Will science eventually replace religion?

[futuremd]

Never. Until science can explain who came first, the chicken or the egg.

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. 

This gets into what species are anyways. 

Its easy for us to reinforce boundaries of biology because its convenient, but its not entirely accurate because life is just a shade of grey of complex chemistry. 

 

[dman22193]

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. 

Trust me, I know first hand how religions try to fill in gaps for people emotionally when they have no other way to cope. Every time I used to go to church with my family the sermon would always be "you have nothing without jesus, this life on earth is worthless, jesus will help you when you cant pay your light bill" etc

Its almost like a scam. If your life isnt eff'd up in the first place, there would be no reason to buy into the bs

 

[sircharles2ol3]

Man still has lots to learn in terms of science the human brain, so it'll be a while till that happens.

One day tho....

 

[let me post]

Never. Until science can explain who came first, the chicken or the egg.

So whats your excuse going to be now?

 

[relli45]

As a person who loved science as a child to see where it ended up makes me loose all faith in believing science is here to help.  People say science has made things much easier which is true, or it can all so be said that science has made us lazier and dumbed us down.  I mean really you don't even have to know how to spell anymore, because auto type and spell check has got your back.  We praise our almighty computers, laptops, smart phones, TV's, diet pills, etc.  But the reality of it all is we only needed a certain extent of the technology we have today.  But science is no different then politics it has gone to the corporations as well.  S**t look at Apple.  The craziest part is people fall for there simple little method of moving units.  Which is holding out on useless tech. so they can drop another version every year.

Science has caused children to have there body parts hacked off.  They've been raped and murdered so we can get longer battery life out of our devices.  So we can watch TV in HD.  But nobodies talking about that.  The media assist in demonizing an entire religion for the actions of a few, but why not do the same with science.  No media outlet had anything to say about Bayer supposedly sending loads of blood thinning Meds to South America that they knew where tainted with HIV.  They say science will cure HIV/AIDS and cancer.  You know what happens when that day comes no more funding no more research grants.  The cash cow is no longer.  The biggest question is who created HIV/AIDS where did it come from?  Why is it in the corn in certain African regions?  Could it be to heighten the fear to help keep the government grants rolling in.  That whole Anthrax thing back in the day was a scientist that did it to gain popularity for his vaccine.  Why because at the end of the day science is a corporation.  It's all about big business.

What real truths have science given us.  For those that believe in global-warming science is to blame for that through industry production, and the gasoline engine.  Science increased the rate of cancer by creating processed food, radio waves, etc.  The food should have been common sense to a scientist IMO.  If it takes longer to spoil in open air then what is it doing in the intestine's compared to regular food.  Or maybe it was common science and the scientist just didn't care.  All these bombs that create massive destruction.  Pills that are supposed to help, but end up doing much more harm then anything.  I know this guy with crohns, and the meds they gave him help at the cost of him having two synthetic hips at the age of 30.  Which is a side effect from his meds.  We see the class action suits on TV new ones popping up every few months.

They tell you what this planet is made out of and what the sun is made out of by just looking at it.  If that isn't the dumbest s**t to believe in, but people do.

The truth of it all is science is and has been a religion.  People live by it and follow it to the tee, but science hasn't proven itself.  The cold hard facts and evidence you all bank on gets disputed and disregarded every time some new technology or new discovery comes along to crush the old evidence.  Yet people still treat science as if it's the gospel.

Really what is sillier to do believe in a  being that can't be seen or follow a man full of flaws just like you that maybe caring arterial motives and objectives.

 

[shoefreakbaby]

i totally didn't expect to come in this thread and see FutureMD all over it.

 

[weekz]

Give it another century and I'm sure it will happen.

 

[futuremd]

 

[a 5th of august]

Science will take the place of religion when everyone starts to have faith in themselves and their fellow man, instead of something or someone that is supposedly "higher".  But I'm afraid that that will never happen. 

 

[tehraiden]

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. 

And who put the egg here? Did atmos and protons all combine with man made nature to form a egg? Or did GOD put the egg here along with the rest of life? Come on man. Even if you don't believe in god, all religion points to there being some sort of higher power that is NOT MAN.

Understand that before MAn, there was and STILL is a higher power. Prove me wrong. Did science create man? Or did GOD upstairs create MAN?

 

[a 5th of august]

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. 

And who put the egg here? Did atmos and protons all combine with man made nature to form a egg? Or did GOD put the egg here along with the rest of life? Come on man. Even if you don't believe in god, all religion points to there being some sort of higher power than is NOT MAN.

Understand that before MAn, there was and STILL is a higher power. Prove me wrong.

Actually, through a series of events, atoms essentially did come together to form the egg.  And just because all religion points to a higher being doesn't mean there is one.  If there was a duck standing in front of you and everyone pointed at it and said it was a chicken, would you believe that it was a chicken?

 

[tehraiden]

Actually, through a series of events, atoms essentially did come together to form the egg.  And just because all religion points to a higher being doesn't mean there is one.  If there was a duck standing in front of you and everyone pointed at it and said it was a chicken, would you believe that it was a chicken?

IF thats the case, why aren't EGGS create the same way? Why are we running short on CHICKENS? Come on man, your science sounds terrible. IF SCIENCE CREATED EVERYTHING ON EARTH, WHY IS THERE STILL WORLD HUNGER? why cant man just recreate more food?

 

[a 5th of august]

Actually, through a series of events, atoms essentially did come together to form the egg.  And just because all religion points to a higher being doesn't mean there is one.  If there was a duck standing in front of you and everyone pointed at it and said it was a chicken, would you believe that it was a chicken?

IF thats the case, why aren't EGGS create the same way? Why are we running short on CHICKENS? Come on man, your science sounds terrible. IF SCIENCE CREATED EVERYTHING ON EARTH, WHY IS THERE STILL WORLD HUNGER? why cant man just recreate more food?

Available resources and politics are a few reasons to answer your last question. 

 

[3am scholar]

IF thats the case, why aren't EGGS create the same way? Why are we running short on CHICKENS? Come on man, your science sounds terrible. IF SCIENCE CREATED EVERYTHING ON EARTH, WHY IS THERE STILL WORLD HUNGER? why cant man just recreate more food?

 

[tehraiden]

Available resources and politics are a few reasons to answer your last question. 

Wrong again, Science can't explain everything. I'm sorry.

 

[shatterkneesinc]

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.

and a lot of muslim will condemn the muslims that participate in these activities

same for christians

what is your basis for making this assertion?

is religion the problem or is it "religious" people?

being charitable and kind are also IN LINE with many religions in this world

how is killing in the name of god any different from killing in the name of a politics and patriotism?

what about the scientifically correct ideology of eugenics? lets kill off all the handicap people in the world and only pass down the good genes.

do you as a scientist agree with this?

 

[tlrdx91]

As a person who loved science as a child to see where it ended up makes me loose all faith in believing science is here to help.  People say science has made things much easier which is true, or it can all so be said that science has made us lazier and dumbed us down.  I mean really you don't even have to know how to spell anymore, because auto type and spell check has got your back.  We praise our almighty computers, laptops, smart phones, TV's, diet pills, etc.  But the reality of it all is we only needed a certain extent of the technology we have today.  But science is no different then politics it has gone to the corporations as well.  S**t look at Apple.  The craziest part is people fall for there simple little method of moving units.  Which is holding out on useless tech. so they can drop another version every year.

Science has caused children to have there body parts hacked off.  They've been raped and murdered so we can get longer battery life out of our devices.  So we can watch TV in HD.  But nobodies talking about that.  The media assist in demonizing an entire religion for the actions of a few, but why not do the same with science.  No media outlet had anything to say about Bayer supposedly sending loads of blood thinning Meds to South America that they knew where tainted with HIV.  They say science will cure HIV/AIDS and cancer.  You know what happens when that day comes no more funding no more research grants.  The cash cow is no longer.  The biggest question is who created HIV/AIDS where did it come from?  Why is it in the corn in certain African regions?  Could it be to heighten the fear to help keep the government grants rolling in.  That whole Anthrax thing back in the day was a scientist that did it to gain popularity for his vaccine.  Why because at the end of the day science is a corporation.  It's all about big business.

What real truths have science given us.  For those that believe in global-warming science is to blame for that through industry production, and the gasoline engine.  Science increased the rate of cancer by creating processed food, radio waves, etc.  The food should have been common sense to a scientist IMO.  If it takes longer to spoil in open air then what is it doing in the intestine's compared to regular food.  Or maybe it was common science and the scientist just didn't care.  All these bombs that create massive destruction.  Pills that are supposed to help, but end up doing much more harm then anything.  I know this guy with crohns, and the meds they gave him help at the cost of him having two synthetic hips at the age of 30.  Which is a side effect from his meds.  We see the class action suits on TV new ones popping up every few months.

They tell you what this planet is made out of and what the sun is made out of by just looking at it.  If that isn't the dumbest s**t to believe in, but people do.

The truth of it all is science is and has been a religion.  People live by it and follow it to the tee, but science hasn't proven itself.  The cold hard facts and evidence you all bank on gets disputed and disregarded every time some new technology or new discovery comes along to crush the old evidence.  Yet people still treat science as if it's the gospel.

Really what is sillier to do believe in a  being that can't be seen or follow a man full of flaws just like you that maybe caring arterial motives and objectives.

Hopefully, you are not trolling or restating what's on conspiracy videos. Your argument is that science is open to change and that some scientists have ulterior motives with their research and that these facts should discredit science.

Science is continual process of analyzing and systematically trying to understand the world around us with a valid means of experimentation and proofs. Religion on the other hand is an end all tale that contains all truths needed to be known. Science does not equate religion. There are some similarity between the two in that both try to explain the cause and workings of the universe. But the biggest difference is that religion expresses this with sets of beliefs (opinions) rather than facts (can be logically verified through experience and observation). Another key difference is that religion purports a purpose or meaning for the universe. This is really a flawed conception considering you are essentially anthropomorphising the universe to fit humanity into, which you can see is just another example of belief/faith.

Although morality is important for a functioning society, it doesn't necessarily play an important role in science because science is concerned with facts rather than feelings and opinions of people. Science is continually growing body of facts that are tested time after time and until a contradiction arises that body of knowledge remains constant. Considering this, you can see that the morality of scientists have no bearing on science.

So, it is sillier to believe in a being that can't be acknowledged by sensory input rather than follow a man that is full of flaws and with ulterior motives but presents facts.

 

[a 5th of august]

Available resources and politics are a few reasons to answer your last question. 

Wrong again, Science can't explain everything. I'm sorry.

I never said that science could.  But it does a better job of attempting to than religion.

I shouldn't have entertained you or your questions.  I had the same facial expression as that picture above, but felt like being nice.  I regret that.

 

[the nomad]

I think science will REDEFINE religion, the two are hand and hand.

 

[yeold360s]

ok i will start
science created the atomic bomb

Religion has killed millions of more people than any atomic bomb.

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.

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. 

Your penchant for generalizing when it suits your argument is admirable. I'd advise you not to speak on what you don't know or comprehend, because it doesn't bode well for you.  Of course, you'll get your circle-jerk reps so I don't see why you'd stop. I'm outie 500

 

[3am scholar]

Wrong again, Science can't explain everything. I'm sorry.

Science isn't meant to explain. It's merely used as a tool to refute or make claims, nothing more.

 

[futuremd]

As a person who loved science as a child to see where it ended up makes me loose all faith in believing science is here to help.  People say science has made things much easier which is true, or it can all so be said that science has made us lazier and dumbed us down.

making life easier tends to do that.

Unless you'd be better off without refrigeration or the cotton gin. 

  I mean really you don't even have to know how to spell anymore, because auto type and spell check has got your back.  We praise our almighty computers, laptops, smart phones, TV's, diet pills, etc.  But the reality of it all is we only needed a certain extent of the technology we have today.  

False. Making information more accessible makes us smarter overall. It makes us more reliant on it, but it allows us to spend our time not trying to find information, but USING that information. 

But science is no different then politics it has gone to the corporations as well.  S**t look at Apple.  The craziest part is people fall for there simple little method of moving units.  Which is holding out on useless tech. so they can drop another version every year.

Consumerism isn't the same as technically creating innovative products for the market. 

Can science be politicized? Sure. Just like Football can be. But the process of learning more about the world is merely just that. What you choose to do with the information is up to you.

Apple's use of concepts in anodized aluminium is what allows them to make colored ipods. 

Even the simplest thing is a result of our desire to learn more about how to use the world around us. 

Science has caused children to have there body parts hacked off.  They've been raped and murdered so we can get longer battery life out of our devices.  So we can watch TV in HD.  But nobodies talking about that. 

Science did that? 

Thats news to me.

Vice Guide has a documentary in the Congo where they talk about the mining of Coltan for electronics, but how is that "science?" 

Thats, unfortunately, capitalism being used to exploit resources. 

No one is talking about it because your argument is flawed. Thats why. People have been saying for years that we use conflict metals. But its the allocation and access to the metals that cause problems...not the metals/alloys/ores themselves. 

The media assist in demonizing an entire religion for the actions of a few, but why not do the same with science. 

Because religion says explicitly how to act. Science uncovers knowledge and leaves you free to do with it what you will.  Religion doesn't vive you the creative license to be innovative. It asserts things without testing the validity or veracity of any of it. 

No media outlet had anything to say about Bayer supposedly sending loads of blood thinning Meds to South America that they knew where tainted with HIV. 

Actually, every media outlet spoke about it. Especially in germany. Thats why google is here. I guess CBS, MSNBC, or the NYT not speaking about it doesn't matter. 

How is this a flaw in medicine itself? An oversight and mishap on their behalf doesn't mean "science" is bad. Thats like saying our understanding of biochemistry means we should stop researching biological weapons. 

Unless you'd be better off without the pills to the cure the ailments they were DESIGNED to cure in the first place.

They say science will cure HIV/AIDS and cancer.  You know what happens when that day comes no more funding no more research grants.  The cash cow is no longer.  The biggest question is who created HIV/AIDS where did it come from?

RadioLab breaks this down: http://www.radiolab.org/2011/nov/14/aids/

Its been traced to the early 20th century in central africa. Its a mutated simian virus. They eat tons of bush meat out there so something was bound to happen. 

Why is it in the corn in certain African regions? 

Proof?

HIV can't last long outside of a host. Its unstable just floating around on the surface of things.

Could it be to heighten the fear to help keep the government grants rolling in.  That whole Anthrax thing back in the day was a scientist that did it to gain popularity for his vaccine.  Why because at the end of the day science is a corporation.  It's all about big business.

Big pharma is NOT "science"

Pharmaceutical companies USE our understanding of modern science to create things. 

The pursuit of human knowledge is not the same as 

What real truths have science given us.

Telomeres cause aging?

Ulcers are the result of bacteria?

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation?

...WHAT?

For those that believe in global-warming science is to blame for that through industry production, and the gasoline engine.

Thats not "science" 

Thats the result of the industrial revolution. You can't keep linking progress of any sort that YOU benefit from as being somehow representative of  why innovation is a bad thing.

We understand that global warming is real, but it doesn't mean we can't try to slow it down or stop it.  

Science increased the rate of cancer by creating processed food, radio waves, etc. 

This hasn't been proven. Especially the radio wave parts...especially since you're so "anti-radio" now. There might be a link to living close to power-lines though.

Processed foods? Depends which ones.

BUT overall the rate of cancer has gone up because we're also living longer. Also, we're no longer dying from things we used to die from. The overall incidence of disease IS LOWER.

The food should have been common sense to a scientist IMO.

Oh really? 

  If it takes longer to spoil in open air then what is it doing in the intestine's compared to regular food. 

Yeah, forbid we have to feed billions of people on old-world farming tactics or try to transport goods over longer distances. 

You can't have a modern society without innovations in agriculture. Techniques are getting better...but the world has only been doing this for barely 100 years. 

 Or maybe it was common science and the scientist just didn't care. 

Yeah, youre right. No one cares about AZT or Penicillin. 

All these bombs that create massive destruction. 

Yeah. Boo science. 

Understanding how nuclear physics works hasn't been beneficial at all...except in modern medicine or anything. 

Pills that are supposed to help, but end up doing much more harm then anything. 

If you feel like you can cure gonorrhea with prayer, go right ahead. Society will thank you for not adding to our bills paying for your healthcare. 

 I know this guy with crohns, and the meds they gave him help at the cost of him having two synthetic hips at the age of 30.  Which is a side effect from his meds.  We see the class action suits on TV new ones popping up every few months.

Side effects happen. Unless you think people were out to purposely harm your friend.

I know a girl with IBS. Does that mean science caused that too? Not to mention that in the past 5 years we've learned more about how to treat and possibly cure it.

But you'll just ignore that too... 

They tell you what this planet is made out of and what the sun is made out of by just looking at it.  If that isn't the dumbest s**t to believe in, but people do.

Yeah, now you're just being ri-damn-diculous. 

Its called gas and light spectroscopy. 

If you don't know what this is, then I can't help you. 

Take a basic chemistry or physics class. Everyone in there knows this. Catch up.

Are you serious right now? 

The truth of it all is science is and has been a religion. 

False. Science doesn't assert things it can't prove.

Religion does. 

Science is open to being wrong and changing its stance.

Religion does not. 

People live by it and follow it to the tee, but science hasn't proven itself.

Thats how the entire scientific method works. 

The cold hard facts and evidence you all bank on gets disputed and disregarded every time some new technology or new discovery comes along to crush the old evidence.  Yet people still treat science as if it's the gospel.

Because thats how we learn

Unless you'd be cool with us just saying that we shouldn't change the notion of the earth as the center of the universe.

The fact that science can get things wrong, admit it, and correct the error is what makes it beautiful. Religion doesn't allow that sort of honesty OR attention to error correction. 

But you're right. Since we learned more about AIDS or how to treat the flu EVERY DAMN YEAR we can't use it.

Really what is sillier to do believe in a  being that can't be seen or follow a man full of flaws just like you that maybe caring arterial motives and objectives.

A man of flaws who recognizes his flaws and works to correct them is more admirable than one who claims to be perfect.

And its not "arterial" motives. Its Ulterior. Anything "arterial" refers to vasculature. 

Real talk, if you're so "anti-science" go log off NT and get lost in the trees. Hook up with Les Stroud and make it happen. 

I'm tired of all this demagoguery  focused on equating science to religion. 

Its not the same. It can't even be compared.

In fact, science has no stance on religion, merely the validity or legitimacy of the claims that are presented. 

If you want to use your knowledge of gravity to make a bomb or create levitating cars, DO THAT...but dont sit here and act like because some people used smallpox in blankets as opposed to reverse engineering bacteria to create insulin that all of a sudden that they're all one in the same negative things.

Science isn't a "thing"

Science is a process. 

 

[futuremd]

I think science will REDEFINE religion, the two are hand and hand.

...What?

Religion just moves the goalposts while riding on the back of science.

Is there a theist today that REALLY believes in a 6 day creation as opposed to 1000 years ago? 

Religion is everything people can't explain. Period. 

So if we can't explain it (YET), then "god" did it. 

Get real. 

---

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. 

And who put the egg here? Did atmos and protons all combine with man made nature to form a egg? 

No. You have to understand how eggs evolve.

Evolution isn't a ladder. Everything that exists NOW exists as the terminal form of its evolution. Every bug, tree, or deer is the most modern form to have ever existed. 

There were species before that were somewhat "chicken" and somewhat "before chicken" so essentially over time you have to realize that there was a point in time that there was the ancestor to chickens that wasn't "fully" chicken. 

Or did GOD put the egg here along with the rest of life? Come on man. Even if you don't believe in god, all religion points to there being some sort of higher power that is NOT MAN.

Any proof?

You're making a lot of lofty claims. 

If you assert this, you must back it up

On top of that, you can't say "god" put the egg here. Life wasn't just planted here as an egg. There were species BEFORE the chicken...so you have to account for the fact that gradually it became what you associate with "chicken" . 

Understand that before MAn, there was and STILL is a higher power. Prove me wrong. Did science create man? Or did GOD upstairs create MAN?

Flawed argument. 

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You say there is a higher power. Prove it. You can't say "prove me wrong." You can't prove the negative of a deductive claim.

What do you mean did "science create man?" 

There is no evidence for the "god creating man" hypothesis, so unless you back it up then you can assert it as proven. 

---

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.

and a lot of muslim will condemn the muslims that participate in these activities

same for christians

what is your basis for making this assertion?

is religion the problem or is it "religious" people?

being charitable and kind are also IN LINE with many religions in this world

The problem is religion.

For example. Christians and Muslims assert that the bible/quran are infallible and inerrant.

As such, can you 

Being religious isn't about being "good"...its about being RELIGIOUS. That means doing whatever is IN the religion. If you don't like it, don't join the association. 

how is killing in the name of god any different from killing in the name of a politics and patriotism?

Its not.

what about the scientifically correct ideology of eugenics? lets kill off all the handicap people in the world and only pass down the good genes.

Its not "scientifically correct"

Eugenics isn't "verified"...the only thing it does is kill the weak and preserve the strong. Thats not anything "good" or "bad" intrinsically. Its a process that people use.

Obviously, as a black man, I think that was a negative point in society, BUT you have to remember that evolution doesn't progress towards "GOOD" or "BAD"...it merely EVOLVES. Thats it. 

The degree to which something evolves depends on its environment and a combination of the resulting/infringing mutations present. 

do you as a scientist agree with this?

You stated several claims and want me to agree with all fo them...what? 

---

Available resources and politics are a few reasons to answer your last question. 

Wrong again, Science can't explain everything. I'm sorry.

Science never claimed to be able to do so. 

Its a tool used to verify claims being presented.

---

Actually, through a series of events, atoms essentially did come together to form the egg.  And just because all religion points to a higher being doesn't mean there is one.  If there was a duck standing in front of you and everyone pointed at it and said it was a chicken, would you believe that it was a chicken?

IF thats the case, why aren't EGGS create the same way? 

Because there are different species?

Why are we running short on CHICKENS?

Overpopulation?

 Come on man, your science sounds terrible. IF SCIENCE CREATED EVERYTHING ON EARTH, WHY IS THERE STILL WORLD HUNGER? why cant man just recreate more food?

Norman Borlaug.

Get to know him.

This man's advances in wheat production is said to have saved the lives of BILLIONS. 

---

ok i will start
science created the atomic bomb

Religion has killed millions of more people than any atomic bomb.

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.

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. 

Your penchant for generalizing when it suits your argument is admirable. I'd advise you not to speak on what you don't know or comprehend, because it doesn't bode well for you.  Of course, you'll get your circle-jerk reps so I don't see why you'd stop. I'm outie 500

I'll restate it so it makes sense to you, and other liberal theists.

The only way you can be a reasonable theist in the first-world is to ignore most of your religious texts.

The. Only. Way.

 

[bang bang]

hairline theory will replace religion and science

 

[thorrocksjs]

Sorry but gmo food ,Monsanto food is not good you gotta be an idiot or a completely dense to not see its harsh effects on people .The food industry has grown out of control and its harming people more than it is helping.