<p>Which one is most important to society?</p>
<p>I’d like to think science is the most important to progress and religion is the most important to keeping us sane/ somewhat righteous</p>
<p>I think that if science can logically disprove a religious aspect, the majority of individuals would most likely believe the scientific “facts.” (For example, evolution)</p>
<p>I wonder if this will turn into a debate.</p>
<p>probably. I will evacuate as soon as I finish this post =)</p>
<p>religion > science</p>
<p>for ME. Keyword ME.</p>
<p>God, not another of these. I bet by page two this will dissolve into the usual A/theists are ****s.</p>
<p>they both suck</p>
<p>I CONTROL REALITY</p>
<p>mwahahahah</p>
<p>@ Wartsandall: Science never deals of absolute facts; science is all evidence and theory because theories are subject to change if new evidence is discovered. Facts and proofs technically only exist in mathematics.</p>
<p>Science is more important than religion. Religion is so fundamentally subjective and erroneous that it is a really unstable institution. The sanity, morality, and righteousness religion brings are all subject to change as society progresses, and themselves are centrifugal or even dangerous forces, depending on the times. Science seeks to discover objective truths mostly, and truths are worth more than baseless beliefs.</p>
<p><em>runs away</em> ._.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, you don’t need to “run away.” Well, I did put facts in quotation marks to reflect the lack of definitive proof of scientific findings. Ultimately though, theories are well-developed and usually agreed upon by a multitude of scientists. Until an aspect is definitively disproven as invalid though, how can we state that something is not indeed a fact, or at least possesses the ability to be a fact? Society possesses a limited amount of knowledge and we rely upon individuals, like scientists, to provide us with sustainability and insight regarding our world. Therefore, we ultimately believe certain concepts until they are successfully disproven logically. (By logically, I mean utilizing what information we “know” or what has been agreed upon by the individuals that compose society.)</p>
<p>Although this topic could be debated at length, I’m sure everyone is in agreement that I am more important than both.</p>
<p>^Exactly. We would make a thread about you, to discuss your awesomeness, if we were allowed.</p>
<p>I was under the impression that the forum rules do not apply to me.</p>
<p>I wonder if the rules allow you to make a thread about yourself.</p>
<p>I need not ponder such inquiries because I am above the law.</p>
<p>This thread has turned into the idolization of the Great Jersey.</p>
<p>science and religion are both important, I mean look at scientology</p>
<p>SCIENCE </p>
<p>Religion only leads to ignorance and conflict. A belief in a magical being is one of the many foolish beliefs that we humans are to rid ourselves from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was under the assumption that every thread eventually reaches this common destination.</p>
<p>scientists don’t rape little boys.</p>
<p>In Soviet Russia, little boys don’t rape scientists.</p>
<p>Science, unquestionably.</p>
<p>I personally adhere to the conviction of the incompatibility between science and religion, since at the most fundamental level, the two provide competing intellectual systems of belief. In fact, I feel absolutely obligated to cast off acceptance of a mode of thought that includes, by the very diversity found within its existence, inherent contradictions in distinct, indiscriminately trusted beliefs – both amongst themselves and with respect to concrete, empirically derived findings. Rationalizing this view of an immanent “God,” “gods,” or some alternative transcendent force or fundamental ideal is clearly understandable in previous eras, due to the primitive nature of scientific thought, the more proximal exposure to natural elements (and the subsequent need to draw some personified connection), and other limitations. Integrating such a concept promptly fills the psychological need to reduce the intrinsic dissonance in uncertainty and satiates the instinctive need for intellectual fulfillment. But where remains the need for such a belief in supernaturalism when many of the solutions to nature’s inquiries are readily obtainable? I honestly cannot precisely rationalize how the belief in a moral authority finds practical, salient solutions. It merely leads to ineffective questions that insistently work to foster a sterilized humanity – such as why does God persistently allow for subjugation of the socioeconomically deprived and permit the perpetuation of diabolical atrocities. </p>
<p>In terms of historical context, however, religion was a vital force in ensuring the maintenance of civilization and law-abiding tendencies. The intimate association between state and church provided a solid political framework to rationalize any governmental ills, so long as they were easily dismissed as occult happenstance or paranormal activity. Hence, religion cultivated a state of basic composure, which is far more easily controlled than a population of dissonant, agitated opposition. Basic religious movements that use the concept of an afterlife promote the idea of a governing authority as one that rewards a type of behavior that unquestioningly and obligingly fulfills one’s moral duty. Such a state of unconscious conformity ingrains the blanketed sense of influence over all of humanity. The sheer apprehension of not transcending to a pleasant afterlife renders any disparate belief – or the lack of belief itself – as the most fatal and scandalous of all mortal sins.</p>