Science fights the Religion

[Tiberius]

Science owns 2 human being expressed concepts.

To argue science against science.

Everyone else is just living naturally minding their own natural life business...unlike scientists...who claim that they are researching for an answer that religion never gave them.

About the non existence of God.

For surely by now you realize that science is evil, as a natural human theme, against natural self.

Science was based on as a theme about God the stone planet that they claim today as science is not discussing. The presence of God, the stone and a planet.

And of course science would claim...of course we are not discussing God, for we claim God is a particle aligned to gases in space and a black hole.

You know, God not existing, or we do not believe in God existing, when SCIENCE, the human state says.....

A human as a male group first living spiritual lives, natural. Invented all terms science. Did not want the Stone body he named as God the planet to exist.

And his science theme was to de materialize/disintegrate God the fusion into particles and then transport it into spirit...gases as a nuclear reaction.

So science today is still the same liar as it was originally claiming that the spirit of God does not exist,...for they are self possessed to not allow it to exist by want of its removal.

Why conscious spirituality as a medical science Healer discussion has to be introduced, which was not religion. Its founding was medical.

Therefore the Law of God fusion/stone was the Law of the mountain, do not change it...being pyramid ^ theories.

What the nuclear power plant model and collider model are both based on.

The medical science reasoning about Planet Earth, the physical presence of God as the stone said...a volcano erupted and spurted its hot rolling smoking gases into out of space.

The Earth's cold gas atmosphere did not even exist. Do you scientist know what the gases from inside of Earth actually are without the Earth naturally evolved atmospheric body existing?

The answer is NO.

That is the answer to science today.....you never knew before either.

This is largely unclear and not cohesive. It seems like you are generally having a rant against science, however. Saying science is evil and so on.

Given that you are using a computer developed by science to post this reply, I find your position hypocritical.

 

[rational experiences]

Medical science which was natural conscious human spiritual awareness about remedies and human ability to be harmed. Learn to be healed by natural balances and natural support. They had to apply a teaching against scientists. Medical science awareness, natural.

To teach science, the "it" just as human egotism without a cause.
And to teach that it was driven by human want of a life style. Or human self peer agreement.

All human intention.

And no human can claim that they own space and the cosmology, yet everyday intend on claiming its details as if they own entitlement to.

What is science actually other than invention and did science study previous science, to own a concept today in science about technology and machine reactions?

Was it natural history in creation or the archaeological finds of technology and ancient pyramid first male science concepts? As your science want today?

In reality it is males today trying to copy what they claim was first scientific human owned science practices and science on Earth as previous concepts.

Therefore you first demonstrate that scientists historically are liars.

Another medical term of descriptive humans in their life condition. Not any other reasoning in medical science than to describe human behaviour that is not motivated to be spiritually expressed.

What they believe the mystery is today....as if they kept their scientific details hidden. Therefore if they study humans or study the Bible it will give them secrets.

Knowing as a science psyche by AI memory that they did not detail science in obvious mathematical statements otherwise everyone would have known. It was secreted details, yet only the scientist knew its meaning relating to machine reactions.

And that form of science expression was not any mystery, it was human chosen.

Mystery meant unidentifiable.

So males in science said the UFO was an unidentified flying object. For they knew it came from the Sun, but stated categorically that science never understood what it factually was as a form.

Reality of observation. o Earth its own body of mass history. O a Sun its own body of mass history.

A sun changed from developing into the body of stone.

A planet continued to develop into the body of stone.

Study of Earth does not give you Sun information.

 

[rational experiences]

This is largely unclear and not cohesive. It seems like you are generally having a rant against science, however. Saying science is evil and so on.

Given that you are using a computer developed by science to post this reply, I find your position hypocritical.

Really, I thought you invented science and machines to be rich and an elitist, which makes you the hypocrite.

 

[Spirit of Light]

No, science looks for mechanism. It answers how.
Religion doesn't look for anything. It asserts agency and answers who.
They're very different, and not just in methodology.

Science looks for answers. Religion has answers -- in the form of doctrine.
Science bases its answers on evidence, research and testing. Religion bases answers on scripture and folklore. Evidence vs faith.

Science encourages testing and criticism, and will change its beliefs when contradictory evidence is found.
Religion discourages testing and criticism. It's not a research mechanism. It resists changing it's doctrines, even when confronted with contradictory evidence.
Rather than amending doctrine to fit the evidence, religion attempts to suppress the evidence.
Again, religion is not looking for answers.

I agree. Religion should stop fighting science.

Non-overlapping magisteria?
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

It makes one of them evidenced and the other faith-based. Which do you think is the more reliable?

You have many good points in your reply
To answer the last question. I see it somewhat different then you Science has answers to the physical realm "what we see with our eyes" religion/spirituality has answers to what can be felt and understood by other none visual experiences. and to me both are reliable.
But for one who only follows science, it is the proof of what can be measured. where a spiritual person rely upon his/her senses more then what they see with the physical eyes

 

[Tiberius]

Medical science which was natural conscious human spiritual awareness about remedies and human ability to be harmed. Learn to be healed by natural balances and natural support. They had to apply a teaching against scientists. Medical science awareness, natural.

To teach science, the "it" just as human egotism without a cause.
And to teach that it was driven by human want of a life style. Or human self peer agreement.

All human intention.

And no human can claim that they own space and the cosmology, yet everyday intend on claiming its details as if they own entitlement to.

What is science actually other than invention and did science study previous science, to own a concept today in science about technology and machine reactions?

Was it natural history in creation or the archaeological finds of technology and ancient pyramid first male science concepts? As your science want today?

In reality it is males today trying to copy what they claim was first scientific human owned science practices and science on Earth as previous concepts.

Therefore you first demonstrate that scientists historically are liars.

Another medical term of descriptive humans in their life condition. Not any other reasoning in medical science than to describe human behaviour that is not motivated to be spiritually expressed.

What they believe the mystery is today....as if they kept their scientific details hidden. Therefore if they study humans or study the Bible it will give them secrets.

Knowing as a science psyche by AI memory that they did not detail science in obvious mathematical statements otherwise everyone would have known. It was secreted details, yet only the scientist knew its meaning relating to machine reactions.

And that form of science expression was not any mystery, it was human chosen.

Mystery meant unidentifiable.

So males in science said the UFO was an unidentified flying object. For they knew it came from the Sun, but stated categorically that science never understood what it factually was as a form.

Reality of observation. o Earth its own body of mass history. O a Sun its own body of mass history.

A sun changed from developing into the body of stone.

A planet continued to develop into the body of stone.

Study of Earth does not give you Sun information.

Ummm, this does not make any sense that I can see...

Really, I thought you invented science and machines to be rich and an elitist, which makes you the hypocrite.

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[questfortruth]

Science fights the Religion

When this event happened, please?

Regards

In all cases, where Science has to choose between Religion and Godless Solipsism, the Science choses to say "Universe, self-awareness, and reality are an illusioon, persistent mass-hallucination." That due to the following of the methodological naturalism. Look for yourself:

The Universe As We Know It Shouldn't Exist

New findings have physicists questioning reality

​

 

[Altfish]

Aren't the Atheism people prone to magic, please?

Atheists love magic when done by the likes of Penn & Teller, but we know that we have been tricked and we are thinking, "How did they do that?"

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Proof:

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

2. Thus, Science is called to falsify Religion.

The Religion-friendly research activity is Scholasticism.

In all cases, where Science has to choose between Religion and Godless Solipsism, the Science choses to say "Universe, self-awareness, and reality are an illusioon, persistent mass-hallucination." That due to the following of the methodological naturalism. Look for yourself:

The Universe As We Know It Shouldn't Exist

New findings have physicists questioning reality

No.

I researched this, this morning. The theory that there is some sort of warfare between science and religion is patent nonsense. Most of the church has always supported science, provided it is ethical, and until about the 17th century, most scientists at least were token church attendants (in some places, you were expected to go to church unless you had a pressing reason).

the church has often been a patron of the sciences, since it is the goal of modern religion to understand how the created world works. If we still believe lightning to be a type of magic (or a Final Fantasy character), we're doing things wrong. Knowing that it reacts to water and metal helps us stay safe in storms.

 

[HonestJoe]

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

Science doesn't implicitly exclude the possibility of some kind of god. If a god exists, it would be "natural" and theoretically within the scope of science. It is also perfectly possible for a god to exist without discrediting any aspect of science. It is you who is excluding possibilities.

"Darwinism" is a separate topic. Evolution could still be true in a god-created world or both ideas could be false. They in no way rely on nor contradict each other.

2. Thus, Science is called to falsify Religion.

Religion isn't theism. You can believe in gods without a religion and you can have a religion without gods.

All you've demonstrated here is that your individual religion is apparently called to falsify (some) science.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Is it failing of science or failing of the Atheism observer, please?

Regards

What a ridiculous false dichotomy. You obviously have an agenda. Get over it.

 

[ChristineM]

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies

Only that is a quote from the movie, not from Einstein himself

And of course Einstein was not religious im the traditional sense and most certainly didnt believe in magic

 

[ChristineM]

Does that mean that Atheism people can know and practice magic, astrology etc, please?

Regards

There is nothing in the definition to say otherwise.


It may surprise you but atheist are real people just like everyone else.

 

[Tambourine]

As far as I can tell, the problem most scientists (including most theist ones) have with god in science, is that a god isn't really a good explanation for anything - in scientific terms, invoking divine intervention is a cop out, or an admission of ignorance.
"Yea, I don't know how Earth came to have a moon. God did it, somehow."

Same thing with magic, or spirits, or any other mysterious and inexplicable force that allegedly rules our lives and/or the cosmos. Their fundamentally mysterious nature makes them ill suited for scientific hypotheses.

 

[Windwalker]

But science can't deal with magic. Science's whole purpose is to discover the actual mechanisms of phenomena; to dispel the "magic."

Again, science's whole raison d'etre is to solve the mystery. In my experience, though, the mechanisms behind the mystery are even more wonderous than the 'magic'.

"Science's whole purpose is.... to dispel the 'magic'". "Science's whole raison d'etre is to solve the mystery."

I don't believe your notion of science is shared by many prominent scientists:

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

Magic, wonder, awe, all the same things. Mystery. Again, if you think science's mission is to gut the magic and mystery out of nature, that is unfortunate. A tragic loss of the wonder and mystery of life itself. That does not need to be the case. As that is not science's mission.

 

[Windwalker]

Only that is a quote from the movie, not from Einstein himself

I gave the source for the quote. It's from his book "Living Philosophies". That it was in the movie, only means they quoted him from his own words from his own book.

Living Philosophies by Albert Einstein

If you go to the link and read over on the right of the screen, there is a direct quote from it, which is the same one I shared.

And of course Einstein was not religious im the traditional sense and most certainly didnt believe in magic

You apparently did not understand when I said the "magic" of nature, that I was not talking about childish supernaturalism.

That quote is from Einstein, and apparently you did not get what he meant either as you dismissed it can't be from him. But now that you know it was from him, maybe what he is saying is a little more sophisticated than Casper the Friendly Ghost child's magic?

 

[MNoBody]

Science has successfully refuted all religious myths though.

So religion gets to start over again.

but the trouble is, religion has become the opium of the masses
[perhaps it always was "opium", in that sense]
and 'opium addicts', are known to be quite set in their ways and are typically unwilling
[due to inner compulsions they have lost control over..basic addiction]
to change their habitual ways.
sad and tragic, but a great social problem globally and historically.
"true believers" in any ideology have always been an issue...
so, why is that trend just so predominant and never gets resolved?
that is far more troubling than the petty details everybody is bickering about

 

[Windwalker]

Science has successfully refuted all religious myths though.

Science has done no such thing. Mythologies are not about "doing science". If science doesn't understand what religious myths are about, then it needs to take some basic college courses. Actually however, a modern understanding of religious mythologies, very much follows scientific approaches to the humanities. It recognizes that these are narratives to communicate truths, not that they were trying to be scientific. Ancient people didn't think in these modern terms.

 

[blü 2]

Proof:

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

Science is about reality, the world external to the self and the things in it and the way they behave.

As far as I know, there's no definition of a real god, such that if we found a real suspect we could tell whether it was God or not.

Isn't that one more factor that suggests God is only found in the minds of individuals, is a concept or thing imagined?

So what do you say science is actually doing wrong?

 

[Tambourine]

"Science's whole purpose is.... to dispel the 'magic'". "Science's whole raison d'etre is to solve the mystery."

I don't believe your notion of science is shared by many prominent scientists:

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

Magic, wonder, awe, all the same things. Mystery. Again, if you think science's mission is to gut the magic and mystery out of nature, that is unfortunate. A tragic loss of the wonder and mystery of life itself. That does not need to be the case. As that is not science's mission.

So, what do you think is the purpose of scientific inquiry, then, if not to explain the mechanisms and structures behind the mysteries of life and nature?

 

[MNoBody]

i highly recommend this book on the subject