What's the Difference Between Science and Religion?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by OilIsMastery, Oct 9, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    If that were true then the majority of scientists would claim to be agnostic which is falsified by experience.

    Yes. Prime Mover and First Cause are based upon logic and reason. See Aristotle's Physics Book VIII.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    The majority of scientists don't bother thinking about god - it doesn't signify.


    Ah, Aristotle... so many errors.
    But it even "prime mover" is no better an explanation: it's just a shorthand for "We don't know know but we're ascribing it to some nebulous unprovable "force/ thing/ intelligence/ power".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    LOL. Clearly you don't know the majority of scientists.

    LOL. And so many truths.

    We do know because we call the First Cause by a name, namely God. Atheists reject physics, motion, time, and causality which is the opposite of logic and science.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Steve100 O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔O Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,346
    The problem with using the prime mover argument is that it applies more so to a God than it does the big bang spontaneously occurring.
     
  8. YinyangDK Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    But without science you would not be able to ask the question, what caused the first wave.
    I could ask you how does your body work?
    You would proberly not be able to tell me in simple terms.
    If I asked a religious person he would proberly say, god!
    And if I asked a doctor he would be able to explain most of what religion could not, but problerly not everything.
    So just because science cannot answer all questions yet they keep asking questions and looking for answers, while religion do not and explains everything with GOD!
     
  9. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    I see your problem; you don't know what science is.

    OK, we've established that, and now I understand why you posed such an idiotic question in the first place.
     
  10. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    You don't believe in Egypt?
     
  11. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    It's got nothing to do with Egypt. Your analogy was flawed. Just because a book mentions something that exists, it doesn't make it a science book.

    The travel guide I had when I visited Egypt is not a science book; it is a travel guide.

    You clearly do no understand science, that is your problem.
     
  12. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    And I never claimed otherwise.

    Why isn't your travel guide scientific? I suggest you buy a different travel guide. One that is accurate and works.

    And you clearly do not understand metaphysics.
     
  13. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Now you are being dishonest, you said;

    So that is exactly what you were implying.

    A fictional book could name places that really exist, but a work of fiction is not a science book. You clearly do no know what science is.

    It's what those not intellectually gifted enough to indulge in real science indulge in.
     
  14. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    You are lying now. You're deliberately quoting me out of context in order to construct an elaborate straw man fallacy.

    What I actualy said was this:

    Go back and read the difference between the Bible and Harry Potter.
     
  15. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Straw man? No, just quoting what you have said. It's not scientific knowledge, that's the point. It's geography maybe, history, maybe, but you'll notice both of those subjects studied at University get you a BA, not a BSc, it's not scientific knowledge.

    You clearly do no understand what science is, hence your confusion.
     
  16. Steve100 O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔O Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,346
    Maybe I should give up with my analogies on the internet.

    I usually find them the best way to teach, but it seems some people here don't want to learn.
     
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    ...there is a difference? Aside for the fact one is written by a traceable author and has a fun story for all ages that few if any are insane enough to take seriously.

    I'm sure London is mentioned in Harry Potter, we can test if london exists, and it passes those tests, therefor Harry Potter is real!
     
  18. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    Matthew Maury [1806-1873]
    The "Father" of oceanography
    "The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each, if truly read (understood), but proves the truth of the other."

    words in parenthesis were added.
     
  19. Steve100 O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔O Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,346
    Steve100 [1990-present]
    Average Joe
    "The bible is not true."

    no words were added.
     
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Matthew Maury must have gone mad whilst at sea.
     
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Why is this thread in GST?
     
  22. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300

    no, but the statement is an axiom and coming from a source which lacks merit.
     
  23. mynameisDan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    300
    actually, it was reading the Psalms where it mentions that fish make their way in the paths of the sea that provided the inspiration for his founding the science of oceanography, so no, he wasn't mad. He was a believer in the bible whose faith informed his science with positive results. The evolutionist scientists who devised the now debunked vestial organ theory were mad. The evolutionist scientists in the U.S. who promoted the eugenics movement and inspired Hitler, were mad, and should have been jailed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page