The difference between science and religion!

[OneBigMan]

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.

[tonymctones]

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

[ToxicAvenger]

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

<bows>

----> exit stage right!

[drkaje]

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.

[tonymctones]

christian fundie meltdown

<bows>

----> exit stage right!

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

<bows>

----> exit stage right!

cover up protein your ignorance is showing...

[ToxicAvenger]

Maybe religion is a hypothesis that hasn't been proven yet.

finally..a good asnwer!


accepted doc!

[wavelength]

no religion is not a scientific theory, it deals with topics which cannot be dealt with in science

[tonymctones]

Oh ya I forgot the third response when a getbigger is proven wrong, Ignore

Ignoring:

finally..a good asnwer!


accepted doc!

[OneBigMan]

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. 

[Option D]

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."

[tonymctones]

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...

[Option D]

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

[tonymctones]

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 

[Option D]

lol yeah...my mom had that framed next to the shitter growing up

[wavelength]

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.

[wavelength]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[wavelength]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[OneBigMan]

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.

[ToxicAvenger]

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 

[tonymctones]

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  

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

[ToxicAvenger]

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 

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

[tonymctones]

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

[ToxicAvenger]

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!