Religious scriptures inconsistent with Science or Logic

bullfrog

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
2,068
#21
Thank you bullfrog; but, "he didn't know how to spell a few words", kindly define "few"
I can't honestly say that I've read the whole thread, so I don't know how many errors you made. I might have said it a bit wrong, I just meant that you shouldn't be judged for making errors. If you made only 1 error or 5 (a few) errors or not, you shouldn't be judged by it.

i am not questioning intelligence, i am questioning the validity of the claim the poster is making by starting yet another religious debate thread without having any sense to spell the title of his/her debate correctly.

it leads me to believe that entering any form of debate with this person will probably be filed with other inconsistent ideologies and conclusions.
He accidentally spelled something wrong, not much to base your claim on ;)

Besides if you think it's invalid then all you have to do is not debate :p
 

bullfrog

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
2,068
#22
I'm still in the dark as to the purpose of this thread. The topic is not a question, it's a statement. Maybe someone can enlighten me on what the actual issue is?
I think that the poster is trying to discredit all forms of religion based on scientific fact...but don't take my word for it.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
7,624
#23
I can't honestly say that I've read the whole thread, so I don't know how many errors you made. I might have said it a bit wrong, I just meant that you shouldn't be judged for making errors. If you made only 1 error or 5 (a few) errors or not, you shouldn't be judged by it.



He accidentally spelled something wrong, not much to base your claim on ;)

Besides if you think it's invalid then all you have to do is not debate :p
sure - accidents happen.
 

Edwe

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,023
#24
I think that the poster is trying to discredit all forms of religion based on scientific fact...but don't take my word for it.
Anyone experiencing déjà vu or is it just me? Can't we have one central "science (supposedly) disproves religion" thread or even a separate "Religion" subforum, since these kinds of threads are becoming too commonplace, in my opinion.

I've countered just about every kind of "science disproves religion" post at least once in one of the other threads already, so I can start quoting myself and recycling my posts ;)
 

Neo

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
1,168
#25
This topic is wearing very thin and was probably started to incite yet another 'lively' religious debate.

Anyone with web access (i.e. all of us) know that the common scriptures are very old (at least 1500 years) and thus largely incompatible with modern scientific thinking.

If you're really interested in some good posts on the subject look for responses to the ramblings of a member called douwdouw. Many forum members have posted good links on this topic.

/edit
See EDWE beat me to it :) But I agree, all these 'religous' threads can be merged as none of them stay on topic! We can just have one called "Any religious debate"
edit/

/footnote
And it'll help dodo tremendously, not having to jump between threads all the time
footnote/
 
Last edited:

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
#27
Science and religion are inconsistent with each other solely because they address different things.

Science cannot replace religion, and niether can religion replace science.

Religion requires you to make certain assumptions that you cannot prove - hence needing faith for any belief.

But science does the same. Science tells you that experiments are repeatable and the results are reliable. Do the same test with the same tools and get the same result. However, in order to do that, one has to assume that one's eyes are working properly - an assumption that cannot be proven.

How do you know you are really seeing what is infront of you? How do you know that your eyes aren't lying? Why isn't it all just an elaborate illusion? You don't. You can only have faith that your eyes are telling you the truth, just as you have to trust that your soul is correct when you hold any religious beliefs.

Logic dictates that we do not believe in things we cannot prove to be true. It is therefore illogical to believe that science is truth. In that regard, both religion and science are identical to each other.
 

Nod

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
8,687
#28
How do you know you are really seeing what is infront of you? How do you know that your eyes aren't lying? Why isn't it all just an elaborate illusion? You don't. You can only have faith that your eyes are telling you the truth, just as you have to trust that your soul is correct when you hold any religious beliefs.
Thats why there is normally a group of scientists working on the same project, proving of disproving the same theory. Because the method of testing is known, other scientists can repeat it and confirm. One persons eyes is not going to skew an outcome.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,427
#29
Science cannot replace religion, and niether can religion replace science.
Correct. Science deals with reality.

But science does the same. Science tells you that experiments are repeatable and the results are reliable. Do the same test with the same tools and get the same result. However, in order to do that, one has to assume that one's eyes are working properly - an assumption that cannot be proven.
Why eyes? What about ears? And touch? And are you saying it's possible that *all* scientists' senses are faulty, and fooling them? (And fooling them *all* in the same way too). If so, you're heading nicely into some Matrix-like metaphysics.
 

hj2k_x

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
30,802
#30
Correct. Science deals with reality.



Why eyes? What about ears? And touch? And are you saying it's possible that *all* scientists' senses are faulty, and fooling them? (And fooling them *all* in the same way too). If so, you're heading nicely into some Matrix-like metaphysics.
Yeah man, i don't follow this argument at all.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
#31
Thats why there is normally a group of scientists working on the same project, proving of disproving the same theory. Because the method of testing is known, other scientists can repeat it and confirm. One persons eyes is not going to skew an outcome.
You're still assuming that your eyes are correctly reporting on the existence of other scientists. Basically you're assuming that there's an objective reality being perceived by your perceptions.

Claymore said:
Correct. Science deals with reality.
So does religion.

Claymore said:
Why eyes? What about ears? And touch? And are you saying it's possible that *all* scientists' senses are faulty, and fooling them? (And fooling them *all* in the same way too). If so, you're heading nicely into some Matrix-like metaphysics.
Indeed. But it it's the only logical conclusion to draw without making unfounded assumptions. It doesn't matter if it's likely that an objective reality exists; what matters is that you cannot prove it.
 

Nod

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
8,687
#32
@Xarog: You and douwdouw should get together. Your logic and grasp on reality is about the same.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
#33
Hey bru, just because you don't grasp the finer points of subjectivity doesn't mean that my reasoning capabilities OR my grasp on reality is in any way lacking.
 

supersunbird

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
46,921
#34
"Religious(of ANY religion) scripture inconsistent with Science or Logic, are their any?"

Maybe a better way would be to ask:

Religious(of ANY religion) scriptures that are consistent with Science or Logic, are THERE any? (but its still bad bad english)
 

Nod

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
8,687
#35
Hey bru, just because you don't grasp the finer points of subjectivity doesn't mean that my reasoning capabilities OR my grasp on reality is in any way lacking.
I'm an introvert, I live in my own head most of the time.
Anyways, I'm not the one that is trying to pull a Matrix :D
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
#36
I'm an introvert, I live in my own head most of the time.
Anyways, I'm not the one that is trying to pull a Matrix :D
*sigh*

I'm not trying to pull a matrix. I'm merely trying to explain how science is limited, and that the way it's limited is similar to the way religion is limited.

Science is still useful, and despite not knowing for sure whether you can believe what your eyes see or not, you'd still be stupid to walk infront of a moving truck.
 

Nod

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
8,687
#37
*sigh*

I'm not trying to pull a matrix. I'm merely trying to explain how science is limited, and that the way it's limited is similar to the way religion is limited.

Science is still useful, and despite not knowing for sure whether you can believe what your eyes see or not, you'd still be stupid to walk infront of a moving truck.
But you have to agree, that you went a bit far with the whole "you can't trust anything you experience" theme, you were going for.

Science can be limited, in that people tend to focus too much on proving their theory (or whatever), and loosing sight of other evidence that might alter that theory.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
#38
But you have to agree, that you went a bit far with the whole "you can't trust anything you experience" theme, you were going for.

Science can be limited, in that people tend to focus too much on proving their theory (or whatever), and loosing sight of other evidence that might alter that theory.
I have to admit no such thing. I was talking about being able to prove that there is an objective reality. That is impossible to do because all we experience is a subjective reality (experience of thoughts not withstanding).

There is no shades of grey when it comes to being able to logically prove something. Science assumes that your senses report on an objective reality, but it cannot prove it. Thus, science is also based on unprovable assumptions just like religion.

Speaking practically, when you presume that there is an objective reality and your senses are reporting on it accurately, it is a safe assumption to make.
 

Gunny

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
2,149
#39
I have to admit no such thing. I was talking about being able to prove that there is an objective reality. That is impossible to do because all we experience is a subjective reality (experience of thoughts not withstanding).

There is no shades of grey when it comes to being able to logically prove something. Science assumes that your senses report on an objective reality, but it cannot prove it. Thus, science is also based on unprovable assumptions just like religion.

Speaking practically, when you presume that there is an objective reality and your senses are reporting on it accurately, it is a safe assumption to make.
So what you are saying is if I see a buss coming towards me it might not realy be there or scientifically it has been proven that metal is hard I shouldnt believe it therefore I can stand in front of the moving buss and not get hurt ?
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
#40
So what you are saying is if I see a buss coming towards me it might not realy be there or scientifically it has been proven that metal is hard I shouldnt believe it therefore I can stand in front of the moving buss and not get hurt ?
That's not at all what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that if you see a bus coming at you, it's probably there, but you don't know for sure. You are relying (aka trusting) on your senses to tell you the truth.
 
Top