Just a little bit late.

This was a riveting read.

Too much drama for me. It's nauseating.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

[QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"]

dave123321

You uh... you having fun over there?

Carry on then. Loving the ME Meme anyways.

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"]

.

Drakes_Fortune

You uh... you having fun over there?

Iq tests. I would set up a world where everything required an IQ test. For example, you aren't able to drive unless you meet a certain IQ, and you aren't able to buy food if you don't reach a certain IQ, and you're not able to even leave your house if your IQ is too low. Franklinstein

This could work. It's for everyones well-being.

Flame, really? Way to take the most generic answer TC.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Nice wall of text, it's too bad most people wont read it and will simply ignore your post for what it is. Your argument hinges on the fact that science cannot disprove religion, which isn't even the correct way to go about things. No-one needs to disprove anything unless there is a need to, and there's no need to disprove something that has yet to even be proven. The assertion was made that there is a god, that was made by religious folk many centuries ago, yet to this very day, no proof of any sort has manifested. Yet religious folk stand by their unfounded claim. People who live by logic and reason, see this as a joke. One cannot make a claim, not provide any evidence to support it, and then bash other groups and try to insert itself into society, using the defense "you cannot disprove it, so it's real", or by falling back on "faith", a word used to describe the belief in something despite there being nothing to substantiate that belief.Nibroc420

I'm not saying that though. I am saying science doesn't need to prove or disprove god. That is for theology. They do not interfere with each others works/teachings.

All I was pointing out is that science and theology should be able to co-exist. There is no reason why one should debunk the other. I was never supporting one religion over another and although I am a agnostic atheist I wasn't supporting atheism either. All I was doing is pointing out that both may thrive in the same world and just becasue natural science says one thing the other is not debunked. it is quite possible that the Holy Bible and the works of the holy Fathers (i.e. the Saints) might contain scientific errors, when compared to the constantly updated findings of the natural sciences. However, most orthodox christians say they do not contain any theological errors. That is not for me to decide and my viewpoint on the subject should have nothing to do with what my point was. Natural science and the science of theosis are seperate and should not interfere with eachothers affairs.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

to appease those fixated on the word faith its important to understand basically everything is faith based. The only question is what tools do you use to decide one belief over another. So for example:

I choose to take it on faith that a scientist knows more about what he is talking about then I do becasue he spends 40 hours a week for years learning and studying while I dont.

Someone else might take it on faith that the preacher knows more about what he is saying then scientists do becuase he spends more time praying.

Both are faith based, its just a matter of which one do you choose to select based on what you know.

CORRECTION: this all said there is a difference between thinking someone is LIKELY to be right and someone thinking something IS right. Often the language for what mean feel is LIKELY to be right is the word 'IS' but for others 'IS' really means zero question its a fact.

Nibroc420

Regarding this whole science is based on faith thing... ?Science? isn?t a name for a collection of beliefs. It names a collection of methods for acquiring beliefs ? methods that involve logic, observation and experiment. It is these methods that distinguish science, not doctrine. So in that sense, science is clearly not a faith in the religious sense. The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That?s it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior.

Science is not simply a database of knowledge. It?s a method, a way of finding this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. Science is provisional; it?s always open to improvement. Science is even subject to itself. If the method itself didn?t work, we?d see it. Our computers wouldn?t work (OK, bad example), our space probes wouldn?t get off the ground, our electronics wouldn?t work, our medicine wouldn?t work. Yet, all these things do in fact function, spectacularly well. Science is a check on itself, which is why it is such an astonishingly powerful way of understanding reality.

And that right there is where science and religion part ways. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. That is the critical difference. Faith, as it is interpreted by most religions, is not evidence-based, and is generally held tightly even despite evidence against it. In many cases, faith is even reinforced when evidence is found contrary to it.

Does this mean that science and religion cannot co mingle? Does this mean that If you have faith in your religion you can not pursue science? I believe that they are quite capable of existing in harmony.

For example the Orthodox Faith and the Natural Sciences.

In Orthodoxy, the antithesis ? and the conflict ? between faith (or Theology) and science is not something self-evident. It is only a pseudo-problem, because Orthodoxy in its authentic expression and realization is likewise somewhat a science, a science of faith, however with a different cognitive subject.

Orthodox Theology is a science and in fact a positive science, because it has a cognitive subject and it also implements a scientific method. In Orthodox tradition, two kinds of cognition or wisdom are discernible (from the Apostle Paul, James the brother to Christ, through to Gregory Palamas and Eugene Boulgaris etc.). There is the cognition of the Uncreated (=God) and the cognition of the created (=the world, as something fashioned or created). The cognition of God (?Theognosy?) is supernatural and is attained through the synergy of man with God. The cognition of the world is natural and is acquired through scientific research. The method for attaining the cognition of the Divine is the ?nepsis? (soberness) ? ?catharsis? (cleansing) of the heart (Psalm, 50:12 and Matthew 5:8). Theology, therefore, is the Gnosiology and the cognition of the Uncreated. Science is the Gnosiology and the cognition of the created. In the science of faith, cognizance is called ?theosis? (deification) and is the sole objective of Orthodoxy. All else is only the means to that end.

The negative stance by orthodox scholars towards the Copernican system in the 18th century was not the result of spirituality, but more a case of western influences (their scholastic trends), ?bible bashing? (biblicism), or the anticipation of scientific developments (Eugene Bulgaris). On the contrary, the conflict between Faith and Science is not only feasible; it is also to be expected, whenever the findings of science are judged with metaphysical criteria or when the teachings of the Faith are approached on the basis of the principles and the findings of natural sciences ? in other words, with the criteria of another sphere. In such an event, science is theologizing (in which case it is negating itself), while Faith is transformed into a natural science (in which case it is essentially modified). This occurred to a large extent in Western Europe, when Physics and the natural sciences in general had matured and thereafter abandoned the Aristotelian world view and its methodology, whereas the Western Church persisted in them. Extensions of Western-style speculation and consequently confrontations (or rather, disputes) were also noted in the Western-thinking East.

When Theology and Science met, tragic mistakes were made by both sides, which led to absoluteness and isolation on both sides. The Western Church insisted on a verbatim interpretation of the Holy Bible, without any reference to Patristic interpretations thereof. Besides, after the instance of Galileo, conflict was considered a given fact, by both sides. Victims of this perception during the 20th century were Lemaître and his ?Big Bang? theory, which was rejected for being a clergyman?s discovery! Furthermore, the different language used quite often led to a conflict. The Bible-bashing of the ecclesiastic side often confronted the rationalism of the natural scientists. The foundations of intellectualism in Europe began with the venerable Augustine (?credo, ut intelligam?) and culminated with Descartes (?cogito, ergo sum?). Priority is given to the intellect, even in the sphere of Faith. God, finally, is understood as being a Gnostic ?object?, which is ?perceived? with the power of the mind, which is thus elevated, as the supreme component of human existence.

Science does not preoccupy itself with ?the problem of God?, because that would transform it into metaphysics, thus rejecting itself; it would no longer be a positive science. Science is unable to reject the possibility of God?s existence as the Creator and the Provider of the universe, because it does not possess the necessary instruments in order to capture Him. That is why it cannot accuse Theology as a mythology and superstition. But, neither does Theology have the right to accuse Science as something atheistic ? that is, by basing it on its own criteria.

That said, I am an agnostic atheist and choose not to pursue the science of faith, but there is no reason to bash it and no reason for someone to bash natural science either. I am also not giving Orthodoxy any more credit then the other numerous religions and religious teachings out there. I am merely recognizing that both theology and science exist and do not interfere in each others affairs and each demand the respect of the other. (Of course we would have less to talk about on OT).

Let us not, therefore, each place boundaries on the other?s Science; rather, let us respect the findings of both sides' research, which is performed with self-respect and humility, because our world does not need the natural sciences only, but also the science of theosis (deification), given that ?man cannot live on bread alone? (Matth. 4:4).

I'm not saying that though. I am saying science doesn't need to prove or disprove god. That is for theology. They do not interfere with each others works/teachings.

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"][QUOTE="sayyy-gaa"]

Faith is a real thing...it's just not tangible. Air and gravity aren't tangible either, but they're still real. Also, every person is given a measure of faith...so everybody has faith.

It's just they may have faith in different things. Faith is like a muscle too, the more you exercise it and put stresses on it, the more it will grow, respond, and benefit you.

SEANMCAD

to appease those fixated on the word faith its important to understand basically everything is faith based. The only question is what tools do you use to decide one belief over another. So for example:

I choose to take it on faith that a scientist knows more about what he is talking about then I do becasue he spends 40 hours a week for years learning and studying while I dont.

Someone else might take it on faith that the preacher knows more about what he is saying then scientists do becuase he spends more time praying.

Both are faith based, its just a matter of which one do you choose to select based on what you know.

CORRECTION: this all said there is a difference between thinking someone is LIKELY to be right and someone thinking something IS right. Often the language for what mean feel is LIKELY to be right is the word 'IS' but for others 'IS' really means zero question its a fact.

Regarding this whole science is based on faith thing... ?Science? isn?t a name for a collection of beliefs. It names a collection of methods for acquiring beliefs ? methods that involve logic, observation and experiment. It is these methods that distinguish science, not doctrine. So in that sense, science is clearly not a faith in the religious sense. The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That?s it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior.

Science is not simply a database of knowledge. It?s a method, a way of finding this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. Science is provisional; it?s always open to improvement. Science is even subject to itself. If the method itself didn?t work, we?d see it. Our computers wouldn?t work (OK, bad example), our space probes wouldn?t get off the ground, our electronics wouldn?t work, our medicine wouldn?t work. Yet, all these things do in fact function, spectacularly well. Science is a check on itself, which is why it is such an astonishingly powerful way of understanding reality.

And that right there is where science and religion part ways. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. That is the critical difference. Faith, as it is interpreted by most religions, is not evidence-based, and is generally held tightly even despite evidence against it. In many cases, faith is even reinforced when evidence is found contrary to it.

Does this mean that science and religion cannot co mingle? Does this mean that If you have faith in your religion you can not pursue science? I believe that they are quite capable of existing in harmony.

For example the Orthodox Faith and the Natural Sciences.

In Orthodoxy, the antithesis ? and the conflict ? between faith (or Theology) and science is not something self-evident. It is only a pseudo-problem, because Orthodoxy in its authentic expression and realization is likewise somewhat a science, a science of faith, however with a different cognitive subject.

Orthodox Theology is a science and in fact a positive science, because it has a cognitive subject and it also implements a scientific method. In Orthodox tradition, two kinds of cognition or wisdom are discernible (from the Apostle Paul, James the brother to Christ, through to Gregory Palamas and Eugene Boulgaris etc.). There is the cognition of the Uncreated (=God) and the cognition of the created (=the world, as something fashioned or created). The cognition of God (?Theognosy?) is supernatural and is attained through the synergy of man with God. The cognition of the world is natural and is acquired through scientific research. The method for attaining the cognition of the Divine is the ?nepsis? (soberness) ? ?catharsis? (cleansing) of the heart (Psalm, 50:12 and Matthew 5:8). Theology, therefore, is the Gnosiology and the cognition of the Uncreated. Science is the Gnosiology and the cognition of the created. In the science of faith, cognizance is called ?theosis? (deification) and is the sole objective of Orthodoxy. All else is only the means to that end.

The negative stance by orthodox scholars towards the Copernican system in the 18th century was not the result of spirituality, but more a case of western influences (their scholastic trends), ?bible bashing? (biblicism), or the anticipation of scientific developments (Eugene Bulgaris). On the contrary, the conflict between Faith and Science is not only feasible; it is also to be expected, whenever the findings of science are judged with metaphysical criteria or when the teachings of the Faith are approached on the basis of the principles and the findings of natural sciences ? in other words, with the criteria of another sphere. In such an event, science is theologizing (in which case it is negating itself), while Faith is transformed into a natural science (in which case it is essentially modified). This occurred to a large extent in Western Europe, when Physics and the natural sciences in general had matured and thereafter abandoned the Aristotelian world view and its methodology, whereas the Western Church persisted in them. Extensions of Western-style speculation and consequently confrontations (or rather, disputes) were also noted in the Western-thinking East.

When Theology and Science met, tragic mistakes were made by both sides, which led to absoluteness and isolation on both sides. The Western Church insisted on a verbatim interpretation of the Holy Bible, without any reference to Patristic interpretations thereof. Besides, after the instance of Galileo, conflict was considered a given fact, by both sides. Victims of this perception during the 20th century were Lemaître and his ?Big Bang? theory, which was rejected for being a clergyman?s discovery! Furthermore, the different language used quite often led to a conflict. The Bible-bashing of the ecclesiastic side often confronted the rationalism of the natural scientists. The foundations of intellectualism in Europe began with the venerable Augustine (?credo, ut intelligam?) and culminated with Descartes (?cogito, ergo sum?). Priority is given to the intellect, even in the sphere of Faith. God, finally, is understood as being a Gnostic ?object?, which is ?perceived? with the power of the mind, which is thus elevated, as the supreme component of human existence.

Science does not preoccupy itself with ?the problem of God?, because that would transform it into metaphysics, thus rejecting itself; it would no longer be a positive science. Science is unable to reject the possibility of God?s existence as the Creator and the Provider of the universe, because it does not possess the necessary instruments in order to capture Him. That is why it cannot accuse Theology as a mythology and superstition. But, neither does Theology have the right to accuse Science as something atheistic ? that is, by basing it on its own criteria.

That said, I am an agnostic atheist and choose not to pursue the science of faith, but there is no reason to bash it and no reason for someone to bash natural science either. I am also not giving Orthodoxy any more credit then the other numerous religions and religious teachings out there. I am merely recognizing that both theology and science exist and do not interfere in each others affairs and each demand the respect of the other. (Of course we would have less to talk about on OT).

Let us not, therefore, each place boundaries on the other?s Science; rather, let us respect the findings of both sides' research, which is performed with self-respect and humility, because our world does not need the natural sciences only, but also the science of theosis (deification), given that ?man cannot live on bread alone? (Matth. 4:4).

EDIT: After numerous attempts to stop gamespot from changing my puntuaction into ?'s I give up. Just know majority of those ?'s are quotations, commas, apostrophes, and some hyphens. Just try to use you literary knowledge to replace those ?'s with what is meant to be there. Sorry but gamespot got the better of this post.