No it can't.
Silver_Dragon17
That was in a laboratory setting. So once again, yes it can.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="import_fighter1"]LOL try and find one on a human, we are not komodo dragons... wow..
Silver_Dragon17
The way that it could happen is if the woman had both an X and Y chromosome, which occurs in 1 in 5 million women. So, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out as impossible.
Yes it can.
No it can't.
The very first sentance in that article "A MOUSE has been created in the LABORATORY"...
[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="hair001"] How do they co-exist if they contradict each other?hair001
Because they don't.:|
Do you know how much the Bible agrees with modern science? Read this: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html
If the bible syas the scientificaly impossible happened then they contradrict each other So you accept that silver?[QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="mark4091"]Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, you only need history to disprove religion.import_fighter1
Really? Then by all means give us this magic history.
Funny how you talk about magic huh? anyways I'm going biking, but hopefully somebody will post the history of religion for you with the ages ect and all the prophets with the same birth date, born of a virgin mother ect.
you bring up a good point about people being born from a virgin. Another thing that goes against science.. it's pretty clear that somebody was using chloroform and slipped his willy in her..
i'm being sarcastic for you serious ones but you get my point that you cannot be born from a virgin..
noticed had already been discussed
Oh, wait, there's no conflict.
People say that Christianity is at some sort of war with science. This is ignorant bull****. Puh-lenty of scientists today and throughout all of history were Christians. The Bible endources reasoning several times. Christians like myself love science. However, ignorant asshats who say that science and Christianity are in conflict kind of make it hard for me to enjoy science.
Don't believe me? Here:
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our life**** today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."Not enough? Try this:
Christianity aiding the development of science
Still think there's a war between the two? What about these:
Science and Faith Associations
- Access Research Network
- American Scientific Affiliation
- Association of Christians in the Mathematical Sciences
- Association of Christian Astronomers International
- Canadian Science and Christian Affiliation
- Christian Association for Psychological Studies
- Christian Medical & Dental Associations
- Christians in Science
- Institute on Religion in an Age of Science
- Metanexus Institute
- Pascal Centre
- Presbyterian Association on Science, Technology, and the Christian Faith
- Reasons To Believe
- Science and Religion Forum
- Zygon Center for Religion and Science
If you're STILL not convinced, give me a PM and I'll give you even more.
THERE IS NO CONFLICT.
Silver_Dragon17
*high fives you*
[QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"]I sense a massive amount of insecurity...mark4091
-
What?I was agreeing with you.
you hear to call Christians idiots again?
[QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"]I sense a massive amount of insecurity...battlefront23
-
What?I was agreeing with you.
you hear to call Christians idiots again?
Wow....... I agreed with someone calling another insecure, and a few weeks ago I called someone an idiot who said a non believer would burn for eternity, but I guess that meant I was calling the whole faith right?
Maybe you're only helping prove the point you thought I was trying to make ;)
[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]If you truly believe this, perhaps you should recheck your facts before making a thread about it.[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]That is not a conflict. Science does not say that God didn't create the world. Ignorance is bliss.:roll:Mumbles527
If science flat-out says that God did not create the world, then it is not science.
Science does not presuppose the existence or non-existence of God.
This is middle-school stuff here.
And this is exactly what I meant when I said theres no reason arguing against people who blindly believe in religion. So I'm done. Have fun trying to prove your nonsense.Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"]I sense a massive amount of insecurity...mark4091
-
What?I was agreeing with you.
you hear to call Christians idiots again?
Wow....... I agreed with someone calling another insecure, and a few weeks ago I called someone an idiot who said a non believer would burn for eternity, but I guess that meant I was calling the whole faith right?
Maybe you're only helping prove the point you thought I was trying to make ;)
No I was just wondering when you were gonna call Dragon an idiot or whatever crap you'd say.
[QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"]I sense a massive amount of insecurity...battlefront23
-
What?I was agreeing with you.
you hear to call Christians idiots again?
Wow....... I agreed with someone calling another insecure, and a few weeks ago I called someone an idiot who said a non believer would burn for eternity, but I guess that meant I was calling the whole faith right?
Maybe you're only helping prove the point you thought I was trying to make ;)
No I was just wondering when you were gonna call Dragon an idiot or whatever crap you'd say.
Oh I say crap do I?
I'm not the one preaching in every thread, I'm done here for a bit..
[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"]I sense a massive amount of insecurity...mark4091
-
What?I was agreeing with you.
you hear to call Christians idiots again?
Wow....... I agreed with someone calling another insecure, and a few weeks ago I called someone an idiot who said a non believer would burn for eternity, but I guess that meant I was calling the whole faith right?
Maybe you're only helping prove the point you thought I was trying to make ;)
No I was just wondering when you were gonna call Dragon an idiot or whatever crap you'd say.
Oh I say crap do I?
I'm not the one preaching in every thread, I'm done here for a bit..
Nice job, you just proved my point.
[QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
The_Ish
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
if your beliefs have overwhelming contradictory evidence, you dont deserve to have those beliefs[QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"]I sense a massive amount of insecurity...battlefront23
-
What?I was agreeing with you.
you hear to call Christians idiots again?
Wow....... I agreed with someone calling another insecure, and a few weeks ago I called someone an idiot who said a non believer would burn for eternity, but I guess that meant I was calling the whole faith right?
Maybe you're only helping prove the point you thought I was trying to make ;)
No I was just wondering when you were gonna call Dragon an idiot or whatever crap you'd say.
Oh I say crap do I?
I'm not the one preaching in every thread, I'm done here for a bit..
Nice job, you just proved my point.
Good cause you proved mine long ago.
[QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
The_Ish
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
No I'm more concerned iin what happens with your eternity. Oh wait, in Atheism life is meaningless. It seems like everyone should be emo now since we have nothing to live for.
[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
mig_killer2
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
if your beliefs have overwhelming contradictory evidence, you dont deserve to have those beliefsNot really...that just makes one delusional, not undeserving.
He was attacking someone else's "beliefs", when he was complaining that others were attacking his.
[QUOTE="JJ4545"]Science = Religion. End of.battlefront23
much better.
It's fair to classify religion as science, I agree. What is religion but a series of beliefs regarding how the universe is governed? Isn't that exactly what science is? The concepts are very similar. Good point.No I'm more concerned iin what happens with your eternity. Oh wait, in Atheism life is meaningless. It seems like everyone should be emo now since we have nothing to live for.
battlefront23
Mmm yes, more hypocrisy.
No, atheists don't think life is meaningless. I wonder where you thought that up?
[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
battlefront23
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
No I'm more concerned iin what happens with your eternity. Oh wait, in Atheism life is meaningless. It seems like everyone should be emo now since we have nothing to live for.
I'm not an atheist, but this is a huge, idiotic generalization of a demographic and I suggest you take it back...[QUOTE="JJ4545"]Science = Religion. End of.battlefront23
much better.
Wrong. Science has tangible benefits for us.[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="JJ4545"]Science = Religion. End of.quiglythegreat
much better.
It's fair to classify religion as science, I agree. What is religion but a series of beliefs regarding how the universe is governed? Isn't that exactly what science is? The concepts are very similar. Good point.[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
battlefront23
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
No I'm more concerned iin what happens with your eternity. Oh wait, in Atheism life is meaningless. It seems like everyone should be emo now since we have nothing to live for.
You really are an idiot. If you are going to falsely call somebodys life meaningless at least have the decency to give them their proper title[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
EboyLOL
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
No I'm more concerned iin what happens with your eternity. Oh wait, in Atheism life is meaningless. It seems like everyone should be emo now since we have nothing to live for.
I'm not an atheist, but this is a huge, idiotic generalization of a demographic and I suggest you take it back... we have to make our own meaning, but im not sure if I want to be an atheist. Im thinking about agnosticism.[QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
mig_killer2
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
No I'm more concerned iin what happens with your eternity. Oh wait, in Atheism life is meaningless. It seems like everyone should be emo now since we have nothing to live for.
I'm not an atheist, but this is a huge, idiotic generalization of a demographic and I suggest you take it back... we have to make our own meaning, but im not sure if I want to be an atheist. Im thinking about agnosticism. Agnosticism is merely the believe that ____ cannot be proved nor disproved.[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="JJ4545"]Science = Religion. End of.mig_killer2
much better.
It's fair to classify religion as science, I agree. What is religion but a series of beliefs regarding how the universe is governed? Isn't that exactly what science is? The concepts are very similar. Good point.[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="JJ4545"]Science = Religion. End of.CptJSparrow
much better.
Wrong. Science has tangible benefits for us.Last I checked, religion had some nice benefits. . .longer life expectancy, for example.
[QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
mig_killer2
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
No I'm more concerned iin what happens with your eternity. Oh wait, in Atheism life is meaningless. It seems like everyone should be emo now since we have nothing to live for.
I'm not an atheist, but this is a huge, idiotic generalization of a demographic and I suggest you take it back... we have to make our own meaning, but im not sure if I want to be an atheist. Im thinking about agnosticism. Agnosticism is exponentially better then being an atheist or theist.[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="JJ4545"]Science = Religion. End of.quiglythegreat
much better.
It's fair to classify religion as science, I agree. What is religion but a series of beliefs regarding how the universe is governed? Isn't that exactly what science is? The concepts are very similar. Good point.I don't think religion should be ****fied as science.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="JJ4545"]Science = Religion. End of.Silver_Dragon17
much better.
Wrong. Science has tangible benefits for us.Last I checked, religion had some nice benefits. . .longer life expectancy, for example.
Life expectancy after you already died? This is madness.[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
EboyLOL
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
No I'm more concerned iin what happens with your eternity. Oh wait, in Atheism life is meaningless. It seems like everyone should be emo now since we have nothing to live for.
I'm not an atheist, but this is a huge, idiotic generalization of a demographic and I suggest you take it back... we have to make our own meaning, but im not sure if I want to be an atheist. Im thinking about agnosticism. Agnosticism is exponentially better then being an atheist or theist. You can be either one and still be agnostic.Which is in itself explained by science. What's really puzzling to me is that science isn't even a set of facts. It's just a technique for getting closer to understand how things work. I can't understand why the two should be at odds with one another, unless you're a fundamentalist.Last I checked, religion had some nice benefits. . .longer life expectancy, for example.
Silver_Dragon17
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="JJ4545"]Science = Religion. End of.Silver_Dragon17
much better.
It's fair to classify religion as science, I agree. What is religion but a series of beliefs regarding how the universe is governed? Isn't that exactly what science is? The concepts are very similar. Good point.I don't think religion should be ****fied as science.
I've done a lot of thinking about what science is and I've decided that any pursuit of any kind of mechanic or phenomenon is a science. That definition is mostly inspired by Brave New World Revisited though.[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="JJ4545"]Science = Religion. End of.CptJSparrow
much better.
Wrong. Science has tangible benefits for us.Last I checked, religion had some nice benefits. . .longer life expectancy, for example.
Life expectancy after you already died? This is madness.This is Sparta.:|
Anyway, http://godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html
[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]Which is in itself explained by science. What's really puzzling to me is that science isn't even a set of facts. It's just a technique for getting closer to understand how things work. I can't understand why the two should be at odds with one another, unless you're a fundamentalist.Last I checked, religion had some nice benefits. . .longer life expectancy, for example.
quiglythegreat
Exactly the point of the topic.:P
[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
EboyLOL
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
No I'm more concerned iin what happens with your eternity. Oh wait, in Atheism life is meaningless. It seems like everyone should be emo now since we have nothing to live for.
I'm not an atheist, but this is a huge, idiotic generalization of a demographic and I suggest you take it back...then what the heck do you base your life on?
[QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
CptJSparrow
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
No I'm more concerned iin what happens with your eternity. Oh wait, in Atheism life is meaningless. It seems like everyone should be emo now since we have nothing to live for.
I'm not an atheist, but this is a huge, idiotic generalization of a demographic and I suggest you take it back... we have to make our own meaning, but im not sure if I want to be an atheist. Im thinking about agnosticism. Agnosticism is exponentially better then being an atheist or theist. You can be either one and still be agnostic. Ok, and you can be neither and be an agnostic (what I was advocating).[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="JJ4545"]Science = Religion. End of.Silver_Dragon17
much better.
Wrong. Science has tangible benefits for us.Last I checked, religion had some nice benefits. . .longer life expectancy, for example.
nice... that was good, dude.
I think just being really upbeat and not drinking a ton has the same benefits. There's nothing divine about it. Is that not obviously a ****c example of the placebo effect?This is Sparta.:|
Anyway, http://godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html
Silver_Dragon17
[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]I think just being really upbeat and not drinking a ton has the same benefits. There's nothing divine about it.This is Sparta.:|
Anyway, http://godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html
quiglythegreat
Well, you'll have to test that hypothesis.
[QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
battlefront23
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
No I'm more concerned iin what happens with your eternity. Oh wait, in Atheism life is meaningless. It seems like everyone should be emo now since we have nothing to live for.
I'm not an atheist, but this is a huge, idiotic generalization of a demographic and I suggest you take it back...then what the heck do you base your life on?
Are you kidding? Having fun, loving people, admiring the world, and doing good deeds just because they're good deeds, not because a magic man is wagging his finger at you. Atheistic life is realistic, you don't have to lie to yourself and others. I base my life on that. It's not a belief system, it's a lack of a belief system. A belief system is a burden that I do not wish to carry.What I don't get is, if God exists; is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why does he allow "You Laugh You Lose" topics to exist?
Theres only so much repeated humour the universe can take without imploding.
[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Look at the facts and you'll know what you're believing in is the nonsense.
slinky6
Careful what you call other people's beliefs, eh? ;)
No I'm more concerned iin what happens with your eternity. Oh wait, in Atheism life is meaningless. It seems like everyone should be emo now since we have nothing to live for.
I'm not an atheist, but this is a huge, idiotic generalization of a demographic and I suggest you take it back...then what the heck do you base your life on?
Are you kidding? Having fun, loving people, admiring the world, and doing good deeds just because they're good deeds, not because a magic man is wagging his finger at you. Atheistic life is realistic, you don't have to lie to yourself and others. I base my life on that. It's not a belief system, it's a lack of a belief system. A belief system is a burden that I do not wish to carry.Science and psychology have proven that there is no such thing as a "lack of a belief system." EVERYBODY believes in SOMETHING, and these beliefs shape their worldview.
Religious people do good things because they're good, not because God is "wagging a finger at us."
Nobody is lying to themselves, except the people who think the universe appeared by chance. . .
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="JJ4545"]Science = Religion. End of.Silver_Dragon17
much better.
Wrong. Science has tangible benefits for us.Last I checked, religion had some nice benefits. . .longer life expectancy, for example.
Life expectancy after you already died? This is madness.This is Sparta.:|
Anyway, http://godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html
Point taken, but religion does not provide better standards of living or technological advances.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment