah.

I admit, the reference to Snow White was dumb, but the fact still remains. It's all a story. He didn't cure things with magic. And there is no proof that he did. Science is truth.

[Stuckie]

are you trying to tell me that you think the book of romans was written by roman citizens?

Im saying the book of Romans was written by Saint Paul. A roman citizen. Before, he was known as Saul of Tarsus. He used to persecute jews and people who followed Jesus as blasphemers.

[brooklyneast05]

i don't understand why you think that is a source that is believable??? you acted like you had tons of accounts from ordinary non involved non christian roman citizens and then you cite paul as an example of that.

i mean paul didn't know personally or see jesus you know? he doesn't claim to see jesus on earth at all i don't think. so once again we're going with i guess hearsay as proof. we aren't talking about eye witness evidence, of course. not a first hand acount...

i don't even really know what to say to it though because i can't comprehend why you're citing paul as a non christian source. we've just gone back around in a circle where you're citing stuff in the bible as evidence of the bible.

[NoSex]

You have other forms of documentation other than the Bible that witnessed Jesus and his miracles.

bullshit A S S HOLE!; name one f**king scholastically undisputed documentation of jesus christ within the first century. you can't do it, moron.

p.s. don't even think you're going to get away with antiquities.

[fameONE]

p.s. don't even think you're going to get away with antiquities.

You're right. Antiquities further prove the belief, not the existence of, religious figures.

[Stuckie]

bullshit A S S HOLE!; name one f**king scholastically undisputed documentation of jesus christ within the first century. you can't do it, moron.

p.s. don't even think you're going to get away with antiquities.

You're saying I cant find undisputed documentation? Ok. I cant. But can you find me undisputed evidence of, lets say, global warming. If you can do that, I'll admit that science is more importan than religion. And if I find undisputed documentation about God or Jesus, would you admit religion is more important than science?

[NoSex]

You're saying I cant find undisputed documentation? Ok. I cant. But can you find me undisputed evidence of, lets say, global warming. If you can do that, I'll admit that science is more importan than religion. And if I find undisputed documentation about God or Jesus, would you admit religion is more important than science?

you're a f**king idiot. global warming is scientifically UNDISPUTED. the only real discussion concerning the warming of the earth is to what degree temperatures are rising and by what exact causes.

in the scholastic and history sciences there is not a single document, not even biblical, which supports a historical jesus beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt. the case just can't be made scientifically.

[sixfive]

you're a f**king idiot. global warming is scientifically UNDISPUTED. the only real discussion concerning the warming of the earth is to what degree temperatures are rising and by what exact causes.

Can't forget the overwhelming amount of scientists saying that global warming is not man-made. There's them, versus the media/government. Given their background, and my personal bias, I am going to have to go and agree with the scientists.

[mipadi]

Can't forget the overwhelming amount of scientists saying that global warming is not man-made.

Overwhelming? I'd like to see a cite for that claim.

[sixfive]

How many scientists was it that supported the global warming legislation congress wanted to pass? About 600 or so. I couldn't tell you exactly how many (I'll look if you want me to), but a large percentage of them have turned around saying, in a nutshell, that global warming isn't as it was made out to be / congress made it out to be.

Also, http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462

Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily reported that 31,000 U.S. scientists - 9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting global warming.

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

That 31,000 compared to the previous 600, most of which changed their mind, seems pretty overwhelming to me. 15 times as many as participated with congress have doctoral degrees.

[mipadi]

I suggest you verify the seriousness of your sources before quoting them. The Petition Project is highly biased, deceptive, and bases its "facts" on flawed data. You can read more about it here and here.

In a nutshell, the organization behind the Petition Project used a deceptive, unpublished journal article to trick some people into signing their petition. The journal article in question was from a publication known for its political and religious biases.

[sixfive]

I'm sorry, I just looked for a quick citation. To be honest, if I wanted the more accurate information, I'd have to ask my dad, and I don't know if he's awake nor do I feel like bothering him at the moment.

Regardless of whether or not the organization behind the publication is deceptive, the amount of people signing it are real, and their opinions are as well.

Also, are you suggesting that congress didn't fabricate any of it's information, use unsupported facts, or present any bullshit of it's own? I've, from the start, been of the opinion that global warming is not man-made. I've taken oceanography, geology, climatology classes where professors only reinforced my opinions. I've watched as time goes by people going from the scare tactic thought of the earth being destroyed by humans to the natural cycle train of thought.

Shit I went afk for a while and forgot to finish this post. In short, too much work to find suitable evidence for you, but I promise you I can find it later.

[mipadi]

Regardless of whether or not the organization behind the publication is deceptive, the amount of people signing it are real, and their opinions are as well.

Opinions aren't valid when they're based on deception and misinformation. At any rate, only 3697 of the signatures are by "scientists" in atmosphere, Earth, and environmental studies, and an even smaller percentage are from PhD's in those areas. So it's reasonable to be very skeptical of that data.

[sixfive]

I'd trust the opinion of someone who went through school and learned about that, even if it's not their primary focal point, over someone who has a degree in pencil pushing.

[mipadi]

I'd trust the opinion of someone who went through school and learned about that, even if it's not their primary focal point, over someone who has a degree in pencil pushing.

Fallacy of false dilemma. The option isn't between some atmospheric scientists' opinions and that of "pencil pushers".