- 4,053
- 643
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/f...dna-then-read-show-bio-digital-storage-947354
How about you read this right here.
How about you read this right here.
Will science eventually replace religion?
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by 3am scholar,
- Start date
Clyde Frog
formerly jay02
- 12,617
- 7,475
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
The funny thing is how accurate (not perfect) the depiction of Mormonism is from South Park.
Obviously they left some stuff out but its pretty funny nonetheless...because its true.
One of my favorite episodes of South Park. Everybody is in hell because they picked the wrong religion. They ask "well which religion was the correct one?" The devil says " Actually, it was Mormon"
- 1,954
- 589
- Joined
- May 28, 2008
Individual belief > collective belief. I think our generation is the generator of it.
Clyde Frog
formerly jay02
- 12,617
- 7,475
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
It may give you hope and comfort for the after life but I don't see how it does for when you're living. Science gives me hope and comfort that if one day I go blind or deaf there will be technology to fix that. Or if I get cancer or some disease that there will be a cure for that. Science keeps me away from death. If I were to pray and wait for Jesus to touch my shoulder or put his hands over my eyes it just won't happen. And then I'll end up dying shorty after. Which is the first thing a believer is avoiding the most in the first place.
And a code to follow. We have structure to our society. We're not in the biblical times where everyone has a rock for a brain. Back then you tell somebody if you kill or steal you'll go to hell. That idea alone shows you how far they were from any type of knowledge. Still to this day actually but we're obviously much more ahead of the curve now as opposed to back then. Now, now we have laws. Now if I kill or steal I go to jail. That is REAL. That will actually happen. Shut, you don't gotta tell me twice.
Last edited:
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
In the long run I think once science as a body of knowledge grows and discovers more, it will make people more religious but with an affirmation of miracles rather than belief and hope for the possibility.
- 1,422
- 548
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
For the sake of debate, I'd like to see an intelligent theist (as someone schooled by Jesuits for most of my life, I'm certain they are out there) at least try to refute Future MD on issues rather than insults. There's rather a large pool of users, but the religious members of the board seem to always resort to the same insults. Is that not trolling, the very thing they accuse Future MD of doing?
Last edited:
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
Do you think this means humans have tried to manufacture heaven and hell on earth?
How society claims to believe in God, yet instead of letting God hash out punishment and benefits, we do it ourselves with the institutions we have created. Like big houses on the hills being the heavens and the prisons being the hells?
- 10,654
- 11,069
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
Religion has killed millions of more people than any atomic bomb.
Clyde Frog
formerly jay02
- 12,617
- 7,475
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
That's an interesting way of looking at it. I guess in a way you could say that's the way it is although its not what is intended. We just haven't figured out a way yet to make everyone happy. Someone will always have more than others. We do have an incentive based system though which has worked but like anything can always be critiqued. Again because Its just too hard to make everyone happy, too many people not enough resources, or maybe there are if it were spread evenly? Either way communism has failed like every time so I could only imagine how much harder it it would be on a world scale. But yeah the more you work the closer you get to the palace, the less you work the closer you are to jail.
Have you ever seen the documentary future by design? One the most interesting things I've ever seen, I think I've watched it like 4 times. This dude is just a complete genius. You name it he invented it. His job title is endless. Structural engineer, social engineer, industrial designer, futurist ect. He talks about how society can be most efficient and his ideas are just mind blowing. politics have a lot to do with it as well. How things should be run. It all seems so right. Complete cultural change but it just works. A completely different way of how humans think or speak. One of the main things he talks about though is being civilized. And we're far from it. He's envisioning a society where you only take what you need. You go to the store and get a camera for free. When you're done using it you put it back. But as long as there's war, police, and jails, there isn't anything civilized about us.
Idk if this is off topic or if I answered your question but yeah
it's on Netflix by the way.
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
That's an interesting way of looking at it. I guess in a way you could say that's the way it is although its not what is intended. We just haven't figured out a way yet to make everyone happy. Someone will always have more than others. We do have an incentive based system though which has worked but like anything can always be critiqued. Again because Its just too hard to make everyone happy, too many people not enough resources, or maybe there are if it were spread evenly? Either way communism has failed like every time so I could only imagine how much harder it it would be on a world scale. But yeah the more you work the closer you get to the palace, the less you work the closer you are to jail.
Have you ever seen the documentary future by design? One the most interesting things I've ever seen, I think I've watched it like 4 times. This dude is just a complete genius. You name it he invented it. His job title is endless. Structural engineer, social engineer, industrial designer, futurist ect. He talks about how society can be most efficient and his ideas are just mind blowing. politics have a lot to do with it as well. How things should be run. It all seems so right. Complete cultural change but it just works. A completely different way of how humans think or speak. One of the main things he talks about though is being civilized. And we're far from it. He's envisioning a society where you only take what you need. You go to the store and get a camera for free. When you're done using it you put it back. But as long as there's war, police, and jails, there isn't anything civilized about us.
Idk if this is off topic or if I answered your question but yeah
Yeah I think I started watching this on Netflix a while ago and have yet to finish it.
yeold360s
Banned
- 591
- 102
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
The only thing I want to say in this thread is this:
Can we stop attributing misdeeds and tragedies to objects that do not have a will of their own?
To say that "science" has killed people is incorrect. It was the people misusing science that allowed for the people to die/get hurt.
Similarly, religion didn't go out with a burner and waste a fool. It was a person misusing religion that allowed for that to happen.
- 8,172
- 5,370
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
Religion? Perhaps.
Faith? Never.
...
Faith? Never.
...
- 6,142
- 6,713
- Joined
- May 15, 2005
Double posts.
Last edited:
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
this is truth.
It's up to the people that use these systems/ tools on how they use them.
The same hammer used to build a house is the same hammer that beat someone to death. Depends on how the hammer is handled.
I think this is the generation of personal vendettas with religion due to how much information is flowing between people now.
That's why I think Atheism is so prominent now. It's a popular way to vent institutional frustrations in a socially acceptable manner.
- 564
- 29
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2002
Science found "CURES" for cancer ey?
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
^I saw that mess on CNN today.
"We're 5 years away from the cure to cancer" lol
"We're 5 years away from the cure to cancer" lol
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
How the hell would science make people more religious?
Listen up.
Religion doesn't give you the chance to change what the religion says. If a religion asserts something as true, then you can test it to see if it checks out or not. If it doesn't pass the tests then it doesn't mean that its false, but merely the claims aren't supported by any evidence. Religion doesn't grant you the leeway to finagle more meaning out of what it explicitly says. An all-knowing being that inspires the writing of a holy book or doctrine or framework means what it says, and how he says it.
And there is NO SUCH THING AS A MIRACLE. Miracles are nothing more than events with low statistical probabilities. You lived after getting shot 9 times? Well is that a miracle or would you rather be dead since you're going crazy over it? Is the miracle that you were even shot? What is a miracle other than a tactic of evasion used to describe phenomena that you can't explain.
Science never claims to know more than it ever can prove.
Plus can we stop calling "science" as if its a thing? Its a process. Its nothing more than the collective body of knowledge ascertained through rigorous experimentation. You brushing your teeth is a result of "science" Its not some "thing" that has anthropomorphic features.
Thats not the same thing. Again. DNA does what it does. Genetic reengineering can store pieces of DNA you want to express like genes but its not the same as loading up a an MP3 on a jump drive.
Its an analogy that people start taking too far because they really don't understand the underlying premise.
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Atheism is prominent because people just don't believe in the claims religion presents. This doesn't even touch on how irrational the concepts themselves are.
At the very root, I don't believe the claims you assert theologically because there is no evidence to back them up. So no matter how interesting your ideas are or how looney some of the stories are, at the end of the day, if you refuse to prove the claims asserted as both inerrant and infallible by your religion, then I'm just not going to believe you.
There have always been non-believers, but people could never comfortably reveal their thoughts on the matter.
How is prayer working out for you?
Not accurate. Again, you're making a stretch into an excuse for organized religion.
Religion ADVOCATES this action and ENCOURAGES certain behaviors. Make no mistake about this.
You are correct when you speak on "science" but religion is different. Religion is a concrete ideology defined by its adherents and the sources of the religion that have a list of principles and widely recognized concepts that link members of the groups together.
A muslim who decides to kill infidels is IN LINE with their religion.
A christian who decides to kill non-believers, after unsuccessfully trying to convert them, is IN LINE with their religion.
Is it morally reprehensible? Sure.
But at this point you should say, the only way to be a reasonable, modern theist is to ignore parts of your holy teachings, books, etc. that are immoral...So the only way to be a good theist is to ignore significant parts of your theology.
That doesn't bode well for the legitimacy of their religion.
Yes.
We have ALWAYS created the characters was want to submit to and how they act and what they do.
Its a stretch of an analogy but its not completely unreasonable.
A jesuit proposed the big bang...
- 391
- 67
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2011
FutureMD is making some great points. but to OP, I think and hope religion will phase out once people realize there's no reason to believe in any mythological deities. And the process of science will explain things more clearly as it advances.
That combined with the older generation dying off almost makes it certain, look at the Europe for example.
That combined with the older generation dying off almost makes it certain, look at the Europe for example.
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
As long as there are poor and uneducated people, there will be a religion of some sort.
Remember, in the black community their lives sucked SO MUCH that they had to HOPE they could have some sort of retribution after death. Thats powerful stuff.
Religion is nothing more than a coping mechanism. It offers (albeit poor) explanations for things that we don't like thinking about or talking about.
Last edited:
tehraiden
Banned
- 64
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
Never. Until science can explain who came first, the chicken or the egg.
- 4,271
- 267
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
people will still hold onto religion, but at the same time people will be more educated in the science department
- 585
- 43
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
"The scientists found that a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg, according to the paper Wednesday. The egg can therefore only exist if it has been created inside a chicken."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3823868...which-came-first-chicken-or-egg/#.UF3oCBiEOP8
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
A comment from the corner of the interweb:
I remember Ricky Gervais answering this a couple of years ago. In his own inimitable and quickfire style he rattled off something along the lines of: 'Well the egg came first, the creature that laid the egg was 99.9% chicken and the creature that came out of the egg was the first 100% chicken. There that's that one sorted.' It was pretty funny at the time and I'm sure Ricky, being the outspoken atheist that he is, thought he was being deeply Darwinian. Unfortunately his explanation of the old chicken and egg conundrum was based on almost the exact opposite of evolutionary theory: Platonic essentialism. A creature does not become a new species in one generation, it's a gradual process of incremental change due to non-random genetic mutations. Cladism will draw arbitrary lines separating speciation events, and these are useful for scientists, but they are arbitrary, and each line would necessarily be broad enough to encompass many generations of the species in question. It's well to remember Dawkins's: 'Beware the tyranny of discontinuous thinking.' As for the answer to the question, 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?' Facepalm. Every time.
- 477
- 141
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
Looking at it very logically, it would be the egg. By the theory of evolution, species change through mutation and sexual reproduction. At some point in time, some ancestor of the chicken held an egg that held a hatchling with enough mutation in its DNA that when hatched would cross the threshold from not-chicken to chicken.
