|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Science is only a part not the whole of life; it is a common tool of knowledge between believers and non-believers for the things physical.
I am unaware of any branch of science which has evolved into a relgion. Perhaps you can give some examples.
Some people only believe what the science says; while science does not claim to be perfect; it is still in its infacy and is not designed to explain everything at every point of time and has its limitations.
True, science does not explain everything. On the other hand, religion explains nothing at all and is only designed to come to predetermined conclusions that often have no connection to reality.
If you want to learn go to science. If you want to believe because it makes you feel good then go to religion.
Science and religion both help understanding the life; both are like two legs one uses to walk smoothly.
No, science helps us understand the world around us. Religion gives a warm, comforting glow that something big is watching and helping us along with a false hope of eternal life. Science provides the two legs we need to walk; religion provides the overstuffed chair to rest on when we're tired of walking.
Truthful religion does not deny that role to science. It is the non-believers who assign science a role that for which it has been designed.It is simply wrong to make science one’s religion; it is not an alternative of religion; yes it is a part.
Science does not explain the purpose; it only explains the characteristics of a thing.
As with everything religious, you can only assume that there is a purpose to find. As no purpose exists, it then becomes religions job to fabricate one and give that nice warm glow as we imagine ourselves as far more important than we actually are.
Nope. Life isn't purposeless unless the individual doesn't understand. I just wrote a hub- What Is Life's Purpose?
Please quote from your hub a common and collective purpose of life of human spcies confirmed by scientific method.
You can also quote from the Quran and confirm it by scientific method.
Yes. Any purpose to your existence is invented by you. Natures only purpose is to continue the species and few would consider that to be a purpose in the sense that you use the word.
We all give purpose to our lives, but it is a purpose defined by us. There is no purpose to our existence.
What is the need of continuation of human life if it has no purpose? Why evolution if no purpose? Why intelligence if no purpose?
I am sure it is a wrong assertion.
Evolution of the species, may be seen as a purpose, although there is no design behind it. It s by means of natural selection, that the species have been able to adapt to different envronments. The fact that life exists at all, and that it has branched out into so many different species should be a cause for wonder. However, any purpose we attach to our individual lives is one created by our own minds, and will therefore come to an end when the brain ceases to function.
There is no need in nature for life to continue. There is no need for anything. Life gives itself a need as individuals; hunger is assuaged by food, which is a need and helps to continue life. There is a need to avoid pain, which helps to continue life. These come out of the process and forces of evolution; without them a species will not survive.
Evolution, however, has no purpose. Purpose only comes from an intelligent individual and evolution is a process that happens naturally without any intelligence behind it.
Intelligence has no purpose, either, in the sense you mean. While it can give a purpose to an action, it does not have a purpose behind. As with hunger it developed out of the natural process of evolution which has no purpose. While intelligence has a result (just as hunger does) there is no real purpose.
Understand that purpose is separate from cause. Purpose comes from an intelligence, cause comes from natural forces and laws. Natural forces and laws cause evolution to happen, which causes hunger or intelligence to be useful but there is no intelligence to define the purpose of naturally occurring evolution..
Intelligence may have a purpose behind causing a new breed of dog to evolve (artificially) as well as cause it to happen; that new breed thus has a purpose as defined by the intelligence that caused it to happen. The intelligence created the purpose; purpose always requires an intelligence to create it.
You are correct that evolution is not intelligent; it is deaf and dumb; but it has set in motion by the Creator God- the All-Intelligent, so it goes on and on; if it would have not been controlled by Him then one could see devolution also.
While we agree that evolution is not intelligent, your claim that is was set in motion by God is unsubstantiated and not to be taken seriously.
As evidence you produce the idea that if it were not so, species would "devolve" but that does not follow. Species do indeed devolve, or at least change back into something similar to what they were before - whales are a good example as they came from the oceans to walk on land, then went back to an aquatic life form.
In addition, you exhibit a very poor understand of evolution; the very concept of "survival of the fittest" requires that only the fittest will survive over the long run. It would be very unusual for a species to go back to what it was as it could no longer compete with its more advanced cousins. Only with a large change in environment would that ever happen. As I say, it is not impossible (whales) but very unlikely.
As evidence of Gods activity the idea of "devolution" is a failure as it does not support that idea at all.
The Creator God claims it:
[71:15] ‘And He has created you in different forms and different conditions.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=14
And it is a reasonable claim.
It is a wrong interpreatation of Evolution; those who survive need not be the fittest on merit.
Science may not explain everything, but it admits that which it doesn't know, and it even asks you to question what it does know. Where as religion invents stories for what it doesn't know, and forbids you to question what it tells you.
I would rather know htat something is waiting to be figured out, than told a ludicrous story and told to believe it.
I spent 25 years in various churches but in all that time I was never forbidden to question what I was told. However if I didn't agree with what I was told; the accepted doctrine, I would have been told I was not a proper Christian, or I had been deceived, or worse.
The scientific community us not so different; there are baby who are ridiculed if they publish ideas that are quite different from the accepted scientific dogma.
Please excuse the predictive text cockups of my iTouch. It appears that I have transgressed it's English spelling
doctrines and thus has humiliated me in the post above.
You may ask any questions that were not answered to you; they might have lacked a grasp on truthful religion. We, all the posters here, may try to help you out.
The truthful religion has no fiction stories; and it does answer valid questions with brilliant and rational arguments.
The difference is, that science does not believe in something based upon faith alone. Science puts forward a proposition, and then through experimentation or research, attempts to prove the proposition by empirical evidence. No scientist worth their salt will demand that their hypothesis be accepted because it was revealed to them by God, or that they are God's messenger. Scientists are not on the whole dogmatic. They may have differences in understanding, but if new evidence arises to disprove their hypothesis, then they are willing to accept that evidence, rather than deny it, because it goes against their faith.
That is a right of the science; the truthful religion does not deny that right to science; but science does not put forward proposition on everything in the universe or in the human life.
Why assign a role to science for things for which it is never meant?It is simply wrong to make science one’s religion or an alternative of the religion; it would be extremely erroneous and harmful for the human beings.
Everything should be believed on its merit and should be only given the importance it deserves ; not over and above its merit.
Here you go:
The Church of Scientology
The Church of Scientology has not even a vague notion of science. Believing that man came to Earth trillions of years ago from another planet has no basis in science whatsoever.
Possibly because religion has evolved into Science.
Science is a part of truthful religion; no messenger prophet of the Creator God opposed any science.
That would be interesting to see! Are the theologists now testing the theory that water can be turned into wine? Or that people can walk on water? Wait - have they experimented with creating zombies, walking around after being dead for 3 days? These would be interesting scientific tests and experiments, especially if they worked!
Don't be ridiculous.
I'll agree that Science is a tool for gain knowledge with regards to reality, however, should you think there's more than reality? Then you are intellectually dishonest with yourself.
Most(not all) world religions are based on mysticism which is a person being dishonest with themselves and ignoring reality.
Science is just one tool; and is not perfect in all aspect of life.
Messenger prophets of the Creator God never denied its usefulness; they accepted it and appreciated it with its limitations.
Conjecture. Anyone claiming to be a messenger of any god are pure unadulterated liars.
Not a conjecture; we have Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah, a messenger and prophet of the Creator God; who always appreciated science, its usefulness and its learning.
That's nice. Again, anyone claiming to be a messenger from a god is a liar. Plain and simple.
It could be one's mistake; not a fact or reality.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a truthful person; he is the promised messiah.
How would you know he was truthful if he was based in mysticism and mysticism is dishonest?
I never said he was mystic; he also did not claim to be a mystic; he was the Promised Messiah- a messenger prophet of the Creator God.
Anyone claiming to know a god is mystic. Go learn something. The very concept of "god" is mystic based. It's the bread and butter of mysticism. And, it's dishonest.
Actually, it's not. All people claim that "God is spirit" or "God is an entity" which doesn't reside in reality. If it doesn't reside in reality, then it's mystic based.
The Creator God is not a spirit; it is a wrong notion. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah- has rightly pointed out that all spirits are His creation.
Reality ows its generation from Him; He is the first and last reality.
This is based on mysticism. DUH! It's intellectual dishonesty.
It is intellectual honesty and reality; it has got nothing to do with mysticism.
You keep deceiving yourself. I'm done playing with you. All you know how to do is create foolish statement after foolish statement.
It is alright if you are done with; it is a confirmation that you could not prove your view point.
It is OK with me.
Plainly stated truth. I concur, liars is the correct description, intentional or otherwise, they are still liars.
paarsurrey, I think you are making some very good points. I want to congratulate you on the manner of your responses, and I encourage you to continue. It is obvious to see in this thread who is suffering from self-delusions, and it is very sad. None are so blind as they who will not see.
Thanks for your good words; they definitely are source of encouragement for me
Making anything a religion is a mistake.....Sure it is ok to have opinions and seek the truth, but to assign religion to anything is saying that you believe a particular way of thinking and have complete faith that this way of thinking is totally correct.
Science is like medicine. Always changing and learning from new information. That is why we call professionals in this field practicing. (I am speaking of doctors)
We are so limited in our knowledge as a whole, how can one individual belief be completely and totally correct. Man made religion. Religion did not make man!
Most common religions have their beginnings in the 100bc to 200ad era. Man has been around many thousands of years before this. If God wanted to lay the ground work for us as humans, he/she would not have waited 10,000 years to do it.
WHAT??? If you genuinely believe that, you need to take a course in vocabulary - or learn to use the dictionary. To anyone else who believes that ridiculous statement: that is not at all why we call professionals in the field "practicing." If you can't look it up yourself, let me know and I will post a dictionary definition.
WHAT??? Judaism had its beginnings several thousand years ago. Hardly in the area of 100BC to 200AD. And what about Hinduism and other Eastern religions?
please inform all of us what "practicing" means. Obviously we all need a dictionary or lessons in vocabulary according to you. What is your point exactly?
Are you saying that doctors do not practice medicine? Are you saying that scientists do not learn from what they experience through research? You can post definitions all you like but it does not change the facts does it?
Judaism several thousand years ago? Ok so 1300 bc gives it credence? Not sure if that even holds water but ok......
"The word itself is non-Sanskrit and is associated with geography rather than beliefs or religions. The Persians, Arabs, and Turks referred the people living by the Indus River as Hindus. The word Hindu was first documented by the Mogul rulers"
Some believe that Hinduism was started as early as 10,000 years ago which gives power to those who need a faith based orginization from long ago.
Are you desperate to find meaning to your life? Do you think that humans from 10,00 years ago can explain why you are living the life you live today? If you believe that, then I suggest keep it up. Obviously those who lived 10,000 years ago is a good basis for how you should shape your life in todays world right? . No problem...just keep being blind and have FAITH!
Simple minded people like yourself is why we leave decisons to the government...That alone is scary...better in their hands then letting some self absorbed criminal religious sect take the reigns. I hate big government as much, if not more then most. I dislike total idiots even more.
Guess I really struck a nerve!!!!
I would love to hear how earlier civilizations and religions make a difference!
I grew up as a Christian boy. I spent a good part of my life praying and learning about God.
Do you have a religion you actually believe in, or are you just defending all 0f them? Of course there have been many ways of thinking since these religions started. Do you have one that you follow and believe to be true?
Go Ahead. you obviously want to voice your opinion.....Which of the so called beliefs to you follow?
Whatever it may be, I guess the rest of us must be total idiots not to understand and believe right?
It is ok to have an opinion as I said earlier. The fact that you would rather argue and try to spread beliefs that you cannot justify or prove, just shows how closed minded you are.
Wait a second.......God told me just now, that you need to do a little more research and stop reading and believing false profits.
Get a grip!!!!! Believe what you want if it makes you feel better. Either way, the so called "commandments" were only introduced a few thousand years ago.
Follow whatever you want...... if you are a follower....I guess we all need a reason to be here.
Somehow talkking about when certain religions came about makes a dfiference and it should I guess.. If you hve to have something to worship then here it is.
Certainly, I'm happy to. One meaning of practice, the one that is valid in describing the work of doctors, is "the exercise or pursuit of a profession or occupation, esp. law or medicine."
There are other meanings, as you quite likely know, including "repeated performance or systematic exercise for the purpose of acquiring skill or proficiency: Practice makes perfect." It was this latter definition that I believed you were referencing; in reviewing your original post, that is still my belief, but I am willing to be corrected and to admit a mistake if I did make one.
No, not even remotely desperate. I have found it.
Not even remotely factual. Thousands of people can verify that. (As a very brief example, I know the difference between rains, reins, and reigns. )
Ahhh, you make it so tempting to post a sarcastic bit of sympathy for your self-loathing, but I will pull a Cicero and not mention it.
Not sure what you are referencing here, but oh-my-goodness, how bizarre this is, considering the emotion of your response.
Good to have your permission. Thanks so much.
I made two strong expressions of surprise and, indeed, dismay at some content that I read as being non-factual - not related to any sort of belief system whatsoever.
I made one extremely brief (two-word) response to you that one might label as arguing or trying to spread unjustifiable, unprovable beliefs, and then you come back at me with both barrels? and claim that I would rather argue and try to spread my beliefs? and that I am close-minded? Pot, meet kettle.
As for my needing to stop believing "false profits" ! ! ! my record shows that I am already sufficiently wary of such claims, as you can easily see in the thread "Is anyone earning more than $100 a week from their writing?" But if you actually intended to write "false prophets" -- well, I doubt that we could agree on a definition of that term, unless we are talking about Harold Camping.
Always seeking truth and to be with truth wherever it is , it is the foremost requirement of truthful religion; science is one way of seeking truth in the nature of things physical; there are other means also ; why should one deny them and suffer.
Science cannot bring about anything which does not exist in the nature already; so nature is the master and science its servant. The Creator God created the nature.
The more one studies science, the more one understands that science doesn't explain everything. Some of the most spiritual and believing people in the world are scientists. They know they don't have the answers.
Hundreds of thousands of them actually. One just needs to have an open mind and be able to read, see and take in real information and ignore ancient mythology posing as truth.
There are at least a dozen documentaries running right now that debunk this junk.
Did you know that 4 million Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens?
Some people will believe or distort anything to hold on to their sky fairy beliefs like little children believing in Santa.
Just give one; the strogest one you may have in your mind.
Why? So you can come back and say goddunnit?
You have no proof for your beliefs, none at all.
Science and learning have made mince out of your beliefs in the sky fairy and his messenger, and if you knew anything worth knowing you would acknowledge that truth.
So you have not one good argument; and yet you talked of thousands; just generalization.
Just make up your mind and come out of your doubt; if you may.
You lied about what I said, as usual, and misrepresented me......that is enough for me to ignore your insincere request.
I stand by what I said.
So you have no good reason. It is OK with me.
I have good reasons, you just choose to say I don't. That does not make what you say true.
I know that you already know the reasons I have given here over the last three years, but you have to be dishonest and pretend all the links and data never existed.
That is what I call lying, do you have a better name for it?
An interestingly ignorant question.
Science is proven up by subjecting an hypotheses to the rigours of scientific method.
Religion is the belief that some totally illogical mythology is "truth"
Not quite the same thing is it?
Science has no interest in religion or it's beliefs one way or the other.
this typical of human. Afraid of something that they can't prove, something that they can't touch or see. And then, they turn their back to what they call science as the answer of everything in their world. But, what they forget, there are many things science can't answer or won't answer.
One this that is always sure, there are always people who claim they all know everything because they have learned it in their science.
Well, maybe someday these people will find out how great their small science when they meet unexplainable things. Good luck with your science....
It is simply wrong to make science one’s religion; science is only a common tool of knowing things physical or material; beyond it, it has no relevance.
Both science and religion have in common the search for answers -- one in the physical realm, the other in the spiritual realm.
Science has its methods and tools; religion has its methods and tools.
Science and religion also have in common the abuse of tools and methods when ego becomes involved.
Scientific method, for instance, warns against bias; but one of the key tools of science contains a potent bias -- skepticism contains "doubt." A better paradigm would be restraint + humility.
Religion too often becomes dogmatic and its followers too attached to a singular way of thinking. The quest for answers finds itself stalled.
Science can also find itself stalled. In North American anthropology, for instance, scientists were afraid to dig below the Clovis horizon because of the "Clovis first" dogma. Skepticism had turned to the "dark side" with self-indulgent ridicule. Yes, science can become entirely subjective when egos are involved. Oops! Back to the Dark Ages.
At their cores, both religion and science are meant for good. When ego gets involved, things sour quickly.
I agree to many of the points mentioned by you. It is really a good post; I appreciate it.
The real representitives of the believers are the messengers prophets of the Creator God; they are open minded people and they don't stall quest of knowledge.
Even if someone did make a religion out of science it would not be "wrong", it would be their right in a country of freedom of religion.
There is no pre-requirement of having any knowledge to become an atheist, skeptic or a non-believer; any ignorant person qualifies to become a non-believer or an atheist or skeptic; having no legs to stand upon they hide behind the science which is a common tool, of knowing truth in the things physical and material ,of believers and non-believers alike.
It is therefore simply wrong to make science one's religion; it is no alternative of the religion; it never claimed to be.
Why eulogize science and expect it doing things it has not been designed for?
I see you have a firm grasp on freedom of religion based on mutual respect for autonomy [/sarcasm]
All humans should be respected by default; till someone does a wrong things.
I don't see you doing this. Unless you count not believing your God as being a "wrong thing" which makes the distinction a bit pointless.
I respect others; it is a form of respect to discuss things peacefully and rationally; I do respect you.
And yet you phrase thing such that any and all non-believers are in some way inferior. To my mind respect comes from an assumption of equal moral worth. Otherwise it isn't respect, just manners.
It is simply wrong to make science one’s religion; let science remain a tool with the limitations it has to serve the humanity; to stretch it to others realms would harm the humanity and would be a dissevice.
It is therefore simply wrong to make science one's religion; it is no alternative of the religion; it never claimed to be.
Why eulogize science and expect it doing things it has never been designed for?
So, how many times are you going to repeat yourself and bring up dead threads while pushing others to the bottom?
Both science and religion have in common the search for answers -- one in the physical realm, the other in the spiritual realm. Science has its methods and tools; religion has its methods and tools. Science and religion also have in common the abuse of tools and methods when ego becomes involved.
by jay_kumar_076 years ago
Which one is correct of the followingJESUS died for our sin.JESUS died for sin.I think that JESUS died for sin is correct.It means that JESUS died and wone the globe for us not to allow sin to over come on us.JESUS told...
by Virginia Davis3 years ago
I believe that so many children would grow up smarter and having a better intillecual veiw on the world if society didn't shove religion down their throtes. There are many good religious people who are smart, but if...
by Jefsaid7 years ago
Science and religion has led to mass social order and material advancements. Arguably, these were necessary developments in our human evolution. However, in either case, they have set rules to the...
by Michael Valencia5 years ago
Is the world better or worse off with religion?I am agnostic and believe that everybody has a right to believe whatever they want. But I tend to think that, on the whole, religion brings more negative things into...
by Julie Grimes3 years ago
Who is Imam Mahdi, and what is his/her's significance with Jesus Christ and Christianity? Is Islam and Christianity closely related, more than what Christians are taught to believe? I'm just curious as to...
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
That religion and science are irreconcilable comes from the atheistic/secularist notion that like oil and water, religion and science would and should never mix. This belies the historical/factual perspective of say,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.