Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[z.5]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

It is somewhat possible to disprove God, but I don't want to explain it because it's confusing as hell in my mind, and it'd probably be worse if I typed it out.

Not sure that is true M3J. How can you prove or disprove the untestable? If God is imaginary, then you can not test for him anymore than you can currently test for Russell's teapot.
If God exists, then there is no way to test for him either - what test would you use to test for something that is everywhere at once, has infinite power, knowledge, insert-godly-trait-here? You would never really be able to truly prove his omnipotence/omnipresence outside of your field of testing (unless you can test everything that exists all at once - in which case you have pretty much gained his powers).

As to the argument of Atheism being a faith - due to atheists being unable to prove that God does not exist - I believe this to be a slight misunderstanding about what atheism means. It is more a case of atheists refusing to accept another person's claim that "(my) God exists"

Claiming that atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon the misunderstanding that all atheists claim "God does not exist" and should prove this. It is ignoring the stark difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism.
As it is not really possible to be a gnostic atheist (in my oppinion - people may dispute my reasoning however), I would state that people who believe themselves to be in this category don't really understand quite the extent (as in truly knowing that a divine being [what you consider divine is also up to discussion] doesn't exist anywhere in the universe - please do not make the mistake of believing that atheism is only targetted to an omnipotent/omnipresent/all-knowing deity) to what it entails.

Now, when you say that agnostic atheism is a 'faith' - as you 'believe' that no god exists, this is either a very misleading statement (as the real aim of this is to try and put atheism on the same level as theism - in that they both believe to the same extent in the presence or absence of one or more gods) or a very poor argument for the existance of a creator(s).
If this track is taken - everything you believe to know has to fall into the same faith category.
You believe that in the morning you will be you and not a duck.
You believe that gravity exists.
You believe that you need to eat to survive.
You believe that everyone you meet and talk to is a human and not a reptillian space monster.
You believe that Obama is the president of the USA (and that he actually exists and is not a robot/puppet/projection)
You believe that what you are breathing is oxygen/carbondioxide/nitrogen/etc. etc. etc...

It isn't really much of an exciting statement anymore.

What atheism really does is put the responsibility of proof on the theist.
They have 2 important things to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the atheist (as well as, perhaps, a few others specific to the person they are trying to convert).
1 - That a divine being does actually exist
2 - That this divine being is the one you are arguing for and not Thor, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, me...

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I'm curious, "Introspective".... Do you think evolution claims men came from monkeys/evolved from monkeys?

If you mean ancient apes, yes I believe that it does.

You caught me on light though. I can't deny that without quoting scripture. As i've heard so many times from the atheist argument: 'scientists don't know everything yet'. I'm sure in due time science will turn that tide in my favor. As they did with so many of Darwin's theories.

I seem to think that there's a bit of personal hatred towards the watchmaker argument, Irrelevent? Asumption? Hardly. It's a form of inductive reasoning using an example from present day observations to explain ancient mysteries. It's Darwin's exact way of experimentation. Watches don't just happen, why should life? But you're right, we shouldn't fight fire with fire, we should just go back to making observations of the past and comparing them to the record of someone who was there, like the Archeological record of the City of Jericho.

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Its a reasoning you can't actually prove nor make testable predictions on, that is why it is irrelevant. Its not falsifiable therefore entirely outside the scope of what science can do. Any vaguely scientific point made on that will simply not qualify as science. You can barely make a logical argument with that... You are basically filling a whole of "the unknown" with god which is just... wrong...

Also, not sure what you mean about science turning in your favor in that regard. Realistically speaking, not only science has probably not turned in your favor regarding any of the stuff you mention but as far as evolution goes controversy as a whole does not exist altogether.

 

[z.5]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

You can barely make a logical argument with that... You are basically filling a whole of "the unknown" with god which is just... wrong...

Nothing wrong with religious folk - believe what you like, I am sure that those who agressively argue against you believe in some equally stupid shit.

However (almost always as good as 'but' - as in "I am not gay but..." or "I am not racist but...")

Trying to argue that Scientists do not know the answer to 'A', therefore the answer must be God, is not an adequate answer. It is merely a lazy act of giving up the attempt to find the correct answer and lumping all unknowns into the category of 'God did it' or 'because of God'.

Do scientists know what happened before the big bang (for example)? No, not quite yet (though some would argue that they did). However, personally, I find that just giving up looking and saying "it must have been created by God" is both abhorant and apathetic. It goes against everything I like about humanity and makes me feel contempt for my fellow man.

People love to boast about our cognitive ability as a species - it is fine to say "we do not know". However, it is not fine to just make something up to save you the hassle of actually having to think for yourself.

Can an all-powerful god exist? Is it possible that a whole pantheon of deities exist? Can these/this all powerful being(s) control the fates of man?
Quite possibly.

TO be honest - Physics fits most, if not all, of the traits that these beings supposedly have.
Is Physics infallible? In a matter of speaking, yes.
Is Physics omnipresent? Yes (though we are not sure that the rules are uniform between dimensions)
Is Physics omnipotent? Difficult to answer, but it can certainly do everything that we have associated with the actions of God(s). - it even suffers some of the same drawbacks - is it possible for the laws of Physics to make a weight that is soo big that it is not possible to be lifted by those same laws of Physics?
Is Physics all knowing? - to this I would argue Yes, but I will admit that (although I dislike most arguements for) some people do not believe in predetermination like me.

Are God(s) and Physics the same thing?
Is Physics just the seen rules set in place by some all-powerful beings?

I am happy, in fact I greatly admire, people who are willing to try and seek answers to these questions. Looking for God(s) is not a bad topic.
HOWEVER - giving up looking for anything (which is pretty much what saying "God did it") is something that I will never be able to stomach.

#rant over.


On very quick re-reading - I noticed that quoting you kkck may make you mistake that this is targetted at you. It is not. I agree with what you said, I was just expanding on it.

 

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

You caught me on light though. I can't deny that without quoting scripture. As i've heard so many times from the atheist argument: 'scientists don't know everything yet'. I'm sure in due time science will turn that tide in my favor. As they did with so many of Darwin's theories.

There's scripture denying a universal constant, such as the speed of light? A concept that didn't even exist until humanity figured out what those celestial bodies in the sky were?

Science has never turned the tide in religion's favor. Religion has, for the most part, been an obstacle to scientific progress. It's incredibly convenient and lazy for people to default to "god" whenever science doesn't offer an answer. Intelligent Design isn't a new concept, it just didn't have a name, nor was it bandied about as actual science.

Just because you can't grasp the concept of cyanobacteria and the effect it had on the Earth and other organisms, doesn't mean that Darwin's work is pointless. Nor does it give any credence to Young Earth Creationism. Just because we don't understand something at this point in time, doesn't mean it'll be that way forever. It used to be blasphemy to suggest that the universe wasn't geocentric or that the Earth wasn't flat, then what?

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

There's scripture denying a universal constant, such as the speed of light? A concept that didn't even exist until humanity figured out what those celestial bodies in the sky were?

Science has never turned the tide in religion's favor. Religion has, for the most part, been an obstacle to scientific progress. It's incredibly convenient and lazy for people to default to "god" whenever science doesn't offer an answer. Intelligent Design isn't a new concept, it just didn't have a name, nor was it bandied about as actual science.

Just because you can't grasp the concept of cyanobacteria and the effect it had on the Earth and other organisms, doesn't mean that Darwin's work is pointless. Nor does it give any credence to Young Earth Creationism. Just because we don't understand something at this point in time, doesn't mean it'll be that way forever. It used to be blasphemy to suggest that the universe wasn't geocentric or that the Earth wasn't flat, then what?

More stereotypes I see. Religion has not hindered science from growing, if anything religion inspired Darwin's research. People may have made the assumption that the world was flat or the universe is geocentric, but no scripture says "And the Lord said 'Let us make a flat world together and center it in the universe.'" I can't speak for the early Catholics, because in many ways they were out of line. It sounds like your posing an ignorant view that the world would be better off if religions never existed. I have posed no argument supporting the followers of a religion for anything more than their right to follow it. I was only here to help answer the topic of the first post. Atheism vs Other Religions, not to convert you.

When you refer to religion you mean the followers. There is nothing wrong with Christianity, but the followers are not all commendable people. You have a beef with the followers, and you should talk to them about that. I did not say "since atheist scientists haven't explained it yet, then it must mean god did it." I said since it defies present day observational science, naturalistic processes is not a viable model of origins. I understand many followers, do have that way of thinking and I'm sorry.

Personally, I could have told myself the opposite of everything I said. But i'm done here.

 

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

More stereotypes I see. Religion has not hindered science from growing, if anything religion inspired Darwin's research. People may have made the assumption that the world was flat or the universe is geocentric, but no scripture says "And the Lord said 'Let us make a flat world together and center it in the universe.'" I can't speak for the early Catholics, because in many ways they were out of line. It sounds like your posing an ignorant view that the would would be better off if religions never existed. I have posed no argument supporting the followers of a religion for anything more than their right to follow it. I was only here to help answer the topic of the first post. Atheism vs Other Religions, not to convert you.

When you refer to religion you mean the followers. There is nothing wrong with Christianity, but the followers are not all commendable people. You have a beef with the followers, and you should talk to them about that. I did not say "since atheist scientists haven't explained it yet, then it must mean god did it." I said since it defies present day observational science, naturalistic processes is not a viable model of origins. I understand many followers, do have that way of thinking and I'm sorry.

Personally, I could have told myself the opposite of everything I said. But i'm done here.

Why are you so fixated on Darwin, as if it's the only science that exists? I never once said the world would have been better off without religion. You're just assuming so because I value other things over it. Many facets of our lives exist today because of religious influence. Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

Don't be naive, there are many things scripture doesn't say, but that doesn't stop the religious community from being dogmatic about it. The idea of a geocentric universe directly stems from Christians believing that the Earth, and therefore the Universe was created by God for God's followers. How audacious is that, considering what we know today? I'm not going to blame people back then for thinking that, but for it to be blasphemy to consider anything else is a perfect example of religion impeding scientific progress.

To say that I should blame followers and not the religion is pointless. Religion does not exist in a vacuum. I'm not arguing against it's philosophical or social value. I'm simply stating what has been proven time and time again for centuries and centuries. I don't care whether you wanted to "convert" me or not, I'm simply disagreeing with what you've posted. No one who values science or the scientific method would suggest that Young Earth Creationism is a better explanation than the evolutionary theory, simply because we don't know, or better yet, understand how eukaryotes and prokaryotes came to be. To just chalk it up to creationism isn't science, it's laziness.

How exactly does Darwin defy present day observational science and isn't a viable model of origins? By whose standards? You keep saying things like this and offer no empirical evidence to suggest otherwise other than unfalsifiable claims. You do know that today's concept of evolutionary theory isn't still stuck in the 19th century, right?

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Personally I am Muslim and I don't think I know a lot about my religion so what I will say might be different for the Christians but from what I know, it is acknowledged that nobody or almost nobody in this current era would be religious without Heaven and Hell. In Islam, the conditions to be considered as someone with the faith changed from what they were at the beginning. At the beginning you would be considered as a believer just by accepting that there is only one God, the five prayers a day weren't necessary for example. Nowadays to be considered as a believer, you must follow the Five Pillars of Islam.
Why did they change it from believing in one God to following Five Pillars of Islam?

I agree, majority would not be religious if they knew there's no such thing as Hell or Heaven.

Not sure that is true M3J. How can you prove or disprove the untestable? If God is imaginary, then you can not test for him anymore than you can currently test for Russell's teapot.

I have said that while I could explain it, it may end up in us being more confused, as it sounds confusing in my head. But the Bible has been disproven at least once, which is not to say the existence of God has been disproven, since the Bible was originally meant to be a moral guide, not "true history."

If God exists, then there is no way to test for him either - what test would you use to test for something that is everywhere at once, has infinite power, knowledge, insert-godly-trait-here? You would never really be able to truly prove his omnipotence/omnipresence outside of your field of testing (unless you can test everything that exists all at once - in which case you have pretty much gained his powers).

Pray hard and if he somehow responds or shows signs that he exists, he must exist?

As to the argument of Atheism being a faith - due to atheists being unable to prove that God does not exist - I believe this to be a slight misunderstanding about what atheism means. It is more a case of atheists refusing to accept another person's claim that "(my) God exists"

Claiming that atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon the misunderstanding that all atheists claim "God does not exist" and should prove this. It is ignoring the stark difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism.
As it is not really possible to be a gnostic atheist (in my oppinion - people may dispute my reasoning however), I would state that people who believe themselves to be in this category don't really understand quite the extent (as in truly knowing that a divine being [what you consider divine is also up to discussion] doesn't exist anywhere in the universe - please do not make the mistake of believing that atheism is only targetted to an omnipotent/omnipresent/all-knowing deity) to what it entails.

Now, when you say that agnostic atheism is a 'faith' - as you 'believe' that no god exists, this is either a very misleading statement (as the real aim of this is to try and put atheism on the same level as theism - in that they both believe to the same extent in the presence or absence of one or more gods) or a very poor argument for the existance of a creator(s).
If this track is taken - everything you believe to know has to fall into the same faith category.
You believe that in the morning you will be you and not a duck.
You believe that gravity exists.
You believe that you need to eat to survive.
You believe that everyone you meet and talk to is a human and not a reptillian space monster.
You believe that Obama is the president of the USA (and that he actually exists and is not a robot/puppet/projection)
You believe that what you are breathing is oxygen/carbondioxide/nitrogen/etc. etc. etc...

It isn't really much of an exciting statement anymore.

What atheism really does is put the responsibility of proof on the theist.
They have 2 important things to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the atheist (as well as, perhaps, a few others specific to the person they are trying to convert).
1 - That a divine being does actually exist
2 - That this divine being is the one you are arguing for and not Thor, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, me...

Personally, it's not just "atheism," but there are subgroups. One group truly does not believe in God and does not care, while the other does not believe in God or wants to be a "rebel" and will actively argue against God.

Personally, I do not like labeling myself as an atheist. I'd rather think of myself as a non-believer who does not give a crap about these things, but just wants to live and enjoy life, even though I love science, believe in it, and find it beautiful.

Both theism and atheism have its fair share of annoying people, and good people. Generally, theism has far more annoying people though, who will shove their ideas and beliefs down others' throats and will let their beliefs affect their actions and common sense. One such example is religious parents not seeking treatment for their kids in belief that Jesus or God will cure the kids and will be unhappy if they resort to science.

If you mean ancient apes, yes I believe that it does.

Apes? Hmm.

You caught me on light though. I can't deny that without quoting scripture. As i've heard so many times from the atheist argument: 'scientists don't know everything yet'. I'm sure in due time science will turn that tide in my favor. As they did with so many of Darwin's theories.

How will it turn that tide in your favor? You do realize that no one will ever know everything, right? The purpose of science is to learn and know more about the world and the universe, not focus on Darwin's theories and try to prove it right. Science has come up with more answers and has done more to improve quality of life than religions and God have.

I seem to think that there's a bit of personal hatred towards the watchmaker argument, Irrelevent? Asumption? Hardly. It's a form of inductive reasoning using an example from present day observations to explain ancient mysteries. It's Darwin's exact way of experimentation. Watches don't just happen, why should life? But you're right, we shouldn't fight fire with fire, we should just go back to making observations of the past and comparing them to the record of someone who was there, like the Archeological record of the City of Jericho.

Watches don't just happen, life doesn't just happen, why should God? If A created B, according to the logic of those who argue against Big Bang and life, then what created God?

More stereotypes I see. Religion has not hindered science from growing, if anything religion inspired Darwin's research. People may have made the assumption that the world was flat or the universe is geocentric, but no scripture says "And the Lord said 'Let us make a flat world together and center it in the universe.'" I can't speak for the early Catholics, because in many ways they were out of line. It sounds like your posing an ignorant view that the world would be better off if religions never existed. I have posed no argument supporting the followers of a religion for anything more than their right to follow it. I was only here to help answer the topic of the first post. Atheism vs Other Religions, not to convert you.

Religion has hindered science from growing. Many scientists were imprisoned because they discovered things that went against the Bible or the normal beliefs of the time, like Earth being the center. Science proved that the sun was the center. If religious people had their way, we'd probably still be living in the medieval times with little to no advancement because "it's heresy!"

When you refer to religion you mean the followers. There is nothing wrong with Christianity, but the followers are not all commendable people. You have a beef with the followers, and you should talk to them about that. I did not say "since atheist scientists haven't explained it yet, then it must mean god did it." I said since it defies present day observational science, naturalistic processes is not a viable model of origins. I understand many followers, do have that way of thinking and I'm sorry.

Personally, I could have told myself the opposite of everything I said. But i'm done here.

If you think all scientists are atheists, you are dreadfully mistaken, lad.

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Let's get some things straight xi0. I only used the name Darwin to refer to scientific studies that deny the existence of a creator. Merely because it's shorter than typing all of them. I know full well that his research has been revised by the scientific community over the years.

"Don't be naive, there are many things scripture doesn't say, but that doesn't stop the religious community from being dogmatic about it. The idea of a geocentric universe directly stems from Christians believing that the Earth, and therefore the Universe was created by God for God's followers. How audacious is that, considering what we know today? I'm not going to blame people back then for thinking that, but for it to be blasphemy to consider anything else is a perfect example of religion impeding scientific progress."

This is what I was referring to in my last post about followers. Right now your using an example that the religion has little to nothing to do with, but the choices of the people. People are going to make bad decisions no matter what religion they identify with. There is nothing in the bible to support hindering the advancement of scientific study; that is entirely a misconception developed by the followers. Non-religious people aren't perfect either.

You talked so much about how the scientific community were called blasphemers by the religious followers, do you even notice you're doing the same. I doubt you're on this forum because you're an award wining scientist. In other words you're faithfully going by ear of other scientists, and yeah since it's the 21st century we consider it more credible than prophets, but back before in the 19th century society was different. How many of my posts have been called ridiculous, assumptions, how about naive? Is that an open-minded way to approach an argument? Have I used any invectives on your beliefs?

I come to this post to be called an irrational follower hypnotized into an unfactual belief system and when I try to defend myself I'm verbally attacked. Instead of doing anything about it, you defend the user insulting me. Thanks.

I didn't even come here saying "Atheism is wrong!" I proposed a simple argument that the difference between atheism and theism in the scientific community is all psychological. Which is something you were basically already saying, except I'm a young earth creationist that actually believes in my religion.
--------
M3J

I don't really know much about the biology of human evolution, after I read about Haldane's Dilemma the fossil record I didn't want to dig any deeper. I read that our appendix was used by the apes we evolved from to eat some plant.

Also you proposed the argument that no one will ever know everything. Well that really depends on what you mean by 'everything' and I never said scientists would stop learning. The fact the scientists are still learning was the premise of my argument.

Again don't blame a religion because of the followers. At least not Christianity, because it is one of the few religions, in its purest entirety only promotes love, mercy, and charity. Let's talk about the Christians getting "ethnic cleansing" and even sterilized in Sudan. Let's talk about the Japanese executing Christians after the westerners converted them. Funny thing is, Jesus was a Jew. So Let's talk about Hitler. (I doubt Hitler was screaming Praise Jesus while he was forming the Nazi Germany Empire.) Let's talk about Armenian Genocide Day.

I guess you'd rather talk about some scientists getting sent to jail. People do bad things wherever they are, let's not blame the religion. What you'd want is for everyone to follow the same religion. And certainly that would be better, just like if the whole world used only 1 language. A lot of conflicts would go away, but not all of them. Because people do bad things wherever they are.

What I mean is saying religion hinders science is like saying guns kill people. It's a logical fallacy. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And People hinder the growth of science.
--------

Again I will refer you to my first post. I can't give you any evidence that you don't already know about. Evolution Vs Creationism is not a battle between Where are the fish? and Why is the sky blue? They are both answers to the origins of life and matter. Evidence is Physical. Interpretation is Mental. We are both using the same physical evidence to answer the same question except we are mentally interpreting it differently.

If we can debate like adults, I'd gladly continue.

 

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

What exactly is wrong with defending someone's right to have an opinion? You don't have to agree with it or like it. You understand the topic of this thread, do you not? Being offended by something does not inherently invalidate what was said. People are going to have opinions and thoughts that others aren't going to like. That goes for whoever someone is and wherever on the spiritual spectrum they are. You're the one who brought up racially insensitive hyperbole and Nazism. Don't even try to act like someone having a negative view of religion and their followers is akin to those things.

You keep bringing up this "religion isn't bad, people are" argument. When did I say anything in opposition to this? At my core, I believe I am a humanist. Why is that of any consequence to the points I've brought up? I've merely tried to have a conversation with you about something you brought up, Young Earth Creationism. And aside from my point on the speed of light, you've ignored everything I've said, or have been just as dismissive as you seem to think I'm being.

I brought up blasphemy for an obvious reason. I believe that reactions to not being able to grasp or denying evolutionary theory are no different than those who insisted on a flat Earth, a geocentric universe, etc. This cycle happens all throughout the history of science, and it's been going on for centuries. Intelligent Design is the default for anything that has yet to be understood. Ptolemy invoked it. Newton invoked it. Huygens invoked it. That doesn't mean it's a sufficient answer. Somehow only Galileo knew that! If it was, scientific progression would come to a screeching halt, like it did in the Dark Ages. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. You keep saying evolutionary theory has been invalidated, but give no examples as to how or why that is.

---------- Post added at 03:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 AM ----------

Again I will refer you to my first post. I can't give you any evidence that you don't already know about. Evolution Vs Creationism is not a battle between Where are the fish? and Why is the sky blue? They are both answers to the origins of life and matter. Evidence is Physical. Interpretation is Mental. We are both using the same physical evidence to answer the same question except we are mentally interpreting it differently.

They aren't answers, they're explanations. No one here is arguing about how or why people have contrasting beliefs. You can interpret however you wish, but that doesn't mean it's validated by anything other than faith. Creationism isn't science. It cannot be tested. So what use is it?

Creationists are incredibly sharp at picking up on science's mistakes, twisting conclusions and using them for their convenience. The only evidence they bring is the word of God. Where exactly is that debate going? Nowhere.

 

[Pat]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

There are many kinds of religious beliefs which everybody has the freedom to choose from but dismissing all scientific evidence at this age of technology doesn't argue for one's case, if anything, it makes people raise an eyebrow. I agree with others who say that religion and science should go hand in hand, not oppose each other.

 

[z.5]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

There are many kinds of religious beliefs which everybody has the freedom to choose from but dismissing all scientific evidence at this age of technology doesn't argue for one's case, if anything, it makes people raise an eyebrow. I agree with others who say that religion and science should go hand in hand, not oppose each other.

I agree that science shouldn't oppose religion (or vice versa).
However, forgive me if I am not understanding you/extending your thought past what you intended it to be, I do not see how they could go hand in hand.

The problem is that science and religion are not both trying to do the same thing - well they are and they aren't.
Both try and explain things, but both do so in completely different ways.
It isn't that they counter each other, but they are incompatible with each other.
It's not only a matter of the explanations being incompatible, but also the very nature of the questions themselves.
Consider the fact that many leading scientists are religious: Werner Arber and William Newsome as prime examples. However, you will find that the scientific papers they get the most recognition for do not mention God/religion at all.

Scientific findings can not provide any more than subjective 'evidence' (not evidence in the way that science means for it to be) for religious concepts.
And no religious 'evidence' could ever be used in a scientific discussion - as it is completely unscientific in nature.

Science relies on experimentation to provide the evidence necessary for a hypothesis to be accepted as valid or reject it as invalid.
Religion does not.

Science is open to change based on later findings - although I could argue that religion also is open to change (for example, the Catholic churches changing views on the nature of limbo) it is not flexible in the same way that science is.
This is due to the extreme subjectivity of religious belief.

This subjectivity has advantages of enabling the beliefs to be flexible and adaptable to the individual who follows them - whereas a scientist may spend years working on a particular field, only to have another show that his conclusions are no longer valid.
Unfortunately, if the evidence says otherwise - you either need to revise your conclusions, start again, or hope that the evidence has been misrepresented or is incorrect.
If the evidence is sound, you have no choice but to accept it (you can't just say "I don't believe the evidence, so I will ignore its existence" [well you can, but then you are, in my opinion, dangerously close to no-longer being a scientist]).

I am not sure I have ever met a religious person who has dismissed all the scientific evidence for something - only those who either misrepresent the findings or ignore certain findings to better suit their arguments.

I have also met religious people who have accepted the scientific evidence as it is.
Like atheists, theists come in all shapes and styles.

 

[Pat]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

Well, the rest of the sentence hints at the context, religion and science shouldn't oppose each other, they should be able to coexist peacefully. When I said "all scientific evidence", I didn't mean science in its entirety but all scientific findings in a particular subject of debate. Human race has advanced to the point that we can calculate the age of the universe to be much more than 10,000 with certainty, challenging this finding serves no purpose other than creating conflict between this religious line of thought and science. This was what I voiced my disagreement about and as far as I can see, you agree with my sentiments.

 

[kkck]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

They aren't answers, they're explanations. No one here is arguing about how or why people have contrasting beliefs. You can interpret however you wish, but that doesn't mean it's validated by anything other than faith. Creationism isn't science. It cannot be tested. So what use is it?

Creationists are incredibly sharp at picking up on science's mistakes, twisting conclusions and using them for their convenience. The only evidence they bring is the word of God. Where exactly is that debate going? Nowhere.

The core thing to consider from the perspective of the scientific community is that there isn't a debate. There is no controversy whatsoever here, what happens in reality is entirely different. The arguments brought up by creationist, young earth creationist, intelligent design and whatever other of this ideas has not so much as stirred the scientific community. What they have succeeded in doing is convincing groups of people that there is a debate, that the science guys are in a sort of war with the religion guy. As if from a purely scienfic point of view there was some sort of scientific merit to the ideas proposed by creationist and other similar groups. But this is false on absolutely all accounts, there isn't a debate going on. And it makes sense, the claims by these religious groups don't meet even the basic requirements to be considered science (because they lack the aforementioned testability, its conceptually impossible to test these things regardless of the method or technology available) there is no reason for it to stir any debate within the scientific community. The core of the issue in this regard usually comes down to the whole education thing, particularly in the US, where these groups want creationism to be taught as actual science. Which obviously is entirely different from there being controversy on this subjects from the perspective of the scientific community.

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

M3J

I don't really know much about the biology of human evolution, after I read about Haldane's Dilemma the fossil record I didn't want to dig any deeper. I read that our appendix was used by the apes we evolved from to eat some plant.

If you don't know much about the biology of human evolution, then research it from a credible source or two, and then debate about it. Otherwise you're just hurting your arguments and showing ignorance.

Where did you read that? The appendix was used by our ancestors to make food safer for the body by removing harmful stuff. As we make our food safer to eat, the appendix has become less used and thus is shrinking due to lack of use to the point.

Also you proposed the argument that no one will ever know everything. Well that really depends on what you mean by 'everything' and I never said scientists would stop learning. The fact the scientists are still learning was the premise of my argument.

Yes, and you claim that it turns the tide in your favor. It doesn't. No one ever claimed scientists know everything or will know everything. And by everything, I mean everything, from how the universe was created to saving the trees. While scientists are still learning, they're not saying "this or that" is a fact.

They theorize, carry out experiments, record everything, and publish it in scientific works so that other scientists can carry out the experiments and verify that particular scientist's finding. Lot of things are verified because the scientists are able to get the same results. Ironically, we have different religions with different beliefs and deity/deities. If God did exist, shouldn't he be offended and prevent anyone but him and Jesus being the primary god?

Again don't blame a religion because of the followers. At least not Christianity, because it is one of the few religions, in its purest entirety only promotes love, mercy, and charity. Let's talk about the Christians getting "ethnic cleansing" and even sterilized in Sudan. Let's talk about the Japanese executing Christians after the westerners converted them. Funny thing is, Jesus was a Jew. So Let's talk about Hitler. (I doubt Hitler was screaming Praise Jesus while he was forming the Nazi Germany Empire.) Let's talk about Armenian Genocide Day.

The Crusades? Christians willing to kill homosexuals, Muslims, and other religions? Nearly all religion promotes love, mercy, and charity. Most of them don't truly follow up on that, and tend to use charities for personal gain. Let's talk about Jews getting ethnic cleansing in Europe as well. Let's talk about how Christians played a part in Native Americans being killed.

And from what I read, Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats to get the Germans on his side and gain support. Dunno if this is entirely true though. But you're supporting the belief that religions cause strife and deaths.

I guess you'd rather talk about some scientists getting sent to jail. People do bad things wherever they are, let's not blame the religion. What you'd want is for everyone to follow the same religion. And certainly that would be better, just like if the whole world used only 1 language. A lot of conflicts would go away, but not all of them. Because people do bad things wherever they are.

What bad things have most scientists done? They have been jailed by religious people because their ideas went against what the religious people believed in. Back then, even if you had evidence to back up that the sun was at the center of the universe, you'd be jailed because the Bible said the Earth was at the center. If you research unbiased sources, they will agree that many scientists were persecuted because their findings or claims went against the Bible and the popular "facts" of the time.

What? I never mentioned wanting people to follow one religion. I just want people to shut the hell up about forcing their crap down others' throats and just let others live without judging. This even includes the atheists as well.

What I mean is saying religion hinders science is like saying guns kill people. It's a logical fallacy. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And People hinder the growth of science.
--------

religion hinders science because it establishes ideas and thoughts that people believe in, and it makes them refuse to accept anything else that goes against what the Bible or religious doctrines state.

Guns make it easier to kill people. I'd take out more people with a machine gun than I would with a sword or knife. People hinder the growth of science because of religion.

Again I will refer you to my first post. I can't give you any evidence that you don't already know about. Evolution Vs Creationism is not a battle between Where are the fish? and Why is the sky blue? They are both answers to the origins of life and matter. Evidence is Physical. Interpretation is Mental. We are both using the same physical evidence to answer the same question except we are mentally interpreting it differently.

If we can debate like adults, I'd gladly continue.

Evolution vs. Creationism is a battle between "evolution occurred and there are proof" and "no, God created stuff, and while there's no proof we have faith!" That's literally my experience with Creationists. Creationism has to do with the origins of life and how things are as they are, while evolution deals more with how things are as they are now, even though it also has to do with origins of life.

We're not using the same physical evidence. You seem to be using teh Bible, while I'm using fossils, anatomies of living things, locations, and living species.


Okay, I'll wait for you to act like an adult. Out of curiosity, are you a dupe account? I can't help but feel you're either a troll or a duplicate account of another member.

 

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

The core thing to consider from the perspective of the scientific community is that there isn't a debate. There is no controversy whatsoever here, what happens in reality is entirely different. The arguments brought up by creationist, young earth creationist, intelligent design and whatever other of this ideas has not so much as stirred the scientific community. What they have succeeded in doing is convincing groups of people that there is a debate, that the science guys are in a sort of war with the religion guy. As if from a purely scienfic point of view there was some sort of scientific merit to the ideas proposed by creationist and other similar groups. But this is false on absolutely all accounts, there isn't a debate going on. And it makes sense, the claims by these religious groups don't meet even the basic requirements to be considered science (because they lack the aforementioned testability, its conceptually impossible to test these things regardless of the method or technology available) there is no reason for it to stir any debate within the scientific community. The core of the issue in this regard usually comes down to the whole education thing, particularly in the US, where these groups want creationism to be taught as actual science. Which obviously is entirely different from there being controversy on this subjects from the perspective of the scientific community.

I didn't mean to insinuate that creationists have a leg to stand on. My point was that creationists only use faulty science as their "evidence". They bring nothing in the way of testable evidence to prove their claims, merely the Bible. That isn't how science, or even simple logic works.

And it's a shame that people just accept that as it is, as if it's good enough. But even some of the greatest minds in human history invoked such things. But it isn't like people's ignorance is limited simply to the search of (or lack thereof) knowledge, so that's an entirely different topic.

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I didn't mean to insinuate that creationists have a leg to stand on. My point was that creationists only use faulty science as their "evidence". They bring nothing in the way of testable evidence to prove their claims, merely the Bible. That isn't how science, or even simple logic works.

And it's a shame that people just accept that as it is, as if it's good enough. But even some of the greatest minds in human history invoked such things. But it isn't like people's ignorance is limited simply to the search of (or lack thereof) knowledge, so that's an entirely different topic.

but do u believe in jesus tho?

 

[xi0]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

but do u believe in jesus tho?

That he existed? Or that he was the messiah?

 

[M3J]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

I'm mocking. But for the sake of discussion, the latter. I don't think he had any special power or anything, he was just a normal guy who was either good at talking or had something that made people want to follow him.

 

[Introspectve]

Re: Atheism vs other religions

What exactly is wrong with defending someone's right to have an opinion? You don't have to agree with it or like it. You understand the topic of this thread, do you not? Being offended by something does not inherently invalidate what was said. People are going to have opinions and thoughts that others aren't going to like. That goes for whoever someone is and wherever on the spiritual spectrum they are. You're the one who brought up racially insensitive hyperbole and Nazism. Don't even try to act like someone having a negative view of religion and their followers is akin to those things.

You keep bringing up this "religion isn't bad, people are" argument. When did I say anything in opposition to this? At my core, I believe I am a humanist. Why is that of any consequence to the points I've brought up? I've merely tried to have a conversation with you about something you brought up, Young Earth Creationism. And aside from my point on the speed of light, you've ignored everything I've said, or have been just as dismissive as you seem to think I'm being.

I brought up blasphemy for an obvious reason. I believe that reactions to not being able to grasp or denying evolutionary theory are no different than those who insisted on a flat Earth, a geocentric universe, etc. This cycle happens all throughout the history of science, and it's been going on for centuries. Intelligent Design is the default for anything that has yet to be understood. Ptolemy invoked it. Newton invoked it. Huygens invoked it. That doesn't mean it's a sufficient answer. Somehow only Galileo knew that! If it was, scientific progression would come to a screeching halt, like it did in the Dark Ages. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. You keep saying evolutionary theory has been invalidated, but give no examples as to how or why that is.

---------- Post added at 03:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 AM ----------



They aren't answers, they're explanations. No one here is arguing about how or why people have contrasting beliefs. You can interpret however you wish, but that doesn't mean it's validated by anything other than faith. Creationism isn't science. It cannot be tested. So what use is it?

Creationists are incredibly sharp at picking up on science's mistakes, twisting conclusions and using them for their convenience. The only evidence they bring is the word of God. Where exactly is that debate going? Nowhere.

Okay, first of all, this "conversation" is not going to go anywhere unless we're speaking the same language.

When you refer to_________I interpret_________ rather than__________
dismissive, not convinced, ignoring.
Creationism, Religion, the study of the validity of religious principles
Evidence, what will convince you, the physical representation of the validity of an interpretation

If you're unsure of anything I'm saying we can go back to Webster, or any other dictionary we can agree on. Hold me accountable if I mis-communicate a word.

Anyway let's talk about Light. I understand that Creationism insists that the laws of physics are different now than they once were. I understand, to us, that sounds scientifically blasphemous. However, the evolutionary theory insists that the laws are now as they have always been. And if by following these laws life was able to form, why has it not done it again? If the laws remain constant, and the laws and the earth at the time allowed life to form, then something in the Laws of Physics must have changed that makes it impossible for life to form synthetically or by natural processes again. If the Laws of Physics were the same at that time, then the same things that were physically possible at that time would be physically possible today. But apparently, they're not. 4.5 billion years and it never happened twice, not by nature or by our influence and intelligence.

This is why I say, in my opinion, the concept of life forming by natural processes defies the evolutionary theory.

About that analogy you consider extraneous, or a "hyperbole". Maybe it's my opinion about how it made me feel, and you don't have to agree with it. You're hypocritically telling me that it's okay to be culturally insensitive, and then blaming me for showing you how insensitive it is by comparing it to something else that is indisputably culturally insensitive.

If you don't know much about the biology of human evolution, then research it from a credible source or two, and then debate about it. Otherwise you're just hurting your arguments and showing ignorance.

Where did you read that? The appendix was used by our ancestors to make food safer for the body by removing harmful stuff. As we make our food safer to eat, the appendix has become less used and thus is shrinking due to lack of use to the point.


Yes, and you claim that it turns the tide in your favor. It doesn't. No one ever claimed scientists know everything or will know everything. And by everything, I mean everything, from how the universe was created to saving the trees. While scientists are still learning, they're not saying "this or that" is a fact.

They theorize, carry out experiments, record everything, and publish it in scientific works so that other scientists can carry out the experiments and verify that particular scientist's finding. Lot of things are verified because the scientists are able to get the same results. Ironically, we have different religions with different beliefs and deity/deities. If God did exist, shouldn't he be offended and prevent anyone but him and Jesus being the primary god?


The Crusades? Christians willing to kill homosexuals, Muslims, and other religions? Nearly all religion promotes love, mercy, and charity. Most of them don't truly follow up on that, and tend to use charities for personal gain. Let's talk about Jews getting ethnic cleansing in Europe as well. Let's talk about how Christians played a part in Native Americans being killed.

And from what I read, Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats to get the Germans on his side and gain support. Dunno if this is entirely true though. But you're supporting the belief that religions cause strife and deaths.

What bad things have most scientists done? They have been jailed by religious people because their ideas went against what the religious people believed in. Back then, even if you had evidence to back up that the sun was at the center of the universe, you'd be jailed because the Bible said the Earth was at the center. If you research unbiased sources, they will agree that many scientists were persecuted because their findings or claims went against the Bible and the popular "facts" of the time.

What? I never mentioned wanting people to follow one religion. I just want people to shut the hell up about forcing their crap down others' throats and just let others live without judging. This even includes the atheists as well.

religion hinders science because it establishes ideas and thoughts that people believe in, and it makes them refuse to accept anything else that goes against what the Bible or religious doctrines state.

Guns make it easier to kill people. I'd take out more people with a machine gun than I would with a sword or knife. People hinder the growth of science because of religion.

Evolution vs. Creationism is a battle between "evolution occurred and there are proof" and "no, God created stuff, and while there's no proof we have faith!" That's literally my experience with Creationists. Creationism has to do with the origins of life and how things are as they are, while evolution deals more with how things are as they are now, even though it also has to do with origins of life.

We're not using the same physical evidence. You seem to be using teh Bible, while I'm using fossils, anatomies of living things, locations, and living species.

Okay, I'll wait for you to act like an adult. Out of curiosity, are you a dupe account? I can't help but feel you're either a troll or a duplicate account of another member.

That is exactly what I read about the appendix. I apologize for not wording it correctly. It doesn't seem like you study beliefs you don't identify with to their core either. If I have no reason to believe in human evolution why should I look for anything more than a reason to believe in it?

Crusades? Jesus said love your brother and God said do justice but love mercy. The bible does not promote war. That actually supports my argument that injustice is not the spawn of religion, but the inhumanities of humans. Religion just helped them justify it.

For some reason both of you think the only evidence I have is the bible. The bible is not the basis of any physical evidence I have, but of the mental interpretation i'm using.

How many scriptures have I quoted? Quote me one. Please. I even refrained from posting an argument because I would have used scripture. Come on, Romans? No. Genesis? I referred to it with a hypothetical argument that the ideas developed seem too coincidentally interpretable as correlating with current scientific theory. I never said, The bible says it so it must be true. A lot of books say a lot of things. Wonder why I'm not islamic or Jewish? Because I believe in the bible for more than the fact that it exists.

Just shows how seriously you're taking this argument. Still comparing me to your stereotype of what you think a Creationist should be. That alone is insulting. Furthermore, what evidence have you used besides insulting my ideas and telling me the opposite of what I typed. The best I've heard so far was about light.

I proposed the idea that blaming religion for people hindering the growth of science is a very short-sighted way of thinking. If we all rose out of the neolithic era as atheists would science really be that much more advanced? Like saying death will stop if we get rid of guns. Then we find out the in the United States suicide rates were already at 10.8 while homicide rates were at 6 per every 100,000 people.

^Oh look at that. Evidence to support and argument and it's not from the bible. Whaaaaaaaaat? I didn't know creationists could do that!

Want the source? Right here

What? Creationists actually research things before they say them?

Sorry if I'm not like those creationists. You're actually going to have to try to convince me.