Science Vs Religion Past And Present

[MichaelFredrek]

Ladies and Gentlemen of this humble respected forum

Here is a topic i would like to debate with all of you about science and it's regard to religion and human race

The aim of this debate is to discuss what has science in the past and present did to both human race and religion

now the questions that we need to debate around are:

1) Did science advance with human race in an ethical method or was there unethical ways that science took to achieve it's goals?

2) what evidence does science has that disproves religion believes and vice verse?

3) does science in all it's glory could be the main reason to the destruction of man kind at some point? (Please give evidence or possible discoveries or factual stories)

please the ethical code of debating here is to bring evidence of your debate such as

quotes

links

name, page and chapter of a book that you want to refer to

One more thing to clarify why i want to debate this topic is because as much as i am a big fan of science and believe

in many of it's glory things that it has done to humanity as much as i am worried that science is taking us to our own

destruction due to many past and current discoveries that for me is very worrying.how the way it has been morphing.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Great. Another anti science thread. These are always fun....

[MichaelFredrek]

Great. Another anti science thread. These are always fun....

please join in but be fair in your debates, i am not attacking science i love it a lot but i think

that science and religion are like a very bad mixture and we have been drinking this mixture for a

long time now with so many side effects both good and bad science discovered atom bomb

or E=mc2

today i wish this was never discovered

TNT

electricity lol hahahaha i am just paying too much bills on gas and electricity lol

love the old fire log thing

[Grandpa Greenman]

Should put this in the Spirituality vs Skepticism forum so the Skeptics can address the issue without being told they are disrespecting religion. There are away two sides to everything. The mods are usually happy to oblige.

[shadowhive]

1) Did science advance with human race in an ethical method or was there unethical ways that science took to achieve it's goals?

Science isn't a living being, it's the scientists that choose to use ethical or unethical methods. Indeed the concept of ethics is quite a fluid thing itself. What is ethical or not can change over time (often with the benefit of hindsight). Part of my current studies in science includes looking at the various concepts during different issues, one of which being ethics. The first topic was looking into the BSE epidemic here in the uk and most of the ethical issues involved in the situation are easy to see now, with the benefit of knowledge, but they did what they thought was best at the time.

Obviously there was a group of scientists that was extremely unethical in the last century and, well, their actionssimply can't be justified in anyway (though western governments werre willing to look the other way in order to claim the scientists as there own).

2) what evidence does science has that disproves religion believes and vice verse?

Well science can disprove parts of religion ie we know the Earth wasn't made in 7 days, but science can't disprove every part of religion.

3) does science in all it's glory could be the main reason to the destruction of man kind at some point? (Please give evidence or possible discoveries or factual stories)

Obviously, it can. Unfortunately the military does fund certain areas of scientific research, with the atomic bombs dropped during world war 2 being the most obvious example. nuclear weapons, which we already have, could easily wipe us out. again, this is not the fault of science. It's the fault of the human race which has excelled in finding new and more powerful ways of killing each other. So no, I don't think science could kill us, but I think human stupidity can.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Ladies and Gentlemen of this humble respected forum

Here is a topic i would like to debate with all of you about science and it's regard to religion and human race

The aim of this debate is to discuss what has science in the past and present did to both human race and religion

now the questions that we need to debate around are:

Well in the areas of science and orthodox religion, I think I suck at both, but here goes:

I'm just wondering, is this by personal experienced opinion as well as backed up evidence?

1) Did science advance with human race in an ethical method or was there unethical ways that science took to achieve it's goals?

Interesting. I always felt that science advanced to help the human race, and probably I would think it was an ethical mindset that helped advance, you know, in the interesting to help it. I would feel, that some may have felt that they probably broke some rules, whether ethical or religious ones, to experiment outside the rules of traditional thinking to get to a result.

2) what evidence does science has that disproves religion believes and vice verse?

From my point of view, well, showing various biological, scientific, and exploratory manners into which one finds out how something works without mythical help. Thus finding out something works, or making something work, on one's own.

3) does science in all it's glory could be the main reason to the destruction of man kind at some point? (Please give evidence or possible discoveries or factual stories)

Give evidence of the destruction of man kind? Well, I would think that man kind still being here, what evidence? I'm thinking that science has made it easier to do that on various levels, like science created the atom bomb, and thus the destruction of two Japanese cities. The more we create technology to destroy mankind as a possibility on a whole, I also think we have the common sense to not use it.

please the ethical code of debating here is to bring evidence of your debate such as

quotes

links

name, page and chapter of a book that you want to refer to

One more thing to clarify why i want to debate this topic is because as much as i am a big fan of science and believe

in many of it's glory things that it has done to humanity as much as i am worried that science is taking us to our own

destruction due to many past and current discoveries that for me is very worrying.how the way it has been morphing.

Oh crap, I didn't get to this part yet, Sorry. Humnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

The thing is, there is either too many examples to show, or there isn't an answer to show, because subjects like total destruction of mankind which hasn't happen, so no example. But then again, I'm not an expert, and I'm sure there are plenty of others will have links to show.

Sorry.....

[MichaelFredrek]

thank you folks for being really adult in the way how you explained things to me here i applause to all of you

just to add that one of you mentioned that god created the universe in 7 days well

as far as i know is that god said that a day is 1000 and 1000 is a day.....

could the universe have been made in 7000 years as it says

anyone got a scientific possible number here????

[shadowhive]

thank you folks for being really adult in the way how you explained things to me here i applause to all of you

just to add that one of you mentioned that god created the universe in 7 days well

as far as i know is that god said that a day is 1000 and 1000 is a day.....

could the universe have been made in 7000 years as it says

anyone got a scientific possible number here????

Well I guess it depends what is meant by universe. Acccording to the big bang theory the universe was created quite quickly, but it was essentially empty for a long time. So on the one hand the universe did come into existance within 7000 years. But on the other hand stars, planets and everything else in the universe takes much longer to form. In geological and astronomical timescales 7000 years is absolutely nothing.

[toast]

Fortunately we are living in times where science is independent from religion and so from restrictive religious influence. Of course, the

churches were and are active in the fields of science as well but their results must be peer-reviewed from a non religious point of view

in general as "their" science cannot be objective in principle as "their" results have to match their matrix somehow, means their holy

writings.

In a nutshell, science do not need religion and a mixup of science and religion would just produce diluted results those would not that

close to reality as they should have to be, so like pure science is able to provide.

In addition, the quote below by Stephen Hawking gives a picture of the still existing arrogance of the RCC, by trying to define a kind of

red line to modern and independent science in an inadmissible fashion. But, who really cares about such nonsense? At least not modern

science.

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.. ;

Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe

was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad

mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later,

it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience

with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang

itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God.

I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no

boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.