Can science and religion both be right?

[@jonmeador8637]

Religion must follow science. Science must ignore religion.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

This is a categorical error. Science is based on philosophical presuppositions and axioms, religion is an answer to metaphysics and an answer to those presuppositions so really it’s the other way around.

[@jonmeador8637]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 That’s illogical. Nothing about science is philosophical. Everything about religion is. Everything.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@jonmeador8637 i’m sorry but did you say that nothing about science is philosophical? I think you might want to retract that statement the foundations of science are philosophical in nature, the Scientific method, epistemology, and reason those are all philosophical axioms that science presupposes. Yes religion is philosophical in nature? Your point?

[@matswessling6600]

@@pleaseenteraname1103not really. the "philosophical foundation of science" is sonething philosophers has come up with. science is built by hand craft from the need of humans. It has proven itself by its results, not by some lofty philosophy. Science is made in the labs, not in the head of philosophers.

[@Roedygr]

The earth cannot both be flat and spherical. PI cannot both be 3 and 3.1415... Creationism and evolution cannot both be right. The earth cannot both be 6000 and 4 billion years old. God cannot actively intervene in the universe and not exist. This is just wishful thinking of people who are beginning to realise how ridiculous what they claim is.

[@PoFFizdaMan]

you nailed it ;)

[@peterbeales8272]

There is a vast difference between Creationism and Young Earth Creationism. It is only the latter that conflicts with evolution and the former is compatible with evolution. There is no conflict between Christianity and science and wishful thinking does not come into it.

[@dave474c]

"There is no conflict between Christianity and science" Lol, what a fucking delusional idiot.

[@dave474c]

***** "Most scientists in the past believed that the earth was flat..." Could you please name one? I very much doubt you can. Are you seriously suggesting that _most_ scientists in the past thought the earth was flat?

[@dave474c]

***** Actually it's your comments that are stupid. The real truth is that not a lot of cultures throughout history believed the earth is flat. You have done no research on this issue. And newsflash, watching a youtube video is NOT credible research. Name me one single scientists now or ever who was dumb enough to think that. You can't.

[@alanhilder1883]

Both science and religion say " I think this is how it works ", the difference is that at that point science says " help me prove or disprove this " while religion sticks it's fingers in it's ears and screams " la la la la ".

[@candymiller3304]

Yeah. So all the global warming models failed indicating they were wrong and it was time to discard the hypothesis. Imagine my surprise to watch these scientists become EXTRA corrupted by funding opportunities and politicians to then double down and claim it's "change." Then that every harsh weather event falling within normal ranges was proof they were right! Now we have undercover journalists proving that CNN and Scientific American have been preparing to create a "climate emergency" coordinating with other fakers in the news and corrupted science. That's the same with many other areas of science. And I say this as a person that relies on science and is quite saddened these fields can no longer be trusted either. You cannot trust "science" in any field where you need it from medicine to weather due to the ease with which they become corrupted.

[@patman142]

@@candymiller3304 next time you get sick no doubt you will be going to a priest for help

[@josecampechano6136]

@@candymiller3304 and that proves you right? you are doing exactly what he said you would. la la la. Science is not a thing. is a method.

[@angrydee77]

Religions are corrupt and divisive, so is science but one of them has the truth on its side and one is the left overs from an age of ignorance

[@patman142]

@@angrydee77 Science is not corrupt and divisive. There may be scientists who are corrupt or divisive. It's an important distinction. The great thing about science is that any results that don't hold up to scrutiny will be exposed in the end

[@tomormiston6592]

its funny. Richard Dawkins doesn't even have to appear on the show to be in the show...

[@michaelbarnes2478]

Tom Ormiston Hilarious!!!

[@roryokeeffe111]

Um, but he was in the show and the show was a discussion of a programme in which he was one of two people debating a position.

[@topsword6534]

Or to make a valid point, for that matter.

[@teban67]

One simply does not fucking believe in Science, you either accept it or not, understand it or not

[@staffankarlsson1428]

+teban67 I would even go a bit further than that. One can't dismiss or NOT accept science whatsoever! Science is always true in the limited area or domain for which the corresponding evidence is provided. That is, Newton was right as well as Einstein and more recent scientists - but in different depths.

[@kill3611]

+teban67 This must be the smartest comment I have read. Bravo

[@thereasonableatheist281]

+X-Files A "Study the Word of God. the flood happened." So you're telling me you believe this "God" killed the entire planet, including innocent babies, infants, children, women and men but you still worship him? You realize you'd be less of a piece of shit if you worshiped hitler, right? foh

[@thereasonableatheist281]

X-Files A lmao just because some guy wrote that in a book does not make it true. WAKE UP

[@MasterCedar]

@X-Files A Time for your meds,

[@dundeedolphin]

What makes the theory of evolution so impressive is not just what Darwin wrote, it is rather how more than 150 years of subsequent observation and research in many independent fields of study almost entirely support it.

[@Skibbityboo0580]

The theory of evolution chips away at the feeling I have that I am the main character in this universe game, and that freaks me out so I choose not to believe it. I hope you're not dead.

[@dundeedolphin]

@@Skibbityboo0580 Not yet. 😂

[@Cuffsmaster]

@@Skibbityboo0580 The problem is that Evolution is real and based on evidence. The bible story of creation is just a bronze age fable used to satisfy questions a tribe of middle East goat herders were asking. The ones answering the question had no idea so they invented a story the goat herders would believe and made the god they believe in look good on paper. It was a con-job which is commonly used in religion.

[@stanleyamben513]

😂😂😂

[@donalfoley2412]

That is basically not true. The opposite is true. The cracks started to open before Darwin died and they are crevasses now.

[@pedroporto6729]

Reformulation - Can Science and Lord of the Rings both be right?

[@Telcontarnz]

Richard Dawkins does not do atheists a disservice.

[@pwnUgood]

When I was growing up in the 1960s religion was mostly concerned about goodwill, brotherhood, justice and peace. Somewhere along the line, Southern fundamentalsit Evangelcials took over and American Christianity became preoccupied with sin, punishment, sex, evolution and right wing politics. It is because of this faction that Christianity has seen a decline in popularity and respect among educated people.

[@atilathesonofdanubius4277]

I can certainly tell you with a 100% precision that Science is right, religion is not. How can you compare truth with hocus-pocus.

[@billborden310]

The problem is not science or religion. It's closed minded people with rigid belief systems. Even when given evidence for or against a spiritual world, these people will discount or reject any information that conflicts with their beliefs.

[@Cuffsmaster]

Not sure what you'd consider evidence for a supernatural event

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

I would agree with that. If anyone thinks that religion and science are in conflict you should read Rodney Stark’s victory, and Tom Holland’s dominion, or you could read Ronald numbers who is an agnostic, Galileo goes to jail. The whole religion versus science thing as one of the biggest false dichotomies ever. Religion is a metaphysical answer science is the Study and observation of the natural world.

[@Cuffsmaster]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 Science is easily seen by the "Chruch" as challenging its power and its ability to provide the one clear message of the way the world to man. Therefore Religion has often been and will continue to be in conflict with the truth of science to protect a faith not based on facts. If science conflicts with the bible which it does then it creates drama in the religious circles that has often been dangerous to scientist. I once heard that science could be 500 years ahead of what it is now if it was not for religon holding it back.. I think that is a little much but think it is true. I'd just say it has held science back by 50 to100 years. Think what 50 years would be in modern medical advances. There is no need for a metaphysical answer to science or marriage with it.. From my old college days (over 50 years ago) I remember that metaphysical mean something like "after nature or beyond nature or the unexplain beyond reason". That has nothing to do with science unless something that is now beyond science can be proven in the future. But if that happens then it is not beyond science and it becomes explained by science. I understand that part of the smoke and mirrors of religion is to claim there is a connection and there is but ONLY to the extend religion by chance agrees with Science. Religion to be even a little useful must bend its knee to Science. When looking at the Christian faith as a example, there are also the unproven and often laughable supernatural events that are the foundation of the faith. Without the supernatural events of the bible the faith would fail to exist overnight. To prove there was a god in the old testament may supernatural myths were use to prove god or scare people into obedience. That is clearly outside science. In the new testament there is the whole unf**ked birth thing and the jumping out of the grave. The Earth standing still and being dark when Jesus died. Plus the walking dead when he died. There are many other examples of unproven supernatural events. It is just fables but needed for the Christian faith. Religion is based and held in place with bedrock unchanging supernatural events. To claim that is the same as science or even needed by science or for man to understand or mold with science is just unfounded. Heaven or hell or being saved or the talking snake are never needed in the study of science or to prove science. Yes of course there is a song and dance by some faithful to try to hold onto religion by claiming it is needed for man. I don't see it and find it a hold back not an expanding of man. No I limited the metaphysical aspects in my reply to the Christian faith as I don't want to write a book. But must of this applies to all faiths.

[@chrisearle1542]

Religious people do that. Scientists follow the evidence. It's a critical difference.

[@dooda77penn19]

Who's here for Francesca?

[@frannynet553]

me

[@Auselesspileofflesh]

Meee

[@GeoffreyBRIDGLAND]

@@frannynet553 me too

[@yolandbator180]

Always

[@BariandHamza]

Me I am reading her book

[@dundundun7215]

Francesca just being that teacher overviewing the debate 😂

[@AhmadN]

I like that lady Franceska but she is not fair to Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is a good Scientist. A biologist and contributed a lot to evolution. He has a right to defend evolution which is 100 percent true against non sense of religion and intelligent design and he is doing a great job at it.

[@kapnkerf2532]

I wonder if she has spent 5 minutes in the American south.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

Dawkins is a great biologist and deserves all the credit he gets for it, but he is also a terrible theologian and shouldn't really dabble in the field since his education doesn't even come to the level of a university student who just finished his/her propaedeutic.

[@Chidds]

Ethics are not exclusive to religion. In fact ethics is best without religion. Religion has nothing to offer in this age of science and reason.

[@rlburton]

Without religion, "ethics" is just an arbitrary human invention, as is with Love beyond mere survival and Truth beyond what is merely useful, and there is no genuine reason to follow it.

[@Chidds]

Rodney Burton Truth is a religious concept. Ideas are either consistent with reality or they are false. With religion "ethics" faces the same problem, likely just an arbitrary divine invention. Are things good because God commands it? Attributing things onto a divine being doesn't make them any more legitimate. Ethics is a human construct, but this does not lessen their value in any way. In fact it makes them even more relevant.

[@rlburton]

***** Love beyond mere survival, a true selfless giving and eternal Love and Justice beyond mere deterrence are what the "laws" of Christianity come from. If ethics is merely a human construct, you can say that a genocidal dictator's actions are "unpopular", or "contrary to social evolution", but what you cannot say is that his actions are evil.

[@Chidds]

Rodney Burton Evolution does not just operate on survival. Evolution also operates on success of reproduction. The attribute of loving and being loved does have beneficial properties for survival, which alone would explain its existence. The love is also an attractive quality that will enables animals to be more successful with reproducing. What many people misunderstand about evolution is it happens on the species scale. Evolution is not an individual's journey. Selfless commitment to the survival of one's fellow species aids in the survivability of the species as a whole. Some traits, such as selfless love are byproducts of other traits that aid in the survival of individuals. An act of true selflessness are rare events that take a special combination of circumstances. Such love is not exclusive to humans, but we also see it is other animals. It is all a matter of how you define "good" and "evil." Evil for me has objective values apart from myself in that it involves the necessary suffering of individuals.One example is if the victim suffers then evil has occurred. Another is if the perpetrator's intent is to cause suffering, again evil has occurred. Such ethics is far more objective than any divine command. According to your ethical position. You cannot tell Hitler that he was objectively wrong. You believe that he was wrong based on your god, but that's as far as it goes. Hitler too believed in a god. In addition he believed, just as you do that he knew the will of his god. Hitler believed that he was doing the right thing. Attributing ethics to a divine being just turns ethics into a battle of subjective beliefs with absolutely no objective value.

[@rlburton]

***** "objective to myself" is a contradiction in terms. Suffering cannot in itself be a standard, because it bears no relation on whether suffering happens justly or unjustly; to the innocent or guilty. If suffering were the only standard, a criminal would be "justified" in making a random victim suffer by X if it relieved his own suffering by 1.01X. The Love given by God is an objective and universal thing.

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

Francesca's view of Dawkins was not justified by anything he said in the clip that was shown - but I also think that what she said about him, while it might be true, was irrelevant. I don't agree with Dawkins' advocation of the 'ridicule' of religious beliefs (which, though he sometimes claims otherwise, implies the ridicule of people who hold those beliefs); but the fact that he "doesn't understand Biblical texts in their historical, cultural, social context" does not matter AT ALL for his criticism of the practice of taking those texts seriously in _today's_ historical, cultural, social - and scientific - context.

[@Simon-nv5zj]

+ilikethisnamebetter that's what i took issue with as well. I actually agree that Dawkins probably doesn't completely understand the bible. However, that isn't really relevant. What matters is how the vast majority of the believers interpret the book, and how they act upon that interpretation. Same goes for the quran.

[@Simon-nv5zj]

***** therein lies the problem with it :)

[@xPow-]

+ilikethisnamebetter I think that Francesca's comments about Dawkins refers to his continual demeaning of religion and it's followers without any attempt to look at their positive aspects. I am an atheist but among my heros are names like Gandi and Martin Luther King. Both individuals that were motivated by their religious belief. I do agree that religion has done great damage but I think that the positive and human aspects of it should also be recognised.

[@xPow-]

+Leijona totuus So...Let me get this strate. You are justifying Dawkins beliefs by saying that he has an emotional need for his beliefs?

[@xPow-]

+Leijona totuus And you don't see the dilemma in that?

[@RuiChui]

12:52 Francesca's face!!! LOLOLOLOLOL I wish Hitchens was here, with us, and there, in that discussion!

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

It's such a beautiful moment!

[@thesprawl2361]

I like Francesca but her insipid accomodationism makes my heart sink. This need on the part of many non-believers to signal how much they disagree with all these evil 'new atheists', so that no-one thinks they support the right of people like Dawkins to criticise religion, is fantastically irritating. What makes it so irritating is that the things Dawkins, Krauss, Coyne, etc. are saying are so straightforward and reasonable - I'm pretty confident that something like The God Delusion does nothing more than express exactly what most non-believers already believe about religion's inherent absurdity. I remember reading TGD and thinking, at the same time, that it was both extremely straightforward and perfectly commonsensical, that it was exactly how I'd always felt about religion but had never articulated, yet also utterly unprecedented that anyone had said this stuff out loud. The arguments in The God Delusion are what every vaguely intelligent non-believer thinks but never dares say out loud. The denial of this fact, and this demonising of Dawkins in particular as a means of reassuring others that you're not a big mean atheist, is a kind of virtue-signalling by people like Francesca and I find it slightly nauseating, the implication that 'new atheists' are these vicious, swivel-eyed fundamentalists. It's depressing as a liberal atheist, who believes that religion is not a good thing or a true thing, and that it should be freely criticised, to see that virtually every section of society despises me and people like me. Not just conservatives but other liberals too - there isn't a single party sympathetic to my views, which is bizarre considering (a) the straightforward, reasonable nature of what I believe, and (b) the support that even explicitly genocidal, racist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah receive from my fellow leftists and 'liberals'. It's not an exaggeration to say that 'new atheists' have as much support from other, ideologically different groups as ISIS does. It'd be comical if wasn't so dispiriting.

[@PoFFizdaMan]

i understand your frustration.. Dawkins, Krauss, Sam Harris, NdT, Bill Nye, Carl Sagan and the Hitch helped me free myself from the fetters of Christian indoctrination and brainwashing.. i owe them a great deal

[@xaverlustig3581]

There are some very intolerant and dogmatic atheists about, and I think it is right to criticise them. But I think Dawkins isn't one of them, he is quite polite and civilised.

[@thomasneary8005]

As I said in a previous reply forget personalities Franschesca Dawkins is an ally not an enemy .

[@afvro75]

Franceska is so beautiful!

[@patrickparker8417]

+afvro75 Pity about the spirit .

[@afvro75]

+minxymissy1 jealous? Lol I was paying her a complement you crazy dumb bitch. I know she is intelligent and I've seen a lot of her work. Don't comment from ignorance please.

[@patrickparker8417]

+minxymissy1 Trouble is that is all she has is looks .

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

+Patrick Parker That's rather obviously nonsense.

[@patrickparker8417]

+minxymissy1 Is that a fact .

[@pwnUgood]

quote: "You need faith to believe that you came form a rock 4 billion years ago.. " No you jsut need knowledge, and a willingness to think.

[@SuperPatrick777]

Prove that without being that age .

[@pwnUgood]

@SuperPatrick777 The age of Earth and the evolution of life have been proven. Read some science before you enter a discussion like this, don't demand that I write you a long essay that you would neither read nor understand. Without a basic education.

[@petyrkowalski9887]

I just dont follow how a "true scientist" who searches for repeatable, testable evidence to support a theory via experiment and follows the scientific method can possibly take massive, outrageous claims purely on faith. It just boggles my mind.

[@havenbastion]

Epistemological bankruptcy plus an ego problem, needing to believe x even if it's not supportable, equals cognitive dissonance.

[@retisimanu3080]

Answer is no. Science tells religion what is right and what is not and it is for religion's own good and survival to listen and reform accordingly

[@RR-mp7hw]

I used to like what Francesca had to say but she seems entirely too wishy washy about science's immense power to understand the natural world. She is upset with Dawkins because he slights the religious texts she studies, but in fact he praises their literary qualities of those texts, and at the same time she is dubious of their value outside of literature. "I believe in the goodness of people" is naive about the ways that people actually behave toward one another and ignorant of what the study of biology has taught us about why they do.

[@Krispio666]

This is the problem with experts in the humanities speaking on science. As it turns out, basic knowledge of what science actually is, let alone scientific expertise, are not requisite for a D.Phil. in Theology. Be that as it may, I'd at least expect some respect for the scientific disciplines would be established, but apparently not. She may be a brilliant scholar when it comes to religious texts, but to say something as ridiculous as "I don't necessarily believe in science" shows a level of scientific illiteracy you'd expect to see at a Sunday School. Being that she is an atheist, I would have hoped she would have an understanding that her theories on physical truth are as useful as those of the religious. She has no idea what she's talking about outside religious philosophy.

[@spaveevo]

Religion is based on faith and not evidence. That's why there are thousands of different religions and Gods. Science is based on evidence and when new evidence comes along you follow the evidence and change your views if they conflict with the evidence.

[@pathfinder1273]

Religion is based on evidence. Superstition is not. There is a difference, if you look for it.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

@@pathfinder1273 Religion is superstition!

[@pathfinder1273]

@@gorillaguerillaDK Atheism is ignorance! See? It really doesn’t take much effort to just shout out any shallow, uninformed opinion, does it?

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

@@pathfinder1273 The difference is, while you might believe your opinion is true and my isn't - it won't change the fact that you're wrong....

[@pathfinder1273]

@@gorillaguerillaDK …. you mean the fact that you’re wrong.

[@deepsareen1]

Science is one and does not come in different shades like religion.

[@fjacob7940]

the moderator does such a good job. The creationists just makes it up. Going back in time does not make a point, it just means you're ignoring what's true now.

[@kennyw871]

You first have to answer right about what. For starters, can the age of the earth be both ~4.5 billions years old and ~6,000 years old? NO. Can the age of the universe be ~14.7 billion years old and ~6,000 years old? NO. Can anyone cite an example of where science and religion agreed on one thing? I can't, so the answer is NO, in my opinion.

[@Cuffsmaster]

Well said.

[@elliejuckes9477]

I think the fact that there are so many religions, all with contrasting views on many things (such as earth's creation) is a way that suggests they are unreliable, as which one are you going to believe? IN contrast, Science agrees on many of its main points, such as how the world was created.

[@Cuffsmaster]

There are two differing stories in the bible about creation. If the bible is infallible as claimed then it failed in the first couple of chapters.

[@ManoverSuperman]

@@CuffsmasterYou don’t understand Biblical literature or its meaning if that is what you consider an “error” in the Bible,

[@Cuffsmaster]

@@ManoverSuperman What else can you say. It happens all the time. Christians are good and claiming you just don't know as much as them. They are good at giving you a song and dance to hide the huge problems in the bible from the first page to the last.

[@brianlaudrupchannel]

They have no relation. It's like comparing apples to computer programming

[@MrziggyOak]

There’s many computer called apples .hmmmmmm

[@MrziggyOak]

U can take a bite off the real apple and the computer called Apple is formulated from bite to bytes

[@MrziggyOak]

I’m full from all of the bites that when I byte?? Is the spelling correct?

[@MrziggyOak]

The mind Imagine. The brain don’t think. It only process info. Human think and can imagine at the same time

[@MrziggyOak]

Francesca. I thank u for everything u have done. I can witness this from ur comprehensive but yet intuitive

[@rocceshnishit2708]

Bhagavad Gita has few verses stating the God is expressing himself as the 'Time'. Also in the recent movie 'interstellar' has the concept of time lapse on the miller's planet which suggests that some extra terrestrials according to indic theology has several hundred thousands of years of humans.. Even though it may be imaginative, but it compels us to believe something which is still beyond our reach..

[@hmpz36911]

Oddly enough, if you are into comparative mythology, you can see that there was a belief in a god of science. Originally called Enki, he has also been called Prometheus, Ptah, Poseidon, Neptune and Lucifer. If you follow the ancient writings of various cultures, you will see him vilified for sharing "the knowledge of the gods" with mankind. Hence, Prometheus' "fire", Lucifer being "the light bearer", etc.

[@pamelamaddox1547]

They think criticism is persecution. It is not, but they can't see it.

[@graememudie7921]

I agree with Francesca about Dawkins being dogmatic. When I retired a few years ago I started I listened to many of this debates and aged with much of what he says but felt that he was becoming as dogmatic as the religious zealots he was debating.

[@pathfinder1273]

Just as most militant atheists are as fanatical and fundamental as religious zealots.

[@havenbastion]

When you have to answer the same bullshit over and over again, of course your responses will begin to become the same.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Yeah pretty much replacing fundamentalist Christianity with fundamentalist anti-theism.

[@TheBaluchiterium]

Prof. Stavrapopolou around 17:15 says that she "doesn't necessarily believe in science". WHAT ? The scientific method is exactly what she is using all day when she does her job (well, in the few remaining hours when she is not hopping from one TV show to the next). What a profound way of disqualifying yourself. And what adds to that is that she thinks Richard Dawkins doesn't understand the essence of the Bible. This woman is making a fool of herself.

[@andrewrigy8637]

Well, science isn't religion, it's not to be believed in - only to be applied to gain verifiable knowledge.

[@steveweiss7191]

Religion tells us how to best use the power of science? How so? Examples please. Stem cell research? Where has religion enhanced science. Religion poses a one size fits all explanation of existence and opposes that which does not include room for the arbitrary backed by faith.

[@vijayjagpaul459]

Religion is not demonstrable.

[@nicholaswalter8135]

Where has religion enhanced science? For STARTERS, the big bang theory was discovered by a Catholic Priest/Scientist.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@nicholaswalter8135 Not to mention all the monks copying books by hand for centuries preserving the knowledge of the ancient Greek and other cultures which lead to the development of the scientific method as we know it today.

[@steveweiss7191]

@Gaytony Since the Cathoic Church doctrine of creation is "ex nihilo" that is consistent with the Big Bang theory of something from nothing. So church belief and science appear to be noncontradictory, it makes one wonder if science has it wrong after all.

[@steveweiss7191]

@Gaytony And the Big Bang Theory is what? Something emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that was infinitely hot and infinitely small?

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

This is what’s known as the conflict thesis which is universally rejected by modern scholars and historians of science.

[@clorofilaazul]

I don´t think Dawkins can be called dogmatic at all. That is just a manifestation of people who don´t like his strategy. But, despite of is strategy, he isn´t dogmatic. He's just combative.

[@onsenguy]

the professor david wilkinson says science and religion both are interested in evidence to answer important questions, then he talks about the "evidence" for the resurrection of jesus. he clearly does not have the scientific outlook.

[@LearnEnglishESL]

I see truth as one. "Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quicklyf all into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism." - Abdu’l-Baha, Baha'i Quote

[@bowielow]

LearnEnglishESL except science is both of the wings and religion is a malignant tumour on the underside of one of those wings that hinders the wing from doing its thing.

[@dave474c]

Religion is no different to comic books you fool. It has no wings. It is nothing but utter lies.

[@LearnEnglishESL]

Name-calling and ignorance will never be a substitute for good speech and education. Suggest you read Works of Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Zoroaster, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah.

[@dave474c]

LearnEnglishESL I prefer reality to fairy tales designed to control the weak minded

[@irenaleonenko9600]

LearnEnglishESL With all due respect all human progress can be attributed to science and academia. I see very little contributions by religion with the exception of how it functions on an individual basis. I don't have a problem with religion so long as it's kept completely out of the public domain.

[@rorycollin4185]

Which religion and what god are you referring to?

[@MistThief]

3:11 ID is not a theory. Not starting very strong.

[@hannotn]

Science makes religion redundant.

[@dragonore2009]

Science vs Religion is not a fair way to put it. Their are many Christians who are scientist as well as many Atheist who are scientist. Obviously not in conflict.

[@ImagenNoReligion]

DrunkenWaffle I don't agree. I think in some cases science and religion can co-exist. But when scientists start falling back on their personal world view to answer scientific questions, that's where we get into trouble. For example, how can a biologist properly do his/her job if they believe that all organisms are less than 4,000 years old? They cannot.

[@ImagenNoReligion]

DrunkenWaffle You'd be surprised ;) There are quite a few people I know who don't believe in Evolution. Why? Because it conflicts with their world view of Christianity. See, to them, we are too special to have evolved from more primitive primates. This is just one example of why I do not think science and religion are compatible.

[@dantewynter9211]

Harmony Alexandria those who appose religion, in the scientific field, are actually a minority. the ratio of atheists and theists are around 50/50 (in the US.)

[@KristerAndersson-nc8zo]

Harmony Alexandria Well spoken.

[@stephenolan5539]

Science is looking for evidence of being wrong and only believing tentatively. Religion is only looking for confirmation and believing absolutely. How are those compatible?

[@happilyeggs4627]

Fuller goes on to testify in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, and lies. Kitzmiller upheld that creationism cannot be taught in American schools.

[@DaviesMartinezBeats]

I've watched 50+ episodes of the KZbin Show 'The Atheist Experience'.... I've never seen a religious caller win an argument for their God over science once..... Not once.....

[@catfishdogfish4805]

uhhh i guess bcz the shows called the atheist experience?

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

@@catfishdogfish4805 look it up. It is a call-in show prioritizing theists.

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

Because theology doesn't obtain new information that bolsters it because it's claims come from ignorance and are eroded by new information. There haven't been new arguments for theism in decades or centuries, just newer versions, and they've all been debunked.

[@catfishdogfish4805]

@@IllustriousCrocoduck you’re right. Its been centuries since theology brought up new claims. i mean its been over 2000 years in terms of christianity for example. But these claims aren’t the ‘temporary’ claims that fade after a while. They are rigid claims that still can be used as an argument. To judge whether which argument wins over which is rather difficult to do since the people judging have already heard the claims a hundred million times hence why bias comes into play. plus, the debates are useless. They’re never ending debates (its like they do it for entertainment purposes, if it is, then ok nvm), AND, both sides are SOOOOOO different that they can not put up arguments against each other. Human beings have made up their minds insofar they use science(knowledge that allows itself to be rewritten after new findings) to make reason for claims that they cant just prove wrong. its just delirious to account all of the scriptures to their chaotic claims portfolio. take the ‘no evidence’ and the ‘ignorance’ arguments for example. Do you know how contradictory these two are? One is saying religion(that is everything that has to do with faith, belief, that doesnt use evidence in the first place) doesnt use evidence to justify its claims. OFCOURSE IT DOESNT. THATS WHY ITS CALLED FAITH. Isn’t this ignorance in itself? And then comes the theism side, which tries to use its beliefs to, what, undermine claims that are backed up by evidence? to be honest, idk what the arguments are, maybe its just all defense mode to give reasons to their claims. Anyways, point is, you cant just say ‘ oh wow, not once have the theism side ever won against the atheism side’, and then decide that all religious arguments are crap. It’s so much more complicated than u think.

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

@@catfishdogfish4805 no actually really is that simple. As you correctly said, religion does NOT use evidence, that's where faith comes in. That's exactly why faith is useless- it's not a reason or method, it's an excuse when there is no reason. It really is as simple as saying all god claims fail.

[@gregsanich5183]

Is there any data in all of our current scientific knowledge and understanding that conflicts with, or that isn't completely compatable with the creator hypothesis?

[@davidr1431]

Which creator hypothesis from which religious tradition? If anything, science has gradually pushed further back in time the point at which any creator force was needed. The creator force, of course, lies just progressively further back in time in the gap in which uncertainty remains. As alternative is there any evidence for a creator which didn’t take the form of a question asking the lines of “if there is no creator, how do you explain….”?

[@eatmylogic]

There are many, many religions, but only one science. Scientists reach consensus about facts because they base their ideas on physical evidence and rational analysis. Religions base their beliefs on any crazy idea that happens to have survived the ages and thus no sect can agree on which is the "one true faith."

[@eatmylogic]

X-Files A I have a KJ version of the bible, It's a good read, but I don't believe that it is history or science, it is mythology.

[@eatmylogic]

***** The scribes that translated the KJV took it directly from the original Greek texts, which had been copied faithfully from 1st century manuscripts. They thought these writings were holy, so they were very careful to be accurate. it would have been very difficult to fake anything, and what would be their motive for doing so? They sincerely wanted a faithful version, and when checked against older translations in Greek and Latin, the KJV holds up extremely well.

[@eatmylogic]

X-Files A Herod is mentioned in Roman history but Jesus does not, despite the fact that Herod was only a local local ruler, while Jesus is reputed to have risen from the dead! Why didn't anyone else take not of this extraordinary claim at the time. We only read about Jesus in the Gospels but we don't even know when or by whom they were written. Jesus today is an icon and a brand name, far from a 'real person."

[@pwnUgood]

Creationists honestly don't believe there is such a thing as logic-- they think all beliefs are equivalent and it's just a matter of choosing which side you'd like to be on, like choosing what fashion to wear according to what social clique you want to belong to.

[@seamus9305]

Every person is a religion of one. And the mind is a single function that explores reality.

[@bobaldo2339]

Neither is 'right" or "wrong". Religion is a practice. Science is a process. To suppose that they compete with one another is to misunderstand both.

[@jameswright...]

Non overlapping magisteria. Science shows religious claims to be nonsense.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

I agree to compare the two is a categorical error since religion is an answer to metaphysics science is an answer to things about the natural world.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@jameswright... yeah I don’t think you understand. Religious claims by definition are super natural they are outside the realm of science, Science is the study and observation of the natural world. Science can’t disprove anything in religion. History and philosophy on the other hand.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@jameswright... why don’t you actually do research instead of just need dogmatically rejecting things.

[@jameswright...]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 I don't think you understood my txt. I work in the science's and fully understand (not a scienctist) Why do you think I said non overlapping? That's because science is the natral world and can't do supernatural. But! You can do science test on say the tower of babel see if it's of period etc. Science can be used to test thing's the bible claims on earth. My trade has proven no exedus! Many scientifically based test have been used around exedus.

[@leulkiese]

You're the "chief rabbi lord"? Since we're making up titles, I'll be the "Infinite king boss"

[@hceggeberth]

Jonathan Sachs was appointed 'Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth' by the board of that group of synagogues. He's a 'Lord' because Queen Elizabeth II knighted him. Whatever you think of these kinds of titles, they are genuine. No one's making them up ; )

[@dontcare1656]

One thing is sure. His body language is cringe as fuck.

[@japakazole]

Rabbi is a made up title, so is lord. They hold no real meaning

[@MrRJPE]

HCEarwicker Even a title given by a queen is still just a made up honor.

[@jgalt308]

Yeah, kinda hard to get past that... "I've a pirate, a poet, a pauper... a pawn and a KING. I've been up, down, over and out...and I KNOW one THING! If I find a desert island, I can declare myself king of all I survey. This will probably work fine, until someone else shows up.

[@veronicastefano7660]

What is really weird is that the Bible is a science book,but the religious people can’t see the codes that are in the myth stories is because they haven’t woken to a conscious mind.they don’t realize that the Bible stories came from Egypt and Egypt got it from the Mayans and they got it from the Samaritans.its been copied over so much that the stories are a little different for example the Samarias ark of the flood god said make the boat in a circle.the Mayans god said make it like a square tower.and Egypt was a small row boat and Noah’s was a gigantic up to date boat bigger then a battle ship.the scriptures in the Egyptian book is the same verses in the Bible and the ark of the covenant came from Egypt but the Jews took credit for that.the arc of the covenant is not a real gold box,it has to do with the right side of the hemisphere of the brain where god dwells in the temple,the god mind and the left is the carnal,ego mind that is evil.how about Adam is really atom and the rib is the split of the atom to make woman.the tree of good and evil is the evil left side mind and the right side is the good side.cast your net on the right side says jesus.its got nothing to do with fish,jesus is saying when you meditate give no thought on the evil ego mind and allow god on the right to take over and then your questions are answered and understanding what you are and the universe.the 7th day is the 7 chakras.mose up the mountain of fire is the chakra earth(carnal mind)water(baptism)air (coming up out of the water)fire(the door to all knowledge)Matt 6:22-if you eye be single(third eye,pineal gland)your body be filled with light.jacob I saw the face of god(light,because got said he’s not a man)and I called the place pineal(pineal gland third eye)jesus says look for the man holding the pitcher of water(Aquarius)it also got to do with the zodiac and the constellations and Greek numbers like 144 thousand means 4+4+1=9 and the 9 means the mind.sorry but the stories and the all the people do not exist.horus was change to jesus.

[@MrThemaskedavenger]

Utter nonsense

[@soilomasbello1156]

Short answer, No. Long answer, Absolutely no.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

Got a motivation for this answer or are you just guessing?

[@piman2k]

Wow. The lady criticising Professor Dawkins has clearly not studied or followed his work. I would also argue his academic credentials and his acclaimed studies of the effects of religion make him just a touch more qualified to comment than she is.

[@stevesmith2257]

I love Franceska. I don't love her arrogance. Nowadays everyone including Richard Dawkins, high school drop outs, and aboriginal people living on the land can read and study exactly what she does and possibly absorb more truth than she does. Having a piece of paper carries alot of weight in my opinion but is not universal in it's value. Professor Dawkins, in my opinion is fully qualified to comment on numerous areas outside of his expertise and his commentary surpasses that of people who push their paper forward to justify their viewpoint.

[@Tripserpentine]

it is not arrogant to tell the scientific and historic truth. It might hurt the feeligns of religious people bu then again they choose to believe in fairy tails, so it is not weird for them to get their fairy tails and feelings shot down.

[@adam_p99]

She’s not debating biology. This is her area of expertise. She is atheist too, so isn’t arguing in an attempt to give a religion any credibility

[@iamnoone5564]

There is not an inch of arrogance in that woman! She is simply frustrated.

[@havenbastion]

Academic credentials prove compliance, indicate knowledge, and say nothing of understanding.

[@ManoverSuperman]

@@TripserpentineProof that atheism is brain rot: your comment.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

Of course Francesca doesn't believe in science - science isn't something one should believe in - science is a tool used to find answers, it exist, it's something we accept! Gods and other deities is something some people believe in - science is just there and can't be compared to religion!

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Good observation. Religion isn’t the answer to metaphysics science is an answer to the natural world.

[@colindowson7615]

I've read all of Dawkins work,I have never read or heard him ridicule genuine Faith,he attacks only egotistical Fundamentalism which ignores facts for emotional Faith and Fallacies!!

[@michaelanderson7715]

"I've read all of Dawkins work, I have never read or heard him ridicule genuine Faith,he attacks only egotistical Fundamentalism which ignores facts for emotional Faith and Fallacies!!" - what a garbled mess that was - wtf is 'genuine Faith' ?! - NO, Richard (and rightly so) most definitely has ridiculed faith, no only fundies - all types of religious people, not just fundies ignore facts, have 'emotional faith' and live on fallacies -------------- your whole comment was bollocks

[@vanessac0382]

@@michaelanderson7715 if there are different kinds of faith, then they can't be all true right? Then one of them must be true or all of them are false. So, there are fakes and fakes presuppose real or genuine faith.

[@michaelanderson7715]

@@vanessac0382 "if there are different kinds of faith, then they can't be all true right?" - that requires them to have features that you didn't specify; such as mutually exclusive, contradictory claims. They of course _do_ so yes, they can't all be true. "Then one of them must be true or all of them are false. So, there are fakes and fakes presuppose real or genuine faith." - no, fakes do not presuppose 'real or genuine faith'

[@vanessac0382]

@@michaelanderson7715 other religions are pretty much the same except judeo-Christian religion. Fakes do not pressuppose real or genuine faith? If fake money exist does it mean real money don't exist? Or all money that exist are fake😉

[@michaelanderson7715]

@@vanessac0382 "other religions are pretty much the same except judeo-Christian religion." - it's a waste of time comparing mythologies, what matters is EVIDENCE for CLAIMS...something religion is devoid of "Fakes do not pressuppose real or genuine faith?" - I think I need to spell this out to you ! That religions demonstrated to be fictitious exist DOES NOT mean 'real' ones exist. Each claim stands or falls on its own merits, it doesn't get verified because others happen to be fictitious ! - As stated; fakes do not presuppose 'real or genuine faith'. "If fake money exist does it mean real money don't exist?" - no, and your implicit point is invalid as real money has been demonstrated on ITS OWN MERITS, not by the existence of fakes ! "Or all money that exist are fake😉" - no, and your implicit point is invalid as real money has been demonstrated on ITS OWN MERITS, not by the existence of fakes ! -------------- You haven't a clue how to present a valid argument, all you have is fallacious, muddled nonsense.

[@havenbastion]

No. Science is based on knowledge - justified belief. Religion is based on faith - unjustified belief. They pull in opposite directions.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

A lot of claims yet no evidence. Science is not based on knowledge science is useless when it comes to the Study of knowledge. Science is based on the presupposition that our cognitive faculties and senses are reliable science is built on the scientific method which is the foundation of science which is a philosophical presupposition. Knowledge is a metaphysical thing science is a tool that we use to study and observe the natural world around us. Science is a good tool but it is only good within its field. Yes but what is faith? Faith it’s purest form it’s just trust and confidence so it doesn’t have to be inherently unjustified. Which ironically with in itself is an unjustified claim. Yes because religion is an answer to metaphysics science is an answer to things within the natural world. I don’t mean to be rude but you’re not very well read in philosophy of religion or epistemology.

[@nathanmckenzie904]

Religion has *never* found an answer that science hasn't.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

That is a laughably false. I don’t think you understand but religion is a metaphysical explanation, Science can only give us explanations about the natural world based on our hypothesis and observations, in fact Science can’t actually give us any truth, because science is built on philosophical presuppositions it’s on its own cannot produce any truth. Religion that’s what you told your worldview office science is not if you do then you are a strict empiricist or logical positivist, which is a self-contradictory and intellectually bankrupt, worldview.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Comparing the two to begin with is a categorical fallacy.

[@nathanmckenzie904]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 how so?

[@Roedygr]

Granted, religion provides answers to great questions, but they are not correct answers. They are merely speculation. That is why religions come up with different answers.

[@rubenlopezusa]

Francesca is always clear and concise.

[@mistag3860]

I disagree with the premise ab initio - one doesnt believe in science, its a method. Science can be persued religiously - ie fanatically, but science is never finished, its never settled, its always under review, and every new discovery or invention is immediately bought under scrutiny, and whomsoever proves it wrong, can be as famous as the proposers(s) of the failed hypothesis or theory. In short there is no dogma in science, nothing is sacred - if the JWST proves that Einstein was wrong, we would celebrate, it would be HUGE news. Dissent is science is welcomed, in religion it is silenced, in Islam it is punished. They are (religion and science) not even comparable, let alone compatible.

[@logik100.0]

Good discussion. I particularly liked the way the "evidence for jesus" was shot down....

[@option-sh9yd]

@@samtheman1037 it seems to me this man who made that comment on his ignorance arrogantly said that about jesus confidently thinking others dont do their research....these kinds of people really just dont like anything related to religion and will try to shun it down when they see an oppurtunity ...but then again he could have been talking about the resurrection of jesus which is something i havent really looked into or heard much discussion about it but that he existed yea

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

@@samtheman1037 so, story, story, story, letters, diaries... Testimony cannot ever be more powerful than biology.

[@makubegysman6160]

Wow

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

As for "evidence of resurrection," we can begin the examination of the question by applying understandings of psychosomatic medicine, extended to medical reports from Lourdes, for starters. Then there are reports from the Simonton Clinice and many other studies now.

[@faizanqaiser4027]

and she begins with saying science is a belief system :)

[@pathfinder1273]

It is a belief system. Nothing is absolutely provable beyond all doubt. NOTHING.

[@havenbastion]

Science is rigor. If you accept that understanding, you could literally recreate everything scientific we have today from scratch, given resources and time.

[@pathfinder1273]

@@havenbastion ???

[@brianlaudrupchannel]

@@pathfinder1273 yes it is. Is the earth flat or round? Evidence is earth is 100% not flat.

[@piesho]

Stavrakopoulou: 5:44 "Richard Dawkins ... represents a point of view that deliberately caricatures and vilifies certain religious beliefs" Stavrakopoulou: 12:57 (rolls eyes after Prof. Wilkinson says he takes historical evidence from the bible "extremely seriously")

[@k-3402]

Yep, she's hypocritical.

[@pinball1970]

You got it wrong Francesca- Dawkins is the shit.

[@fowlintent]

I prefer Francesca's demeanor to Dawkins. But Francesca is the ambassador for atheism, while Dawkins is the foot soldier. Dawkins does the dirty work that needs to be done.

[@EllieAngharad91]

Yeah this is the first time I've disagreed with her.

[@MTB_Rider_96]

No, they can't. The End, next question.

[@bleach219]

Scientific method = "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." Religion = "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." Faith = "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Science and religion are not the same. Science is not a religion.

[@havenbastion]

Science = rigor. (and the body of knowledge (justified belief) so obtained)

[@RodMartinJr]

Poor definitions revealing your own misguided beliefs. Even many believers are confused on these things -- believers in science and believers in spirituality.

[@hmpz36911]

Here's the problem, the word "god" has no real definition, so how can we argue the existence of it?

[@danaiduma]

You don't need to believe in science.

[@brendanmailey9253]

Yes that's exactly what you do need to believe in.

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

@@brendanmailey9253 no belief required; science looks at evidence.

[@Knight766]

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "life is on the surface of the Earth"....so to give you some insight in the secular/scientific approach to understanding reality we rephrase that as "life IS the surface of the Earth....or "you are the the Universe that is trying to understand itself". Hope that helps

[@Lobos222]

Math teacher: That answer is wrong. Theist: I have FAITH that 2+2 is 3.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

There are valid models where 1+1=3, they just aren't mathematical models. The question is not whether the theist has faith that 2+2=3 in some other model of reality, the question is whether he/she has faith his/her math teacher will consider this to be correct within the mathematical model.

[@dariusnoname12]

Person can be good scientist and religious as long as he is not given a choice, because when religious people need to choose between faith and facts, they choose faith. And science and religion can be both right as long as science did not find ALL of the questions.(People tend to answer unknown with god).

[@SHOOTINGDNA]

Faith and Evidence... in a same sentence....Irony...

[@HalfCrazy520]

I think Dawkins understands religion perfectly well. He doesn't sugar coat what he has to say to suck up to the willfully ignorant and those with over-active imaginations. Francesca missed the mark... It doesn't matter what the historical context of biblical texts is, the shit is not a good moral guide nor is there much truth in it, as she has said herself. Why give the bible an elevated position in our society? In the 21st century we had better hang out hat on the scientific method or we'll be picking our hat up off the floor.

[@samidalao3071]

No, they cannot. Next subject!

[@martinthatsall1518]

These seems to be a continuing misunderstanding about atheism. It is NOT an ideology. It is the ABSENCE of an ideology so its "believers" are free to explore without preconceptions. Because religious minds cling so tightly to and are so bound by an ingrained ideology they are appear incapable of understanding a mind that works without one, i.e., a free thinker - an atheist. Siting an atheist opposite a religious mind (especially one whose whole life is constrained by religion, such as a rabbi) is like sitting a skylark opposite a glow-worm; the former has a clear, world view, the other sees no further than the nearby blades of grass weakly illuminated and coloured by its own light.

[@demetristheocharis617]

Love Stavrakopoulou but leave Dawkins alone lol

[@davidkeenan5642]

Ah no, let her attack Dawkins, he's a big boy, and nobody should be immune from criticism. But she was giving a subjective, non-expert, personal opinion. She thinks Richard does a disservice to atheists, how? Richard distils the dissonance between religious belief, which is not based on empirical evidence, and acceptance of scientific theories, which are founded of empirical facts. And that is what he "preaches" over and over. Scientific facts are the same for everyone, whether you believe them or not. Religious beliefs can be anything you want them to be, you just need something that others are prepared to believe in. In that key area, faith cannot only be a retarding influence in advancing human knowledge, it can and is a menance to human progress.

[@googullemail6976]

"The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileo, quoting Cardinal Baronius (a loose interpretation from their conversation, 17th Century) [La Bibbia ci insigna la via per andare in cielo, non come il cielo sia fatto]

[@RodMartinJr]

And yet, because Galileo came along after 1,300 years of religious corruption (accelerated by Constantine, and later Justinian), the Italian scientist could not see the obvious descriptions in scripture for "how the heavens go." Example: The *_Mechanics of Creation_* found in Genesis ch.1, v.1 through Genesis ch.2, v.3. And how the biblical timeline, when interpreted correctly, places Noah's Flood at 27, 970 BC, and Adam's "arrival" at 10,434,130 BC. The Flood date coincides squarely with the extinction of a competing species that can easily match the description in Genesis 6 for the "daughters." And the Adam date is compatible with lots of evidence found in the 19th century for early man -- evidence surprisingly and suddenly swept under the carpet right when the Communists were about ready to pounce on Russia.

[@googullemail6976]

@@RodMartinJr C'mon now, Papa...

[@iainrae6159]

Thank God I'm an athiest after listening to the religious contributers.

[@Beastt17]

Prof. Steve Fuller takes exception to questioning whether religion should have a say on various questions while the more appropriate direction from which to address this issue is WHY should religion or any other mindset not based on evidence or the ability to demonstrate value have any say on anything? At it's base, religion is inseparable from simple story-telling and it's beyond question that just telling a story doesn't qualify that story as a metric for value in truth.

[@Larry30102]

I would have been interested in Steve Fullers beliefs. To say that you’re a believer doesn’t automatically mean you’re a fundamentalist. Many atheists hear “believer” and they automatically pigeon hole that person to a series of beliefs. I’m close to being an atheist, but there are a wide variety beliefs behind god…see the 43,000 world wide denominations.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Most nominations agree on what God is. There actually isn’t 43,000 Christian denominations, but numbers way over inflated and socks and there’s actually less than 1000, that number is achieved by county in the same denomination over and over again, for instance 300 of the 40,000 Christian denominations are the exact same denomination of the United Church of Christ all of them agree on court doctrine but have geographic and cultural differences, that slightly differentiate one from another, even though when it comes to the actual beliefs they are identical. Another example is a church I grew up in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, And the presbyterian Church of America, both agree on Core doctrine there and 95% of Side issues, yet when it comes to the issue of female role in the church and whether or not they can be elders or deacons that’s what they disagree.

[@bleach219]

"The first law of reason is this: what exists, exists, what is, is and from this irreducible bedrock principle, all knowledge is built...Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means to discovering them. Reason is our only way of grasping reality; it is our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss we refuse to see." Terry Goodkind, Faith of the Fallen

[@ManoverSuperman]

So basically X=X

[@ReligionWhistleBlower]

1-Did you know 29 chapters in the Quran starts with initials like Q, N, ALM, ALR,..No one did not have any clue about them. 38 years ago an American Biochemist feed the whole Quran into a main frame computer while he was working for Anheuser-Busch to analyze these Initials. Quran 74:30 Chapter Hidden Secret says "This Quran is over #19" after 4 years computer showed that the repetitions of those initials in each chapter is divisible by #19 His discovery purified the Quran from any distortions

[@lampkin9287]

Why does Dr. Francesca dislike the writing of Paul??? Will the academia community please explain...

[@donalfoley2412]

No evidence for the resurrection? If you dismiss the gospels and the apostolic letters out of hand then OK. Do you dismiss the writings of Cicero or Julius Caesar in the same way? Do you dismiss writings because you don’t like what they say? What are your criteria? I would like to hear you speak rationally rather than according to your prejudices. I understand if because of your beliefs you want to reject historical evidence. That is normal and human. I only ask you to give first place to reason and to follow the conclusions whether you like them or not.

[@donalfoley2412]

I apologise if I have ruptured your happy childish faith, but we adults should really face up to facts. Big hugs for forlorn atheists!

[@shkieshaasantewa3114]

When we westerners talk about religion we always define it by the standards of Christianity. Not all religions or religious people or interpretations of religion require blind faith. :-/ Science is how you find facts, philosophy is how you interpret and religion is the life style you choose based on that. Not all religion is dogma.

[@77Night77Shade77]

+Shkiesha Asantewa True, but when you give up faith, in many cases, there's no point in even referring to it as "religion" any longer and you may as well just give up the idea of being religious, entirely and live your life, according to your own understanding of morality. Any moderate Christian today, will most likely not believe that the horrific stories of the old testament are literally true, that hell is a real place, or that god causes human suffering, which is fine, but they decide what parts of the Bible to believe in, based on their own moral intuitions and they do so, effectively cutting out all of the bits that make it a "religion", until they're left with what they usually call a "personal relationship with Jesus". At that point, you may as well just give up the idea of religion.

[@zetazimmer4769]

If you want to get the truth, you have to seek out evidence. If any religion is true, we can’t just point to faith as evidence because many people have faith in completely contradictory religions.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Religion versus science is one of the biggest false dichotomy’s out there. There is zero conflict between religion and science, maybe with certain religious individuals but not religion in general. The two are being pinned against each other as if they are equal in scope they are not, religion is a answer to metaphysics science is an answer to things about the natural world, actually science can’t give us any answers it’s biltong philosophical presuppositions science itself cannot give answers, it’s a great tool for the study and observation for the natural world but that’s it you cannot tell us anything about how we why are we got here or why the universe even exists. can’t tell us anything about epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, morality, reason, and etc.

[@peteconrad2077]

That’s nonsense. Science fundamentally undermines most of the concepts in most religions.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@peteconrad2077 It’s not nonsense at all. It’s a consensus view a month pretty much all historians of science today. Read Rodney Stark’s victory, Tom Holland’s dominion. And Ronald Numbers Galileo goes to jail and other myths. And there’s many other pieces of lettuce here they have been done on the subject I just haven’t read them. I noticed that you don’t give any specific examples either?

[@gregsanich5183]

​@@peteconrad2077what data is there, in all of our current scientific knowledge and understanding,that conflicts with or isn't completely compatable with the creator hypothesis?

[@0004W]

In science we trust

[@cc8277]

Well, some are just hopeless and if it were up to them, we would still be eating fleas out of each others hair.

[@googullemail6976]

Both can be right in their workings, with respect to their own occupied space. Science uses reason to authenticate and evidence to substantiate it's claims. Religion requires faith in a super-natural revelation & a leverage of an asserted divinity to substantiate it's claims. We are influenced by them in much the same way as we are by temperature and humidity.

[@SNORKYMEDIA]

yep one is backed up with evidence - religion is claims and assertions backed up by nothing

[@sarahwhite7098]

Imagine having the wonderful Francesca Stavrakopoulou and then hardly letting her speak.

[@knasbollolo]

Indeed but I thought instead of spending any considerable amount to time writing a well thought out comment. I opted instead to make it concise while still capturing the essential difference, between religion and science, in my comment. I thought I did a fairly good job considering the thumbs up feedback I have been getting.

[@mousegeek]

I don't think there's much wisdom in stoning women or killing 'witches' or killing people for working on a Saturday!

[@chadkincham]

Here’s what Einstein said about science and religion and the origin of the universe. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[@MrDorbel]

Argumentum ad autoritam. The intellect of the person offering a proposition has no bearing on the truth of the claim.

[@chadkincham]

@@MrDorbel - stupidius bullcrapium = what that quote is.

[@MrDorbel]

@@chadkincham Formal logic not your strong point eh? Take a course of evening classes, educate yourself.

[@chadkincham]

@@MrDorbel right, flawed BS logic that claims that the intellect of a person doesn’t have a major influence on the strength of their argument, is not acceptable to me. Also quoting Latin to try and impress people, is what pseudo-intellectuals love to do. So I indeed call stupidus bullcrapum on that bit of erroneous and pretentious philosophy. Einstein will have a much superior argument over Joe six-pack, every time.

[@MrDorbel]

@@chadkincham The point of using the Latin phrase is that it is universal, understood in logical discussion from Alaska to Zimbabwe. The argument needs to stand and fall on its own merits. Whether that is acceptable to you is not objectively relevant. In general I would agree that a genius is more likely to have beliefs that match reality than a dullard, but genius doesn't confer infallibility, nor a low IQ mean that that person is wrong.

[@AneTix101]

That's the picture they got for the religious scientist?

[@dianewilson6673]

You don’t have to believe in anything…..thinking is all you need

[@EddieSchultz62]

Francesca Stavrakopoulou: at 17:20 One doesn't BELIEVE in science, they accept it based on the evidence of findings by using the scientific method, and peer review. Religion only requires A belief, (faith) they don't need evidence. Love your work, but you got that one wrong.