Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

a reply to: TonyS

Is this post relevant to the thread in any way? If you were really curious about those questions, why didn't you send me a U2U?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Religion and science can be very compatible. They can teach each other. It's indoctrinated people ON BOTH SIDES with closed minds who continually cheer only 'their side' that are the problem.

Never mind regarding Einstein. If his own words in letter are not enough to clear out his disbelief in God, then nothing I would say would change your ignorance of facts.

But now this statement, there is another topic I created regarding what discoveries we had to rediscover thanks to organized religion, starting from fact that Earth orbits Sun, not other way around. It was also at great cost, and it clearly show how incompatible religion was rise of science, to point that they would kill scientist to PRESERVE belief. Wonder, why do you think when religion was on power in west Europe we call that period Dark Ages, period of NO new discoveries, ca. 300 - 1300?!

I know, close minded, but not what worries me, if I open my minds too much, brain might fall out... (another of Minchen's songs. )

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Ad-hominem just like in old times...

a reply to: OpinionatedB

That was a nice post that deserved a star, Although this utopia is against the human nature, and I think religions intentions were to capitalize on that and immune the sheep to rule upon them.

Anyway, I too wish this utopia was real.

Did you know the bible says that I am not the judge of you? most people either don't, or wholly ignore it. and therein, lies the problem. It lies in us.. not religion.

But did you know the bible also says;
-Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT
- Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19
-Ye shall not round the corners of your heads. Leviticus 19:27
-Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother’s milk. Exodus 23:19
-Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18
-As Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. Matthew 21:18-22 NIV

And the worse of all other religions

-He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them…. He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD’s Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since. 2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT

-Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18

If this ''evil' book doesn't promote hate then I don't know what does

And to correct your otherwise wonderful quote ''

most people either don't know these things are in the bible , or wholly ignore them. and therein, lies the problem. It lies in religion itself.. not us''

we just act like humans do, isn't that normal?

a reply to: TonyS

Why are these threads allowed to continue on? I'd have thought by now every one of them could have been axed as a duplicate thread or a topic that's been hashed to death. Why the endless repetition?

Because discussions are always a healthy human habit. only people with nothing to add have a problem with them!

a reply to: swanne

Any from this century?

Science builds on knowledge, it doesn't fight to keep things "As they were"

a reply to: swanne

It certainly ran away as soon as I tried to harm it.

i find ants dont really run away, they wander excitedly.

No desire? Not even the desire for a sugary piece of food, or the desire for survival?

nope. reflex.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
If his own words in letter are not enough to clear out his disbelief in God, then nothing I would say would change your ignorance of facts.

DUDE ... what are you talking about? I have said it over and over .. I do not care what you think his supposed intent was and I do not care what you think his belief/disbelief in God were. I'm talking about THE WORDS His words AT FACE VALUE make sense. I have no 'ignorance of the facts'. (Silly hyperbole). The words that religion and science are lame and blind without each other is true - no matter what Einsteins other thoughts on the subject may or may not have been.

Science and the spiritual world can learn from each other.
It requires open minds.
Something that, obviously, many people are incapable of at this time.
Clinging to only science. Clinging to only religion.
It's not healthy. It's not productive.

a reply to: Dr1Akula

I was just about to log off and saw you responded to me. I have things I need to do for a few hours, but I will speak to you on all those issues soon.

PS. What happened with Jesus in Mathew, was showing a prophetic event, not related to a fig tree... it was an actual prophecy in parable...

But.. I will sit and write out your whole response when I have time..

originally posted by: TzarChasm

i find ants dont really run away, they wander excitedly.

Way to avoid a point...

a reply to: SuperFrog

I completely disagree. All of my belief systems are open to change based on new information and this includes my view of God and spirituality. Both science and religion are the search for truth and ultimately serve the same purpose.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: TzarChasm

i find ants dont really run away, they wander excitedly.

Way to avoid a point...

im not avoiding anything. you want to tell me that ants feel desire or fear and i disagree. similarly its arrogant to think an alien powerful enough to terraform planets and drown them gives the slightest crap about what one person thinks or feels. or ten, or a hundred, or a thousand. we are ants on an apple. bugs in its lunch.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
The words that religion and science are lame and blind without each other is true - no matter what Einsteins other thoughts on the subject may or may not have been.

Care to say what makes them true? Because you said so?

More correct is statement by Minchen I mentioned in OP. It is base of this discussion and shows basic difference between religion and science.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've known you long enough to feel I have the right to say this - please don't take it the wrong way:

You seem to consistently miss the entirety of people's points, refuse to actually be the catalyst for any productive discussion beyond claiming right/wrong, continously attempt to 'de-bunk' points that aren't even being made and you often focus on the bare minimum of someone's post as long as you have a key point you feel you can attack instantly.

Feel free to criticise my character. I know I'm flawed. I try to tackle it each and every day. Keeping an open mind on these things and being tolerant of others, and withholding my ability to claim what's 'right' and what's 'wrong' is part of this.

Admittedly, my inability to hold back on this reply is an honour to how difficult such things can be.

Geology shows a catastrophic event in our near past. Geology shows an ABRUPT ice age end and the Young Dryas period. Our archaeology shows that modernly anatomical humans popped up around 200,000 years ago and it also shows us that several separate humanoid species existed on this Earth prior to the 12,000-10,000 BC period.

Furthermore, it shows we are descended from one common human and we know the cradle of civilisation was the same place that was first telling us these bloody stories.

But I SERIOUSLY digress, this is not the point AT ALL, the point is that the story as presented can be explained using these scientific facts.

The DATES might not be exact - but what geological/archaeological evidence contradicts the actual story as I PRESENTED IT (not a specific line in the Bible or whatever) - which is what I believe to be the clear overlapping story (keyword - I've not accepted this as truth) when viewed in conjunction.

Whatever you manage to produce, I can most likely produce a logical counter-explanation using modern scientific knowledge. This was the point I was trying to make.

We are heading towards a very long and tedious debate here that is ultimately pointless since you cannot provide evidence to completely falsify that story.

I get you're a champion for Science - that's good. I am a design engineer by career (Masters in Mech.Engineering)'and I seriously appreciate the beauty of experimental and theoretical science - literally everyday of my life.

But I feel your attitude to these discussions is really counter-productive and generally harmful.

Think of it like this - you could have provided actual evidence for your points - how does geological/archaelogical evidence actually contradict what I specifically said in my post? Please let me know - I'd LOVE to have 100% proof that this story is absolutely false.

Yeah, we need people like you, don't get me wrong. But do it like Phage, and actually provide the knowledge you have in a wholesome counter-argument to the post you're replying to.

Instead you made vague claims, asserted a 'judgement' and essentially baited an argument in the wrong way. It's tiring bro.

Give me a proper reply or don't bother. Provide me all the scientific evidence you're aware of that provides a scenario that CANNOT be counter-explained by science.

For example - evolution is not a counter claim since the story is still compatible with the explanation that the worker race was derived from an already existing primitive race.

It is your duty to educate the people of ATS to why that story is wrong with a decent explanation - if you are willing to consistently make confident assertions.

On another note, in regards to the OP; I do AGREE that we should tackle fundamentalism in religion, which to me is when a person takes one of the supplementary texts to this story as the ONE, TRUE, GOD-WRITTEN text, and everything else becomes ignored and irrelevant. This is utterly dangerous.

Likewise, abandoning our stories of birth is utterly dangerous as well. One way or another, it reflects a deep part of us.

a reply to: DazDaKing

It's nice that you recognize me, but I'm going to be honest and say that I don't recognize you, but attack your character? Why would I do that? The easiest way to refute your argument is such: Produce the evidence. Give me matching evidence to these stories in the ancient texts that we were visited in the past and all that stuff happened.

The onus is on you making the claim to produce the evidence. A story book (even if it is ancient) isn't proof of anything. By similar rationale, we could wait 1000 years and pretend that the Stand is an account of actual events because it discusses real places in America.

The reason I believe the mainstream account of ancient history is because THAT is what we've collected evidence for. It doesn't align with ancient texts as much as Ancient Alien proponents like to claim.

PS: I originally came to this forum because I wanted to find out more information on the AA theory. The reason I don't believe it anymore is because I've explored its counterpoints and found them to be more logically sound than the actual theory.

this is ignorance at its best.

For example, try to do a simple google search about their beliefs about god or the creator, I dare you!
- Walter Russell
- Galileo Galilei
- Leonardo da Vinci
- Nikola Tesla

Just to name a few of the best ...

True, some of them were not religious but all of them mixed god and science, as they understood that the universe is not a coincidence

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: SuperFrog

If you think science is so incompatible with God, then you should probably take a look at Newton, Einstein and Pascal.

Seems like none of them had trouble considering the possibility that there exists a greater intelligence than human beings.

“God does not play dice with the universe”. - Albert Einstein

Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)

Pascal's Wager

Actually you are misdirecting the words spiritual with religious. Religion is a system of control geared towards the masses whereas spirituality is geared towards an individual's relationship with the creator (AKA God). If most religious leaders were to actually follow the doctrine of their own so-called "holy Books", they would understand that spirituality is all required of a person to be in alignment with said religion. Of course you would not have all of the control, monetary gain, power and hierarchy associated with religion as you do now.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Science and the spiritual world can learn from each other.
It requires open minds.
Something that, obviously, many people are incapable of at this time.
Clinging to only science. Clinging to only religion.
It's not healthy. It's not productive.

In fact there was a time when religion and science worked together,
we call it Dark Ages now for obvious reasons.

a reply to: SuperFrog

...what would be main attraction for religion?!

There is always going to be that unanswerable question: Why?

Most of us have to work out that one for ourselves one way or another

For so many, religion is what stops their heads from spinning

I actually mean no disrespect - and I understand that it's much more profound than that for those that have faith

But that question - that's what gets us all where we live

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: TzarChasm

i find ants dont really run away, they wander excitedly.

Way to avoid a point...

im not avoiding anything. you want to tell me that ants feel desire or fear and i disagree. similarly its arrogant to think an alien powerful enough to terraform planets and drown them gives the slightest crap about what one person thinks or feels. or ten, or a hundred, or a thousand. we are ants on an apple. bugs in its lunch.

Just for simple debate sake:

Wouldn't it be arrogant to think that you knew what an ant thinks?!
Oh, and this is the last I will post here on this topic as to not draw the Ire of potential thread drift….

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You already attacked my character.

You said 'I' was wrong, ME, rather than the story presented. This tells me two things; you clearly didn't read my entire post, and that you actually seem to consciously/subconsciously aim towards making things into personal debates rather than objective ones.

I've seen you do this countless times on here, and that general attitude on ATS is part of the reason I tend to hardly post anymore.

I've even seen you tell people they shouldn't be discussing the paranormal since science hasn't verified it, completely ruining a thread full of personal and emotional stories, important to individual humans, with a complete insistence than no one should be having this discussion.

# that # man. I held my tongue then but not today. Freedom of opinion is abused to hell on here. I can understand when people provide counter-evidence to BS claims but mostly it's just a battle of opinion-enforcing as hard as possible.

Anyway, I have nothing against you personally, and I think you make good points and contribute positively too (who am I to judge?), but it's an observation I felt I had to say.

You know, in truth, you remind me ALOT of the way I used to feel about these things. That's not to say there's a right or wrong way to feel about these things.

Bro, before I tackle your reply (which completely avoided my question because you realised you couldn't do it), let me remind you of something - this thread has an OP and that is the subject of this discussion. My reply is that to his ORIGINAL POINT/CONTEXT.

You took my post, and turned it from the form it was (a contextual reply) into an apparently objective truth proposed and fully-endorsed by yours truly lol.

How on EARTH can you then turn around to me and start talking about the onus/burden of evidence?!? What the HELL are you smoking Krazy?!

The OP is about science contradicting religion - you're trying to turn it into a thread about people proving ancient/sacred stories to you scientifically. Seriously mate? This is EXACTLY what I mean.

I'm out.