Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Signup for Free!
-More Features-
-Far Less Ads-
About   Users   Help
Users & Guests Online
On Page: 1
Directory: 114
Entire Site: 5 & 945
Page Staff: pennylessz, pokemon x, Barathemos, tgags123, alexanyways, RavusRat,
03-29-24 08:24 AM

Thread Information

Views
5,799
Replies
66
Rating
10
Status
CLOSED
Thread
Creator
Sidewinder
10-20-13 02:41 PM
Last
Post
Cradily is love
07-25-14 07:21 PM
Additional Thread Details
Views: 2,277
Today: 0
Users: 2 unique
Last User View
04-03-17
Kevric

Thread Actions

Thread Closed
New Thread
New Poll
Order
Posts


<<
4 Pages
>>
 

Is science compatible with religion (at all)?

 

04-04-14 11:32 AM
Zlinqx is Offline
| ID: 1001269 | 59 Words

Zlinqx
Zlinqx
Level: 121


POSTS: 252/4673
POST EXP: 657361
LVL EXP: 19958038
CP: 52722.7
VIZ: 617684

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Txgangsta : Faith as I define it and a lot of people seem to define is belief in something without having proof of it though in some circumstances it can also mean other things. So I don't think I've miss understood the word. Faith is both defined as having a strong belief in something or having belief in something without evidence.

Txgangsta : Faith as I define it and a lot of people seem to define is belief in something without having proof of it though in some circumstances it can also mean other things. So I don't think I've miss understood the word. Faith is both defined as having a strong belief in something or having belief in something without evidence.

Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-21-13
Last Post: 137 days
Last Active: 2 days

04-04-14 12:26 PM
Changedatrequest is Offline
| ID: 1001304 | 128 Words


Txgangsta
Level: 57


POSTS: 186/789
POST EXP: 104913
LVL EXP: 1409154
CP: 2185.3
VIZ: 149875

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Zlinqx :

I don't have evidence you're not a very well-programmed robot. Regardless of that lack of evidence, I don't believe you are a robot. Is my faith that you are not a robot irrational? No.

And "faith in God's existence" is actually not the Christian faith. The book of James talks about how the demons know for a fact God exists but they do not believe in God. I think there is plenty of proof for the existence of a God. But, knowledge of God is not faith. Faith is trust, and trust is necessary in science. If I don't trust that water and potassium react, I have to go test it myself and waste time. Instead, I could just have faith in the scientific community before me.
Zlinqx :

I don't have evidence you're not a very well-programmed robot. Regardless of that lack of evidence, I don't believe you are a robot. Is my faith that you are not a robot irrational? No.

And "faith in God's existence" is actually not the Christian faith. The book of James talks about how the demons know for a fact God exists but they do not believe in God. I think there is plenty of proof for the existence of a God. But, knowledge of God is not faith. Faith is trust, and trust is necessary in science. If I don't trust that water and potassium react, I have to go test it myself and waste time. Instead, I could just have faith in the scientific community before me.
Banned

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-04-13
Last Post: 2595 days
Last Active: 2592 days

04-04-14 12:36 PM
Zlinqx is Offline
| ID: 1001312 | 126 Words

Zlinqx
Zlinqx
Level: 121


POSTS: 263/4673
POST EXP: 657361
LVL EXP: 19958038
CP: 52722.7
VIZ: 617684

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Txgangsta : Yeah but like I said it can also mean belief in something with a lack of evidence.

If you don't believe me here are some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

Also there's the question does this so called evidence of god really hold up when put to test?

Well yeah pretty much everything requires a certain amount of faith. Eating dinner requires a certain amount of faith that the dinner is not poisoned and you're going to die from eating it.

But out of the evidence given science seems to have the most plausible explanations.

That doesn't mean you can't believe in god for example if you want to because science could still be wrong there's a lot of thing we don't know about for sure yet.
Txgangsta : Yeah but like I said it can also mean belief in something with a lack of evidence.

If you don't believe me here are some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

Also there's the question does this so called evidence of god really hold up when put to test?

Well yeah pretty much everything requires a certain amount of faith. Eating dinner requires a certain amount of faith that the dinner is not poisoned and you're going to die from eating it.

But out of the evidence given science seems to have the most plausible explanations.

That doesn't mean you can't believe in god for example if you want to because science could still be wrong there's a lot of thing we don't know about for sure yet.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-21-13
Last Post: 137 days
Last Active: 2 days

04-04-14 06:10 PM
Changedatrequest is Offline
| ID: 1001534 | 111 Words


Txgangsta
Level: 57


POSTS: 187/789
POST EXP: 104913
LVL EXP: 1409154
CP: 2185.3
VIZ: 149875

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 0
Zlinqx :

Yes, faith can mean "belief in something with a lack of evidence". That's exactly what I said it was. I don't have faith that God exists, I have faith that God, who I know exists, will do what he said he will do. I don't have evidence because it hasn't happened yet. It's like the hypothesis before the actually observation. The scientist has faith, belief in something with a lack of evidence, that the experiment will turn out in a certain way. After the observation, the scientist knows for certain and now has belief with evidence.

Faith isn't irrational. Belief isn't irrational. There is no war between science and religion.
Zlinqx :

Yes, faith can mean "belief in something with a lack of evidence". That's exactly what I said it was. I don't have faith that God exists, I have faith that God, who I know exists, will do what he said he will do. I don't have evidence because it hasn't happened yet. It's like the hypothesis before the actually observation. The scientist has faith, belief in something with a lack of evidence, that the experiment will turn out in a certain way. After the observation, the scientist knows for certain and now has belief with evidence.

Faith isn't irrational. Belief isn't irrational. There is no war between science and religion.
Banned

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-04-13
Last Post: 2595 days
Last Active: 2592 days

Post Rating: 1   Liked By: Sword Legion,

04-19-14 11:56 PM
Neo Arcadia is Offline
| ID: 1010354 | 144 Words

Neo Arcadia
Level: 24


POSTS: 12/112
POST EXP: 20797
LVL EXP: 71450
CP: 1278.8
VIZ: -54506

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 0
Scientist believe the "Big Bang" theory created the universe and the" Theory of Evolution" because it can be proven and there are skeletal remains to back  the theory of Evolution and there is evidence of the "Big Bang". Where there is no real proof of God besides what you read in a book (which was written thousands of years ago) and the tales/stories  within the book defy the laws of physics and reason (as well as reality) and it's a book, who's to say it wasn't just a work of the imagination after all anyone can think up 99.9% of everything in the book(bible).

So I feel science isn't compatible with religion because science is backed up with facts and can be proven true using reasoning and evidence , where religion can't be proven to be true and quite frankly is illogical to me.  
Scientist believe the "Big Bang" theory created the universe and the" Theory of Evolution" because it can be proven and there are skeletal remains to back  the theory of Evolution and there is evidence of the "Big Bang". Where there is no real proof of God besides what you read in a book (which was written thousands of years ago) and the tales/stories  within the book defy the laws of physics and reason (as well as reality) and it's a book, who's to say it wasn't just a work of the imagination after all anyone can think up 99.9% of everything in the book(bible).

So I feel science isn't compatible with religion because science is backed up with facts and can be proven true using reasoning and evidence , where religion can't be proven to be true and quite frankly is illogical to me.  
Perma Banned


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-17-14
Location:
Last Post: 3602 days
Last Active: 3602 days

Post Rating: 1   Liked By: Zurenriri,

04-20-14 12:27 AM
wolves102938 is Offline
| ID: 1010369 | 49 Words

wolves102938
Level: 5

POSTS: 1/3
POST EXP: 198
LVL EXP: 362
CP: 28.0
VIZ: 2203

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I like to think about the possible connections between religious belief and what science says happened.  Pertaining to the Big Bang in particular it would have been nearly impossible without some kind of helping force.  The chance of the Big Bang happening spontaneously without a "push" is essentially zero.
I like to think about the possible connections between religious belief and what science says happened.  Pertaining to the Big Bang in particular it would have been nearly impossible without some kind of helping force.  The chance of the Big Bang happening spontaneously without a "push" is essentially zero.
Newbie

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 11-19-10
Last Post: 3630 days
Last Active: 3472 days

04-23-14 01:24 AM
m0ssb3rg935 is Offline
| ID: 1011743 | 108 Words

m0ssb3rg935
m0ssb3rg935
Level: 109


POSTS: 43/3607
POST EXP: 283159
LVL EXP: 13765076
CP: 22117.6
VIZ: 925574

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
i personally dont think that they are naturally opposing, but that science backs and does not disprove religion. on the evolution note, maybe people did not evolve from apes, maybe the human race had a split evolution? there was a recent news story about someone digging up a mass grave behind a catholic church in england sealed with clay, they did some research and found that the teeth from these skulls still had black plague bacteria in them. these skulls are very peculiar because they resemble apes more than humans. so is it at all possible that the Neanderthals evolved into apes and not the other way around?
i personally dont think that they are naturally opposing, but that science backs and does not disprove religion. on the evolution note, maybe people did not evolve from apes, maybe the human race had a split evolution? there was a recent news story about someone digging up a mass grave behind a catholic church in england sealed with clay, they did some research and found that the teeth from these skulls still had black plague bacteria in them. these skulls are very peculiar because they resemble apes more than humans. so is it at all possible that the Neanderthals evolved into apes and not the other way around?
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Token Clueless Guy to Make Others Look Smarter


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-09-13
Location: Tennessee
Last Post: 819 days
Last Active: 486 days

04-23-14 01:22 PM
Changedatrequest is Offline
| ID: 1011885 | 118 Words


Txgangsta
Level: 57


POSTS: 216/789
POST EXP: 104913
LVL EXP: 1409154
CP: 2185.3
VIZ: 149875

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 0
Neo Arcadia :

Lets say I deny the existence of the ancient nation of Persia. How can you refute me? History, archaeology, outside texts, etc. Lets say someone say some claims my religion makes are false. How can I refute them? History, archaeology, outside texts, etc. Religion doesn't just contain history though (otherwise it wouldn't be anything special), it makes claims on fundamental aspects of human life, such as existence of a soul, a loving God, morality, or whatever. These, too, are not necessarily irrational, but they require a different sciences to support them - metaphysics and ethics.

Religion and science are never opposed. If we're looking for truth, we will find religion and science go hand in hand.
Neo Arcadia :

Lets say I deny the existence of the ancient nation of Persia. How can you refute me? History, archaeology, outside texts, etc. Lets say someone say some claims my religion makes are false. How can I refute them? History, archaeology, outside texts, etc. Religion doesn't just contain history though (otherwise it wouldn't be anything special), it makes claims on fundamental aspects of human life, such as existence of a soul, a loving God, morality, or whatever. These, too, are not necessarily irrational, but they require a different sciences to support them - metaphysics and ethics.

Religion and science are never opposed. If we're looking for truth, we will find religion and science go hand in hand.
Banned

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-04-13
Last Post: 2595 days
Last Active: 2592 days

Post Rating: 1   Liked By: m0ssb3rg935,

04-23-14 01:45 PM
Neo Arcadia is Offline
| ID: 1011899 | 231 Words

Neo Arcadia
Level: 24


POSTS: 47/112
POST EXP: 20797
LVL EXP: 71450
CP: 1278.8
VIZ: -54506

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Txgangsta : Well I don't quite understand what your asking me, I'm confused. But I'll give it the old collage try with this rebuttal. Ethics aren't a science they are basically to my understanding moral principles which can change depending on the individual and what that individual's opinion is on a certain matter. Since ethics is just a(n) opinion and not fact in sense it can't be true.

As for "Religion and Science never being opposed,If we're looking for truth, we will find religion and science go hand in hand" then how come the theory of evolution isn't taught in classrooms if Science and religion go hand in hand when looking for truth?

My bottom line and opinion is Religion and Science will never be compatible because Religion is based off of beliefs and not proven facts, were science starts off as a belief and then can be proven by solid facts and evidence. With Religion there is no proof anything within the Bible or any other sacred text actually happened nor has anything within the Bible or an other sacred text  been factually proven to be accurate information. All religion is is ethics and belief's(opinions) with no facts or evidence to back up anything that said religions says, were science can be proven with facts and evidence for this reason, this is why Science and religion can't be compatible at all. 
Txgangsta : Well I don't quite understand what your asking me, I'm confused. But I'll give it the old collage try with this rebuttal. Ethics aren't a science they are basically to my understanding moral principles which can change depending on the individual and what that individual's opinion is on a certain matter. Since ethics is just a(n) opinion and not fact in sense it can't be true.

As for "Religion and Science never being opposed,If we're looking for truth, we will find religion and science go hand in hand" then how come the theory of evolution isn't taught in classrooms if Science and religion go hand in hand when looking for truth?

My bottom line and opinion is Religion and Science will never be compatible because Religion is based off of beliefs and not proven facts, were science starts off as a belief and then can be proven by solid facts and evidence. With Religion there is no proof anything within the Bible or any other sacred text actually happened nor has anything within the Bible or an other sacred text  been factually proven to be accurate information. All religion is is ethics and belief's(opinions) with no facts or evidence to back up anything that said religions says, were science can be proven with facts and evidence for this reason, this is why Science and religion can't be compatible at all. 
Perma Banned


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-17-14
Location:
Last Post: 3602 days
Last Active: 3602 days

04-23-14 04:03 PM
Changedatrequest is Offline
| ID: 1012029 | 403 Words


Txgangsta
Level: 57


POSTS: 217/789
POST EXP: 104913
LVL EXP: 1409154
CP: 2185.3
VIZ: 149875

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Neo Arcadia:

I like the rebuttles, keep them coming. My point is to convince you that faith and reason go together, but if in reality they do not, I hope that you're able to convince me I'm wrong.

If ethics is "just an opinion", it doesn't matter. "Purple looks better" is an opinion, but it isn't like ethics. Ethics is not an expression of feelings, otherwise they are just a culture thing. "Don't burp at the dinner table" is a feeling acquired from culture, but "don't harm innocents" isn't just a feeling. Feelings may deserve a certain level of respect, but true ethics are rules which may even go against feelings. If I want to have sex with my girlfriend, I
should resist that feelings, regardless if I "feel its right" or something like that. These rules of action, ethics, are a "science" not because they are observed in a petri dish, but because ethics uses formulas like math or physics. If x is an innocent, I should not harm them. If I am not married to person x, I cannot have sex with them. Ethics requires reason to understand the circumstances where certain things apply and others don't. If we're not in a frictionless environment, I have to include that in the physics formula. If I am a child and the other person is my parent, that similarly needs to be included in the ethics formula.

Many (though not all) of the facts of the bible have been proven. A Jewish kingdom, the city of Jericho, the fact it all fell simultaneously, common Semitic ancestor, and military actions of the Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and Roman empires all are accurately recorded. Other things which seems to be inaccurate can be proven depending on the interpretation. The flood story seems ridiculous, but actually there are multiple middle eastern flood stories claiming "all the world flooded for multiple days". It has been taken by historians that at some point the entire middle east flooded. This has been recorded by them that "the whole world flooded" because that was "the world" to them.

So, since religion and ethics can be addressed as sciences, there is not an inherent conflict. If ethics is just feelings and religion blind faith, then you are correct, but this is not my religion. Therefore, there is at least one religion out there where religion and science are demanded to be compatible.
Neo Arcadia:

I like the rebuttles, keep them coming. My point is to convince you that faith and reason go together, but if in reality they do not, I hope that you're able to convince me I'm wrong.

If ethics is "just an opinion", it doesn't matter. "Purple looks better" is an opinion, but it isn't like ethics. Ethics is not an expression of feelings, otherwise they are just a culture thing. "Don't burp at the dinner table" is a feeling acquired from culture, but "don't harm innocents" isn't just a feeling. Feelings may deserve a certain level of respect, but true ethics are rules which may even go against feelings. If I want to have sex with my girlfriend, I
should resist that feelings, regardless if I "feel its right" or something like that. These rules of action, ethics, are a "science" not because they are observed in a petri dish, but because ethics uses formulas like math or physics. If x is an innocent, I should not harm them. If I am not married to person x, I cannot have sex with them. Ethics requires reason to understand the circumstances where certain things apply and others don't. If we're not in a frictionless environment, I have to include that in the physics formula. If I am a child and the other person is my parent, that similarly needs to be included in the ethics formula.

Many (though not all) of the facts of the bible have been proven. A Jewish kingdom, the city of Jericho, the fact it all fell simultaneously, common Semitic ancestor, and military actions of the Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and Roman empires all are accurately recorded. Other things which seems to be inaccurate can be proven depending on the interpretation. The flood story seems ridiculous, but actually there are multiple middle eastern flood stories claiming "all the world flooded for multiple days". It has been taken by historians that at some point the entire middle east flooded. This has been recorded by them that "the whole world flooded" because that was "the world" to them.

So, since religion and ethics can be addressed as sciences, there is not an inherent conflict. If ethics is just feelings and religion blind faith, then you are correct, but this is not my religion. Therefore, there is at least one religion out there where religion and science are demanded to be compatible.
Banned

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-04-13
Last Post: 2595 days
Last Active: 2592 days

04-23-14 07:05 PM
Zurenriri is Offline
| ID: 1012135 | 121 Words

Zurenriri
Level: 35


POSTS: 173/272
POST EXP: 34871
LVL EXP: 271154
CP: 911.1
VIZ: 98463

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I thought I recalled posting in this thread already but I guess I didn't. Anyway, here's my two cents.

As an atheist, I believe that science and religion are completely compatible. For example, Muhammad Al-Khwarizmi, described by some as the father of algebra, was a Zoroastrian. The very word "algebra" is derived from Arabic. Before this man did his contribution to science, most people in most nations didn't understand the concept of zero as a number. Imagine that! A more recent example was Nikola Tesla, one of the pioneers of electricity, and he was also an Orthodox Christian.

Science can flourish in the brilliant minds of the faithful... as long as those brilliant minds don't let faith get in the way.


I thought I recalled posting in this thread already but I guess I didn't. Anyway, here's my two cents.

As an atheist, I believe that science and religion are completely compatible. For example, Muhammad Al-Khwarizmi, described by some as the father of algebra, was a Zoroastrian. The very word "algebra" is derived from Arabic. Before this man did his contribution to science, most people in most nations didn't understand the concept of zero as a number. Imagine that! A more recent example was Nikola Tesla, one of the pioneers of electricity, and he was also an Orthodox Christian.

Science can flourish in the brilliant minds of the faithful... as long as those brilliant minds don't let faith get in the way.


Member
--Yami no Bouman-- ~LUCKY ROULETTE~


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-28-14
Location: Keizer, Oregon
Last Post: 2895 days
Last Active: 776 days

(edited by Zurenriri on 04-23-14 07:06 PM)    

04-23-14 08:18 PM
rustgarde is Offline
| ID: 1012174 | 77 Words

rustgarde
Cactuar
Level: 72


POSTS: 1028/1378
POST EXP: 84646
LVL EXP: 3236269
CP: 6879.8
VIZ: 81010

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
This will explain my opinion about this subject.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-big-bang-evolution-ap-poll/

I'm a man of science. And you can't prove anything that bible has said about the birth of the universe and humans and so on, at least I haven't seen any solid proof about those things they say in that book.

This is kind a funny subject and I have seen this kind of conversations lot, so I just shut my mouth before some people gets angry.
This will explain my opinion about this subject.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-big-bang-evolution-ap-poll/

I'm a man of science. And you can't prove anything that bible has said about the birth of the universe and humans and so on, at least I haven't seen any solid proof about those things they say in that book.

This is kind a funny subject and I have seen this kind of conversations lot, so I just shut my mouth before some people gets angry.
Trusted Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-13-13
Last Post: 2369 days
Last Active: 156 days

04-23-14 09:18 PM
Changedatrequest is Offline
| ID: 1012203 | 125 Words


Txgangsta
Level: 57


POSTS: 220/789
POST EXP: 104913
LVL EXP: 1409154
CP: 2185.3
VIZ: 149875

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Zurenriri :

"Science can flourish in the brilliant minds of the faithful... as long as those brilliant minds don't let faith get in the way."

This statement means they're not compatible =)

If they are compatible, the faith works WITH the reason. While they may not be in opposition, you have them as completely different and never-relating categories. So as long as faith is subordinate, its fine? Barf. I want them equal and nearly-synonymous, only differing by connotation. If God is true, why would it be less than physics? It's all truth, and should be considered equal. If true that marriage is only between man and woman, that truth isn't less than gravity.

Faith and reason don't just need to stop clashing, they need to harmonize.
Zurenriri :

"Science can flourish in the brilliant minds of the faithful... as long as those brilliant minds don't let faith get in the way."

This statement means they're not compatible =)

If they are compatible, the faith works WITH the reason. While they may not be in opposition, you have them as completely different and never-relating categories. So as long as faith is subordinate, its fine? Barf. I want them equal and nearly-synonymous, only differing by connotation. If God is true, why would it be less than physics? It's all truth, and should be considered equal. If true that marriage is only between man and woman, that truth isn't less than gravity.

Faith and reason don't just need to stop clashing, they need to harmonize.
Banned

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-04-13
Last Post: 2595 days
Last Active: 2592 days

04-25-14 04:11 PM
PhilipDraco is Offline
| ID: 1012951 | 291 Words

PhilipDraco
Level: 19


POSTS: 17/69
POST EXP: 15031
LVL EXP: 34531
CP: 1112.6
VIZ: 4910

Likes: 2  Dislikes: 0
Txgangsta :
Daniel was pretty good at science.



( Warning! Bible Quotes ahead!)

From Daniel Chapter 1, verses 3 to 6 (King James Version)

And the king spoke unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes.

Children in whom was no blemish, but well favored, and skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.
Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel , Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah


The last three are better known as there re-naming,Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who where threatened to be thrown into a furnace if they didn't bow down to a really big statue, but that's for later.

Daniel was really, really faithful. He was thrown into a den of lions because he continued to pray to God despite a decree that people could only pray to the King.
The lions didn't eat him, but they where most definitely hungry. (As the advisers who made the decree to trap David found out quickly)

There was an angel that came to tell him what a dream Daniel had meant. He addressed Daniel as "One Greatly Beloved" by God.

If God's cool with Science, I don't see a reason not to learn with it.

Just don't try to throw God out of stuff.
Txgangsta :
Daniel was pretty good at science.



( Warning! Bible Quotes ahead!)

From Daniel Chapter 1, verses 3 to 6 (King James Version)

And the king spoke unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes.

Children in whom was no blemish, but well favored, and skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.
Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel , Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah


The last three are better known as there re-naming,Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who where threatened to be thrown into a furnace if they didn't bow down to a really big statue, but that's for later.

Daniel was really, really faithful. He was thrown into a den of lions because he continued to pray to God despite a decree that people could only pray to the King.
The lions didn't eat him, but they where most definitely hungry. (As the advisers who made the decree to trap David found out quickly)

There was an angel that came to tell him what a dream Daniel had meant. He addressed Daniel as "One Greatly Beloved" by God.

If God's cool with Science, I don't see a reason not to learn with it.

Just don't try to throw God out of stuff.
Member
of the Council for World Improvement


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-21-14
Last Post: 3409 days
Last Active: 2646 days

(edited by PhilipDraco on 04-25-14 04:14 PM)     Post Rating: 2   Liked By: Changedatrequest, m0ssb3rg935,

04-26-14 08:01 PM
MagneCross is Offline
| ID: 1013527 | 5 Words

MagneCross
Level: 7

POSTS: 3/6
POST EXP: 253
LVL EXP: 924
CP: 50.3
VIZ: 2669

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Charles Darwin was a catholic.

Charles Darwin was a catholic.

Newbie

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-25-13
Last Post: 3622 days
Last Active: 3187 days

04-26-14 08:18 PM
sop281 is Offline
| ID: 1013539 | 113 Words

sop281
Level: 93


POSTS: 800/2385
POST EXP: 163651
LVL EXP: 8022931
CP: 5530.8
VIZ: 101861

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Religion is not set in stone. It is meant to be adaptive, not maladaptive. It is the people that cause religion to become maladaptive with science. If people would learn to not accept every word of their faith as truth, and also accept science to a certain point, then they could become compatible. However, a large number of people refuse to do so, and just simply decide to ignore or denounce science. Science is based on logic, and if one is incapable of accepting logic, then yes, that individual is maladaptive. But no, religion is not inherently incompatible with science, it is instead the people that cause it to maladaptive, and thus, incompatible.
Religion is not set in stone. It is meant to be adaptive, not maladaptive. It is the people that cause religion to become maladaptive with science. If people would learn to not accept every word of their faith as truth, and also accept science to a certain point, then they could become compatible. However, a large number of people refuse to do so, and just simply decide to ignore or denounce science. Science is based on logic, and if one is incapable of accepting logic, then yes, that individual is maladaptive. But no, religion is not inherently incompatible with science, it is instead the people that cause it to maladaptive, and thus, incompatible.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-02-11
Last Post: 3394 days
Last Active: 1439 days

04-26-14 08:23 PM
megamanmaniac is Offline
| ID: 1013543 | 176 Words

megamanmaniac
Level: 127


POSTS: 3275/4966
POST EXP: 452698
LVL EXP: 23130456
CP: 17207.3
VIZ: 151130

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I'm not too sure whether or not science and faith are compatible. It may just be that there might be a link, but the opposing sides are so stubborn in their beliefs that they are unwilling to find any kind of evidence that both faith and science and reason. I say that they are stubborn, but understandably so. There is no scientific reasoning explaining the miracles of God and whether or not God exists at all. Reasoning is mostly based on observations, and the inability for science to explain or observe the existance of God is a primary reason why scientists try not to include God into scientific reasoning.

Vice versa, religious people who believe in God's will as the cause of events, natural or unnatural, may cause people to hesitate to accept scientific reasoning (which doesn't credit God in any way) as the truth about what happens in the world.

Yes and no. I'm sure that some evidence can be eventually found, but I don't think that humans will find that connection any time soon.
I'm not too sure whether or not science and faith are compatible. It may just be that there might be a link, but the opposing sides are so stubborn in their beliefs that they are unwilling to find any kind of evidence that both faith and science and reason. I say that they are stubborn, but understandably so. There is no scientific reasoning explaining the miracles of God and whether or not God exists at all. Reasoning is mostly based on observations, and the inability for science to explain or observe the existance of God is a primary reason why scientists try not to include God into scientific reasoning.

Vice versa, religious people who believe in God's will as the cause of events, natural or unnatural, may cause people to hesitate to accept scientific reasoning (which doesn't credit God in any way) as the truth about what happens in the world.

Yes and no. I'm sure that some evidence can be eventually found, but I don't think that humans will find that connection any time soon.
Vizzed Elite
Triple M


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-12-12
Location: Access withheld from you
Last Post: 2497 days
Last Active: 2493 days

04-28-14 06:01 PM
Changedatrequest is Offline
| ID: 1014573 | 31 Words


Txgangsta
Level: 57


POSTS: 228/789
POST EXP: 104913
LVL EXP: 1409154
CP: 2185.3
VIZ: 149875

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
sop281 :

I don't want a religion that changes. I want a religion in accordance with logic. If there was a religion based on logic, would it necessarily be opposed to science?
sop281 :

I don't want a religion that changes. I want a religion in accordance with logic. If there was a religion based on logic, would it necessarily be opposed to science?
Banned

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-04-13
Last Post: 2595 days
Last Active: 2592 days

04-29-14 03:33 PM
sop281 is Offline
| ID: 1014996 | 284 Words

sop281
Level: 93


POSTS: 832/2385
POST EXP: 163651
LVL EXP: 8022931
CP: 5530.8
VIZ: 101861

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Edit: Ignore the first half of my post, I seem to have made some serious historical inaccuracies.

Txgangsta
: I suppose you might not want religion to change, but of course it has over the years. Christianity did not even come into fruition until some time after Judaism and Islam, so it is fairly new, and obviously a bit different than the others. Not a lot, but definitely different. They all branched off the same thing, and that is where differences lie. The bible has also been changed, and so have other holy works in other religions. They change, and usually it is for the better, but other times it is not. Religion at its core is good, it is the people, who make it bad. So change is a give or take, but it is good to be adaptive instead of maladaptive, so that it can weed out all of the bad practices and bad changes. Back to the logic aspect, if a religion was based on logic, it would not necessarily be opposed to science. People can have religious beliefs that are not opposed to science, and if a religion were to be closer to that of science, then it very likely would not be opposed, and science might actually be a strong characteristic of that religion, it might be a guiding force. Whether that happens or not, or has happened or will not, that depends on whoever feels like setting up a new religion. Of course, the new religion would immediately be denounced as a cult, and it might end up not even becoming a full-fledged religion. It could of course, work in its favor, but I doubt that would happen.
Edit: Ignore the first half of my post, I seem to have made some serious historical inaccuracies.

Txgangsta
: I suppose you might not want religion to change, but of course it has over the years. Christianity did not even come into fruition until some time after Judaism and Islam, so it is fairly new, and obviously a bit different than the others. Not a lot, but definitely different. They all branched off the same thing, and that is where differences lie. The bible has also been changed, and so have other holy works in other religions. They change, and usually it is for the better, but other times it is not. Religion at its core is good, it is the people, who make it bad. So change is a give or take, but it is good to be adaptive instead of maladaptive, so that it can weed out all of the bad practices and bad changes. Back to the logic aspect, if a religion was based on logic, it would not necessarily be opposed to science. People can have religious beliefs that are not opposed to science, and if a religion were to be closer to that of science, then it very likely would not be opposed, and science might actually be a strong characteristic of that religion, it might be a guiding force. Whether that happens or not, or has happened or will not, that depends on whoever feels like setting up a new religion. Of course, the new religion would immediately be denounced as a cult, and it might end up not even becoming a full-fledged religion. It could of course, work in its favor, but I doubt that would happen.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-02-11
Last Post: 3394 days
Last Active: 1439 days

(edited by sop281 on 04-30-14 07:22 AM)    

04-29-14 09:59 PM
Changedatrequest is Offline
| ID: 1015222 | 278 Words


Txgangsta
Level: 57


POSTS: 233/789
POST EXP: 104913
LVL EXP: 1409154
CP: 2185.3
VIZ: 149875

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
sop281 :

Kinda off topic, but I think there are a few problems in your post. First, Christianity is an extension of Judaism. Christians say that the Messiah (Messiah is Hebrew, Christ is Greek, Savior is English) has come in the flesh and the Messiah is God. Judaism says the Messiah hasn't come and will not be God. And Islam came later; Christians were booming at about 100 AD and Mohammad was not around until after 600 AD. The Quran actually mentions Jesus, Mary, and the Christian religion in it, but it says that it had strayed from the original teachings, which was Islam.

Also, the bible is absurdly accurate. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are scrolls of the Old Testament books (shared between Christians and Jews), were found in the 1960s and dated to about 200-100 BC. The scrolls and current Jewish texts were nearly identical. Nearly nothing was different, and certainly nothing that impacted interpretations in either religion. The New Testament books have matching scrolls from about 150 AD. Considering the first book wasn't written until about 50 AD, that's not a horrible distance. I guess theoretically there could be some sort of change, but based on history it seems highly unlikely.

Ok, back on topic. I'm glad you wouldn't mind a logical religion. Religion itself is not any sort of evil, but it is a powerful instrument that, when a deceitful party gains power in it, can be used for awful acts on a massive scale. I will argue that things like the establishment of the Islamic Empire in ~800 AD and the Crusades (especially the ones toward the end) are prime examples of misused power.
sop281 :

Kinda off topic, but I think there are a few problems in your post. First, Christianity is an extension of Judaism. Christians say that the Messiah (Messiah is Hebrew, Christ is Greek, Savior is English) has come in the flesh and the Messiah is God. Judaism says the Messiah hasn't come and will not be God. And Islam came later; Christians were booming at about 100 AD and Mohammad was not around until after 600 AD. The Quran actually mentions Jesus, Mary, and the Christian religion in it, but it says that it had strayed from the original teachings, which was Islam.

Also, the bible is absurdly accurate. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are scrolls of the Old Testament books (shared between Christians and Jews), were found in the 1960s and dated to about 200-100 BC. The scrolls and current Jewish texts were nearly identical. Nearly nothing was different, and certainly nothing that impacted interpretations in either religion. The New Testament books have matching scrolls from about 150 AD. Considering the first book wasn't written until about 50 AD, that's not a horrible distance. I guess theoretically there could be some sort of change, but based on history it seems highly unlikely.

Ok, back on topic. I'm glad you wouldn't mind a logical religion. Religion itself is not any sort of evil, but it is a powerful instrument that, when a deceitful party gains power in it, can be used for awful acts on a massive scale. I will argue that things like the establishment of the Islamic Empire in ~800 AD and the Crusades (especially the ones toward the end) are prime examples of misused power.
Banned

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-04-13
Last Post: 2595 days
Last Active: 2592 days

Links

Page Comments


This page has no comments

Adblocker detected!

Vizzed.com is very expensive to keep alive! The Ads pay for the servers.

Vizzed has 3 TB worth of games and 1 TB worth of music.  This site is free to use but the ads barely pay for the monthly server fees.  If too many more people use ad block, the site cannot survive.

We prioritize the community over the site profits.  This is why we avoid using annoying (but high paying) ads like most other sites which include popups, obnoxious sounds and animations, malware, and other forms of intrusiveness.  We'll do our part to never resort to these types of ads, please do your part by helping support this site by adding Vizzed.com to your ad blocking whitelist.

×