can science be just as silly as religion?

[superflysuperwhite]

heres a question regarding existance i guess you could say.

physics is one of the biggest opponents to religion, its almsot baisically proven that "god" does not excist due to many different things. but the thing is physics has to me what seems to be a few of there own "god" figures.

i.e. thinmgs like strange matter and time travel. these things are said to exist.... in theory. there is no actual phsycal proof that these things exist or can happen, except for equations. no actual observations have been made.

so my question is, for people obbsesed with finding out the truth by means of physical evidence, why do the choose to believe that things such as strange matter exist, when the are so sure "god" does not?

[Buddha]

Science is religion.

[Warpurlgis]

I say most of science is theories.

[Spyre]

In like a thousand years or something people will look back on science and be like "wow how the fuck did people believe that?" but a lot of it makes more sense than "a big dude in the sky made it like that"

[superflysuperwhite]

thats if scientist dont destroy the plant/universe before.

see Large Hadron Collider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider, this thing can theoretically destroy everything we know in a variety of different ways.


fucking swiss

[crazyassmetalhead]

the only thing is that science is usually proven, if they fuck up and realize it's more of a "my bad" kinda thing

religion on the other hand is more like "fuck you your going to hell, that information is the devil's lies"

both can be very narrow minded and judgemental, but a scientist will almost always admit when they are proven wrong about something, religious figures not so much

[ItsAPoorlyKeptSecret]

i am really glad this thread was made but not much to elaborate right now then so true

[deathlord888]

i go with science because they have equations backing it up, not just stories

[Shanx]

ahh..nothing really to say at this point. everything has pretty much been said. It is true that science has no official explanation for everything that cant be proven. like Warpurlgis said, most of it is theories but in religion, people actually believe what they have heard is true.

so are you going to believe something that admits not to have an ultimate answer? or something that thinks its absolutely sure that they are correct and everything else is wrong. needless to say that science has so much evidence to back up what it has stated and all religion really has is well...a story book.

[ItsAPoorlyKeptSecret]

yea apparenlty science has so much stuff that they can "back up" but ther are alot of stuff they were for sure is true only to be corrected, i mean they thought at one point the atom was the smallest thing right?? then bam a few powerful telescopes later and we got a whole new mess of smaller things....and what about pluto? now what the hell am i supose to do with My Very Educated Mother Just Serves Me Nine...

haha just sayin a majority of us grew up with the only think put into our easily imprintable minds was science classes ant not to much of bible classes so i mean its really all up in the air of can you really believe ANYTHING anyone tells you??

wheather its an apparent really old book of the word of god or some guy who did a few experiments or observations?? both are really silly but the stuff i can maybe too and see for myself i can buy a little

[Buddha]

This arguement is pointless. I've already told you science=religion.

[ItsAPoorlyKeptSecret]

yea and i agree with you buddha now i am done with this here thread

[numerator-91]

*sarcasm* at least the scientists have a logical reson to back up absurd claims such as evolution and a round earth

i love science and so deeply hate fundementalists

[Warpurlgis]

science is all theories
some can be proved other with point equations that were made to make the theory work

[meat]

science is just a way of taking the way the world is made, slapping some proper terms on it, and making it take up third period every day for me. science does have some crazy theories in it.

[Warpurlgis]

all the money they put into the dumb particle thing they could have help ppl with

[frankenstein]

wtf i cant decide if i should be lmao or getting more and more annoyed lol.

ok first off science dose not state that time travel or other dimensions are possible. that is string theory, inside an atom is a quark inside that it is believed to be a strings and with the math for that and the logic of vibrating strings means their should be what was it 10 or 13 dimensions plus one for time.

as for the statement about believing atoms are the smallest particle, that is what the word meant in greek times prior to the microscope and atom smashers.

science is not religion it is proof of are natural world all theories are only theories until they are proven wrong or right then it is science.

when you watch fireworks and see the explosion before herring it that is how you know light is faster than sound. you drop a 1000 pound solid ball and a 1 pound solid ball at the same time out of a plain they will both hit the ground at the same time. and in a vacuum or on the moon a feather and a 100 pound ball. science can not be proven wrong because if the facts change their is a cause and the new state is defined by that science.

[superflysuperwhite]

im pretty sure the string theory is physics which is a science.

sooo.....yea

[LNT-5265F]

heres a question regarding existance i guess you could say.

physics is one of the biggest opponents to religion, its almsot baisically proven that "god" does not excist due to many different things. but the thing is physics has to me what seems to be a few of there own "god" figures.

i.e. thinmgs like strange matter and time travel. these things are said to exist.... in theory. there is no actual phsycal proof that these things exist or can happen, except for equations. no actual observations have been made.

so my question is, for people obbsesed with finding out the truth by means of physical evidence, why do the choose to believe that things such as strange matter exist, when the are so sure "god" does not?

ah be see now you dwell into the difference between holding a believe and holding an idea.

but check this out; time travel, strange matter, etc, your not exactly right about their not being any physical evidence. the difference here is these things can't be proven by your senses but instead by your brain. it's all about math. every physical theory is backed up by math. it's not that these things are just ideas thrown up all willy nilly but that they are theories that have a solid, physically proven, forefather which suggests the reality of said theory.

this brings me unto my own worded definition of a theory - an idea suggested by the ill-presence of A) physical proof, and B) contradictory evidence. in other words, if you can't prove it doesn't exist, then it must be "theoretically" possible.

now with this definition you see that religion, is merely no more then a theory in and of itself.

i still haven't gotten your question yet though. you question was 'how can you believe in something without physical evidence so whole heartedly and not something else, without physical evidence, at all?'

well that's the answer. you can't. those who BELIEVE in something that has not been proven, are setting themselves for failure, whether it be a religious theory or physical theory. therefore, these people you speak of are hypocrits. further, to NOT be hippocritical, you must not BELIEVE an idea. you can only BELIEVE a fact, and agree that an idea, or theory, has the possibility of fact.


PS frankenstein is a douche because instead of seeing the big picture question that cory was asking, he instead chose to dwell on the words and evidence used to ask the question. if this had been an essay he would have failed for being outside of the scope of the question.

id like to make the disclaimer rightnow that i was stoned ass fuck when i wrote this and reading back over it a day latter i see typos out the ass. ignore them.

[frankenstein]

yeah using sting theory witch is not proven.

faith is religion believing for the sake of believing and that warm little filling in your heart ahhh lol.

and yeah string theory is theoretical physics which translates to theoretical science.

science can not be as silly as religion scientist can be.

[a2thae]

yea apparenlty science has so much stuff that they can "back up" but ther are alot of stuff they were for sure is true only to be corrected, i mean they thought at one point the atom was the smallest thing right?? then bam a few powerful telescopes later and we got a whole new mess of smaller things....and what about pluto? now what the hell am i supose to do with My Very Educated Mother Just Serves Me Nine...

haha just sayin a majority of us grew up with the only think put into our easily imprintable minds was science classes ant not to much of bible classes so i mean its really all up in the air of can you really believe ANYTHING anyone tells you??

wheather its an apparent really old book of the word of god or some guy who did a few experiments or observations?? both are really silly but the stuff i can maybe too and see for myself i can buy a little

A quark may not even be the smallest thing...to find out you would just need to build a particle accelerator with 10mile diameter......I won't go into details but the truth is you can't justify spending money like that to find some small abstract detail.

Also. I agree with LNT in most respects..and in mathematics a theory is something that can be proven. In science it's something that is logically likely. Something you can't prove in mathematics but is logically likely is called a postulate.

"If you can't prove it doesn't exist, then it must be 'theoretically' possible" Well, you can't really prove anything exists except yourself...

I'm not much of a physicist.

Woah. Digression. and a little irrelevant..

Anyway, back to the original question; is science as silly as religion? I agree some science theories which aren't backed up by solid evidence are whacky..but not as whacky as "The giant spaghetti monster that lives in the sky" So I suppose not quite.

(I'm answering the title question..you asked a rhetorical question after that)

[straightedgepunk123]

Well religion has a worse track record then science for making ground breaking discoveries that lead to the betterment of the human race, and religious "science" can't even be considered science because it starts with a conclusion, and works its way back to justify the underlying conclusion (god). The best thing about the scientific community is that it destroys theories that have major flaws in them, by close analysis over a long period of time (remember cold fusion?) So while there may be some outlandish theories put forward, they will be discredited very quickly.

[Buddha]

science=religion

[A Deo et Rege]

heres a question regarding existance i guess you could say.

physics is one of the biggest opponents to religion, its almsot baisically proven that "god" does not excist due to many different things. but the thing is physics has to me what seems to be a few of there own "god" figures.

i.e. thinmgs like strange matter and time travel. these things are said to exist.... in theory. there is no actual phsycal proof that these things exist or can happen, except for equations. no actual observations have been made.

so my question is, for people obbsesed with finding out the truth by means of physical evidence, why do the choose to believe that things such as strange matter exist, when the are so sure "god" does not?

Answer:

Numbers don't lie, but people do. If can't understand that then your not thinking hard enough.

A wise man once said, "Science without religion is lame; Religion without science is blind."

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[straightedgepunk123]

The problem with time travel is that it creates a logical paradox. If you go back in time to fix or prevent something, then there would be no reason to do so, because in the present you would already have gone back in time to alter the ti***ine. So unless you wanted to go back in time and do nothing (and I do mean nothing, no contact with anything i.g. people, animals, plants, the ground etc.) you can't logically go back in time. Therefor the entire idea of time travel is useless.

[Deetinator]

The problem with time travel is that it creates a logical paradox. If you go back in time to fix or prevent something, then there would be no reason to do so, because in the present you would already have gone back in time to alter the ti***ine. So unless you wanted to go back in time and do nothing (and I do mean nothing, no contact with anything i.g. people, animals, plants, the ground etc.) you can't logically go back in time. Therefor the entire idea of time travel is useless.

Or at least leave yourself a note to go back and fix it, haha. And future time travel shouldn't have flaws. Anyways to answer your question superflysuperwhite (and this is from a Christian perspective), to me, atheists and the like don't want to believe in God, because it means they have someone to be held accountable to. Now if they just became a Christian, they wouldn't have to worry because they know they're forgiven :D But I'm serious about that. You can't ever prove God exists or doesn't, unless he reveals himself to you in a supernatural way (which I think he does through creation but whatev, that's another conversation). If God really did create everything, there's no way he could be contained by it. So there's no way of disproving God. People who say they have need to just drop the subject, its literally an impossible scenario.

[numerator-91]

in relation to time travel there are a few theories. the first one being that it is physically impossible to go back in time, meaning that nothing can be changed. another theory is that if you travel back in time you will create another entirely new ti***ine that will exist independently of the one you came from. and another theory says that if you travel back in time whatever you do you are meant to do, take for example the episode of futurama where fry becomes his own grandfather.

[Count Chocula]

Science: Hmm, there's a gap in knowledge, we can use this to form theories and expand our knowledge
Religion: God did it. Why? Because god works in mysterious ways.

[frankenstein]

atheist because they dont want to be judged lmao. i am a better person than 95% of the religious people ive meet. i just dont believe a creator of ever thing that exists would want us to go to war. would drowned the majority of the worlds population and then create clouds to show that "it" will never do it again ahhhhh, how kind lol. would show some "its" divine favor while leaving others to rote.

i dont buy the idea of time travel however if it dose become proven then the futurama point is how it will work in my guess. if you go back in time and plan to do something, it is something you have already done or you just didn't succeed, you will change your mind or what ever. their is nothing you can do to change it because everything your going to do has already been done. lmao that movie idiocracy is funny as fuck

[Nuba]

Not to mention all the people that were slaughtered because they chose not to convert to Christianity. Of all the religions I think that Christianity has the most blood on its hands and not to mention had some of the stupidest tests. For instance...I'm going to tie you up and push you into lake. If you float your a witch, but if you sink your free and clear. Unfortunately for you because of our limited abilities the chances of us being about to fish you out of the lake before you drown is pretty slight. Or my personal favorite. I'm going to take this rock and set it in a fire, then I'm going to make you hold this very hot rock for a few seconds and if it burns you...your a witch. Back then we were complete idiots, but if possible I'd like to travel back into time to see the religious practices before everyone was forced to convert.

[Gauge]

science=religion

OK, no. NO. Bad dog.
Not trying to be a dick but you posted that too many times.
There is a clearer distinction between science and religion than anything else on this planet. And it is as follows- (pay attention)
Science comforms itself unto the world. (still with me?)
Religion conforms the world unto itself. (ahhhhhh)
Science is about asking questions and getting answers.
Religion is about singing songs, being hopeful, and doing what you're told.
Science takes things on evidence and if that evidence changes.....
SCIENCE CHANGES!
Religion takes everything on faith in old manuscripts written by people dumber
than themselves.
People of the distant future probably will look back on our scientific ideas and theories and they might laugh, just as we laugh at ancient scholars thinking that Earth was at the center of the universe. But here's the difference- THEY BELIEVED IN A UNIVERSE!
And why? Because they had evidence, and they performed experiments. And they got results. And as much as we want to laugh at them now, we wouldn't be where we are if it weren't for them putting in the work.
So... no religion and science are very, very different and I must, with all due respect,
take offense at your implication that they are in any way the same.

[a2thae]

dude. don't double post. Use the "Edit Me" button if you want to add something, or just wait for someone else to post.

Also, people of the future can't laugh at what's been proven. They can laugh at theories etc... but not at facts. The string theory seems to be possible for traveling forward into the future...

[Gauge]

My apologies. I tried to post something a little longer than that somewhere else and it wouldn't let me do it. I figured it was because there was a character limit. So.. sorry.
But while I'm at it... apparently there's a fine line between facts and theories.
I have read time and time again from various d'bags on the internet who claim that the theory of gravity can't be proven. I was just trying to make a point.
I'm sure future humans will respect what we know and what they learned from it.

[straightedgepunk123]

Now all we have to do is wait for buddha to post his horrifyingly simple and incorrect statement again, and shoot it down again, and if he keeps doing it, try to get him banned for spamming.

[itismesaj]

Time travel is. not. possible. Time LOOKING, however, is.

This is coming from a determinist. So, think what you want. I'm not hating. ^That is my thought on the time travel issue that we seem to be having.

[Buddha]

Ok kids done repeating what you heard in science class yet?

Throughout history what has gone unquestioned, anyone, anyone? That's right, religion. Religion was mostly accepted as truth by the masses, accepted as fact. Now what is accepted by the masses as truth, science. Well I half the shit is theory, but it is still more respected than any religion.

Science is the new religion. Say it's wrong and you'll get burned at the stake.

I'd just like to state for the record I'm mostly agnostic, and you people are taking shit way too fucking serious.

[LNT-5265F]

hahaha *cyber high five i'm agnostic as well

[RAV]

Science is just like a religion (a particular type of faith or worship). Most of science is theory. Not much is law. This is because law has to go through so many tests to be sure that it is true.
The difference between science and common religion is that science is willing to change its beliefs given that there are new facts. Science wants you to challenge it, in fact you can not be good at science unless you challenge its ideas and think on your own. Religion says "this is how it is" and expects you to accept it under blind faith.

If you guys look at history periods of religious highs equates to a low production of new ideas and inventions. In periods of high production and inventions religion is low. Look at when the printing press was built. They were all against the catholic church and then they invented the press and printed the bible (though this was inspired by religion it can still be considered a product of low faith because no one liked the Catholics)

[straightedgepunk123]

Science is just like a religion (a particular type of faith or worship). Most of science is theory. Not much is law. This is because law has to go through so many tests to be sure that it is true.
The difference between science and common religion is that science is willing to change its beliefs given that there are new facts. Science wants you to challenge it, in fact you can not be good at science unless you challenge its ideas and think on your own. Religion says "this is how it is" and expects you to accept it under blind faith.

If you guys look at history periods of religious highs equates to a low production of new ideas and inventions. In periods of high production and inventions religion is low. Look at when the printing press was built. They were all against the catholic church and then they invented the press and printed the bible (though this was inspired by religion it can still be considered a product of low faith because no one liked the Catholics)


Exactly. I know of people who still test the law of gravity, just to see for themselves that it can still be proven correct. If science weren't constantly being updated (believe me, it is) it wouldn't have as much respect as it does. Science has respect because it earned it.

[RAV]

I mean there are also different people who believe similar things, like catholics and Protestants, but they are people who believe in graviton and warped space-time.

[frankenstein]

inventions were not at their highs when religion was at a low. Galilee is one of the greatest humans that ever lived and his colleagues were killed for the advances they made and he was put on house arrest.
isaac newton was in a religious time.
it might be true that some people hide their discoveries until a time of less ignorance by religion. but people always try to create no matter the time period.

burned at the stack what kind of a asinine statement is that people were actually burned at the stack for science by the religious community not the other way around someone might try to show you the flaws in your logic if you disagree with them but intellectuals allow others to be ignorant if that is all their mind can comprehend.
religion = Belief in an unprovable book
Science = belief on evidence and proven facts

you are stating that belief is religion. so in that state democracy for the founding fathers was religion. and so on and so forth. but religion is belief in something specific not just the act of truly believing in something that is proven like gravity.

[superflysuperwhite]

befor i get into this i want to point out i am not a religious person i see no need for religion, i hate all of them and believe they should just be gotten rid of. i do however believe in "god" and no im not agnostic because i truely believe in "god".


from what ive read ive come to the conclusion that, none of you knw SHIT about religion.

religion does change, just look at the bible, old testimant-vengfull god- new testiment-forgiveing go-see also there are religions, christian religions that believe it is toatally fine for gays to be married.

if you actually stop to listen to a religious person not religious CRAZY person, then you can actually understand what im saying.

the smart people who are religious relize that the bible is baisically a story book with a bunch lessons in it for the most part, some things are true, some things are exagerated, some are complete bullshit, and some are metiphorse.

trust me amoung the "sheep" there are.... goats in all religions who believe in there religion but see things differently.

science isnt a religion because religion is a science.

where sciences like physics explore the physical world and try to explain it.
religion explores things like morals, faith, and other stuff like that, and trys to explain and improve on them.

now you may be asking if you hate religion so much why defend it? because i hate hearing people try and denounce something that they truelly dont understand.

[RAV]

some science brings new ages which have a higher productive rate of new technologies. I didn't say that there weren't any inventions built during times of great religion, there were many. This number is just less than those inventions that were built in eras were religion was not so predominant. Renaissance. Middle Ages. Compare those two. There are inventions in both, just the Renaissance has a lot more.

[RAV]

science isnt a religion because religion is a science.

where sciences like physics explore the physical world and try to explain it.
religion explores things like morals, faith, and other stuff like that, and trys to explain and improve on them.

Religion does try to explain the physical world. They say it is god who does it. This is why Galileo had such a hard time. In the middle ages a doctor had to have a degree in religion as well as medicine. They would look at the stars and pray for the answer.

[frankenstein]

in the middle ages/dark ages they burned books and you could not follow science or you were consider a witch and burned thats why less in that time.

i want to state i understand religion i have read the bible, the book of mormon, the scientilgists diagnostics or what ever its called, the baga va gita how ever you spell that, and the koran.

religion did not change over time different religions spouted up old testament jews, new testament christians catholics, koran muslims and book of morons mormons.
a small part of the stories might have points about morals, but the majority is about control, an attempt to control the population.
philosophy is about morals and other such actions.