Compatibility of Science and Religion

[tarpolano]

---

Let's compare shall we?

Religion - non changing, deals with the supernatural
Science - changes depends upon evidence, deals with nature

It's a no brainer that religion is not compatible with science. In fact religion hinders science progress to discovering the true nature of everything.

[miyay]

^if religion is non-evolving, there wouldn't be outspoken atheists and witches now, they would have been burnt at the stake

[Ramini]

without a little dose of conscience that religion can give it, makes for a mad world indeed. imo

in my opinion religion isn't the sole source of conscience, remorse etc. (read about the inquisition)nor can be an adequate source of conscience for science nor can it dent a supposedly "conscienceless" science...nikola tesla in my opinon wasn't a very religious or semi religious person..but he had the power of electricity and its potentials at his fingertips..but he never needed religion (an anthropomorphc religion) to tell him that it's bad if you use your knowledge of electricity to conquer the world...he was even fair to everyone giving each nation it's own "super electric gadget" para wlai malamangan ug wlai manglamang..im sorry miyay but i firmly believe that an anthropomorphic religion will never get this world nowhere...call me a heretic or unsa pero that's what i believe im not convincing you or anything but i just want an exchange of thoughts between nato..anyway there's no international or local law that prohibits us in expressing what we believe in (yet..hehe!) so let's go sago!.

[Ramini]

^if religion is non-evolving, there wouldn't be outspoken atheists and witches now, they would have been burnt at the stake

i think religion didn't evolve..i think i do believe that religion is non-evolving the only thing that evolved in religion is its hierarchy, the political bureaucracy, political influence, sphere of influence and all its physical and managerial aspects..the teachings have been the same for centuries eons and eons ago it never changed..only ang pag translate para ma twist ang truth and para magamit as a weapon of oppression sa mga tao nga walay alam..what you say miyay..can be true if religion of today still has the political structure or power of the inquisition..pero today ang mabuhat ra cguro sa simbahan is excommunication..or cguro assasinate you pero silently lang.

P.S.

remeber what Pope Innocent (or was that the pope's name?) said when the nazis began loading jews in the vatican area...he never did anything maskn nalang duphan nya tong iyang mga jews sa iyang area..all he said was he can just offer prayers for the persecuted jews...in fairness some of the teachings of the anthropomorphic religion has its merits..ang mga nagmani-ubra lang jd sa teachings ang problema..labi nag sagulan ug kwarta..lisod najd.

[AmorsoloX]

i believe in science and i believe on the divine guidance..

look at the magnificence of science... their is order in the universe.. it is of majestic scale..

such order cannot have existed if there was no intelligent being (a GOD) who designed it....

Religion was an early science, it described events and phenomenons that during the time of the writers, no scientific theories where yet formulated...


i believe in the presence of a God because the universe is just too beautifull to have come out from nothing..
religion teaches order.. not chaos.. and the universe itself is in such majestic order..

there is order to chaos... (chaos theory)

[tarpolano]

^if religion is non-evolving, there wouldn't be outspoken atheists and witches now, they would have been burnt at the stake

I didn't say evolve but change. Religion is much the same as the time it was conceptualized. And the priests, bishops and the pope now know what the outcome will be if they launch another inquisition. Do you think people would tolerate such act? They'd be the first one to be killed if they do that again.. I guess they learned their lesson.

[miyay]

in my opinion religion isn't the sole source of conscience, remorse etc. (read about the inquisition)nor can be an adequate source of conscience for science nor can it dent a supposedly "conscienceless" science...nikola tesla in my opinon wasn't a very religious or semi religious person..but he had the power of electricity and its potentials at his fingertips..but he never needed religion (an anthropomorphc religion) to tell him that it's bad if you use your knowledge of electricity to conquer the world...he was even fair to everyone giving each nation it's own "super electric gadget" para wlai malamangan ug wlai manglamang..im sorry miyay but i firmly believe that an anthropomorphic religion will never get this world nowhere...call me a heretic or unsa pero that's what i believe im not convincing you or anything but i just want an exchange of thoughts between nato..anyway there's no international or local law that prohibits us in expressing what we believe in (yet..hehe!) so let's go sago!.

heretic diay ka, sir. daghan na diay ta, my mother used to call me that when i dragged my feet going to church..hahaha. as to my previous posts, please note that the operative word is CAN, that religion CAN bring. i used religion here because as a collective force it is still powerful enough to stop mad science. our technology has outran our ethics and religion per se, can provide moral codes for us to live by. but i'm not discounting the madness that also run in religions. afterall, whether science or religion, its people who make them. therefore, if we think they are compatible then they are, if we think not, then they aren't

[Ramini]

i believe in science and i believe on the divine guidance..

look at the magnificence of science... their is order in the universe.. it is of majestic scale..

such order cannot have existed if there was no intelligent being (a GOD) who designed it....

and what being is this?..a physical being with gender and all?..kindly elaborate in your term..intelligent being..or diha rapd imohang masulti..im not challenging you or anything pero mao man gd nai problema..in my opinion..

science+god=pseudoscience

was an early science, it described events and phenomenons that during the time of the writers, no scientific theories where yet formulated...

i hate to say this pero i beg to disagree sir...how can you say nga science if wlai scientific theories nga gi hatag..even if sturya lang or attempted explanation sa imong so called events and phenomenons...i think kng muingon kag science naa jd kai logical explanation coupled with a controlled experiment to verify your claim..now in my opinion you can't even quanlify what the writers in the bible to be science..all they did was describe in their own words..now if you read about ezekiel's vision or whatever of a flying chariot..with fire and whatever..can you say that ezekiel was scientifically describing to us what he saw?...if religion was an early science so supposedly outdated na na?...even sa klaro nga science gani..if outdated naka irrelevant nka..for example sa una ang mga tao nabuang sa alchemy..the science of transmuting base elements into gold..now sa cge nilag experiment alchemy spawned the real science of chemistry..now it dawned to them nga dli jd sila ka transmute ug metals into gold..but in the process they learned a whole new science of what things are composed of..thus chemistry..so alchemy was outdated but was a an early science of chemistry now unsaon man nato pag connect sa bag-o nga science karn ug sa religion which you claim to be an old science..or simple question what is the new science na diay karn?

believe in the presence of a God

can you describe what is this god?..naa syay tiil ug kamot ug ulo?..kindly expound..para klaro

[Ramini]

heretic diay ka, sir. daghan na diay ta, my mother used to call me that when i dragged my feet going to church..hahaha. as to my previous posts, please note that the operative word is CAN, that religion CAN bring. i used religion here because as a collective force it is still powerful enough to stop mad science. our technology has outran our ethics and religion per se, can provide moral codes for us to live by. but i'm not discounting the madness that also run in religions. afterall, whether science or religion, its people who make them. therefore, if we think they are compatible then they are, if we think not, then they aren't

in other words..man is himself his end..i still doubt it my dear..i think tha's what nature calls...natural self destruction mechanism...hehehe!

[miyay]

I didn't say evolve but change. Religion is much the same as the time it was conceptualized. And the priests, bishops and the pope now know what the outcome will be if they launch another inquisition. Do you think people would tolerate such act? They'd be the first one to be killed if they do that again.. I guess they learned their lesson.

much the same, sir? because people do not change? the church started the inquisition and she also the one who ended it. if the church management learned their lesson, wouldn't you say they are changing their views?