Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences
    #9723774 -

Both science and religion are man-made institutions which posses authority over the masses


You do not have the power (or rather, the authority) to change what is accepted by the mainstream scientific community unless you join the mainstream scientific community.

Similarly, you do not have the power to change the (or a) church's interpretations of the Bible unless you become part of the clergy.

Therefore, if you do not follow the (or a) church, then you are not under it's authority, but under the authority of the mainstream scientific community. And if you do follow the church, then you still are under the authority of science, but much less so because members of the church are aware that "miracles" have been performed that science cannot explain (e.g - terminal illnesses being cured, people turning their lives around, etc.), so their faith lies in the church's power more than in science's.



I'd say much more, but I am at a public library (which is an inconvenience for me), and I think this is a good start anyway.  :thumbup:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Poid]
    #9730050 -

The authorities of the scientific community are scientists, while the authorities of the church are the members of the clergy. Therefore, scientists are analagous to clergy members.

However, the mainstream scientific community (unless I'm missing something here) does not seem to have an obvious hierarchy within its society, but the church obviously does.

Both religion and science have major influential power over masses of people, but both religion and science disagree with each other on many key issues, one of them being the existence of an omnipresent God.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Poid]
    #9730513 -

Quote:
You do not have the power (or rather, the authority) to change what is accepted by the mainstream scientific community unless you join the mainstream scientific community.


As soon as you submit your attempts to change (also to reinforce) scientific understanding you have just "joined" the scientific community. There is no card carrying membership, exclusive club, or secret handshake. As soon as you delve into scientific research you are now part of the community. If your fellow scientists find you (I should really say your work) of merit is completely up to them though.

I'll take cryptozoology for example. While many others in the scientific community think them little more than crackpots, they have contributed to the field. Sometimes it's the mad scientists that make the greatest contributions to science.

Quote:
Similarly, you do not have the power to change the (or a) church's interpretations of the Bible unless you become part of the clergy.


I think you aim a little low with this. I come from a long line of devout Catholics (I may be wrong, but clergy is a term primarily of Roman Catholic descent) so I'm not sure if just any clergy can change the established interpretations . . . Well I just called my Oma, and she informed me that while lower casts could petition, only cardinals and the pope can officially change the meaning of texts. I find it all silliness.



Quote:
Therefore, if you do not follow the (or a) church, then you are not under it's authority, but under the authority of the mainstream scientific community. And if you do follow the church, then you still are under the authority of science, but much less so because members of the church are aware that "miracles" have been performed that science cannot explain (e.g - terminal illnesses being cured, people turning their lives around, etc.), so their faith lies in the church's power more than in science's.


I think the key word here is authority. With religion it fits perfectly. Religion demands adherence and unquestionable following. It demands respect and enforces its beliefs with an iron fist. When you join the clergy you are drilled with doctrine, after which you have no will to change anything, as everything is already "The infallible word of God".

While I am in agreement that there is no middle ground, I find the "authority" of science to be lacking, unless of course you are implying to science's self-assurance.

The only "rules" science has are the ones it discovers (physics for example). All it does is collect the already established rules and come to a conclusion. If this conclusion is not the correct one than anyone may attempt to change it. Science doesn't demand obedience, as it never created any law. If you defeat the law of gravity science does not damn the person who broke it, it marvels at the greatness of the accomplishment (antibiotics: a scientific "miracle"). It doesn't command anything of anyone, merely shows what it found through the hard word and dedication of multiple minds.

I will say though by living in today's world you are under the shadow of science. Every time you turn on your computer, put gas in your car, eat a hydroponic tomato, take a tylenol, check your watch, dye your hair, ect. you are reaping the rewards of science.


--------------------
Choosing a religion is like playing the lotto, you can't get saved if you don't play! ~ Bill Maher

The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy. ~Adolf Hitler

10 years in an American prison right here folks, be careful!

Edited by Drakion (02/03/09 07:53 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Poid]
    #9730598 -

Quote:
science disagree with each other on many key issues, one of them being the existence of an omnipresent God.


I find it rather simple:

If the conclusions of science do not fit with the religious teachings of any given religion, the religion in question disregards science and any unpleasing facts associated with it.

If science comes to a conclusion that matches the religious teachings of said religion, the religion in question trumpets the evidence of science as proving their teachings immaculately correct upon the highest standards.

It's hypocrisy through and through.

Religion starts with their "Book of facts" and searches for evidence in support the predetermined answers.

Science starts with nothing and comes to a conclusion based purely upon the facts drawn through their searches for evidence.


--------------------
Choosing a religion is like playing the lotto, you can't get saved if you don't play! ~ Bill Maher

The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy. ~Adolf Hitler

10 years in an American prison right here folks, be careful!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Drakion]
    #9731878 -

When we talk about science and religion, it will be compelling to talk about the idealized (platonic, if you will) forms. We would do this by making some strict definition of what science and religion are. Supposing that philosophers could agree on the idealized definitions, we could talk about them and that would all be fine and good.

Except you will not find agreement on the definitions, and even if you could, the platonic forms are rare in this world.

Furthermore, how can you separate science or religion from culture, society, belief, and values? They are all deeply intertwined!

And even furtherer-more, both science and religion are not single entities as far as I can tell. When I go into the lab and repetitively do some process monotonously, is that science or factory work? When I write a scientific paper or grant, is that science or politics? When I create a theory is that science or the promulgation of belief? When I go to a conference to discuss the field with my colleagues, is that science or a drinking party?

Given all that, this is how I compare the two:

1. They each start with a perspective. The scientific perspective is basically to look for patterns in the natural world and to model the mechanisms that create those patterns. The religious perspective varies on the religion, but is basically applying a big picture view to the choices you make in your life. The use of a single perspective is limiting, so they are both limited.

2. They both have a lot to do with belief. How does the world work? What makes everything happen? How did it all get here?

3. They are both used as a starting point for authority. For example, even though science hasn’t really shown that marijuana is very dangerous, it is often claimed by the authorities that science shows that marijuana is very dangerous – for some reason science is often used as the final authority. The use of religion as an authority is pretty obvious.

4. Religion has it's hand in morality and ethics, science is free of it (even if its knowledge is used by them).

I’m certainly missing a bunch of stuff here but that’s all for now from the top of my mind…

Edited by Freedom (02/03/09 10:34 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Poid]
    #9734735 -

Poid said:
You do not have the power (or rather, the authority) to change what is accepted by the mainstream scientific community unless you join the mainstream scientific community.


I disagree. You can change the views of the scientific community just by disproving things. It doesn't matter if you're a member of the "mainstream scientific community".

Scientists respond to evidence. The reason we take other scientists more seriously than random people on the internet is because they are better at presenting evidence, that's all.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Drakion]
    #9735737 -

Quote:
As soon as you submit your attempts to change (also to reinforce) scientific understanding you have just "joined" the scientific community. There is no card carrying membership, exclusive club, or secret handshake. As soon as you delve into scientific research you are now part of the community. If your fellow scientists find you (I should really say your work) of merit is completely up to them though.

I'll take cryptozoology for example. While many others in the scientific community think them little more than crackpots, they have contributed to the field. Sometimes it's the mad scientists that make the greatest contributions to science.



It is different to be part of the scientific community than to be under the authority of the scientific community. Similarly to how, say, just any Catholic cannot become the Pope, there is a process (or, in other words, a "Secret Handshake" :tongue:) one has to go through in order to become a scientist, and thus join the mainstream scientific community. The mainstream scientific community will pay absolutely no heed to anyone attempting to join or influence them who has not obtained some sort of college or university degree.

Cryptozoologists are scientists in their own right, but since their assertions are not contended by the mainstream scientific community as being scientifically sound, they are thus not taken 100% seriously.



Quote:
I think you aim a little low with this. I come from a long line of devout Catholics (I may be wrong, but clergy is a term primarily of Roman Catholic descent) so I'm not sure if just any clergy can change the established interpretations . . . Well I just called my Oma, and she informed me that while lower casts could petition, only cardinals and the pope can officially change the meaning of texts. I find it all silliness.




I think clergy is a Roman Catholic term, but I use that term because most other mainstream religions have something analogous to this.

Either way, not every member of the clergy has the same influential power; similarly, there are different scientists that are held with more esteem than others (such as cryptozoologists and the rest).

Humans develop hierarchies where ever they mingle with one another; whether or not this is morally right or wrong may be a topic better suited for a different thread.



Quote:
I think the key word here is authority. With religion it fits perfectly. Religion demands adherence and unquestionable following. It demands respect and enforces its beliefs with an iron fist. When you join the clergy you are drilled with doctrine, after which you have no will to change anything, as everything is already "The infallible word of God".

While I am in agreement that there is no middle ground, I find the "authority" of science to be lacking, unless of course you are implying to science's self-assurance.

The only "rules" science has are the ones it discovers (physics for example). All it does is collect the already established rules and come to a conclusion. If this conclusion is not the correct one than anyone may attempt to change it. Science doesn't demand obedience, as it never created any law. If you defeat the law of gravity science does not damn the person who broke it, it marvels at the greatness of the accomplishment (antibiotics: a scientific "miracle"). It doesn't command anything of anyone, merely shows what it found through the hard word and dedication of multiple minds.

I will say though by living in today's world you are under the shadow of science. Every time you turn on your computer, put gas in your car, eat a hydroponic tomato, take a tylenol, check your watch, dye your hair, ect. you are reaping the rewards of science.




Religion demands much, but that's not to say it doesn't give (at least) some back. Many people who join churches would be otherwise lost.

Science also demands that people believe their findings, because the general public has no way to prove that their findings are wrong. Similarly to religion, science gives at least some back. Look at our society.

Science is fairly self-assured, but consider this; science has been wrong in the past, is very likely wrong on some things today, and will most likely be wrong on somethings in the future.

You say science discovers its own rules, but who are you to say that this isn't so with religion? What if religion discovered God, and science has so far failed to do so?

Of course science is correct in many of it's findings relating to the physical universe, but who's to say that religion is wrong in many of its contentions about morality?

Similarly to how, through everyday living, you are reaping the rewards of science, those who try their best to live their lives through a moral code reap rewards as well.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: zouden]
    #9735753 -

zouden said:
Poid said:
You do not have the power (or rather, the authority) to change what is accepted by the mainstream scientific community unless you join the mainstream scientific community.


I disagree. You can change the views of the scientific community just by disproving things. It doesn't matter if you're a member of the "mainstream scientific community".

Scientists respond to evidence. The reason we take other scientists more seriously than random people on the internet is because they are better at presenting evidence, that's all.


But you can't disprove things if you are not able to. And you will not be able to if you do not have the proper skills and resources. Only those belonging to the mainstream scientific community are able to change scientific views because they have the proper skills and resources.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Poid]
    #9735767 -

Quote:
Poid said: those who try their best to live their lives through a moral code reap rewards as well.


What rewards besides from a free conscience?

It is easier to cope with a bad conscience than with a bad reputation.
--Nietzsche


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Drakion]
    #9735828 -

Drakion said:
Quote:
science disagree with each other on many key issues, one of them being the existence of an omnipresent God.


I find it rather simple:

If the conclusions of science do not fit with the religious teachings of any given religion, the religion in question disregards science and any unpleasing facts associated with it.

If science comes to a conclusion that matches the religious teachings of said religion, the religion in question trumpets the evidence of science as proving their teachings immaculately correct upon the highest standards.

It's hypocrisy through and through.

Religion starts with their "Book of facts" and searches for evidence in support the predetermined answers.

Science starts with nothing and comes to a conclusion based purely upon the facts drawn through their searches for evidence.


Science hasn't come up with its own theories on moral behavior and how it affects people's quality of life; the closest science has come to this is Psychology, which by the way has ruined many people's lives (not to say it hasn't helped any). How many lives have been ruined through religion? How many compared to the lives that have been helped (or even saved)?

Similarly to how religions will sometimes use science to put themselves on a high pedestal, science often times uses religion to do the same.

It's hypocrisy on both sides; through and through is correct. It takes two to tango.


You say religions start with their "book of facts", but where do you think these books came from? How do you think they became? Have you taken the time to, with an unbiased attitude, read any of these "Book(s) of facts"?

Science starts with a theory (not "nothing") and comes to a conclusion via the process of the scientific method, which in a nutshell aims to disprove said theory. The facts are drawn from this process and the inability to disprove the theory.

Religion apparently initially knows something, and tries to enlighten others with this knowledge, through varying processes and methods.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: deCypher]
    #9735846 -

deCypher said:
Quote:
Poid said: those who try their best to live their lives through a moral code reap rewards as well.


What rewards besides from a free conscience?

It is easier to cope with a bad conscience than with a bad reputation.
--Nietzsche


What rewards besides from a free conscience?

Do you mean what rewards besides having a free conscience?


I never cared much about my reputation. Sometimes things are more important than that.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Poid]
    #9736230 -

Poid said:
I never cared much about my reputation. Sometimes things are more important than that.


I wholeheartedly agree.  However, reputation can be very important if you're trying to change things within the established social structure.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: deCypher]
    #9736516 -

deCypher said:
Poid said:
I never cared much about my reputation. Sometimes things are more important than that.


I wholeheartedly agree.  However, reputation can be very important if you're trying to change things within the established social structure.


or selling anything else for that matter!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: deCypher]
    #9736854 -

deCypher said:
Poid said:
I never cared much about my reputation. Sometimes things are more important than that.


I wholeheartedly agree.  However, reputation can be very important if you're trying to change things within the established social structure.


I don't know....

In the Bible, Jesus didn't have much of a good reputation amongst the Pharisees, which were basically the rulers of the established social structure. And he changed all, all that mattered anyway.....


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Poid]
    #9736866 -

If nobody had listened to Jesus, would he have had an impact?


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Freedom]
    #9736868 -

Freedom said:
deCypher said:
Poid said:
I never cared much about my reputation. Sometimes things are more important than that.


I wholeheartedly agree.  However, reputation can be very important if you're trying to change things within the established social structure.


or selling anything else for that matter!


Your reputation is what people who don't fully understand you make you out to be.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: deCypher]
    #9736874 -

deCypher said:
If nobody had listened to Jesus, would he have had an impact?


Well the fact of the matter is that some people did listen to him because they had faith in him.


If nobody had listened to him, than that would've been their problem.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Poid]
    #9736967 -

Obviously, nobody listened to Jesus, or the world would have been a very different place. People worship Jesus/God, and thats where it stops. Only worship, no action. Religion is just fine, it's the people who are totally fucked up. Jesus said "Treat your fellow human beings like yourself; When you get slapped, turn the other cheek". People go "lets kill everyone who doesn't believe in jesus and lets slap all cheeks we can possibly find".... and then they are actually geniunly suprirsed that religion doesn't seem to work and they turn into atheists... LOL!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Poid]
    #9738550 -

Poid said:
zouden said:
You can change the views of the scientific community just by disproving things. It doesn't matter if you're a member of the "mainstream scientific community".

Scientists respond to evidence. The reason we take other scientists more seriously than random people on the internet is because they are better at presenting evidence, that's all.


But you can't disprove things if you are not able to. And you will not be able to if you do not have the proper skills and resources. Only those belonging to the mainstream scientific community are able to change scientific views because they have the proper skills and resources.


Right, but that's just because science is hard and expensive, not because it's some secret cabal. Anyone is welcome to join the scientific community if they're willing to put the time and effort in. It's not like the tools and techniques are kept secret.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Science and Religion - their similarities and their differences [Re: Freedom]
    #9738894 -

Quote:
1. They each start with a perspective. The scientific perspective is basically to look for patterns in the natural world and to model the mechanisms that create those patterns. The religious perspective varies on the religion, but is basically applying a big picture view to the choices you make in your life. The use of a single perspective is limiting, so they are both limited.


I do not believe they start with a perspective, but a question. It's the method of obtaining the solution that differentiates.

Quote:
2. They both have a lot to do with belief. How does the world work? What makes everything happen? How did it all get here?


In this I completely disagree. Science has zero belief. No person in the scientific field accepts anything until it survives all the trials any person puts it through. Only after the subject matter passes every test does a scientific mind accept it.

I don't have to believe in gravity, I feel it work every time I fall down. I don't believe in pulsars, I see them flashing in my telescope. In the questions that science has yet to answer science will humbly say "We don't know yet". But saying "I don't know" doesn't mean "I will never know."

Quote:
3. They are both used as a starting point for authority. For example, even though science hasn’t really shown that marijuana is very dangerous, it is often claimed by the authorities that science shows that marijuana is very dangerous – for some reason science is often used as the final authority. The use of religion as an authority is pretty obvious.


Here's this odd authority term again. Science does not enforce anything. Regardless of the popularity of the findings, it merely presents its findings. Even the theories it has can be torn down in the blink of an eye. Used for good or evil, science has always been a neutral party. Wielding knowledge does not make the knowledge a judge.

On a complete side note, science has shown marijuana as harmless as coffee. Science has known this since Nixon funded the study.


Quote:
4. Religion has it's hand in morality and ethics, science is free of it (even if its knowledge is used by them).


I agree, as science finds that morality and ethics are distinguished through evolution and intellect. Religion has no base knowledge in morality or ethics, but merely claims of such. I'll relent on this topic as I could fill a page in religions failed "morality".


--------------------
Choosing a religion is like playing the lotto, you can't get saved if you don't play! ~ Bill Maher

The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy. ~Adolf Hitler

10 years in an American prison right here folks, be careful!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Skeptics are more powerful than Believers
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 2,563 32 11/22/02 08:53 PM
by Headshock
* Merging science and spirituality..
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 4,274 33 08/19/02 08:09 PM
by Murex
* About Scientists....
( 1 2 all )		 Sclorch 2,490 39 09/02/03 10:31 PM
by Anonymous
* Is Science a form of Mythology?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Adamist 4,698 52 01/23/03 01:21 PM
by Anonymous
* Einstein A Father of Science Believed in GOD...
( 1 2 3 all )		 BleedingSickness 6,282 42 10/07/02 02:00 PM
by Zahid
* philosiphy of religion
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 aluminum_can 10,482 77 08/10/01 03:58 AM
by Zen Peddler
* Fear and Loathing of Skeptics
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 3,578 32 07/21/03 06:02 PM
by Zero7a1
* My Final Religion rommstein2001 2,122 17 04/25/03 08:30 AM
by AislingGheal

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,988 topic views. 3 members, 170 guests and 23 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.041 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 17 queries.