[Locked] Is Scientist really proving the Bible to be wrong?

Grammar, good sir. Use it.

Ahhh, so you're saying it's not the religion that does anything, it's the calming effect of believing in a higher power. HATE TO TELL YA, but that's not unique to religion at all. Meditation is known to do this, yoga does this, in fact, there are a LOT of different secular ways to put one's mind at ease.

I asked for a positive effect of religion that can be observed that cannot be achieved by secular means. you've failed to do this. :)

Show me evidence of this. You stil haven't. And even then, all effective medicine is secular in nature, so it wouldn't matter if you did, as it doesn't answer the challenge.



Which I can derive without religion, so it's not necessary at all, and secular means can accomplish the same thing.



So have secular programs. Religion unnecessary.



Didn't you already say this one? Again, religion isn't necessary at al for that.



And religion is in no way necessary to do so. So again, you haven't answered the challenge.



What civilization? Also again, unnecessary completely.



False, you cannot tie anyt advancement they had due to their religion. The only thing they've ever done with their religion is make art, which in no way requires religion to be good, and in fact many of their art pieces were of regular people.



And why some people go insane.

Again, you're repeating yourself, annd can you explain to me how religion in any way helped people figure out how to build the pyramids? I gaurantee you can't.



False again, all advancements we have today are a direct result of people putting aside their religious ideas to figure out reality on reality's terms. Religion does NOTHING to furthur the knowledge of man in any way.



False, Science was began by people figuring out a valid way of testing the world, without having any bias. In fact, Religion is the reason science was buried under mountains of ignorant religious people for years, and why most of our scientific advancement could only be traced back about 400 years ago.



And I can debunk your claims over and over. you haven't provided a single positive thing religion gives anyone that canot also be achieved by secular means.




Ahem. None of the ancestors that have been contributors to the growing knowledge of mankind were able to do so because of their religion. Every single scientific advancement that's ever made is made in SPITE of religion, not because of it.

I will be the first person to apreciate that a lot of things I have today had their basis come from people who believed in god, but you need to be aware that you can't connect a SINGLE advancement they've made directly TO their religion.

Look around, all the things you have and appreciate today are because people decided to put their religion aside and investigate reality, not because of their religion.

Someone sounds angry. Is it because you thought your little rant there was inarguably true? And the fact that I've actualyl disagreed with it frustrates you? Just curious...



Ahem, please point to the part where I ever said, "None of the scientists back then were religious." I'll make a good bet that you can't. I chose the words I did for a REASON you know. I said that you cannot tie their scientific advances to their religion, and in fact many scientific discoveries were downplayed by religus institutions because that's what science does, regularly show religious dogma to be...wrong...



Sop long as the science didn't conflict with religoous dogma sure. I want you to read up on Galileo and say that religion and dogma cooperate.



Irrelevant. belief in god doesn't matter when that belief didn't give you your discoveries.



Ahem, science has been around since the greeks, and even beforehand yes, I know. however the fact remains that the vast majority of scientific advancement can only be traced back about 400 years. and in FACT, the Middle Eastern countries were on the verge of becoming scientific giants...and then Islam got introduced, and they mysteriously stagnated. Isn't that interesting?



I nother words, "Our original preconceptions about how God did everything are wrong, we must recognize that we are discovering NEW things, and these are how god did what he did.
Ok, that doesn't refute a single one of my points. So good job.




And was also heavily persecuted by the church for his heliocentric theory, which stated that the sun was the center of our solar system, not the earth. It took centuries after he was dead for the church to issue an official apology.



He also believed in Alchemy, and the magical properties of the Philosopher's Stone. Are you saying his beief in Alchemy led to his scientific advancements? No. Just like his religious beliefs didn't either.



For the simple facts? Sure, I'll go furthur if you want, data's on my side here.




which menas nothing to me. : /



Yup, sometimes, so long as the discoveries didn't violate religious dogma. But regardless, you said that religion brought about what I enjoy today, it didn't. religious people who decided discovering reality was more important than their religious dogma brought me what I enjoy today. This is a fact.

are y'all trying to say that science doesn't prove Christianity right? or that science proves Christianity wrong?

yes, there's a difference

I'm pretty much saying science doesn't prove christianity right...though that's mainly because it's not trying to, and only people who are already christians would see it that way. Christian Scientists regularly explain that their religion and their work are kept seperate, intentionally, because the nature of science forces this to be so.



In your opinion. But really, I'm not any such thing...at least...you haven't shown that I am.




Outright lie. I never suggested any such thing.



Churches SHOULDN'T be sponsoring scientists. They have nothing to gain from it, and in fact they are in danger of putting a religious bias in the investigations of the science being sponsored. Also, I have already pointed out IF a scientist in all of time has made a scientific advancement, you CANNOT claim with any evidence, that it is a direct result of their religion.



No. At least not in a broad sense, because they don't. They have a long history of retarding scientific process, you simply can't say that truthfully.



No. Put simply what you just said is, "If I can convince myself my religion led me to a discovery, then it did, didn't it?" No, it didn't. The fact was you made the conscious decision to go into a cave, what you felt about how 'god' felt about the action is irrelevent.




The Islamic age pf philosophy and scientific growth was stagnated due to the Islamic countries dedicating their education, as well as instituting laws restricting citizens to literal Quranic translations. Though, at the time, philosophers were attempting to keep and preserve the works of past innovaters like Aristotle, and Plato. They also made several strides in engineering and mathematics prior to Quranic law being instilled. Some people, like you, liked to say that Islam played a role in these advancements, however according to Dr. Shoja-e-din Shafa, such is not the case. Read the book “Rebirth”, it explains how it makes no sense to attribute any scientific advancement to Islam whatsoever. No, science stagnated as Islam took power…very sadly.



…So religion played a role…by being wrong? Wow, the fact that you don’t see how dumb that line of reasoning is, makes this extremely funny to me. Especially since science in no way whatsoever is out to prove religion wrong, so you’re not only semantically silly, but fundamentally wrong as well. Adding to the hilarity.



Going by all historical accounts, Galileo’s own writings, and the church that persecuted him basically coming out and saying so? Yes. It is.




Fractally wrong. If one believes something to have magical properties, that’s where science ENDS. Science, by its very definition, CANNOT test magical things. In order to test something, you must set aside the idea that what you’re testing is magical, and in fact is natural. So no, testing magic isn’t science, testing what one believes to be the natural things causing what was once believed to be magic, is science. In essence, you MUST necessarily not believe something is magic, in order for science to occur.



Err…what WOULD make my statements true, if not evidence?



Someone pulled that number out of their ass.



…No scientific proof in all of existence is 100% accurate, by definition of science. To play this semantics game with, “You can’t tell if it’s 100% true!” is literally elementary school level logic. I can still be 50, or 60, or 70, or 80, or 99% sure of something. Besides, I’m not just backing it up with someone’s words, I’m backing it up with someone else’s findings and evidence. You think all I’m doing is going, “This expert agrees with me, so I’m more right!” no, I’m saying, “Read what this expert has to say, and what he’s found, it leads to my conclusion more than yours.”



Because for one, back then pretty much everyone was buried by the church, secondly, it doesn’t exactly look good to excommunicate someone who was later found out to be right about what they were excommunicated about, so to play it safe, they bury scientists in their church, to make it look like, “Hey, we were with them all along!” This was common practice.



It’s fact because it’s verifiable, for one, and for 2, no, I don’t think a single scientist ever said, “I’m going to prove this because God wants me to.” And you can in no way show that any of them did, and even if they did, by the way, they’d be violating the very philosophy of science to do so.

Just saying one thing.
Religion has actually saved lives.
Think of the placebo effect, for one.
You believe its true and it takes effect.
Similarly, those who have religion, or really belief in anything, tend to get better, because they don't give up hope.
Someone who truly believes that God will save them won't give up, whereas someone without faith will tend to be less hopeful with nothing to grab onto, and so will give up more easily.

A question i would like to ask the Seculars
If evolution holds true, where did our advanced thinking and sense of morals come from? Since survival of the fittest holds true, why are people the way they are now, with an extraordinary developed thinking ability, whereas everything else on earth pretty much follows instinct?

To the Fervent Religious
If God is the one and only God, why did he not appear before anyone else? Why is it that he only existed for the people of Israel, and did not come up anywhere else except for the Hebrew people? That is to say, if he is the magnanimous god, why is he choosing to save only the Hebrews? It says in revelation that 12,000 from each tribe will be saved
Does this mean that only those that are descendants of the tribes will survive, and that the Gentiles, and pretty much everyone else in the world will die? Where is the love?


Also, in terms of relationship of science and religion
It only became prominent around the time of Galileo
Before that, for example in the middle ages, the Church was the center of growth of culture, arts, and the sciences
So yes, there was a time when Church was promoting the sciences. it was only when scientists like Copernicus began making radical assumptions that the split truly began


And make no mistake, religion played a very important role in the history of mankind, and without religion, there is no way that the world would be this multi-culturally linked or developed
Religion both links people and splits them apart
Religion has changed criminals, whereas secular programs have a harder time. Make no mistake, however, very few truly convert, so this fact is really insignificant
Religion does give people more hope. Why? Because people with religion tend to be a hell lot more fervent about their beliefs
Just take a look at this guy, he's pretty much ranting. Not to say that those who are secular have less hope, but those with religion tend to be a bit more passionate
Religion actually is in fact the reason why the pyramids were built
The pharaohs wanted to be protected in a tomb, and have all their belongings as well when they passed over to the next world. As for why they weren't just buried, well thats cuz thats what all the commoners did. As to how stupid the pyramids were, i won't comment
Remember that religion is in essence science, and science is in essence religion
Where did religion come from? People wanted to explain why things worked, how things came to be, how it all happens. Sounds like the definition of science to me
Religion does in fact play a big role in science
Scientists aren't necessarily all atheists, they find ways to blend religion and science together

Point is
Religion was actually very important in the development of science as well as the development of people
The question is did that change in the present time, and teh answer is absolutely yes. As to whether religion is good or bad is something not set in stone, as everything is really gray
the prominance of religion in the past cannot be denied
The role of religion now is what needs to be questioned

Ok, mind explaining how I've done it, instead of simply saying I did?



Two problems. 1. What in the hell IS my claim? What's Claim A? and 2. I'm not asking you why B is hte answer, I'm asking you to provide a SINGLE tangible positive benefit of religion that cannot also be achieved by secular means. And you HAVE failed to do that.



No...I'm saying "Why go with religion when there's no reason to?" You haven't given me a reason why religion ought be preferred in any way. I've asked consistently for you to give a positive tangible benefit of religion that cannot be achieved without it, you've failed. consistently.



Jeez, so your entire argument is, "Religion is the reason you have all the awesome stuff you have now! Appreciate it!" and when I not only diagree, but provide sources as to WHY you're wrong, you say, "Oh you're just bias against religion." Is that it? I mean honestly, is that the best you can do?



"I heard these things as true, so I assumed they were." Well, I'm telling you you're wrong. I don't read your posts with the sole interest of debunking them, I read them, and when I see you make an incorrect statement, I point out that it's incorrect, or undemonstrated. That IS reasoning with you.



Listen. I WILL change my mind if you provide accurate statements with accurate data. Why should I simply accept what you say without challenging it? Especially when you're trying to say, "Religion is the reason you have so many good things! Accept it!"

And by the way, why would you simply accept everything your teachers, friends, and professors say without challenging it? Do you think these people cannot tell you a wrong thing? Don't teachers usually want you to ask questions? Don't professors usually say, "Please, if anyone has any questions, ask them now."?

No, if you were to look at the wrds I used, yo'd see that I said that for 1, no, the churches DON'T support science, and 2, even if they did, they ought not, for good reason. No, your magazine article at a religiously bias website doesn't back up what you've said. The facts still remain as they are, The dark ages are a direct result of religion intentionally retarding scientific progress in favor of religious dogma.http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-theology.asp



1. Science was built on a seperation from religion. Religion gave explanations for natural things by giving them supenratural meanings. Science decided to abandon these supernatural ideas and identify, and investigate the natural world as it is. The earliest mildly scientific advancements we can find is from the Greeks(not because of religion by the way}, and even then science didn't take off until the scientific method was outlined by Johannes Kepler, and according to Morris Kline, modern science owes its current state and its flourishing to Galileo Galilei, who, I've explained time and again, was NOT supported by the church, and his findings were NOT religiously motivated.



Same for me then.



Yes, but it's not religion that's the case, it's simply the fact that you don't agree with my assessment of the situation, and you then try to attack my points by researching points to reinforce your own. That's how ALL debates and arguments are. The inclusion of religion is irrelevant.

Some of my information can be reason with yet you come up with facts that actually doesn't prove me wrong and end up elongating the argument. That does not sound like reasoning to me.



"What I was saying is common sense, you should be able to understand it."

That's basically what you just aid. In other words, let me paraphrase furthur, "Listen, I'm right about this, and that's just the fact."

I'm sorry, but that kind of argument is hardly worth responding to.



I didn't say "argue" did I? I said ask questions. What if you heard one of these so called 'facts' of yours incorrectly? What if they phrased something confusedly, and you took it the wrong way? Shouldn't you ask for a clarification? It doesn't seem you had any interest in discerning what you've been told to be true, you simply accepted that these people were telling you facts. That's...not how intelligent inquiry works.

Sorry to break into your individual little rants here

But the church did support science, it was the main reason for any cultural growth. Who do you think copied books, before the printing press? Monks copied them down, painfully, whether philosophy, literature, or science/math

The dark ages itself is a term that is wrong
The dark ages were not in fact dark ages, a look at the great developments will prove that. Alfred of Wessex brought about great cultural changes, the Anglo-Saxons were incredibly creative and artistic people, whereas William, Duke of Normandy, was far less artistic.Looking at the masterpieces that came out of the so called "Dark ages", its clear that the Anglo-Saxons were incredibly artistic, rather than more brutish, or pragmatic as William. In addition, Kings like Alfred of Wessex brought about not only translation of works for common folks to read, but also brought along the first public school, great diplomatic talents, etc. Dont forget people like the Venerable Bede were prominent, his History of the Church and the people is one of the earliest historical books ever created
Be careful when you say dark ages, its a misnomer

And dont forget the church promoted the sciences, almost all scientists were religious to various degrees, everyone from Newton to Einstein, Maxwell and Gauss, Yukawa and Gell-Mann
Brilliant things were often constructed from religious motivations
Not only literature, like Dante's Divine Comedy, particularly Inferno, but a lot of scientists said the answer to some breakthrough came through a vision
Now whether this was true or not, is subjective

But its important to remember that although there is undeniable proof as to the church restricting science, there is overwhelming evidence that points to the church as the only reason science began and moved forward

No one's denying that religion has had its place in history. They did crate schools and whatnot, and they did translate books. But I'm not impressed. They're also responsible for BURNING books, they're also responsible for PERSECUTING science. And to say that religion is in any way responsible for science is completely incorrect. Science is a result of people breaking off from religious norms. You cannot draw a logical line from religion to any scientific discovery.

No religious dogma was ever used to make a scientific advancement, no religious idea has ever been shown to have led to any sort of breakthrough, or a single discovery by scientisists. No, religion was what people did to try and explain things in the past, and science is the demonstrably better way to explain things that arose past religion. Even today religion tries its best to retard scientific progress by denying discoveries made in the fields of astrophysics, paleontology, taxonamy, general biology, and astronomy, and many more than that.

Science is not people breaking off from religious dogma, its trying to figure out how the world works
And the powerful Church supported that
It was only when the discoveries started contradicting their views, ie Copernicus, that the Church stopped supporting science
Without the Church, science would not even be possible
And dont forget that while religion does hinder science later on, its not the only thing
Science itself will hinder science, look at the Michelson-Morley Experiments disproving the ether wind existence, scientists themselves tried hard for decades to disprove those results
Or when James Hutton proposed that the Earth was billions of years old, he was scorned by SCIENTISTS, not religious fanatics or anything of the sort, he was widely scorned in the scientific world. You can;t just think of the scientific world as being bogged down by religion, it was impeded by nearly everything. Almost all discoveries tend to be rejected at first, with gradual acceptance, whether its Yukawa's Meson or the existance of a GUT or TOE (string theory). Einstein's theory of relativity was subject to extreme skeptism.

A study by Howard Gardner reveals that most famous people, whether freud or einstein, came from particularly religious families
Additionally, historians such as Peter Harrison and Floris Cohen display the point of view that biblical influence was pivotal in motivating scientists. Many famous scientists, including Rene Descartes, noted that laws were something to be found that were the laws of God. Most 17th century scientists looked for ways to return human understanding of God's laws
Even Newton proposed that the Heliocentric theory was under the guidance of an intelligent and supreme being
Saying that scientists and religion has no connection is to be unable to understand that religion has always played an important role in science