Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Send mail to MattSwan
Invite MattSwan to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Content Level Progress:
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress:
Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Total Comments Made:
What people say about MattSwan
latest user's comments
- This was a great , interesting post up until you ****** it up …
B-but they are mutually exclusive.
Science is grounded with real world observations, tests, and studies.
Religion is grounded by faith and faith alone.
Science makes the discoveries, religion tries its best to keep up and lose credibility.
Can you imagine if flat-earth creationists still existed today (some do, I'm talking big numbers)? They'd be ridiculed to no end. Why do you think they no longer exist? Science (and mathematics really) took the step and found out the world isn't flat, religion followed when it realized its credibility would be in trouble if it stuck to what it formally taught.
Saying that they need to exclude each other simply because they aren't based on the same things is like saying that fish and bats can't coexist because one swims and the other flies. Sure, if you try to apply the same rules of logic that govern the existence of science to faith, they won't apply. It would be like tossing a fish out of a building and saying, "Ha, see, it doesn't work."
The whole point of science is to exclude faith. Can you imagine what would happen if scientists couldn't figure something out for the life of them, so they just said, "God must have done it."? It would be terrible! Religion as no place is science. Science is finding out how the world works in the absence of a deity. Science, however, can be in religion.
That is simply not true. Your definition of science is entirely inaccurate. Science is simply the search for a truth and proving it, thereby expanding your grasp of knowledge. Things don't exist to prove others wrong. Man didn't invent fire because some asshole said wood wouldn't burn. He did it because he was fucking cold. I don't ask my surgeon to preach to me for the same reasons I don't ask my pastor to give me a quick appendectomy.
Tell me, good sir, how you can systematically prove god's existence through a series of observations and studies. You can't. And yes, science (we're talking about enlightenment period, Galileo, Newton) was invested in because people didn't like the, "Because god did it" answer. Granted, some pursued to find the existence of god, but all were ventured upon to find an alternative reason for why shit happened.
I can't systematically prove God's existence
because it's a fucking religion you asshole
. You are ignoring my previous points entirely. When you try to take a system based on faith, like religion, you cannot prove it with a system based on ration, like science. For the same reasons that no one believes you when you publish a scientific report because you "felt very strongly of it." Unintelligent people use faith to determine cause and effect and the same dickwads use science to determine purpose.
Then you understand that faith and science are entirely separate.
"you cannot prove it with a system based on ration, like science." - MattSwan
yep, because they are completely different.
Of course they are entirely different. Thank you for proving my thesis, cunt.
That's what I said from the top, asshat. Commas then derogatory words are fun, faggot!
"B-but they are mutually exclusive."
Mutually exclusive - adj, being related such that each excludes or precludes the other.
Mutually exclusive means one can't exist while the other does. You've changed your argument over time. What you've ended up arguing for is a subset of my original argument. Learn yourself some rhetoric.
God damn it, I didn't mean to put that, honest. I'm terrible with vocabulary. I haven't changed my argument, I fucked up my wording. Sorry.
They are mutually exclusive when ones reality is derived from evidence and the other is derived from faith.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
I can quote Einstein to
>To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.
>Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
>A conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs.
On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.
>It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims.
- His body hit the ground like a Hefty bag full of soup.
Kids these days...
- I was drive car when snow
After one massive snow
- The cancer that is killing /b/.
- Anyone can see...
Nothing really matters to meeeeeeeee
Anyway the wind blows....
we will rock you!
Mama just killed a man.
- Don't laugh. This is what you do for fun in a country where th…
Repeat After Me
>staring blankly into the wastes
It's not all wastes! Some of it is desolate forest and tundra....
just kidding, it's all wastes
How come he don't want me
- Horses be trippin.
Show Comments (2)