Science a religion?

[AlbqOwl]

What is righteous and orderly about the universe?

What isn't righteous and orderly about it? Righteousness would presume that it is neither good nor evil but simply the way it is supposed to be. And orderly is pretty easy to observe in the consistency by which the planets, stars, comets, meteor showers, etc. as well as all the known elements can be expected to behave.

 

[grip]

It could be , but given the total lack of evidence my money is on no gods.

How about this one from science fiction; gods are humans from the future that evolved into pure, immortal, thought energy, no longer requiring a body or limited by natures restraints of time and space?

And since they become one with nature having all the power and control possible, all the information needed to resurrect past living beings is attainable?

 

[AlbqOwl]

It would have been very difficult to find them in the Garden of Eden because the place never existed.

Please show your proof or evidence that the Garden of Eden never existed. The fact that you do not want it to have existed just isn't sufficient evidence.

 

[zyzygy]

What isn't righteous and orderly about it?

righ·teous adjective \ˈrī-chəs\
: morally good : following religious or moral laws

There you go again, presupposing that a god exists.

 

[zyzygy]

Please show your proof or evidence that the Garden of Eden never existed. The fact that you do not want it to have existed just isn't sufficient evidence.

You can't be serious. Don't tell me that you actually believe the story of Adam and Eve? There is nothing factual in the Old Testament.

 

[TobyOne]

I think bananas have had a glorious history that we're just now starting to uncover.

Well if you want to be scientifically accurate, one of the oldest edible fruits that we know of was the date from date palms that scientists believed were used as food in the Middle East at least as far back as 6000 years and they have also found evidence of apple seeds along the Nile that date back that far as well. Bananas, as we know them, can only be traced back to roughly 600 B.C. which would be fairly recent in Biblical history. There is no evidence they could have been around in the Garden of Eden.

 

[AlbqOwl]

righ·teous adjective \ˈrī-chəs\
: morally good : following religious or moral laws

There you go again, presupposing that a god exists.

I don't see anything in my post the presupposes a god exists. Simply making an argument based on the silliness others use to insist there is no god (And my definition of righteous comes from the theological understanding of what the ancients believed righteousness to be.).

 

[AlbqOwl]

You can't be serious. Don't tell me that you actually believe the story of Adam and Eve? There is nothing factual in the Old Testament.

I didn't say anything about the story of Adam and Eve nor did I say that the Garden of Eden existed. But you made a definitive unqualified statement that the Garden of Eden did not exist. I am asking for your evidence for that.

 

[zyzygy]

I didn't say anything about the story of Adam and Eve nor did I say that the Garden of Eden existed. But you made a definitive unqualified statement that the Garden of Eden did not exist. I am asking for your evidence for that.

I cite reality, genetics and the real history of the Earth.

 

[grip]

You can't be serious. Don't tell me that you actually believe the story of Adam and Eve? There is nothing factual in the Old Testament.

Nothing factual in the OT? You can't be serious? What about all the archeological digs of Jericho, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, which verify certain aspects of historical info in biblical accounts?

Apologetics Press - Archaeology and the Old Testament

 

[AlbqOwl]

I think bananas have had a glorious history that we're just now starting to uncover.

Well since I have no way to discredit what you think, who knows what signs and wonders will be discovered in the evolution of the lowly banana? But I still think, based on the supposed years assigned to the genealogical record in the Old Testament, it would have been possible for dates or apples to have been the forbidden fruit mentioned in the second creation story. The banana would have been much less likely.

 

[zyzygy]

Nothing factual in the OT? You can't be serious? What about all the archeological digs of Jericho, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, which verify certain aspects of historical info in biblical accounts?

Apologetics Press - Archaeology and the Old Testament

What did they discover about the burning bush, the Garden of Eden, the alleged Flood, Jonah in the whale, the parting of the seas, manna falling from heaven, the Sun and the Moon standing still, the Tower of Babel and so forth? What information did they dig up?

 

[AlbqOwl]

I cite reality, genetics and the real history of the Earth.

Good. Then you must have some evidence to back up your unqualified statement that there was no Garden of Eden and nothing factual in the Old Testament. Let's see it.

 

[grip]

What did they discover about the burning bush, the Garden of Eden, the alleged Flood, Jonah in the whale, the parting of the seas, manna falling from heaven, the Sun and the Moon standing still, the Tower of Babel and so forth? What information did they dig up?

I don't believe half the bible is correct, written by superstitious people from word of mouth stories, so you're barking up the wrong tree with me. It's just not all fabricated, anymore than most historical accounts and archeological evidence. To expect evidence of temporal miracles is a little uninformed on how they might occur on your part. :lol:

 

[zyzygy]

Good. Then you must have some evidence to back up your unqualified statement that there was no Garden of Eden and nothing factual in the Old Testament. Let's see it.

Are you being serious? Shall I also provide evidence that Middle Earth did not exist? Some of the geographical information in the OT may be correct but that's about it.

 

[NoC_T]

So a buddy of mine posed this question to me. He's not a big fan of begin called a atheist because he claims that science is a religion making him... i don't really know what, theist seems more like deity-related religions, maybe scientist?...

Anyways, an official definition of a religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

So is Science a modern religion?

Lets just say you should habve listened to your buddy. not that he's any more cognizant thatn you are, but at least he's assking the right question. Science befits religion.

 

[cpwill]

It's important to note that our interaction here on this forum is documented and public. Anyone can come by and read our conversation for themselves, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that it's taken place, because here it is.

:shrug: perhaps. That's only what they perceive, after all, and folks here have assured me that eyewitness is not to be trusted

Could you describe these direct, personal, repeated interactions with god? Does he talk to you?

He has indeed, although it is not limited to that.

Second, thousands of people are not having the same shared "experiences" with god. They, like you, all have subjective, private interactions that you can't quantify or describe to a third party.

Sure - and you could make the same argument about love or a conscience (as I have pointed out). A multitude, however, attest to the fact that despite loves' lack of an atomic weight, it does, in fact, exist.

What you've actually done is just lazily gathered up all believers and everything supernatural and said "All of this is my evidence. I'm not concerned about how all of these pieces fit together or if there are inconsistencies."

Evidence for theism? Absolutely - the massive weight of its witnesses is something that those who wish to pretend that there is no evidence must deal with, or else sink into denial.

I've noticed this before, if a christian is talking to an atheist, every religious person on earth is magically supporting his case, but when that same christian talks to someone of a another religion, say, Islam, you're suddenly not on the same theological side anymore.

:shrug: sure. And you and I would agree (likely) that the overwhelming weight of evidence demonstrates that free markets are a better form of economic organization than top-down centralization and direction. We would probably differ on plenty of the details. That difference does not mean that we are not correct when we say that the historical success of free trade is far superior to the historical success of socialism. If I wished to take a young earth view, would the fact that evolutionary biologists disagree amongst each other on the particulars of how evolution has worked mean (according to the logic presented) that I could justify tossing out evolution all-together?

Think hard before you propose that differing conclusions upon exposure to evidence mean that the evidence does not exist.

You also completely sidestepped my question from before. If that guy stands up in church and says he's been told directly and personally by god to take over the congregation, and as you stated god can talk to anyone, how can the congregation know if it's actually what god wants and not just a guy making it up? It's an entertaining scenario for me because that's exactly what happened one day as a kid when I was sitting in church.

I did tell you, actually. Firstly I pointed out the construct that my church would use in such a scenario, and secondly I pointed out to you that such a claim could be independently verified and then tested against its results.

 

[cpwill]

No. it has nothing to do with theology what so ever. Science is a methodology to uncover facts about the physical world. It creates models to try to explain those facts, and to make predictions on how various things interact, and what will be found under what circumstances. The biggest difference between Science and theology is 'falsifiability' and testability.

In fact both of those concepts were imported into science from theology, as was the practice of creating models to try to explain linked data.

 

[zyzygy]

Science befits religion.

How? Science forces god into smaller and smaller gaps.

 

[zyzygy]

In fact both of those concepts were imported into science from theology, as was the practice of creating models to try to explain linked data.

And what was the data that theology had to go on? The bible?

 

[NoC_T]

How? Science forces god into smaller and smaller gaps.

There are no gaps. only some belated sense of humility. Ask science how far it gets to walk without soles that meke it bleed.

 

[zyzygy]

There are no gaps. only some belated sense of humility. Ask science how far it gets to walk without soles that meke it bleed.

What? Oh, wait a minute, I'll get on the phone to science.

 

[zyzygy]

Science informs me that it never takes constitutionals. Far too busy in the lab.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Please show your proof or evidence that the Garden of Eden never existed. The fact that you do not want it to have existed just isn't sufficient evidence.

You are correct in this.
However since he won't be able to disprove the existence of Eden this absolutely does NOT mean Eden existed.
Edenists would need to prove that it is existed.

 

[zyzygy]

You are correct in this.
However since he won't be able to disprove the existence of Eden this absolutely does NOT mean Eden existed.
Edenists would need to prove that it is existed.

How would one go about proving or disproving fairy stories?