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

[codyfrijole2006]

rofl like hell you are, you're such a predictable tool using the whole "internet gangster" label. you're probably one of those 4 chan f*gs who thinks theyre cool for using internet slang/lingo/accusations. well i've got news for you. your'e not.

I have never heard of 4 chan but you seem to know about it, care to enlighten me?

[saintsaens]

Ohhh internet gangsters are so scary!
Great question! you are correct for once though, I shouldn't be wasting my time on a feeble minded individual like yourself so I am done here.

Still here, bro.

[codyfrijole2006]

Still here, bro.

I am done with YOU sir, get with it.

[saintsaens]

Ohhh internet gangsters are so scary!
Great question! you are correct for once though, I shouldn't be wasting my time on a feeble minded individual like yourself so I am done here.

[codyfrijole2006]

Meaning the conversation between me and you, I should have been more specific I know.

[sixfive]

its okay he's pretending not to know what 4chan is

[Tung]

Can everyone stop with the personal attacks and bashing, and stick to the topic at hand. Without the extra remarks.

[codyfrijole2006]

its okay he's pretending not to know what 4chan is

I seriously have never heard about it before, you seem to know a great deal about it with you bringing it up and all that's why I was asking what you were talking about.

[Herizon Action]

What happened to the main debate?

[NoSex]

What happened to the main debate?

it went to hell for being a very very bad person (i.e. not believing what everyone else believes).

i'm not entirely sure what this thread is for, because... for any educated or marginally intelligent & capable individual, science is a clear win. where science can produce predictable, repeatable, & useful results, religion can do none of these, unless of course you decide that your prediction (let's call it a "prophecy") is that prayer doesn't work & spiritual experience is the neurological equivalent to an epileptic seizure in your limbic system. let's see, with science, we can send a man to the moon, cure polio, tear apart an atom, and make moving pictures... with religion... we can... uhmm? any help?

in either case, science is an explanatory power. the results of science can be clearly & detailedly explained in the pursuit of spreading awareness & legitimate understanding; it is not terribly obscure. religion, on the other hand, is exceedingly metaphysical & linguistically meaningless. it proposes things which not only could not be empirically demonstrated, but also fail any sort of logical or linguistic coherence. the idea of a "god" that "exists" as an "omnipotent, omniscient, omni-present, all-merciful, all-just, and bot the 'begging & the end'" is so obscure & abstract that it might as well be rendered entirely meaningless. even further, the same god creating vomit, cancer, aids, poop, and rainbows is just laughable. further, through the power of the sciences (both social & natural) we have been able to begin to explain an enormous array of things, from human behavior, the history of civilization, and the expanse of the universe... and all things point to a secular universe. all evidence that is available to man goes against a spiritual model & towards a nihilistic, accidental universe.

SCIENCE IS POWER & RELIGION IS ADMITTED & CELEBRATED IGNORANCE.

but, best of all... science doesn't propose anything sweeping & metaphysical concerning the "fundamental fabric" of the cosmos... so, the burden of proof sits on the lap of religion... despite that, world-religions have still seemed to prefer the brainwashing & intellectual rape of CHILDREN above all other forms of discourse & conversion. GET EM' WHEN THEY'RE YOUNG, huh? whatever.

if you have something to PROVE, prove it... that's what science is about. then we can argue it... otherwise, grow the f*ck up.

[Tung]

Oh shit. Nate just owned everyone. I want to see Podo's response to that.

[*KINGdinguhling*]

science is limited

[codyfrijole2006]

it went to hell for being a very very bad person (i.e. not believing what everyone else believes).

i'm not entirely sure what this thread is for, because... for any educated or marginally intelligent & capable individual, science is a clear win. where science can produce predictable, repeatable, & useful results, religion can do none of these, unless of course you decide that your prediction (let's call it a "prophecy") is that prayer doesn't work & spiritual experience is the neurological equivalent to an epileptic seizure in your limbic system. let's see, with science, we can send a man to the moon, cure polio, tear apart an atom, and make moving pictures... with religion... we can... uhmm? any help?

in either case, science is an explanatory power. the results of science can be clearly & detailedly explained in the pursuit of spreading awareness & legitimate understanding; it is not terribly obscure. religion, on the other hand, is exceedingly metaphysical & linguistically meaningless. it proposes things which not only could not be empirically demonstrated, but also fail any sort of logical or linguistic coherence. the idea of a "god" that "exists" as an "omnipotent, omniscient, omni-present, all-merciful, all-just, and bot the 'begging & the end'" is so obscure & abstract that it might as well be rendered entirely meaningless. even further, the same god creating vomit, cancer, aids, poop, and rainbows is just laughable. further, through the power of the sciences (both social & natural) we have been able to begin to explain an enormous array of things, from human behavior, the history of civilization, and the expanse of the universe... and all things point to a secular universe. all evidence that is available to man goes against a spiritual model & towards a nihilistic, accidental universe.

SCIENCE IS POWER & RELIGION IS ADMITTED & CELEBRATED IGNORANCE.

but, best of all... science doesn't propose anything sweeping & metaphysical concerning the "fundamental fabric" of the cosmos... so, the burden of proof sits on the lap of religion... despite that, world-religions have still seemed to prefer the brainwashing & intellectual rape of CHILDREN above all other forms of discourse & conversion. GET EM' WHEN THEY'RE YOUNG, huh? whatever.

if you have something to PROVE, prove it... that's what science is about. then we can argue it... otherwise, grow the f*ck up.

*bows down*

[fameONE]

*bows down*

Get off his dick, fanboy.

Nate's rebuttals to intelligent conversation stems gained knowledge due to research and a reasonable analysis of whatever topic it is. He comes to his conclusions, forms his beliefs, then presents them in a logical manner. That's what makes him a good debater. That's what makes any debater on this forum a good debater. A debate should be less an argument of, "I'm right, you're wrong," and a presentation of gathered information.

You, on the other hand, have proved that you're nothing more than a confused kid with beliefs that you cannot support in any other way aside from mindlessly bashing anyone's point of view that is different from your own. On second thought, you should continue to bow down and worship Nate because you're ignorance is apparent. You're no better than someone who believes in a higher power because you've proven your inability to produce answers.

[fameONE]

*bows down*

Get off his dick, fanboy.

Nate's rebuttals to intelligent conversation stems from gained knowledge, due to research and a reasonable analysis of whatever topic it is. He comes to his conclusions, forms his beliefs, then presents them in a logical manner. That's what makes him a good debater. That's what makes any debater on this forum a good debater. A debate should be less an argument of, "I'm right, you're wrong," and a presentation of gathered information.

You, on the other hand, have proven that you're nothing more than a confused kid with beliefs that you cannot support in any other way aside from mindlessly bashing anyone's point of view that is different from your own. On second thought, you should continue to bow down and worship Nate because you're ignorance is apparent. You're no better than someone who believes in a higher power because you've proven your inability to produce answers.

[codyfrijole2006]

Get off his dick, fanboy.

Would you rather me hop on yours? All you have to do is ask.

[saintsaens]

Would you rather me hop on yours? All you have to do is ask.

Why'd you change your response from "u mad?" to that?

[Tsukuyomi-No-Mok...]

Get off his dick, fanboy.

Nate's rebuttals to intelligent conversation stems from gained knowledge, due to research and a reasonable analysis of whatever topic it is. He comes to his conclusions, forms his beliefs, then presents them in a logical manner. That's what makes him a good debater. That's what makes any debater on this forum a good debater. A debate should be less an argument of, "I'm right, you're wrong," and a presentation of gathered information.

You, on the other hand, have proven that you're nothing more than a confused kid with beliefs that you cannot support in any other way aside from mindlessly bashing anyone's point of view that is different from your own. On second thought, you should continue to bow down and worship Nate because you're ignorance is apparent. You're no better than someone who believes in a higher power because you've proven your inability to produce answers.

well spoken

[saintsaens]

it went to hell for being a very very bad person (i.e. not believing what everyone else believes).

i'm not entirely sure what this thread is for, because... for any educated or marginally intelligent & capable individual, science is a clear win. where science can produce predictable, repeatable, & useful results, religion can do none of these, unless of course you decide that your prediction (let's call it a "prophecy") is that prayer doesn't work & spiritual experience is the neurological equivalent to an epileptic seizure in your limbic system. let's see, with science, we can send a man to the moon, cure polio, tear apart an atom, and make moving pictures... with religion... we can... uhmm? any help?

in either case, science is an explanatory power. the results of science can be clearly & detailedly explained in the pursuit of spreading awareness & legitimate understanding; it is not terribly obscure. religion, on the other hand, is exceedingly metaphysical & linguistically meaningless. it proposes things which not only could not be empirically demonstrated, but also fail any sort of logical or linguistic coherence. the idea of a "god" that "exists" as an "omnipotent, omniscient, omni-present, all-merciful, all-just, and bot the 'begging & the end'" is so obscure & abstract that it might as well be rendered entirely meaningless. even further, the same god creating vomit, cancer, aids, poop, and rainbows is just laughable. further, through the power of the sciences (both social & natural) we have been able to begin to explain an enormous array of things, from human behavior, the history of civilization, and the expanse of the universe... and all things point to a secular universe. all evidence that is available to man goes against a spiritual model & towards a nihilistic, accidental universe.

SCIENCE IS POWER & RELIGION IS ADMITTED & CELEBRATED IGNORANCE.

but, best of all... science doesn't propose anything sweeping & metaphysical concerning the "fundamental fabric" of the cosmos... so, the burden of proof sits on the lap of religion... despite that, world-religions have still seemed to prefer the brainwashing & intellectual rape of CHILDREN above all other forms of discourse & conversion. GET EM' WHEN THEY'RE YOUNG, huh? whatever.

if you have something to PROVE, prove it... that's what science is about. then we can argue it... otherwise, grow the f*ck up.

Nate, to a certain extent, I agree. I believe science should be able to "produce predictable, repeatable, & useful results."

However, while you may argue that science is power and religion is "ignorance," I will say that religion can teach what science cannot; morals, values, ethics, and preservation of "self". I believe science and religion should go hand in hand. And believe if they were to go through hand in hand, we could have many years of scientific prosperity. (i.e Enlightenment Period)

Many will argue that Christians prohibit and stunt the growth of science, however, I don't believe the ones who are holding picket signs are the ones who are really representing the Kingdom of God.

[Reidar]

They cannot go hand-in-hand because they overlap. Religion doesn't merely pick up where science leaves off. It attempts to explain some of the very same things. Only one can be right.

Science often contradicts itself as well, but that's because it as a concept is amenable to self-correction.

[*KINGdinguhling*]

so its the egotistical self centered know it all, or the over sensitive geek with a chip on its shoulder

[Comptine]

Nate, to a certain extent, I agree. I believe science should be able to "produce predictable, repeatable, & useful results."

However, while you may argue that science is power and religion is "ignorance," I will say that religion can teach what science cannot; morals, values, ethics, and preservation of "self". I believe science and religion should go hand in hand. And believe if they were to go through hand in hand, we could have many years of scientific prosperity. (i.e Enlightenment Period)

Many will argue that Christians prohibit and stunt the growth of science, however, I don't believe the ones who are holding picket signs are the ones who are really representing the Kingdom of God.

That's not true. Science itself can teach morals if religion does not exist. Science has proven that when you physically injure a creature, human or animal, it will feel pain and distress. That proof alone will correlate to injuring someone is wrong.

Science has shown that sleeping around with lots of different people will transmit diseases and lead to death. That can be morals stemming from the avoidance of consequences to bad actions. Therefore, you get the moral that thou shall not be a slut without religion.

The fact that all these basic morals (don't kills someone, don't steal etc) are found through out most the religions shows that these aren't instilled by some magical being. Instead, these are all basic human notions that different cultures have enforced through a higher power.

Religion couldn't function without science but science can very well go on without religion.

[*KINGdinguhling*]

That's not true. Science itself can teach morals if religion does not exist. Science has proven that when you physically injure a creature, human or animal, it will feel pain and distress. That proof alone will correlate to injuring someone is wrong.

you jumped a point, hurting someone isn't wrong, but your parents taught you it was wrong, not science

[Comptine]

you jumped a point, hurting someone isn't wrong, but your parents taught you it was wrong, not science

Well, it's a little hard to argue it when I already know it's wrong. However, science have done studies about brain waves and neurotransmitters during an injury or pain. If the studies show that stabbing someone causew the subject severe distress and abnormal brain behavior, they would classify that as harmful for the subject and therefore, should not be invoked.

Unless, that would be a society that didn't really care. If that were the case, religion and science wouldn't do anything.

[*KINGdinguhling*]

Well, it's a little hard to argue it when I already know it's wrong. However, science have done studies about brain waves and neurotransmitters during an injury or pain. If the studies show that stabbing someone causew the subject severe distress and abnormal brain behavior, they would classify that as harmful for the subject and therefore, should not be invoked.

Unless, that would be a society that didn't really care. If that were the case, religion and science wouldn't do anything.

Well, theres always two sides to a story. So whether you believe causing pain to others is right or wrong, depends on you, but science does not determine which you pick. Im all for science, but its main foundation is based off a limit, which means eventually we will hit a point where science won't help