Apparently GOD was wrong..

[Kosmo]

Religion is intended as absolute truth, no questions asked. And religious leaders condemn anything else as hypocrisy.

Sure, when we speak in terms of average person who is not actually religious, and maybe has some opinions about if Jesus was a carpenter or not, but there is no choise of being christian and not believing that god exists.

And I saying that two persons thoughts can't be carbon copies is just splitting hair, ofcourse they can't, individual beings and all. But I AM saying that if you are religious, you believe in the religion, if you don't believe in it, you are not that religious and might sway from your belief anytime.

[Pericolos0]

how is it a flaw of science?

The same way it's a flaw of religion.

science is science, you cannot just skew the facts here, because if you do that, it will be exposed.. with science itself!!

And all murderers get caught, all thieves locked up and we live happily ever after.

But for us that don't live in fairy tale land, scientific facts get scewed all the time even if some eventually gets exposed.

Just as the Vatikan realised their error on limbo.

When the vatikan skews their facts, there are not thousands of other vaticans testing the truth of this.

When a new scientific discovery is made or an amazing theory devised, academics worldwide will analyse this. Science can only exist with thorough peer reviewing. I don't understand how this compares to religious dogma at all.

What are you even trying to claim? That science and the dogmatic bullshit religious leader spout are on the same level?

[mawibse]

When the vatikan skews their facts, there are not thousands of other vaticans testing the truth of this.

No? Wonder why they changed their minds then?

When a new scientific discovery is made or an amazing theory devised, academics worldwide will analyse this. Science can only exist with thorough peer reviewing. I don't understand how this compares to religious dogma at all.

Scientific dogmas are peer reviewd just as much as Religious ones, what part dont you understand?

What are you even trying to claim? That science and the dogmatic bullshit religious leader spout are on the same level?

Same level of what?

Peer review, then yes.

Time taken to study issues, then yes.

How long they have existed, then no. Religions have existed longer.

Have rabid followers, then yes.

Being the "truth", then yes.

[Pericolos0]

When the vatikan skews their facts, there are not thousands of other vaticans testing the truth of this.

No? Wonder why they changed their minds then?

When a new scientific discovery is made or an amazing theory devised, academics worldwide will analyse this. Science can only exist with thorough peer reviewing. I don't understand how this compares to religious dogma at all.

Scientific dogmas are peer reviewd just as much as Religious ones, what part dont you understand?

What are you even trying to claim? That science and the dogmatic bullshit religious leader spout are on the same level?

Same level of what?

Peer review, then yes.

Time taken to study issues, then yes.

How long they have existed, then no. Religions have existed longer.

Have rabid followers, then yes.

Being the "truth", then yes.

Trust level. Would you put as much trust in what religion says as you would in science?

the same level of truth? Science does not claim it knows the truth at all, it only knows what we can investigate. Religion claims to know the truth but this without using evidence at all.

[mawibse]

Trust level. Would you put as much trust in what religion says as you would in science?

Obviously some trusts religions more then science theories and vice versa. How would you meassure this to compare levels?

the same level of truth? Science does not claim it knows the truth at all, it only knows what we can investigate. Religion claims to know the truth but this without using evidence at all.

So one part does not claim to know the truth and the other says it knows the truth but has no evidence... sounds like same level to me.

[Pericolos0]

Trust level. Would you put as much trust in what religion says as you would in science?

Obviously some trusts religions more then science theories and vice versa. How would you meassure this to compare levels?

The question was asked to you, which do you give more trust? Ofcourse there are people who trust religion more for various reasons. 90% of people are complete idiots and want to stick to whatever they initiially believed, against all rational argumenting. This also happens in science but luckily in science the idiots get filtered out. In religion they keep having a voice because rationality does not seem to very important at all.

the same level of truth? Science does not claim it knows the truth at all, it only knows what we can investigate. Religion claims to know the truth but this without using evidence at all.

So one part does not claim to know the truth and the other says it knows the truth but has no evidence... sounds like same level to me.

haha yeah but i mean, science want to know the truth, and at the same time realises it will never find it. If I would want to know what is the truth i'd rely on science, eventhough it's not gonna give me all the answers. Basically, science is more reliable to tell you if something is the truth, than religion is imo.

[Kosmo]

Easy answers vs. Hard facts = Religion vs. Science

[TomWithTheWeather]

Science is rooted in fact, which means there is plenty of real, tangible, rational evidence to back it up. It's theories are based on factual evidence. Science is an ongoing thing that strives to understand the world around us. Just because man hasn't yet been able to understand every single little bit of every single little thing, doesn't make it invalid. New things are discovered every day. It's an endless endeavour.

Religion, on the other hand, is based on faith. It's based on the intangible. In the dogmatic versions, it's not open to improvement. In some cases, it requires a person to ignore the rational in favor of faith in something they'll never see. The dangerous part is, many religious people close up their mind so tightly that when something rational or real is thrown their way, they don't even try to see it. You can't teach and old dog new tricks, basically. If somebody chooses to be relgious, they should at least be willing to challenge their own faith with questions and a certain degree of openmindedness. As humans, they owe themselves that and who knows, they may be able to answer some of those questions and become stronger in their faith or, on the flip side, see through it.

[Section_Ei8ht]

the bible is my favorite work of fiction.

[Kosmo]

the bible is my favorite work of fiction.

I think Lord of the Rings was better, since Tolkien went for the trouble and actually invented a brand new world that has inspired thousands of other fictive worlds.

Bible has pretty boring world, and the whole talking consciusness or "god" was done way better by worm in Irvine Welshe's Filth.

I give props to the distribution system who, few books have whole countries aligned behind them to promote it. I'd like to meet that authors publicist, maybe he could cut a great deal for my coming book.

[⌐■_■]

Oh well,

Pls inform the major newspapers: another religionbash at the political discussionboard...

*yawn*

[mawibse]

90% of people are complete idiots and want to stick to whatever they initiially believed, against all rational argumenting. This also happens in science but luckily in science the idiots get filtered out. In religion they keep having a voice because rationality does not seem to very important at all.

So the idiot scientists who believes in god just hasnt got filtered out yet?

I'm proud that you dont look down upon a group just because they have a different view of things then you.

If somebody chooses to be relgious, they should at least be willing to challenge their own faith with questions and a certain degree of openmindedness.

And if somebody chooses to be an atheist, they should at least be willing to challenge their own disbeliefs with questions and a certain degree of openmindedness.... yeah TomWithTheWeather, you are openminded right?

[TomWithTheWeather]

If somebody chooses to be relgious, they should at least be willing to challenge their own faith with questions and a certain degree of openmindedness.

And if somebody chooses to be an atheist, they should at least be willing to challenge their own disbeliefs with questions and a certain degree of openmindedness.... yeah TomWithTheWeather, you are openminded right?

I would certianly hope an atheist, or anyone with any belief for that matter, would be willing to excercise a certain amount of openmindedness. How ignorant does one have to be to want to shut out the world around him? To a religious person, I'm not saying "try something else for a while". I'm just saying, realize that a lot of other people believe as strongly as you do about their own differing beliefs. Who's right? Who's wrong? You'll never truely know until you die.

I come to my current conclusions after years of questions and uncertainty and by all means I haven't answered them all yet. Growing up with a Christian mom and a Buddhist dad, and calling myself a Christian for the majority of my younger life gives me a little bit of "been there done that" experience that has helped me form my own opinions. And by all means, these opinions are certianly subject to change in the future.

And I'm not atheist.

[mawibse]

Who's right? Who's wrong? You'll never truely know until you die.

And if most Atheists are right, not even then.

And I'm not atheist.

And you don't see the contempt Kosmo and Pericolos0 shows someone of your faith?

They are not just finding that any similarities between Religion and Science is preposterous, the way they write about it clearly shows how they look down upon those who have what they lack, faith.

[Kosmo]

And I'm not atheist.

And you don't see the contempt Kosmo and Pericolos0 shows someone of your faith?

They are not just finding that any similarities between Religion and Science is preposterous, the way they write about it clearly shows how they look down upon those who have what they lack, faith.

I have faith, faith that when I happen to be in car crash my seatbelt and airbag will save me, faith that if I ever get severely ill, the modern medicine will have a cure, faith that justice system is good enough to put away those religious yahoos that ruin the life of every fucking person in the whole globe.

I have faith, what I lack, is blind faith.