*** Science Or God? ***

Science or God?


  • Total voters
    517

geek_rocker

Broken In
You didn't mention it. Please mention carefully, what u are talking about. That is a sign of retarded person.
You are an idiot, a low minded villager and you call me retarded? Hmm.
geek_rocker said:
A book written 2000 years ago by shepherds and a guy who really didn't do anything important other than founding the useless Arya Samaj is soooo worthy of respect.
As everyone can see I made it pretty clear. It is not my fault that you are mentally retarded and cannot understand english.

Thats good if you open to new concepts, but what are u doing in a debate if u cant take a stance. Yes I can't prove God existance to you neither can science. I am just telling you my belive for the sake of debate and when you comment on it, then i have to answer.:-x
That's all I am saying, if you can't prove it, what is the use of debating? I can say that I am God beacuse I believe it and it is there in a book I wrote; will it make it true? No. Also, your arguments are really illogical and retarded.

micro_vishal said:
WTF, I dont belive in sun pulled by horses. I never say that i dont belive in surya(Sun) or Indra(Electricity).
Devas have different meaning in vedas. There is a difference between God and devas
Here is a direct extract from Satyarth prakash on this topic.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. What is meant by the mention of various devatas (Gods) in the Vedas then?[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A.~Whatsoever or whosoever possesses useful and brilliant qualities is called a devata, as the earth for instance; but it is nowhere said that it is God or is the object of our adoration. Even in the above mantra it is said that He, who is the sustainer of all devatas, is the adorable God, and is worthy of of being sought after, They are greatly mistaken who take the word "devata" to mean God.[/FONT]
In other words: Vedas are false, therefore I shall make my own interpretation of devatas, beacuse in reality it doesn't exist. And Indra isn't electricity. He was the rain god. DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING?

micro_vishal said:
This is actually very controversial topic in itself. You are talking of facts declared true by some british scientists like Max Muller. They had their own agenda for saying that. If you want to learn about this click on link:
*www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/aryan-invasion.html
*www.mantra.com/newsplus/aitmyth.html
LOL, Max muller wasn't a scientist you idiot. He was a german scholar and was interested in Indian culture. He respected Indian culture. Again, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING?

Websites don't prove anything. There is even a website which claims that the earth is flat. www.flatearthsociety.org Does it prove anything? No.

micro_vishal said:
Dont worry about my english skills btw. :-x:-x
I can see that both of you have nothing logical to say, so do some homework first and then come back.

I have to worry, See my first reply.

*pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/10/27/633607470680331650-trolls.jpg
 

amitash

Intel OCer
I once have asked a question in "ask an astrophysicist" on NASA site that what is it that create consiousness from mixing of chemical carbon compounds. They have no answer to it, simply they say that science has not progressed that much yet.

You might as well have asked them wat was the meaning of life...no one claims sciencs has all the answers, but its getting there...and moreover it conclusively proves the answers given by it and doesnt force ppl to blieve in it.

I know that one day science will have all the answers, and then this civilisation writes a book on it like vedas and when that will be found to other civilisation, they will think of us as fools.
Vedas at that time were books of science. it consists of many parts like astrology, medical, martial arts and weapons etc.

Thats the beauty of science...it descovers new things every second and debunks outdated things...Its not a flaw as u make it out to be, its the best part.

You have to look at other side too my friend.
I cannot belive that life can originate from lifeless matter.
I cannot believe that matter/energy which has no intelligence can arrange by itself in such a unique way to form Galaxy, Stars, Planets.

In short, u are ignorant.....scientists dont ask you to "believe", they ask you to look at the evidence and proof provided and accept facts and move on...unlike religion and god who tells you and forces you to believe....Its human tendency to always require a creator, a parent, a supreme being that always forgives and helps...like a light in a dark abyss...and this tendency will bite and snap at those who go against it....you say you cant believe in matter giving rise to life etc, etc...if that is the case, then how can you believe that there is god? who created him? why dont u want a explanation for that?

Moreover, as the quantum physics will progress, shocking results will come about creation, life and God. I am sure of that.

You cant be sure of anything untill its proven conclusively....its your imagination talking, not the logical part of your brain.

Just think, whenever you thinks to do some wrong, shame and guilt arrises in your mind for a short moment. That shame and guilt arises due to the God inside you which tries to prevent you.

How come that "shame and guilt" never arose in the people who destroyed the world trade center? how come it didnt show itself during the crusades? when hitler killed millions of jews? When Taliban commited those attrocities? when london was bombed? when the Taj was attacked? partition of india? suicide bombings?....after all, the people who did these things were deeply religious and did these things in the name of god...You might argue that people like stalin and Mao were atheists and they still did terrible things, BUT in fact, they did not do those terrible things in the name of atheism...then did not shout: "all hail atheists" and kill religious people...they did it because they were megalomaniacs who wanted to...religion was never a factor...but on the contrary there are millions of wars fought in the name of some god or the other....

What you are talking about is morality....how can ppl be moral without a god? the most likely explanation offered is that morality raises from evolution....certain changes over time, inflicts these changes in morality, not god...for eg: racism was not an issue back in the 18th century....nobody really cared...but as generations rolled by, it was gradually considered as a wrong thing....look at the rights of women for example...it was considered the norm 300 years back to have them just sit and cook or whatever all day...but that gradually changed and now they have equal rights....now we should embrace that change and move on...not stick to old religious sayings that tell you to imprison them...science moves on amending itself, so does evolution...Faith is unchanging and ever fixed.....These religious ppl commit these evil acts because they are sure that if they do it in the name of god, then all will be forgiven.....Isnt it better if there was no concept of a god, and that you control your own destiny? then you would be responsible of your own actions and not commit to evil deeds...

good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, it takes religion

Always belive in that, and follow what it says. You will always be happy.

The only reason that you will be happy is that you will be ignorant of punishment and the plight of others...you wont care if you go to jail for murder, u think god will help you out later because you killed in his name...ignorance is bliss isnt it?
 

geek_rocker

Broken In
Again, thats poor logic....Just because something cannot be disproved doesnt mean its true....yes agreed that u cant prove god doesnt exist...but by that reasoning you cant disprove that superman exists....Its called a "theory"....in science, everything is a theory till its proven...eg: "theory of gravitation", "theory of evolution", "the big bang theory"....for theists, there are no theories...its blind superstitious belief that its true...eg: "God exists, accept it...if you dont blieve in him then hes gonna f***ing send u to hell"....Coming back to the point, theists are totally arrogant to proofs and new discoveries, and atheists are totally the opposite...aka nothing is true untill proven....and "agnostics" are not ppl who are open minded, they are just the average joe who is unsure about everything.
No. Agnostics are the people who don't completely rule the possibility of God's existence. They are logical. Theists mostly are idiots, yes. But an agnostic believes that God may or may not exist, and refuses to concern himself over it. Hard-line atheism is a little bit stupid, IMO.

That superman argument is flawed because who knows, in another universe, superman may exist?

See: Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I'm sure I'm not your average Indian fellow, by any chance. :D

But yeah, if God exists, he would be still be very different than from what is depicted in the major world religions.

 

amitash

Intel OCer
No. Agnostics are the people who don't completely rule the possibility of God's existence. They are logical. Theists mostly are idiots, yes. But an agnostic believes that God may or may not exist, and refuses to concern himself over it. Hard-line atheism is a little bit stupid, IMO.

so agnostics basically dont care either way? that makes you part ignorant, not "open minded"...since your not bothered, you dont look into any issues and just let it be...no investigation, no proofs or faith or anything...You just dont care....just like average people...do average people care if evolution is proved or not? do they care if relegion slaughters thousands of people? they dont as long as it hurts them do they? now that imo is stupid....atleast "hard line atheists" care about the world.....so by your statement, it also means that agnostics arent logical as they dont see any proofs to draw conclusions too.... There is not a shred of evidence that God exists, but almost all the things written in any religius book about god have been disproven by science...and science today also goes as far as to find proof of how we came to exist...Yes it is not conclusive that the big bang started everything but atleast there is SOME evidence supporting it....now if you dont look at that evidence, then you are the one that is stupid.

That superman argument is flawed because who knows, in another universe, superman may exist?

Ok Ok that was just an example i blindly came up with....let me rephrase that to "superman existing on our planet"
 

mediator

Technomancer
amitash said:
so agnostics basically dont care either way? that makes you part ignorant, not "open minded"...since your not bothered, you dont look into any issues and just let it be...no investigation, no proofs or faith or anything...You just dont care....just like average people...do average people care if evolution is proved or not? do they care if relegion slaughters thousands of people? they dont as long as it hurts them do they? now that imo is stupid....
1. Treating all religions as same is the most idiotic thing.
2. You could have verified the rigVeda verse you opined as "evil" before. That again raises question if the so called self-proclaimed atheist is actually "following" the scientific way. Opining without verifying?
3. You are getting wrong on the meaning of "agnostic". It simply means "not rejecting and not accepting" or simply being "doubtful" so as to bring in a condition of "may or may not". It doesn't make anyone "part ignorant", "not open minded".
In your logic, you are only accepting things that are scientifically proven. How does life comes to a lifeless seed, that acc. to chemistry is composed of various "lifeless" elements, that grows into a big tree is still a mystery. If science can't explain it, it doesn't mean it is not true.

Like I asked earlier, are you willing to accept the "string theory and parallel universes"?

Next, many religions don't slaughter "thousands of people". Atleast not buddhism, sikhism, Hinduism or Jainism. I hope you won't quote manusmriti now! Intolerance cannot be equated with religion itself if the religion doesn't preach intolerance.

amitash said:
atleast "hard line atheists" care about the world.....so by your statement, it also means that agnostics arent logical as they dont see any proofs to draw conclusions too....
Tell me as an atheist how much do you use AC, Oven, refrigerator i.e the things that generate CFC (ozone depeleting chemicals+huge amount of heat generation), vehicles that cause pollution etc? Do you really care about the world?

First you screw the world by generating "global warming", undisposible nuclear waste, choking water piper coz of plastic etc as a result of human greed and luxury, use "science" and "scientific advancements" as a tool for it and later cry crocodile tears!

Is science bad or the person who is exploiting science?

I hope you understand that "caring about the world" also means caring about animals.

amitash said:
There is not a shred of evidence that God exists, but almost all the things written in any religius book about god have been disproven by science...and science today also goes as far as to find proof of how we came to exist...Yes it is not conclusive that the big bang started everything but atleast there is SOME evidence supporting it....now if you dont look at that evidence, then you are the one that is stupid.
LAst I remember science has still not been able to find the end, limits, starting point, before universe conditions and situations or life itself! Again it potrays how much of "faith" you have in science.

Read what the scientists say and you may opine....
*www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html

So as far as logic is concerned, I see only illogic and "faith in science" in your posts and not a modicum of "true scientific way of discussion". All this time you have only defined what science is and not discussed the science itself!!
 

dips_view

Broken In
originally posted by mediator
LAst I remember science has still not been able to find the end, limits, starting point, before universe conditions and situations or life itself! Again it potrays how much of "faith" you have in science.

SCIENCE is the continuous process to find out the truth.its not like believers who claims god does exits in written books.please read History of Science and you will get the truth.

AND BELIEVE OR NOT GOD DOES NOT EXITS.....:idea:
 

karnivore

in your face..
Agnostics are like fence sitters, yet to decide, which way to go. I don't say this in a derogatory sense, although it may sound as such. Agnosticism is the last stop to atheism for every atheist, starts out as an agnostic.

The moment one starts questioning anything that requires giant leaps of faith, e.g. religion or god, one takes a step towards agnosticism. But till one completely severs all association, however vague it is, with his personal belief system, or whatever remains of it, he continues to be an agnostic. It is actually a state of mind, where, one is waiting for more evidence to finally make up his mind. He can't let go either way.

The question therefore is, what and how much of evidence, not merely in quantity, but also in quality, is needed to finally make up one's mind, to be on one side or the other.

Atheists, are the ones who have come to the conclusion, that they have enough evidence in hand, to make that decision - that, in all probability, there is no god.
 

mediator

Technomancer
Agnostics are like fence sitters
May be like a third umpire, who is closely monitoring each and every situation. But I think it would be wise not to make generalizations which can be made upon atheists too.

dips said:
AND BELIEVE OR NOT GOD DOES NOT EXITS
Not Exist or not Exits! May or may not? :D
 

amitash

Intel OCer
2. You could have verified the rigVeda verse you opined as "evil" before. That again raises question if the so called self-proclaimed atheist is actually "following" the scientific way. Opining without verifying?

I didnt have to...this is a debate...I merely countered his argument...If the oppenent is quoting something then its his job to verify...not mine.

In your logic, you are only accepting things that are scientifically proven. How does life comes to a lifeless seed, that acc. to chemistry is composed of various "lifeless" elements, that grows into a big tree is still a mystery. If science can't explain it, it doesn't mean it is not true.

I have never said that its not true....Just merely said that you have to look at all the evidence...and i tend to lean towards the side that has more compound evidence....And thats just lean...not totally believe...i will still mostly wait for more evidence...But no evidence of god in thousands of years and that many things that people claim he can do being disproven and are continuing to be disproven, coupled with the way people use god through religion to commit dastardly acts leads me to atheism.

Like I asked earlier, are you willing to accept the "string theory and parallel universes"?

Not unless evidence is found to support it...they might have found evidence but i havent read about string theiry so i wouldnt know.

Next, many religions don't slaughter "thousands of people". Atleast not buddhism, sikhism, Hinduism or Jainism. I hope you won't quote manusmriti now! Intolerance cannot be equated with religion itself if the religion doesn't preach intolerance.

I view religions like buddhism and jainism to be a way of life or behaviour...and it doesnt matter to me if they preach intolerance or not....They are still using religion as a controlling tool...

Tell me as an atheist how much do you use AC, Oven, refrigerator i.e the things that generate CFC (ozone depeleting chemicals+huge amount of heat generation), vehicles that cause pollution etc? Do you really care about the world?

First you screw the world by generating "global warming", undisposible nuclear waste, choking water piper coz of plastic etc as a result of human greed and luxury, use "science" and "scientific advancements" as a tool for it and later cry crocodile tears!

Is science bad or the person who is exploiting science?

I hope you understand that "caring about the world" also means caring about animals.

So you ignore all the good things given by science? You would rather have us live like cave men? Yes for all the good things science has given, its given bad things too...but science itself will find a sollution for the bad things it has given...Like recycling plastic waste for example...We need to progress, to discover new things....after all, science gives most of its inventions to solve problems....Radioactive elements for example...can cure cancer, fuels which are slowly destroying the environment are the reason that we have progressed so much....Scientists see a problem and try to find a solution...more often than not, that solution creates another problem that science has to solve all over again...and that i feel is the beauty of it.

LAst I remember science has still not been able to find the end, limits, starting point, before universe conditions and situations or life itself! Again it potrays how much of "faith" you have in science.

Agreed that it hasnt, but its getting there and gathering more and more evidence every day...It should be supported and not condemned.

And i do not have any such "faith in science"...I dont have any faith in anything at all...just evidence and conclusions drawn by them...
 

mediator

Technomancer
amitash said:
I didnt have to...this is a debate...I merely countered his argument...If the oppenent is quoting something then its his job to verify...not mine.
And the only job you think you are left with is "opining" rather than "verifying"? Thats quite a brave logic you have.

amitash said:
I have never said that its not true....Just merely said that you have to look at all the evidence...and i tend to lean towards the side that has more compound evidence....And thats just lean...not totally believe...i will still mostly wait for more evidence...But no evidence of god in thousands of years and that many things that people claim he can do being disproven and are continuing to be disproven, coupled with the way people use god through religion to commit dastardly acts leads me to atheism.
Have you even pondered how "peope use science to commit dastardly acts"? Your ignorance of the matters speaks loud and clear. So if I compile a big list of how science is being used to screw earth and nature, will you convert to theism? Thats again illogic in itself.

amitash said:
I view religions like buddhism and jainism to be a way of life or behaviour...and it doesnt matter to me if they preach intolerance or not....They are still using religion as a controlling tool...
Who is using religion as a controlling tool? I don't see sikhs, buddhists, Hindus constantly fighting. Do u? Also, the Hindus who are aware about their scriptures are quick to identify the corrupt pandits. So again who is controlling?

There exist lost souls in the present era who call themselves as atheist and scientific and yet utter crap when discussing science. A common example,

Student A : How did life originated?
Student B (calling himself scientific): Read Darwin's evolution!

Did you understand the example? Please explain! So again who is controlling?

amitash said:
So you ignore all the good things given by science? You would rather have us live like cave men? Yes for all the good things science has given, its given bad things too...but science itself will find a sollution for the bad things it has given...Like recycling plastic waste for example...We need to progress, to discover new things....after all, science gives most of its inventions to solve problems....Radioactive elements for example...can cure cancer, fuels which are slowly destroying the environment are the reason that we have progressed so much....Scientists see a problem and try to find a solution...more often than not, that solution creates another problem that science has to solve all over again...and that i feel is the beauty of it.
You did not answer my question, but instead you are ranting either emotionally or illogically which is irrelevant to my question. Here's my question again. I asked to you, about yourself and NOT SCIENCE....

mediator said:
Tell me as an atheist how much do you use AC, Oven, refrigerator i.e the things that generate CFC (ozone depeleting chemicals+huge amount of heat generation), vehicles that cause pollution etc? Do you really care about the world?

First you screw the world by generating "global warming", undisposible nuclear waste, choking water piper coz of plastic etc as a result of human greed and luxury, use "science" and "scientific advancements" as a tool for it and later cry crocodile tears!

Is science bad or the person who is exploiting science?

I hope you understand that "caring about the world" also means caring about animals.
Please answer!


amitash said:
And i do not have any such "faith in science"...I dont have any faith in anything at all...just evidence and conclusions drawn by them...
amitash said:
but science itself will find a sollution for the bad things it has given

Your statements so far....
1. Science will do this and that.
2. It "will" find a solution to the all the screw ups.
3. Generalizations on theists, and agnostics.
4. Defining science, instead of talking the science behind. Talking superficial, instead of scientific explanations!


Do you really think you are doing any beter than a religious extremist who tries to impose his thoughts, religion etc on other? I can only see "intolerance" in your statements for those who "differ" in the viewpoint and then ranting when someone questions your "faith" asking stupid and irrelevant questions like "Have you forgotten what science has done for us?".

Regarding your emotional rants let us scrutinize your post again.
amitash said:
So you ignore all the good things given by science? You would rather have us live like cave men? Yes for all the good things science has given, its given bad things too...but science itself will find a sollution for the bad things it has given...Like recycling plastic waste for example...We need to progress, to discover new things....after all, science gives most of its inventions to solve problems....Radioactive elements for example...can cure cancer, fuels which are slowly destroying the environment are the reason that we have progressed so much....Scientists see a problem and try to find a solution...more often than not, that solution creates another problem that science has to solve all over again...and that i feel is the beauty of it.
1. I don't think Indian history had "cavemen" in it. Science was there in the past too. High, low. I dunno! But the scriptures and history themselves speak how luxurious a life "many" of them lived. Before continuing on your logic, do note the percentage of Indians below poverty line in the present era.
2. Who exactly will find the solution? How can you "predict"? Will they find a solution after all the global warming is at its peak and tsuamis becoming a regular phenoma?
3. Do you realise that you are equating destruction of environment with "progression"?
4. You find beauty in creating a problem first and then creating more problem as a result of pursuit of a solution for the previous one?


Speaking big about science, considering your thoughts as superior to others, calling others who differ as narrow minded etc, you clearly are not living upto your mark. Also, I asked you to read what scientists say and opine on it. A true scientific soul should rather be eager to digest matters of science instead of being reminded twice! :)


So @amitash...
1. You don't want to "read".
2. You don't want to talk "details".
3. You speak as if science "will" find cure for all the problems it created.
4. Only ranting that science will do this and that...

And then you say that you don't have such faith in science? :oops:

You know, "luck" and "hope" are as illogical as a "prayer" and in typical definition one who "prays" is called a "theist". You are only "hoping" big from science.
 

mediator

Technomancer
@rhitwick : Its my friendly advice to you. Don't mind, but I think you should reply when I'm debating with @all in general or with you. The question you quoted is for amitash. BTW, even if you had read my past replies and this question carefully, you would have understood my point already. :)
 

rhitwick

Democracy is a myth
@rhitwick : Its my friendly advice to you. Don't mind, but I think you should reply when I'm debating with @all in general or with you. The question you quoted is for amitash. BTW, even if you had read my past replies and this question carefully, you would have understood my point already. :)
See, its not me or u.
Till now (at least in recent debate) I've never commented on ur points as they have logics and u were handling it properly.
But, I could n't control to quote when u went out of logic.
Again, its not me or u or anyone. I just could not agree with some arguments which u provided to @amitash.
I got that that I'm making an image to u as "poking my nose to everywhere" but if u r posting ur views in a public forum u should be prepared to face such people.

And I got ur point in "that" portion I quoted. U wanted to express that all of who just refer to some "book" are hollow in knowledge or just "believe" in science.
But, I just wanted to know what would be the answer if the 2nd student would be a theist.

AND, IF U WANT ANSWERS ONLY FROM PEOPLE U WANT TO ANSWER; PM THEM :-|.
 

mediator

Technomancer
rhitwick said:
And I got ur point in "that" portion I quoted. U wanted to express that all of who just refer to some "book" are hollow in knowledge or just "believe" in science.
But, I just wanted to know what would be the answer if the 2nd student would be a theist.
Wrong again! :D Even recommending a book requires correct knowledge of it. Surely a teacher would recommend a thorough reads to a student before explaining something deeper in concept. And, its not about PMing. If you want to quote a question that I asked to someone else, then it requires....
1. You understand everything that other person is saying.
2. You understand everything I am saying.
3. Reading all the past replies.

It seems you understand a "few" points of amitash, a "few" of mine and forgotten about the past replies. Like I said read the question carefully, its not rocket science!
 

risrockz

Right off the assembly line
science of course you can answer every question through science but can you answer the one question "DOES GOD EXIST?"
 

rhitwick

Democracy is a myth
Wrong again! :D
If u say I'm wrong, I must be. As the question was of urs and its a "metaphor":grin:

So, would u please be kind enough to enlighten this pour soul by providing its original meaning.

I promise I won't post until @Amitash replies.

And, I'm here since d days of "Pink Unicorn" and "Clock"8)
 

mediator

Technomancer
If u say I'm wrong, I must be.
I'm not an authority on science or logic! Quit lowballing urself. :oops:
The meaning is clear from that post itself. You know, it happens sometimes when a teacher says that a question is difficult, the student leaves the normal approach and starts using all the infinite angles to view the problem which really makes him think that the question is difficult. "Only you think" that I have asked something conceptually very deep. :oops: I'm not gonna entertain you now. :x

Offtopic --
Watch this *www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhUQPhiNaLk
 
Top Bottom