/sci/ - Science & Math

>Also, where science can't explain things, religion fits to fill in the holes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

>there is evidence that supports religion

[Citation needed]

"I believe X"

"here is some evidence that shows that X is wrong, and actually Y"

"YOU'RE WRONG, FAITH IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF KNOWLEGE!"

http://www.4chan.org/rules#sci
>3. No "science vs religion" threads.

Go away.

>>2493826

This isnt science vs religion man,

this is a science and religion in a symbiotic relationship.

>Why do scientists not consider religion and science to be compatible?
Its compatible as long as you keep it spiritual and metaphysical.When you start mistaking facts from stories from a fairy tale there is a problem.

>>2493818

Was about to post that.

Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson giving a rather eloquent presentation about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY

Science and religion aren't enemies. They never were.

Science and religious nutjobs are enemies. And it doesn't help that 99% of religious people are nutjobs.

>>2493845

This still doesnt prove that religion and science cant benefit from one another

>>2493833
what this guy said

lets have the evidence then

You want facts? The net energy of the universe is 0. This means it can come from nothing. It needs no input to begin.

This essentially means there's no god, or at least that no god created the universe. Entirely incompatible with most religions.

>>2493831
Maybe that's how you intended it, but it's going to turn into one.

>>2493850

Please explain in what way you think science can benefit from religion.

Basically: religion asks that you have faith in an otherworldly power, such as Jesus. While the scientific method is based on asking questions about the world.

Really, there is no contradiction here. One can have faith in Jesus and that he will save your souls, died for you sins, etc. etc. and still question what you see and determine facts about the universe scientifically. Where the contradiction comes from is when you have something like the Bible. In the Bible it says that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible was written down by a bunch of dudes who were spoken to directly by God or Jesus or some shit.

So obviously, when in the Bible it says "God created the world in seven days" it causes a bit of a problem. If you ask questions about the world "why does it look like africa and south america fit together" or "what's with those fossils" or "why are there patterns of geological formations that match up across oceans" and shit like that, you're going to end up coming across answers that contradict what the Bible has said.

When you contradict the Bible, then that means that it must not be the Word of God. But... it is the Word of God, according to the guys who wrote it, who were spoken to by God.

It causes problems, as you can see.

When a person looks at the Bible, looks at the teachings of Jesus, and at the stuff that God has (supposedly) said, he or she may interpret it in a way that is different from another person. Now, if we lived in a wonderful world of wonderful accepting people, this would not be a problem as the first person would say "well I think it means this" and the second person would say "well I disagree with you, I think it means this" and they would both agree to disagree. This is unfortunately not how it works when it comes to religion in general.

So yeah.

Science doesn't NEED religions

>>2493867
source?

>>2493886
But people do.

>>2493867
God exists in a different dimension that can't be expressed nor explained through our universal laws.

>>2493881

but what happens when we 'ask questions about the world' and we find sea shells on mountaintops?

That isnt something that science can explain but that religion does, and very well at that.

>Old Earth Creationist

...and you wonder why science doesn't accept religion?

>>2493890
>But people do [need religions]

Most of the people I know don't.

>>2493897
>That isnt something that science can explain but that religion does, and very well at that.

That would be a valid argument if religion's explanation for everything wasn't "LOL GOD DID IT!"

Also reported.

>>2493867
The net energy of this Universe cannot be zero for two reasons:
1) There is matter, which is analogous to energy.
2) The Universe is expanding instead of being in a steady state. (At an accelerating rate no less.)

Neither of those imply a deity without presupposition, but your facts are wrong.

You aren't going to get one with just facts. 99% of /sci/ just regurgitates what they read. Notice no one has actually addressed your argument but is busy trying to disprove god when the thread is about religion and not necessarily Christianity even though thats what the picture is)
Also, I'm pretty sure Darwin has a famous quote about how you can believe in evolution and religion. Theres a few other notables.
At the end of the day though, it's an opinion.

>>2493897
>That isnt something that science can explain but that religion does, and very well at that.

lol, plz

>>2493911

Well thast why its religion and not science, saying 'god did it' isnt an invalid explaination

>>2493897
Tectonics.

Google it.

Answering your questions begrudgingly, hence the sage.

>>2493890

then let them have it.

no one says you can't do whatever the fuck you want inside of your church or inside of your house.
but keep it there.

>>2493918
The net energy of the universe should be equal to 1. 0 would imply nothing.

The universe has a conscience most likely.

Ever consider that Science its self is also a religion?

Take this shit to /b/

>>2493918
The potential energy of gravitational field is negative and EXACTLY CANCELS OUT the positive energy of matter and radiation

So yes - the net energy of the universe is zero (excl. Heisenberg).

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

>>2493937
Nope, because it can be verified by whoever wants to test it without constraints. Something that religion(of all kinds) forbids in some form or another.

>>2493937
>Ever consider that Science its self is also a religion?

u trolling? u trollin'

>>2493897
well you see the idea behind science is that one wants to attempt to find a reason for why that sea shell is on the mountain, but one wants to find a reason that fits with what one observes in the real world.

There are many reasons for a sea shell to be a mountain. A person may have taken it there, an animal may have taken it there, perhaps it is an ancient fossil, and a very long time ago that mountain was under water. Not due to a supernatural flood, but due to reasons that can be determined through experiment and observation.

The observation that the planet's surface is made of giant tectonic plates and that earthquakes often occur near the borders of these plates tells us that the planet's surface is not "rock" solid. Knowing this, one can make some guesses. If the planet's surface is not completely solid, then perhaps it can change over time? If the planet's surface could change over time, then perhaps at one point in the past it looked different from the way it does now?

and so on. A scientist does not stop when it reaches an observation that is not in concordance with his or her previous ideas. He or she attempts to work that outlier into his or her theory.

>>2493934


That would imply that all land has been covered by water at some point....

So I dont see what point your making?

>>2493945
That, at best, deals with my first point. It says nothing about the driving factors of the expansion of the universe. In fact, it says that the expansion could be the cause of the matter/energy generation imbalance in the first place.

>>2493946
not Buddhism

>>2493937

0/10

>>2493897

>we find sea shells on mountaintops?
>That isnt something that science can explain

i am having a fucking oreily flashback (tide goes in, tide goes out, science can't explain that).

in case you were wondering there are explanations for both these things.
just beacuse you were told it couldn't be explained doesn't mean it can't be (tide is do to moon, you can find many dead sea creatures just about every were are do the several ice ages and general change in sea level on the face of the earth)

also not knowing the answer is good, it means you're still looking.
saying god did it is basically giving up.

In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

>>2493897

>Implying Anthropologists, Paleontologists and Geologists have not explained why the shells are on mountaintops.

Don't bother, OP. There are no atheists, just idolaters. Humans will worship something; the imprint for worship is stamped on every heart. For atheists, they have no one to worship but themselves, excessively admiring and adoring themselves. This is not a new idea. Paul talked about it in the book of Acts, chapter 17.

True science confirms religion.

>>2493979

>implying someone can change facts....

Please look up the definition of FACTS.

My belief? The Founders are right, and Darwin is wrong. All things came into being through the work of a Creator God. They did not come into being through blind chance and the random collision of atoms. Even science says that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. By scientific definition, then, both had to come from some source outside the universe. The teaching of origins in all our educational institutions should reflect this, and explore the implications for society if elected officials believe Darwin (survival of the fittest, might makes right, eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Adolph Hitler, six million dead Jews) rather than Moses.

>>2493963
Depends on the branch of Buddhism, some require a belief in the untestable.

Admittedly, there are some sects that are philo-scientific in their thought process about the knowledge in the universe.

>>2493960
Please learn elementary physics before trying to understand cosmological models of the universe based on General Relativity (which you don't understand - no, you really don't, since reading an article or a book about it means shit)

"Zero-energy universe" has got nothing to do with the expansion of the universe.

>>2493985
-1/10
trying way WAY to hard

I dont know how to make that thing that links to other posts... but its that long one made by OP

first of all, jesus wasnt look at as "the Son of God" before around 325 BC (dang I hate the term BC... but what'ya gonna do?). This was due to Emperor Konstantin, who had a difficult time controlling the fights between the followers of Jesus and the Pagan (by pagan I mean anything but christians).
The Bible as we know it was also created in these times, but only with a few select gospels (not sure that I've translated gospels correctly), though there were hundreds of text written about Jesus. Yes I'm not denying that Jesus lived, and that he was a powerfuyll man, and bla.bla. But he couldnt heal, he couldnt walk on water and sadly he couldnt turn water into wine. These stories were all made by Konstantin.
The way Konstantin made peace bewteen the pagans and the followers of Jesus, were by making a hybrid religion between the pagan beliefs and traditions and Jesus. This is why all the symbols in the Bibel can be seen in older pagan religions.

one last thing. I seriously dont understand how a person can believe some parts of the bible and not others... I mean, if you follow that religion, the bible is, as you said, the word of god. And if its the word of god, wouldnt all of it be the absolut thruth?

It was a bit sort, could and should have eplained better, but my local time is 01:13, and its time to bed.

OP pull yourself together, you are clealy not that stupid... It's just a fairy tale for peoply to dumb to make the own decisions.

also, sorry for all the typos

*cough* neurology *cough*

>>2493995
>Sigh<
I am well aware of the effects of virtual particles within a closed system. The problem comes when we cannot verify that the universe is a closed system(which is the assumption that all those studies make).

I'm not trying to support any kind of religion here, I'm simply stating that drawing such conclusions based on so many assumptions is just bad practice. We need far more information to test whether that hypothesis holds, and until they it is an educated guess at best.

>>2493995

does that mean you do?
beacuse i've always wanted to know.
does a zero energy universe mean there has to be a big crunch? or is there some other way matter and energy can be recycled repeatedly?

if the universe is made of nothing (or to be more specific, it made equal amount of negative and positive energy), does that mean we, if we learn the process, can create equal amount of positive/negative energy?

tried understanding the mechanics of the zero energy universe a while back, stopped when my brain imploded.

>>2494002
A note though, is that I have seen more closed mindedness in the atheists on this site then the christian extremeists I have seen. I stick to my theology, and I well hold strong to what I know unless God tells me otherwise. In that way, my mind is open.

>>2494035
Show me evidence without presuppositions for the existence of a deity and I'd reconsider my position. The problem is that there is no such evidence.

>>2494035
>I well hold strong to what I know unless God tells me otherwise. In that way, my mind is open.

>>2493813
Science and Religion are two distinct things. You can't proof that there is no god, in the same way that you cannot proof the non-existence of a unicorn. Not falsifiable -> No Science.

>a good template on how to live your life
-> Philosophy

First Law of Thermodynamics: conservation of mass and energy. something cannot have come from nothing. if there was once nothing, by this law, there would always be nothing.

if there was something, there would always be something, and in the same amount, being converted between mass and energy.

good science proves God; bad science ignores laws and facts and is in fact a lame religion

>>2494057
>You can't prove a Negative.
FTFY

>>2493894
That is such a cop out. "God exists! he just exists in an area we can never observe!"

>>2494033
>does a zero energy universe mean there has to be a big crunch? or is there some other way matter and energy can be recycled repeatedly?
No need for big crunch. In a universe that ends in a "big rip" / heath death, matter and energy are still recycled in the last black holes which will then vaporize "at the end of time" and reset the entropy of the universe to ~0.

>if the universe is made of nothing (or to be more specific, it made equal amount of negative and positive energy), does that mean we, if we learn the process, can create equal amount of positive/negative energy?

At our current understanding, we cannot create "antienergy" (nor particles with negative masses). At best we can create antimatter, which can be interpreted to have a "negative" electrostatic potential energy (vs. normal matter).

In my book a Atheist is no diffient than an animal. Animals don't have morals. Atheist need to get away from Christian values and following of christian laws. Animals don't go to a afterlife after death and Atheist believe when they die they are just like a animal.

>>2494074
>Argument of default
>Doesn't know other laws of thermodynamics or their implications

>>2494091
>>2494074
>>2494035

>>2494075
You can prove negatives. You can only prove negatives. You can't prove a positive. That's why in science there is only falsifiability, not proofs.

>>2494091
Humans are a proper subset of animals in all aspects of evidence.

>>2494089

>At our current understanding, we cannot create
>"antienergy" (nor particles with negative masses).

but do we have any idea as to what can? or why it is this happened in the first place?

i've always been fascinated with the end/start of the universe, but when i tried getting past popular science and into the actual mechanics i realize I'm just not smart enough to really realize what the hell is going on.

>>2494112

>>2494087
That any different than "Aliens exist! They just live where we can see them!"?

>>2494115
You don't get it, do you?

We're not Homo sapiens -- we're real men.

>>2494091
>a Atheist
>Atheist need

adn trolling is a art

>>2494094
oh, like the Second Law prohibiting things from randomly going from a lower order to a higher order? like inorganic material somehow producing life? and simple life somehow producing more sophisticated life?

yeah, science has become a religion to you fools; you worship at its alter but don't realize how lost you are

>>2494151
*can't

here ya go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkZNnD99Ap4

How do Atheists explain the Solar System?
why do all the planets revolve around the Sun? is that just an accident or do all the planets have their own minds and know they must do it for us people on Earth. i mean, theirs no other explanation. Scientists cannot explain this at all. it is cleary designed for all the planets to revolve the light. if not then your saying one day the Earth can decide to stop and not revolve. if nothing controlling it whats stopping it from doing whatever else it feels like.

>>2494164
Fuck it, reported for off-topic and blatant trolling.

>>2494175
0/10

>>2494164
>oh, like the Second Law prohibiting things from randomly going from a lower order to a higher order?
Exactly. Like a tiny cell turning into a baby turning into a grown-up.

>>2494177
why, hello there wolfie

i get banned every day, but still come back to haunt your lies with the truth

and OP has a pic depicting Jesus...so kind of on topic...

>>2494190
the complexity of the single cell animal is virtually infinite; to call it "simple" is to reveal how destitute for truth the worshippers of science actually are

>>2494164
>>2494175
Why do idiots like these even end on 4chan, /sci/ or all places?
I can only imagine they are trolls as the alternative is more grim.

>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
>>2494172
This. A thousand times this.

>>2494164
Evolution never was serious science. It was a philosophy adopted by many who refused to believe in a creator God...they were too illiterate to see that God made everything and thus had to make up a story.... but don't expect aethists to beat the door down to join in the pursuit of real truth. They have too much invested in their lies and misbeliefs.

>>2494205
Yeah, I'm "trolling" because I know the truth of God's light.
Prove to me God doesn't exist. Think about Earth. If it were any closer to the sun, we'd all fry. If it were any farther away, we'd all freeze. If the Earth wasn't tilted at precisely 23 1/2 (I think, but that's not the point) degrees, the polar ice caps would melt and we'd all drown. Do you really think that all that can happen just by chance?

>>2493813
There is no testable evidence from religion

There is no evidence from religion

There is no religion in Science.

>my thread about possibilty of a nuclear annihilation
>no replies
>Trolololololol Jesus walked on water, why u mad scientists
>instant replies

Science:
Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them.

Religion:
Here are the conclusions, can we find facts to support them.

The logical combination of science and religion are mutually exclusive and will always result in a contradiction regardless of which you choose to assume.

Now go away, I'm tired of seeing a white trashes rendition of a 2000 year old sand nigger on the front page of /sci/.

Why is it still fuckin legal for those cock-licking homo pigs to maintain this nazi fucking LIE called evolution. Let tens of thousands of evil DEVILS of ETERNAL flames burns their grandchildren in concentration camps all over the planet. And if that doesn't shut down these cunt morons, I shall personally rip their intenstines through their GOD DAMN nosdrils!...I just get so fucking upset when I hear people talk about this gay shit piece of pussy EVOLUTION. I am NO son of a buttfucking God damn ape, and that's scientific enough for me! Hell yeah! We should decapitate all those bitch slapping freak loving idiots, who think God is dead and who uses the name of Jesus to wipe their infidel pedofile asses.

>>2494276
no

I was once banned for 30 days for opening a thread with this :

No matter how hard you guys try to deny it, Most of you rely on the exact same fundamental aspects of life as most theists do...
(most because there are exeptions like anti-theists and orthodox religious.)

The main reasons people really are theist is because they rely on present day culture, people they have trust in, and thier own feelings.

You guys do exactly the same in some extend... Where else can one get his moral values from ?

Anyway im not saying theists reject sceince. Most theists agree with sceintific method and the reliability of observation(exept in u.s.a.).
Just like most atheists are not rejecting every aspect of culture, people they have trust in, and thier own feelings.(exept nihilists etc.)

Theists just think when it comes to the subject of God, sceince is useless because the subject is beyond empirical knowledge. and therefor prefere to rely on philosophy, other people`s account`s, or it`s own feelings.

Some one can decide to rely on (belief in); culture, tradition, other people`s accounts, it`s own feeling, it`s own experience, extreme-scepticism, sceince, etc etc...
All of these aspects are reasonable things to rely on depending on your (philosophical) view on life.

People can see one or a combination of these aspects as fundemental and therefor must belief in a god or not, in order to fallow his/her own logic.

And this precisely why atheism is a belief rather than a lack of belief.
It is not the question of God existing or not which they lack belief in, it is the reasons for God existing or not which they believe in.

Note that being religious is just as reasonable as atheism.

>>2494294
Some things can not be explained by science. Take for example, rainbows. Rainbows are a mystery and you can not touch them, just like god. Despite this fact, they are still there even though there is no scientific explanation for them. So next time you find yourself doubting your faith, think of god as a rainbow. I know that this can be a difficult concept for some of you to grasp. It is just like air you can't see it but you know its there

>>2494294
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

>>2494294
But what if..aliens?

theist fags should read carl popper

TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT!

=STOP POSTING NOW=
=STOP POSTING NOW=
=STOP POSTING NOW=
=STOP POSTING NOW=
=STOP POSTING NOW=

>>2494318

As a person who is a scientist by profession, and religious (though not Judeo-Christian) in my private life, I dislike this thread. I agree with OP's statement that religion and science are not incompatible. However, many of people's statements in here on both sides are pop religious in nature rather than what theologians ACTUALLY discuss.

While I am not Christian, I have a very thorough knowledge of Christianity (in fact, I double majored as an undergrad and got degrees in both Physics and Theology). The assertion that the Bible is directly from God is not used in academic theological circles, and is generally not accepted. Most theologians view the Bible in a historical context. The idea that the Earth was created on Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC was an arbitrary assessment by an Irish Archbishop named James Ussher in the early 17th century, and his line of thought generally has very little support.

However, saying that Religion works backward from the conclusions is also wrong. Stating this is denying the whole field of theology and the work of such eminent names as St. Augustine, Avicenna, Kant, and Spinoza, who all gave painstakingly logical arguments in support of God, though these are often argued against and invalidated. The point isn't that these arguments are correct, merely that logical religious arguments exist. Given, the vast majority of religious arguments are not logical, and are not made by logical people, but this is really no different from science. How many people REALLY understand the Heisenberg principle, much less the theory behind it? Or even more popular, how many people understand the ramifications of e=mc^2? Similarly, very, very few people understand the theological arguments that exist for and against God, but they do exist, whether we personally think they are valid or not, just as scientific theories do.

>>2494359
I do not find science and religion to be mutually exclusive. God's existence is irrelevant to science. You could even see it as early scientists did: science being the study of God's natural laws. I do not find, for example, evolution and creationism to be mutually exclusive, either. Evolution is a mechanism. Creationism is an explanation. Some brands of creationism obviously are mutually exclusive, but the idea that the creation of Man was the work of a deity is not.

All of that said, I am a Buddhist and neutral about the existence of a God.

>>2494310
>Some things can not be explained by science. Take for example, real numbers. Real numbers are a mystery and you can not touch them, just like god. Despite this fact, they are still there even though there is no scientific explanation for them. So next time you find yourself doubting your faith, think of god as a real number. I know that this can be a difficult concept for some of you to grasp. It is just like air you can't see it but you know its there
{spoiler I don't think real numbers can exist physically either.}
Rainbows are merely just a range of color, a smooth transition between light wavelengths caused by refraction and reflection of light. It looks pretty amazing due to how we perceive color. Anyways, there's actually a lot more wonderous things in this world than rainbows, even though not all are as visible, however this doesn't mean that they cannot be scientifically explained.

I don't even get it why religionfags try to find evidence of a designer in the world. If they wanted a good point of view for their religion all they need to do is wonder at their own existence, the existence of qualia (or the fact that we think it exists even if there's no evidence for it and yet we "experience it"), why observers exist in the universe at all (well, you can only know yourself). That's truly mindboggling and probably won't ever be explained by science since it lies more in the realm of the metaphysical (even though it depends on physical states). Trying to "disprove" observable fact (evolution, big bang, etc) using religion is a waste of time and only shows their stupidity. If they wanted evidence of a "god", they shouldn't look at the physical world for evidence.

>>2494359
I have yet to see an pro-deistic argument that Occam's Razor doesn't invalidate for use of presuppositions.

>This thread.
>Argument of Default everywhere on both sides

>Religion is a good template on how to live your life.
>Bible supports slavery, rape, murder, incest, that an invisible man watches you while you sleep and if you don't believe in him he'll punish you eternally for a finite "crime"

Ha ha ha.

>>2494413
Depends on what set of personal experiences and evidence you are trying to explain in the simplest, most coherent fashion possible.

People that have no interest in exploring the truth have little reason to adopt a new worldview (to accommodate evidence they have not yet obtained). This applies to pretty much every field or question or facet of worldview.

>>2494433

i don't know man, that could be considered good by some standards

>>2494437
"An unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates

Apathy isn't an excuse for ignorance.

>>2494454

i feel like most if not all people that says they're 'agnostic' as in 'i don't have an opinion on this', actually DO have an opinion, but they're scared of being reprimanded by other people for it. its just not possible for someone to not think about the question of the existence of a god, and not reach a particular personal conclusion, be it supported by evidence or not.

>>2494451
Then why would you need religion in the first place?

>>2494510

to give me a template on how to live my life. i cant figure it out for myself.

>>2493813
>Please, just informed arguments supported by FACTS

That's the whole difference right there:
Science is informed arguments supported by facts.
Religion is plainly not.

>>2494489
Buddha said that the question of God is "like having been shot by an arrow. You are suffering, and you know you are suffering, but instead of working to remove the arrow, you demand to know who it is who shot you, and why." It is possible to be neutral because you have decided that the question of God is irrelevant to the task at hand. God may or may not exist, but it doesn't matter if he does, because our experience and the universe is the same either way. Instead of pondering unknowable questions, it is better to focus on bettering what exists and improving on what is knowable.

SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE SUPERNATURAL

THERE IS NO WAY TO SUPPORT OR REFUTE HYPOTHESIS BECAUSE...WAIT FOR IT

THEY LIE OUTSIDE OF THE NATURAL WORLD

WE DEAL WITH THE NATURAL WORLD, NOT SOME FUCKING FAIRY LAND OP

GET FUCKED

>>2493831


sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage

>>2494516
Do you rape; kill in the name of god; lock people up in your basement for an eternity; or stone people to death for working on sunday, eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics?

If not, then congratulations! You're already figuring it out for yourself! If you ARE doing those things, well, I am amazed at your determination.

>>2494220

Yes. If it was not that way you would not be here to question it. It is extremely likely that out of all the stars and their planets in the universe, that one of them will have an environment suitable for life to develop.

>>2494220
>If it were any closer to the sun, we'd all fry.

LOL

>>2494220
>thinks melting of the polar icecaps would drown all life on Earth

Science:
Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them.

Religion:
Here are the conclusions, can we find facts to support them.

The logical combination of science and religion are mutually exclusive and will always result in a contradiction regardless of which you choose to assume.

Now go away, I'm tired of seeing a white trashes rendition of a 2000 year old sand nigger on the front page of /sci/.

> Old Earth Creationist here,
>>>/x/
> Before I get flamed by /sci/ just hear me out...
No need to wait.
> Why do scientists not consider religion and science to be compatible?
Because religion and science aren't compatible.
> Its obvious that there exists a lot of evidence to support science but at the same time there is evidence that supports religion.
No, there isn't.
> If anything, I would say that the two systems equally complement each other.
And you would be wrong.
> Science explains how to do everyday things, where as Religion is a good template on how to live your life.
Fuck no it isn't.
> Also, where science can't explain things, religion
makes up bullshit and burns you if you don't believe it.
> So whats wrong with this kind of view?
That kind of view.
> Please no trolling, just informed arguments supported by FACTS.
AKA, please no religion, just science. Glad we came to terms.

>>2493813 evidence that supports religion.

What this guy said >>2493820

Science doesn't pretend to be a replacement for religion. But science conflicts when an observation is at odds with established religious dogma. ie Young Earth Creationists vs Radio-Carbon Dating

>Religion is a good template on how to live your life.

Whether or not it is good is a matter for philosophers.

As long as religiousfags remain respectful of others, I shan't bother them.
But to me, respectful means we don't have to follow rules rooted solely in any particular religious morality, ie most vice laws would need to go away or undergo serious revision.

/sci/ is garbage now.

carry on.

And what if we, the non-religious, understand the meaning of what is written in religious texts, and find most of the practical lessons to be useful in daily life, and generally agreeable... But still don't believe that something majical will happen involving a trans-dimensional super being...

Can we still go to heaven? If so, what does it matter if we believe? If we are in accordance to what the all-mighty lord wishes, and we understand why we should be from all sides, isn't that good enough?

Even in the bible it says that the only power Satan has is to deceive people... Why should we just go believing anything we hear?

My main point is, why do people care if others believe in the god, instead of asking if they understand virtue.

>>2494907

Implying it was ever NOT

>>2494717
haha

/thread

>Why do scientists not consider religion and science to be compatible?
Leave America. It will do you some good.

>Its obvious that there exists a lot of evidence to support science
There is no evidence to support science, science is a method, not a theory. It's like if we're talking about basketball and you say "there's a lot of evidence to support dribbling!"

>but at the same time there is evidence that supports religion.
No there isn't. Not only does basically every religion contradict every other, but they all contradict reality.

>If anything, I would say that the two systems equally complement each other.
No.

>Science explains how to do everyday things.
No.

>Where as Religion is a good template on how to live your life.
Which Religion?
I hope you're not referring to the "Kill everyone who doesn't believe in me, pluck out thine own eye lest it lead you to sin, god hates fags but not slavery, and God's top 10 list includes taking a day off, but not rape" religion I.E. Christianity. Islam perhaps? Again, explicity commands you to kill everyone that doesn't believe.
Maybe buddhism, buddhists are cool right? Except under a Buddhist philosophy NOTHING WILL EVER GET DONE.

>Also, where science can't explain things, religion fits to fill in the holes.
Like a rapist at a birthday party.
Where science can't explain things, religion rushes to shove it's dogma, claiming that since science can't explain it, it MUST be God, and no further inquiry needs to be done on the subject.

>Please no trolling, just informed arguments supported by FACTS
Practice what you preach.

It reallly depends what you mean by religion, and by science. If religion makes a claim that's testable, and the tests seem to be failing, that religion is not compatible.
If it doesn't make such claims, then it's compatible.

There is no "evidence to support science" - that's a nonsense statement.

There is no evidence to support religion, only evidence to support claims made by religions. And that depends on the claim.


Religion is pretty weak as far as moral philosphy imo.

Do you really think it's ok to use a religious explaination when you can't find a sciencey one? I think if you don't know why something happens, it's dishonest to say "god did it".

for example Old earth creationism is a claim made by some religions. Depending on how you define old earth creationism - the world may appear exactly as it does. With appearance of age, no reason to think it's created, biological evolution all that shit.
But then you get stuck having an unfalsifiable claim. Which is fine, but it's not worth much.

>>2495728
>>Also, where science can't explain things, religion fits to fill in the holes.
>Like a rapist at a birthday party.

I chuckled.

10/10 troll

I'd say that religion and science are diametrically opposed.

Science uses a process of experimentation, hypothesis testing, and critical analysis that questions the assumptions upon which an hypothesis is based and the results of experimentation. A body of knowledge is slowly accumulated from this process--and that knowledge is always subject to question.

Religion can't do this. Religion is a set of beliefs based on historical assertions and intangible dieties that cannot be tested, much less proven. Rather, ancient texts and oral tradition of unproven validity are dogmatically adhered to.

Religion can only speculate about what science can't explain.

As for a template for living. Religionists conflate or confuse religion with ethics. Secular ethics and ethics based on religion may coincide in some areas, but religion can lead to perverse ethics. The jihads of muslim extremists and the "auto da fe" of the Catholic religion are excellent examples of this.

>>2493813
>Why do scientists not consider religion and science to be compatible? Its obvious that there exists a lot of evidence to support science but at the same time there is evidence that supports religion.

Your second second beguiles and hides the answer to the first.

As long as religion talks about interfering deities, miracles, and other observable phenomena in the natural world, then it's infringing on science's turf. It's making naturalistic claims without evidence, which is flawed thinking. It's anti-science, not just unscientific, but such reasoning is an attack on the fundamentals of science.

SCIENCE did it!

>Also, where science can't explain things, religion fits to fill in the holes.
>So whats wrong with this kind of view?

Science has this nasty habit of methodically moving forward and eventually getting around to filling in those holes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

>>2496471
If only people would just keep religion to the metaphysical and outside the natural world, everything would be fine. And why do ethical codes have to be related to religion? They can exist very well outside of it.

The real problem is that popular religions are prepackaged ancient myths which contradict facts and are outdated as moral systems (at least, some of them). If people kept their beliefs to metaphysical stuff, it wouldn't overstep into science's turf, and if they kept ethics separate from it, it wouldn't case silly wars over such things. Too bad popular religions are nothing more than a form of social control combined with some very inconsistent metaphysics.