Well actually there is a difference. When you say, "I don't know," you're admitting that you don't, but when you say, "God did it," you are trying to sound as though you know, when in reality you don't.
I'm a christian and I dont believe god does everything, I just believe he watches over us, and he set the foundations for life and helped humans when they were on the verge of extinction
On a side note did anyone hear that they found noahs arc a few years ago?
WAIT HOLD ON... if scientist make mini big bangs using Hadron Coilliders that travel 3 meters per second slower then the speed of light, then obviously it would take MUCH MUCH faster thousands of times faster to make a large universe such as our own.
BUT if something is faster then the speed of light it doesnt exist, so then does that mean that the big bang couldnt exist?
Guys, you have a nice discussion about compartability of science and religion. I had fun reading it.
And I think R. and S. are totally not related to each other.
Religion is a set of myths that ppl believe and it helps them to not be afraid of the death, and it also sometimes helps 'em to be nice to each other.
Science just explains and describes laws of the universe.
So, there is no connections. Religion has no instruments to explain anything. It only has a constant set of myths.
Some scientists were considered as christians, and it's easy to explain: it was a tradition, because chrisitans used to burn scientists, so it was easier to tell everybody that u're a christian, to avoid suspicion. It was like in USSR scientists and writers and other intelligent people had to be members of communist party, otherwise they wouldn't be able to publish their papers and books, they could also be fired ot put to a jail.
And I think, that even when science finally explain everything, there still will be some kind of religion with good myths that people believe and have fun of it and doesn't care about real laws of the universe. After all, science is a thing for like 10-20% of population. Other people just believe to what religion say, to what television say, to what politics and corporations say. They don't like to think, they like to believe.
There is also a part of discussion about has religion stopped science. Well, I know alot of examples of how religion fanatics were hostile to brave good thinkers. I also know examples of how christians blindly killed some scientists. But also I know that middle age merchants were cooperated with christians, whose temples were a good kind of castles where merchants were safe on their long trips from country to country, and those merchants provided alot of science exchange between europe, middle east and china. So, christians played its little role in renaissance emergance.
Guys, you have a nice discussion about compartability of science and religion. I had fun reading it.
And I think R. and S. are totally not related to each other.
Religion is a set of myths that ppl believe and it helps them to not be afraid of the death, and it also sometimes helps 'em to be nice to each other.
Science just explains and describes laws of the universe.
So, there is no connections. Religion has no instruments to explain anything. It only has a constant set of myths.
Some scientists were considered as christians, and it's easy to explain: it was a tradition, because chrisitans used to burn scientists, so it was easier to tell everybody that u're a christian, to avoid suspicion. It was like in USSR scientists and writers and other intelligent people had to be members of communist party, otherwise they wouldn't be able to publish their papers and books, they could also be fired ot put to a jail.
And I think, that even when science finally explain everything, there still will be some kind of religion with good myths that people believe and have fun of it and doesn't care about real laws of the universe. After all, science is a thing for like 10-20% of population. Other people just believe to what religion say, to what television say, to what politics and corporations say. They don't like to think, they like to believe.
There is also a part of discussion about has religion stopped science. Well, I know alot of examples of how religion fanatics were hostile to brave good thinkers. I also know examples of how christians blindly killed some scientists. But also I know that middle age merchants were cooperated with christians, whose temples were a good kind of castles where merchants were safe on their long trips from country to country, and those merchants provided alot of science exchange between europe, middle east and china. So, christians played its little role in renaissance emergance.
Please don't equate the Catholic church with Christianity.
Why not? I dont hide the black sheep in my religion,
Yes the Catholic church is Christians.
They have done a lot of bad things and A LOT of good things.
I am just a christian, I have been to Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist churches. I dont care about what church you worship at, Its all the same to me, I believe in Reading and Interperating the bible for myself, Something I haven't done in a whole yet, I have only interpreted small parts of it.
Ah yes about the expansion of the universe relative to the speed of light. The speed of light is 100% irrelevant to the speed at which the universe expands. The expansion of the universe is the generation of space-time, not the moving of pre-existing space-time.
Please don't equate the Catholic church with Christianity.
Well, there were brutal murders of nice, wise, inventive, brave people, the sources of light of their epochs, commited by dirty, poor, non-educated christians - before the Rome was divided to west and east. So, I think, there are much common. For example, there was a roman lady Hypatia, who lived in 4-5th century. She was mathematitian and philosopher of Alexandria, she invented and improved some scientific instruments, was a kind of proffessor in university, but christians removed her skin by seashells and been throwing stones to here bleeding body until she died. So, there was nothing special in catolic church comparing to early christians.
Ah yes about the expansion of the universe relative to the speed of light. The speed of light is 100% irrelevant to the speed at which the universe expands. The expansion of the universe is the generation of space-time, not the moving of pre-existing space-time.
Yeah, structure of space-time continium is so complicated and so wisely built, so ut's a pleasure to read about, and it feels like we're still in stone age and know almost nothing about how universe works. I recently read that our universe is a black hole. Because the mass it includes requires more space, than our universe has, to not be a black hole. And it is collapsed yet, we're in it. Also, the scientist suggested, that mass, falling to our black hole from outer space creates our time. And bleck holes creating inside our universe are probably new universes in different dimentions.
If you really believe that I could state similar things such as "There is zero difference between 'there is no point to living' and 'the point to living is to have fun' ".
Is this a joke?
My comparison is the scientific vs religious explanation for major life questions such as "Why are we here", "Where did we come from" and "What happens after death" and the subsequent increases in human knowledge as a result of these being answered.
Your comparison appears to be the life outlook between a Blink 182 fan and Hugh Hefner.
But whether you believe or not (or rather, 'why' you belief or not) is a different question though, I guess. I was just trying to point out that your 'religion has stopped science' (or 'human advancement as a whole', if you'd be willing to go that far) is an outdated argument. Not saying religion has never in any way prohibited any kind of science from happening, but the "the church kept everyone stupid from 500 to 1600" argument is such a gross and ridiculous overstatement I can't even begin to explain it.
Can you attach a credible source to this claim? I can't find a single article that supports your claim, let alone enough to render it an "outdated argument".
My comparison is the scientific vs religious explanation for major life questions such as "Why are we here", "Where did we come from" and "What happens after death" and the subsequent increases in human knowledge as a result of these being answered.
Your comparison appears to be the life outlook between a Blink 182 fan and Hugh Hefner.
Well they sure claim to have all the answers.
They claim to have answers because they believe in a specific answer to a question that cannot ever truly be answered up until the point where we meet god and ask him what's up. The whole point of major life questions is to give a personal answer to them in order to live your life, seeing as how we cannot give an 'objective' or undeniably true answer to them through proper scientific exploration. Which is where religion comes in. In a sense, it's the same as your 'god of the gaps' - the point here being that there are a large number of gaps science can never fill in, let alone fill in in our lifetime. There's nothing wrong with trying to give your life purpose, nor with finding that purpose with people who have a similar stance towards it as you do - which is the whole point of any religion.
If someone claims the earth is only a couple of thousand years old (or what-have-you), that doesn't make religion stupid, that makes that person making the claim stupid. Religion has since the dawn of man been abused by people to get into positions of power, this is true, but it still doesn't make it more than the analogous wooden stick I called it in my earlier post.
Can you attach a credible source to this claim? I can't find any scholar with that stance.
Here's one. That's a professor from my uni who gave specific lectures on the subject. There are more who had the same stance, but this one handled the subject in particular. In case you don't want to take my word for it, you can check some of his publications, the downside being that they are mostly in Dutch. I'll agree that the information is deceptively hard to find online, though, especially for a point I thought was so widely known in historians circles (all of my professors for the subject of 'middle ages' have mentioned it at least once or twice).
If you insist though, I can see if I can ask one of those people for additional reading material on the subject.
Edit: I might actually be diverting from the subject at hand here. Burckhardt was the one who came up with the claim that the Renaissance started a new period for everybody after hundreds of years of darkness. Most criticism against him handles the idea that the Renaissance for the larger part was really only a change in ideas in the upper class, whilst nothing tangible changed for the larger masses. It's writers from the enlightenment who built upon this idea and turned it into a "the Renaissance was an awakening from the religion that has kept everyone stupid for years" thought. This is what has ruled the minds of the masses since.
The main issue with searching articles and books about this subject is the use of searchwords here, since I'm positive that this stance has been long determined outdated by modern day historians. Not only does it not make sense within the general idea of history (that every revolution up to the French one was a conservative revolution), but it is also widely known that Christianity is what basically 'carried' European civilization through 1000 years of relative quietness after the fall of the Roman empire. Imagine our current day society with the government being manned by priests that hang on to a bunch of doctrines everybody rolls along with; that would probably be the best analogy I can give for the function of Christianity from 500 to 1500. Nowhere in this period this Christianity actually actively 'block' scientific advances - this is the myth I was talking about created by French revolutionist writers.
Their point of view is actually easily explainable as well, as prior to the French revolution the country was ruled by absolutist monarchs who claimed to have the 'divine right' to rule. Regardless, 'atheïsm' as we now know it didn't come until being until past that revolution and Christianity and religion were common good throughout the whole rise and advancement through science - the main difference being that pre-17th century scientists ended their books with "and that's how God is making the earth work".
Late edit: Another scholar I stumbled into by accidently recently goes by the name of 'Floris Cohen'; he seems to have written a couple of books and articles on the subject. The biggest one would probably be 'De herschepping van de wereld' ('The recreation of the world'), though I'm not sure if it's translated. As mentioned though, I'm sure you'd be able to find more if you'd care to look - it's a problem of searchwords as the whole subject is kind of text-book knowledge.
@Eiviyn: Go
Well actually there is a difference. When you say, "I don't know," you're admitting that you don't, but when you say, "God did it," you are trying to sound as though you know, when in reality you don't.
I'm a christian and I dont believe god does everything, I just believe he watches over us, and he set the foundations for life and helped humans when they were on the verge of extinction
On a side note did anyone hear that they found noahs arc a few years ago?
WAIT HOLD ON... if scientist make mini big bangs using Hadron Coilliders that travel 3 meters per second slower then the speed of light, then obviously it would take MUCH MUCH faster thousands of times faster to make a large universe such as our own.
BUT if something is faster then the speed of light it doesnt exist, so then does that mean that the big bang couldnt exist?
@Taintedwisp: Go
On a side note did anyone hear that they found a mountain a few years ago?*
@Nebuli2: Go
lol. They actually found the boat though, a boat that scientist didnt think exist.
@Taintedwisp: Go
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html
@Nebuli2: Go
I never followed it too much, thanks for that information.
Guys, you have a nice discussion about compartability of science and religion. I had fun reading it.
And I think R. and S. are totally not related to each other.
Religion is a set of myths that ppl believe and it helps them to not be afraid of the death, and it also sometimes helps 'em to be nice to each other.
Science just explains and describes laws of the universe.
So, there is no connections. Religion has no instruments to explain anything. It only has a constant set of myths.
Some scientists were considered as christians, and it's easy to explain: it was a tradition, because chrisitans used to burn scientists, so it was easier to tell everybody that u're a christian, to avoid suspicion. It was like in USSR scientists and writers and other intelligent people had to be members of communist party, otherwise they wouldn't be able to publish their papers and books, they could also be fired ot put to a jail.
And I think, that even when science finally explain everything, there still will be some kind of religion with good myths that people believe and have fun of it and doesn't care about real laws of the universe. After all, science is a thing for like 10-20% of population. Other people just believe to what religion say, to what television say, to what politics and corporations say. They don't like to think, they like to believe.
There is also a part of discussion about has religion stopped science. Well, I know alot of examples of how religion fanatics were hostile to brave good thinkers. I also know examples of how christians blindly killed some scientists. But also I know that middle age merchants were cooperated with christians, whose temples were a good kind of castles where merchants were safe on their long trips from country to country, and those merchants provided alot of science exchange between europe, middle east and china. So, christians played its little role in renaissance emergance.
Please don't equate the Catholic church with Christianity.
@JackRCDF: Go
Why not? I dont hide the black sheep in my religion,
Yes the Catholic church is Christians.
They have done a lot of bad things and A LOT of good things.
I am just a christian, I have been to Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist churches. I dont care about what church you worship at, Its all the same to me, I believe in Reading and Interperating the bible for myself, Something I haven't done in a whole yet, I have only interpreted small parts of it.
Thats how I find what I believe.
@Taintedwisp: Go
Ah yes about the expansion of the universe relative to the speed of light. The speed of light is 100% irrelevant to the speed at which the universe expands. The expansion of the universe is the generation of space-time, not the moving of pre-existing space-time.
Well, there were brutal murders of nice, wise, inventive, brave people, the sources of light of their epochs, commited by dirty, poor, non-educated christians - before the Rome was divided to west and east. So, I think, there are much common. For example, there was a roman lady Hypatia, who lived in 4-5th century. She was mathematitian and philosopher of Alexandria, she invented and improved some scientific instruments, was a kind of proffessor in university, but christians removed her skin by seashells and been throwing stones to here bleeding body until she died. So, there was nothing special in catolic church comparing to early christians.
Yeah, structure of space-time continium is so complicated and so wisely built, so ut's a pleasure to read about, and it feels like we're still in stone age and know almost nothing about how universe works. I recently read that our universe is a black hole. Because the mass it includes requires more space, than our universe has, to not be a black hole. And it is collapsed yet, we're in it. Also, the scientist suggested, that mass, falling to our black hole from outer space creates our time. And bleck holes creating inside our universe are probably new universes in different dimentions.
Is this a joke?
My comparison is the scientific vs religious explanation for major life questions such as "Why are we here", "Where did we come from" and "What happens after death" and the subsequent increases in human knowledge as a result of these being answered.
Your comparison appears to be the life outlook between a Blink 182 fan and Hugh Hefner.
Well they sure claim to have all the answers.
Can you attach a credible source to this claim? I can't find a single article that supports your claim, let alone enough to render it an "outdated argument".
They claim to have answers because they believe in a specific answer to a question that cannot ever truly be answered up until the point where we meet god and ask him what's up. The whole point of major life questions is to give a personal answer to them in order to live your life, seeing as how we cannot give an 'objective' or undeniably true answer to them through proper scientific exploration. Which is where religion comes in. In a sense, it's the same as your 'god of the gaps' - the point here being that there are a large number of gaps science can never fill in, let alone fill in in our lifetime. There's nothing wrong with trying to give your life purpose, nor with finding that purpose with people who have a similar stance towards it as you do - which is the whole point of any religion.
If someone claims the earth is only a couple of thousand years old (or what-have-you), that doesn't make religion stupid, that makes that person making the claim stupid. Religion has since the dawn of man been abused by people to get into positions of power, this is true, but it still doesn't make it more than the analogous wooden stick I called it in my earlier post.
Here's one. That's a professor from my uni who gave specific lectures on the subject. There are more who had the same stance, but this one handled the subject in particular. In case you don't want to take my word for it, you can check some of his publications, the downside being that they are mostly in Dutch. I'll agree that the information is deceptively hard to find online, though, especially for a point I thought was so widely known in historians circles (all of my professors for the subject of 'middle ages' have mentioned it at least once or twice).
If you insist though, I can see if I can ask one of those people for additional reading material on the subject.
Edit: I might actually be diverting from the subject at hand here. Burckhardt was the one who came up with the claim that the Renaissance started a new period for everybody after hundreds of years of darkness. Most criticism against him handles the idea that the Renaissance for the larger part was really only a change in ideas in the upper class, whilst nothing tangible changed for the larger masses. It's writers from the enlightenment who built upon this idea and turned it into a "the Renaissance was an awakening from the religion that has kept everyone stupid for years" thought. This is what has ruled the minds of the masses since.
The main issue with searching articles and books about this subject is the use of searchwords here, since I'm positive that this stance has been long determined outdated by modern day historians. Not only does it not make sense within the general idea of history (that every revolution up to the French one was a conservative revolution), but it is also widely known that Christianity is what basically 'carried' European civilization through 1000 years of relative quietness after the fall of the Roman empire. Imagine our current day society with the government being manned by priests that hang on to a bunch of doctrines everybody rolls along with; that would probably be the best analogy I can give for the function of Christianity from 500 to 1500. Nowhere in this period this Christianity actually actively 'block' scientific advances - this is the myth I was talking about created by French revolutionist writers.
Their point of view is actually easily explainable as well, as prior to the French revolution the country was ruled by absolutist monarchs who claimed to have the 'divine right' to rule. Regardless, 'atheïsm' as we now know it didn't come until being until past that revolution and Christianity and religion were common good throughout the whole rise and advancement through science - the main difference being that pre-17th century scientists ended their books with "and that's how God is making the earth work".
Late edit: Another scholar I stumbled into by accidently recently goes by the name of 'Floris Cohen'; he seems to have written a couple of books and articles on the subject. The biggest one would probably be 'De herschepping van de wereld' ('The recreation of the world'), though I'm not sure if it's translated. As mentioned though, I'm sure you'd be able to find more if you'd care to look - it's a problem of searchwords as the whole subject is kind of text-book knowledge.