Why Science and Religion will never contradict

[Ripoll]

The vast majority of atheistic arguments that are adherently opposed to the existence of a God incorrectly perceive the way in which God is supposed to be taken.

God is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is. The argument isn't a scientific one, but it does not neglect science. God is science for all intensive purposes. The very existence of our reasoning minds can be attributed to God, our ability to think is what makes us have meaning. Without God there would be no meaning, our individual thought is prove that God exists. Is there a cushy heaven we got to after we die? Probably not, nor is there a damnation. Our eternal life extends through what we have changed in the world, the relationships we fostered, the lives we changed, the science we have utilized to transform and enhance human capabilities to give meaning.

Science is the how, Religion is the why.

Thus religion is an instrument of purpose, not one of explanation. Surely then, in this matter, the two do not contradict.

Even if you disagree, can we stop being such narcissists about it? Nothing is less productive than a socially inept atheist who believes they have reached "enlightenment" and seek to force all his friends into believing religion is a sham and they should defer from seeking true meaning and happiness in their lives. In short, shut your trap about it and mind your own damn business.

[MERIZoC]

What are we supposed to discuss?

[Geilinor]

He is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is.

Then why use the word "he"?

[Scomagia]

He is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is.

Then why use the word "he"?

Indeed. It would be far more appropriate.

[WestRedMaple]

The vast majority of atheistic arguments that are adherently opposed to the existence of a God incorrectly perceive the way in which God is supposed to be taken.

He is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is. The argument isn't a scientific one, but it does not neglect science. God is science for all intensive purposes. The very existence of our reasoning minds can be attributed to God, our ability to think is what makes us have meaning. Without God there would be no meaning, our individual thought is prove that God exists. Is there a cushy heaven we got to after we die? Probably not, nor is there a damnation. Our eternal life extends through what we have changed in the world, the relationships we fostered, the lives we changed, the science we have utilized to transform and enhance human capabilities to give meaning.

Science is the how, Religion is the why.

Thus religion is an instrument of purpose, not one of explanation. Surely then, in this matter, the two do not contradict.

Even if you disagree, can we stop being such narcissists about it? Nothing is less productive than a socially inept atheist who believes they have reached "enlightenment" and seek to force all his friends into believing religion is a sham and they should defer from seeking true meaning and happiness in their lives. In short, shut your trap about it and mind your own damn business.

So what you're saying is 'shut your trap about it while I proceed to not follow that advice'.

[Zottistan]

He is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is.

Then why use the word "he"?

Well it's hardly a woman.

[Hirota]

Nothing is less productive than a socially inept atheist who believes they have reached "enlightenment" and seek to force all his friends into believing religion is a sham and they should defer from seeking true meaning and happiness in their lives. In short, shut your trap about it and mind your own damn business.

I've met plenty of religious folk who would spend their free time knocking on my door, trying to get me to read their silly flyers and wasting my time. I'd argue they are easily as unproductive as your imagined character, as not only do they waste the time of their friends, but of random people as well.

I've met no atheists who match the character you have created. I'm sure one must exist somewhere.

[MERIZoC]

Then why use the word "he"?

Well it's hardly a woman.

Who knows?

[The Cobalt Sky]

The vast majority of atheistic arguments that are adherently opposed to the existence of a God incorrectly perceive the way in which God is supposed to be taken.

He is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is. The argument isn't a scientific one, but it does not neglect science. God is science for all intensive purposes. The very existence of our reasoning minds can be attributed to God, our ability to think is what makes us have meaning. Without God there would be no meaning, our individual thought is prove that God exists. Is there a cushy heaven we got to after we die? Probably not, nor is there a damnation. Our eternal life extends through what we have changed in the world, the relationships we fostered, the lives we changed, the science we have utilized to transform and enhance human capabilities to give meaning.

Science is the how, Religion is the why.

Thus religion is an instrument of purpose, not one of explanation. Surely then, in this matter, the two do not contradict.

Even if you disagree, can we stop being such narcissists about it? Nothing is less productive than a socially inept atheist who believes they have reached "enlightenment" and seek to force all his friends into believing religion is a sham and they should defer from seeking true meaning and happiness in their lives. In short, shut your trap about it and mind your own damn business.

Religion and science could totally contradict. You could have a religion that asserts things that clearly aren't true.

[Immoren]

Well it's hardly a woman.

Who knows?

Praise Ashera! O/

[Ripoll]

He is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is.

Then why use the word "he"?

It illuminates what God is, consider it personification. Calling God "it" wouldn't sound very relateable would it?

[Herrebrugh]

... Your argument is "God exists because we can think"?

Odd.

[Basseemia]

Uh God is a woman obviously.

[MERIZoC]

Then why use the word "he"?

It illuminates what God is, consider it personification. Calling God "it" wouldn't sound very relateable would it?

It would illustrate your point and not make you seem hypocritical.

[Scyobayrynn]

The vast majority of atheistic arguments that are adherently opposed to the existence of a God incorrectly perceive the way in which God is supposed to be taken.

He is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is. The argument isn't a scientific one, but it does not neglect science. God is science for all intensive purposes. The very existence of our reasoning minds can be attributed to God, our ability to think is what makes us have meaning. Without God there would be no meaning, our individual thought is prove that God exists. Is there a cushy heaven we got to after we die? Probably not, nor is there a damnation. Our eternal life extends through what we have changed in the world, the relationships we fostered, the lives we changed, the science we have utilized to transform and enhance human capabilities to give meaning.

Science is the how, Religion is the why.

Thus religion is an instrument of purpose, not one of explanation. Surely then, in this matter, the two do not contradict.

Even if you disagree, can we stop being such narcissists about it? Nothing is less productive than a socially inept atheist who believes they have reached "enlightenment" and seek to force all his friends into believing religion is a sham and they should defer from seeking true meaning and happiness in their lives. In short, shut your trap about it and mind your own damn business.

While often Atheist make the mistake of presuming Science fact refutes religion.
We can not forget that MANY people of religion refute science fact and use their religion as a basis for this blind attitude.

So dont just mark the Atheists as "not getting it" because the believers dont get it either.

[Little Sealand]

The vast majority of atheistic arguments that are adherently opposed to the existence of a God incorrectly perceive the way in which God is supposed to be taken.

He is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is. The argument isn't a scientific one, but it does not neglect science. God is science for all intensive purposes. The very existence of our reasoning minds can be attributed to God, our ability to think is what makes us have meaning. Without God there would be no meaning, our individual thought is prove that God exists. Is there a cushy heaven we got to after we die? Probably not, nor is there a damnation. Our eternal life extends through what we have changed in the world, the relationships we fostered, the lives we changed, the science we have utilized to transform and enhance human capabilities to give meaning.

Science is the how, Religion is the why.

Thus religion is an instrument of purpose, not one of explanation. Surely then, in this matter, the two do not contradict.

Even if you disagree, can we stop being such narcissists about it? Nothing is less productive than a socially inept atheist who believes they have reached "enlightenment" and seek to force all his friends into believing religion is a sham and they should defer from seeking true meaning and happiness in their lives. In short, shut your trap about it and mind your own damn business.

Religion and science contradict each other all the time.

Science says the big bang theory
Religion says it was created within days by god.

[Scyobayrynn]

The vast majority of atheistic arguments that are adherently opposed to the existence of a God incorrectly perceive the way in which God is supposed to be taken.

He is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is. The argument isn't a scientific one, but it does not neglect science. God is science for all intensive purposes. The very existence of our reasoning minds can be attributed to God, our ability to think is what makes us have meaning. Without God there would be no meaning, our individual thought is prove that God exists. Is there a cushy heaven we got to after we die? Probably not, nor is there a damnation. Our eternal life extends through what we have changed in the world, the relationships we fostered, the lives we changed, the science we have utilized to transform and enhance human capabilities to give meaning.

Science is the how, Religion is the why.

Thus religion is an instrument of purpose, not one of explanation. Surely then, in this matter, the two do not contradict.

Even if you disagree, can we stop being such narcissists about it? Nothing is less productive than a socially inept atheist who believes they have reached "enlightenment" and seek to force all his friends into believing religion is a sham and they should defer from seeking true meaning and happiness in their lives. In short, shut your trap about it and mind your own damn business.

Religion and science could totally contradict. You could have a religion that asserts things that clearly aren't true.

Science and Religion do not contradict. Though science and the Religious often do.

[Scyobayrynn]

The vast majority of atheistic arguments that are adherently opposed to the existence of a God incorrectly perceive the way in which God is supposed to be taken.

He is not a person, and individual, or any entity that is capable of perceived emotion or physical properties. The reason for this, is because God is emotion. God is character, personality, individual thought, love, relationships, social constructs, communities, innovation, these are all examples of what God truly is. The argument isn't a scientific one, but it does not neglect science. God is science for all intensive purposes. The very existence of our reasoning minds can be attributed to God, our ability to think is what makes us have meaning. Without God there would be no meaning, our individual thought is prove that God exists. Is there a cushy heaven we got to after we die? Probably not, nor is there a damnation. Our eternal life extends through what we have changed in the world, the relationships we fostered, the lives we changed, the science we have utilized to transform and enhance human capabilities to give meaning.

Science is the how, Religion is the why.

Thus religion is an instrument of purpose, not one of explanation. Surely then, in this matter, the two do not contradict.

Even if you disagree, can we stop being such narcissists about it? Nothing is less productive than a socially inept atheist who believes they have reached "enlightenment" and seek to force all his friends into believing religion is a sham and they should defer from seeking true meaning and happiness in their lives. In short, shut your trap about it and mind your own damn business.

Religion and science contradict each other all the time.

Science says the big bang theory
Religion says it was created within days by god.

Says who?
The Big bang offers no contradiction to my religions creation Mythos. Neither does evolution offer a contradiction to my religion's formation of man.

[Ripoll]

Nothing is less productive than a socially inept atheist who believes they have reached "enlightenment" and seek to force all his friends into believing religion is a sham and they should defer from seeking true meaning and happiness in their lives. In short, shut your trap about it and mind your own damn business.

I've met plenty of religious folk who would spend their free time knocking on my door, trying to get me to read their silly flyers and wasting my time. I'd argue they are easily as unproductive as your imagined character, as not only do they waste the time of their friends, but of random people as well.

I've met no atheists who match the character you have created. I'm sure one must exist somewhere.

There's plenty in the Atheism vs Christianity thread.

Mainly the type where "I'd never set foot in a church" "anyone who is religious is a lunatic" "religion is evil and only creates evil" etc.

[Zottistan]

Then why use the word "he"?

It illuminates what God is, consider it personification. Calling God "it" wouldn't sound very relateable would it?

The fundamental essence of life, the universe and everything is not relatable to begin with. This is why the Christians made their god a person. People are relatable. Mysterious vaguely defined energies underpinning emotion and life are not.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Religion and science could totally contradict. You could have a religion that asserts things that clearly aren't true.

Science and Religion do not contradict. Though science and the Religious often do.

I see what you're saying. Religion as in its base definition. Got it.

[Ripoll]

It illuminates what God is, consider it personification. Calling God "it" wouldn't sound very relateable would it?

The fundamental essence of life, the universe and everything is not relatable to begin with. This is why the Christians made their god a person. People are relatable. Mysterious vaguely defined energies underpinning emotion and life are not.

And what's bad about average joes relating and believing the principles I've stated above based solely on the fact that God is taught as a person but is not.

[Scyobayrynn]

Science and Religion do not contradict. Though science and the Religious often do.

I see what you're saying. Religion as in its base definition. Got it.

eh, both.
Science and Religion at their base definitions.
And to be clear I am Christian, and I have never seen a Science Fact that contradicted biblical teachings. I have seen some Pastors whould have me believe on contrived notions that would then have me believing that Science(in some aspects contradicted my Religion) but at face value, nothing Scientific in my personal experience contradicts my Religion specifically, or any other religions I have studied.

[NERVUN]

This thread lacks a discussion topic and could be moved to any of the other current religion threads.