The difference between science and religion...
 

The difference between science and religion...

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...75250419_n.jpg

Edit: On second thought, I won't stir the pot unnecessarily.

Religion:

A young minister gets an idea for a new slant on a New Testament story. He’s never heard of it before, so he assumes no one else has either. He does no research at all, writes it up and uses it for his next sermon. Several members of the congregation have heard the minister’s approach before and know it’s been shot down by biblical scholars. But they don’t tell him. There’s no point in discouraging the guy. He made a good point using bad data, but no one was hurt. No harm, no foul.

Science:

A young researcher gets an idea for a new slant on particle physics. He’s never heard of it before, but he knows he can’t assume it’s new. He does his homework and can’t find any reference to his idea. In the lab, he does some preliminary experiments and they look good. Then he spends weeks going through every experiment he can think of to disprove his hypothesis. He knows other scientists will do their best to shoot holes in it and he doesn’t want to look like an ignorant fool. In the end, it still looks good, so he writes it up and submits it to a peer-reviewed journal. Two months later, they send it back. The young researcher has made a mistake. His hypothesis is invalid. The concept of “no harm, no foul” never occurred to the review committee.

I wish you would. You're so good at it. Plus my thread is dying.

"The cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research" -Albert Einstein

Your thread isn't dying, it's dead.

Threads die quickly for one of two reasons in this room...

1. Because they're true and no one can intelligently argue against them (This one).

2. Because they're written by crazy people and no one even bothers to read them (Anything you've written).

Very well, I wouldn't want to disappoint.

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Dif...dc_3679801.jpg

A religious explanation for Hurricane Sandy is:
-it's Allah's punishment of the kuffars for Afghanistan and Iraq

But others claim...
-it's Allah's punishment of the kuffars for that Mohammed video

Then there's the "scientific" explanation...
-it was caused by global warming and climate change



Who's right?

I like it!

I'm sure the jihadists are dancing in the streets the second they get wind of the destruction on the east coast.

Dancing in streets and in and out of buildings that every day look like the streets and buildings in NY and NJ do now. Misery loves company.

Also, I don't know about global warming but one day there wasn't a hurricane and the next there was. I'd call that climate change.

Link no workie. The suspense is killing me.

Nope, that's not the scientific explanation.








If I had a dollar for every time...

If you can measure it, it is science.

If you cannot measure it, it is opinion.

Religion cannot be measured.

Religion is opinion.

Religion is not fact.

You forgot one.

emphasis added

Flawed logic.:yawn:

Science cannot measure a singularity. Science is clueless on the nature of singularities. The math keeps coming up infinity. And to physicists, infinity is a dead end.
Science cannot measure dark energy. Science is clueless about the nature of dark energy.
Science cannot measure dark matter. Though indications of dark matter can be seen by way of gravitational lensing.
We know there is something holding the universe together and something is accelerating it's expansion, but cannot be directly detected.


True scientists accept there is far more that we don't know than we do know. Some things are right, and some things turned out to be wrong.

Science didn't used to be able to measure gravity, temperature, planetary orbits, electricity, nuclear fusion, neutrinos or Higgs Boson particles until it could. Does that mean that all of those things were untrue until science caught up with them? What evidence do you have of a clear line between what's possible to understand and what isn't?

The universe operates independently of our ability to explain it.

Still have problems with understanding and are driven by emotional abnormalities as usual.:yawn:

I am pointing out that theories have been proven right and proven wrong and that there is still much more that we have not proven and what has not been proven remains a matter of 'hope the theory is right'. Kind of like faith, huh?
Unknown till known. that simple.

As I said, true science understanding people understand how much we have yet to discover. A true scientist always keeps an open mind until firm evidence confirms or debunks a concept or theory.
I hope you realize the Big Bang theory is based on circumstantial evidence. That being the observed expansion.
Scientists assume that if the expansion were reversed, all matter and energy would converge to a central point... a singularity. All the math involved is based on that assumption. The laws of physics break down at the singularity.
I happen to agree with the BBT at this point because it is the most logical though it still has some problems.
But then there's M-theory. Controversial in the scientific community and has more problems than the BBT.

Perhaps some day physicists will detect dark energy. We only know it's there because of the accelerating expansion of the universe which until 1998 scientists thought the universe would slow and contract to a big crunch. Still could if the dark energy, which composes about 74% of the universe, weakens and gravity gets the upper hand. Dark matter is about 22% and the visible about 4%.


Try to keep an open mind. It does much for understanding.

since your statement "religion is not a fact" is merely a series of words arranged in a certain order to articulate a concept and cannot be measured then it is ultimately just your opinion.

can concepts be measured?

can truth be measured?

can logic be measured?

can love be measured?

can morality be measured?

can trust be measured?

can honesty be measured?

can wisdom be measured?

according to you, if something cannot be swished around in a test tube or examined under a microscope then they are merely opinions.

as mentioned in a previous post, perhaps you should study the issues a little more objectively, if understanding is your sincere goal (which I doubt it is).

!
 

The existence of God is merely an opinion.

If not, please prove he/she/it actually exists.

:dunno:

(crickets chirping)

Wouldn't the non-existence of God also be an opinion?

Science cannot measure a singularity.....YET.


Science cannot measure dark matter.....YET.





It cannot be detected.....YET.



Isaac Newton had one of the most brilliant of human minds.

Despite that, he both believed in Alchemy and had absolutely no idea what kept the sun from burning out.

Mankind needed the development of quantum mechanics to explain the concept of Nuclear Fusion.

Science builds on science.

Religion is, always was, and forevermore will be, unprovable opinion designed to enslave the minds of men. :upeyes:

!
 

Only something that does exist can be proven to exist.

If something does not exist, there can be no "proof" of its non-existence. There can only be a consistent absence of such proof.

It is not for agnostics to prove the non-existence of God.

It is for gnostics to prove the existence of God.

And until they do, admit their particular flavor of silly superstition is just that -- silly superstition -- and stop demanding that their fellow man live by their silly superstitious tenets.

You seem to be responding like the question as an attack;

I don't care.
I'm just wondering if this reasoning applies to all things we know *not to exist* vs believing in things unproven to exist...like critters from another galaxy.

Personally, I believe in God, but I'm not committed to some denomination or Orthodox, just as I feel certain there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. I can't prove either to be truth, but I don't see any proof to the contrary, either.

It seems like the base fundamental to aetheism always comes down to burden of proof for theist as opposed to general acceptance that we don't know one way or the other.

I don't care what others believe, I'd think it would be the same with aetheist, but there seems to be an evangelical quality to aetheism here.:dunno:

I don't rely on either. Instead, I rely on a strong inductive argument that meets or exceeds any practical definition proof that can reasonably be expected. None of the properties attributed to god are actually physically possible in this universe. Theists always claim transcendence, but there is nothing to indicate that this is a real phenomenon. Even if it were, god is also described as immanent which would still subject him to the basic laws of physics. Ignoring all that, you can't possess all the attributes described to god without logical paradoxes arising (fate/freewill, perfect creator/imperfect creation, etc.)

Nope, the whole idea of god is absurd on its face. Don't feel bad though, it took me 38 years to figure that out and I'm much smarter than most.

The irony is that you are suggesting a property belongs more to atheism than theism when the name of the property itself implies a religious origin. I think most atheists here would gladly walk away from the debate if theists would stop trying to legislate their beliefs on others.

Can you give an example of something that you "know" not to exist? Would you accept the burden of proof of asserting that it does not exist?

Obviously lack of evidence of non-existence is not evidence of existence.
The burden of proof rests on the party making the assertion. Christians assert that God exists, so they have the burden of proof to support that assertion. Very few atheists, that I'm aware of, assert "there is no god", since you cannot prove a negative *that is logically possible*.
If your (and I mean that in the general, not specific sense) being a Christian meant nothing more than you wasting your time and money at Church, then I wouldn't particularly care. However, when belief compels people to attempt to legislate their deities morality on the entire population, and to abuse and reject science in favor of religious dogma, and for 1 in 8 high school biology teachers to admit to illegally advancing creationism in the classroom, etc., then it becomes an issue.

-ArtificialGrape