Compatibility of Science and Religion . . .

Cool Db, no probs at all

"I think it was God calling people fools. Don't think it was any of us . . . well, apart from DumbAss of course . . . but it was God who started off calling people fools."

And then his post below, in this very same thread that he created…..                                                

Hall Of Fame

7287 posts

Yes, Draad is talking down the East because he's a brainwashed and ignorant fool who doesn't know any better and does what his dominee tells him to do.

A twat is perhaps too nice a word, for a guy like you,  in moments like this

.

"“You believe in a God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find.”

"“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

"He considered himself more of an agnostic (nothing is or can be known about the nature of God), and in a way he did believe in a God. He believed in ‘Spinoza’s God.’"

"To Einstein, science was more spiritual than religion, because science allows us to better understand the Universe. While our minds are not yet capable to fully understand its wonders, an attempt to do so brings us closer and closer to God. As we understand more about the Universe, we become closer to it."

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1] Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[3] 

Personal God[edit]

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic God, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve"[3] and "childlike". (In other words, an endeavour for kids or simpletons).

Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me."[6] He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups.[7][8]

Religious people confuse morals,  (or natural order, spirituality, etc etc) with religion. That is what Einstein is trying to explain here.

Many Atheists or Agnostic people have a better code of morals than religious people- perhaps on average, and not just individually. This is what you lot do not understand. The parable of the good Samaritan proves this.   Religion wants to hold a monopoly of ethics, moral code, afterlife etc. You want to cash in on your insurance policy- even though you doubt its authenticity. 

Modern day social experiments have had the same findings....

A modern day example of hypocrites. https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-Unscrupulous-Lawyer. If I never helped this person in need, and a religious person did help them- I would be willing to admit that is a better person than I am- regardless of our differences in beliefs (Muslim, Christian, Athiest, etc etc). It is an objective criteria....

Shark, you better start paying attention.  I never said Einstein was religious.  I said he wasn't an Atheist.  Big difference. 

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
-Gandalph

Interesting questions blue

I don't consider anything to be cast in stone, regarding anything religion or even science related.

What we all know, is what we have all been taught.... individually and differently, from a very young age, and I really believe that, whether it be from a book, documentary, teacher or parents.

Racism, whilst a totally different issue here, is actually a classic example...….

If we had all grown up amongst a mixed race world, we would have never ever batted any eyelid at mixed race couples, but even today, people still do take a second look when a black man and a white woman walk down the street holding hands.

If we were raised amongst people or a nation, where mixed race was just the norm, we would never see it as being different or an alternative way of doing things as we do now, because it always "was" when you were growing up that way.

The same mostly goes for Christianity, Islam, and other religions...… because mostly all people are taught this from birth and know no different...… that muslin that hates the Christian could feel totally different about it, if he was adopted at birth and raised in a Christian home and had no issues with muslims.

Collectively as humans, or mankind, we don't know shit...…. I never have and never will state what or who is correct and who isn't when it comes to religion, because common sense tells me that there are far too many unknowns in this world to try and prove that you are correct on some web forum or at some dinner discussion.

For example, Piss Mint states some things as fact on here, but that just emphasizes to me just how highly he thinks his intellect is, or his opinion is to himself...…. and not others.

You must be extremely self important to think that your theory on religion, evolution and anything else related, is close to fact, and then call everyone else stupid in the process for not agreeing with you.

I fully respect anyone's belief, no matter how out there it is, as long as they don't insult my beliefs or thoughts on the same topic.

For instance, I fully believe that Piss Mint is a very stupid individual, and nobody can dispute that with me, because I have countless facts to back it up...…

For instance, I fully know without a doubt that Piss Mint is a compulsive liar, and nobody can dispute that with me because I have numerous statements and posts from him to prove it.

All the other stuff about religion and science is just up in the air......much like Piss Mint's nose to other posters

The question that bothers me and I guess everyone else as well is how is something created out of nothing. I know that neither science or religion has an answer and that bothers me as well. There is no answer in logical thinking either and perhaps thinking logically is our major stumbling block.

How do we think of nothing when we've always been surrounded by something? As human beings we cannot imagine nothing because we've always been surrounded by something. Empty space isn't nothing, it's something. Strangely enough we were created, something or someone created us and everything else but for that to happen there had to be something....how did that something come about?

Going through the religious comments if I can add my cents worth. Christians and the Muslims have a thing about "Its God's will." There's something awfully wrong with humans putting themselves in the Almighty's shoes by second guessing what the Almighty is thinking. One takes ownership of one's deeds, it's not God's will.

The Bible, contradictions and misinterpretations aside I see as a road map for Christians to follow. The challenge is to accept what is written and to have faith.

Science cannot disprove the Almighty neither can religion prove the existence of an Almighty.

No matter how much is said and written inevitably there's only one conclusion..."Ons weet niks."

"DA, just for the sake of argument, if one does believe in God being almighty and the creator of all things, then it is a simple explanation. God created everything...including the start of time. If time is a created concept, and our understanding of it was given to us by God, that would explain why he could exists outside of time and therefore outside our realm of understanding. Humans simply cannot comprehend a reality without time.  

I like both Denny and blue's comments and ideas.....

It's food for thought, so thanks for that

Even though time is a human element, I still battle to understand how anything could always have been there...… life or existence has to have originated from somewhere or something...… I don't believe or buy the idea that something was always there to begin with...…….it just can't, in my mind...... yet, for me, it is currently the only slightly plausible explanation..... but I'm not yet convinced

".....life or existence has to have originated from somewhere or something...…"

Correct, but how?

Should we try and exploit another way of thinking about it other than through logic or science?

Should we try and exploit another way of thinking about it other than through logic or science?

As I mentioned a few times, because we are taught to believe certain things in life from a young age, we are extremely limited to what we are taught, and what we don't yet know, which then stunts what we don't know we can do

How can scientists prove that we only use 3% of our brain?...…..

This is a guestimate at best, even though they can see what electrical activity happens in the brain through certain actions or processes

We can now, with just thought alone, make a bionic arm move and grab an object, or type a letter onto the screen of a computer.....

Just think about that for a second, and how telling someone that same thing 100 years ago would probably have got you killed for witchcraft or sorcery

How do we not know that perhaps we use 15% of our brain capacity right now, and if we could start using 25 %, we could perform unthinkable tasks, previously believed to be impossible.

The placebo effect is a classic human example of what a human being can achieve just by believing in something, and not being taught something

Blue, that's probably the most logical opinion on this thread.

Rooi, did you just say "love and kindness" ?

Shark, jy het die klok hoor lui, maar weet nie waar die bel hang nie.

Draad, your hero Dawkins said that if Jesus really existed- he would have been an atheist.

Dickhead Dawkins should forget about hating on Jesus and rather stick to science.  Why the hell is what other people believe so much of a bother to him in the first place? Arsehole of note.

Because he believes the world would be a better place without religion. He is entitled to his opinion and beliefs. I suspect that in the modern age - he is right.  A primitive self-delusion of the Abrahamian religions just creates division amongst people of different cultures. (The Jews believe they are God's people, the Islam followers believe they are God's people, and Christians believe their God is the one true God)- even though the religious texts are all based on the same one....

Dickhead Dawson has more intelligence in his toenail than you will ever have. If there is an afterlife, he will evolve to a better place much better than you. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The religious fear Dawkins because he is smarter than any religious person in the world...

(And Einstein himself said he was not religious- the other BS about him being part of some pseudo-scientific religion is BS. These are not his own words....

 Einstein said he is a "religious non-believer"- and that he does not believe in an afterlife...

The pantheistic God stuff is not his own words. This is not a God anyway...

"Love and Kindness"

This is a joke right?

I reckon there isn't one single post on this entire forum's history.... where Piss Mint has displayed this...and if there is, it is less than 0.01%…..

But he professes to pass this on...…...LMAO !!

All he ever displays is bitterness and hatred...… and his board buddy CupCake displays bitterness, hatred and racism...…

Two peas in a pod

"The religious fear Dawkins because he is smarter than any religious person in the world..."

LOL, I don't fear him, I despise him because he is misusing science for his aggressive atheists agenda...and fellow aggressive atheists like yourself lap it up because he is intelligent. 

"Aggressive atheists"?

Who are these aggressive atheists you speak of, Draad?

I'm not aware of atheist armies being sent to destroy adherents of a different religion . . . or atheist law that tolerates stoning or beheading . . . or different branches of atheists killing each other because they interpret some book differently . . . or any acts of atheist violence or aggression that can compare with some of the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity or Islam.

We dont lap it up because he is intelligent, we agree with him as he talks common sense and logic, something that is totally missing from the religious argument.

He is passionate in trying to educate the uneducated and superstitious that is all, he is no different in his passion  than any of your preachers, The only difference for you is he forces you to face the fact there is so many holes and how wacky your beliefs are when someone points out that your religion is not actually what you believe it to be.

Can you provide any examples to where he is misusing science ( I presume you mean he makes up things and claiming they are actually scientific fact) to attack religion?