Science, Religion, and Ignorance.

[Dreckerplayer]

You kinda getting petty here. However, this isn't about winning. It's about when someone spread misled information, someone should kick them in the a$$. Someone...... like me. But call me whatever you want. I can even be called C U N T, because I encountered you.

Yeah, nice to know.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

It's called sarcasm.

As ArabianLuffy said, it's not my fault that you don't see the sarcasm between the words.

If you can't show enough respect be straight forward, and mean what you say, then you're pretty much saying nothing.

Not my fault you two beat around the bush, all the time.

 

[Avani 👑]

I didn't specify anything but 'people' when i said that.



So it would be hearsay for me to do but not another person?



Maybe because the main idea of my thread wasn't to compare science with religion but rather make a point about how people are so ignorant to blindly trust and belive in something and limit themselves to hear anything else, wich applies to pretty much everything.



I'm aware of that.

But you did compare them directly and claimed believing scientific postulates is same as religious beliefs, while it's just not true. You didn't even give any other coherent argument.

Hearsay is information received from other people which cannot be substantiated, otherwise but for your trust in the person. It could just be a rumour or made up tale or truth but you only have other person's word for it. - works for religious claims of getting in touch with the divine powers.

If science operated that way, we wouldn't have to study so many theories, and their derivations, or spend hours in the labs on practicals trying to study those effects ourselves. New scientists are always welcome to test old data and theories and give their own if they can. One must be able to replicate the experiment and share the experience and details of findings with other people for it to be validated. There is nothing blind about it. You are just mistaken about how scientific community operates.

 

[BLAZE]

top kek
do people believing in a scientific theory burn or bomb others who do not agree with them

 

[Avani 👑]

Explain?Just for YOU? Who the hell are you for me to go against my own word, just to explain something that is so obvious, for YOU?

People use to the bible to manipulate truth. "Don't throw it on the book"...don't tell me what the hell to do.

You live by this little rule book of yours. You act like you have facts, but you DONT. It's all just validation purposes and TACTICS.

It would have been so much better if you had put the actual flaw in the reasoning in to words instead of only accusing him of doing things without even trying to explain why you think what you are implying here. Sure would have saved me 50+ spam posts over it.

How so? The human body has the same elements as soil.

Carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, nitrogen, calcium, potassium, sodium, chlorine, magnesium, iron, manganese, copper, iodine, fluorine, cobalt, zinc.

Did you just copy that from FMA? jk Of course life is created out of some the elements on earth but it's not much of a proof of anything you know. It's not that complicated to figure it out either. People have known it for far longer than some of these religious books mentioned here were written as we read them today.

top kek
do people believing in a scientific theory burn or bomb others who do not agree with them

Don't jinx it. Some atheists can have some screws lose one of these days ..

 

[ArabianLuffy]

Spoiler

Did you just copy that from FMA?

Shush! I'm trying to play the smart guy here. You wanna expose me?

Of course life is created out of some the elements on earth but it's not much of a proof of anything you know. It's not that complicated to figure it out either. People have known it for far longer than some of these religious books mentioned here were written as we read them today.

I doubt that science could made some deep discoveries of the toxins of the human body 2000 years ago.

 

[Avani 👑]

Spoiler

Shush! I'm trying to play the smart guy here. You wanna expose me?

I doubt that science could made some deep discoveries of the toxins of the human body 2000 years ago.

Spoiler

Got it. Your secret is perfectly safe within spoilers. U_U

Did they name the elements like this - I would doubt that too- they wouldn't know. But the concept that everything is made up of other elements in the soil, is quite ancient. The idea of body being made of different elements was still there. So many living creatures plants and animals born, grow on things they get from soil and when they die their bodies are eventually absorbed back in the earth. Even the idea that things are

You must be registered for see links

than 2000 years. People were carrying out

You must be registered for see links

much before this date.

Conflict between science and knowledge arose when various religious leaders started to put the scientists down in a bid to be seen as the highest source of knowledge themselves, instead of limiting to spirituality or improving with time. It's something that happened to each major religion. They didn't want to be deemed outdated or left behind the scientists while they were busy making religions complex or grabbing political power and riches in it's name. With printed and written books it became more difficult for them to accept that some of the theories written in the book were not correct because it puts rest of the book to test too. Spirituality has it's benefit but religious books shouldn't be hindrance in advancement of the human civilization. e.g. trying to tell others the earth is flat today when we know better, is just fraudulent.

 

[Mori Jin]

I was specifically talking about the bible. Let's keep it on topic and not go into what other religious texts say to try to justify a different religion's wording.





But again, that's not what the bible says, that's just you interpreting it to fit your own narrative.

So is the word of God not literal and that we can simply assume what he meant in order to justify something rather than just taking God at his word?

Sure sure whatever rocks your boat.

 

[Clown World]

lmao, it's decietful for anyone to describe the bible as accurate.It's manipulates the truth.

It's not written, to be true, it's written to manipulate the truth.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Cooh]

Where's the evidence, in your basement? Okay.

Why would I be hurt by lies?

Anyway, I can't say I know the truth, but I could say I'm at least not so dense as to believe CGI photos are real or that there are any planets in space or if there's even space at all...

By the way, how do you like a study that tells you that your perception is wrong and that the earth is spinning at 1000 mp/h but do not even feel it all?

that guy is definitly a flat earther :lol everythings fake what "THEY" release right? ****in idiot :lol

 

[Avani 👑]

You must be registered for see images

If there is any scientific fact mentioned in that book it means it was discovered by scientific minds of old already and not only later. Scientists as a single body didn't went in denial in between. However some of it came to be interpreted differently by the followers of the books themselves for whatever reason, to be forgotten by the main stream and needing rediscovery. For religious institutes had the control over mainstream knowledge and education for the longest time.

The ancient works tell us history of knowledge of humans at the time as well as their limitations. However it has little bearing on 'religious' or other claims of the books which may not be that accurate.

There is also some issues whether these mentions in older books were interpreted just the same as in your post or some versions had different concept in mind,( flat earth still can be round so not sure if they meant it's an sphere) but I will leave that out for now.

 

[Clown World]

How do you know the knowledge was not passed directly onto the scribes and 'prophets' directly from god. Just because mysticism may seem logically impossible it does not detract from its possible occurrence.

 

[Punk Hazard]

You must be registered for see images

Job 26:7 makes no mention of anything that's translatable to "Earth is held in place by invisible forces."

Isaiah 40:22 mentions the "circle of the earth." A circle is flat. A sphere is 3-dimensional, or "round" as people refer to when saying the earth isn't flat.

Job 38:19 makes no mention of light being a particle with mass("What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside?)

Job 38:7(while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?) makes no mention of literal stars or them giving off signals; both Jesus and Satan are referred to under the moniker "morning star" and "star" was used to describe angels being cast out of heaven alongside Satan.

Job 38:16 is debatable, as some translations have it as "source of the sea" and doesn't make any mention of freshwater.

Job 38:22 simply mentions a storehouse of snow; given that snow quite obviously builds up, you don't need divine wisdom to understand you can store it inside of something.

Isaiah 40:12 doesn't say anything about dust being important to survival, just that God knows how much dust is on earth as a testament to his power.

Job 38:24 makes no mention of light being split into colors.

Romans 1:20 makes no mention of things being made up of invisible particles, but instead mentions God's invisible attributes of omnipotence and benevolence are seen with how he chose to make the world.

Job 8:16 doesn't state that plants need sunlight to make food, but that they grow in the sun, something easily observable to anyone that has ever grown a plant(something very common back then).

What part of "Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm," is Job 38:25 making an association between lightning and thunder that was unknown?

The last one is just plain false, considering humans have bred new species of dog from the wolf alone.

 

[Clown World]

Job 26:7 makes no mention of anything that's translatable to "Earth is held in place by invisible forces."

Isaiah 40:22 mentions the "circle of the earth." A circle is flat. A sphere is 3-dimensional, or "round" as people refer to when saying the earth isn't flat.

Job 38:19 makes no mention of light being a particle with mass("What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside?)

Job 38:7(while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?) makes no mention of literal stars or them giving off signals; both Jesus and Satan are referred to under the moniker "morning star" and "star" was used to describe angels being cast out of heaven alongside Satan.

Job 38:16 is debatable, as some translations have it as "source of the sea" and doesn't make any mention of freshwater.

Job 38:22 simply mentions a storehouse of snow; given that snow quite obviously builds up, you don't need divine wisdom to understand you can store it inside of something.

Isaiah 40:12 doesn't say anything about dust being important to survival, just that God knows how much dust is on earth as a testament to his power.

Job 38:24 makes no mention of light being split into colors.

Romans 1:20 makes no mention of things being made up of invisible particles, but instead mentions God's invisible attributes of omnipotence and benevolence are seen with how he chose to make the world.

Job 8:16 doesn't state that plants need sunlight to make food, but that they grow in the sun, something easily observable to anyone that has ever grown a plant(something very common back then).

What part of "Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm," is Job 38:25 making an association between lightning and thunder that was unknown?

The last one is just plain false, considering humans have bred new species of dog from the wolf alone.

Some are plainly stated but some are more metaphorically defined, thats obviously going to happen.

 

[Edogawa]

The point of a discussion is to determine what is right, not who is right.

Questions involving God, religion and science all end up causing conflict both sides, and doesn't solve anything and breeds further hatred. Human capacity of explaining the universe's complexity is impossible with current existing technology and science. One side (religion) validates his opinion using religious text, other side (atheism) validates his opinion using half-assessed theories, which do not even invalidate God's existence in the 1st place.

The simultaneous belief in harmony between God and science is the right answer to this discussion, because as science progresses, we are getting closer to God everyday.

I don't believe religious are correct neither are atheists. I believe God and science are both right.

 

[Lightbringer]

Some are plainly stated but some are more metaphorically defined, thats obviously going to happen.

There's nothing obvious about it considering people took the bible literally and still do.

It's supposed to be the word of God. You don't get to decide what God meant, otherwise you can twist the word of God any way you see fit.

The point of a discussion is to determine what is right, not who is right.

Questions involving God, religion and science all end up causing conflict both sides, and doesn't solve anything and breeds further hatred. Human capacity of explaining the universe's complexity is impossible with current existing technology and science. One side (religion) validates his opinion using religious text, other side (atheism) validates his opinion using half-assessed theories, which do not even invalidate God's existence in the 1st place.

The simultaneous belief in harmony between God and science is the right answer to this discussion, because as science progresses, we are getting closer to God everyday.

I don't believe religious are correct neither are atheists. I believe God and science are both right.

Which God? Odin, Yahweh, Ra, Brahma, Anu, etc.? There are thousands of them.

 

[Fountain]

But you did compare them directly and claimed believing scientific postulates is same as religious beliefs, while it's just not true. You didn't even give any other coherent argument.

Hearsay is information received from other people which cannot be substantiated, otherwise but for your trust in the person. It could just be a rumour or made up tale or truth but you only have other person's word for it. - works for religious claims of getting in touch with the divine powers.

If science operated that way, we wouldn't have to study so many theories, and their derivations, or spend hours in the labs on practicals trying to study those effects ourselves. New scientists are always welcome to test old data and theories and give their own if they can. One must be able to replicate the experiment and share the experience and details of findings with other people for it to be validated. There is nothing blind about it. You are just mistaken about how scientific community operates.

What are you talking about Jean Grey. I never claimed i didn't, i did made a comparison and i thought it was rather clear and legitimate. I compared how much both had in common when it comes to people blindly defending one or the other, treating others like they are stupid for disagreeing with them or sharing an alternative theory etc., or simply not being open minded (for short). Something you clearly seem to be (no offense) since you seem to be defending and putting science on such high pedestal and giving me unnecessary lectures on what hearsay is or how science works as if i didn't know, or as if you were a scientist yourself.

Job 26:7 makes no mention of anything that's translatable to "Earth is held in place by invisible forces."

Isaiah 40:22 mentions the "circle of the earth." A circle is flat. A sphere is 3-dimensional, or "round" as people refer to when saying the earth isn't flat.

Job 38:19 makes no mention of light being a particle with mass("What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside?)

Job 38:7(while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?) makes no mention of literal stars or them giving off signals; both Jesus and Satan are referred to under the moniker "morning star" and "star" was used to describe angels being cast out of heaven alongside Satan.

Job 38:16 is debatable, as some translations have it as "source of the sea" and doesn't make any mention of freshwater.

Job 38:22 simply mentions a storehouse of snow; given that snow quite obviously builds up, you don't need divine wisdom to understand you can store it inside of something.

Isaiah 40:12 doesn't say anything about dust being important to survival, just that God knows how much dust is on earth as a testament to his power.

Job 38:24 makes no mention of light being split into colors.

Romans 1:20 makes no mention of things being made up of invisible particles, but instead mentions God's invisible attributes of omnipotence and benevolence are seen with how he chose to make the world.

Job 8:16 doesn't state that plants need sunlight to make food, but that they grow in the sun, something easily observable to anyone that has ever grown a plant(something very common back then).

What part of "Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm," is Job 38:25 making an association between lightning and thunder that was unknown?

The last one is just plain false, considering humans have bred new species of dog from the wolf alone.

Did it ever crossed your mind that people thousands of years ago might not've had the same terminology we have today?

 

[Lightbringer]

Did it ever crossed your mind that people thousands of years ago might not've had the same terminology we have today?

It's supposed to be the word of God. God worked through those that put his words onto the bible.

If those are truly meant to be the words of God, then God would be able to phrase his wording in a way that can be understood by all throughout all ages.

 

[Fountain]

It's supposed to be the word of God. God worked through those that put his words onto the bible.

If those are truly meant to be the words of God, then God would be able to phrase his wording in a way that can be understood by all throughout all ages.

Then maybe it isn't?

 

[Lightbringer]

Then maybe it isn't?

Exactly.