Science without Religion is like food without taste

When you reach a certain level of knowledge it's nearly impossible to exclude God. You may ofcourse still be an atheist and explain it differently, but it will still be God the way God is explained throughout history and in all parts of the known world.

What initiated Big Bang? And. Knowing how it has taken us about 200 years to get where we are now scientifically, why do we not find any traces of any civilisations on Earth until about 6000 years ago? And. Where did all the water come from? And. How did life come to Earth? Why are we concious and is it even possible? Why is everything around us beautiful and harmonic and lifeforms so rational in their functionality, yet so incredibly advanced even in it's most primitive forms?

Questions like that can easilly be calculated to show some atheist bias, but when talking of probability you need an intelligent force put into the paradoxes that arise. It's just as simple as that.

At some point we need a designer who made this whole gigantic 1:10^100+ improbable calculation possible.

[sarcasm]And remember folks: A Christian scientist is always biased while Atheists are not. What a load of bullcrap.[/sarcasm]

I think it is more accurate to say science and spirituality. Not so much religion. Religion has spirituality but often time the mainstream interpretation muddles it down in favor of dogma, pointless rituals and symbols.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
any traces of any civilisations on Earth until about 6000 years ago?

Are you the new Archbishop Usher?

I was prepared to give it a go, but when I got to this bit I realised you were just way off the mark and wanted to post about god so I appreciate you giving me the chance to counter that.
A simple search will yield information shewing pre-6000BCE civilisations.

Originally posted by Neo Christian MysticAt some point we need a designer who made this whole gigantic 1:10^100+ improbable calculation possible.

No we don't. It is unnecessary.

Now we are at an impasse. You deign it necessary, I don't. Hmmm

I consider science best without Religion and religion certainly doesn't need Science

Are they Gouldian Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). Possibly, but only one, in my mind is truly magisteria, the other is hysteria.


[edit on 24-1-2010 by aorAki]

the problem is faith.
faith presupposes answers to questions,this is against the scientific principles.

atheists are just as arrogant as theists.
Any answer other than ''I don't know'' is the mating call of morons.

believe what you want but keep it at home,out of the class rooms.

I personally suspect there may well be something out there,but i can't prove it and neither can you.
so...
I don't know

reply to post by aorAki


The Universe is somewhere between 13 and 20 billion years old depending on what you concider age to be, and whether to calculate using the background noise of the Universe or the noise emmitted from certain globular clusters.

No serious historian or archaeologist I know of can bring up any trace of any grand civilisation reaching back to before Sumer, Egypt and Indus. If you can please enlighten me, feel free.... Until about 6000 years ago we were all living like indians, being hunters and gatherers. But suddenly as out of nowhere we had cities and gigantic temple complexes, written language, astronomy, math etc. I don't see your problem here. Comeon, which (unknown) civilisation is older than any of the three I mentioned above?

[edit on 24/1/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

What initiated Big Bang?

We don't know … yet.

And. Knowing how it has taken us about 200 years to get where we are now scientifically, why do we not find any traces of any civilisations on Earth until about 6000 years ago?

As the above poster says I'm fairly sure this isn't true but either way why is it significant?

And. Where did all the water come from?

Hydrogen reacting with oxygen; the latter being the most common element in the universe.

And. How did life come to Earth?

We don't know … yet.

Why are we concious and is it even possible?

First part we don't know (erm, yet) and the second part, do you mean is consciousness possible? If so it must be otherwise you could ask the question.

Why is everything around us beautiful and harmonic and lifeforms so rational in their functionality, yet so incredibly advanced even in it's most primitive forms?

Beauty is subjective, we find things beautiful because that's what we have evolved to find beautiful. I wouldn't say everything in harmony, in nature we have extinctions and in the universe in general entropy will most likely get us all (unless we figure out how to negate the second law of thermodynamics). Nor do I agree that lifeforms are so rational in their functionality, if they were how do you explain pathogens; vestigial organs and traits; the absolute inefficiency of most animals digestive systems etc?

And advanced is relative; give it a few thousand years and your brain of 2010 might be outshone by a 9010 version of an iPod.


The whole probability argument falls down when you consider the sheer size of the numbers we're talking about; when we're talking about the entire universe even seemingly impossible things can become statistically quite likely.

That and probability is just the wrong way to look at some subjects; for example one argument goes something like “the chances of our planet being exactly the right size, exactly the right distance from the sun and having exactly the right climate to sustain life is so astronomical that it must have been a creator.” This isn't true because it completely forgets the fact that life on earth evolved to suit those conditions; if the conditions were different then life would either not exist to ask the question or it would itself be different.

reply to post by the_grand_pooh-bah

atheists are just as arrogant as theists.

Only if you assume that atheism means the belief that there is no god(s) as opposed to the lack of belief in a god(s). I think most atheists tend to label themselves the latter.

reply to post by Mike_A


i've always thought atheist = no god(s)
and agnostic= not sure
and theist= god(s)

This is boring.

If you want to have a faith discussion, go and do it on a faith website instead of ramming it down our throats on ATS.

You're clearly here on ATS with an agenda to spread Christian rubbish and talk about it at every opportunity. If what you were saying was even remotely academic or interesting, I'd be more than happy to indulge you.

But it isn't, and you're not. So please, do us all a favour and take it elsehwere.

Parallex.

reply to post by the_grand_pooh-bah


It can mean both, it's commonly thought to be a belief that there are no gods; its literal meaning is “without gods” and from my experience most atheists use it to mean that they don't believe in any god.

Agnostic is a problematic term for some atheists because it implies a 50/50, maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't. A good illustration; you probability wouldn't say that you are agnostic about the existence of the Great Martian Unicorn; even though you can't possibly know it doesn't exist you would probably say you don't believe in it. Same goes for many atheists and the idea of a god.

The point being that an atheist doesn't necessarily believe that there is definitely no god.

reply to post by Mike_A


Let's start with some Einstein, I just love this quote:

"How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."
From www.sacred-texts.com... not less

The "cosmic religion" Einstein spoke of in his article about Science and Religion in New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4 is what can be called the main drive for anyone asking any of these questions. The religious feeling we all get at some point in life, either due to seeing something incredibly beautiful, or through experiencing something seemingly 1:1/0 impossible makes us better suited to further investigate these experiences and bring about some serious science.

For an atheist God may simply mean perplexing order in the universe, and he might go on to try to explain it, but when 100 years have passed, his ideas may all have but whithered away, and brought up another level where it looks even more religious in nature.

Whether one is an Atheist or a Theist, copying and pasting theorems and principles to substanciate ones findings is useless unless we end up with a question, leaving it to the unborn future scientists to wonder and plunder further on it, for we will never be able to know it all. We might make some kind of Universal Quantum Computer to calculate anything, but still, if we made such a computer we would all end up as hunters and gatherers one day worshipping that machine as God. What if this seemingly holographic universe is infact a giant Deep Thought able to make anything possible. Now a machine must have been created by someone or something, perhaps itself?

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


I'm pretty that is one of Einstein's oft misquoted thoughts on theism but I won't contest it since it's not really that important. It's an appeal to authority, just because Einstein said it doesn't make it right. If I consider Richard Dawkins to be the better genius then I'm sure you know I could dig out a quote of his to counter Einstein's but I don't really want to trade other people's thoughts on the matter, I'd rather trade my own.

For an atheist God may simply mean perplexing order in the universe

Only if you redefine the word God.

To be honest it just sounds like an excuse to keep religion in a world that doesn't really need it anymore.

reply to post by Parallex


Well, no. I'm here on ATS to have a great time discussing among other things religion, and every aspect of it with people like yourself. Can you please find anything in my posts in this thread that has to do with Christianity or any kind of organised religion? I dare you.....

reply to post by Mike_A


The quote is even in his book called "The World as I See It", Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.

It's copied and pasted from a faxemile. And yes, his voice is one out of many, but my point is still that nearly all scientists at some stage get the religious feeling, or calling, that brings them forward into studying and figuring out solutions to the eternal and universal questions of Life and the Universe. Without this function in the human mind we would all be as crazy as me, and I don't think any of you are ready for that.

This is a very interesting thread and I would like to say a few things.

First, I have a soft spot in my heart for Athiests. I have never met an Athiest who does not take the subject of God seriously. They take the subject of God more seriously than most religious people. Their whole lives revolve around God and trying to disprove God but on their coscious remains God.

Secondly, Sciene without religion is dangerous also, this leads to the acts of Nazi Germany. FLawed science, people thinking they are genetically superior to others. This was of thinking led to the sterilization of poor and ethnic minority people. They thought that they would have inferior offspring.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


No I know he said it but I think his meaning is often distorted and taken out of context.

I disagree with the characterisation of a profound sense of awe and wonder that leads to deeper thinking as a religious experience.

I agree that it is this sense that leads to exploration but it is completely different to the idea of god as any theistic religion would define it.

reply to post by bambino.machievelli

Secondly, Sciene without religion is dangerous also, this leads to the acts of Nazi Germany.

That assumes religion is the font of all morality, I've never seen a compelling argument to support that.

Also, I wouldn't say atheists' lives revolve around disproving god; mine doesn't! It's just a position taken in response to the possibility of a god. If someone says “do you believe in god” you either have to say yes, I don't know, or no.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by Mike_A]

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by the_grand_pooh-bah

 

Agnostic is a problematic term for some atheists because it implies a 50/50, maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't. A good illustration; you probability wouldn't say that you are agnostic about the existence of the Great Martian Unicorn; even though you can't possibly know it doesn't exist you would probably say you don't believe in it. Same goes for many atheists and the idea of a god.

agnostic can mean you think there has to be a god wether its just a force you don`t understand or an actual personality hangin around that will not reveal its self or ever will for what ever reason, otherwise we need anew word for that

i understand god to be what ever created me and everything i see and religion to be somebody elses idea of what god is

[edit on 24/1/10 by Aceofclubs]

Originally posted by bambino.machievelli


Secondly, Sciene without religion is dangerous also, this leads to the acts of Nazi Germany. FLawed science, people thinking they are genetically superior to others. This was of thinking led to the sterilization of poor and ethnic minority people. They thought that they would have inferior offspring.

nazi`s had a religion. it was a strange one with bits of others a mashed in but thay did have one

Also, I wouldn't say atheists' lives revolve around disproving god; mine doesn't! It's just a position taken in response to the possibility of a god. If someone says “do you believe in god” you either have to say yes, I don't know, or no.

i would anser "define god" and take it from there



[edit on 24/1/10 by Aceofclubs]

reply to post by Mike_A


I agree that any kind of organised thoughtbase, be it based on some 2000 year old prophet or some school thought excluding God because some religious institution put their heroes to the pidestal a few hundred years back, is destructive for controvers. But we somehow need paradox and contravers to work with, we need some kind of conformity to break out from and bring about new ideas and new concepts of thought. The second one is confined within a box one would start searching for a way out. And that means to first think outside the box and then break out. Pain and agony may seem to be the driving force within religion, but on a universal level religion is like a sea of thoughts which embodies every living thing and everything created. But we must not ever be so satisfied that one day the plug goes out and there's nothing less (edit: left). It's happened before, and it will again. Only to be brought on via the religious feelings that is the real driving force behind any constructed line of thought.

[edit on 24/1/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
When you reach a certain level of knowledge it's nearly impossible to exclude God. You may ofcourse still be an atheist and explain it differently, but it will still be God the way God is explained throughout history and in all parts of the known world.

What initiated Big Bang? And. Knowing how it has taken us about 200 years to get where we are now scientifically, why do we not find any traces of any civilisations on Earth until about 6000 years ago? And. Where did all the water come from? And. How did life come to Earth? Why are we concious and is it even possible? Why is everything around us beautiful and harmonic and lifeforms so rational in their functionality, yet so incredibly advanced even in it's most primitive forms?

Questions like that can easilly be calculated to show some atheist bias, but when talking of probability you need an intelligent force put into the paradoxes that arise. It's just as simple as that.

At some point we need a designer who made this whole gigantic 1:10^100+ improbable calculation possible.

[sarcasm]And remember folks: A Christian scientist is always biased while Atheists are not. What a load of bullcrap.[/sarcasm]

excellent post!

I have said the same thing many times to those who are "spiritually hampered". Each is like 1 shoe from a pair. Useful, but not for much.
I dont really buy the "7 days" story at all. Each to his own though, right?


Folks that are either strict creationism or big bangism (?) are equally wrong. big bang? yes. I believe in it....what made the stuff FOR the bang? Evolution? yes. I believe in it also. Animals change and evolve to the conditions they are in.

No. we were never monkey's .

Do you have a take on qabalism and the four worlds? Atlantis?

Again, excellent post. sandf

well when i use words i usually want the literal translation yes.
agnostic=not sure.

I'm glad you found something to believe in.

I need proof before i believe any of these religions,why should i believe yours?

personally as a Hedonist i kinda like Bacchus,then at least church would be fun.Aphrodite would be a close second.
I love the ocean so why not Poseidon?
I love a good storm too,why not Thor?plus i could smack people with a mallet for my god,i think we have a winner...

or should i only believe YOUR version?