Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #74 - viacotwelve (01/26/2013) [-]
honestly, i don't see why religion and science have to be completely separate from each other. i'm a christian, i'll say it, and i firmly believe in evolution and all that. everyone seems to have a science vs. religion mentality, but i think they can coexist pretty well if you let them.
#113 to #74 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Here's the deal. Religion and Nature are butting heads. Science is a methodology for determining truth, both religion and nature are explanations of existence. That said, they are generally separate because science will generally give you the natural world explanation while religion will give you an explanation that is beyond natural occurrence. Once you start drifting toward acceptance of an opposing theory, you're by definition drifting away from your original theory. Science is just the tool that justifies which direction you go.
User avatar #111 to #74 - nucularwar (01/26/2013) [-]
it's because some of the worst examples of your religion DON'T let them. nothing against you or your beliefs, but that's the problem.
#109 to #74 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
because the idea of a god is literally something that transcends the natural world.
#117 to #109 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Whenever I see things like this I die a little on the inside.

If I ever go crazy and start murdering random people, it will definitely be at a philosophy school. (I'm not serious in case anyone freaks out due to recent shootings)

"It transcends human thinking" is the weakest argument in existence. You might as well just scream "I'm right" then plug your ears and repeatedly yell "I'm not listening" like a three year-old having a temper tantrum.
Regrettably, there is no way to counter the argument either, because anyone foolish enough to use it can not respond to sensible, logical discussion.

Goddamn I hate philosophy students.
#129 to #117 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Who said "human thinking"? I said the "natural world" as in, something that did not have something greater than it to create it. But you can go ahead and attack philosophy students (where the **** did that even come from, you must be teeming with buttrage over something). The solid truth is, the principle of a God is, by definition, something which bends nature to its will, something that is beyond the realm of what can occur without outside manipulation.
#163 to #129 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Philosophy students are mostly people like you, who want to make arguments based on nothing. "The solid truth"... Yeah...

So if the big bang were the initial point rather than a conscious god, it would still "bend nature to its will?"
Also note you are staying "the principle of god" not "god." Yes, many things claimed to be done by god are not possible with our current technological and scientific ability, but that has nothing to do with the "idea" or "principle." Your statement reads as claiming a human can not understand the (human-constructed) idea of god because "the IDEA of god transcends the natural world" or "the PRINCIPLE of god bends nature to its will."
(Also note the argument: high-technology appears to be magic to those who do not understand it. Referencing that some Native Americans saw Europeans as emissaries of their gods due to their rather simple technology. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it can't be understood.)

Even when it comes to powers outside the scope of science (ref: Newtonian physics not applying on a molecular scale), new rules can be made to understand it, because after all, it IS part of nature. There is no such thing as "supernatural" or "transcending nature" because anything to which those tags could apply to is simply something that we can not interpret with our rules of science as they are. If it can occur it is NOT "transcending" nature, it's simply out of the scope of our current understanding of the rules of nature.

People thought going at the absurdly fast speed of a train was "beyond natural possibility" too, they didn't understand it.
#177 to #163 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
and if it fits with nature, it is by its very definition not a god. Holy **** , how can you not understand this. A god, by its very definition is beyond what is natural. If there is a natural explanation, it is not a god. A god, by definition, dictates what is natural, thus he is beyond it. It doesn't matter what people THINK is true, it is about what is true, regardless of who believes it. If it is beyond the scope of the actual truth, not the perceived truth, it is a god. If it is not outside that scope, it is not a god.
#231 to #177 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Like I said, "Anyone foolish enough to use this argument can not respond to sensible, logical discussion."
#174 to #163 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
again, I didn't say WHAT PEOPLE THINK IS TRUE I said what IS ACTUALLY TRUE. God damn you're thick.
User avatar #97 to #74 - gammajk (01/26/2013) [-]
But that doesn't stop the fact that god is a hypothesis proposed by people attempting to explain how the universe works and that people will use science to counter it. We aren't just going to ignore one hypothesis because it's "religion".
Plus, I wouldn't care what people believed if it still didn't influence political decisions even when it's in the very basis of this country for it not to do so.
#114 to #97 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/26/2013) [-]
Since I predict this guy will be down-thumbed to hell, I'll state my agreement with a comment.

The initial reason for religion to explain that which was not understood. (What's the sun? Why is there day and night or summer and winter? What is life and death?)
While it has taken more of a "moral" standpoint recently as science explains these things, an all powerful creator with rule over everything really isn't necessary for morals. Morals and a god figure are separate, morals are considered a philosophy, while god is considered a religion. (All sects of Christianity believe more or less in the same god, you might even be able to throw Islam and Judaism in there, they just have separate philosophies telling them how to live their life.)

Regardless of that, the Bible still makes claims as to WHY, claims which we know to not be true. So a true Christian would conflict with science.

I'm not going to argue religion here, but realize that the Christian faith says the bible is the ONE TRUE WORD OF GOD. That's an all or nothing thing, you can't pick and choose as to what we know to be wrong (now) and what remains undiscovered by science (exactly how life began).
So if you are truly religious, you can not agree with science. If you do combine the two, your religion is illegitimate because you are picking and choosing based on judgement of the flawed man rather than the perfect omnipotent declaration of god.
User avatar #499 to #114 - viacotwelve (01/27/2013) [-]
I don't think the Bible necessarily is the one true word of God, honestly. It was written by several different people. Several different people tend to make mistakes. And I don't think my religion is illegitimate for "picking and choosing." Many different religions based around the same God have different beliefs, and I don't think Christianity necessitates taking every single word of the Bible literally. I'm not trying to argue with you or anything. I'm mostly just trying to justify my own beliefs rather than contradict yours. Really, the whole point of my original comment was to try to make people argue a little less, so I don't want people getting angry over anything I'm saying. I'm looking at the replies now, though, and it seems I actually CAUSED an argument with my comment... That kind of sucks.
#504 to #499 - xxxsonic fanxxx (01/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, and that would be the same argument I would use against someone who did believe the bible is the one true word of god.

The thing is, when you just start picking what you WANT you believe and what you don't WANT to believe, that's all it comes down to. What you WANT, not what is true.

And this is one thing that confuses me about how tied some people are to modern religion. Because ultimately, their beliefs aren't based on any one "word of god(s)" source, but what they personally WANT to be true, drawn from any number of sources.
If you can't trust the biblical god for some things, why can you for others? Who's to say the one god model isn't just what some old fart WANTED back a couple thousand years ago and the reality is that the Roman system of gods is most accurate?
 Friends (0)