Science vs. Religion

[docyabut2]

10 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I guess Jesus pulled some Criss Angel nonsense. 

It was  said in the Bible ,Jesus  walked on the  Sea of Galilee. so how he could have walked it, science  

https://www.livescience.com/28567-ancient-structure-under-sea-of-galilee.html

Edited March 8, 2020 by docyabut2

[Piney]

10 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I guess Jesus pulled some Criss Angel nonsense. 

The whole incident was fabricated by the author of Matthew to give him aspects of Zoroaster. 

 

[docyabut2]

6 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

i don't get that

It was  said in the Bible ,Jesus  walked on the  Sea of Galilee. so how he could have walked it, science  

https://www.livescience.com/28567-ancient-structure-under-sea-of-galilee.html

[Dejarma]

Just now, docyabut2 said:

It was  said in the Bible ,Jesus  walked on the  Sea of Galilee. so how he could have walked it, science  

https://www.livescience.com/28567-ancient-structure-under-sea-of-galilee.html

yep ok... do you believe in god?

[docyabut2]

it was high in Jesus`s  time

https://www.livescience.com/28567-ancient-structure-under-sea-of-galilee.html

[+DieChecker]

10 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

I thought we were talking about scientific evidence.  An 8000 year old Earth is in no way compatible with the entirety of geological study.

I thought we were discussing the difference between religious truth and scientific truth. And of they can function in the same person. If you want to only discuss the scientific, I'm not going to be able to help you with your question.

Go back and read my post where I said, "Assuming God is real..."

As to the 8000 years. Go read my other post. I dont believe that to be true. But it is true to those who do believe it, even if factually it is completely unsupported.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, joc said:

The point is Religion says Jesus walked on the water.  Science says it is impossible.  

The topic is Science vs Religion...can they co-exist?

I just illustrated an example of non-coexistence.  Religion says with God all things are possible.  Science says otherwise.  I'm saying they are not co-existent at all.

Depends on Where it coexists. You seem to mean in a world only of factual data, can they coexist. To which I'd say no, but the world isnt just cold data, it is billions of people having millions of experiences. 

If we are talking, like I specified, in an individual, must they conflict... no.

Do you believe in miracles? If not, then religion cant coexist in you. Indeed, because, at that point, you dont believe in religion. If you did, believe in miracles, you'd already have understood what I'm saying two pages ago.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, joc said:

Why not is a cop out to answering the question of why.  Usually used by those who have no real answer to the question of why.

I already said that every institution uses stories as examples. You're asking why to use religious stories, if secular stories will do?

So then why must it be secular stories? Why does the fluff of the story matter more then the lesson. Frankly, sounds like intolerance.

[+DieChecker]

41 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

joc I believe there is a lot of stories made up, but I believe the three religions of the Bible are true,  Jesus could have walked on the  Sea of Galilee where he walked on that was in his time .

 

https://www.livescience.com/28567-ancient-structure-under-sea-of-galilee.html

Looks like someone was trying to build an island, but underestimated how much work would be required.

If the top was right at sea level. It is a possible explaination.

Edited March 8, 2020 by DieChecker

[Mr Walker]

14 hours ago, joc said:

It is what Narcissists do.  They cannot help it.  No one can change the mind of a Narcissist.  Part of being who they are is being 'right' about everything.  Being the best at everything.  Being front and center of everything.   It is a mental condition that should not imho be given a platform.

 

True perhaps but i am not a narcissist '

I have a strong and healthy ego but both professional and community opinion shows I am not narcissistic. Ive explained  why, first,i use myself for any knowldge i claim and second why i will always defend both my opinions values etc and my character. 

I could argue that many peole are on Um because they have low self esteem and need an online forum to express themselves and validate their own opinions.

  Such people would view a healthy ego as narcissistic compared to their own 

However i wouldn't do that because i know NO ONE on this forum well enough to  make such an opinion 

 

quote

Narcissistic personality disorder involves a pattern of self-centered, arrogant thinking and behavior, a lack of empathy and consideration for other people, and an excessive need for admiration. Others often describe people with NPD as cocky, manipulative, selfish, patronizing, and demanding. This way of thinking and behaving surfaces in every area of the narcissist’s life: from work and friendships to family and love relationships.

https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder.htm

I admit to being cocky   However i have none of the other characteristics 

You cant be a teacher of adolescents without some cockiness and self  assuredness or they would tear you to pieces. 

People in a local  community would notice, comment on, and judge me if i demonstrated any of those other characteristics

I think,on um,it is used as a means of pulling down a person so one  can ignore their posts  but also, I think some here lack confidence in themselves and don't like to compare that to a confident person  

The big give away is that i am known as a very empathetic and caring  person.

  Narcissists are incapable of empathy. 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Will Due]

 

There is an explanation for why it was recorded in the Bible that Jesus walked on the water. Whether it actually happened or not, like so many other things in the Bible, is another story.

If Jesus really was the incarnated creator, then it shouldn't seem unusual that his creative prerogatives would've compelled him to heal a few of those he encountered at times, who were afflicted with illness of one kind or another.

Nor should it be out of the ordinary given his divinity, that certain miraculous events would've occurred which were highly suggestive that the power of God was present in the person of Jesus. 

None of this should impact religion and science not co-existing harmoniously, because true science never quarrels with true religion. 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Will Due

[Mr Walker]

12 hours ago, XenoFish said:

When Walker enters a thread it's d.o.a

There will be page after page of people arguing with him and feeding his need for attention/ego. Sorry but I don't care to do that and I do understand why other do. That's just me. 

As for my own opinion of the topic I created. In the beginning there was both science and religion, both were united as a form of understand the world (though limited in perspective). Science became the art of understanding the works of God, until it discarded god. We as a species seem to have infinite curiosity. It is through science that we explore existence and the world around us. Religion will never be destroyed. I have no doubt that there are scientist who have spiritual faith that allows them to handle the emotional upsets of life, I figure that the same reason people have spirituality to begin with. That human need for belonging. Granted not all belief systems are good, some are downright horrid. 

In regards to science, it's just a methodology for explore this reality we live in. Nothing more and nothing less. Though some people like to worship the "saints" of science as if those scientist knew the absolute truth of things. They don't. 

Both science and religion are in many regards filled with fill-in-the-blank-ism. 

My arguments have nothing to do with me  (and i wish people would stop personalising them ) i argue facts ideas beliefs moralities and principles. Sometimes these are ones i hold Other times they are ones i think need to have a different opinion offered and argued.   

If people stopped personalising the debate we could simply stick to the issues

People are NOT the ideas, beliefs or values they may argue for.

   The ideas etc are independent constructs worthy of debate and viewing different opinions. 

For example I think this post of yours is brilliant and spot on. 

But it's an idea, not you. 

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I have a great respect for Science, it has a checks and balances imbued in the method, it gives the best possible answers based on the evidence and changes with the evidence too, for me, I want my doctor well educated and current in Science, and its methodology their personal beliefs mean little to me unless they are openly pushing a creationist agenda then I would choose someone else. I knew of a nurse who worked for Hospice who preached god as the be all end all and he offended clients who were terminal, fortunately he was let go. As a caregiver or a doctor or nurse one has to be neutral and keep their dogma in check.
 

Science offers the best advice with the evidence to back it up. One can get through life without faith, Science not so much. 

Faith is personal, spirituality is personal, whatever it offers is personal from my experience in the medical field and this includes Hospice the one frame that ones spirituality matters, faith is still personal it may or may not serve as a coping style or motivation for some, but at the end of the day it is the Science that offers the best hope and direction for ones longevity and well being. 

For me, there is not an argument to be made that faith is on the same footing as Science as far as Universal usefulness, it literally stands for itself in worth and effectiveness. 
 

I personally do not see that as a humanity we need religion, but this is my own bias as I have lived a life without it. 

good post But i disagree with the statement underlined 

If you accept that faith is far wider than just religious faith. then no, a human cannot exist without faith 

Given our knowldge of impending death we need faith that we will not die tomorrow (even if we do) 

We need faith for work for relationships, and in ourselves , for psychological well being It is an evoved cognitive process which we developed to cope with the high level of self aware intelligence we also evolved 

No other animal needs faith to survive. because no other animal has the knowledge of life and death  that we do 

Religion is a different issue.

I agree that we  don't need religion, but for most people it is a form of socialisation, belonging, identification etc.,  like being the member of a sporting team or club 

[docyabut2]

I`m really a skeptical  to ,but trying to figure out the books of the Bible ") that science can prove")  

Science vs. Religion

Edited March 8, 2020 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

good post But i disagree with the statement underlined 

If you accept that faith is far wider than just religious faith. then no, a human cannot exist without faith 

Given our knowldge of impending death we need faith that we will not die tomorrow (even if we do) 

We need faith for work for relationships, and in ourselves , for psychological well being It is an evoved cognitive process which we developed to cope with the high level of self aware intelligence we also evolved 

No other animal needs faith to survive. because no other animal has the knowledge of life and death  that we do 

Religion is a different issue.

I agree that we  don't need religion, but for most people it is a form of socialisation, belonging, identification etc.,  like being the member of a sporting team or club 

we need science to prove the faith in  religions  

Edited March 8, 2020 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

yep ok... do you believe in god?

yes in science  that life can  go on  medical science

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558271/Can-really-transplant-human-soul.html

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by docyabut2

[+Sherapy]

1 minute ago, docyabut2 said:

yes in science  that life can  go on

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558271/Can-really-transplant-human-soul.html

 

Docy, I love your effort.

[Dejarma]

4 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

yes in science  that life can  go on  medical science

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558271/Can-really-transplant-human-soul.html

 

all due respect but you didn't answer the question

[docyabut2]

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

all due respect but you didn't answer the question

what  question?

[+joc]

1 hour ago, docyabut2 said:

joc I believe there is a lot of stories made up, but I believe the three religions of the Bible are true,  Jesus could have walked on the  Sea of Galilee where he walked on that was in his time .

 

https://www.livescience.com/28567-ancient-structure-under-sea-of-galilee.html

I walked on a sand bar in the Gulf of Mexico at Pensacola Beach...big whoop...

The Religions of the Bible are not true.  That's the point.  If Jesus was not born of a virgin, if Jesus did not walk on water, If Jesus did not rise again from the dead then the entire Christian Religion falls flat on its face.  

Science says Virgins don't have babies.  Science says dead people don't come back to life.  Science says it is impossible to walk on the surface of water. 

The Science of these things is true.  There is no question of it.  We know how babies are made.  We know how density and gravity affect substances.  No question.  Fact.

I walked on a sand bar...way out in the deep off the shore about a quarter mile.  Several others who were stupid and brave enough to swim out there and do it did as well.

I wasn't walking on the water.  I was walking on sand just below the surface of the water.

If the story of Jesus walking on the water was a misunderstanding of the same kind of thing...understandable.  But he didn't walk on water. He wasn't born of a virgin. He didn't come to life 3 days after he was murdered.  It didn't happen.  And if the Resurrection didn't happen.  Then the whole Religion collapses.  The only way the Religion doesn't collapse under the weight of its own lies is to continue to lie and convince people that Science is flawed...that science is against God...that Science is of the devil, etc, etc.

You don't get to play on both sides of the fence.  Not when one side of the fence is my yard.

Edited March 8, 2020 by joc

[+joc]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I already said that every institution uses stories as examples. You're asking why to use religious stories, if secular stories will do?

So then why must it be secular stories? Why does the fluff of the story matter more then the lesson. Frankly, sounds like intolerance.

Religious stories are fiction.  I prefer to address examples of how to live with non-fiction.  That isn't intolerance.  The fluff isn't true.  Part of every lesson should be that the foundation of that lesson is truth.  Truth = Non-fiction.  Ancient Bible Stories = myth/fiction.

[docyabut2]

7 minutes ago, joc said:

I walked on a sand bar in the Gulf of Mexico at Pensacola Beach...big whoop...

The Religions of the Bible are not true.  That's the point.  If Jesus was not born of a virgin, if Jesus did not walk on water, If Jesus did not rise again from the dead then the entire Christian Religion falls flat on its face.  

Science says Virgins don't have babies.  Science says dead people don't come back to life.  Science says it is impossible to walk on the surface of water. 

The Science of these things is true.  There is no question of it.  We know how babies are made.  We know how density and gravity affect substances.  No question.  Fact.

I walked on a sand bar...way out in the deep off the shore about a quarter mile.  Several others who were stupid and brave enough to swim out there and do it did as well.

I wasn't walking on the water.  I was walking on sand just below the surface of the water.

If the story of Jesus walking on the water was a misunderstanding of the same kind of thing...understandable.  But he didn't walk on water. He wasn't born of a virgin. He didn't come to life 3 days after he was murdered.  It didn't happen.  And if the Resurrection didn't happen.  Then the whole Religion collapses.  The only way the Religion doesn't collapse under the weight of its own lies is to continue to lie and convince people that Science is flawed...that science is against God...that Science is of the devil, etc, etc.

You don't get to play on both sides of the fence.  Not when one side of the fence is my yard.

Science says Virgins don't have babies.  Science says dead people don't come back to life.  Science says it is impossible to walk on the surface of water.

 

sorry joc but   we have been through that all before ")

[Dejarma]

10 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

what  question?

what do you mean: 'what question'?? are you stupid- or do you think i am?!!

do you believe in god? or do you not understand the question? it's a simple question

[+joc]

2 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

Science says Virgins don't have babies.  Science says dead people don't come back to life.  Science says it is impossible to walk on the surface of water.

 

sorry joc but   we have been through that all before ")

Of course we have.  In a plethora of other threads.  This particular thread is about whether Science and Religion can co-exist.  I think you are helping to prove my point that they cannot.

They cannot because Science disproves the myths of Religion.  So..what does one do with that? What are the choices?  One must choose to believe what one believes and disregard the Science that proves the belief to be false.  Or one must subscribe to the truth of Science and abandoned the belief that has been proven to be false by Science.

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, joc said:

They cannot because Science disproves the myths of Religion. 

which means nothing to those who believe... fascinating, init