Will science ever wipe out organized religion?

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Leros
No, the majority of people in the world are stupid. Not saying all religious people are stupid, but most stupid people are religious.

Free free to disagree.

idiot.

 

[Fardringle]

The real question is this:

When we have absolute proof that God does in fact exist, will followers of the religion of "I think I'm a smart scientist so I can't possibly believe in something wonderful like a God that loves me" finally admit that they were wrong?

 

[TehMac]

Yeah, what if they proved that God existed, would all the atheists abandon their atheism? Most likely not. At any rate, there's no need to make such a retarded topic about it.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Fardringle
The real question is this:

When we have absolute proof that God does in fact exist, will followers of the religion of "I think I'm a smart scientist so I can't possibly believe in something wonderful like a God that loves me" finally admit that they were wrong?

Science is not a religion, and the difference between scientists and the fanatically religious is that scientists believe in things based on evidence. Hence if there were actually incontrovertible proof of a god, most scientists would believe. However, like most believers, you already assume that the proof will come, which is ridiculous from a logical standpoint. You are assuming something with no historical basis and no real evidence.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: TehMac
Yeah, what if they proved that God existed, would all the atheists abandon their atheism? Most likely not. At any rate, there's no need to make such a retarded topic about it.

The topic is retarded, as being such thinly-disguised flamebait.

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Science is not a religion, and the difference between scientists and the fanatically religious is that scientists believe in things based on evidence. Hence if there were actually incontrovertible proof of a god, most scientists would believe. However, like most believers, you already assume that the proof will come, which is ridiculous from a logical standpoint. You are assuming something with no historical basis and no real evidence.

Quoted from a previous post:

So you believe in electrons, quarks, gluons, photons, neutrinos all because you have observed them directly, right? You don't rely on other people who claim to have observed them...well...observed them indirectly and theorized their existence, right?

And we know for sure that Ununoctium, Ununseptium and few other elements exist, because we've observed them, too...right?

Faith in science, it's there...all around you...it's not just some "dark matter"

You are all over the place with your logic. Belief based on "Evidence," what do you think faith is?

"Incontrovertible proof," well, that's not just evidence, is it. If there was evidence of God, then by your logic you would have to accept God, but then you go on to claim that there would need to be "Incontrovertible proof." As a scientist, your logic and reasoning are...well...embarrassing.

Basing a belief in something you assume the proof will come...have you never seen a periodic table? Studied astronomy?

Assuming something with no historical basis?

Wow! I hope you go into something non-scientific...like sell insurance...

 

[Bill Brasky]

Originally posted by: Kristi2k
All of you say that science disproves God, please explain your findings.

:thumbsup:

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: Platypus
Simply put, no.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Kanalua

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Science is not a religion, and the difference between scientists and the fanatically religious is that scientists believe in things based on evidence. Hence if there were actually incontrovertible proof of a god, most scientists would believe. However, like most believers, you already assume that the proof will come, which is ridiculous from a logical standpoint. You are assuming something with no historical basis and no real evidence.

Quoted from a previous post:

So you believe in electrons, quarks, gluons, photons, neutrinos all because you have observed them directly, right? You don't rely on other people who claim to have observed them...well...observed them indirectly and theorized their existence, right?

And we know for sure that Ununoctium, Ununseptium and few other elements exist, because we've observed them, too...right?

Faith in science, it's there...all around you...it's not just some "dark matter"

You are all over the place with your logic. Belief based on "Evidence," what do you think faith is?

"Incontrovertible proof," well, that's not just evidence, is it. If there was evidence of God, then by your logic you would have to accept God, but then you go on to claim that there would need to be "Incontrovertible proof." As a scientist, your logic and reasoning are...well...embarrassing.

Basing a belief in something you assume the proof will come...have you never seen a periodic table? Studied astronomy?

Assuming something with no historical basis?

Wow! I hope you go into something non-scientific...like sell insurance...

Holey moley. You are so far from understanding how science works that you shouldn't even post on this topic. You are a little like the Sicilian from "The Princess Bride", except you make less sense. I never said I'd have to accept a god if there were some evidence of one; I only said that scientists would by and large accept a proof of god if one were really possible and verifiable. Back to the booby hatch with you! Science is not based on faith.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Zaitsev

Originally posted by: Kristi2k
All of you say that science disproves God, please explain your findings.

:thumbsup:

Science does not have to disprove the existence of a god, just as it does not have to disprove the existence of vampires and dragons. Someone trying to advance a belief in mythology on others has the burden of proof; otherwise they should stay out of debates about what is real.

 

[FoBoT]

is the OP banned yet?

 

[JMag]

If God created the universe, who created God?

 

[3NF]

Originally posted by: JMag
If God created the universe, who created God?

The universe did

 

[JungleMan1]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You've got it backwards. Science does not involve faith of any sort, and in fact constantly questions previous findings. The scientific approach is as far from faith as one can get.

Faith believes without evidence, while science reserves complete belief even in the face of convincing evidence.

You're pretty much supporting my point. Science acknowledges that its own beliefs may be found later to be false, and science has many things that are controversial or that have not reached a consensus within the scientific community. Despite this, scientists base their own truths on their observed evidence, such as water boiling at 100C or an apple falling from a tree due to gravity. However confident they may be, nobody is absolutely certain about anything in science, and therefore must have faith not only in their own findings, but in others' findings.

If the world were to completely reject religion and accept all of science as it is today, we would have to realize that because of the nature of science and the fact that nothing can truly be proven beyond virtually all question, what we whole-heartedly believe may not necessarily be the truth. However, to fully believe science in our own hearts, we would have to accept certain findings based on faith-- such as evolution, gravity, global warming, or water boiling at 100C. Obviously water boiling at 100C is much more proven than global warming, but nevertheless, both are accepted on some sort of faith (as well as logic and proof). This is even evident within science, two scientists may have their own opinions on something, and both have evidence to support their views, and both wholeheartedly believe that what they think is true. They must base their beliefs on faith as well as evidence.

Likewise, (this is not directed specifically at you but to other ATers) if you knew anything about religion, you would know that it's only partially based on faith (which is why examples like Flying Spaghetti Monster, while funny, are completely off-base), but I am guessing that 95% of the ATers in this thread haven't the first clue about world religions and still think that Christians go on crusades, don't eat meat on Fridays, and think the world is flat. At least I make a concerted effort to learn about what other people believe is true (one of my best friends is an Atheist) and don't go spewing drivel about what I think other people believe to be true.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: JungleMan1

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
You've got it backwards. Science does not involve faith of any sort, and in fact constantly questions previous findings. The scientific approach is as far from faith as one can get.

Faith believes without evidence, while science reserves complete belief even in the face of convincing evidence.

You're pretty much supporting my point. Science acknowledges that its own beliefs may be found later to be false, and science has many things that are controversial or that have not reached a consensus within the scientific community. Despite this, scientists base their own truths on their observed evidence, such as water boiling at 100C or an apple falling from a tree due to gravity. However confident they may be, nobody is absolutely certain about anything in science, and therefore must have faith not only in their own findings, but in others' findings.

If the world were to completely reject religion and accept all of science as it is today, we would have to realize that because of the nature of science and the fact that nothing can truly be proven beyond virtually all question, what we whole-heartedly believe may not necessarily be the truth. However, to fully believe science in our own hearts, we would have to accept certain findings based on faith-- such as evolution, gravity, global warming, or water boiling at 100C. Obviously water boiling at 100C is much more proven than global warming, but nevertheless, both are accepted on some sort of faith (as well as logic and proof). This is even evident within science, two scientists may have their own opinions on something, and both have evidence to support their views, and both wholeheartedly believe that what they think is true. They must base their beliefs on faith as well as evidence.

Likewise, (this is not directed specifically at you but to other ATers) if you knew anything about religion, you would know that it's only partially based on faith (which is why examples like Flying Spaghetti Monster, while funny, are completely off-base), but I am guessing that 95% of the ATers in this thread haven't the first clue about world religions and still think that Christians go on crusades, don't eat meat on Fridays, and think the world is flat. At least I make a concerted effort to learn about what other people believe is true (one of my best friends is an Atheist) and don't go spewing drivel about what I think other people believe to be true.

You are playing semantic games that are ultimately unavailing. Among your tricks is using the word "faith" in two different ways. Religious faith is the type that believes without proof; when a scientist has "faith" in another's findings, he is merely placing confidence or trust in those findings (which are repeatable, after all). I am not supporting your point.

 

[Dumac]

Not anytime soon...

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Kanalua

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Science is not a religion, and the difference between scientists and the fanatically religious is that scientists believe in things based on evidence. Hence if there were actually incontrovertible proof of a god, most scientists would believe. However, like most believers, you already assume that the proof will come, which is ridiculous from a logical standpoint. You are assuming something with no historical basis and no real evidence.

Quoted from a previous post:

So you believe in electrons, quarks, gluons, photons, neutrinos all because you have observed them directly, right? You don't rely on other people who claim to have observed them...well...observed them indirectly and theorized their existence, right?

And we know for sure that Ununoctium, Ununseptium and few other elements exist, because we've observed them, too...right?

Faith in science, it's there...all around you...it's not just some "dark matter"

You are all over the place with your logic. Belief based on "Evidence," what do you think faith is?

"Incontrovertible proof," well, that's not just evidence, is it. If there was evidence of God, then by your logic you would have to accept God, but then you go on to claim that there would need to be "Incontrovertible proof." As a scientist, your logic and reasoning are...well...embarrassing.

Basing a belief in something you assume the proof will come...have you never seen a periodic table? Studied astronomy?

Assuming something with no historical basis?

Wow! I hope you go into something non-scientific...like sell insurance...

I never said I'd have to accept a god if there were some evidence of one; I only said that scientists would by and large accept a proof of god if one were really possible and verifiable. Science is not based on faith.

scientists believe in things based on evidence.

You said it not me.

I simply said:

If there was evidence of God, then by your logic you would have to accept God

Once again. this is based on the reasoning of your statement. your science is not based on reason, from your own statements.

I know it's hard when someone points out your own fallacies. It's hard. But you can accept it, and grow (like a true scientist)...

And yes, there is a lot of faith in science...if you do not understand that, then you really aren't a scientist (or you don't understand faith, which just makes you ignorant),

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Kanalua

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Kanalua

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Science is not a religion, and the difference between scientists and the fanatically religious is that scientists believe in things based on evidence. Hence if there were actually incontrovertible proof of a god, most scientists would believe. However, like most believers, you already assume that the proof will come, which is ridiculous from a logical standpoint. You are assuming something with no historical basis and no real evidence.

Quoted from a previous post:

So you believe in electrons, quarks, gluons, photons, neutrinos all because you have observed them directly, right? You don't rely on other people who claim to have observed them...well...observed them indirectly and theorized their existence, right?

And we know for sure that Ununoctium, Ununseptium and few other elements exist, because we've observed them, too...right?

Faith in science, it's there...all around you...it's not just some "dark matter"

You are all over the place with your logic. Belief based on "Evidence," what do you think faith is?

"Incontrovertible proof," well, that's not just evidence, is it. If there was evidence of God, then by your logic you would have to accept God, but then you go on to claim that there would need to be "Incontrovertible proof." As a scientist, your logic and reasoning are...well...embarrassing.

Basing a belief in something you assume the proof will come...have you never seen a periodic table? Studied astronomy?

Assuming something with no historical basis?

Wow! I hope you go into something non-scientific...like sell insurance...

I never said I'd have to accept a god if there were some evidence of one; I only said that scientists would by and large accept a proof of god if one were really possible and verifiable. Science is not based on faith.

scientists believe in things based on evidence.

You said it not me.

I simply said:

If there was evidence of God, then by your logic you would have to accept God

Once again. this is based on the reasoning of your statement. your science is not based on reason, from your own statements.

I know it's hard when someone points out your own fallacies. It's hard. But you can accept it, and grow (like a true scientist)...

And yes, there is a lot of faith in science...if you do not understand that, then you really aren't a scientist (or you don't understand faith, which just makes you ignorant),

Don't try to school me on logic. You make yourself look absolutely ridiculous here. I committed no fallacies, and never claimed to be a scientist. Among your many mistakes, you confuse the sufficiency with the necessariness of evidence.

I will restate it so that your tiny little pea brain can correctly comprehend my meaning: when I say that scientists believe based on evidence, it does not in any way mean that I or anyone must believe in something based on any particular shred of evidence. Thanks for playing, and have a nice day.

 

[erickj92]

It may

 

[GamingDaemon]

God, I really hope so...it's the only we we'll ever evolve.

Oops, did I say "God"? I didn't mean to!

I shut down a different thread a few days ago after 183 prior posts with this bit of streaming consciousness...maybe it will have the same effect here

The following is from a prior posting on another OT thread:

Every time I am able (like this afternoon), I look up at the moon and am amazed by the beauty and the fact that if not for the moon, there would be no life on earth. No one seems to look up at the moon any more. They are too busy rushing to catch the metro, or discussing silly religions, or spilling blood in the name of something or someone.

Sorry, I digress. Back to our beloved but forgotten solar system. In the heart of the fusion reactor of our sun, a photon is created. It takes that photon on the order of a million years to make its way out to the surface of the sun. Our earth is a scant 93 million miles from this furnace. After a million years, that photon must travel another 8 minutes before lighting up the beautiful eyes of my daughter.

Oh, and until that moment, that photon is actually both a wave and a photon. When it hits my daughter's retinae, it is realized as a photon. And then, backwards though time, a million years and 8 minutes, that light is fixed as being only a photon.

Neath, huh?

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Kanalua

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Kanalua

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Science is not a religion, and the difference between scientists and the fanatically religious is that scientists believe in things based on evidence. Hence if there were actually incontrovertible proof of a god, most scientists would believe. However, like most believers, you already assume that the proof will come, which is ridiculous from a logical standpoint. You are assuming something with no historical basis and no real evidence.

Quoted from a previous post:

So you believe in electrons, quarks, gluons, photons, neutrinos all because you have observed them directly, right? You don't rely on other people who claim to have observed them...well...observed them indirectly and theorized their existence, right?

And we know for sure that Ununoctium, Ununseptium and few other elements exist, because we've observed them, too...right?

Faith in science, it's there...all around you...it's not just some "dark matter"

You are all over the place with your logic. Belief based on "Evidence," what do you think faith is?

"Incontrovertible proof," well, that's not just evidence, is it. If there was evidence of God, then by your logic you would have to accept God, but then you go on to claim that there would need to be "Incontrovertible proof." As a scientist, your logic and reasoning are...well...embarrassing.

Basing a belief in something you assume the proof will come...have you never seen a periodic table? Studied astronomy?

Assuming something with no historical basis?

Wow! I hope you go into something non-scientific...like sell insurance...

I never said I'd have to accept a god if there were some evidence of one; I only said that scientists would by and large accept a proof of god if one were really possible and verifiable. Science is not based on faith.

scientists believe in things based on evidence.

You said it not me.

I simply said:

If there was evidence of God, then by your logic you would have to accept God

Once again. this is based on the reasoning of your statement. your science is not based on reason, from your own statements.

I know it's hard when someone points out your own fallacies. It's hard. But you can accept it, and grow (like a true scientist)...

And yes, there is a lot of faith in science...if you do not understand that, then you really aren't a scientist (or you don't understand faith, which just makes you ignorant),

never claimed to be a scientist. Among your many mistakes, you confuse the sufficiency with the necessariness [sp?] of evidence.

when I say that scientists believe based on evidence, it does not in any way mean that I or anyone must believe in something based on any particular shred of evidence.

You claimed that science is not based on faith, yet do not claim to be a scientist (of which I am). There is faith in science, faith plays a major role in science. A lot of principles of sciences rely on a lot of faith. They are directly unobservable (gluons & photons just to name a few). You claim that for a scientist to believe in God there must be absolute positive proof but do not hold scientist to that same standard for other theories.

It's hard...you're out of your league...it's okay, just...try to think about it...

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
You claimed that science is not based on faith, yet do not claim to be a scientist (of which I am). There is faith in science, faith plays a major role in science. A lot of principles of sciences rely on a lot of faith. They are directly unobservable (gluons & photons just to name a few). You claim that for a scientist to believe in God there must be absolute positive proof but do not hold scientist to that same standard for other theories.

It's hard...you're out of your league...it's okay, just...try to think about it...

Your myspace page identifies you as a 1L law student, not a scientist-- not that it matters. Again, the definition of the word "faith" you are twisting when you apply it to scientists is the simple one of "putting stock in something", not the "belief without proof" of religious faith. You won't get far with the law this way.

Faith has no role in science whatsoever, except as a subject of study in psychology, sociology, etc. I did not say there had to be absolute, positive proof of anything; your reasoning and recall are both faulty, which is astonishing on a website like this.

 

[A Casual Fitz]

Originally posted by: Leros
No, the majority of people in the world are stupid. Not saying all religious people are stupid, but most stupid people are religious.

Free free to disagree.

:thumbsup:

 

[judasmachine]

The christians by eliminating all other gods, have helped me eliminate one more. It isn't science, it's the sheer unbelievability that will chip away at religion. That is to ignore the outrageous actions of church leaders that do more damage to religion than atheists could dream of...

Why is it that Apollo, Krishna, Odin, Centeotl, and any other perposterous, and Jehovah not?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: irishScott
Obviously the concept of a god can never be wiped out, but what about the more corporeal parts of some religions?

IE: Let's say we finally figure out EXACTLY how the brain works... and there is no sign of a "soul". Then what?

I also read in another thread that a few religious types seem to think that teleportation is impossible because you'd be transporting your body ahead of your soul or something?

ANYways...

Discuss, and no flaming.

No, I don't think science disproves the existence of God, nor do I ever think it will. It's only fairly recently that faulty science has been used as a religion to declare that "God doesn't exist", or at least on this scale that we are now seeing. In fact, many of the early scientists (and some do today, as well) held the position that science glorifies God, because it shows the intricacies and infinite depth in design of the universe, one that only a fool would say "randomness" created. Science is also limited to the physical world, and it also cannot determine things or events before the universe itself was formed.

And if you take a look at the other thread, no, I don't believe that teleportation is impossible. I don't think, technologically speaking, that we as humans in our lifetime will be able to teleport ourselves.

allright. I gave you credit before (loosely)...but now I know that you haven't spent much time analyzing, or understanding the arguments that conflict with your beliefs.

but no...science will never eradicate religion, per say. One thing that studying evolution has revealed to us is that spirituality is an inherent attribute of the human condition. Religious belief is the initial approach to the great question "why." Science came from many of the greatest religious thinkers, and philosphers. While science can explain the process of death, provide evidence for the physical process of such, and even theorize towards a concept of "life after death," it can never test this. This is where spirituality steps in...Although I accept a random existence, where we are all part of a great natural whole, I don't want to live in a world where people no longer take comfort in the possibilty of life after death. (Again, I'm comfortable with re-distributing my carbon, and that being it...but I don't begrudge a person who thinks differently).