Scientists say that Religion and Science can coexist

[Feelings]

No shit. Religion starts where science leaves off. It is belief in something not falsifiable. It's why I'm agnostic. IMO, though, it's not rational to be unable to acknowledge that your beliefs are completely speculative and have no solid basis.

 

[Tom]

I don't like this Dawkins guy, not because I have a problem with atheists, but with people that try to convice others of something by force.

I'd rather believe in anything than believe in nothing, and yes, I am convinced that science and faith do not need to be inconsistent.

To me, science is looking at creation with a magnifying glass.

 

[grainslol]

In alot of ways, I think science proves the existence of God. If you really think about evolution, there seems to be a force or conciousness that drives it and makes decisions for it. Life is actually counter to nature in that the nature tends to take the path of least resistance, where life is constantly fighting against the natural order.

Natural selection simply puts pressure on organisms to better adapt to their environment.

 

[Gecko]

I don't mean to offend anyone, but let's put a scientist that speaks against religion next to a religious person that speaks against science.

The religious person's punishment should be: Living on a house without anything that was developed and designed with the help of science and technology. This means:
- No computer.
- No microwave.
- No electricity.
- No heated water.
- No television or radio.
- No telephones.
You get the idea.
For a year, he has to live in a house like this. Without the ability of getting out.

Now let's punish the scientist by living in a house without any religious based items or ideologies, and let's see who is the first that starts having a hard time.

I think you know which one would be.

 

[Elis]

Well, as you can't disprove religion* you'll always have the possibility.
If I'd say that invicible pink elephants control the physics of this world, you wouldn't be able to disprove that with science either. As it isn't disprovable it can co-exist.
Sorry for comparing religion with pink elephants, I just wanted to show my point.

*(I mean such as god etc, not the religion itself**)
**(ofcourse the religions in itself exists)

 

[indirevri]

Of course they can coexist. As long as the religion in question is legit and not clearly made of less than carefully calculated lies that make sense only to gullible people. Not the case with most of the organized religions I'm aware of.

 

[88chaz88]

Of course they can coexist. As long as the religion in question is legit and not clearly made of less than carefully calculated lies that make sense only to gullible people. Not the case with most of the organized religions I'm aware of.

Not most, all of them. The only difference is the major religions have had hundreds of years to practice the lies. Marriage being the most obvious piece of politically controlling doctrines disguised as a religious practice.

 

[Jack]

The religious person's punishment should be: Living on a house without anything that was developed and designed with the help of science and technology.

Technically that's not science per-se, that's capitalistic innovation. People would have come up with those in the presence or absence of a strict methodology that took credit for it. Aristotle for example didn't have any "science" as we currently define it, but he simply applied logic and reason to his observation. Now before anyone objects that that is what science is, science today is more defined by what it excludes than what it includes. Aristotle, did not methodologically exclude anything.