Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: ToxicAvenger on November 14, 2009, 07:18:20 AM
-
Science
Step 1 ---> gather evidence
Step 2 ----> Draw Conclusion
Religion
Step 1 -----> draw conclusion
Step 2-------> gather supporting evidence
:-\
-
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree."
The words of your hero Albert Einstein you're clown do you hear me? When will you stop overANALysing this thing?
You still didn't reply whether you govern in the way or not...
:) ;)
-
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree."
The words of your hero Albert Einstein you're clown do you hear me? When will you stop overANALysing this thing?
i never said Einstein is my hero...
You still didn't reply whether you govern in the way or not...
:) ;)
huh ???
-
i nevered sad Einstein iz my hero...
huhed ???
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=286233.0
-
Science
Step 1 ---> gather evidence
Step 2 ----> Draw Conclusion
Religion
Step 1 -----> draw conclusion
Step 2-------> gather supporting evidence
:-\
this coming from someone who gets his morals from religion but despises it and wishes it cleansed from the earth ??? ::)
-
this coming from someone who gets his morals from religion but despises it and wishes it cleansed from the earth ??? ::)
i get my morals from religion ??? says who? i'm smart enough to know right from wrong without having to consult a book written by an imaginairy person ;)
-
i get my morals from religion ??? says who? i'm smart enough to know right from wrong without having to consult a book written by an imaginairy person ;)
Toxic,
What about the morality that you parents taught you growing up? Aren't your parents religious? Do you do the opposite of the morals that they taught you?
-
Science
Step 1 ---> gather evidence
Step 2 ----> Draw Conclusion
Religion
Step 1 -----> draw conclusion
Step 2-------> gather supporting evidence
:-\
Science: The problem here is science is sometimes wrong because it draws conclusions on incomplete evidence.
Religion: Is not Science, but instead faith.
-
Toxic,
What about the morality that you parents taught you growing up? Aren't your parents religious? Do you do the opposite of the morals that they taught you?
whats with the flip mang! i thought , you thunk all muslims are evil...hense they couldn't possibly have taught me any good!
in anycase...yeah they are good people...but they r also muslims...i'm an atheist..for the most part i find no roux in their morality although i have enough of a brain not to follow their teaching blindly and to venture my own life when needed (hence atheism)
-
Science: The problem here is science is sometimes wrong because it draws conclusions on incomplete evidence.
Religion: Is not Science, but instead faith.
see....first coherent good statement
i cant dispute either of the above..
-
Religion
Step 1 -----> draw conclusion
Step 2-------> gather supporting evidence
:-\
(taking into account you are probably not talking about "organized religion" but belief/faith and not just some denomination etc)
Many people observe nature and believe it's too complicated to have just "happened" w/o a designer.
People aren't born w/a drawn conclusion.
Also, to me, "draw conclusion" implies some type of investigation, deliberation or deduction prior to arriving at a conclusion in the first place.
-
i get my morals from religion ??? says who? i'm smart enough to know right from wrong without having to consult a book written by an imaginairy person ;)
you said your got your sense of right and wrong from your parent who are muslim...
if not where did you acquire your sense of right and wrong?
-
Also, to me, "draw conclusion" implies some type of investigation, deliberation or deduction prior to arriving at a conclusion in the first place.
and how to religious people conduct this investigation
-
you said your got your sense of right and wrong from your parent who are muslim...
if not where did you acquire your sense of right and wrong?
it ws innate...i consider myself evolved enough
-
it ws innate...i consider myself evolved enough
LOL way to side step the question ::)
if its simply b/c your evolved, your morals stem from survival so murder is ok then if its for your survival?
-
LOL way to side step the question ::)
if its simply b/c your evolved, your morals stem from survival so murder is ok then if its for your survival?
Murder is NOt condusive for survival
but if someone trying to kill me...well i'd kill em first..
kapees?
-
Murder is NOt condusive for survival
but if someone trying to kill me...well i'd kill em first..
kapees?
murder can be conducive to survival... ::)
ok again way to side step the question
basically anything that helps you survive is morally right in your book?
stealing, murder, rape etc...as long as it helps you and your bloodline survive its morally right in your book?
-
stealing, murder, rape etc...as long as it helps you and your bloodline survive its morally right in your book?
i dont have a book....
and you r an idiot :-\
-
i dont have a book....
and you r an idiot :-\
again way to side step the question ::)
face it bro that which you despise actually gives you the basis for your morality and if not Ill ask again where do you get your sense of morality?
morality isnt innate protein, survival is but survival and your idea or morality dont seem to go hand in hand sooo
try again... ;)
-
face it bro that which you despise actually gives you the basis for your morality and if not Ill ask again where do you get your sense of morality?
i get my sense of morality from my ability to grasp simple truths about the society we live in. Its sets of social mores coupled that with my genetic predisposition towards logical thought...
happy?
you get yours from a friggin book :-\
-
i get my sense of morality from my ability to grasp simple truths about the society we live in. Its sets of social mores coupled that with my genetic predisposition towards logical thought...
happy?
you get yours from a friggin book :-\
LOL first off are you so blind with hatred that you dont understand that the "friggin book" you despise is based on the same thing that you just put forth?
while it may come from a book try to look further, passed your idiotic hatred and see it through an unbiased lens.
Secondly you state the "society we live in" is this to mean that your sense of morals is not universal but simply right or wrong within the context of our society?
explain how your morals are any different than the morals derived from the bible?
-
explain how your morals are any different than the morals derived from the bible?
i never said they were different...i merely stated that they are differently derived...
better question yet...WHY do you care so much if i state that my morals are not plagarized from a book but instead a funcion of my own personality which in turn is a function of my genetic disposition?
-
No the difference is just what kind of conclusions you are able to draw.
-
i never said they were different...i merely stated that they are differently derived...
better question yet...WHY do you care so much if i state that my morals are not plagarized from a book but instead a funcion of my own personality which in turn is a function of my genetic disposition?
your hatred blinds you or perhaps your just not as smart as I give you credit for...
by your reasoning murder could be morally right, theft and rape as well could be morally right...
how do you not understand this?
Let me break it down for you...
If as you state that your morals come from your own personality and a function of you genetic disposition. Then a person who is predisposed to be violent could and with a personality that allows for violence to occur would be acting morally right...
-
If as you state that your morals come from your own personality and a function of you genetic disposition. Then a person who is predisposed to be violent could and with a personality that allows for violence to occur would be acting morally right...
nature nurture debate...you'll never win
-
What is the difference between SCIENCE AND RELIGION???????????????????
How Relevant is the meaning of what scientology and how important is scientology in everyday ecology and how do you become not so illiterate about the understanding of why scientology has become a much more mainstream part of holy theology??????????????????????
I had to ask because the way life is depending on your level of livelihood, one thing I realized during this eleven to twelve month seasonal calendar cycle is that this late exactly up to date final Sunday in November is probably so much of a "here today gone tomorrow" sunrise and sunset that this year that time says is 2009 is without a doubt one of the most SHORT LIVED years that the day to day pace of the end of the third month of the fall since September started and went into October and now November feels like the environment of everyday ecology is biologically too fast from tomorrow into tomorrow.
-
nature nurture debate...you'll never win
Im using your reasoning brain child...this has nothing to do with me arguing what has more impact on the development of a person...
What I stated is a possible direct result of your reasoning of the basis for your morals... ::) DEAL WITH IT
-
Im using your reasoning brain child...this has nothing to do with me arguing what has more impact on the development of a person...
What I stated is a possible direct result of your reasoning of the basis for your morals... ::) DEAL WITH IT
christian fundie meltdown ;D
<bows>
----> exit stage right! ;D
-
Science
Step 1 ---> gather evidence
Step 2 ----> Draw Conclusion
Religion
Step 1 -----> draw conclusion
Step 2-------> gather supporting evidence
:-\
Maybe religion is a hypothesis that hasn't been proven yet. :)
-
christian fundie meltdown ;D
<bows>
----> exit stage right! ;D
LOL way to not address the fact that your reasoning means that murder, rape and theft could be deemed morally right... ::)
no worries I should expect nothing less from a getbigger such as yourself when proven wrong and shown the ignorance of their way.
getbiggers reaction to being proven wrong: deflect or change the subject...
deflection:
nature nurture debate...you'll never win
change the subject:
christian fundie meltdown ;D
<bows>
----> exit stage right! ;D
cover up protein your ignorance is showing... ;)
-
Maybe religion is a hypothesis that hasn't been proven yet. :)
finally..a good asnwer! 8)
accepted doc!
-
no religion is not a scientific theory, it deals with topics which cannot be dealt with in science
-
Oh ya I forgot the third response when a getbigger is proven wrong, Ignore
Ignoring:
finally..a good asnwer! 8)
accepted doc!
;)
-
no religion is not a scientific theory, it deals with topics which cannot be dealt with in science
If religion is NOT a scientific theory that deals with topics that cannot be dealt with in science, then why is the combination of technology and theology treated like they are both related to each other and the number of "name recognized stars" who are "celebs" publicly acknowledge their belief in scientology.
Basically because of how strong the church and state faith of king george mr.W bush, then why didn't anyone influential say or suggest to the number of people in the population who are soft and unselfish that live with old school values or principles should try and pretend to be atheists when the heavy hype of the holy spirit was sweeping across america like a decisive 4 game sweep during a playoff series that a pro team loses.
-
Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."
-
Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."
I dont necessarily agree with the 1st part not that I think its wrong simply maybe I look at it in a different light.
The bolded parts I agree with completely
science does keep religion in check with its irrationality and religion does keep science from falling off a cliff...
I.E. evolution and religion and the fact that non believers even hold beliefs they would call morals...
-
I dont necessarily agree with the 1st part not that I think its wrong simply maybe I look at it in a different light.
The bolded parts I agree with completely
science does keep religion in check with its irrationality and religion does keep science from falling off a cliff...
I.E. evolution and religion and the fact that non believers even hold beliefs they would call morals...
i agree with you 100%...science does interpret, but religion in its purest form is ment to give wisdom/control but it turns people into fanatics which has through out history proven deadly. But like yous said it depends what lens you are lookin through.
guess whose quote that is
-
i agree with you 100%...science does interpret, but religion in its purest form is ment to give wisdom/control but it turns people into fanatics which has through out history proven deadly. But like yous said it depends what lens you are lookin through.
guess whose quote that is
hmmmm MLK jr. I used the google ;D
-
lol yeah...my mom had that framed next to the shitter growing up
-
If religion is NOT a scientific theory that deals with topics that cannot be dealt with in science, then why is the combination of technology and theology treated like they are both related to each other and the number of "name recognized stars" who are "celebs" publicly acknowledge their belief in scientology.
Basically because of how strong the church and state faith of king george mr.W bush, then why didn't anyone influential say or suggest to the number of people in the population who are soft and unselfish that live with old school values or principles should try and pretend to be atheists when the heavy hype of the holy spirit was sweeping across america like a decisive 4 game sweep during a playoff series that a pro team loses.
First of all, scientology is retarded. You cannot come to a different conclusion after watching Tom Cruise's video.
Many people believe that spiritual scripture can also be read as scientific scripture. I would call those people fundamentalists. On the other hand, many people think that science is the only body of thought there is. I would call those people scientific positivists. Both groups are wrong.
-
Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."
I don't agree. Science does in fact not deal with facts at all. It only deals with facts within scientific models, not at all with facts of reality. Only philosophy (also theology, although the topics are different) has the tools to deal with reality.
-
Many people believe that spiritual scripture can also be read as scientific scripture. I would call those people fundamentalists. On the other hand, many people think that science is the only body of thought there is. I would call those people scientific positivists. Both groups are wrong.
I agree, funny thing is those of the scientific positivists side, protein is a prime example dont see the irony of this...
I don't agree. Science does in fact not deal with facts at all. It only deals with facts within scientific models, not at all with facts of reality. Only philosophy (also theology, although the topics are different) has the tools to deal with reality.
I disagree with this but I think its b/c of the definition of "facts" and "reality" that we are using.
While I agree with what youre saying about the facts within the scientific model I disagree with the idea they are not facts in reality. Facts are facts plain and simple but its how we as ppl apply those facts that sometimes do not fit within reality.
as an example:
Is it a scientific fact that evolution exists? yes
but ppl try to use those facts to disprove religion this is where to me anyways you get the blur from facts to reality.
-
I agree, funny thing is those of the scientific positivists side, protein is a prime example dont see the irony of this...
I disagree with this but I think its b/c of the definition of "facts" and "reality" that we are using.
While I agree with what youre saying about the facts within the scientific model I disagree with the idea they are not facts in reality. Facts are facts plain and simple but its how we as ppl apply those facts that sometimes do not fit within reality.
as an example:
Is it a scientific fact that evolution exists? yes
but ppl try to use those facts to disprove religion this is where to me anyways you get the blur from facts to reality.
Yes, as long as we talk about "scientific facts" I agree. What I meant is that those facts only relate to the scientific aspects of reality.
Somewhat beside the point but to be exact, science does also not produce scientific facts. Scientifically speaking, you could only say "the currently accepted scientific theory about the biological aspects of life is evolution theory". Saying that "evolution is a fact" is highly unscientific because if a new scientific theory came along, which disproves evolution, evoultion theory would have to be abandoned.
-
Yes, as long as we talk about "scientific facts" I agree. What I meant is that those facts only relate to the scientific aspects of reality.
Somewhat beside the point but to be exact, science does also not produce scientific facts. Scientifically speaking, you could only say "the currently accepted scientific theory about the biological aspects of life is evolution theory". Saying that "evolution is a fact" is highly unscientific because if a new scientific theory came along, which disproves evolution, evoultion theory would have to be abandoned.
I agree with the bold
my point is more that evolution is a fact scientific and reality wise, organisms do change overtime through enviroments, biological pressure, societal pressure etc. etc. etc...
but its how it is applied now are we positive that certain extinct species where related or split from others no that is what you would call scientific theory alot of evidence points to this but as far as being 100% sure no we are not.
-
The difference between science and religion is a very thought provoking conversation. Just count and add up all the replies to the first post.
The difference to me seems to be a re-invention of how spiritually strong the church and state faith of evangelical people has turned into a equation that is the formula for scientific theory that explains everyday ecology. That's why the way evolution was described caught my attention before I began typing any of this. To make a long story short, when you try to take evolution and add a scientific theory or the scientific reality that is virtually impossible to ignore, all you can do is take different beliefs and reasonable facts and draw your own personal perspective.
My opinion is that you should use what "cause and effect" is supposed to stand for and take a look at technology through different parts of history to find your personal interpretation of what theology is and why certain fringe groups have for example what people within the scientology community claim to be their interpretation of what reality is to them.
-
Oh ya I forgot the third response when a getbigger is proven wrong, Ignore
Ignoring: ;)
jake is a DOCTOR....i value his opinion...
you..if you stick your head any further up your ass you'll give yourself a inverse deepthroat :-\
-
Deflecting...why dont you try addressing the logical problems that your morality leads too :-\ sorry I showed you the fallacy of your line of thought
jake is a DOCTOR....i value his opinion...
you..if you stick your head any further up your ass you'll give yourself a inverse deepthroat :-\
and what are you that we should value yours? ;)
LOL that was actually pretty good ;D
you have yet to address my points though ;) Im sorry if you feel that murder, rape, and theft are morally right but thats the way you feel
-
Deflecting...why dont you try addressing the logical problems that your morality leads too :-\ sorry I showed you the fallacy of your line of thoughtand what are you that we should value yours? ;)
i dont believe in god....automatic cred ;)
LOL that was actually pretty good ;D
you have yet to address my points though ;) Im sorry if you feel that murder, rape, and theft are morally right but thats the way you feel
you keep asking me the SAME question different ways...i already answered it
-
i dont believe in god....automatic cred ;)
you keep asking me the SAME question different ways...i already answered it
LOL you should go back and reread
"Many people believe that spiritual scripture can also be read as scientific scripture. I would call those people fundamentalists. On the other hand, many people think that science is the only body of thought there is. I would call those people scientific positivists. Both groups are wrong."
hahah apparently formal education is important to you, so what credentials do you have?
you did answer my question but ive moved beyond that try to keep up ;)
the basis for your morals also leads to murder, rape, and theft being morally right, do you think those are morally right? I doubt you do but according to your belief they are? please reconcile that
-
hahah apparently formal education is important to you, so what credentials do you have?
O-Levels university Of cambridge
Quit my senior yr at univ of maryland (i ws 18 when i quit, 15 when i got accepted) (didn't wanna do biology as my parents were forcing me to)
Network +, CCNA,CCNP,CCIP, JNCIA,JNCIS,CCIE Written and CCSI
as a CCSI (cert cisco systems instructor) i've had the priv of teaching..amongst others..
SAIC (Science Application International Corporation), Department of Labor, DISA (Defense information systems Agency), FBI, Military. good enuff for ya! :-*
if you have any doubt of this i can forward stells my resume! ;D
-
O-Levels university Of cambridge
Quit my senior yr at univ of maryland (i ws 18 when i quit, 15 when i got accepted) (didn't wanna do biology as my parents were forcing me to)
Network +, CCNA,CCNP,CCIP, JNCIA,JNCIS,CCIE Written and CCSI
as a CCSI (cert cisco systems instructor) i've had the priv of teaching..amongst others..
SAIC (Science Application International Corporation), Department of Labor, DISA (Defense information systems Agency), FBI, Military. good enuff for ya! :-*
if you have any doubt of this i can forward stells my resume! ;D
LOL so you have a bunch of certs...no degrees? lol its you who puts so much importance on such things not me, formal eduction doesnt equal intelligence in my mind...
why dont you try addressing my points as to your idiocy in logic in morals instead of simply picking and choosing from my post? ;)
again so murder, rape, and theft are morally acceptable to you and your justifications for your morals? 8)
I bet you wouldnt agree to that but the basis for your morals says different ;)
-
LOL so you have a bunch of certs...no degrees? lol its you who puts so much importance on such things not me, formal eduction doesnt equal intelligence in my mind...
unless ya have a engineering degree its all meh...
-
unless ya have a engineering degree its all meh...
why dont you try addressing my points as to your idiocy in logic in morals instead of simply picking and choosing from my post?
again so murder, rape, and theft are morally acceptable to you and your justifications for your morals?
I bet you wouldnt agree to that but the basis for your morals says different
-
I already see that the last reply to this topic was five days ago on the 7th of this month. I wanted to try and continue and discuss the difference between science and religion. There may not be much else to add besides a observation about this year called 2009.
The one example about the year 2009 that might have a connection to science and religion is symbolicly how so many seemingly short-lived seasonal periods into the fall during 2009 was used to make and release one movie that is either about this year as 2009 in some incomplete way or how three later years from this calendar year there is actually a film in the theaters for the last three or more weekends since November that is named after the year that seemingly is a number of years ahead of 2009 which obviously is the the film named after the year 2012.
Besides the fact that I have not seen this film simply called 2012, the release of the 2012 movie this year during 2009 is hard to completely digest in a number of puzzling ways. The most puzzling way that might have to do with science and religion is what do the makers of that 2012 movie know about 2012 besides the December date about 2012 that still is three different years beyond 2009 and so much of a Nostradamus type of unproven prophecy that is a ploy to create a reaction on the level of alarm and too much concern.
-
again so murder, rape, and theft are morally acceptable to you and your justifications for your morals?
yes totally morally acceptable...
now what?
i answered your question around 4 times in this thread....2 bad you cant comprehend the answer
-
I already see that the last reply to this topic was five days ago on the 7th of this month. I wanted to try and continue and discuss the difference between science and religion. There may not be much else to add besides a observation about this year called 2009.
<post edited>
buy the latest issue of skeptic magazine and read the 2012 article
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/
(http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/images/magv15n02_cover.jpg)
-
buy the latest issue of skeptic magazine and read the 2012 article
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/
(http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/images/magv15n02_cover.jpg)
LOL, you have to be the most self contradicting person I've ever seen. YOU read skeptic? lol...
-
LOL, you have to be the most self contradicting person I've ever seen. YOU read skeptic? lol...
yes i do....its always good to keep learning...
i dont wanna be stuck in my current belief system for ever....that'd be like being every other religious person perpetually stuck with the belief system they were born into....right?
not to sound like a cliche...but knowlodge is power
-
yes i do....its always good to keep learning...
i dont wanna be stuck in my current belief system for ever....that'd be like being every other religious person perpetually stuck with the belief system they were born into....right?
not to sound like a cliche...but knowlodge is power
you're the guy that once told me I shouldn't bother watching a show National Geographic did on the Moon Landing Conspiracy. Who are you and what have you done with Toxic? :D
it'll be bulshit and not worth watching..they will pretend to analyse both sides seriously..only to shoot down the conspiracy firmly at the end
..the show will end with a..hey we looked at both sides fairly and the conspiracy theorists are wrong feel to it
-
you're the guy that once told me I shouldn't bother watching a show National Geographic did on the Moon Landing Conspiracy. Who are you and what have you done with Toxic? :D
i just dont constantly drink anymore....hell i dont have time......i used to go thru 2 pints of remi/day
drinking is reserved for once every 4 or so months glass of wine with steak dealie
and honestly...i dont miss is...as long as i am not bored...and my technical books provide me with plenty of entertainment...sad i know but i just cant stand being bored
-
i just dont constantly drink anymore....hell i dont have time......i used to go thru 2 pints of remi/day
drinking is reserved for once every 4 or so months glass of wine with steak dealie
and honestly...i dont miss is...as long as i am not bored...and my technical books provide me with plenty of entertainment...sad i know but i just cant stand being bored
well I think you're on the right track. Before you seemed willing to buy into whatever video someone put together as the end of the story, gospel truth. Listening to the skeptics is good. Listening to both sides is good. But beware, skeptics can be just as bad. I've picked up Skeptic a few times and the only problem I have with them is that they don't believe anything has ever happened of a conspiratorial nature or ever will. They sell their magazines to debunk CT's and they're willing to debunk them all. They do not enter the debate with an open mind.. So don't read them as gospel either. The guy that runs Skeptic also does a lot of TV appearances and he's one of those guys that like to show up with laughter and mockery in hand which I've always hated in a skeptic. If they have the proof to debunk the theory, they shouldn't need to show up with mockery in their debate box. That's only used to gain an immediate undeserved upperhand with the viewer, like they start out on a higher moral ground than the theorist. unfortunately this tool is a favorite among skeptics.
-
well I think you're on the right track.
thanx mate...
Before you seemed willing to buy into whatever video someone put together as the end of the story, gospel truth. Listening to the skeptics is good. Listening to both sides is good. But beware, skeptics can be just as bad. I've picked up Skeptic a few times and the only problem I have with them is that they don't believe anything has ever happened of a conspiratorial nature or ever will. They sell their magazines to debunk CT's and they're willing to debunk them all. They do not enter the debate with an open mind..
before mate i used to be nicely buzzed by 9:30 am(liquor store opened at 9).....finish a pint by 12ish pm..go to bed...wake up by 3:30ish....go teach..come home by 11ish and get plastered again...THAT much drinkings bound to make ya stupid eventually
i read skeptic with a critical eye...they on ocassion come across an almost pompous...but its always a good bathroom read... :)
-
buy the latest issue of skeptic magazine and read the 2012 article
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/
(http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/images/magv15n02_cover.jpg)
I got that. Good article.
-
buy the latest issue of skeptic magazine and read the 2012 article
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/
(http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/images/magv15n02_cover.jpg)
I would rather not read Skeptic magazine so symbolicly, the way the cover of that very late post 2008 up to date issue of Skeptic magazine was illustrated to look, I would say that there is too much emphasis being placed on the year 2012 being the name of a 2009 movie three years ahead of this one.
What is it about 2009 that already has a movie called 2012 in a hypothetical fictional look into three next years that have been too anticipated when this year is still here despite the feeling that such a short lived amount of fall months in this holiday season of 2009?
Can Any Scientologist explain that or can the difference between science and religion be used to explain that or does the two words leap year have a second definition that causes a lot of reinterpretation from what is said to be a leap year on the added 29th of February four years apart. The extra meaning of a leap year might have more importance outside the recognition of the Gregorian calendar from what a February leap year has been along with the fact that 2012 is supposed to be another Gregorian calendar leap year despite the fact or fiction that the Mayan calendar, not the Gregorian calendar, is believed to be the reason why 2012 is being explained to be the Nostradamus type of unproven prophecy by any of the experts that make their living off of trying to be like Nostradamus.
-
When you're thirsty and it seems that you could drink the entire ocean that's faith; when you start to drink and finish only a glass or two that's science.
Toxic what a stupid guy you are
-
I think that science and religion go hand in hand and are truely compatible with each other.
-
I think that science and religion go hand in hand and are truely compatible with each other.
Surprisingly...and i've only done with for 1 religion...Islam (cause parents r muslim)....i ws looking for a link between science and religion (it ws a beer drinking kinda day) and ...actually searching for evidence of UFOS in religious texts...and i came across this
...i had found a better site ...a quick check tells me this is not the one but its something...
http://www.islamicity.com/science/
on the flip side...scientific errors in the koran
http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/quran.htm