Comments on: Science vs. Faith

By: Symbolism

Symbolism — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:04:47 +0000

For everyone on here trying to sound more intelligent and logical by pointing out flaws in each other’s worldviews, consider this…. Arguing via internet is a strong indication of being a single person with no life….

Good Day

By: Luis

Luis — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:00:56 +0000

while living in the religion we will not be free,
and science today is a modern way of faith…we remain prisoners
we must understand a reality and a world,
where they are not necessary (at least not a science and and technology
we dominate us) but where our full freedom
(self-determination and self-consciousness)
producing a reconciled community and fearlessly whether….

By: Don't need it, but thanks

Don't need it, but thanks — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:28:30 +0000

I can understand why we cut back to one god – once we figured out what makes crops fail or why the sun rises every day, who needs the sun god and all its co-gods? And I can understand why a lot of us still need the one remaining god – the idea of the Big Bang (and what there was before the BB) isn’t very comforting to me either. As long as we have fear of death we will have religion (life after death – sign me up!). But neither am I comforted by thinking of all the times large armies have faced each other across battlefields and both prayed to god to help them kill their enemies. And just once I’d like to see an athlete blame god for not helping them win. Seems reasonable to me.

By: 161803399

161803399 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:54:28 +0000

Awww… you cared enough to make a graph… who can debate that? It’s like a lolcat in how it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside with awesomeness of reason!

By: MG

MG — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:06:29 +0000

‘It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.’ – Carl Sagan

By: incomplete

incomplete — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:53:32 +0000

The science chart is idealized and overly optimistic (e.g. doesn’t reflect the static tendency of theory, pradigm, model in all thought systems or the incomplete nature human perception and abstraction). The faith chart is purposely over-simplified (as will be whatever I can put in this short comment) and only accurate for a small percentage of those who hold to a faith system. I wouldn’t get too happy or too angry about it. It makes a point for some.

By: mistermagisterminister

mistermagisterminister — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:27:58 +0000

belief.
faith is a belief of something without evidence of it,
or a continued belief of something despite contradictory evidence.
if the belief ever changes at all or disappears, faith has stopped
faith cannot be open minded.
if evidence appears and the belief becomes explainable, then faith stops and is replaced by understanding.
faith cannot be rational.
given this, faith can only be understood as delusion;
one that creates a non-adaptiveness that is detrimental to all.

By: Dave_Is_Wrong

Dave_Is_Wrong — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:31:41 +0000

Raelians? You guys realize you’re on the wrong side of the chart.

“We’re made by aliens and we cloned a baby!” > Does the evidence support the idea? > No > “We’re still made by aliens and we cloned another baby!!” > Does the evidence support the idea? > No > Rinse > Repeat > Keep idea forever > End”

I believe that’s the faith chart…

By: Ether

Ether — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:38:56 +0000

Stating that you can’t disprove god does not turn his/hers/its existence into a 50/50 proposition. The idea of a God is so improbable i find it hard to understand those of faith. But to me faith is not a virtue it’s an intellectual ball and chain.

And if you must have faith why not try gods creator Has to be more powerful, wise and homophobic?

Love the chart

By: The Overachiever

The Overachiever — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:16:48 +0000

Not a bad comparison Enigma, and I agree with your general idea, but there are large amounts of evidence supporting the “super-dense pocket of helium and hydrogen” theory. There is a complete lack of evidence supporting Godly intervention.

I believe in God, but not actively. As in, if I can’t figure something out, I don’t say “it is holy”, and if I can’t do something, I don’t say “it is forbidden by God”. There is no reason NOT to believe in God, as long as you continue to pursue knowledge of all kinds. Unfortunately, though, I must say that FAITH- not religion- is directly equivalent to ignorance. You should not believe anything faithfully, as that is literally ignoring evidence against it.

On Jesus, I believe he was a philosopher. A good philosopher (although with a case of large self-importance)- but just a philosopher. I also don’t follow any tenants of Christianity beyond hoping for the existence of heaven.

There are ignorant religious freaks, and ignorant pursuers of science; but everyone has such a hard time finding a balance. ^^