Conservative Religious Right crosses the line in Florida.

So, RD, if I say there is a god called Mundaamuno - a frog headed moose - that just spoke in my dreams and said HE is the creator of everything, this could be the truth because there is no proof against it? That is a stupid claim.

Quote from GrayFox

So, RD, if I say there is a god called Mundaamuno - a frog headed moose - that just spoke in my dreams and said HE is the creator of everything, this could be the truth because there is no proof against it? That is a stupid claim.

But unfortunately 90% of religions are just like that, some dude claims he saw a spirit or something and since at hand there were no proof against him, to that person the spirit must exists.

That is why religions are matter of belief and not matter of facts, that is what separatest science and religion from each other. Religion loses it's meaning when it is dressed in facts, just like science loses it's meaning if it is dressed in beliefs, so that is why there will never ever be proof of god and never will be the proof of that god created science since science stops being scientific if god comes to us and tells "I created science to fool you guys and test ye faith".

This is an age old debate we are having here, and since then the score is something like 0-0 religion against science.

Quote from GrayFox

So, RD, if I say there is a god called Mundaamuno - a frog headed moose - that just spoke in my dreams and said HE is the creator of everything, this could be the truth because there is no proof against it? That is a stupid claim.

Yes, it could be the truth because God might have changed appearances and taken on a diffrent shape for each person on this planet.

Quote from Pericolos0

science fills the gaps with hypotheses, which are educated guesses. god is not an hypothesis, it's a cop out.

Science has no hypothesis on what happened before the moment all scientific laws were created.

Quote

may i ask you what is unobservable and unnatural about quantum physics. As long as science can observe it its observable and natural. whats unobservable and unnatural is for philosophy and crazy new age folk using quantum physics as false proof for their pantheistic god.

Strings for example. Ppl that believe string theory arent all crazy new age folks tho many of them are

Quote

Science shouldn't even be bothered with the concept god if there is no evidence that could lead to a "theory of god". You cannot start out with a conclusion and then go looking for evidence to support it. You make a conclusion of the evidence you have.

Science isnt bothered finding God But if u say god cant exist, u need some proof for it, and science will defeat u. Nobodys trying to prove god, only disprove, and yes, u need science to disprove something.

Quote

So far there is no real evidence of the existence of an all powerful supernatural being influencing our universe

Again some ppl have a very narrowminded idea of what God could be. Why would he have to be influencing the universe constantly? He could have created it all in a bang without never having to touch a single atom again.

Quote from The Postman

Plugging God into the gaps that science has yet to figure out is just dishonest and patently childish.

It's what a huge amount of people do anyway..

Just another word for luck or chance or whatever words you use for something you don't understand. I don't deny that you're right, but putting something in the place of the things they don't properly understand is a very human thing to do. We personify everything, cars, computers and other inanimate stuff, gods just the personification of everything that goes on that we have no understanding of. It's not something that it necessarily stupid, because we all do it to an extent. It's stupid when you build up a belief system because of it and start making rules, killing people and not eating pork based on it.

Thats my pennys worth.

The key to getting a fusion reactor working is ... God.

Quote from JynxDaddy

The key to getting a fusion reactor working is ... God.

Quote from The Postman

I don't hate God you insufferable nitwit. I think the idea of him is silly and has no place in science. Get off your moral pedestal and come back to reality. Plugging God into the gaps that science has yet to figure out is just dishonest and patently childish. The final fumblings of someone losing an argument and grasping at territory to stake claim in. Christ you're a moron.

I never said to fill the gaps with God, so i just couldnt resist twisting ur words as well. Now could u stop changing the subject to the filling of gaps, were trying to have a political religious discussion without AD HOMINEMS :roll:

I am god

Quote from The Postman

I calls 'em like I see 'em. You got us started on all this God=scienceLOL shit anyhow, so don't even try to bail now. God filling the gaps is bullshit. Pure and simple. "Creationism," "intelligent design (see: Creationism)" and other such false tripe have no place in a science classroom because...they're not science.

This is exactly what ive been saying :roll:

Quote from The Postman

I calls 'em like I see 'em. You got us started on all this God=scienceLOL shit anyhow, so don't even try to bail now. God filling the gaps is bullshit. Pure and simple. "Creationism," "intelligent design (see: Creationism)" and other such false tripe have no place in a science classroom because...they're not science.

But I want to say only one thing, science nor god are both all powerful, god might be actually some alien being who has done great things, or he could be some 'divine' thing that actually created intelligent life on earth. But science is just as fucked up, they consider truth as something that occurs 90% of the time, like example, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, now many times that may be true, but there are alot of places that doesn't occur. But that is just hypothesis bullshit, which is as vague as existense of god.

To quote a genius:

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Quote from Pericolos0

science considers nothing as truth. We can never be 100% certain of anything

Yes but when presented with sufficient amount of scientific proof, that something is considered as a fact, the closest thing of absolute truth humankind has, just like with other man made things, like justice for example, there are not always abolute proofs but when sufficient amount of proofs is presented, a certain group of people consider it as truth, and that is all even science has to do.

Ingnorance is the main cause for the birth of religions. Everything must be explained somehow. Some religions have a god, some have a dozen, some have none. In sum, religion does not equal god.

Science is fact based and tangible. We know the earth orbits the sun thanks to science. We also know crocodiles are nothing more than bigass reptiles, as opposed to being gods like in some religions in Africa.

Faith in something more powerful than man gives hope and structure to a variety of circumstances, which is why people created religions in the first place.

Science gives factual structure. We know what water is, we know the moon orbits earth. What science does not offer is mental comfort, that there is something protecting us from all bad things and such, etc, which is why people accept the idea of something greater than us. It's corny, but faith in physical terms can make a person stronger.

Religion wants to naively explain the unexplainable. Science, on the other hand, wants to give a rational and theoretical explanation to things that some day can be proven as a cold fact, like the world is not flat for example.

Period.

Quote from -Stratesiz-

Faith in something more powerful than man gives hope and structure to a variety of circumstances, which is why people created religions in the first place.

Absolutely.

I think religion is the embodyment of the biggest weaknesses and strengths of the human being.

Quote from -Stratesiz-

Religion wants to naively explain the unexplainable. Science, on the other hand, wants to give a rational and theoretical explanation to things that some day can be proven as a cold fact, like the world is not flat for example.

Period.

Religion isnt a book that tries to explain evrything. Its a person trying to understand it, these days with the help of science.

Science wants to give a rational and theoretical explanation for evrything, but doesnt. So what do you think about things science doesnt try to explain, for example, what created evrything? You dont think about them at all, and call religious ppl naive because they do? Or maybe you do think about it sometimes. Well these thoughts have nothing to do with science because science cant explore this terrain yet. Your thoughts about what created evrything are just as naive as what ppl call religion, with the only difference being that you exclude the possibility of god, something science has never done or tried, because it cant.

How can u exclude something u dont know what it is?

Quote from RD

Religion isnt a book that tries to explain evrything. Its a person trying to understand it, these days with the help of science.

Science wants to give a rational and theoretical explanation for evrything, but doesnt. So what do you think about things science doesnt try to explain, for example, what created evrything? You dont think about them at all, and call religious ppl naive because they do? Or maybe you do think about it sometimes. Well these thoughts have nothing to do with science because science cant explore this terrain yet. Your thoughts about what created evrything are just as naive as what ppl call religion, with the only difference being that you exclude the possibility of god, something science has never done or tried, because it cant.

How can u exclude something u dont know what it is?

But religion is religion, not speculation. What makes religion naive is that they blindly believe whatever it is that they believe in and call any other view blasphemy (referring mostly to christianity).

Quote from -Stratesiz-

Faith in something more powerful than man gives hope and structure to a variety of circumstances, which is why people created religions in the first place.

Truer words were never spoken caped crusader. Man doesn't want to take responsibility on things he does not completely understand, like microwave oven, if the fucker killed my cat, how the hell was I supposed to know it'd do that? The problem would be BALLS, and the lack of them.

Quote from Pericolos0

why are we still discussing?can we all agree that god has no place in science as long as no evidence points to it but that god still is a possibility and that religion is a personal thing and should not interfere with state

We discuss this, for the sake of discussing it, just to show off our intellectual prowess, just like why does people drive very fast cars and lift heavy weights, you can drop the wheights just like that and walk away, but you still would turn to take a look at our faces if we would be mocking you. The pride won't let you keep your mouth shut, on the matter. Or can it? Proof me wrong.