why do some believe religion over science

[Hollie]

HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people, not "some."

What a silly drama queen. The Establishment Clause infuriates christian religious extremists because it protects the public schools from the very worst of the fundies and their wish to force their particular dogma where it doesn't belong.

 

[Hollie]

Bring me a scientist that can create oncidium Kramerianum from dirt and then make a moth to pollinate the thing.
Nah Lets get komplificatereded

Show me the gods who did it.

 

[Hollie]

“Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge." - Thomas Edison, who knew something about science and discovery

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster cruel vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging three headed beast like god one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes fools and hypocrites.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[daveman]

“Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge." - Thomas Edison, who knew something about science and discovery

A scientist is talking to God. He says, "We don't need You any more. We can do everything You did."

God says, "Really? Create something living." The scientist says, "Okay", and reaches down and scoops up a handful of dirt.

God says, "No, no. Get your own dirt."

 

[daveman]

What a silly drama queen. The Establishment Clause infuriates christian religious extremists because it protects the public schools from the very worst of the fundies and their wish to force their particular dogma where it doesn't belong.

But you're okay with leftist dogma being forced on children.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But you're okay with leftist dogma being forced on children.

Trying pretty hard to avoid the subject...

 

[Clyde 154]

why do some people believe religion instead of science

The question would imply that religion and science are in combat.....one is true......one is false. Why can't both be accepted? The only science that is at odds with Christianity would be "pseudo science".............those who practice philosophy and pretend its science in its application.

I would state that its the type of science supported by the supposed intelligent elite that is at odds with TRUTH. Its "human reasoning" that is flawed. The way science is practiced today......its not about truth, but the search for truth and everyone is supposed to bow down and dogmatically worship this search.

Take "Carl Sagan's" self professed definition of science, ".......science is a way of thinking, an error correcting process by which we figure out what is true and what is not".

Science is filled with mistakes........with the exception of APPLIED SCIENCE that uses facts in evidence to determine truth that is quantifiable, reproducible, and consistent with each application. Theoretical Science is not applied science.......its a quest just as the late Mr. Sagan declared....its a way of "thinking"......how is philosophy defined? A way of thinking.

Example, several decades ago........Science was instructed in our school systems as truth in declaring the age of the earth as being 3 Billion years old, today those same classrooms instruct as truth the age of earth is determined to be 4.5 billion years. Which TRUTH is a FACT? Both can be wrong but reason and logic dictate that both can't possibly be true.

Teaching "ideas" as truth is an easy way out.........it presents the claim that TRUTH is in the eye of the Beholder...there is no one absolute truth, but truth is something you make whatever you want it to be. You present a few historical facts....base your hypothesis on those facts while making the claim that those historical facts have remained constant without change regardless of the number years, eons, ages that have past. Now you declare your findings as "theoretical facts"........which is more than ridiculous. These types of TRUTH explain how the earth could have aged 1.5 billion years in a few decades....its flawed due to flawed reason and logic. The entire universe is in a constant state of flux/movement......facts of the past do not necessarily lead to facts of the present.

Example the theory of radio carbon dating: That theory ASSUMES the rate of decay to have always been a constant........without variation, and then you use that flawed theory to target a certain age you are looking for. When in reality......radio carbon dating has a great many flaws......that has no way of calibration past a few thousand years...30,000 years to be exact, yet its projected as truth via applying it to MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years.

How do they determine truthful age past that 30 thousand year threshold? Circular reasoning. They date the strata (rock formations/layers)via the type of fossils found within and state "We know these fossils lived 65 million years ago"......so the rock is at least this old..........and then they date the fossils found in strata via the projected age of the rock.

Over the years......especially since the supposed NEW PROGRESSIVE ERROR .....this type of science has made claims that contradict biblical principles.

That is the question that was just asked.........based upon a FALSE PREMISE......science and religion simply do not agree. A logical fallacy.

My conclusion? Men are often filled with lies and deceit......treachery (the last election would be a good example). People in general often have no problem following a lie when that lie tells people what they want to hear.........when the truth would tell people what they need to hear ( 2 Thess. 9-12)

With logic and reason.........and most of all in honesty.......since science is a product of MAN can you really expect it to be flawless and actually filled with truth?

Religion.........true religion does not reject science in its applicable state of using the scientific method to determine truth.......most people of faith refuse to be judged by a system that is obviously filled with flaws....and judged with such pompous arrogance. True religious folk would rather have the word of God pass judgement in a righteous judgement. "He who rejects Me (the Christ), and does not receive My words, has that which judges him; the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." -- John 12:48

Whose judgement do I trust most? 1. the judgement of men 2. the judgement of THE WORD

I choose door number 2.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The question would imply that religion and science are in combat.....one is true......one is false. Why can't both be accepted? The only science that is at odds with Christianity would be "pseudo science".............those who practice philosophy and pretend its science in its application.

I would state that its the type of science supported by the supposed intelligent elite that is at odds with TRUTH. Its "human reasoning" that is flawed. The way science is practiced today......its not about truth, but the search for truth and everyone is supposed to bow down and dogmatically worship this search.

Take "Carl Sagan's" self professed definition of science, ".......science is a way of thinking, an error correcting process by which we figure out what is true and what is not".

Science is filled with mistakes........with the exception of APPLIED SCIENCE that uses facts in evidence to determine truth that is quantifiable, reproducible, and consistent with each application. Theoretical Science is not applied science.......its a quest just as the late Mr. Sagan declared....its a way of "thinking"......how is philosophy defined? A way of thinking.

Example, several decades ago........Science was instructed in our school systems as truth in declaring the age of the earth as being 3 Billion years old, today those same classrooms instruct as truth the age of earth is determined to be 4.5 billion years. Which TRUTH is a FACT? Both can be wrong but reason and logic dictate that both can't possibly be true.

Teaching "ideas" as truth is an easy way out.........it presents the claim that TRUTH is in the eye of the Beholder...there is no one absolute truth, but truth is something you make whatever you want it to be. You present a few historical facts....base your hypothesis on those facts while making the claim that those historical facts have remained constant without change regardless of the number years, eons, ages that have past. Now you declare your findings as "theoretical facts"........which is more than ridiculous. These types of TRUTH explain how the earth could have aged 1.5 billion years in a few decades....its flawed due to flawed reason and logic. The entire universe is a constant state of flux/movement......facts of the past do not necessarily lead to facts of the present.

Example the theory of radio carbon dating: That theory ASSUMES the rate of decay to have always a constant........without variation, and then you use that flawed theory to target a certain age you are looking for. When in reality......radio carbon dating has a great many flaws......that has no way of calibration past a few thousand years...30,000 years to be exact, yet its projected as truth via applying it to MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years.

How do they determine truthful age past that 30 thousand year threshold? Circular reasoning. They date the strata (rock formations/layers)via the type of fossils found within and state "We know these fossils lived 65 million years ago"......so the rock is at least this old..........and then they date the fossils found in strata via the projected age of the rock.

Over the years......especially since the supposed NEW PROGRESSIVE ERROR .....this type of science has made claims that contradict biblical principles.

That is the question that was just asked.........based upon a FALSE PREMISE......science and religion simply do not agree. A logical fallacy.

My conclusion? Men are often filled with lies and deceit......treachery (the last election would be a good example). People in general often have no problem following a lie when that lie tells people what they want to hear.........when the truth would tell people what they need to hear ( 2 Thess. 9-12)

With logic and reason.........and most of all in honesty.......since science is a product of MAN can you really expect it to be flawless and actually filled with truth?

Religion.........true religion does not reject science in its applicable state of using the scientific method to determine truth.......most people of faith refuse to be judged by a system that is obviously filled with flaws....and judged with such pompous arrogance. True religious folk would rather have the word of God judgement in a righteous judgement. "He who rejects Me (the Christ), and does not receive My words, has that which judges him; the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." -- John 12:48

Whose judgement do I trust most? 1. the judgement of men 2. the judgement of THE WORD

I choose door number 2.

Nope, you have it backwards. You have to modify your magical beliefs to account for science, not the other way around. Else you fail 6th grade.

 

[ChemEngineer]

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality.” - Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan page 29

“The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both." - Ibid

“If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate.” - Ibid, page 30

First the agnostic hypocrite claims that science and spirituality are highly compatible, and one page later, he contradicts himself with a nonsense "either-or" non-sequitur. Nothing prevents us from praying and inoculating.

---------------------------------

I dreamed of writing a handbook that would be simple, practical, easy to understand, easy to follow. it would tell people how to live--what thoughts and attitudes and philosophies to cultivate, and what pitfalls to avoid in seeking mental health. I attended every symposium it was possible for me to attend and took notes on the wise words of my teachers and of my colleagues who were leaders in their field. And quite by accident I discovered that such a work had already been completed! If you were to take the sum total of all authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene--if you were to combine them and refine them and cleave out the excess verbiage if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount. And it would suffer immeasurably through comparison. For nearly two thousand years the Christian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to its restless and fruitless yearnings. Here . . . rests the blueprint for successful human life with optimum mental health and contentment. - A Few Buttons Missing: The Case Book of a Psychiatrist, by James T Fisher

 

[Hollie]

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality.” - Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan page 29

I dreamed of writing a handbook that would be simple, practical, easy to understand, easy to follow. it would tell people how to live--what thoughts and attitudes and philosophies to cultivate, and what pitfalls to avoid in seeking mental health. I attended every symposium it was possible for me to attend and took notes on the wise words of my teachers and of my colleagues who were leaders in their field. And quite by accident I discovered that such a work had already been completed! If you were to take the sum total of all authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene--if you were to combine them and refine them and cleave out the excess verbiage if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount. And it would suffer immeasurably through comparison. For nearly two thousand years the Christian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to its restless and fruitless yearnings. Here . . . rests the blueprint for successful human life with optimum mental health and contentment. - A Few Buttons Missing: The Case Book of a Psychiatrist, by James T Fisher

“I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough – I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[LittleNipper]

Well first, I wrote nothing about any naked angels visiting anyone. You're right, there is nothing in science to support angels, and whatever else haunts your fantasy world.

No angels visited Abraham. Angels are of myth and superstition, naked or not.

You have this odd notion of life coming from rocks. Did you read that at one of your creation ministries?

So, show proof of how life began on earth. You seem to have an odd notion that biological life originated from something other than that which is biological. Rock represents that which is inert.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, show proof of how life began on earth.

Nobody knows how. We just know that it did. Once there was no life, then there was life. These are facts. The difference between you and a rational, intelligent person operating on good faith is that you are willing to say "magic!" and walk away pretending to know the answers, despite being the most ignorant person in the room.

 

[Hollie]

But you're okay with leftist dogma being forced on children.

I never wrote that. I guess you're okay with making false claims.

 

[Hollie]

So, show proof of how life began on earth. You seem to have an odd notion that biological life originated from something other than that which is biological. Rock represents that which is inert.

You have this need to repeat a lot of creationist nonsense. What does a rock have to do with the emergence of life? I suspect you stole that from a creationist website. The fundamentalist christian ministries do tend to fill their adherents with some rather odd notions.

You will refuse to accept it but you can't see the futility in the claims of the hyper-religious. If an explanation for the exact process that first sparked biological life is not defined from current knowledge, then abandon all hope of doing it. That is the message of the hyper-religious. Such a defeatist, ignorant view would make any science impossible. No one would ever find these explanations because nobody would ever look if the religioys extremists had their way.

While you find it galling that science is a process to explore the natural world with natural explanations, that is because supernatural explanations are outside the domain of science.

So, show proof how your gods created life using supernatural means. How did your gods create life from a rock?

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

why do some people believe religion instead of science

It's easier for the ignorant, lazy, and easily manipulated to believe in something that doesn't exist, as they can blame everything on these imaginary gods/creatures.

For whatever reason, they cannot face the fact that what is right in front of their face IS REAL, IS TRUE, IS THERE. It's much, much easier for them to NOT use their brains, and go along with the rest of the sheeples on the planet. It's much easier to blame non-existent beings/creatures for their ignorance, violence, stupidity, criminal behavior, and other negative and potentially deadly actions they carry out every day. It's easier to blame something that can't be dealt with, so they get away with whatever it is that they do.

All this makes these people extremely untrustworthy and potentially deadly.

 

[LittleNipper]

Nobody knows how. We just know that it did. Once there was no life, then there was life. These are facts. The difference between you and a rational, intelligent person operating on good faith is that you are willing to say "magic!" and walk away pretending to know the answers, despite being the most ignorant person in the room.

No, the difference between you and me is that you believe YOUR opinion makes you rational... I don't pretend to know everything; however, I can say that I do know GOD. I don't know HIM in HIS entirety, but enough to know HE wants what is best for me.

 

[LittleNipper]

You have this need to repeat a lot of creationist nonsense. What does a rock have to do with the emergence of life? I suspect you stole that from a creationist website. The fundamentalist christian ministries do tend to fill their adherents with some rather odd notions.

You will refuse to accept it but you can't see the futility in the claims of the hyper-religious. If an explanation for the exact process that first sparked biological life is not defined from current knowledge, then abandon all hope of doing it. That is the message of the hyper-religious. Such a defeatist, ignorant view would make any science impossible. No one would ever find these explanations because nobody would ever look if the religioys extremists had their way.

While you find it galling that science is a process to explore the natural world with natural explanations, that is because supernatural explanations are outside the domain of science.

So, show proof how your gods created life using supernatural means. How did your gods create life from a rock?

Whose nonsense?
I'm so stupid and so wrong. What are evolutionists saying?
Where did amino acids originate from?




A new study finds that when certain rocks below the seafloor interact with seawater and undergo serpentinization, they can create amino acids. These serpentinizing rocks were common in early Earth's crust, and may have provided the chemical precursors that formed before the origin of life

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, the difference between you and me is that you believe YOUR opinion makes you rational... I

No idiot. Nobody but religious gooobers think backwards like that. You are the only one here who thinks his assertions carry some sort of divine authority. You are a very amateur gaslighter.

I don't pretend to know everything

Right, just: The origins of the universe, the origins of life, the only one true morality, and the future of humanity.

Good god shut the fuck up.

 

[TeeDub]

why do some believe religion instead of science?

Science has a history of CHANGING, remember "blood letting"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science has a history of CHANGING, remember "blood letting"?

We remember how that wasn't science. try again?