Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think I believe in the Christian God because someone told me it was true?

No.. I do believe so based on personal evidence. Just like until I experience you, I cannot prove you specifically exist ... one must have experience of a thing - I had that.

Now, there are hints all over the universe that something exists, that something is what most of us believe in, some take it further and say this entity takes personal concern, some do not go that far, but there are evidences that there are forces in this universe which we can only call God.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Woodcarver

accepting unsubstantiated claims?

There was a time someone thought illness was caused by little bugs that could not be seen...

There was a time Einsteins theories could not be proven

There was a time, Newtons theories were unsubstantiated..

ALL science, is based on an unproven idea, a thought which to most, sounds irrational and insane... yet.. these people often later are found to have been correct... all thought starts with things unsubstantiated.

Yea. These scientists used science and observation to come up with detailed formulas to describe what they saw. They put in the due diligence and hard work to watch the thing they were describing and work out the very fine details. These formulas are the theories. Not the stories they use to describe the formulas.

How can this be done when the thing you are trying to prove has not been observed and people's excuse for this is that it can avoid detection or otherwise can't be bound by the physical rules we know to be true.

This aligned with the ever so present fact that people get # wrong or just plain old make # up. All the time.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think I believe in the Christian God because someone told me it was true?

Yes. That is the reason why all people who believe in the Christian God believe it is true.

No.. I do believe so based on personal evidence. Just like until I experience you, I cannot prove you specifically exist ... one must have experience of a thing - I had that.

Yea except you used to be Muslim. So before you used to believe in Allah. To me that says that you may have had a personal experience with the divine, but you aren't sure of its nature. So you just inserted the religious dogma that you find most appropriate according to your current lifestyle.

I wonder what you'd believe if you had zero knowledge of either religion before having your "experience".

Now, there are hints all over the universe that something exists, that something is what most of us believe in, some take it further and say this entity takes personal concern, some do not go that far, but there are evidences that there are forces in this universe which we can only call God.

Maybe. But it isn't the Christian god. The bible can be disproven by science, so Christianity cannot be correct.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB

There was a time someone thought illness was caused by little bugs that could not be seen...

There was a time Einsteins theories could not be proven

There was a time, Newtons theories were unsubstantiated..

ALL science, is based on an unproven idea, a thought which to most, sounds irrational and insane... yet.. these people often later are found to have been correct... all thought starts with things unsubstantiated.

To be honest, describing viruses with little bugs that could not be seen,
sounds way more substantiated answer to the illnesses cause, than the usual ''it's a curse from god'' answer, that the priests used to give.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't see how the bible can be disproven by "science" when it is not a book that is scientific in nature. I believe most people try to make it other than what it is, and therefore can run around proving and disproving it. It is what it is and science it is not.

My faith I believe based on what I heard by what was neither human nor measurable. It is what it is, and I do not have any reason nor care to "prove" what I believe. I don't need to, it is MY faith.. I am not in the business of trying to sell you something. You can take my belief however you like, you will even if it was written in concrete evidence.. just as people like dawkins try to make Einstein into an atheist to fit his own world view.

Again:

"Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.” A. Einstein to P. Wright 24 January 1936, Einstein Archive reel 52-337;Jammer, Einstein and Religion p.93.

link


I actually believe in the same God he did... I just take it a step further and say I believe that God is also personal, which is something Einstein did not believe.. and to each his own.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Yes he was a panentheist, I never said he was a pantheist, I just said that many scientists are pantheists.
But the quote you used totally describes pantheism.

a reply to: Dr1Akula

Here is the thing, there is no reason to hate people simply for believing something other than yourself. You claim a "known" God.. essentially, there is not a known God because we have yet to be able to weigh and measure one.

Yet, most of us are theists in one form or fashion.

But hatred of people due to their belief in a personal deity verses the panentheist view verses the pantheist view verses the atheist view verses the agnostic view is ridiculous..

Why don't we decide all are free to believe as they will, and go about our own lives and learn stuff as we go. Threads like this to me, are absolutely ridiculous.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't see how the bible can be disproven by "science" when it is not a book that is scientific in nature. I believe most people try to make it other than what it is, and therefore can run around proving and disproving it. It is what it is and science it is not.

Because it makes claims that can be tested by science. Ie can a man walk on water? No. Can a man raise from the dead? No. Can a burning bush talk to someone? No. Did the whole world flood at one time? No. All this and more are easily shown to be impossible according to science. But it's not just that, even historic events don't line up or are inconsistent between accounts within the bible. The whole thing is a mess.

My faith I believe based on what I heard by what was neither human nor measurable. It is what it is, and I do not have any reason nor care to "prove" what I believe. I don't need to, it is MY faith.. I am not in the business of trying to sell you something. You can take my belief however you like, you will even if it was written in concrete evidence.. just as people like dawkins try to make Einstein into an atheist to fit his own world view.

I don't really care if you want to prove your god or not. I'm telling you that it isn't the Christian one.

Again:

"Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.” A. Einstein to P. Wright 24 January 1936, Einstein Archive reel 52-337;Jammer, Einstein and Religion p.93.

link


I actually believe in the same God he did... I just take it a step further and say I believe that God is also personal, which is something Einstein did not believe.. and to each his own.

For one. Just like I told the poster on the first page, that is an appeal to authority fallacy. Einstein had no definitive proof of god so his belief in a god was just as flawed as anyone else's. Second, when the predominant belief of a culture is one of a religious nature, even scientists have a tough time shaking that belief (most likely because they were raised and exposed to the dogma by their parents). Do you honestly think if these same scientists were to be raised in an atheist society that they'd express belief in the divine? Heck, me being agnostic probably has a lot to do with being raised in a predominantly religious environment. If I were raised in an atheist environment, I probably wouldn't even be considering God as a possibility because of no evidence for existence.

I'm agnostic and say that a god could exist, but that has exhausted all that humans know about god. Even the experience you thought you had could have been a trick of the mind, a malevolent force playing a trick on you, something pretending to be a god, etc.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you believe there is a possibility in a malevolent force then you must admit to the possibility that is was a decidedly non-malevolent force.

lol... I do rather think that part of your argument was funny... because if you admit it could be evil then you also have to admit it could be good..

and whether it was good or evil, is something that can be witnessed through my actions since that time.

Anyhoo.. as I said, these arguments are beyond ridiculous..

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you believe there is a possibility in a malevolent force then you must admit to the possibility that is was a decidedly non-malevolent force.

Of course it is possible that you really experienced the divine. I just told you I'm agnostic, so I recognize such possibility.

lol... I do rather think that part of your argument was funny... because if you admit it could be evil then you also have to admit it could be good..

Why? The point of being agnostic is to allow for any possibility. I said my argument because you were only presenting one conclusion for what you experienced despite there being a plethora of possibilities to what you experienced and until you can test for sure what it is you experienced, you are being intellectually dishonest for not allowing them equal consideration as being true. At no point was I suggesting that those possibilities were more likely than what you said happened though. To me, they are ALL equally likely and all deserve equal consideration until more evidence can be collected to push opinion further towards one idea.

and whether it was good or evil, is something that can be witnessed through my actions since that time.

Anyhoo.. as I said, these arguments are beyond ridiculous..

I'm not surprised a religious person would say that. They usually do. It's hard to question your beliefs that you've been conditioned to believe so calling arguments critical of your beliefs "ridiculous" is a standard argument deflection tactic.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Do you still support Einstein view of religion and God??

I didn't say that I supported Einsteins view of religion and God.
I posted his quote because taken at face value it makes sense.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein.

Again - If each 'side' would listen to the other with a more open mind, they'd both learn something. Science can debunk many bible stories and the debunk should be accepted as fact. Spiritual events happen in peoples lives that science can't explain but that doesn't mean the events are mundane or that they didn't happen, and science needs to accept that these things can happen even if they don't know why.

There are closed minded people who are clinging to their side - be it 'science' or 'religion'. Indoctrination and blindness can happen to both groups. ALL people need to be more open minded. The world will be smarter and get along better that way.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Papa Francis doesn't seem to be too conflicted

:-)

But, ya know - C'est la vie...

Nice post, but while we at Pope and Vatican, please note that from my first statement, one has to GIVE UP, in this case church decided that they follow science and support evolution, not geocentric view of earth and to what seems to be new, probably equal rights to everyone, no matter of sexual orientation.

Please note, there is no conflict because Catholic church decided to change its views on issues and adjust. This is something historically only science does, and Catholic church might be on right path, just the question is if it to late and to what purpose??

If religion will be only tradition, and if even church teaches that bible is not account of all mighty God, but just spirituality instructions, what would be main attraction for religion?!

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Dr1Akula

Here is the thing, there is no reason to hate people simply for believing something other than yourself. You claim a "known" God.. essentially, there is not a known God because we have yet to be able to weigh and measure one.

Yet, most of us are theists in one form or fashion.

But hatred of people due to their belief in a personal deity verses the panentheist view verses the pantheist view verses the atheist view verses the agnostic view is ridiculous..

Why don't we decide all are free to believe as they will, and go about our own lives and learn stuff as we go. Threads like this to me, are absolutely ridiculous.

If we give any merit to your claims of communicating with a god/being, then what other peoples claims must we give credit too? Do you see how this could easily get out of hand? How can we accept any unsubstantiated claim from you with any seriousness? How can we let you testify in court? You claim to receive special messages from god. I could beat you in any legal matter of credibility with that statement alone.

You should believe things because there is good reason to belief them. My niece is afraid of the dark. Which can be scary, but she is actually more afraid of the monsters that she thinks are there. It is an irrational belief. One that still gets me sometimes when i'm in the woods at night. The difference between us is that i know my fear/belief is not based on anything real and i do not live my life as though they are.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its not about questioning my beliefs. I do that all the time, and I don't need to be force fed your world view and your hatred of Christianity to do so.

If you think I never considered the possibility that I was a) crazy or b) crazy or c) under some kind of weird spiritual attack by malevolent forces to take me away from the truth or c) crazy.. (I actually examined crazy a lot...lol)

My conclusions are still that I experienced God, and that I was not in fact crazy no matter what it appeared and that it was not a malevolent force. So.. I am a Christian, and I am still a Christian. Because most of that I examined before I became Christian, and I examined it much more afterward also.

I simply don't need you forcing your view down my throat.. ie: that because it happened I must be insane - because I believe it happened (forgoing all other evidence in the matter) or that because its Christianity it must be a malevolent force (forgoing all evidence to the contrary) or a plethora of other ideas you can come up with just to say I was incorrect in my ending conclusions.

What you believe of it, does not concern me as it was my personal experience - not yours - therefore mine to evaluate.

As far as the whole argument being ridiculous, it is not because I am "religious" and don't like being under the spotlight. It is that whether you are agnostic, or panentheistic, or pantheist, or a deist, or an atheist, or any other ist one can imagine.. there is no weighable measurable proof for any of it. We have faith in the possibility, or we don't. And that in and of itself, becomes a ridiculous argument because my faith is no less valid than yours - and yours is no more measurable than mine.

So in the end, what are we arguing over? That you think I am stupid? Because that is what these types of arguments become.. "so and so is ignorant for believing this or that" and that in and of itself is ridiculous, because it lacks any form of respect of another human being..

a reply to: SuperFrog

Science can reject religion as a psychological issue, religion can reject science because of a psychological issue.


But seriously, a lot of religion deals in discipline over motives; if you can overcome the drives that impact rational thinking and mastery over impulsive responses then you can liberate higher reason.

That is a theme in most religions, not one that is often picked up on unfortunately.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I posted his quote because taken at face value it makes sense.

Only reason it makes sense to you is because is taken out of contest.

Here is how Einstein closed his address:

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.

Source: www.update.uu.se...

Not really what you hope to achieve with given quote, is it?

a reply to: SuperFrog

There was a time when science and religion (esoteric nature of it) went hand and hand. Einstein, Tesla, Newton, Da Vinci, and many others would strongly disagree with the OP's premise. Those men understood the esoteric nature of religion and therefore saw no difference in the two.

Most people do not even understand what the true nature of religion means and that is why many see the two as separate...

ON THE NATURE OF REALITY: Albert Einstein in Conversation with Rabindranath Tagore

Rabindranath Tagore visited Einstein’s house in Caputh, near
Berlin, on July 14, 1930. The discussion between the two great
men was recorded, and was subsequently published in the
January, 1931 issue of Modern Review.

www.scienceandnonduality.com...

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.” - Albert Einstein

Einstein and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings

www.integralscience.org...

a reply to: Involutionist

Please look at my other posts where I posted later Einstein letters where he angrily declare not to believe in God. I am just tired of repeating myself over and over. Just get over it...

Here, let's try this...

Please, click here: Albert Einstein and God

a reply to: SuperFrog

Not really what you hope to achieve with given quote, is it?

Mate. Read your own quote from Einstein:

seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith

He didn't oppose faith in general, he opposed blind faith - that is, faith which is contrary to rational thinking.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its not about questioning my beliefs. I do that all the time, and I don't need to be force fed your world view and your hatred of Christianity to do so.

If you think I never considered the possibility that I was a) crazy or b) crazy or c) under some kind of weird spiritual attack by malevolent forces to take me away from the truth or c) crazy.. (I actually examined crazy a lot...lol)

I never called you crazy or implied that you were. If you read that into my posts then you have a reading comprehension problem. Though, now that you say it, it is a possibility, I just don't think that is the case. It is more likely that you really did experience something and either it was something mundane that are you attributing more to it because of preconceived dogma or you are just misremembering it.

My conclusions are still that I experienced God, and that I was not in fact crazy no matter what it appeared and that it was not a malevolent force. So.. I am a Christian, and I am still a Christian. Because most of that I examined before I became Christian, and I examined it much more afterward also.

This is just confirmation bias speaking. You've entered an answer to your experience without proper testing of what it was.

I simply don't need you forcing your view down my throat.. ie: that because it happened I must be insane - because I believe it happened (forgoing all other evidence in the matter) or that because its Christianity it must be a malevolent force (forgoing all evidence to the contrary) or a plethora of other ideas you can come up with just to say I was incorrect in my ending conclusions.

I'm not forcing anything down your throat. I'm just discussing the topic with you in this thread. It's 100% up to you to take or leave my opinions. I also didn't say that it MUST be a malevolent force (I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop skimming my posts, because you are coming away with the wrong interpretation of what I'm saying). I said that it is equally likely of a scenario as it being god because we have no evidence for EITHER answer being true. It's called agnosticism.

What you believe of it, does not concern me as it was my personal experience - not yours therefore mine to evaluate.

Then why share it? You clearly aren't looking for an outside perspective on it, so just keep it to yourself next time.

As far as the whole argument being ridiculous, it is not because I am "religious" and don't like being under the spotlight. It is that whether you are agnostic, or panentheistic, or pantheist, or a deist, or an atheist, or any other ist one can imagine.. there is no weigh able measurable proof for any of it. We have faith in the possibility, or we don't. And that in and of itself, becomes a ridiculous argument because my faith is no less valid than yours - and yours is no more measurable than mine.

That's what being an agnostic is ABOUT. Equal consideration of ALL possibilities and to discard the ones that can be demonstrably disproved.

So in the end, what are we arguing over? That you think I am stupid? Because that is what these types of arguments become.. "so and so is ignorant for believing this or that" and that in and of itself is ridiculous, because it lacks any form of respect of another human being..

Arguing? No, I'm not arguing. I cannot change your belief that you experienced something. In fact, I've allowed that you have experienced something. I'm just trying to give you an outside perspective to show you that you may not be intellectually honest in the way you analyzed this experience. You don't have to take my advice. I really don't care to be honest, but you entered the thread on your own. I didn't compel you to post here. So don't get offended if people take your words and respond in a way that you don't approve of (as long as they don't break the T&C's of course).