- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- Science vs Religion
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| Science vs Religion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 20 2014, 03:18 AM (7,730 Views) | |
| lunar2 | May 24 2014, 05:04 AM Post #31 |
 
|
except muslim apologists can point to several ayats in the qu'ran that seem to refer to knowledge we have now gained through science, but that was not known at the time. like the expanding universe, or the origin of life in the water, for example. and unlike many other religions, we know that those ayats were not put in later, because 2 of the original 7 manuscripts of the qu'ran still exist to compare the texts to. i'm not arguing for islam being the correct religion, btw. just pointing out that they do have the type of evidence an omniscient creator would actually give, in the form of knowledge that's not only ahead of their time, but that couldn't possibly have been discovered during that time period. i still think muhammed talked to aliens, though. the god of abraham definitely does not exist. or hinduism, and their belief that it is your perception of things that is real, not the thing itself. that's a gross simplification of course, but the gist is that hindu belief is remarkably similar to one possible interpretation of quantum mechanics.
yes. religion is concerned with the supernatural. the supernatural is, by definition, not of this natural world, and can't be understood through science. that doesn't make it right or wrong, merely unscientific. which is why i said that religion and science concern themselves with different realms of knowledge. yes, various religions make statements about the physical world, and those can eventually be proven right or wrong by science. but that's not the point of religion. those statements are meant to prove the religion right, but the actual point of the religion is spiritual guidance (assuming we are talking about honest religions, and not cults made to control people).
again, catholic church. their stances have been evolving throughout history, and they have flat out admitted they were wrong before (geocentrism vs. heliocentrism vs. tychonic system, for example). they've also backstepped a few times, like on the issue of gay marriage, but nobody's perfect. not all religions have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god that exists outside time and space. that's actually the minority of religions. most religions aren't even monotheistic. and there are still religions that worship the greek pantheon. like i said, the idea of the omnigod is a small minority of all religions. most of your complaints have been pretty specifically aimed at semitic religions, not religion in general.
there is more variation within christianity alone than you are giving credit for to the entire semitic group of religions. you have primarily been exposed to fundamentalist evangelical christians, and you are trying to apply that limited experience to a much larger group that differs in many extreme ways. the only thing the various denominations of the various semitic religions have in common is that they worship yahweh/jehovah/allah. that is literally it. you name any issue, and you will find christians, jews, and to a lesser extent muslims on both sides of it. now, yes, jews tend to be more liberal, muslims more conservative, and christians in the middle, and the whole group averages somewhere right of center, but you can't just paint them all with the same brush like that. well yes, if you isolate every good thing every religious person has ever done as an "individual contribution" instead of looking at the larger pattern, while simultaneously lumping every bad thing every religious person has ever done into one monolithic "Religion", then yes, religion is harmful to society. but to do that, you have to ignore the fact that the catholic chruch is the largest humanitarian organization in the world. you have to ignore all the helpful charities run by all the churches. you have to ignore all the scientific progress made and maintained by religious institutions. that knowledge the muslims held onto hundreds of years ago when europe collapsed? that's still benefiting you today. the archives the catholic church has maintained for centuries? one of the greatest storehouses of information in the world. the templars? invented the banking system (which is a mixed blessing, i admit). you can't talk about the effects of religion today without talking about the effects of religion throughout history. because if they hadn't done everything they did then, we wouldn't be where we are now. we'd be much worse off. no. the same arguments do not apply to very many other religions. they don't even apply to all of christianity. again, you only have experience with one specific subset of christianity.
Occam's razor. when two explanations have equal explanatory value, and equal evidence supporting them, the simpler one should be chosen. divine cause is literally infinitely simpler than an endless chain of cause and effect, does an equal job of explaining our current circumstances, and has the same amount of evidence backing it up. there is, in fact, no evidence that everything must have a cause, it is simply an accepted "rule". also, given the definition of divine cause as "the original cause of everything, which is not itself caused by anything", there are only the two options. there is either an endless chain of cause and effect, or there is a divine cause. pick one, or the other (or don't pick, i guess). now, my beliefs on life after death are a little less logical. i can't conceive of not existing. therefore, i must always exist. i have existed from the beginning of time, and i will exist until the end of time. like i said, not entirely logical, but it works for me. on a side note, i find it fascinating that i can comprehend infinity, but not nothingness. that's always bugged me. i can actually comprehend the endless chain of cause and effect. that's easy. i have no problems with eternity. but i can't grasp nothingness at all. my brain just can't go there.
Yay? lol  [/quote] lol. i just happened to run across that about him when posting my last post. |
|
list of canon sources: the DB manga, and the Dr. Slump manga as it applies to the crossover during the rra saga. list of non canon sources: everything else, regardless of origin, format, or quality. for those that blindly follow word of god | |
 |
 
|
|
|
May 24 2014, 05:11 AM Post #32 |
|
Just wanted to ask one thing.
How can you be so sure of this exactly? |
|
|
|
| lunar2 | May 24 2014, 05:53 AM Post #33 |
|
because most religions aren't even remotely similar to fundamentalist evangelical christianity. |
|
list of canon sources: the DB manga, and the Dr. Slump manga as it applies to the crossover during the rra saga. list of non canon sources: everything else, regardless of origin, format, or quality. for those that blindly follow word of god | |
|
|
|
| POOHEAD189 | May 24 2014, 06:42 AM Post #34 |
|
Yeah, that's why I typically detach myself from other religious people. I grew up in the south and their values aren't what I think Christians should value. We shouldn't judge or lie or be anything but Christ like.
No, it's their interpretation that is to blame. If the bible preaches something and people twist it to their own ends, then it's the people's fault. Life is determined by choices.
Exactly. And the same with the guy who cracked the genome. He looked at his research and realized there was no way the universe was not intelligently created. It's just his opinion, of course. But still Edited by POOHEAD189, May 24 2014, 06:46 AM.
|
| Tha gaol agam ort. <3 | |
|
|
|
| WarriorRace | May 24 2014, 07:05 AM Post #35 |
|
And you can't ignore all the bad stuff the church has done either. The Crusades, the Inqusition, the witch trials. And these weren't done on an individual level they were done by the church for the most part.
This depends on if you take what the bible says literally. There are a lot of quotes in the bible about killing heretics and witches. If people follow these passages then they are following what the bible says. |
|
|
|
| POOHEAD189 | May 24 2014, 07:17 AM Post #36 |
|
The church, despite what it may believe, is not Christianity.
There are a lot of mistranslations and passages that are denounced in the new testament, which is what Christianity is about. Hence the Christ in the name. Although yes, there are passages that can be taken very badly. Most of the time though, when I found a questionable passage, I do some research on it and find it's not exactly what I thought it was. |
| Tha gaol agam ort. <3 | |
|
|
|
| Tonneh | May 24 2014, 07:26 AM Post #37 |
|
The problem with religion is that it's whatever we decipher it to be. How the f*** can you argue Science vs religion when religion has so many different angles. Ten people believe the same religion where as 20 people believe the same religion from a different angle. Edited by Tonneh, May 24 2014, 07:27 AM.
|
| |
|
|
|
| WarriorRace | May 24 2014, 07:54 AM Post #38 |
|
lunar was talking about the good things the catholic church specifically has done so I pointed out some of the bad.
Yeah that's true the old testament had a lot of the bad stuff but there are people who still follow it or parts of it. And the quote applies for religion in general too. People interpret their religion's holy book differently. Some people choose to take it literally and some look for deeper meanings in the book. |
|
|
|
| Meowth | May 24 2014, 08:33 AM Post #39 |
=._.=
|
Science has many different angles, sometimes a controversial topic is proposed to the science community and gets buried, mostly because of human error and stubbornness. However science typically learns from its mistakes, religion is having a hard time doing that. We still have countries where there is a death penalty for being gay. We have had popes that don't believe is contraception. We still don't have female bishops. We have hotels in the world where a man sharing a bed with a man is wrong, but women can share a bed. Stem cell research gets delayed. The list could go on and including various different religions, not just Christianity and these are often views shared by a large community, not the odd extremist nutcase. Of course there are people who believe in a god around and don't share these views, that's fine, but you can't deny that the prevalence of such views in the mainstream of religion show that is hasn't evolved a great deal. |
 
| |
|
|
|
| * Ketchup Revenge | May 24 2014, 01:47 PM Post #40 |
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"
|
The problem with this argument is that even though religion is concerned with the supernatural, you can't possibly know what one supernatural being's will would've been without experiencing it through natural means, or it leaving natural traces to them ever existing. You can only imagine the context in which this being exists and what their will is. Not only that, but the context in which we understand this being would be limited to the context that we're familiar with. Back in Biblical days, simple word of mouth was considered evidence of truth. We know now that it is far from the case. So someone back then could tell you a story about a man living in a big fish for three days, and given the context of "truth" in those days, it wouldn't make it wrong. We now know through scientific understanding that something like that is virtually impossible, but instead of using better judgement and suspecting that claim as wrong and simply a story made up by an imaginative person, we're so unwavering from an outdated belief that we simply make up a context in which it could happen, regardless if that context goes against what we understand as possible. Nature and science is the context in which we understand physical existence, and any other method of understanding existence is just hokum. It's imaginary. But just because it's imaginary doesn't necessarily mean that it can't happen, it simply doesn't make it right. Edited by Ketchup Revenge, May 24 2014, 01:49 PM.
|
 The vengeance is her's for as long as she stands by Him. | |
|
|
|
| lunar2 | May 24 2014, 03:07 PM Post #41 |
|
the crusades actually started as a land grab by the byzantine empire. the pope took advantage of the political situation to unite the church after a scandal. originally, there were muslims and christians on both sides of the war, until one of the european armies sacked an allied muslim city, which is what actually drew the religious as opposed to political lines of the war. yes, the the church played a major role in escalating the crusades as much as they did, but at least the first crusade would have happened without the church. yes, some branches of the inquisition went overboard. not all of them acted the way you think, though. it was mainly the spanish inquisition that people think of when they say the word. witch trials were generally local things, not organized by the larger church. now, i'm not saying the catholic church is perfect, nor is christianity as a whole. but they haven't done nearly as much bad as people accuse them of, and they've done far more good than people give them credit for. and again, this is generally because when good things come from the church, it is called individual accomplishments, or something similar. it is attributed to the people actually doing it instead of the larger organization. when bad things come out of the church, it is the church itself that is blamed, rather than the people actually involved. -- which is why most modern denominations of christianity do not take a lot of the bible literally. |
|
list of canon sources: the DB manga, and the Dr. Slump manga as it applies to the crossover during the rra saga. list of non canon sources: everything else, regardless of origin, format, or quality. for those that blindly follow word of god | |
|
|
|
| yokip | May 24 2014, 03:39 PM Post #42 |
|
quranic verses simply being reinterpreted to satisfy scientific discovery. They are constantly twisting the verses so that it matches science. Finding verses similar to science is not science. The Quran has some vague verses. People change their meaning to make it more compatible with science. The Quran does not mention the Big Bang theory. It says in sura Al Anbiah ( chapter 21 verse # 30) "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?" Sounds very alike to the genesis creation story BTW. The heaven and earth being together in one unit this is incorrect. The verse is clearly in error. The earth was never joined together in 'one unit' with the heavens. The earth is just one planet, orbiting a star in this vast Universe and was formed a very long time after the 'heavens' Also to say the Earth and the heavens are two separate things by being joined together then split is incorrect there is no boundary between the universe and earth. it would be like standing on the moon and saying it and the universe are also separate. You will find the same vaug e verses for expanding universe miracle and every other claimed scientific discovery in the quran. Edited by yokip, May 24 2014, 03:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
| WarriorRace | May 24 2014, 06:18 PM Post #43 |
|
Yes the first Crusade was the most justified but you can't just brush aside the fact that the church escalated it. The Spanish Inquisition was still acting for religious purposes. And Pope Innocent VIII wrote a papal letter about witches during the Little Ice Age. So the church at least investigated witchcraft. But I agree that it was mostly done locally and the church didn't sanction it. If a religious person contributes something to science then it isn't a contribution on the behalf of religion or the church. It is an individual accomplishment and the individual person should be credited for it. Edited by WarriorRace, May 24 2014, 06:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
| lunar2 | May 24 2014, 06:30 PM Post #44 |
|
actually, the one i was referring to was 51:48: And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (musi'un). heaven, in islam, refers not to the spiritual concept of heaven, which is called Paradise, but to the physical heaven. space, in other words. there is no twisting of scripture there. it clearly says allah created space, and is continuing to expand it. the first half of that, whether allah built it, is debatable. the second half, that it is still expanding, is a known fact now, but could not have been predicted back then. it's not even a vague statement. it clearly states that "the heaven" (which, again, is not referring to Paradise, because that uses a different word in arabic) is still expanding. also, 21:30, which you conveniently only posted the first half of, states: "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" "Authentic Arabic lexicons give two meanings of ratqan, that have great relevance to the topic under discussion. One meaning is 'the coming together of something and the consequent infusion into a single entity' and the second meaning is 'total darkness'. Both these meanings are significantly applicable. Taken together, they offer an apt description of the singularity of a black hole." the pre-big bang universe, where all matter and energy was concentrated into an infinitesimally small volume, would function almost exactly like a black hole. 21:105 The Day when We will fold the heaven like the folding of a [written] sheet for the records. As We began the first creation, We will repeat it. [That is] a promise binding upon Us. Indeed, We will do it. whoever originally wrote the qur'an apparently believed in the big crunch. we now know that a big crunch is unlikely, due to dark energy, but it is still possible, and was, until relatively recently, a widely held scientific belief. now, that's not to say that all scientific information in the qur'an is correct. after all, a big crunch is implausible, if not impossible, by modern knowledge. and mountains certainly do not prevent earthquakes, while the qur'an explicitly claims they do. also, be careful of using the abdullah yusuf ali translation. it is popular, but also was politicized and was written with an antisemitic intent, so it's accuracy is doubtful. the arberry translation is considered better among experts. of course, arabic can't truly be translated into english, due to the different language families, but the general meaning can be conveyed. so remember that when something seems vague to you, it might actually be vague, or it might be translation difficulties. |
|
list of canon sources: the DB manga, and the Dr. Slump manga as it applies to the crossover during the rra saga. list of non canon sources: everything else, regardless of origin, format, or quality. for those that blindly follow word of god | |
|
|
|
|
|
May 24 2014, 06:55 PM Post #45 |
|
My three best friends are southern Baptist, Catholic, and Muslim. My entire family is Nazarene. That's four different religions right there. I especially understand the differences between Christian denominations and Islam, so no, I'm not in the dark here. I know what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:46 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy