Science rules

[123everton]

Amongst some there is an opinion that science will replace/destroy/make religion irrelevant.
Would this be a good thing?
Would allowing scientists to determine or espouse what's right for us be the way forward?
Do you trust a scientist to be right about things that can impact on your life?
Personally, I say no, sometimes I agree with a scientist, sometimes not, sometimes Ill agree with the Archbishop, sometimes not, is the world not big enough to fit in all our viewpoints with all the lively disagreements it should encourage?

[naomi24]

Oh, yes. I forgot. You don't read other people's posts properly, do you, which is why you get yourself into such a pickle. It's only a few posts above, but here it is again.

Why would anyone believe in God if he didn't offer the promise of eternal life?

[Sqad]

naomi

"Ultimately death is what religion is all about, and the fundamental aim of believers is to evade death."

You don't mean that surely? How would they do that?

[jake-the-peg]

Sounds like an obvious statement to me.

Show me a religion that tells it's adherents that there is no immortal soul, nothing after.

Without that God becomes just a supremely powerful extra-terrestrial

[123everton]

In terms of what?
How about Taoism, no eternal life there.
I honestly don't get your point and share Sqad's confusion.
Science does offer eternal ife through cryogenic storage if you can afford it, does it not?

[Seadragon]

I agree with Everton, its a person's choice. And death maybe for alot of people is what religion is all about but for most, religion is also about living and living well morally, love your neighbour and all that. Eternity is not much good if you're going to hell?

[Seadragon]

And if cryrogenic storage is anything like that depicted in the film 'Vanilla Sky' then that is a scientific hell!

[Sqad]

Jake.....I must have made my point badly:


"Ultimately death is what religion is all about, and the fundamental aim of believers is to evade death."

I define death as the cessation of breathing, stopping of the heart, brain death and irreversible return to life.

How does religion evade that? That is all that i am questioning naomi's point for clarification.

[jake-the-peg]

Taosim has ancestor spirits.

I don't think Science offers immortality in cryogenics - Quacks and charlatins do - Until they've resurrected someone from them they will not be scientific

[jake-the-peg]

I think Naomi is refering to the promise of "eternal life" as defined in many religions - meaning some sort of soul or essence of the individual that supposedly survives after the body's death.

I think it's fair enough of her to use that terminology because of it's common usage in religious thought - esp. Christianity

[Sqad]

jake...right.

[Sqad]

Zac.....I haven't got one.......girl that is......not knockers.

[Sqad]

Zac....LOL LOL LOL......you are as sharp as ever..............I sat looking for about 5mins and then...........I got it.

[Seadragon]

Its not 'twaddle' for people who are interested in this. Although the only advert I've seen is about getting a degree - Are you referring to her teeth??

[naomi24]

Jake, yes, that's exactly what I'm referring to.

Seadragon, By talking about going to hell, you've actually proven the point that I - and now Jake - are making.

Sqad, do pay attention dear. Not like you to miss something like that. (The advert I mean). ;o)

[naomi24]

Everton, You do have a habit of mixing religion with science when it suits you. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about, so how about an honest answer?

[123everton]

Firstly it was probably right that the answer was removed, but I said nothing that hadn't been said already about somebody else.
Taoism, from the Buddhist perspective have priests who are in reality demons, they can achieve immortality by cultivating their conduct to appease the Guanyin.
I view religion more about how I try to live my life, I try to live my life to a good end and Iuse faith as a marker.