Standards Of Truth: Science v. Religion? (priests, Earth, Kingdom, elder)

[uumckk16]

Originally Posted by youngobadiah

Are people on this site simply non-religious or what!

Welcome. There are many religious people here. But not all of them accept the Bible as the truth or as 100% accurate.

Originally Posted by youngobadiah

Psalm 104:
'15And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.'
How long did it take for people to understand this!

Uh...understand what? That wine makes people happy? Except...alcohol is a depressant.

Originally Posted by youngobadiah

Lets admit it science has ruined our earth.

Science hasn't. People have.

Originally Posted by youngobadiah

one may say we have gained great things through science but look at the state of this earth now. Its nearly ruined!

We have gained great things through science. Medicine, anyone?

Originally Posted by Draka

Standards for science are higher. Religion is based on non-provable "faith" led theories. It is what is "felt" or possibly read in a book. There is no basis for "truth" for religion except personal feelings and interpretations of internal and external factors. Whereas science must be proven through repeatable tests and experiments. The standards are higher for "proof" and therefore "truth".

I agree. Even religious beliefs that focus mainly on the use of reason - such as deism - require faith. Not that that is bad (note that I am a theist), but Draka is right - science is proven factually while religion is mostly faith-based.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by vic

I just don't stop there.

Linearly speaking, which direction are you careening in, though?

What bears questioning regarding standards of truth (i think) would be a small aside as to the dimensioning available for describing truth, in all it's big knobby glory!

[Victor]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

Linearly speaking, which direction are you careening in, though?

What bears questioning regarding standards of truth (i think) would be a small aside as to the dimensioning available for describing truth, in all it's big knobby glory!

I lean toward parsimony and go from there. If my senses and emperical perceptions don't relate to it (which is long winded process through experience, etc.) then several possibilities start dropping like flies. Santa Claus dropped long ago....

[uumckk16]

Originally Posted by Victor

I'm lean toward parsimony and go from there. If my senses and emperical perceptions don't relate to it (which is long winded process through experience, etc.) then several possibilities start dropping like flies. Santa Claus dropped long ago....

What?? Santa?? You mean...he doesn't exist??

[maty]

Thank you sunstone

[krashlocke]

I would assert that there are truths found in neither science nor religion as both require faith - either in metaphysics or in empiricism. The weight of the standards for each is determined largely in the context of the society's value on each. The largely secular society of America, for instance, clearly holds higher standards for science, even using science as a "truth-determining" tool for the bible. Many middle-eastern societies, on the other hand, will hold religion to higher standards and will use it to prove and justify empiricism. It's simply too relative.

[alexander garcia]

Hi, I would like to say something. If we look at the truth it is simple to answer this question. What does science state ? If we can find one thing wrong through out the book. Well can any one come up with this one thing? I have hurd many try but not one lagit answer. Now lets put science to the same test. Now because this is funny to me, I'll first give your answer . That was years ago and we know the truth now. HAHA Is the world still flat? cause science has MURDERED many people for not believing that lie from the devil. Now the question is how many more lives will be lost to science. Facists are based on science and evolution.

[MaddLlama]

They are two totally different systems with different standards. Comparing apples to kumquats never really works.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by alexander garcia

Hi, I would like to say something. If we look at the truth it is simple to answer this question. What does science state ? If we can find one thing wrong through out the book. Well can any one come up with this one thing? I have hurd many try but not one lagit answer. Now lets put science to the same test. Now because this is funny to me, I'll first give your answer . That was years ago and we know the truth now. HAHA Is the world still flat? cause science has MURDERED many people for not believing that lie from the devil. Now the question is how many more lives will be lost to science. Facists are based on science and evolution.

You make a number of wholly unsubstantiated claims here. Would you care to take even just one of your claims and back it up with referenced fact?

[gnostic]

The problem is that many theists confused truths with facts. They are not always the same. Sometimes truth and fact are one, but sometimes they are not. Truth is more subjective, and more faith-based. The problem is that truth don't always require it to be substantiated with evidence that can prove or disprove it, and that's where the difference lies between truth and fact.