|
Jesus Christs remains will be unveiled (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
I'm Jesus' role model :D |
Fetch the wine! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
The whole Religion Vs. Science argument is completely laughable because of the fact that these institutions are SO MUCH alike |
oh come now. that's just bollocks. faith versus evidence. 'nuff said. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Fetch the wine! |
That would imply some sort of parallel association, where clearly I was suggesting a hierarchical one... in other words aim higher... way higher! |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh come now. that's just bollocks. faith versus evidence. 'nuff said. |
The only evidence of the "Big bang" is static that was picked up with an antenna in Holmdel, NJ. What is the other evidence? An expanding universe, yes, but to understand that theory requires an understanding of physics (Fairly advanced physics I might add). You're going to tell me that BLINDLY believing in this evidence (Which most people do) is not the same as believing the pope's claim that he dictates god's wishes? |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
That would imply some sort of parallel association, where clearly I was suggesting a hierarchical one... in other words aim higher... way higher! |
So, like oatmeal biscuits into hash cookies and powdered milk into amphetamine's? :eek: |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by prolikewhoa
back up the train, buddy.
studying theology and "studying" politics? who are you to say which discipline is worthy of standing without quotations? you do know i'm a polisci major, right? |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_bas
I think he was referring to Bush "studying" politics not intelligent people studying politics :p |
yup |
|
|
| jupiterone |
I still say our lives are like Men In Black.
Like those gremlins in the lockers.
Then at the end MIB opens the door and see's they're the same thing.
We're probably just little lab rats to massive orangutans that just have this clear 4x4 box labeled: Universe.
:wtf: |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
The only evidence of the "Big bang" is static that was picked up with an antenna in Holmdel, NJ. What is the other evidence? An expanding universe, yes, but to understand that theory requires an understanding of physics (Fairly advanced physics I might add). You're going to tell me that BLINDLY believing in this evidence (Which most people do) is not the same as believing the pope's claim that he dictates god's wishes? |
dude...let's not start on this. :D Religion is based on the book and you are asked to accept the teachings of an authority on no other basis but belief. Science is based on laws and you have the right to think about them yourself and prove them right or wrong. That ordinary folks don't have the aptitude to understand them is another thing. But at least they have been given a choice of learning physics and understanding it and even disproving it if they are smart enough. |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
dude...let's not start on this. :D Religion is based on the book and you are asked to accept the teachings of an authority on no other basis but belief. Science is based on laws and you have the right to think about them yourself and prove them right or wrong. |
so....somewhere along the centuries, science was never written in a book?
no group of people ever got together or singularly [and then compiled] their thoughts/ideas/theories of various things of science?
pretty sure somewhere on the road, someone wrote, "the sky is blue" but what if blue really meant red? how can you challenege and prove whether the color blue is REALLY the color blue and not red?
ps, i'm not trying to start a debate here, it was just a random thing that crossed my mind. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
so....somewhere along the centuries, science was never written in a book?
no group of people ever got together or singularly [and then compiled] their thoughts/ideas/theories of various things of science?
pretty sure somewhere on the road, someone wrote, "the sky is blue" but what if blue really meant red? how can you challenege and prove whether the color blue is REALLY the color blue and not red?
ps, i'm not trying to start a debate here, it was just a random thing that crossed my mind. |
Of course science has been written in books. But the point is, that these books have been modified and updated and improved upon over the centuries, as our understanding of nature has improved, unlike bible.
Blue and Red are just words used to describe specific wavelengths of light. A light wave having a certain wavelength will exhibit a blue color. A certain other wavelength will exhibit a red color ; meaning the specific waves will stimulate particular set of cells in our eyes. Different languages will call these colors by different names but it is the visual perception that matters, not the words. |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
Science is based on laws and you have the right to think about them yourself and prove them right or wrong. |
You have the right to do that with the Bible or any other text, it's called interpretation. This isn't 16th century Europe...
| quote: | | But at least they have been given a choice of learning physics and understanding it and even disproving it if they are smart enough. |
The majority of people do not do this and just simply accept many aspects of science as fact.
Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About by Kevin Trudeau is a book with claims by whack scientists and testimonials, and is a NEW YORK TIMES BEST ING SELLER. It's nothing but a "Drug company conspiracy" book full of mumbo jumbo. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
You have the right to do that with the Bible or any other text, it's called interpretation. This isn't 16th century Europe...
The majority of people do not do this and just simply accept many aspects of science as fact.
Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About by Kevin Trudeau is a book with claims by whack scientists and testimonials, and is a NEW YORK TIMES BEST ING SELLER. It's nothing but a "Drug company conspiracy" book full of mumbo jumbo. |
Science is based on certain assumptions on which stand the laws, which can be observed and mathematically proved. Of course, the assumptions on which they stand may be false. But the assumptions are a lot more rational and simple than the assumptions made by religious doctrines. Another reason to believe in science is, that these very laws are now responsible for the technological development and our debate over the internet on this topic is a sufficient enough proof of the success of the scientific laws. Now my question is, in what way have the religious laws been formulated, what purpose do they serve and in what way, may we see observe/prove their working ?
Edit : Although I speak about the differences between science and religion, I am making a basic distinction between Science and Christianity. In general terms, I hold quite different views on the relation between religion and science. But the apparent lack of compatibility of Christianity and Hinduism has prevented me from generalizing my comments. |
|
|
|
|
