Religion and Science

Conversation moves over here because the the old thread that was closed about God was primarily religious people against atheists and agnostics who look to science as the alternative.

Now we can discuss both sides, instead of just to existence of God.

So we can discuss the ambiguity and ever changing loose theories most science is built upon?
....
Or the awkward forward thinking stubborn-ness of the scientific community?
...
Or that BILL NYE is the ultimate science Guy..
and Beakman bows to him?

Religion is not a topic which lends itself to discussion such as this. It is impossible to debate it because it is built on faith. Another forum I frequent has a thread of similar function, and there is a blanket "no religion" rule, because it always ends with atheists bashing logical inconsistencies, and religious folks bashing atheists for not having faith. It's a fruitless endeavor, even more fruitless than most debates.

Religion is not a topic which lends itself to discussion such as this. It is impossible to debate it because it is built on faith. Another forum I frequent has a thread of similar function, and there is a blanket "no religion" rule, because it always ends with atheists bashing logical inconsistencies, and religious folks bashing atheists for not having faith. It's a fruitless endeavor, even more fruitless than most debates.

I have faith in my ability to create points that are not only unprovable but also UN-DEPROVABLE and then put the burden of evidence on your shoulders AFROBEAN!
....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
.......
P.S. I love me some comfy blankets.

Religion is not a topic which lends itself to discussion such as this. It is impossible to debate it because it is built on faith. Another forum I frequent has a thread of similar function, and there is a blanket "no religion" rule, because it always ends with atheists bashing logical inconsistencies, and religious folks bashing atheists for not having faith. It's a fruitless endeavor, even more fruitless than most debates.

I agree. I really do believe it's all just a personal preference, if you believe god, or chemicals and all those. I don;t think a matter needs to be discussed, however everyone is entitled to believe as they wish.

Science is not a preference.

science is facts, you can play dumb and not see them, but they still there.

Science is not a preference.

Though I'd also say most science is SUBJECT TO cHANGE
....
Thus it really isn't as concrete was we would like.
More of a current explanation of our current general understanding...
WE THINK

science is facts, you can play dumb and not see them, but they still there.

Like how originally math was used to PROVE that the Earth was the center of the galaxy.
and that things moved in perfect circular orbits...

Like how originally math was used to PROVE that the Earth was the center of the galaxy.
and that things moved in perfect circular orbits...

And like then was used to prove that the sun is the center of the galaxy, and that things revolution over it because of gravity. HA right, so funny.


BUT NO all was obtained by simple logic, not by numbers and formulas. Buddy your absolutely right! ./end sarcasm.

Science doesn't change. Only our perception changes as we learn more. This is the most logical way to look at the world; if you learn something you thought before was wrong, you change your understanding of the world to be in line with how you now know it to be.

And like then was used to prove that the sun is the center of the galaxy, and that things revolution over it because of gravity. HA right, so funny.


BUT NO all was obtained by simple logic, not by numbers and formulas. Buddy your absolutely right! ./end sarcasm.

Check it:
Tychonic system
and
Maragha system
...
both extensively abused Math to make it fit a formula where upon...
Circular orbits work.
MATH LIES.
ALot.
BUt you have to coax it too lie.
...
Except Stats.
Stats are whores for lying.

Wanna know what makes me sleep better at night knowing that they don't teach fairy tails in school.

Wanna know what makes me sleep better at night knowing that they don't teach fairy tails in school.

Who said anything about Fairy Tales..
If you guys think I am ANTI-science you are SO sooooo SO wrong.
I am just saying Theories are proven and disproven all the time.
Science isn't as Solid since it is based originally off of speculation.

Who said anything about Fairy Tales..
If you guys think I am ANTI-science you are SO sooooo SO wrong.
I am just saying Theories are proven and disproven all the time.
Science isn't as Solid since it is based originally off of speculation.

Speculation has NOTHING to do with the scientific method. I honestly suggest that you not argue about a subject that you're not at least somewhat familiar with.

Speculation has NOTHING to do with the scientific method. I honestly suggest that you not argue about a subject that you're not at least somewhat familiar with.

I mean the Hypothesis themselves-They are generally based on Correlation Speculation
While MOST theories hold...
Never forget that Correlation=/=Causality.(it CAN but it is most defiantly not always true)
...
Generally speaking we are going to say science is right.
Infact unless we prove a bit of science wrong science is right.
Even then by disproving the former science RE-proves it self right.
Am I bashing the scientific method..
No way.
it is the best system so far.
Empirical data is hard to repute.

To say that science is "wrong" is to venture down a road of uncertainty.

On the same grounds you might as well argue that due to the nature of our perception of reality, there is no undeniable objective truth. That's philosophical stuff, and going down that path is detrimental to the advancement of science.

And the whole thing about the hypothesis... if they're skewing their results to fit their hypothesis, then they're failing the method and undeserving of the title of scientist. If you have preconceived notions which effect the way you find your results, that is not science.

To say that science is "wrong" is to venture down a road of uncertainty.

On the same grounds you might as well argue that due to the nature of our perception of reality, there is no undeniable objective truth. That's philosophical stuff, and going down that path is detrimental to the advancement of science.

And the whole thing about the hypothesis... if they're skewing their results to fit their hypothesis, then they're failing the method and undeserving of the title of scientist. If you have preconceived notions which effect the way you find your results, that is not science.

I am going to say that the Hypothesis in itself is a skewed view.
And that one will generally attempt to prover their hypothesis.
Only the community of science really keeps skewed hypothi(?) in check.
...
And PHILOSOPHY vs. SCIENCE
The homeless vs. the Housed!
...
But really lets leave philosophy out of this.
Otherwise I'll subvert it to Religion and eventually the omphalos hypothesis.
And nobody wins.

Check it:
Tychonic system
and
Maragha system
...
both extensively abused Math to make it fit a formula where upon...
Circular orbits work.
MATH LIES.
ALot.
BUt you have to coax it too lie.
...
Except Stats.
Stats are whores for lying.

So your saying that because people created a mathematical system that was not correct, math lies? Math does not lie the people that create those system are the ones who lie.

Its like you saying that the voting system is the one who lie other than saying that the ones who control it are the liers.

Think about it buddy.

So your saying that because people created a mathematical system that was not correct, math lies? Math does not lie the people that create those system are the ones who lie.

Its like you saying that the voting system is the one who lie other than saying that the ones who control it are the liers.

Think about it buddy.

P.S: And by the way, you can continue to type some more words before clicking Enter.

No I am saying math and science are easily abused to make fallacies seem true.
It is the duty of the scientific community to CHECK these things.
However once the community has accepted a hypothesis...
The burden of proof lies on the opposition.
Which is fine.
...
So I am saying math and science are very malleable.