Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

will science ever replace religion?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 283 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 21 Apr 2013 12:24:49 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 9 Jul 2013 14:20:37 BDT]

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 12:31:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Apr 2013 12:31:53 BDT
Superstition and belief in the 'supernatural' will probably always endure in small pockets, on the margins, etc.

Religion, on the other hand, is done for. Sooner or later it will be relegated to museums and footnotes in the history books.

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 12:54:06 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 13:14:59 BDT
You're not exactly a fount of precise language, yourself.

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 13:32:21 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 9 Jul 2013 14:20:39 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 13:33:08 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Apr 2013 13:33:46 BDT
No.

And why 'perverted' ?
And what about non-monotheistic faiths ?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 13:50:26 BDT
David Groom says:
Opinionated Yorkshireman,

'Religion is losing out to logical thinking at an alarming rate. Will science ever explain the principle behind spirituality in a way sufficient to convert followers of perverted monotheistic faith? '

Religion has been gradually losing out to science for centuries and that loss has accelerated in recent decades, so much so that it has already lost the war. It just doesn't know it yet. Given a few more centuries, religion will be a private matter, nothing to do with the state and its followers will be regarded like flat-earthers. People to be pitied, faintly ridiculed and certainly not to be taken seriously. Can't come soon enough.

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 13:55:06 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 9 Jul 2013 14:20:40 BDT]

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 14:13:08 BDT
Fine.
No, because people of faith don't tend to chop and change or switch their religion and beliefs dependent on what's in fashion - people believe in X for whatever reason they do; and, judging by the second part of your initial comment, you seem to be under the impression that science and religion are incompatible, in that science will simply cancel out the need for faith or faith in general, and that is false. People have faith regardless of science, people have faith inclusive of scientific findings. Not every monotheist thinks that the world was created in 6 days, many accept the Big Bang and evolution - therefore, scientific findings will not remove faith from the faithfuls lives.

How do you come to the conclusion that monotheistic religions are perverted/altered/misrepresented from their 'intended meaning' ? How do you know what the intention was of something created millenia ago ?

Why are they less corrupt ?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 15:34:59 BDT
Let me help...

Yorkie writes...'Religion is losing out to logical thinking'. Which religion/s and in what way are they losing out? Logical thinking. Please give an example.

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 16:06:18 BDT
Wasn't logical thinking - along with milk drinking and not backing North Korea - something else you blame for all society's problems?

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 16:35:22 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 9 Jul 2013 14:20:41 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 17:04:10 BDT
"created the universe soley for the convenience of not all but just a small handful of humans"

Why do you think this ? Who are these small handful of humans ? In what way is the universe a 'convenience' for these few instead of everyone ?

"Monotheistic religions supports racial hatred and genocide"

Which ones and how ?

"you either acknowledge the facts or believe the fantasy, you can't do both"

Of course you can - as I said before, plenty of religious people believe in evolution, Big Bang, have no qualms with scientific research via vaccinations, technology etc etc Why are you so dead set on the notion that religious folk can't believe scientific findings ?

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 17:11:51 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 9 Jul 2013 14:20:42 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 17:15:56 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 9 Jul 2013 14:20:43 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 17:19:03 BDT
Yorkie...in order to debate one needs to define and understand your words. You don't.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 17:20:56 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 9 Jul 2013 14:20:44 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 17:21:32 BDT
bsck?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 17:21:56 BDT
Whoops....quick correction!

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 17:32:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Apr 2013 17:35:43 BDT
Humour me. Why don't you just answer the questions. Or perhaps you just prefer making sweeping claims without backing them up or expanding on them and we should just all nod and accept your word as (pardon the pun) gospel ?
One can't respond to your various claims unless sure of what it is we are responding to after all. That is how discussion works. If I answer based on what I assume you are referring to, you may just turn around and say 'No, that't not what I was talking about'. The onus is on you to clarify your position as you are the one making the statements; so please, if you actually want a discussion, answer the questions I have asked. All of them if you don't mind.
And yes, you can be religious and believe in what science achieves/discovers. If you honestly believe that you can't, then I suggest you come back when you've matured.

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 17:45:08 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 9 Jul 2013 14:20:45 BDT]

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 17:52:49 BDT
I guess that's a 'No, I'm not going to answer your questions and just repeat my assertions'. Cool.

I was wondering, is this thread a lead up to you plugging your book ? Or is the content of both thread and book just a strange coincidence ?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 18:02:40 BDT
Science makes sense....example please?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Apr 2013 18:23:48 BDT
Garscadden says:
If he can't even define his terms and clarify his argument, surely he's got no hope with a book?

Maybe he's talking about Hinduism losing out to 'creation science'. Given his lack of definitions I'm going to reply for him, and say that is the position he is taking.

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 20:13:13 BDT
gille liath says:
The very question is based on a failure to understand what the two things are.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  23
Total posts:  283
Initial post:  21 Apr 2013
Latest post:  14 Jul 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions