The time frame that science has been around is smaller than Religion's grip on logic?

Make sense moar plz?

Yes man, logic has been explained longer through religion than by Science. Do you not understand this? Humans have "acquired" knowledge through religious interpretation longer than Science. In fact, religion was somehow necessary explain the observational part of acquiring knowledge which is science in itself.

Isn't it ironic? We were doing science all along but we called it religion, i.e we have done the first step of the scientific method 1. Observation, longer than "Believing".

This post was edited by Jazz_Thing on May 22 2009 02:13pm

Just because some folks made the mistake of thinking that they were religious while seeking the truth, because their worldview said so, doesn't mean that you have to make the same mistake.

I still don't get how you can compare the size of a time frame with the size of a grip, but I think it's just part of the fact that getting everything you say completely disproved by me leads you to become more and more incoherent.

Try to reduce my arguments more? Lets start again from the beginning not to get off track.

1. God can be disproven by Scientific advancements, since Creation implies a supernatural force that cannot be empirically explained by Science.

2. Science is superior to religion, since Humans have been observing far longer than they have been Believing in Deities or Gods or the Creators of universes. If anything we're hardened observers that are keenly poised to mock the steps of the scientific method. In short science is a glove to the magic hand of logic.

3. Soon science will provide enough evidence to the extent that a belief in religion will be laughable since, a life that is fulfilling can be achieved without religion and a belief in God.

4. Since Religion has tried consistently to explain the Origins of Humankind, the most validated claim has consistently been Evolution. New advancements in Science prove this, especially with the discovery of the Fossil called "Ida".

If anything Religion is rusting away in the wake of change.



Read # 3. You can live without it you crazy man. "It" being Religion, God, Religious Morality etc etc.

This post was edited by Jazz_Thing on May 22 2009 02:23pm

Ohay, made it to point 1 and realized that there's no need for God to be a creator, and even if there was, proving how that creation was done still doesn't remove the idea that God could have been the one who used that mechanism.

As far as point 2, that's nothing but speculation, alas - even if it weren't, all you've done is repeat a fallacious argument you attributed to me (though I never made it) except in reverse - the fact that Science came first doesn't mean it's superior, it just means it's first.

Point 3 is hilarious. Are you waiting for that day? Can you not live a fulfilling life without religion, yet? Of course you can have a fulfilling life without religion, but that doesn't invalidate religion either. At all. Like even close.

Point 4 has nothing to do with anything - Evolution could still have been guided by the divine or simply a side effect of a divine creator who created the universe and then didn't give a shit afterward. And that's just the two most obvious theories, I'm sure I could come up with more on my own without much effort.

Thinking that Religion will be destroyed by things that in NO WAY comment on the existence or non-existence of God is just plain laughable, and I swear to God that no matter how stupid you are, I will somehow make you understand it again, the same as I did last month.

I am ignorant for believing in the latest scientific advancement which explains the origin of man? I believe that you are mistaken.

Rebuttal to 1: Science can never disprove God? Well it just proved God wrong for the 239482390482903840238904 time. Starting with the position of the Earth, the Ten Commandments, do I really need to list everything that Religion has interpreted incorrectly?

Rebuttal to 2: Science is superior to Religion because humans are observers not believers. If anything you said that God is communicating with us. I say God is dead, and cannot communicate. Prove that God is not dead. I can live my life without God, knowing that God is dead and still be happy and content that other people believe in God because, ultimately God's inability to communicate only formulates an instant gratification based on an uncertain premise of the causation of human thought.

Rebuttal to 3: Even more people have lived their lives without religion just fine, where is the Argument? If anything religious folk have argued that Atheists are not moral.

Rebuttal to 4: Find a religion that has not tried to explain the origins of man.

Your little paragraph, is really nothing special to read. Please read 1-4 more carefully.



Nah, you're arguing that Science is explained by religion look at your rebuttal to 4. Would you be happy if I called "Ida" or other Transitional Fossils "God"?

This post was edited by Jazz_Thing on May 22 2009 02:37pm

1 - OH! I forgot about God's big interview in Time Magazine where he said that there would never be a fossil that would be found which may or may not be an ancestor of man. Shit. You got me on that one.

2 - "Humans are observers, not believers" is yet another blind assertion, and one which seems to be disproved by your earlier post where you showed exactly how many believers there are, in America at least. And again - I don't have to prove your assertions, you do.

3 - The only argument that I made was to say that your statement was kinda stupid. Of course you can live a fulfilling life without religion. You can live a fulfilling life with religion, too.

4 - There really isn't so much an explanation of the origins of the world in the bible, there's just a metaphorical discussion regarding God creating the Earth, as has been acknowledged by Biblical scholars for centuries. Buddhism doesn't really talk about a creator God at all. Hinduism has multiple creation stories of which even Carl Sagan has approved. Etc, etc.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html - I guess you know a lot more than these guys, though. Right?

ETA: I'm not saying that Science is explained by Religion, you ignorant monkey. I am saying that Science and Religion are not incompatible in the least and that there may or may not have been a God behind the workings of the universe. That doesn't mean that Religion explains Science, simply that the two co-exist.

This post was edited by AiNedeSpelCzech on May 22 2009 02:47pm

My point was, Time, not the magazine will change this.