The reason why Science > Religion.

[WafflesFTW]

Religious proof constitutes a 2000 year old book, ravings of insane women, and sentence's with "thou and thy" to make it appear like they are back in "Jesus time."

Science has tons of evidence supporting evolution, science has actually contributed to the world, and science gives reasons other than "believe or you are going to hell."

I'm disappointed in my countrymen. I believe hinduism is the only polytheistic religion left. We haven't even graduated to monotheism. Eventually though, everyone will see the world as it is and not hide behind some robed man and atheism will predominate.

[Almsivi]

Nothing fails. This world is nothing but thought manifestation, which is ruled by will power, or choice.

There is no need for material proofs, and if you do not believe something, that is no so important.

[MikeH]

Why science vs religion, though? If you pick only one, you are still an absolutist.

When science contradicts religion or religion contradicts science then what?

The only way this can happen is if one or the other is taken out of its proper context. For example, using a religious belief as an explanation of how some natural event occurs, or trying to find purpose through the study of a natural method. When this happens, you recognize the offending party, and place it back in its proper context.

[McCulloch]

When science contradicts religion or religion contradicts science then what?

The only way this can happen is if one or the other is taken out of its proper context. For example, using a religious belief as an explanation of how some natural event occurs, or trying to find purpose through the study of a natural method. When this happens, you recognize the offending party, and place it back in its proper context.

Are you claiming that religion cannot make any claims that can be tested by science?

[alexiarose]

When science contradicts religion or religion contradicts science then what?

The only way this can happen is if one or the other is taken out of its proper context. For example, using a religious belief as an explanation of how some natural event occurs, or trying to find purpose through the study of a natural method. When this happens, you recognize the offending party, and place it back in its proper context.

Are you claiming that religion cannot make any claims that can be tested by science?

HEY LARRY!!!!!!!!!

The bible isn't a science book. It isn't meant to explain science. I accept there are some things that science can neither prove nor disprove. In the cases where science trumps religion, I have to assume there is a reason for such even if I cannot understand it. I don't think it outright negates scripture, perhaps compliments it.

Tell me, what parts of scripture can science say has most certainly not happened. I know your first impulse will be the creation of adam and eve. But what if the creation was from the primordial soup? What if that was the "dust" used to form Adam? In the times of scripture, it may be the most simplistic term we could comprehend. Over a very long period of time, with evolution, we can still trace our ancestors back to one source, correct?

[MikeH]

Are you claiming that religion cannot make any claims that can be tested by science?

If it can be tested by science, then it is a scientific claim, not a religious claim, isn't it?

Similarly, deriving any sort of "purpose", "meaning" or "moral" through the study of natural processes is religious activity, not scientific.

[McCulloch]

If it can be tested by science, then it is a scientific claim, not a religious claim, isn't it?

Let me rephrase. Are you claiming that religion cannot make scientific claims?

Similarly, deriving any sort of "purpose", "meaning" or "moral" through the study of natural processes is religious activity, not scientific.

This is a philosophical activity, not a scientific. Some people are content to get answers to philosophical questions through philosophy's aging and senile parent, religion.

[MikeH]

Let me rephrase. Are you claiming that religion cannot make scientific claims?

Anybody can make a scientific claim. As such it will be proven, disproven, or laid to wait until more evidence is exposed. I think we can both agree that "goddidit" is not a scientific claim.

This is a philosophical activity, not a scientific. Some people are content to get answers to philosophical questions through philosophy's aging and senile parent, religion.

And what exactly makes philosophy so much more reliable than religion, in your opinion?

[McCulloch]

I think we can both agree that "goddidit" is not a scientific claim.

You would be wrong. The claim that a particular event was done miraculously by a divine being circumventing the laws of the universe can be a scientifically testable claim.

This is a philosophical activity, not a scientific. Some people are content to get answers to philosophical questions through philosophy's aging and senile parent, religion.

And what exactly makes philosophy so much more reliable than religion, in your opinion?

Philosophy uses reason and logic to seek whatever answers it can find. Religion starts with "goddidit" and proceeds from there.

Philosophy has questions that cannot be answered.
Religion has answers that cannot be questioned.

[MikeH]

I think we can both agree that "goddidit" is not a scientific claim.You would be wrong. The claim that a particular event was done miraculously by a divine being circumventing the laws of the universe can be a scientifically testable claim.

Hmmm.......how exactly would you test?

Philosophy uses reason and logic to seek whatever answers it can find. Religion starts with "goddidit" and proceeds from there.

Philosophy has questions that cannot be answered.
Religion has answers that cannot be questioned.

Then based on those definitions I would consider myself a philosopher, not a religionist.

[McCulloch]

I think we can both agree that "goddidit" is not a scientific claim.You would be wrong. The claim that a particular event was done miraculously by a divine being circumventing the laws of the universe can be a scientifically testable claim.

Hmmm.......how exactly would you test?

That would depend on the claim. For example, if a claim were made that God made the sun stand still for an hour x number of years ago, then there should be physical evidence of such an event. If another claim was made that a certain number of the followers of a particular leader would be given the ability to speak languages without having learned them, then that could easily be verified. That kind of thing..

Philosophy uses reason and logic to seek whatever answers it can find. Religion starts with "goddidit" and proceeds from there.

Philosophy has questions that cannot be answered.
Religion has answers that cannot be questioned.

Then based on those definitions I would consider myself a philosopher, not a religionist.

Are you claiming that belief in the Christian God is based on logic and reason?