aliens and god. a few questions-

[Hymnz]

Then i guess the auriculares muscles in our ears can be disproven since they have no purpose for us

im sure it does have a purpose. we just do not know it.
people think the appendix has no purpose, yet we live longer (generally) with it in our body (and not because the surgery weakens those who had it removed).

It doesn't take a "scientician" to figure that out

ever watch the simpsons?

And the person outside the computer needs to be created as well, who created him?

i don't know.

For others science and religion clash. How can dinosaur bones be millions of years old when they believe that the earth is 6000 years old?

there are young-earth (6000 years) and old-earth (a few billion years) creationists (as well as many other types). you need to stop generalizing.

Like i said before, science is anti-religion for some, since they believe that their dogma should be the only answer to questions about our universe.

the bible (/quran/whatever) is a dogma since it answers the questions to which no other source has whole answers. science has a total relationship with observation. we did not see the creation, and what we infer from other evidence always comes with uncertainty. proof is by nature conclusive, and science cannot provide proof of a particular hypothesis unless all conditions are known.

wrong, Einstein did not believe in a personal god.

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God any I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

having done a bit of research just now, this is true. my (in fact the discovery channel's) mistake.

 

[Jokerman]

having done a bit of research just now, this is true. my (in fact the discovery channel's) mistake.

Yeah, scientists like Einstein and Stephen Hawking have used the word "God" sometimes tongue-in-cheek. Like Einstein's "God does not play dice with the Universe" was not an indication of belief. It was used in a joking, metaphorical sense. But of course religious people always jump on this language and claim these scientists as their own, which is why Einstein had to come out directly and say, bitch, please.

As for science and religion going hand and hand. Bitch, please. The Catholic Church only accepted some science so as not to look like complete fools and lose whatever relevance they might have in today's world. They were dragged kicking and screaming though. And of course the Quran turned out to be a compendium of science. Whenever I need to look up some physical constant, that's what I turn to.

 

[Elmira]

How does religion and God close off discussion when only religion can provide an answer to questions such as 'why are we here' and 'what happens after we die'? That doesn't make sense

If you were to sit with 2 non-religious people, your discussion on such questions would be based purely on guesses as to why we are here and what happens after we die.

If you were to sit with 2 religious persons explaining to you these mentioned questions according to their religion, it is you that would end up closing off the discussion, dismissing them simply as non-sense. Infact, Discussions on such questions without religion are useless because like it or not we will never know what happens after we die and why we are here.

Case in point. It closes off the discussion in this way: "only religion can provide an answer to questions such as..."
Well, that was enlightening.

As to this imaginary sit down. Look skippy, the only difference between the believer and the non-believer is that I'm quite content to shrug my shoulders for now and say "I don't know." I accept the fact that there may be something out there a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than both God and religion combined.

We? it is you that needs to understand what God is. God is not here to serve our needs in this life, sleep better at night and to protect us. If thats the case, there would not be a single believer that suffers.

Who said anything about serving needs? And I didn't mean protection in the physical sense. And you want to tell me your faith doesn't help you sleep better at night, in perspective?
I don't need to understand "what" God is; I don't believe in Him. That would be like me saying you need to understand what a non-belief in God is.

But, start talking about how God is something other than a belief and you will have my undivided attention.

Religion encourages that, so what exactly is your point? Religion encourages knowledge and understanding of everything around us and the not so near us. You make it sound as if Believers are not open to the understanding of this world and the universe. Thats far from true. We'd all like to gain knowledge on Gods artistry on everything he has created

My point is you are utterly incapable of having a discussion about the How's and Why's and What's without mentioning religion and God in every other sentence. And so I've made my point.

 

[Elmira]

Neither do I understand how science and religion can coexist. There are fundamental differences that can't be refuted. Among other things there's the issue of miracles and the supernatural. A belief in miracles, which are central to Christian faith, subverts the scientific method and throws off science.

 

[Glockmatic]

im sure it does have a purpose. we just do not know it.
people think the appendix has no purpose, yet we live longer (generally) with it in our body (and not because the surgery weakens those who had it removed).

we know what the muscles are for, they're for moving our ears...which we can't. We know this because other animals have the same muscles and move their ears easily, we lost that ability, so the muscles are useless.

ever watch the simpsons?

if its from the recent years (6 years) i haven't watched it

i don't know.

yet you KNOW that we have a creator

there are young-earth (6000 years) and old-earth (a few billion years) creationists (as well as many other types). you need to stop generalizing.

They do not mix because one is based on facts while the other is based on faith. Science can say "we don't know", religion cannot

the bible (/quran/whatever) is a dogma since it answers the questions to which no other source has whole answers. science has a total relationship with observation. we did not see the creation, and what we infer from other evidence always comes with uncertainty. proof is by nature conclusive, and science cannot provide proof of a particular hypothesis unless all conditions are known.

So we should fill the void of unknown with some higher being because we cannot answer it?

 

[TecK NeeX]

How is providing the answer to these questions a discussion? That doesn't make sense. Questioner- "What are the

answers to these questions?"
You- "God."
Discussion closed.

At least religion brings something to discuss to the table. And no, God would not be my answer to these questions

You being questioned

Questioner: Jokerman; why are we here?

Umm Umm i Dont know, discussion closed

Questioner: Jokerman; What happens after we die?

Umm Umm I dont know: Maybe we just dont exist anymore? Discussion closed. Some discussion that is

A discussion with a religious person would actually inform an individual who is open minded

No, I'll accept as evidence science finding some trace of him in anything. Something that can be confirmed independently. Because him appearing before me could be a trick, an illusion, how do i know it's God, where's the angels, a burning bush, the incredible Hulk?

LOL get real!. If we did you'd just come up with something more rediculous and perhaps an upgraded version of natural selection to explain these "traces".

Religion is anti-science. It subverts science. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. Fuck that and fuck it good, is what I say.

Religion is not anti-science. Maybe some are, some also encourage real science. Dont generalize all religions as being this or that. Next time mention the religion you are speaking of. Nothing science has proved to be against Islam for example. And it will never.

 

[Glockmatic]

Religion is not anti-science. Maybe some are, some also encourage real science. Dont generalize all religions as being this or that. Next time mention the religion you are speaking of. Nothing science has proved to be against Islam for example. And it will never.

How does islam somehow encourage real science when you state something like that? If you think islam is more scientifically open than, lets say christianity, well "christianity" has done more scientifically in 100 years than islam has done. (getting the flame shield ready)

 

[TecK NeeX]

How does islam somehow encourage real science when you state something like that?

And what did i say that conflicts with Islam encouraging science? Whats wrong with saying all science to this day does not go against Islam while at the same time saying Islam encourages sceince?

If you think islam is more scientifically open than, lets say christianity, well "christianity"has done more scientifically in 100 years than islam has done. (getting the flame shield ready)

What the hell does that have to do with anything I've said? and what exactly has christianity (the religion) done in hundred years than Islam has done? Im talkin about the religions not their followers. All I'm saying is religion + science is not always unthinkable as many of you would like to believe. Like jokerman for example when he said religion is Anti-science. Thats laughable.

 

[Jokerman]

Questioner: Jokerman; why are we here?

Umm Umm i Dont know, discussion closed.

How does "I don't know" close the discussion? On the contrary, it opens it.

Me- "I don't know."
Questioner- "Well, I think we are here to...
Me- "That's an interesting take, but I have some questions to ask."
Questioner- "Great, let's discuss."
Jokerman-"Okay, but I think Teck is going to sit this one out because he already has the answer given to him from his holy book or religious leaders, and nothing can contradict it so any discussion is a waste of time for him."

Questioner: Jokerman, what happens after we die?
Me- "It seems to me that we cease to exist."
Questioner: "But there is some evidence that some part of us still exists."
Me- "Then I'm all ears. Let the discussion begin."

Nothing science has proved to be against Islam for example. And it will never.

I agree. Because there isn't anything even vaguely scientific in there for science to disprove. Glad you recognize that.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Case in point. It closes off the discussion in this way: "only religion can provide an answer to questions such as..."
Well, that was enlightening.

You're guess as to what happens after we die and why we are here is as good as anybody that is not religious. Your discussion about these questions with non believers would look like this..

Hmmm ...???

hmmm.. ??

Hmmm.. ???

Hmm..???

You could actually learn something about these questions with religious people. Which will ultimately lead to your type of persons who end up closing off the discussion.

the only difference between the believer and the non-believer is that I'm quite content to shrug my shoulders for now and say "I don't know." I accept the fact that there may be something out there a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than both God and religion combined.

I say 'I dont know' to many things, So do all religious people. You're ignorant. you believe believers are all knowing and all mighty themselves. Get real!.

Who said anything about serving needs? And I didn't mean protection in the physical sense.

You did.

And you want to tell me your faith doesn't help you sleep better at night, in perspective?

Many things help me sleep better at night. Telling myself "I'm Muslim" everytime i go to bed is not one of them.

I don't need to understand "what" God is; I don't believe in Him. That would be like me saying you need to understand what a non-belief in God is.

Well dont say "we need to understand what God is" to begin with.

But, start talking about how God is something other than a belief and you will have my undivided attention.

Talk about closed discussions. You're about as closed minded as any religious or non-religious person.

My point is you are utterly incapable of having a discussion about the How's and Why's and What's without mentioning religion and God in every other sentence. And so I've made my point.

If the discussion requires me to bring up my Religion i will, if it doesnt i wont, So yes i'm very much capable of having a discussion without mentioning my religion.

But lets have discussion here without mentioning religion shall we? and lets see where it goes.

What happens after we die?

I dont know

what do you think?

Do you wanna second my answer and close the discussion?

 

[TecK NeeX]

How does "I don't know" close the discussion? On the contrary, it opens it.

Me- "I don't know."
Questioner- "Well, I think we are here to...
Me- "That's an interesting take, but I have some questions to ask."
Questioner- "Great, let's discuss."

So you are open to anything that does not involve a religious person's take on these questions?

Your answer is "i dont know"

Questioner: I think were here to; Jokerman: great lets discuss!

Me: I think we are here to: Jokerman; Not interested

Great. How closed minded is that.

Questioner: Jokerman, what happens after we die?
Me- "It seems to me that we cease to exist."
Questioner: "But there is some evidence that some part of us still exists."
Me- "Then I'm all ears. Let the discussion begin."

Hmm it seems id fit perfectly in this type of discussion seeing you mentioned that "some part of us still exist" after we die

I agree. Because there isn't anything even vaguely scientific in there for science to disprove. Glad you recognize that.

A mere opinion. If thats the case than dont say religion is anti-science. Seeing it as there is nothing in there for science to disprove. How could religion be anti-science when nothing in there is scientific. Contradiction? in every way.

 

[Glockmatic]

And what did i say that conflicts with Islam encouraging science? Whats wrong with saying all science to this day does not go against Islam while at the same time saying Islam encourages sceince?

Science helps us discover what we don't know, how do we discover something when a book explains "the ultimate answer" already? By saying that science cannot disprove islam is shutting a door, you already concluded there is no other answer so you do not even consider them.

What the hell does that have to do with anything I've said? and what exactly has christianity (the religion) done in hundred years than Islam has done? Im talkin about the religions not their followers. All I'm saying is religion + science is not always unthinkable as many of you would like to believe. Like jokerman for example when he said religion is Anti-science. Thats laughable.

Well I'm talking about the followers, which in turn are the religion because they are the ones who interpret the dogma. Faith is a belief in something that goes against logic and has no proof, which goes against science, they don't mix

 

[TecK NeeX]

Science can say "we don't know", religion cannot

Many believers say i dont know numerous times, for example when they say "I dont know, God works in mysterious ways" (not me) Yet you laugh at the them for saying that.

Wtf is the difference between that and science saying I dont know. Should I laugh at that?

 

[Glockmatic]

Many believers say i dont know numerous times, for example when they say "I dont know, God works in mysterious ways" (not me) Yet you laugh at the them for saying that.

Wtf is the difference between that and science saying I dont know. Should I laugh at that?

I guess i should've said "We don't know YET". Science changes what we know when we find out more. Religion is a set idea. We see religious people who do not question their own faith, so we ask them why god allows children in africa to die horrible deaths and the answer is usually "god works in mysterious ways...", and this is suppose to be an all loving god? They bring the idea that things that are created need creators, but what created the creator? They dodge the answers that challenge their faith.

Difference between saying "i don't know" with science and religion? In science it is the absence of evidence, in religion it is the lack of the answer in a book.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Science helps us discover what we don't know, how do we discover something when a book explains "the ultimate answer" already?

WTF? Whats wrong with that? you continue discovering things LOL. You either prove what the book said is true or prove that its false.

If i said right now there is a similar solar system to ours far away and in this solar system there is a planet very much like Earth. and wrote a book about it. Am i preventing you from discovering this solar system? No, you go on trying to prove this solar system is true or not.

By saying that science cannot disprove islam is shutting a door,

No i'm opening the door for science

you already concluded there is no other answer so you do not even consider them.

I consider many things, The Qur'an is not a billion page book explaning every little damn thing here on Earth and in the universe.

Well I'm talking about the followers, which in turn are the religion because they are the ones who interpret the dogma.

Umm No, Its all resources and money buddy, Religion has fuck all to do with it

get 3 people who are equally as smart. a Muslim a Christian and a Non-believer, Give them the same resources they'd all impress us. religion or not.

Faith is a belief in something that goes against logic and has no proof, which goes against science, they don't mix

Science can't prove or disprove God, but science can distinguish true from false from the many of things he has told us in his scripture about our world and our universe, so yes they can mix.

 

[Jokerman]

Me: I think we are here to..
Jokerman: Not interested

Great. How closed minded is that?

No, it would be like this:

You- "I think we are here to..."
Me- "And why do you think that?"
You- "Because of faith in my religion."
Me- "Then you've just closed the discussion."

Hmm it seems id fit perfectly in this type of discussion seeing you mentioned that "some part of us still exist" after we die..

Because the questioner said there was some evidence of it, not he had faith.

How could religion be anti-science when nothing in there is scientific. Contradiction?

Because it considers God an explanation for anything. And that is as anti-science as it gets.

 

[TecK NeeX]

We see religious people who do not question their own faith,

We question our faith too. How? by going to people who know more, Just like an idiot who is in search of scientific answers to things he does not know.

so we ask them why god allows children in africa to die horrible deaths and the answer is usually "god works in mysterious ways...", and this is suppose to be an all loving god?

Of course you will, You will also find decent answers to that if you go to the right person. No different than me getting an answer to something about science from someone who knows jack all about science. Just cause you got the infamous 'God works in mysterious ways doesn't mean thats the same answer you will get from every religious person.

They bring the idea that things that are created need creators, but what created the creator? They dodge the answers that challenge their faith.

Again not every one will dodge such questions as this. Go to the right person and he wont dodge it. There are other people outside 2pac board.

Difference between saying "i don't know" with science and religion? In science it is the absence of evidence, in religion it is the lack of the answer in a book.

There are questions that science will never give us an answer to, Like what happens after we die for example. So this evidence will always be absent, no different than answers to questions that are not available in scriptures.

 

[TecK NeeX]

No, it would be like this:

You- "I think we are here to..."
Me- "And why do you think that?"
You- "Because of faith in my religion."
Me- "Then you've just closed the discussion."

Thats not what my answer would be though. so discussion continues.

Because the questioner said there was some evidence of it, not he had faith.

But this evidence would prove our faith to be true. so discussion continues.

Because it considers God an explanation for anything. And that is as anti-science as it gets.

But if science explained things in a way that doesnt conflict with religion than this religion is not anti science. until it does and the followers refused to acknowledge this fact than it is going against science.

 

[Illuminattile]

Discussions involve opinions, and religious people don't have opinions. To a religious person, there's nothing to discuss because whatever book they believe in tells them the answers. And the book is right, regardless of how absurd or ambiguous it is. There's no room for discussion.

imo, the invisible pink unicorn can be disproven as it does not have an apparent purpose. i believe everything has a purpose.

So what is your purpose?

im sure it does have a purpose. we just do not know it.

Maybe the pink unicorn has a purpose, we just do not know it.

i'm no scientician, but you can disprove god - by disproving the possibility of something creating this universe.
you don't know much about god, but there is a whole lot of stuff on the universe and its creation. if you prove beyond reasonable doubt that nothing external was involved in creating the universe or its fundamental starting blocks, then i guess you have made god irrelevant.

No, you can't disprove god. No matter how well we explain the formation of the Universe, theists can always say "God did that".

 

[TecK NeeX]

Discussions involve opinions, and religious people don't have opinions. To a religious person, there's nothing to discuss because whatever book they believe in tells them the answers. And the book is right, regardless of how absurd or ambiguous it is. There's no room for discussion.

Our books dont give us answers to everything, so we do have opinions