Science without religion is lame,

[McCulloch]

What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

[Clownboat]

It does not cut both ways.

Because = what I said is true and accurate.

Are you also a legend in your own shower? (FYI, I am!)

In all seriousness though, you need to do better. We are here to debate and we have nothing to learn from debate opponents that resort to simply claiming to be right. It seems obvious that your debate opponents are not as impressed with yourself as you seem to be. Just an observation...

Can you not do better than "what I says is true"?

[Bust Nak]

It does not work in reverse because Atheism is a negative, while the reality of God is a positive.

A person can not refuse to see what is not there = no God of Atheism.
A person can refuse to see what is there = the reality of God.

That maxim only goes the one (1) way for those who refuse to see and refuse to understand.

That's obviously false, a person can insist that a bucket is full of water when it is in fact empty. Is that not an example of a person refusing to see what is not there = no water.

The burden of proof is on each individual and it is not my place to prove God to you.

Then you are in the wrong forum. The expectation here is that you prove your claims.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 42 by Bust Nak]


Quote:
"The burden of proof is on each individual and it is not my place to prove God to you".

Quote:
"Then you are in the wrong forum. The expectation here is that you prove your claims".

How would conductor explain that his piece of music is beautiful to
someone who has no ear for music?

[KenRU]

I do not like Einstein as a person because he was a spineless immoral jerk, but he was still smart enough to use religion to enhance science and he gets credit for what was right.

Well no, he was not using religion in the manner you imply. That is my point.

Whether you like him or not is irrelevant. Whether he meant religion as you imply is determined by what he believed. And we know what he believed because he is telling us.

That is why I posted the quote.

He got that one (1) sentence right, and that is a principle to follow if we too want to see better and to know better.

Given that Einstein does not believe in a personal god (as he states), and by extension, does not believe in the religious "truth" of Christianity or Judaism, it is more likely than not that he was simply observing that science should be guided by one's morals - in other words science should be guided by a strong sense of right and wrong. That does not mean science should be guided by religion - as you are asserting.

It would be dishonest to say that Einstein, who does not believe in a personal god, thinks that Christianity (or any religion that professes a belief in a personal god) should guide science.

[Bust Nak]

How would conductor explain that his piece of music is beautiful to
someone who has no ear for music?

As in deaf? Build a machine that translate vibration to visual images, for example. Or build a machine to monitor the brains of those listening to a piece of music. That's the difference between testable material claims versus metaphysical/theological claims.

[JP Cusick]

It does not cut both ways.

Because = what I said is true and accurate.

Are you also a legend in your own shower? (FYI, I am!)

In all seriousness though, you need to do better. We are here to debate and we have nothing to learn from debate opponents that resort to simply claiming to be right. It seems obvious that your debate opponents are not as impressed with yourself as you seem to be. Just an observation...

Can you not do better than "what I says is true"?

Mine was funny - try having a sense of humor.

The guy tried to turn around a simple statement and so I came back with a truly facetious comment which was still true but funny.


-------------------------------------------

Then you are in the wrong forum. The expectation here is that you prove your claims.

My understanding is that we are to discuss the topic, and that was proven (an answer was given to the OP) early in this thread by me in my comment #4

Einstein used one of the messages from the Bible (from the Old Testament) for his view of science in his Theory of Relativity and so the thread topic is already proven and answered.

This is also in itself another proof of the validity of God and of the Bible because the religious basis is what made the science accurate.

Others here just keep denying and denying after I already gave my proof in vivid detail, and so their failure to see or to understand is just not my concern.

I really see others as being childish when they keep up their denials that no one can prove it to them when the proof is already in their face and eyes.

This is like arguing with a child, as the child sings this song =
Singing: ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ = I'm not going to believe it = ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ = and you can't make me = ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ = nannee nannie nan nan = ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮

[Justin108]

The reality of atheism can not be proven to people who refuse to see and refuse to understand. See how that "argument" goes both ways?

It does not work in reverse because Atheism is a negative, while the reality of God is a positive.

A person can not refuse to see what is not there = no God of Atheism. [/quote]
One can refuse to see the reality that there is no God. If there is no God, you can refuse to accept that reality just as one can refuse to accept the reality that there might be one. Your word games failed. If the lack of God is rational, one could use the above argument, i.e "The reality that the existence of God is irrational can not be proven to people who refuse to see and refuse to understand."

So despite your dismissal, the argument still goes both ways.

That maxim only goes the one (1) way for those who refuse to see and refuse to understand.

Nope

The burden of proof is on each individual and it is not my place to prove God to you.

Sorry dude. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof failed miserably.

It does not cut both ways.

Because = what I said is true and accurate.

HERE = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Do you think that if you repeat it enough times, it will become true?

[Justin108]

It does not cut both ways.

Because = what I said is true and accurate.

Are you also a legend in your own shower? (FYI, I am!)

In all seriousness though, you need to do better. We are here to debate and we have nothing to learn from debate opponents that resort to simply claiming to be right. It seems obvious that your debate opponents are not as impressed with yourself as you seem to be. Just an observation...

Can you not do better than "what I says is true"?

Mine was funny - try having a sense of humor.

The guy tried to turn around a simple statement and so I came back with a truly facetious comment which was still true but funny.

You're about as good at comedy as you are at debating. Nice to see some consistency

My understanding is that we are to discuss the topic, and that was proven (an answer was given to the OP) early in this thread by me in my comment #4

You keep making that claim and I keep referring you back to post 12.

Others here just keep denying and denying after I already gave my proof in vivid detail, and so their failure to see or to understand is just not my concern.

I really see others as being childish when they keep up their denials that no one can prove it to them when the proof is already in their face and eyes.

We're not just denying it... we are giving you good reason for denying it. Yet you refuse to address the reasons given. Again, I am eagerly awaiting your response to post 12.


A simple yes or no question: is "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" the same as saying "I got my Theory of Relativity from the Bible"?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 46 by JP Cusick]

My understanding is that we are to discuss the topic, and that was proven (an answer was given to the OP) early in this thread by me in my comment #4

No you didn't. In comment number 4, you quoted a single line from Einstein about how science without religion is lame, and then said that somehow he had managed to get the idea for his theory of relativity from Genesis, because somehow relativity is involved with people supposedly having lived for centuries.
At no point did you ever succesfully prove this statement of yours. You have NOTHING from Einstein ever saying that his inspiration for relativity was Biblical. Just a vague statement about science in general and religion in general.

This is also in itself another proof of the validity of God and of the Bible because the religious basis is what made the science accurate.

No it doesn't. For the umpteenth time, and as you are no doubt going to ignore AGAIN, relativity disproves a God in at least one way by showing there is no absolute frame of reference.

Others here just keep denying and denying after I already gave my proof in vivid detail, and so their failure to see or to understand is just not my concern.

What proof? All you have is a vague one liner statement from Einstein that can be interpreted in so many ways that you have chosen to interpret in one highly specific way, and logical inferences about relativity and time that are not in fact backed up any evidence.

I really see others as being childish when they keep up their denials that no one can prove it to them when the proof is already in their face and eyes.

Again, what proof? You have nothing. You asserted that people lived for centuries in the past, this was cut down to 120 years, and somehow this inspired Einstein to go discover relativity, even though relativity has NOTHING to do with human lifespans.

This is like arguing with a child, as the child sings this song =
Singing: ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ = I'm not going to believe it = ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ = and you can't make me = ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ = nannee nannie nan nan = ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮

Or like you where you plug your fingers in your ears and do not address certain on the point criticism.

[Kenisaw]

If this is true, then atheist scientists should be unsuccessful in their work. Remind me again how it is we got to the Moon and back?

Going to the Moon is really far more a matter of engineering and not much of science or physics.

Uh, as a civil engineer, I feel confident that I can tell you that engineers apply science into our daily lives. That means that without science (of which physics is a part) there wouldn't be any engineers. Going to the moon was a matter of engineering because it was a matter of the science used.

And since there are atheist engineers obviously (you are talking to one after all), your initial comment to Riku ["The Atheist scientist are handicapped (or lame) by failing to see (being blind) the reality of the Creator God."] begs the question of how anything that is "a matter of engineering" has succeeded since it is based on atheist science...

Plus science is still today built upon the the teaching of God as given through Einstein, so they do have a big boost of a revelation to build upon.

In Genesis 1 it says that plants came before the Sun. It says the iron-laden Earth came before iron-producing stars. It says flying creatures came before land animals. Maybe science is built upon the teachings of your god, as long as you assume the opposite of what your godly inspired text says, because that is usually how it works out...

In which case, we should expect to see atheist scientists failing in their works...except that doesn't happen. It's almost like science is able to work irrespective of one's belief in a god or gods.

Einstein gave science a huge boost by giving the doctrine of Relativity from the scriptures.

The Atheist scientist are unknowingly standing on the back of Divine revelation.

Since you have been unable to provide any evidence or empirical data to support your baseless speculation, there is no reason to consider it useful or accurate.

In order to make this argument, however, you must first prove the existence of God. Can you prove the existence of God?

The reality of God can not be proven to people who refuse to see and refuse to understand, so if you want the real proof of God then you have to do your own homework and prove it for your self.

It really is not my concern that you do not see and you can not comprehend because that is your defect and has nothing to do with me.

I do not seek to convert you nor to convince anyone, because it is just your loss and my advantage.

I have told you the reality and the truth = so you can take it or leave it.

So, in other words, you cannot prove the existence of your god. You don't want to admit that of course, so instead you make up claims of inferiority in others, but you still have no data, no evidence for your magical being. We see what you did there JP, you didn't trick a soul with your sidestepping of the question...