Church Vs Science

church vs science
  1. David Johnson says:
    Truly believing in something means you don't have to be able to explain every aspect of it, nor understand every detail about it. That's why we have faith...to fill in the gaps.
    Truly believing in something means you don't have to be able to explain every aspect of it, nor understand every detail about it. That's why we have faith...to fill in the gaps.
  2. Logan Yochum says:
    So true..
    So true..
  3. Joseph Jeong says:
    Well... You can either be on earth and get hit with a meteor and pray...well I don't know what for but yeah pray or you can manifest your imagination to a physical form and fuck that meteor out of existence with what you created with your knowledge. Not to be mean and say God wont help you from a meteor but just... highly unlikely that he/she'll save you from it..... SO instead of praying I'll take things into my own hands.
    Well... You can either be on earth and get hit with a meteor and pray...well I don't know what for but yeah pray or you can manifest your imagination to a physical form and fuck that meteor out of existence with what you created with your knowledge. Not to be mean and say God wont help you from a meteor but just... highly unlikely that he/she'll save you from it..... SO instead of praying I'll take things into my own hands.
  4. Tim Peterson says:
    If you don't believe in the Christian God taking things into your own hands is the most reasonable thing to do. I think it would be foolish to think less of people who believe that everything happens according to a plan and then try and learn more about the planner
    If you don't believe in the Christian God taking things into your own hands is the most reasonable thing to do. I think it would be foolish to think less of people who believe that everything happens according to a plan and then try and learn more about the planner
  5. Christopher Howard Lee via Facebook says:
    The last slide should read "But I KNOW it's true." No amount of logic will ever overcome that one.
    The last slide should read "But I KNOW it's true." No amount of logic will ever overcome that one.
  6. Tyler Ichenberg via Facebook says:
    I wish I could like this ten times..
    I wish I could like this ten times..
  7. Miguel Faria via Facebook says:
    No, because stupidity and ignorance can't be brought into regular logical arguments. What the last slide should read is: "I know God doesn't exist and Bambi is a more believable fable, but we all need something to believe in, don't we?" But then that would just be the truth and that's not funny, it just is.
    No, because stupidity and ignorance can't be brought into regular logical arguments. What the last slide should read is: "I know God doesn't exist and Bambi is a more believable fable, but we all need something to believe in, don't we?" But then that would just be the truth and that's not funny, it just is.
  8. Brian Rogers via Facebook says:
    My belief in science and logic is enough for me. And poking fun at people who take their religion way too seriously.
    My belief in science and logic is enough for me. And poking fun at people who take their religion way too seriously.
  9. Joe Draper says:
    @[100000901686330:2048:Ian O'Connell]: hypotheses are meant to by investigated and proved right or wrong, not left alone for thousands of years :P lol
    @[100000901686330:2048:Ian O'Connell]: hypotheses are meant to by investigated and proved right or wrong, not left alone for thousands of years :P lol
  10. Eric Mintz says:
    Brian Rogers Oh shit, they gonna burn me at the stake! No wait, I'm black. THEY'LL MAKE ME PICK COTTON NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
    Brian Rogers Oh shit, they gonna burn me at the stake! No wait, I'm black. THEY'LL MAKE ME PICK COTTON NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  11. Tim Peterson says:
    Eric Mintz haters gonna hate
    Eric Mintz haters gonna hate
  12. Kash Whyte says:
    Tim Peterson do u really think that u r more advanced then the people of that time? because ur nt the reality is that THOSE ppl INVENTED math u just use it /:), we still havent figured out how the egyptians built the pyramids with their "primitive" technology so get of ur high horse and realize that they were jus as advanced mentaly as we are today we simply have the advantage of more invations to all the things the invented
    Tim Peterson do u really think that u r more advanced then the people of that time? because ur nt the reality is that THOSE ppl INVENTED math u just use it /:), we still havent figured out how the egyptians built the pyramids with their "primitive" technology so get of ur high horse and realize that they were jus as advanced mentaly as we are today we simply have the advantage of more invations to all the things the invented
  13. Brian Rogers says:
    Eric Mintz Contradictions? In teh bible?? *GASP!* lol
    Eric Mintz Contradictions? In teh bible?? *GASP!* lol
  14. Brian Rogers says:
    It was the @[29855179608:274:Flying Spaghetti Monster].
    It was the @[29855179608:274:Flying Spaghetti Monster].
  15. Eric Mintz says:
    Dood. The Fourth Day "God" made the sun and moon. No sun = no day. How the fuck do you explain this shit?
    Dood. The Fourth Day "God" made the sun and moon. No sun = no day. How the fuck do you explain this shit?
  16. Eric Mintz says:
    If the devil is bad, and was banished to hell for being bad, but punishes bad people, doesn't that make him good?
    If the devil is bad, and was banished to hell for being bad, but punishes bad people, doesn't that make him good?
  17. Eric Mintz says:
    Religion: too many flaws, must be manmade.
    Religion: too many flaws, must be manmade.
  18. Tim Peterson says:
    or the creation part of the bible could have been the best way to describe it to people like 4500 years ago. telling people about imperfectly replicated DNA strands and disrupted ecosystems and strong and weak nuclear forces interacting at different levels is a waste of time when they're using clay and straw to make bricks.
    or the creation part of the bible could have been the best way to describe it to people like 4500 years ago. telling people about imperfectly replicated DNA strands and disrupted ecosystems and strong and weak nuclear forces interacting at different levels is a waste of time when they're using clay and straw to make bricks.
  19. Élise Coxhell says:
    Tika Hinds I will reply to you as you seem to have a modicum of sense unlike some other commenters so maybe what I have to say will be considered on its merit rather than straight-out dismissed. Firstly, yes if you actually research Scientology you would see that it is just as far from actual science as is any other religion. Secondly, I personally am very offended that you call science a religion. For someone who promotes tolerance and people being respectful, to categorise something like science in such a way because of your own beliefs is, I think, disrespectful. From what I understand, religion is a set of beliefs/faith in a particular God/Higher being/supernatural ruler, which requires certain rituals, moral codes and observances to be followed. Science has none of these characteristics. Science is a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. It is a field of knowledge like any other such as maths, geography or languages. The fundamental principles of science are exactly the opposite of what defines religion, which is faith in the absence of evidence. Yes, of course humankind has made errors along the way in understanding the basic laws that govern our universe, but that is to do with our limitations. Science is simply the name we give these universal rules and as our understanding of how the world around us works expands, so does the field of science. I do not worship these rules, and I do not accept them as ultimate truths that I must build my philosophy of right and wrong around, I simply use this field of knowledge to further my own understanding of how the world around me works on a physical level, the same way I use the principles of mathematics to work out that 1 + 1 equals 2. I do not care what religion you or anyone else follows, but I do find it silly that certain religious groups denigrate science and categorise it in the way you do because various aspects conflict with your faith. If the Bible said that 1+1=3, would you proclaim that the entire field of mathematics is false and those that believe it are just followers of a religion different to yours? Would you call me disrespectful if I told you 1+1=2? The fact that you looked up Scientology and tied it to science the way you did because of its name and presume that science is some sort of philosophy without doing any research into what you were talking about is exactly the type of thinking that leads to offensive mockery of religion as seen above. It is pompous assumptions such as "there is a religion for everything and thus there is one for those...you know what I am going to go look it up...Scientology is what it is called" that give religious groups and religious individuals a bad name. Because you have assumed and pressed your beliefs onto everyone reading that comment, which is exactly what you purport to disagree with. Now, I personally do not believe in the likelihood of a higher being, but I am not presumptuous enought to rule it out when I have absolutely no way of knowing that for certain. Which is exactly why I am not religious in any way, because believing in something despite lack of evidence is something I don't do. And to tell me that learning the information that has been gathered in the scientific field over thousands of years and believing it because I can apply it to the world around me makes me religious is just as intolerant and disrespectful as those mocking the church.
    Tika Hinds I will reply to you as you seem to have a modicum of sense unlike some other commenters so maybe what I have to say will be considered on its merit rather than straight-out dismissed. Firstly, yes if you actually research Scientology you would see that it is just as far from actual science as is any other religion. Secondly, I personally am very offended that you call science a religion. For someone who promotes tolerance and people being respectful, to categorise something like science in such a way because of your own beliefs is, I think, disrespectful. From what I understand, religion is a set of beliefs/faith in a particular God/Higher being/supernatural ruler, which requires certain rituals, moral codes and observances to be followed. Science has none of these characteristics. Science is a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. It is a field of knowledge like any other such as maths, geography or languages. The fundamental principles of science are exactly the opposite of what defines religion, which is faith in the absence of evidence. Yes, of course humankind has made errors along the way in understanding the basic laws that govern our universe, but that is to do with our limitations. Science is simply the name we give these universal rules and as our understanding of how the world around us works expands, so does the field of science. I do not worship these rules, and I do not accept them as ultimate truths that I must build my philosophy of right and wrong around, I simply use this field of knowledge to further my own understanding of how the world around me works on a physical level, the same way I use the principles of mathematics to work out that 1 + 1 equals 2. I do not care what religion you or anyone else follows, but I do find it silly that certain religious groups denigrate science and categorise it in the way you do because various aspects conflict with your faith. If the Bible said that 1+1=3, would you proclaim that the entire field of mathematics is false and those that believe it are just followers of a religion different to yours? Would you call me disrespectful if I told you 1+1=2? The fact that you looked up Scientology and tied it to science the way you did because of its name and presume that science is some sort of philosophy without doing any research into what you were talking about is exactly the type of thinking that leads to offensive mockery of religion as seen above. It is pompous assumptions such as "there is a religion for everything and thus there is one for those...you know what I am going to go look it up...Scientology is what it is called" that give religious groups and religious individuals a bad name. Because you have assumed and pressed your beliefs onto everyone reading that comment, which is exactly what you purport to disagree with. Now, I personally do not believe in the likelihood of a higher being, but I am not presumptuous enought to rule it out when I have absolutely no way of knowing that for certain. Which is exactly why I am not religious in any way, because believing in something despite lack of evidence is something I don't do. And to tell me that learning the information that has been gathered in the scientific field over thousands of years and believing it because I can apply it to the world around me makes me religious is just as intolerant and disrespectful as those mocking the church.
  20. Tierra Rideout says:
    Michael Laurich believing were the center of the universe is pretty arrogant too..
    Michael Laurich believing were the center of the universe is pretty arrogant too..
  21. Adam Bushfield says:
    Gotta say this: Who said 7 days to God was the same as 7 days to us? 7 days to him could be billions of years in the cosmos. And maybe he created cro-magnon human life and we simply evolved from that? If there IS a Higher Power, he could have the power to create a species with 93% similarities. Or he likes to mess with us and put all of the fossils and neanderthal remains in the earth as a prank; just to see what we'd do.
    Gotta say this: Who said 7 days to God was the same as 7 days to us? 7 days to him could be billions of years in the cosmos. And maybe he created cro-magnon human life and we simply evolved from that? If there IS a Higher Power, he could have the power to create a species with 93% similarities. Or he likes to mess with us and put all of the fossils and neanderthal remains in the earth as a prank; just to see what we'd do.
  22. Joe Draper says:
    you yourself sound arrogant, hahah. you're cramming your beliefs down other people's throats as well. Bigotry and Hypocracy, i say!
    you yourself sound arrogant, hahah. you're cramming your beliefs down other people's throats as well. Bigotry and Hypocracy, i say!
  23. Joe Draper says:
    Brian Rogers lol! "YO DAWG, I heard you like your opinions, so I put my opinion in your opinions so we can argue about not believing eachother's opinions!" haha (:
    Brian Rogers lol! "YO DAWG, I heard you like your opinions, so I put my opinion in your opinions so we can argue about not believing eachother's opinions!" haha (:
  24. Tim Peterson says:
    i'm not sure whether you're criticising people who read the bible and somehow come up with all of the above conclusions or people who figure their world view is perfectly proven and irrefutable. The only unassailable position I know of is "I don't know, but I suspect " which is the view a lot of reasonable people have whether they believe in a god or not
    i'm not sure whether you're criticising people who read the bible and somehow come up with all of the above conclusions or people who figure their world view is perfectly proven and irrefutable. The only unassailable position I know of is "I don't know, but I suspect " which is the view a lot of reasonable people have whether they believe in a god or not
  25. Brian Rogers says:
    HAHA Michael I feel the same way, that's why i can't stand religion.
    HAHA Michael I feel the same way, that's why i can't stand religion.
  26. Brian Rogers says:
    You don't have any proof for your beliefs either, so aren't you just as arrogant?
    You don't have any proof for your beliefs either, so aren't you just as arrogant?
  27. Tim Peterson says:
    Brian Rogers ... I can't tell who that last comment was for
    Brian Rogers ... I can't tell who that last comment was for
  28. Brian Rogers says:
    Tim Peterson It was for Michael. He wants to bitch about people shoving their beliefs down his throat while he shoves his belief down our throats. There's a "YO DAWG" joke in there somewhere...
    Tim Peterson It was for Michael. He wants to bitch about people shoving their beliefs down his throat while he shoves his belief down our throats. There's a "YO DAWG" joke in there somewhere...
  29. Brian Rogers says:
    Tim Peterson (When really we're all just voicing our opinions, but let's not let that get in the way of his self-righteous indignation)
    Tim Peterson (When really we're all just voicing our opinions, but let's not let that get in the way of his self-righteous indignation)
  30. Thyst Clark says:
    calling people arrogant while in the same sentence implying everyone is miserable who doesn't believe your fairy tales. lol
    calling people arrogant while in the same sentence implying everyone is miserable who doesn't believe your fairy tales. lol
  31. Michael Laurich says:
    I don't care what anyone believes, but to blatantly and arrogant as to completely say someone else is wrong when you don't even have the proof necessary to back it up. Stop shoving your beliefs down someone else's throat because you feel like they should be just as miserable as you.
    I don't care what anyone believes, but to blatantly and arrogant as to completely say someone else is wrong when you don't even have the proof necessary to back it up. Stop shoving your beliefs down someone else's throat because you feel like they should be just as miserable as you.
  32. Joe Draper says:
    @[100001031336631:2048:Shelley Yvonne] well let's not get carried away and say it's NOT true, for it has not been proven, nor not proven. i give everything the possibility. i just doubt most things, as any sane person should. lol i doubt until proven :P
    @[100001031336631:2048:Shelley Yvonne] well let's not get carried away and say it's NOT true, for it has not been proven, nor not proven. i give everything the possibility. i just doubt most things, as any sane person should. lol i doubt until proven :P
  33. Tim Peterson says:
    It's more of a question of how you've constructed your world view. If it's based on the Bible you might say 'hey, why do you believe that? ' and I'd say "well the Bible says that it's God inspired"and you'd probably be like "wtf, you can't prove that the Bible us true by quoting the Bible" and I'd be like "what do you believe? " and if you say logic and reason and I asked you why, you'd probably try and give logical and reasonable reasons why you believe what you believe... Which is a little like opening your Bible And that's one of the reasons people with different world views soot at each other and call each other dumb asses and use caps lock
    It's more of a question of how you've constructed your world view. If it's based on the Bible you might say 'hey, why do you believe that? ' and I'd say "well the Bible says that it's God inspired"and you'd probably be like "wtf, you can't prove that the Bible us true by quoting the Bible" and I'd be like "what do you believe? " and if you say logic and reason and I asked you why, you'd probably try and give logical and reasonable reasons why you believe what you believe... Which is a little like opening your Bible And that's one of the reasons people with different world views soot at each other and call each other dumb asses and use caps lock
  34. David Brazeal says:
    Michael Laurich ...You should believe in the almighty power of a spellcheck and a few books. "Been"...really? I hope you dont spell phonetically
    Michael Laurich ...You should believe in the almighty power of a spellcheck and a few books. "Been"...really? I hope you dont spell phonetically
  35. Tim Peterson says:
    Brian Rogers i see what you did there but i should point out non-catholic christians and catholics are like and and there are a lot of differences that result from that mostly boring things like the structure of the organisation and how much molestation is allowed
    Brian Rogers i see what you did there but i should point out non-catholic christians and catholics are like and and there are a lot of differences that result from that mostly boring things like the structure of the organisation and how much molestation is allowed
  36. Tim Peterson says:
    Brian Rogers in that period, the catholic church ran a lot like a corporation, so you're both sort of right. Whether it stool runs like that I'm not touching with a 2.74m pole
    Brian Rogers in that period, the catholic church ran a lot like a corporation, so you're both sort of right. Whether it stool runs like that I'm not touching with a 2.74m pole
  37. Brian Rogers says:
    Tim Peterson Oh I'll go there. I'd say it's run more like NAMBLA.
    Tim Peterson Oh I'll go there. I'd say it's run more like NAMBLA.
  38. Brian Rogers says:
    God of the gaps: As science illuminates our world, "god" retreats with the shadows. Just an ancient superstition.
    God of the gaps: As science illuminates our world, "god" retreats with the shadows. Just an ancient superstition.
  39. Michael Laurich says:
    so believing in a higher been is superstitious? How arrogant are you?
    so believing in a higher been is superstitious? How arrogant are you?
  40. Brian Rogers says:
    Michael Laurich I'm assuming you meant "being", but yes, I would say it's no different from believing in unicorns. Believe whatever you feel like believing, but that doesn't make it true.
    Michael Laurich I'm assuming you meant "being", but yes, I would say it's no different from believing in unicorns. Believe whatever you feel like believing, but that doesn't make it true.
  41. Kristen Lewis says:
    Brian Rogers WAIT WAIT WAIT! Unicorns aren't real? Fuck! Next you're gonna tell me Santa is just a corporate scheme to commercialize a holiday....
    Brian Rogers WAIT WAIT WAIT! Unicorns aren't real? Fuck! Next you're gonna tell me Santa is just a corporate scheme to commercialize a holiday....
  42. Brian Rogers says:
    Kristen Lewis Hate to break it to you, the holiday itself doesn't even have anything to do with Christ, just got rolled into Xianity to make converting Pagans easier.
    Kristen Lewis Hate to break it to you, the holiday itself doesn't even have anything to do with Christ, just got rolled into Xianity to make converting Pagans easier.
  43. Brian Rogers says:
    Michael Laurich *facepalm* Do you take everything you read literally? That would actually explain a lot. I understand the different parts of the bible have different ages, but it's irrelevant. It's from before the age of understanding (it was written by a bunch of bronze-age goat herders), so as a cultural relic it is invaluable, but as a guide for living your life in modern times it is practically worthless. Secondly, just because I don't have *ALL* the answers (who does?) doesn't mean i can't be right about *ANYTHING*. I know enough to know that religion is bullshit, whether is Xianity or any other ancient mythology. Am i 100% sure of it? No, but I'm sure enough.
    Michael Laurich *facepalm* Do you take everything you read literally? That would actually explain a lot. I understand the different parts of the bible have different ages, but it's irrelevant. It's from before the age of understanding (it was written by a bunch of bronze-age goat herders), so as a cultural relic it is invaluable, but as a guide for living your life in modern times it is practically worthless. Secondly, just because I don't have *ALL* the answers (who does?) doesn't mean i can't be right about *ANYTHING*. I know enough to know that religion is bullshit, whether is Xianity or any other ancient mythology. Am i 100% sure of it? No, but I'm sure enough.
  44. Michael Laurich says:
    Brian Rogers Obviously you don't since you believe the Bible to be only 2000 years old. Secondly you contradicted yourself because you said you don't have all the answers so how can you be right?
    Brian Rogers Obviously you don't since you believe the Bible to be only 2000 years old. Secondly you contradicted yourself because you said you don't have all the answers so how can you be right?
  45. Tika Hinds says:
    Mushion Den Ouden Well obviously I didn't continue reading on the subject. That was my mistake. Just for the record I would like to respectfully disagree on paragraph 2. If you wish to further persue the subject just holler. You know my facebook. I think you are the kind of person I was begging whoever cared to read my post to be (you know: tolerant, respectful of others, reasonable). It is always your type that answer my comments and our arguments go nowhere because they are either misunderstandings or basic differences of opinion. Wow....Nothing else for me to say...argument resolved then?
    Mushion Den Ouden Well obviously I didn't continue reading on the subject. That was my mistake. Just for the record I would like to respectfully disagree on paragraph 2. If you wish to further persue the subject just holler. You know my facebook. I think you are the kind of person I was begging whoever cared to read my post to be (you know: tolerant, respectful of others, reasonable). It is always your type that answer my comments and our arguments go nowhere because they are either misunderstandings or basic differences of opinion. Wow....Nothing else for me to say...argument resolved then?
  46. Brian Rogers says:
    Michael Laurich Way to make an argument without making an argument.
    Michael Laurich Way to make an argument without making an argument.
  47. Michael Laurich says:
    Joseph Morales Im not catholic they destroyed the bible.
    Joseph Morales Im not catholic they destroyed the bible.
  48. Brian Rogers says:
    Science isn't about having all the answers, it's about exploring and finding those answers, not just being spoon-fed something out of a 2000 year old book. Science is a journey, not a destination. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean it's worthless.
    Science isn't about having all the answers, it's about exploring and finding those answers, not just being spoon-fed something out of a 2000 year old book. Science is a journey, not a destination. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean it's worthless.
  49. Michael Laurich says:
    Brian Rogers If you're going to make an argument and criticism things make sure you know what your talking about first. Also revise your last statement because it contradicts all others you have said before it.
    Brian Rogers If you're going to make an argument and criticism things make sure you know what your talking about first. Also revise your last statement because it contradicts all others you have said before it.
  50. Michael Laurich says:
    By the way nice statement get it off a card?
    By the way nice statement get it off a card?
  51. Brian Rogers says:
    Michael Laurich How is what i said a contradiction? I know damn well what i'm talking about, do you?
    Michael Laurich How is what i said a contradiction? I know damn well what i'm talking about, do you?
  52. Joseph Morales says:
    it is ok to believe in god you can believe in science and a hire power all this proves is that everything the church tells you is bull shit, never believe the church.
    it is ok to believe in god you can believe in science and a hire power all this proves is that everything the church tells you is bull shit, never believe the church.
  53. Stefan Lundqvist says:
    Too much BS to respond to, so i'll just fling this one out: Guns don't kill people, religion does.
    Too much BS to respond to, so i'll just fling this one out: Guns don't kill people, religion does.
  54. Zach Wheeler says:
    The last one is a real irritant. Just because we evolved from monkeys, how does that prove God didn't create us? Is it so far-fetched for God to use evolution as a tool?
    The last one is a real irritant. Just because we evolved from monkeys, how does that prove God didn't create us? Is it so far-fetched for God to use evolution as a tool?
  55. Joe Draper says:
    prove to me that there is a god and you get a cookie. with SUBSTANTIAL, PROVABLE, REPRODUCABLE, LOGICAL evidence and reasoning.
    prove to me that there is a god and you get a cookie. with SUBSTANTIAL, PROVABLE, REPRODUCABLE, LOGICAL evidence and reasoning.
  56. Ian O'Connell says:
    He's nothing more then an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
    He's nothing more then an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
  57. Joe Draper says:
    @[100000901686330:2048:Ian O'Connell]: hypotheses are meant to by investigated and proved right or wrong, not left alone for thousands of years :P lol
    @[100000901686330:2048:Ian O'Connell]: hypotheses are meant to by investigated and proved right or wrong, not left alone for thousands of years :P lol
  58. Shelley Yvonne says:
    He's nonexistent.
    He's nonexistent.
  59. Ian O'Connell says:
    Well I could also say I can fly when no ones looking its the same idea as god. You cannot prove I cannot fly.
    Well I could also say I can fly when no ones looking its the same idea as god. You cannot prove I cannot fly.
  60. Mushion Den Ouden says:
    Tika Hinds Scientology is in no way related to actual science. I do not disrespect anyone who chooses to believe in the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran etc. I'm just saying that science is not a religion. It's the observation of reality as we can perceive it. And since technology is ever evolving, yes, science makes mistakes. And you misunderstood my comment about editing the bible. I don't think it should be updated, as long as people don't take it too literal. There's a lot to be learned from the Bible, but I don't actually believe that Eve was created out of the rib of Adam. I'm not trying to disrespect you or any other religious person, whether they're Hindu, Taoist, Christian, etc. I'm just trying to explain how science is different from religion. Whether you believe in God or Allah, that's your own choice and I won't find anyone on that, because it's always possible there's a creator. I think it's a small possibility, but I am but a tiny little human and I might be wrong.
    Tika Hinds Scientology is in no way related to actual science. I do not disrespect anyone who chooses to believe in the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran etc. I'm just saying that science is not a religion. It's the observation of reality as we can perceive it. And since technology is ever evolving, yes, science makes mistakes. And you misunderstood my comment about editing the bible. I don't think it should be updated, as long as people don't take it too literal. There's a lot to be learned from the Bible, but I don't actually believe that Eve was created out of the rib of Adam. I'm not trying to disrespect you or any other religious person, whether they're Hindu, Taoist, Christian, etc. I'm just trying to explain how science is different from religion. Whether you believe in God or Allah, that's your own choice and I won't find anyone on that, because it's always possible there's a creator. I think it's a small possibility, but I am but a tiny little human and I might be wrong.
  61. Tika Hinds says:
    Mushion Den Ouden there is a religion for everything and thus there is one for those...you know what I am going to go look it up...Scientology is what it is called. Aparantly their church is not physical. I am not arguing my beliefs today, I just wish to see more tolerence from both sides. Rather, I do not think you understood my plea. I speak out for respect. The respect I think I should get when I tell you just because you say the world just came to be, I say that something greater than me started the process. The respect I think you should recieve when I say I believe that the bible doesn't need to be updated while you say it should. *Notice how I do not imply that any part of your ideas should change so that they should be religiously correct.
    Mushion Den Ouden there is a religion for everything and thus there is one for those...you know what I am going to go look it up...Scientology is what it is called. Aparantly their church is not physical. I am not arguing my beliefs today, I just wish to see more tolerence from both sides. Rather, I do not think you understood my plea. I speak out for respect. The respect I think I should get when I tell you just because you say the world just came to be, I say that something greater than me started the process. The respect I think you should recieve when I say I believe that the bible doesn't need to be updated while you say it should. *Notice how I do not imply that any part of your ideas should change so that they should be religiously correct.
  62. Eric Mintz says:
    Kash Whyte What is this fool speaking of. A. no one said anything about math. B. No one said anything about primitive technology. C. You're a dumbfuck
    Kash Whyte What is this fool speaking of. A. no one said anything about math. B. No one said anything about primitive technology. C. You're a dumbfuck
  63. Michael Laurich says:
    Explain where all the mass was created before the big bang happened? If your law of perfect physics and science claims that mass cannot be created nor destroyed where did it all come from then?
    Explain where all the mass was created before the big bang happened? If your law of perfect physics and science claims that mass cannot be created nor destroyed where did it all come from then?
  64. Michael Laurich says:
    Plus to be arrogant is to believe your way is the only way. I do not deny science but I do not deny God. I believe that he could have used science to create the universe. Prove to me where all that mass came from and throw out years and years of that mass is neither created nor destroyed and crash everything done in the work of science and than I'll still believe what i want.
    Plus to be arrogant is to believe your way is the only way. I do not deny science but I do not deny God. I believe that he could have used science to create the universe. Prove to me where all that mass came from and throw out years and years of that mass is neither created nor destroyed and crash everything done in the work of science and than I'll still believe what i want.
  65. Joseph Jeong says:
    Tim Peterson You sir, made my day.
    Tim Peterson You sir, made my day.
  66. Tika Hinds says:
    That is so friggin biased. Scientists have made their friggin share of incorrect findings and assumptions. Urggg I'm so tired of making the same arguements. I am a christian and I have a crapload of unchristian friends, no one is trying to shove my religion down their throats but every where I go on the internet you people are trying to tell me that my God isn't real. I respect your opionions and beliefs whether it be atheism or that [religion] of science or the worship of nature and I emplore you (vainly maybe but optimism drives me) to perpetuate that respect to others who may not share the same beliefs/opinions as you. Not everyone will be tolorent but why number yourself with those people who aren't? It doesn't make sense to me because according to this picture and the many commentors who agree with it, they didn't appreciate the intolerence shown then or at present.
    That is so friggin biased. Scientists have made their friggin share of incorrect findings and assumptions. Urggg I'm so tired of making the same arguements. I am a christian and I have a crapload of unchristian friends, no one is trying to shove my religion down their throats but every where I go on the internet you people are trying to tell me that my God isn't real. I respect your opionions and beliefs whether it be atheism or that [religion] of science or the worship of nature and I emplore you (vainly maybe but optimism drives me) to perpetuate that respect to others who may not share the same beliefs/opinions as you. Not everyone will be tolorent but why number yourself with those people who aren't? It doesn't make sense to me because according to this picture and the many commentors who agree with it, they didn't appreciate the intolerence shown then or at present.
  67. Mushion Den Ouden says:
    Scientists indeed are wrong a lot of the time. I agree with you there. Which is why the scientist catch phrase is: 'We don't know!' In science, as more research gets done and more things get discovered, views are adjusted on what is observed. People who are Bible-Literalists (which is not a word, but you get point) deny these findings, because it's not in their holy book. And I'm very certain in the past 2000 years no one has edited the bible so that it is scientifically correct. I'm not going to discuss whether God is real or not. But you can't tell me science is a religion.
    Scientists indeed are wrong a lot of the time. I agree with you there. Which is why the scientist catch phrase is: 'We don't know!' In science, as more research gets done and more things get discovered, views are adjusted on what is observed. People who are Bible-Literalists (which is not a word, but you get point) deny these findings, because it's not in their holy book. And I'm very certain in the past 2000 years no one has edited the bible so that it is scientifically correct. I'm not going to discuss whether God is real or not. But you can't tell me science is a religion.
  68. Dale Mercier says:
    Tierra Rideout totally agree
    Tierra Rideout totally agree
  69. Dale Mercier says:
    Religion is an excuse to control mankind. It was made so that all higher power kings and rulers would have something to fear. If we could all stop believing in a higher power, and start believing in each other as HUMAN BEINGS, maybe we would achieve a lot more!
    Religion is an excuse to control mankind. It was made so that all higher power kings and rulers would have something to fear. If we could all stop believing in a higher power, and start believing in each other as HUMAN BEINGS, maybe we would achieve a lot more!
  70. Dan Nelson says:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dSyT50Cs8&feature=related <---- watch this...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dSyT50Cs8&feature=related <---- watch this...
  71. Cory Mason says:
    The whole side for "science" is an appeal to authority. Throw out a bunch of names and theories without much in the way of facts. The whole side for the "church" is a straw man. Use the historical sayings of the catholic church, one of the more screwed up branches of Christianity that misrepresents the Bible anyway(many of those sayings came from catholic misinterpretation of the Bible). Doesn't matter which side is correct. The use of fallacies just makes the accuser("science") look bad. I don't want to start a fight, just pointing out the problems here.
    The whole side for "science" is an appeal to authority. Throw out a bunch of names and theories without much in the way of facts. The whole side for the "church" is a straw man. Use the historical sayings of the catholic church, one of the more screwed up branches of Christianity that misrepresents the Bible anyway(many of those sayings came from catholic misinterpretation of the Bible). Doesn't matter which side is correct. The use of fallacies just makes the accuser("science") look bad. I don't want to start a fight, just pointing out the problems here.
  72. Shawn Lee says:
    Sc
    Sc
  73. Shawn Lee says:
    Science without religion is lame.-Albert Einstein
    Science without religion is lame.-Albert Einstein
  74. William Alexander Dodd says:
    Not to mention the fact that the first three for "science" excluding the dinosaur were all very devoutly religious men that noticed the fallacies of the church doctrine and sought to change them.
    Not to mention the fact that the first three for "science" excluding the dinosaur were all very devoutly religious men that noticed the fallacies of the church doctrine and sought to change them.
  75. Cory Mason says:
    @[100001032373820:2048:William Alexander Dodd] Also Stephen Hawking is generally acknowledged to have some really whacked-out theories that don't make sense, not to mention that his field is essentially just hypotheses with little to no proof.
    @[100001032373820:2048:William Alexander Dodd] Also Stephen Hawking is generally acknowledged to have some really whacked-out theories that don't make sense, not to mention that his field is essentially just hypotheses with little to no proof.
  76. William Alexander Dodd says:
    @[100001644698474:2048:Cory Mason] there's also the fact that every single other "scientist" at those times agreed with the Catholic church and never once tried to prove them wrong.
    @[100001644698474:2048:Cory Mason] there's also the fact that every single other "scientist" at those times agreed with the Catholic church and never once tried to prove them wrong.
  77. Cory Mason says:
    What about human beings is there to believe in? The history of man is full of war and hate, plenty of which were caused by people who didn't believe in a god(Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, etc). Also pretty much no rulers believe in a god anymore so if that is the problem then your point is invalid. And the only people that believe in God are considered to be fools and all the smart, reputable people do not believe in a god, so how could the human race achieve more if all the people believed to be making a difference are already free from religion?
    What about human beings is there to believe in? The history of man is full of war and hate, plenty of which were caused by people who didn't believe in a god(Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, etc). Also pretty much no rulers believe in a god anymore so if that is the problem then your point is invalid. And the only people that believe in God are considered to be fools and all the smart, reputable people do not believe in a god, so how could the human race achieve more if all the people believed to be making a difference are already free from religion?
  78. Dale Mercier says:
    Cory Mason ACTUALLY, if you had read Mein Kampf it details Hitler's religious views as being a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. So much so, that he wanted to PURGE the world of Judaism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views Sure there has been lots of hatred and war, but if you're basing your information on the 2 world wars, then understand that these have started with only a few persons having too much power. There are MANY rulers who still believe in their religion, just not so much so in Western society. All I'm saying, is open your vision to the possibility of their being no god of any form or religion, and to understand that although few having tainted the books of history with what some would call "pure evil", that there are many who do just the opposite and enlighten our world (Gandhi, Dalai Lama, Buddha, etc.) I personally live by the words of Gandhi, he was always unbiased (although being a Hindu). My main issue with religion, are the sacrifices some require people to take rather than enjoying the life we have. These sacrifices are to be granting entrance to a garden of Eden or "Heaven". Some religions (such as Islam) believe that dying in battle protecting your country is honourable and will grant you 30 virgins in the heavens. This almost removes the ability for self preservation in most Islam believers and can be found by most Taliban. The list goes on and on and this could go back and forth forever (which it has before) so I will end it with; Just know that the technology we have today enables us to save countless lives and protect even more, it was no god that found this technology, but us Humans.
    Cory Mason ACTUALLY, if you had read Mein Kampf it details Hitler's religious views as being a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. So much so, that he wanted to PURGE the world of Judaism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views Sure there has been lots of hatred and war, but if you're basing your information on the 2 world wars, then understand that these have started with only a few persons having too much power. There are MANY rulers who still believe in their religion, just not so much so in Western society. All I'm saying, is open your vision to the possibility of their being no god of any form or religion, and to understand that although few having tainted the books of history with what some would call "pure evil", that there are many who do just the opposite and enlighten our world (Gandhi, Dalai Lama, Buddha, etc.) I personally live by the words of Gandhi, he was always unbiased (although being a Hindu). My main issue with religion, are the sacrifices some require people to take rather than enjoying the life we have. These sacrifices are to be granting entrance to a garden of Eden or "Heaven". Some religions (such as Islam) believe that dying in battle protecting your country is honourable and will grant you 30 virgins in the heavens. This almost removes the ability for self preservation in most Islam believers and can be found by most Taliban. The list goes on and on and this could go back and forth forever (which it has before) so I will end it with; Just know that the technology we have today enables us to save countless lives and protect even more, it was no god that found this technology, but us Humans.
  79. Cory Mason says:
    Dale Mercier Hitler may have claimed he was a Christian, but anyone can claim Christianity or any other religion, it doesn't necessarily mean that their behavior reflects on that religion. For example, the Catholic church claimed the Crusades were God's will, but that doesn't mean the Crusades actually were God's will or that the horrible acts perpetrated in the Crusades reflect on God or Christianity. No, I haven't read Mein Kampf, but there is nothing in the Christian faith that details the purging of Judaism. I'm not trying to be insulting, but you said that I need to open my eyes to the possibility of no God, yet you seem to be closed to the possibility that there is a God just because you don't like the fact that if God does exist then you can't live any way that you want. But I have a qualifier for that: I agree with the point on Islam and various other religions that promise the world if you kill yourself or other people, etc. However the Bible, if interpreted properly, doesn't ask for any wild sacrifices. All that's asked is that a person live his or her life in a responsible and healthy way. Sure, you can't sleep around, but that prevents STDs, unwanted pregnancy, heartache, etc. Human law agrees with much of the rest, no theft, no murder, etc. The list goes on. In fact, there are things that are not deemed wrong by the Bible that a lot of people think are, such as piercings and tattoos. I don't expect you to change your mind, I just want it to be clear that Christianity isn't what most people think it is.
    Dale Mercier Hitler may have claimed he was a Christian, but anyone can claim Christianity or any other religion, it doesn't necessarily mean that their behavior reflects on that religion. For example, the Catholic church claimed the Crusades were God's will, but that doesn't mean the Crusades actually were God's will or that the horrible acts perpetrated in the Crusades reflect on God or Christianity. No, I haven't read Mein Kampf, but there is nothing in the Christian faith that details the purging of Judaism. I'm not trying to be insulting, but you said that I need to open my eyes to the possibility of no God, yet you seem to be closed to the possibility that there is a God just because you don't like the fact that if God does exist then you can't live any way that you want. But I have a qualifier for that: I agree with the point on Islam and various other religions that promise the world if you kill yourself or other people, etc. However the Bible, if interpreted properly, doesn't ask for any wild sacrifices. All that's asked is that a person live his or her life in a responsible and healthy way. Sure, you can't sleep around, but that prevents STDs, unwanted pregnancy, heartache, etc. Human law agrees with much of the rest, no theft, no murder, etc. The list goes on. In fact, there are things that are not deemed wrong by the Bible that a lot of people think are, such as piercings and tattoos. I don't expect you to change your mind, I just want it to be clear that Christianity isn't what most people think it is.
  80. Dale Mercier says:
    Cory Mason well said!
    Cory Mason well said!
  81. David Trueit says:
    without religion the world would be a better place for there isn't anyone to fight and argue about which goddamn useless religion is better... other than religion usually color is the next speed bump that the human race has to get over.
    without religion the world would be a better place for there isn't anyone to fight and argue about which goddamn useless religion is better... other than religion usually color is the next speed bump that the human race has to get over.
  82. Ken Enderby says:
    i never thought of it like that
    i never thought of it like that
  83. David Trueit says:
    without religion the world would be a better place for there isn't anyone to fight and argue about which goddamn useless religion is better... other than religion usually color is the next speed bump that the human race has to get over.
    without religion the world would be a better place for there isn't anyone to fight and argue about which goddamn useless religion is better... other than religion usually color is the next speed bump that the human race has to get over.
  84. Ken Enderby says:
    i never thought of it like that
    i never thought of it like that
  85. Julian Reischl says:
    Tja, kein Ausweg mehr...
    Tja, kein Ausweg mehr...
  86. Ray Smith says:
    most scientists back then agreed with the church to avoid persecution. the scientists that disagreed with church theories were killed.
    most scientists back then agreed with the church to avoid persecution. the scientists that disagreed with church theories were killed.
  87. Ray Smith says:
    most scientists back then agreed with the church to avoid persecution. the scientists that disagreed with church theories were killed.
    most scientists back then agreed with the church to avoid persecution. the scientists that disagreed with church theories were killed.
  88. Cory Mason says:
    It's true that the Catholic church had a bad habit of killing people that disagreed with them, but that's still just the Catholic church, which is a really Biblically messed up religious sect that shouldn't even be considered related to Christianity. The Catholic church executed people for trying to translate the Bible in languages other than Latin because they liked having that leverage over the people, being able to claim the Bible said whatever they wanted it to say. This prevented anyone from learning for themselves and forced them to ignorantly follow superstitions set over them by the priesthood. So in short, the Catholic church isn't a legitimate point of argument against Christianity.
    It's true that the Catholic church had a bad habit of killing people that disagreed with them, but that's still just the Catholic church, which is a really Biblically messed up religious sect that shouldn't even be considered related to Christianity. The Catholic church executed people for trying to translate the Bible in languages other than Latin because they liked having that leverage over the people, being able to claim the Bible said whatever they wanted it to say. This prevented anyone from learning for themselves and forced them to ignorantly follow superstitions set over them by the priesthood. So in short, the Catholic church isn't a legitimate point of argument against Christianity.
  89. Ray Smith says:
    i understand what you are saying and disagree vehemently. the catholic church is a facet of christianity as sure as jehovas witnesses and apistolics are. i dont know of anyone who can draw the dividing line
    i understand what you are saying and disagree vehemently. the catholic church is a facet of christianity as sure as jehovas witnesses and apistolics are. i dont know of anyone who can draw the dividing line
  90. Cory Mason says:
    I haven't studied the Apostolics, but there is a big difference between Jehovah's witness and Christianity too. There are many beliefs the Jehovah's witnesses hold that aren't Biblical. The Jehovah's witness and Catholicism may be distant branches of Christianity at best, or totally separate from Christianity at worst. The dividing line is the extra-Biblical beliefs and practices that they've adopted(and those extra-biblical ideas are what cause all the contradictions in and confusion about Christianity). But really whether they're related to Christianity or not doesn't matter all that much here. I just don't want people to target specific Catholic, JW, or any other denomination or sect's beliefs and use them as the focal point of their argument against all of Christianity, because not all Christians believe the same things Catholics do or the things Jehovah's witnesses do, etc.
    I haven't studied the Apostolics, but there is a big difference between Jehovah's witness and Christianity too. There are many beliefs the Jehovah's witnesses hold that aren't Biblical. The Jehovah's witness and Catholicism may be distant branches of Christianity at best, or totally separate from Christianity at worst. The dividing line is the extra-Biblical beliefs and practices that they've adopted(and those extra-biblical ideas are what cause all the contradictions in and confusion about Christianity). But really whether they're related to Christianity or not doesn't matter all that much here. I just don't want people to target specific Catholic, JW, or any other denomination or sect's beliefs and use them as the focal point of their argument against all of Christianity, because not all Christians believe the same things Catholics do or the things Jehovah's witnesses do, etc.
  91. Ray Smith says:
    again, i do understand what you are saying, but methodists, like JW or catholics also have extra ceremonies that arent exactly biblical, and i dont know that you could make a case for them being unrelated to christianity. however, we have strayed fairly far from my original statement saying that the church, as a whole, and not just catholics have persecuted those who do not share the same beliefs. for example "While a dissenter from its official Church was only faced with fines and imprisonment in Protestant England, six people were executed for heresy or blasphemy during the reign of Elizabeth I, and two more in 1612 under James I.[14]" this was protestant england and not catholic at all. this is cited from wikipedia. not necessarily the athourity by any means, but the citations i read did seem very valid. there are several mentions of other persecutions by other sects, so claimng that it was done by the catholics is far to absolute of a statement as many religions have been putting "blasphemers" and heretics to death since religion was first dreamed up. also, i agree that you cannot target a specific branch of religion, it seems that all of them are capable of atrocities, equally perhaps. lol with perhaps the exception of the jedi church or buddhism. they seem pretty peaceful.
    again, i do understand what you are saying, but methodists, like JW or catholics also have extra ceremonies that arent exactly biblical, and i dont know that you could make a case for them being unrelated to christianity. however, we have strayed fairly far from my original statement saying that the church, as a whole, and not just catholics have persecuted those who do not share the same beliefs. for example "While a dissenter from its official Church was only faced with fines and imprisonment in Protestant England, six people were executed for heresy or blasphemy during the reign of Elizabeth I, and two more in 1612 under James I.[14]" this was protestant england and not catholic at all. this is cited from wikipedia. not necessarily the athourity by any means, but the citations i read did seem very valid. there are several mentions of other persecutions by other sects, so claimng that it was done by the catholics is far to absolute of a statement as many religions have been putting "blasphemers" and heretics to death since religion was first dreamed up. also, i agree that you cannot target a specific branch of religion, it seems that all of them are capable of atrocities, equally perhaps. lol with perhaps the exception of the jedi church or buddhism. they seem pretty peaceful.
  92. Cory Mason says:
    I'll grant you that. People will have done and still do some terrible things in the name of religion. I think I had this discussion with someone else, who said that Hitler claimed to be doing all the things he did as a Christian(I haven't studied so I don't know personally). Perhaps we can just agree that even though a religion teaches one thing, the religion itself can't be blamed if a member or members of that religion choose to act contrary to the teaching?
    I'll grant you that. People will have done and still do some terrible things in the name of religion. I think I had this discussion with someone else, who said that Hitler claimed to be doing all the things he did as a Christian(I haven't studied so I don't know personally). Perhaps we can just agree that even though a religion teaches one thing, the religion itself can't be blamed if a member or members of that religion choose to act contrary to the teaching?
  93. Ray Smith says:
    religion teaches one thing, and cant be blamed if people do things in the name of religion is something i can certainly agree to. in fact i dont blame religion for anything, i prefer to assign the blame to the individual. in my first comment i only said "the church" because i don't know which people specifically ordered the scientists with opposing views to be executed. i think the royalty was more to blame than the church, possibly because as you stated the church was a tool used by the monarchy to control masses. That seems more in keeping with what i understand about the monarchy.
    religion teaches one thing, and cant be blamed if people do things in the name of religion is something i can certainly agree to. in fact i dont blame religion for anything, i prefer to assign the blame to the individual. in my first comment i only said "the church" because i don't know which people specifically ordered the scientists with opposing views to be executed. i think the royalty was more to blame than the church, possibly because as you stated the church was a tool used by the monarchy to control masses. That seems more in keeping with what i understand about the monarchy.
  94. Justin T. Noonan says:
    Untrue, without religion we would just find some other stupid shit to fight over to prove that we are better than those people over there. *points* Those bastards over there are clearly inferior, we must kill them and take their land.
    Untrue, without religion we would just find some other stupid shit to fight over to prove that we are better than those people over there. *points* Those bastards over there are clearly inferior, we must kill them and take their land.
  95. Bryanna Roteliuk says:
    god vs. science... COMBINE THEM. Let's just say god created the big bang, which created the universe... DONE
    god vs. science... COMBINE THEM. Let's just say god created the big bang, which created the universe... DONE
  96. Chris Mohrbacher says:
    Note: Those are valid insults against the catholic church... not religion in general, or even the bible. 1- The bible taught the earth was round long before science (Isaiah 40:21-22). 2- The biblical creation account never suggests that the earth was created in 168 hours. It gave 7 steps of creation with no specified unit of measurement. Catholics decided they must be 24 hour periods. They could have been instantaneous, trillions of years... or anything in between. Don't blame God for men making stupid assumptions. 3- Read up on Einstein... the earth IS the center of the universe. As is any point in the universe from which you measure your reference frame. In an infinite universe, there's is equally infinite space in all directions at any given point in time... therefore, you literally are the center of the universe... from your frame of reference.... although science makes that pressupposition... the bible never suggests it. 4- The bible directly states that there is intelligent life outside of earth. If God and angels existed before earth, obviously they're not FROM earth. Who's to say "angels" don't have a home planet (or system+), thus are simply aliens? Lastly... Yes, intelligent design is a matter of faith. Creationists acknowledge this. However, sure evolutionists are of how the process works once started... any serious evolutionist will admit that the theory makes no postulates as to how the process started. Whether you believe something magically put life on earth... or life magically put itself on earth... the idea is a question of faith. The choice is, do you believe it's more likely that this mysterious event had a cause or not? Science doesn't support blind faith in an evolutionary process people accept solely to escape an alternative theory they don't like.
    Note: Those are valid insults against the catholic church... not religion in general, or even the bible. 1- The bible taught the earth was round long before science (Isaiah 40:21-22). 2- The biblical creation account never suggests that the earth was created in 168 hours. It gave 7 steps of creation with no specified unit of measurement. Catholics decided they must be 24 hour periods. They could have been instantaneous, trillions of years... or anything in between. Don't blame God for men making stupid assumptions. 3- Read up on Einstein... the earth IS the center of the universe. As is any point in the universe from which you measure your reference frame. In an infinite universe, there's is equally infinite space in all directions at any given point in time... therefore, you literally are the center of the universe... from your frame of reference.... although science makes that pressupposition... the bible never suggests it. 4- The bible directly states that there is intelligent life outside of earth. If God and angels existed before earth, obviously they're not FROM earth. Who's to say "angels" don't have a home planet (or system+), thus are simply aliens? Lastly... Yes, intelligent design is a matter of faith. Creationists acknowledge this. However, sure evolutionists are of how the process works once started... any serious evolutionist will admit that the theory makes no postulates as to how the process started. Whether you believe something magically put life on earth... or life magically put itself on earth... the idea is a question of faith. The choice is, do you believe it's more likely that this mysterious event had a cause or not? Science doesn't support blind faith in an evolutionary process people accept solely to escape an alternative theory they don't like.