| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dio" |
| Date: |
01 Nov 2003 06:50:58 AM |
| Object: |
Science and religion. |
Science (physics, neuroscience, biology and so no) have demonstrated that
religion is fiction, fantasy, tall story.
Why believer don't try to learn science instead of religion?
Bye bye
.
|
|
| User: "Nike62" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
01 Nov 2003 08:09:32 AM |
|
|
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:S_Nob.77455$e5.2874924@news1.tin.it...
Science (physics, neuroscience, biology and so no) have demonstrated that
religion is fiction, fantasy, tall story.
Why believer don't try to learn science instead of religion?
Because believers "need" religion more than science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "419eater" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
01 Nov 2003 07:03:55 AM |
|
|
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in message
news:S_Nob.77455$e5.2874924@news1.tin.it...
Science (physics, neuroscience, biology and so no) have demonstrated that
religion is fiction, fantasy, tall story.
Why believer don't try to learn science instead of religion?
Bye bye
I am a total 100% non believer in religion etc. but I would be interested if
you could prove what you say by citing sources?
Mike.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dio" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
01 Nov 2003 07:25:12 AM |
|
|
419eater ha scritto nel messaggio ...
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in message
news:S_Nob.77455$e5.2874924@news1.tin.it...
Science (physics, neuroscience, biology and so no) have demonstrated that
religion is fiction, fantasy, tall story.
Why believer don't try to learn science instead of religion?
Bye bye
I am a total 100% non believer in religion etc. but I would be interested
if
you could prove what you say by citing sources?
Mike.
There are a lot of kind of religions. And a lot of people believe about
strange phenomena.
But we can talk about what a deity is. So we can talk about every kind of
religions.
What deities have in common is consciousness.
A believer think his deity like a man with wishes and so on: that's
consciousness or awareness or soul(that's the same).
But what is consciousness?
Neuroscience(this scientific source) has demonstrated that consciousness is
produced by brain, by a CNS(central nervous system).
Brain is a material thing.
So, immaterial deities cannot exist because consciousness is produced by
biological matter.
If a person say: there is an immaterial hair, an immaterial brain, an
immaterial liver, an immaterial hand, an immateria lung and so on. We use to
say: YOU ARE CRAZY.
So, consciousness is a material thing, that happened on our Earth.
If a believer says: there is a MATERIAL deity. OK, that's just a natural
phenomenon!
And we can search that like life on others planets in our universe: and that
is not religion but science! That's physics!!
If a believer says: there is an IMMATERIAL deity who cause our universe.
That is not a deity, that is a phenomenon, and physics can study that: that
is not religion but physics!
We can talk about a cause of our universe, but that is not religion, there
is not a deity, that is just a natural phenomenon: physics study that!!
Of course I could say more about that. But I hope that more people join us
to talk about that.
Thank you
Bye bye
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
02 Nov 2003 04:47:34 PM |
|
|
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in message news:<YuOob.77633$e5.2881238@news1.tin.it>...
419eater ha scritto nel messaggio ...
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in message
news:S_Nob.77455$e5.2874924@news1.tin.it...
Science (physics, neuroscience, biology and so no) have demonstrated that
religion is fiction, fantasy, tall story.
Why believer don't try to learn science instead of religion?
Bye bye
I am a total 100% non believer in religion etc. but I would be interested
if
you could prove what you say by citing sources?
Mike.
There are a lot of kind of religions. And a lot of people believe about
strange phenomena.
But we can talk about what a deity is. So we can talk about every kind of
religions.
What deities have in common is consciousness.
A believer think his deity like a man with wishes and so on: that's
consciousness or awareness or soul(that's the same).
But what is consciousness?
Neuroscience(this scientific source) has demonstrated that consciousness is
produced by brain, by a CNS(central nervous system).
Brain is a material thing.
So, immaterial deities cannot exist because consciousness is produced by
biological matter.
Oops! You make an unwarranted inductive leap. Your conclusion:
"consciousness is produced by biological matter" follows
deductively from the premises but your addition of: "So,
immaterial deities cannot exist" does not.
If a person say: there is an immaterial hair, an immaterial brain, an
immaterial liver, an immaterial hand, an immateria lung and so on. We use to
say: YOU ARE CRAZY.
Ok but that is hardly science. In fact science doesn't say
the supernatural doesn't exist. Science says that science is
impotent to investigate the supernatural because science must
be methodologically naturalistic: Science must assume natural
causes but science doesn't say ONLY the material exists.
So, consciousness is a material thing,
What is it made of then? Not atoms! Not photons!
that happened on our Earth.
If a believer says: there is a MATERIAL deity. OK, that's just a natural
phenomenon!
Why? People claim many supernatural things exist which
would be material if they existed.
And we can search that like life on others planets in our universe: and that
is not religion but science! That's physics!!
In which case you are saying that religion is
scientifically valid.
If a believer says: there is an IMMATERIAL deity who cause our universe.
That is not a deity, that is a phenomenon,
It doesn't have to be.
and physics can study that: that
is not religion but physics!
If a believer says that "my IMMATERIAL deity snapped his fingers
and created the universe" how would science study that?
We can talk about a cause of our universe, but that is not religion, there
is not a deity, that is just a natural phenomenon: physics study that!!
I understand what you are saying. Your conclusions are probably
true BUT you *can't* say that they are *certainly* true. Here:
"Although the scientist seeks understanding, he never achieves
it completely. The game of science never ends; all conclusions
are tentative. No matter how much information a scientist has,
he can never be certain of any of his conclusions."
"Statements in made in natural science have only a probabilistic,
not exact, confirmation." -- McCain, Gravin and Erwin M. Segal.
The Game of Science. 1st. ed., Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing
Company Inc., 1969. p.53, 13
Note: "all conclusions are tentative. No matter how much
information a scientist has, he can never be certain of
any of his conclusions."
From Stephen Hawking:
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only
a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the
result of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure
that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the
other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding a single observation
that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." -- Hawking,
Stephen W. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books 1988
As Karl Popper has said, scientific theories are never
verified. That is, we never know that they are true. The
best that can be done is to propose theories and try to
falsify them, placing some level of confidence in theories
that have survived many attempts to falsify them. Karl
Popper from Conjectures and Refutations:
" The status of truth in the objective sense, as correspondence to
the facts, and its role as a regulative principle, may be compared to
that of a mountain peak which is permanently, or almost permanently,
wrapped in clouds. The climber may not merely have difficulties in
getting there - he may not know when he gets there, because he may be
unable to distinguish, in the clouds, between the main summit and some
subsidiary peak. Yet this does not affect the objective existence of
the summit, and if the climber tells us 'I have some doubts whether I
reached the actual summit', then he does, by implication, recognize
the objective existence of the summit. The very idea of error, or of
doubt (in its normal straightforward sense) implies the idea of an
objective truth which we may fail to reach.
" Though it may be impossible for the climber ever to make sure that
he has reached the summit, it will often be easy for him to realize
that he has not reached it (or not yet reached it); for example, when
he is turned back by an overhanging wall. Similarly, there will be
cases when we are quite sure that we have not reached the truth. Thus
while coherence, or consistency, is no criterion of truth, simply
because even demonstrably consistent systems may be false in fact,
incoherence or inconsistency do establish falsity; so, if we are
lucky, we may discover inconsistencies and use them to establish the
falsity of some of our theories."
Ciao
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dio" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
03 Nov 2003 06:17:37 AM |
|
|
Del ha scritto nel messaggio
<1902ce50.0311021447.56f304cc@posting.google.com>...
CUT
Ok but that is hardly science. In fact science doesn't say
the supernatural doesn't exist.
What do you mean when you say: "supernatural"?
Would you mind telling that, please?
So, consciousness is a material thing,
What is it made of then? Not atoms! Not photons!
Consciousness is produced by brain (CNS).
e.g. a magnetic field is produced by magnet.
If you take away magnet, your magnetic field disappear!
If you take away brain, your consciousness disappear!
If a believer says that "my IMMATERIAL deity snapped his fingers
and created the universe" how would science study that?
Deities MUST have consciousness.
Immaterial dieties can't exist because consciousness is produced by
biological matter!
Bye
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
01 Nov 2003 10:27:31 AM |
|
|
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in message
news:S_Nob.77455$e5.2874924@news1.tin.it...
Science (physics, neuroscience, biology and so no) have demonstrated that
religion is fiction, fantasy, tall story.
Why believer don't try to learn science instead of religion?
I think it's because religion is easy to learn, whereas learning science
takes commitment and effort.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Blast Femur" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
01 Nov 2003 11:44:26 AM |
|
|
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in news:S_Nob.77455$e5.2874924
@news1.tin.it:
Science (physics, neuroscience, biology and so no) have demonstrated
that
religion is fiction, fantasy, tall story.
Why believer don't try to learn science instead of religion?
Bye bye
Science doesn't offer delusions of afterlife.
--
Blast Femur
______________
So, what are you going to do with the first 18,547,387,259,122,090 years
of eternity?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "+ Kosby +" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
01 Nov 2003 12:40:08 PM |
|
|
"Francesco Rossi" <francescorossi79@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:b790b324d43e8cb3f32fff6674b2bca4.63214@mygate.mailgate.org...
Science (physics, neuroscience, biology and so no) have not demonstrated
and they cannot demonstrate that religion is fiction, fantasy, tall
story.
The impossibility in demonstrating it is a great argument in favour of
God's existence, like Darwin said with these words:
"
The impossibility in demonstrating and understanding that the fantastic
and marvellous cosmos, like also the man, has been casually shaped,
looks
like the principal argument in favour of God's existence.
"
Charles Darwin (biologist)
Why unbeliever don't try to learn science and religion too?
Why don't they listen to Albert Einstein words: "Science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Bye bye
The marvellous disposition and armony of the space could be based only
on the base of an omnipotent Being plan: this is the sum of my
knowledges.
Isaac Newton (astronomer-physicist)
( I'm afraid for my poor english )
It's a very bad behavior let great people say things that they never thought
!!!
In the first case, you refers to Charles Darwin, the creator of the
evolution theory, to demonstrate that scientists too are believers. Why you
refers to Charles Darwin ONLY when he talks about a possible god and not
when he explanes the human evolution ?
Einstein is the most abused author in religious matters... He said he can't
sopportare who consider him to be a beliver...
He didn't believe in a personal god, and however, what Einstein thinks, out
of physics matters, I think is only an opinion...
No. 3 : Newton... You can't consider Newton as a contemporary scientist :
he also believed in "earth soul" a sort of new age creed. Thus he isn't so
rational as we usual consider him...
Kosby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dio" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
01 Nov 2003 01:35:55 PM |
|
|
+ Kosby + ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
No. 3 : Newton... You can't consider Newton as a contemporary scientist :
he also believed in "earth soul" a sort of new age creed. Thus he isn't so
rational as we usual consider him...
I agree with you!
That's very strange to hear a believer talking about scientists and not
science. Like neuroscience or physics.
Neuroscience has demonstrated that soul is material.
And deities can't exist as immaterial things.
We have proof, deities can't exist.
But as usual Church and believers need a lot of time to understand that:
like Galilei for example!!
Bye bye
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Max V." |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
01 Nov 2003 02:02:13 PM |
|
|
Dio wrote:
Science (physics, neuroscience, biology and so no) have demonstrated that
religion is fiction, fantasy, tall story.
Why believer don't try to learn science instead of religion?
Bye bye
Science has demonstrated nothing about this!
The only reason you can give that God doesn't exist is that He hasn't
acted explicitly in these centuries.
If tomorrow a new Mosé will cross the Atlantic Ocean that opens at his
walk, I don't think you'll say "Science has demonstrated ..ecc. ecc."
When I open a book of Biology or Physics, I don't read anything saying
"ehi, so it's demonstrated that God doesn't exist" .
---
La """Scienza""" non ha dimostrato niente su queste cose!
L'unica ragione che tu puoi addurre che Dio non esiste è che Lui non ha
agito esplicitamente in questi secoli.
Se domani un nuovo Mosé attraverserà l'Oceano Atlantico che si apre al
suo cammino, non penso che tu possa dire "La Scienza ha dimostrato che..."
Quando apro un libro di Biologia o di Fisica, io ho mai letto da nessuna
parte qualcosa dire "ehi, così rimane dimostrato che Dio non esiste".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Blast Femur" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
01 Nov 2003 04:08:56 PM |
|
|
"Max V." <john_brambilla@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:9jUob.395071$R32.13096860@news2.tin.it:
Dio wrote:
Science (physics, neuroscience, biology and so no) have demonstrated
that religion is fiction, fantasy, tall story.
Why believer don't try to learn science instead of religion?
Bye bye
Science has demonstrated nothing about this!
The only reason you can give that God doesn't exist is that He hasn't
acted explicitly in these centuries.
Of course you are prepared to give evidence he acted explicitly in any
other centuries...
If tomorrow a new Mosé will cross the Atlantic Ocean that opens at his
walk, I don't think you'll say "Science has demonstrated ..ecc. ecc."
I'd believe it if I saw it. But not if someone told me it happened and
left it to faith. Extraoridnary claims require extraordinary proof.
When I open a book of Biology or Physics, I don't read anything saying
"ehi, so it's demonstrated that God doesn't exist".
No, it's the religious that claim god exists. Prove it.
--
Blast Femur
______________
So, what are you going to do with the first 18,547,387,259,122,090 years
of eternity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dio" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
02 Nov 2003 05:35:30 AM |
|
|
Blast Femur ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
No, it's the religious that claim god exists. Prove it.
I agree with you, but we need of science.
When you say: prove it! What do you mean? I know that you mean something
about science.
If they cannot prove deities existence is because science forbid that.
Miracles are against physics or biology, miracles are against science.
So, science prove that miracles can't be true.
A miracle is something produced by an immaterial consciousness(chatolic).
We can see a lot of things in our world, and a lot of things (some diseases)
that science can't explain. Are there some miracle or something that science
can't explain?
Catholic say: science can't explain that, so that's a miracle!!
Catholic use science, they use science to say: science can't explain that
phenomenon. Scientists have studied that phenomenon and them can't explain
it. So it is a miracle!!
Religion use science when they want to say: that's a miracle.
Atheists have to use science to say: deities cannot exist!
Science is reason, is experiment. And I'm using scientific knowledge to
prove that deities can't exist at all.
I don't need to do some experiment. I use neuroscience experiment, I use
biology experiment, I use physics experiment.
I can use my reason and I can have a proof.
That's the way to use science to support atheism.
Catholic use science about miracles, I use science about deities not
existence.
Bye bye
.
|
|
|
| User: "Blast Femur" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
03 Nov 2003 12:41:05 AM |
|
|
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in
news:6_5pb.397137$R32.13183698@news2.tin.it:
Blast Femur ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
No, it's the religious that claim god exists. Prove it.
I agree with you, but we need of science.
Of course we do. Without it we would still be in the Catholic Dark Ages.
When you say: prove it! What do you mean? I know that you mean
something about science.
I mean prove there are gods. Science will prove itself.
If they cannot prove deities existence is because science forbid that.
Miracles are against physics or biology, miracles are against science.
So, science prove that miracles can't be true.
A miracle is something produced by an immaterial
consciousness(chatolic).
Actually, a miracle is hearsay produced by an unthinking mind,
indistinguishable from random events. It makes little sense to thank a
god for sending a rainstorm to extinguish a fire that has already caused
much death and destruction, when the god could have sent the rain earlier
to avoid death and destruction altoghether, or even prevented the fire.
We can see a lot of things in our world, and a lot of things (some
diseases) that science can't explain. Are there some miracle or
something that science can't explain?
No. Science will eventually explain everything given enough time. The
only thing that limits the life of science is the limitation of the
lifetime of scientists, and the species called homo sapiens.
Catholic say: science can't explain that, so that's a miracle!!
Science says, "we can't explain that, so we'll keep trying." I like
science better. What's the hurry?
Catholic use science, they use science to say: science can't explain
that phenomenon. Scientists have studied that phenomenon and them
can't explain it. So it is a miracle!!
To the catholic, time is limited. Everything must be explained before
the second coming, the armageddon. The scientist can see that the
existence of homo sapiens is but the tip of the iceberg of time. Why are
we so special when you look at the Big Picture?
Religion use science when they want to say: that's a miracle.
Crap.
Atheists have to use science to say: deities cannot exist!
Logic works too.
Science is reason, is experiment. And I'm using scientific knowledge
to prove that deities can't exist at all.
Science alone doesn't do it. Logic and critical thinking help, and of
course, you cannot prove a negative. Ask the religious to prove what
they assert is Truth.
Enough. Snip.
--
Blast Femur
______________
So, what are you going to do with the first 18,547,387,259,122,090 years
of eternity?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
02 Nov 2003 05:07:38 PM |
|
|
"Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in message news:<6_5pb.397137$R32.13183698@news2.tin.it>...
Blast Femur ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
No, it's the religious that claim god exists. Prove it.
I agree with you, but we need of science.
When you say: prove it! What do you mean? I know that you mean something
about science.
If they cannot prove deities existence is because science forbid that.
Miracles are against physics or biology, miracles are against science.
So, science prove that miracles can't be true.
No, science doesn't prove that. Science doesn't even say that.
How would you prove something like this?
A miracle is something produced by an immaterial consciousness(chatolic).
Who says so?
We can see a lot of things in our world, and a lot of things (some diseases)
that science can't explain. Are there some miracle or something that science
can't explain?
Catholic say: science can't explain that, so that's a miracle!!
Catholic use science, they use science to say: science can't explain that
phenomenon. Scientists have studied that phenomenon and them can't explain
it. So it is a miracle!!
They can believe what they want. But is saying "it is a miracle!"
much different than saying "miracles are impossible!"?
And no, I do not believe in miracles.
Religion use science when they want to say: that's a miracle.
Atheists have to use science to say: deities cannot exist!
You can't use science that way. It would turn science
into a religion.
Science is reason, is experiment. And I'm using scientific knowledge to
prove that deities can't exist at all.
But you haven't done that. The best you or science can do is
to say that there is no compelling evidence for a deity.
Point: science doesn't prove ANYTHING about the natural
world. It can only offer levels of confidence about what
it discovers.
One more quote, this time from Stephen J. Gould:
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute
certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an
exciting and complex world. The final proofs of
logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated
premises and achieve certainty only because they
are NOT about the empirical world. --Stephen J.
Gould "Evolution as Fact and Theory;" Discover,
May 1981
As he says there is no such thing as "absolute
certainty" about the natural world in science.
I don't need to do some experiment. I use neuroscience experiment, I use
biology experiment, I use physics experiment.
I can use my reason and I can have a proof.
logical conclusions can only be as true as the premises
you start with.
That's the way to use science to support atheism.
How do you explain the many good scientists who are
not atheist then?
Ciao
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dio" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
03 Nov 2003 06:16:56 AM |
|
|
Del ha scritto nel messaggio
CUT
No, science doesn't prove that. Science doesn't even say that.
How would you prove something like this?
Science can explain a lot of phenomena, and what science can't explain yet,
they use to say: that is a miracle. That is a natural phenomenon NOT YET
EXPLAINED. That's all!!
You can't use science that way. It would turn science
into a religion.
Religion talk about natural phenomena, science can study natural phenomena:
when a believer says strange things about natural phenomena a scientist must
intervene, to be present!
How do you explain the many good scientists who are
not atheist then?
I don't care of people I care of science, evidence, experiments,good
theories.
Bye bye
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dio" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
01 Nov 2003 02:16:22 PM |
|
|
Max V. ha scritto nel messaggio <9jUob.395071$R32.13096860@news2.tin.it>...
When I open a book of Biology or Physics, I don't read anything saying
"ehi, so it's demonstrated that God doesn't exist" .
Of course, but try to study neuroscience: soul is produced by brain!
Try to study physics: cause of universe could be a natural phenomenon!
Try to study biology: life on earth come from chemical molecules!
Could you tell us what your deity could have done?
Tell us, so we can use science and say that your deity can't exist.
Try to make up a deity. I use science and demonstrate that your deity can't
exist!
Let me know!
bye bye
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and religion. |
02 Nov 2003 04:53:55 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 12:50:58 GMT, "Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote:
Science (physics, neuroscience, biology and so no) have demonstrated that
religion is fiction, fantasy, tall story.
No that isn't sciences job.
Science is about understanding nature - the real physical universe
that exists whether you believe in it or not.
Science doesnt tell you what to believe in (hold as important, worthy
orf respect or worship) it tells you how stuff that does exist
actually behaves.
Why believer don't try to learn science instead of religion?
Science is not an alternative to religion.
They are ABOUT different things.
Bye bye
Ciao!
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
