SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

Turns out many people here don't believe in the theory of evolution and believe that God created humans in their current form.

As somebody whose loved science his entire life, I find it very intriguing that the same people who go to a doctor when they're sick and who fly on airplanes will reject another part of science: Evolution.

Why the hypocrisy? The theory of evolution is just like any other part of science. The same high standard of evidence supports it all other areas.
Just like the theory of gravity which made man walk on the moon.
Just like the theory of quantum mechanics which made the processor for every computer.
Just like the theory of general relativity which gave us knowledge about events 13.7 billions years ago, and tells us about the dizzying singularity of a black hole.


I think I know the answer. Evolution conflicts with these people's religious beliefs. So in the same way that the Catholic Church in the 16th century would rather burn people at the stake than hear that the Earth goes round the Sun, these creationists would rather believe a lie than give up their religion.
Don't worry, Galileo and Bruno had the last laugh. They started a journey which took us to the moon. They are honoured. The cowardly faith-heads who silenced them are held in contempt.

In Christianity as an example, the entire reason Jesus came to Earth was because of The Fall, when man ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge and caused all his descendants to be born with Original Sin. If evolution is true, I wonder, then Christians would be forced to admit that Adam never existed and Jesus was tortured for nothing because there was no sin.


I'm left with a conclusion. Science and religion are incompatible, you can't have both.
Both science and religion talk about our origins and the origins of our universe. Both science and religion try to describe the world around us. Both science and religion try to find what's true in the world.

Which approach is more successful at find the truth, we'll lets have a look.

Science predicts.
It can tell you when a total solar eclipse will happen. It will tell you exactly the place to stand, the time of day, how long the eclipse will last. It will tell you for certain that on July 16th in the year 2903, there will be a total eclipse lasting 7minutes and 4 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xasa5o2Kp3I


Lets look at what religion predicts. I put "bible prophecy" into google and found this.
http://www.therefinersfire.org/recent_prophecy.htm

Zechariah prophesied the Jews return to Jerusalem

Bible passage: Zechariah 8:7-8
Written: between 520 and 518 BC
Fulfilled: 1967, etc.

In Zechariah 8:7-8, the prophet said God would bring the Jews back from the east and the west to their homeland (Israel) and that they would be able to live in the city of Jerusalem again. This prophecy has been fulfilled more than once. About 2600 years ago, Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and took many Jews as captives to Babylon. But many Jews later returned from Babylon. The Jews rebuilt Jerusalem but the city was destroyed about 1900 years ago by the Romans. The Romans killed more than 1 million Jews and forced many more into exile. The Jews did not have control of Jerusalem again until 1967 when the Jews recaptured the city during the Six Day War.

Here is Zechariah 8:7-8

This is what the Lord Almighty says: "I will save my people from the countries of the east and the west. I will bring them back to live in Jerusalem; they will be my people, and I will be faithful and righteous to them as their God."

Lets look at the exact bible quote.

From: Zechariah 8:7-8
This is what the Lord Almighty says: "I will save my people from the countries of the east and the west. I will bring them back to live in Jerusalem; they will be my people, and I will be faithful and righteous to them as their God."

Nowhere did the author mention that it would take 2500 years for his prophecy to be fulfilled. Nor does he mention the holocaust where Jews were mercilessly butchered while God was nowhere to be seen, certainly not "Saving my people from the countries of the east and west" as Zechariah says.

Contrast this vague prophecy with the exactness and correctness of that total eclipse example. It's clear to me that science wins out against religion every single time.

I agree. Religion is starting to sound more like fairytales everyday. Have you seen Zeitgeist? It reveals how Christianity is linked to pagan beliefs before Jesus ever walked. Really interesting stuff!

How I missed you and your religious debates, Yakman :)

Why is it so impossible to believe in both evolution and some form of being which isn't made of matter from this three-dimensional realm? I personally have a very strong interest in science, and I've yet to disagree with any scientific research prooved. However, I equally find it hard to believe that this all formed from some form of cosmic coincidence, just seems a bit too… convenient. This doesn't mean that I follow any set of religion "rules", I don't think your beliefs should command you to take a certain way of life.

Realistically, sciences allows us to advance our race to the best of it's ability, religion often does the complete opposite.

From: Richard
How I missed you and your religious debates, Yakman :)

It's been a while, glad you enjoy it.

From: Richard

Why is it so impossible to believe in both evolution and some form of being which isn't made of matter from this three-dimensional realm?

Science is about using observation, scepticism and repeatable experiments. There's no evidence for anything with more than four dimensions.

Now you might say "Oh well there's no evidence against either". But you've got to remember that the burden of proof falls on he who makes the proposition. It's you who brought up more than three dimensions, its down to you to show that it's true.
There are many things which have no evidence against them. There is no evidence of an orbiting teapot between the Earth and Mars, yet nobody serious beliefs in it's existence.

You might bring up some parts of the (unfortunately named) string theory which says they might be more dimensions than three, but string theory has not been put to test experimentally yet. Until that happens it isn't science.

From: Richard

However, I equally find it hard to believe that this all formed from some form of cosmic coincidence, just seems a bit too… convenient.

Its not a coincidence. Evolution is totally ordered. It has been famously summed up like this.
"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicaters"

From: Richard
This doesn't mean that I follow any set of religion "rules", I don't think your beliefs should command you to take a certain way of life.

Really? What about my belief that we should be good and compassionate to other human beings which compels me to get involved in left wing politics? Isn't that my beliefs influencing how I live my life?

From: Richard

Realistically, sciences allows us to advance our race to the best of it's ability, religion often does the complete opposite.

:thumbsup:

Science is about using observation, scepticism and repeatable experiments. There's no evidence for anything with more than four dimensions.

Now you might say "Oh well there's no evidence against either". But you've got to remember that the burden of proof falls on he who makes the proposition. It's you who brought up more than three dimensions, its down to you to show that it's true.
There are many things which have no evidence against them. There is no evidence of an orbiting teapot between the Earth and Mars, yet nobody serious beliefs in it's existence.

In science everything is a theory, as it can easily be challenged by any one person. Albeit sometimes these theories are somewhat blatant and challenging them would seem foolish, but others are more than open to a second opinion. Let's take an example, gravity, most would believe that it is the size of out planet which generates an acceleration force which pulls us back to the centre of our planet. But could some person equally say that we are instead being pushed by a force separate to that of our planet. Any linked evidence can equally be challenged. And if everything in science, then the 11th dimension is possible.

You might bring up some parts of the (unfortunately named) string theory which says they might be more dimensions than three, but string theory has not been put to test experimentally yet. Until that happens it isn't science.

Testing doesn't necessarily prove an scientific claim, it just supports it further, and it can be challenged by an opposite claim. It is up to us as individuals to believe which is true.

Its not a coincidence. Evolution is totally ordered. It has been famously summed up like this.
"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicaters"

But the Big Bang, what was the trigger point, what made everything become everything on a scale far greater than any human based computer could handle. I'm just saying that it's hard for it just to have… happened…

Really? What about my belief that we should be good and compassionate to other human beings which compels me to get involved in left wing politics? Isn't that my beliefs influencing how I live my life?

But unlike religion, you are commanded to take these beliefs, it is entirely up to you whether you take these choices or not. You are no threatened with eternal suffering if you do not live a life of that chosen for you by the Catholic Church (example).

The real question is why do people waste their entire lifes trying to figure out answers that are too big or impossible to find out and understand, if there even are answers.

From: IceFire908
The real question is why do people waste their entire lifes trying to figure out answers that are too big or impossible to find out and understand, if there even are answers.

Because if there was even a tiny chance that a religion (e.g. Christianity) was right, you'd be crazy not to completely and thoroughly investigate it.
It's been said so many times before: If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing and lived a life which I thought had purpose. If you're wrong, there are eternal consequences.

As for the evolution/religion/science debate:

Religion and science are NOT contradictory. Science merely explains natural phenomena - when it tries to make claims about God, it is overstepping its bounds (going into territory it was not designed to go into!). Any philosopher would agree.
So it's not a choice of "science or religion."

To change tact a bit…I want to quote Francis Collins here (he is the leader of the Human Genome Project, and a world renowned molecular geneticist).

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

I am a Christian, and have completed a degree in biomedical science - I don't say this in arrogance, I just say it to give credibility to my argument). I love science, am a scientist - and I find absolutely no conflict between accepted science and Christianity.

I just want to encourage everyone to at least have a PROPER look into Christianity. Don't just dismiss it based on the Christians that you've seen, or on what you think it's about. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain ;)

From: IceFire908
The real question is why do people waste their entire lifes trying to figure out answers that are too big or impossible to find out and understand, if there even are answers.

Very good question.
Why did people like Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Maxwell and countless others spend much of their lives figuring out most fundamental questions of the universe we live in? Why do people even today like Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox spend their lives doing science, at universities across the world with little recognition compared to a football player and with a lower salary than an engineer.

I think they did it because they loved it. All humans, it seems, have a desire to want to know. We all want to know where we came from, why and how we exist.

I don't think these questions are too big or impossible. Since the start of the scientific revolution we've had massive achievements. We've tripled the average life expectancy (~25 years to ~75 years). We've walked on the moon. We've found the naturalistic reason for our existence. We've found that our universe started from very simply beginnings 13.7 billion years ago. We also invented the internet :P

All this we've managed in less than 500 years. Given that the human species has existed for nearly a million years I reckon this is quite good going so far.

well if evolution is right, then how come all of the bridges between species have disappeared? we are the farthest its evolved to, but why aren't there the monkey/men crosses still existing. if you say natural selection, then we shouldn't have any more of any species except ourselves because we are the fittest. being there are other species, the crosses should still exist too if there are small amounts that have survived.

From: Iamadam
Because if there was even a tiny chance that a religion (e.g. Christianity) was right, you'd be crazy not to completely and thoroughly investigate it.
It's been said so many times before: If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing and lived a life which I thought had purpose. If you're wrong, there are eternal consequences.

I must ask, why Christianity in particular?
By choosing Christianity you've rejected Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Confucianism. You've rejected Thor, Apollo, Zeus and Quatzequatel.
What if you're wrong about all those? Remember, if you're wrong there are eternal consequences. I hear the Islamic hell is much worse than the Christian one.

I don't believe that you've made a rational judgement to follow Christianity as a "safe bet". I reckon you were like me, born into a family which happened to be Christian so you copied their religion.
If you happened to be born in Afghanistan you would be Muslim, if you were born in India you would be Hindu.

From: Iamadam

As for the evolution/religion/science debate:

Religion and science are NOT contradictory. Science merely explains natural phenomena - when it tries to make claims about God, it is overstepping its bounds (going into territory it was not designed to go into!).

Religion also comments on natural phenomena. Christianity for example says that a man walked on water. The same man turned water into wine. He also died and then became alive again three days later.

Lets just take the water-into-wine example. What happened to The Conservation Of Mass and Energy as discovered by science?
H20 simply doesn't ever become the complex set of molecules that make up wine. If you say it does, you are in conflict with a very well established scientific principle. It's up to you to show why literally thousands of experiments have got it wrong and mass-energy isn't really conserved.

All religions make naturalistic claims like this. All religions tread on science's turf to some extent. It's only by ignoring it that religious people manage to function. (Like when a beaten wife is convinced that her violent husband still loves her)
It's not called a delusion for nothing.

From: Iamadam

Any philosopher would agree.

You mean like philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell, who wrote a book called "Why I am not a Christian" explained why he thinks Christianity is not only incorrect, but also morally wrong.
What about philosopher Daniel Dennett whose also written books on religion's negative effects on society.

Which philosophers do you mean? Furthermore how can we be sure that their philosophy is correct, given that they do no experiments and haven't reached a consensus on anything of note.

From: Iamadam

So it's not a choice of "science or religion."

To change tact a bit…I want to quote Francis Collins here (he is the leader of the Human Genome Project, and a world renowned molecular geneticist).



I am a Christian, and have completed a degree in biomedical science - I don't say this in arrogance, I just say it to give credibility to my argument). I love science, am a scientist - and I find absolutely no conflict between accepted science and Christianity.

I just want to encourage everyone to at least have a PROPER look into Christianity. Don't just dismiss it based on the Christians that you've seen, or on what you think it's about. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain ;)

Ah Francis Collins, I was wondering when he would come up. He is always quoted when discussions about science vs religion come up, it seems he is one of the rare scientists who really are religious and believe all the stuff about Moses parting the seas.
Instead of cherry-picking, lets look at the whole population of scientists and see how they measure up.
In the US, where 75% of the general population, the population of religious believers who are also scientists is a mere 33%.

for a list of sources, see this wikipedia page which has collected them

From: bolshak25
well if evolution is right, then how come all of the bridges between species have disappeared? we are the farthest its evolved to, but why aren't there the monkey/men crosses still existing. if you say natural selection, then we shouldn't have any more of any species except ourselves because we are the fittest. being there are other species, the crosses should still exist too if there are small amounts that have survived.

1. The bridges survive as fossils.
2. All the monkey/man crosses went extinct, we've actually found some fossils.
3. We're not the fittest, try having a fight with a lion if you don't believe me. Anyway, each species is fit only in its particular environment, so deer are really good at eating grass and being scared, tigers are really good at being silent and strong, cockroaches are really good at squeezing into small spaces, humans are really good at thinking and working together.

Sorry mate, no jam. Evolution is a scientific fact just as much as gravity, quantum mechanics, germ theory, the circulation of blood and any other principle you might think of.

From: Yakman
Very good question.
Why did people like Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Maxwell and countless others spend much of their lives figuring out most fundamental questions of the universe we live in? Why do people even today like Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox spend their lives doing science, at universities across the world with little recognition compared to a football player and with a lower salary than an engineer.

I think they did it because they loved it. All humans, it seems, have a desire to want to know. We all want to know where we came from, why and how we exist.

I don't think these questions are too big or impossible. Since the start of the scientific revolution we've had massive achievements. We've tripled the average life expectancy (~25 years to ~75 years). We've walked on the moon. We've found the naturalistic reason for our existence. We've found that our universe started from very simply beginnings 13.7 billion years ago. We also invented the internet :P

All this we've managed in less than 500 years. Given that the human species has existed for nearly a million years I reckon this is quite good going so far.

I think you are confusing people wanting to understand the universe with people wanting to know the origin of it.

I sincerely doubt any of the mentioned people spent any more than a normal person would pondering about religion/evolution/science etc. with maybe the exception of Darwin who's discoveries weren't helpful in the same way Einstein's were.

Anyone serious about these passions that end up being helpful in the end don't research around all day like scholars and debate with other people about religion and evolution, they spend time working with others to further what is known science and work on contemptible things.

Technology is a wonderful thing, but do you really believe it is the answer to the meaning of life?

no. nothing is fact. there is where you sir are wrong. everything in everyones life is belief. you believe that science is true because people told you that, but where did they get their info? an example is numbers. i believe 4 is actually 4, but can we prove it? define 4. define proof. define anything. where did the original definitions come from? we just believed these things. if i was brought up being told 4 is really the letter A, would i be wrong when i said 3+1=A? no because my definition of your 4 is A. so we believe that, just like we believe everything else. there are questions in our life that we really cant answer and we have to accept that fact. the big bang has no proof.

Sorry mate, no jam. Evolution is a scientific fact just as much as gravity, quantum mechanics, germ theory, the circulation of blood and any other principle you might think of.

those aren't facts. they are theories.

I don't want to get into a huge debate, but was merely stating a point of view. I'll answer a few of your objections though.

Religion also comments on natural phenomena. Christianity for example says that a man walked on water. The same man turned water into wine. He also died and then became alive again three days later.

I am a Christian, I believe that Moses parted the red sea, that Jesus turned water into wine, and that he rose after three days. If there was a God, could he not defy the very laws which he created? Of course he could. This does not conflict with science at all.

"[why Christianity]"

And yes, I do reject other religions. Unlike other religions, Christianity is based on something which happened IN history, and can be examined as such.
Jesus existed - no informed person would argue otherwise. He was executed on a roman cross. A bunch of people (including his brother) claimed that they had seen him alive again after three days, and were willing to die to defend that position (and did so). These are all indisputable historical facts. The Christian church grew to a size of tens of thousands in a matter of months - all these people had the facts at their fingertips - many would have seen Jesus, or would have heard from first hand accounts. Why die for a guy who claimed to be raised from the dead, if you knew he was still dead? The romans could have EASILY squashed the movement by showing Jesus' body to the 'delusional' (as you would call them) masses… but they did not. (The christian movement caused a lot of problems for rome because it was making the jewish population angry, causing unrest, so it would have been desirable for them to stop it).

All I do is make the jump to say that Jesus was not lying when he claimed to be God, and that his followers were telling the truth when they said he was raised from the dead.

I should have qualified what I said about philosophers agreeing a bit better. There is no conflict between the belief in some sort of 'higher power' and science, because science examines the NATURAL whereas a higher power is supernatural - i.e. not ABLE to be tested by science.

This argument will go nowhere, I can see now - I just wanted to make sure everyone knew I was a Christian and a scientist - and that I see no problem with being both.

From: bolshak25
no. nothing is fact. there is where you sir are wrong. everything in everyones life is belief. you believe that science is true because people told you that, but where did they get their info? an example is numbers. i believe 4 is actually 4, but can we prove it? define 4. define proof. define anything. where did the original definitions come from? we just believed these things. if i was brought up being told 4 is really the letter A, would i be wrong when i said 3+1=A? no because my definition of your 4 is A. so we believe that, just like we believe everything else. there are questions in our life that we really cant answer and we have to accept that fact. the big bang has no proof.

those aren't facts. they are theories.

You are arguing for relativism…?

A theory in science is a lot different to a 'theory' in every day conversation. Theory says that when I drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. If I drop one, it WILL fall. This is a testable fact. (but still a theory).

There are different strengths of theories. For example, gravity is indisputable. The big bang theory is NOT (and is in fact largely obsolete).
:)

I'm pretty simple, I believe in a balance in nature. Religion? Not so much. I've more faith in science itself. Keeps things simple and realistic. :)

From: bolshak25
no. nothing is fact. there is where you sir are wrong. everything in everyones life is belief. you believe that science is true because people told you that, but where did they get their info? an example is numbers. i believe 4 is actually 4, but can we prove it? define 4. define proof. define anything. where did the original definitions come from? we just believed these things. if i was brought up being told 4 is really the letter A, would i be wrong when i said 3+1=A? no because my definition of your 4 is A. so we believe that, just like we believe everything else. there are questions in our life that we really cant answer and we have to accept that fact. the big bang has no proof.



those aren't facts. they are theories.

Oh dear god (Oops I used god's name in vain (notice the lower case g)). A THEORY is more accepted than anything else. A THEORY can be proved. As for your whole troll-physics type argument of your A being my 4, that is why we speak the same LANGUAGE. Everyone knows that 4 is 4, and they quickly would learn otherwise even if they were first told 4 is A.

E:

From: Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.

In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.

From: Iamadam
..And yes, I do reject other religions. Unlike other religions, Christianity is based on something which happened IN history, and can be examined as such…

Oh really? How do you know… You were there back then, eh? Seriously, what if some person, with lots of mental problems, started writing the bible and made it ALL up… ..and then started sharing his/her "information" and "facts"? Have you ever seen that as an possibility? Or maybe the purposes back then, by whoever the thing was started from, were to make some money with the crap. :)

Have the god ever spoken to you? Also, have you ever got any clear signs from god? Please do tell.

Seriously… Usually only the f****d up people "see the light", like… Drug users, alcoholics, maybe even the very depressed ones. Is that coincidence? Although, of course mostly the believers are raised to it…

You know, if you are brainwashed to those things from the day you started understanding things (at the age when you had a size of foam extinguisher), you actually believe to them, you don't even want to see the facts. Kinda like the thing with North-Korea… The people there believe their leader is 5-meters tall, beating armies just with bare hands - even though there is a leader that is at age 70+, like 160cm tall and he isn't all that dangerous at all? That's because of the magic by BRAINWASHING.

I am glad the world is turning more and more free of the religions! (Still long, LONG way to go, though)
Just smart to get rid of those creatures by your own imagination.

I really wouldn't mind so much if the believers actually would keep the things TOTALLY to themself… But as an example, we have to hear that bullshit at our schools. Just make me go nuts.

I was born as Christian, but nowadays PROUD to be Atheist. I never regreted my choice.

From: Janilabo
Oh really? How do you know… You were there back then, eh? Seriously, what if some person, with lots of mental problems, started writing the bible and made it ALL up… ..and then started sharing his/her "information" and "facts"? Have you ever seen that as an possibility? Or maybe the purposes back then, by whoever the thing was started from, were to make some money with the crap. :)

Have the god ever spoken to you? Also, have you ever got any clear signs from god? Please do tell.

Seriously… Usually only the f****d up people "see the light", like… Drug users, alcoholics, maybe even the very depressed ones. Is that coincidence? Although, of course mostly the believers are raised to it…

You know, if you are brainwashed to those things from the day you started understanding things (at the age when you had a size of foam extinguisher), you actually believe to them, you don't even want to see the facts. Kinda like the thing with North-Korea… The people there believe their leader is 5-meters tall, beating armies just with bare hands - even though there is a leader that is at age 70+, like 160cm tall and he isn't all that dangerous at all? That's because of the magic by BRAINWASHING.

I am glad the world is turning more and more free of the religions! (Still long, LONG way to go, though)
Just smart to get rid of those creatures by your own imagination.

I really wouldn't mind so much if the believers actually would keep the things TOTALLY to themself… But as an example, we have to hear that bullshit at our schools. Just make me go nuts.

I was born as Christian, but nowadays PROUD to be Atheist. I never regreted my choice.

You have nothing better to say? ..or to defend.
Facts are too hard to handle, eh?
Oh yes, I am A TROLL! Damnit. :(

Most of the religions just bring hate and war to the world, and stuff that shouldn't really be around anymore year 2011…

There is still some peaceful religions around though, like, Buddhism. Which I have nothing against.

?
?
?
?
Buddhism.

From: Janilabo
You have nothing better to say? ..or to defend.
Facts are too hard to handle, eh?
Oh yes, I am A TROLL! Damnit. :(

Most of the religions just bring hate and war to the world, and stuff that shouldn't really be around anymore year 2011…

There is still some peaceful religions around though, like, Buddhism. Which I have nothing against.

You stated no facts at all, just a bunch of poorly thought out arguments.
I know you are trolling so I'm not going to respond to them. :P

So your saying 4 billion people in the world are:

the f****d up people "see the light", like… Drug users, alcoholics, maybe even the very depressed ones.

From: Janilabo
Oh really? How do you know… You were there back then, eh? Seriously, what if some person, with lots of mental problems, started writing the bible and made it ALL up…

Okay alright lets play this game. How do you know people like Newton, Einstein, and Darwin's discoveries are all true? Were you around that time hmmmmmmm? What if they made it up? What if they were some crazy people who came up with some crazy numbers and somehow published it for the world to see? You don't know that, because you were not alive 100-200 years ago right? SO HOW COULD THIS ALL BE TRUE? How? How can it be true? You were there back then, eh?

It's called history sir. Their discoveries were recorded and kept and passed on. THE SAME WAY Mohammad and Jesus were alive and had their miracles recorded. So if your going to tell me Mohammad or Jesus did not exist, then your also saying there is no History.

Anyway the theory of evolution remains a theory and its not proven. If your gonna tell me "the big bang" then tell me what caused the big bang.

Then your going to tell me prove your god. I will tell you its in the Quran, then your gonna tell me prove the Quran, I will prove the Quran by pointing out the miracles and it's perfectness that it contains.

From: kingarabian
So your saying 4 billion people in the world are:

I think he meant literally "see the light", not just partake in a religion.

From: TomTuff
I think he meant literally "see the light", not just partake in a religion.

I see the light so does it make me a depressed druggie fucked up person?

From: kingarabian
I see the light so does it make me a depressed druggie fucked up person?

If you see light that doesn't exist, then there's obviously something wrong with the brain

From: kingarabian
I see the light so does it make me a depressed druggie fucked up person?

Depends. A lot of druggies and non druggies see the light but I dont think it has an impact on their emotional state, but it can. Personally I'm pretty happy man :spot:

From: Zyt3x
If you see light that doesn't exist, then there's obviously something wrong with the brain

Who are you to tell me it does not exist lmfao.

From: kingarabian
Who are you to tell me it does not exist lmfao.

I simply said seeing lights isn't normal, so if no-one else see's it then somethings wrong.

From: cycrosism
…

From: Zyt3x
I simply said seeing lights isn't normal, so if no-one else see's it then somethings wrong.

Err it is normal.

From: kingarabian
Err it is normal.

:duh:

From: kingarabian
Err it is normal.

Uh-oh…

Trololololo

Anyway you guys can go back to arguing and debating. Im outta here.

From: IceFire908
The real question is why do people waste their entire lifes trying to figure out answers that are too big or impossible to find out and understand, if there even are answers.

I suppose because they prefer to actually do something useful with their life. Something you call waste. It is thanks to those people we don't live in the Dark Ages any more.

From: Iamadam
I don't want to get into a huge debate, but was merely stating a point of view. I'll answer a few of your objections though.


I am a Christian, I believe that Moses parted the red sea, that Jesus turned water into wine, and that he rose after three days. If there was a God, could he not defy the very laws which he created? Of course he could. This does not conflict with science at all.


And yes, I do reject other religions. Unlike other religions, Christianity is based on something which happened IN history, and can be examined as such.
Jesus existed - no informed person would argue otherwise. He was executed on a roman cross. A bunch of people (including his brother) claimed that they had seen him alive again after three days, and were willing to die to defend that position (and did so). These are all indisputable historical facts. The Christian church grew to a size of tens of thousands in a matter of months - all these people had the facts at their fingertips - many would have seen Jesus, or would have heard from first hand accounts. Why die for a guy who claimed to be raised from the dead, if you knew he was still dead? The romans could have EASILY squashed the movement by showing Jesus' body to the 'delusional' (as you would call them) masses… but they did not. (The christian movement caused a lot of problems for rome because it was making the jewish population angry, causing unrest, so it would have been desirable for them to stop it).

All I do is make the jump to say that Jesus was not lying when he claimed to be God, and that his followers were telling the truth when they said he was raised from the dead.

I should have qualified what I said about philosophers agreeing a bit better. There is no conflict between the belief in some sort of 'higher power' and science, because science examines the NATURAL whereas a higher power is supernatural - i.e. not ABLE to be tested by science.

This argument will go nowhere, I can see now - I just wanted to make sure everyone knew I was a Christian and a scientist - and that I see no problem with being both.

Actually, Christianity forces such an amount of invalid thoughts and assumptions on you that you can't really call yourself a scientist. I note that it is often combined with a serious lack of proper logic. A scientist who doesn't believe in proof (Evolution) but rather some pedo preaching not to use condoms (I know I'm exaggerating) doesn't sound like a scientist to me. A scientist is sceptical to the bone, something religions will fight until they die off… eventually.


Since we're all into images, http://i.qkme.me/Dmr.jpg

A Christian and an Atheist are in a bar, the christian says "if you don't believe in god you will go to hell." the atheist replies "if there was a benevolent supreme being, logic dictates that there would be proof of his existence other than a 2,000 year old book." they agree to set aside their petty differences and get on with their lives.

From: Richard
In science everything is a theory, as it can easily be challenged by any one person. Albeit sometimes these theories are somewhat blatant and challenging them would seem foolish, but others are more than open to a second opinion. Let's take an example, gravity, most would believe that it is the size of out planet which generates an acceleration force which pulls us back to the centre of our planet. But could some person equally say that we are instead being pushed by a force separate to that of our planet.

No they couldn't because they have no evidence. There's plenty of evidence that gravity acts on mass. That knowledge allowed us to predict the existence of Neptune before it was ever observed with a telescope. I've even done some experiments on it in physics first year lab.

From: Richard

Any linked evidence can equally be challenged.

No it can't. Evidence only asks for your senses.
There's evidence that the moon has crators, you only need a simple telescope to show this, I wonder how you would challenge this piece of evidence.

From: Richard
And if everything in science, then the 11th dimension is possible.

I've already covered more than three dimensions and superstring theory in my last post. Keep up. It's not science because no experiment have been done (yet).

From: Richard

Testing doesn't necessarily prove an scientific claim, it just supports it further, and it can be challenged by an opposite claim. It is up to us as individuals to believe which is true.

Nobody ever claimed science proves things, learn to read. Also it cannot be challenged by an opposite claim, it can only be challenged by evidence.

Science works by getting ideas and testing them to destructions. We set up our postulates to be very easy to knock down if only the right evidence came up. We try very hard to disprove our ideas and if we fail to, then the idea has some truth in it.
It was this process that allowed you to come on the internet and say science can easily be challenged by an opposite claim…

Religion, in contrast, sets up it's ideas that they're impossible, even in principle, to disprove. We see historically that if science gives us knowledge about an area of religion, the theology will suddenly change. It happened with the discovery that the earth goes round the sun, it happened with evolution, it happened with genetics, it happened with in/organic chemistry.

From: Richard

But the Big Bang, what was the trigger point, what made everything become everything on a scale far greater than any human based computer could handle. I'm just saying that it's hard for it just to have… happened…

Oh I see.
"I personally cannot think of an explanation for X, therefore magic sky daddy did it and sent Jesus to die for my sins".

edit: spelling

From: IceFire908
I think you are confusing people wanting to understand the universe with people wanting to know the origin of it.

I don't think so, understanding the origin of the universe is part of understanding the universe.

From: IceFire908

I sincerely doubt any of the mentioned people spent any more than a normal person would pondering about religion/evolution/science etc. with maybe the exception of Darwin who's discoveries weren't helpful in the same way Einstein's were.

Okay.
Good luck with your sincere doubt. I'll stick to facts.

From: IceFire908

Anyone serious about these passions that end up being helpful in the end don't research around all day like scholars and debate with other people about religion and evolution, they spend time working with others to further what is known science and work on contemptible things.

You can do both, in fact I do. (Although my education for now consists of learning and understanding what others have discovered, not discovering things on my own yet)

You have to consider that many religious people also attack science, they are powerful politically. They try to teach creationism and other anti-science dogma in US schools. Live and let live simply doesn't work.

From: IceFire908

Technology is a wonderful thing, but do you really believe it is the answer to the meaning of life?

Nobody ever said this. Learn to read please.

From: Iamadam

I am a Christian, I believe that Moses parted the red sea, that Jesus turned water into wine, and that he rose after three days. If there was a God, could he not defy the very laws which he created? Of course he could. This does not conflict with science at all.

God could certainly violate laws. If he exists, and that's a big if.

I know that my cat is a distant cousin of me. I know this because of the evidence. How do you know that God exists? you have no evidence. Believing things without scepticism which have no evidence for them is the very opposite of science, it is blind faith, dogma and ignorance which held humanity back for so long.

Believing without evidence that mass and energy were not conserved is in direct conflict with science.

From: Iamadam

And yes, I do reject other religions. Unlike other religions, Christianity is based on something which happened IN history, and can be examined as such.
Jesus existed - no informed person would argue otherwise. He was executed on a roman cross. A bunch of people (including his brother) claimed that they had seen him alive again after three days, and were willing to die to defend that position (and did so). These are all indisputable historical facts. The Christian church grew to a size of tens of thousands in a matter of months - all these people had the facts at their fingertips - many would have seen Jesus, or would have heard from first hand accounts. Why die for a guy who claimed to be raised from the dead, if you knew he was still dead? The romans could have EASILY squashed the movement by showing Jesus' body to the 'delusional' (as you would call them) masses… but they did not. (The christian movement caused a lot of problems for rome because it was making the jewish population angry, causing unrest, so it would have been desirable for them to stop it).

All I do is make the jump to say that Jesus was not lying when he claimed to be God, and that his followers were telling the truth when they said he was raised from the dead.

How do you know that happened historically? Oh i see, the bible told you..
Well how do you know the bible is right? Oh i see, god said so..
Well how do you know that god exists? Oh i see, the bible told you..

But you haven't really dealt with my question. The muslims also claim to have historical sources that Muhammad lived and did all the things he did.
The greeks claimed to have history on their side that zeus caused thunder and lightning. The aztecs also claimed to have seen the sky bleeding and Quatzequatel lept out.

Why do you believe just one version of history from a book that's been translated and edited many times? Why not treat them with scepticism and ask for actual evidence (instead of mere hearsay from a book) as I'm sure you learned to when you studied science.

From: Iamadam

I should have qualified what I said about philosophers agreeing a bit better. There is no conflict between the belief in some sort of 'higher power' and science, because science examines the NATURAL whereas a higher power is supernatural - i.e. not ABLE to be tested by science.

Except when god's followers claim that god did things like turn water into wine and make a dead man alive again.
These are naturalistic claims of stuff happening in our universe, thus they are treading in science's turf.

From: Iamadam

This argument will go nowhere, I can see now - I just wanted to make sure everyone knew I was a Christian and a scientist - and that I see no problem with being both.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I'm an anti-theist and a scientist. Furthermore that the majority of working scientists do not believe in god, much less than the general population.

From: Iamadam

There are different strengths of theories. For example, gravity is indisputable. The big bang theory is NOT (and is in fact largely obsolete).
:)

Sorry but the Big Bang theory predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background years before it was ever observed. Its as much a part of science as gravity. (In fact, Einstine's theory of gravity provides the theoretical framework for the universe expanding out of nothing and collapsing into a black hole)

When religion gets even a fraction of the predictive power of something like the Big Bang theory, let me know. Until then its nothing more than superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

From: Janilabo

There is still some peaceful religions around though, like, Buddhism. Which I have nothing against.

I disagree. Buddhism is just as anti-science, anti-reason, anti-intellectual as any other religion. It relies on faith rather than evidence.
Furthermore, they oppress gay people and say they're evil for no other reason than that their religion says so.

http://www.johannhari.com/2004/06/10/who-knew-buddhists-could-be-so-aggressive-

From: kingarabian
So your saying 4 billion people in the world are:

the f****d up people "see the light", like… Drug users, alcoholics, maybe even the very depressed ones.

Sure. Millions of people in the world unfortunately don't have access to education or they only have a small passing glance and then don't follow it up. It's no small wonder that delusion persists.

From: kingarabian

Okay alright lets play this game. How do you know people like Newton, Einstein, and Darwin's discoveries are all true? Were you around that time hmmmmmmm? What if they made it up? What if they were some crazy people who came up with some crazy numbers and somehow published it for the world to see? You don't know that, because you were not alive 100-200 years ago right? SO HOW COULD THIS ALL BE TRUE? How? How can it be true? You were there back then, eh?

Those ideas do not rest on the say-so of an authority like they do with religion. We don't need to trust Newton or Einstein, we only need to trust our senses ie. trust the evidence.

Newton's science got us to the moon. Case closed.

From: kingarabian

It's called history sir. Their discoveries were recorded and kept and passed on. THE SAME WAY Mohammad and Jesus were alive and had their miracles recorded. So if your going to tell me Mohammad or Jesus did not exist, then your also saying there is no History.

It's called science sir.
Their ideas were attacked, hundreds of thousands of scientists have tried to prove Einstein wrong. They never managed it (If they did, they would get a Nobel prize)

We can and do check Newton's discoveries every day. You can never check if Jesus came back from the dead. This is why history is not a science.

From: kingarabian

Anyway the theory of evolution remains a theory and its not proven.

Evolution is a theory and fact. We've covered this before, I wish you would learn how to read..

From: kingarabian
If your gonna tell me "the big bang" then tell me what caused the big bang.

Oh I see how it works.
"Science cannot explain X, therefore my invisible friend in the sky did it"

From: kingarabian

Then your going to tell me prove your god. I will tell you its in the Quran, then your gonna tell me prove the Quran, I will prove the Quran by pointing out the miracles and it's perfectness that it contains.

Quran perfectness? You'll find that the Quran claims that God made humans in 6 days out of dust, this is in direct contradiction with science, particularly evolution, but also geology, astronomy, palaeontology and physics.

From: cycrosism
A Christian and an Atheist are in a bar, the christian says "if you don't believe in god you will go to hell." the atheist replies "if there was a benevolent supreme being, logic dictates that there would be proof of his existence other than a 2,000 year old book." they agree to set aside their petty differences and get on with their lives.

More like.
A Christian covers up the rape of children but doesn't get put in prison because he is Christian and people would be offended if he was.
Or even.
A Christian says that condoms do not work. It results in millions of the world's poorest people dying from AIDS. Nothing happens to the Christian because God (haha!) is on his side.

i personally like Oscillating Universe Theory. It solves the whole cause of the big bang thing (except for the initial existence of matter, but that's not unproblematic for every other theory aswell, nor does it really refute any theory that could deal with that). It also just seems neater, and less "far out"/unprovable than multiple dimensions.

Now that i've said that, I agree with much of what Yakman said, except i dont think that they're mutually exclusive. Science is basically a religion in and of itself is a religion. It's just which religion that you subscribe to that would mean whether or not you are compatible with science. As far as I know, Wicca doesn't have any particular problems with science.

EDIT: bear in mind that you also have varying degrees of religion. Many Christians don't believe that the bible is actually meant to be interpreted literally, and those who don't believe that their religion is completely correct. They still believe in a god, and other aspects, so they still belong to that religion. Even among those that believe similar things about their religion, different aspects are interpreted differently. Just trying to point out that just because someone is Christian/religious doesn't mean that they disagree with some of your points.

I know you like Oscillating Universe, but is it science? Does it have any evidence for it?

Actually science isn't a religion. It's based on reason while religion is based on faith.

Sorry to spam, but is that a sixtuple-post?! #38 .. #44

From: Yakman
I know you like Oscillating Universe, but is it science? Does it have any evidence for it?

Actually science isn't a religion. It's based on reason while religion is based on faith.

It had more evidence for itself than did the big bang theory because it basically fixed some of the problems with the big bang. But apparently it contradicts a law of thermodynamics or something, so people dont like it anymore. But liking multiple dimensions has less evidence (meaning none) so imo its still better.

Religion = a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

seems pretty religious to me. Your reason for believing in a religion have no impact on whether or not its a religion.Reason or faith or whatever, it changes nothing.

The reason science isn't a religion is because it's not about a set of beliefs, it's about knowing something is or isn't true.

Kinda the same thing with why atheism isn't a religion. It's not the belief that there is no theistic being, it's the lack of belief in any sort of supernatural being or god.

I'm not anti-theistic as Wizzup? and yakman deem themselves (albeit they seem to be and I have no problem with that), merely atheistic. I'm always dumbfounded when I think that just about every religious person can say their supernatural being is right when all others are just brouhaha.

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

^ And I still have no idea why people don't (except some recent things showing a "religious" gene, but I know that society has a much bigger impact than biology in regards to things like this, and people with two halves of one brain having both religious and non-religious beliefs leads me to the conclusion that the religious gene (if it is factual) is a just a little bit of a push towards religion, rather than a definite thing like Huntington's or the like) think like this.

But I suppose there's not much more I can say about that. I've no problem (inherently) with religious practice, I just dislike most religious people because I worry they will think as they do about religion when other scenarios arise, and it could lead to people losing their jobs, spouses, house, family, or even life (i.e., having "faith" that things will get better without taking action).

From: Zyt3x
Sorry to spam, but is that a sixtuple-post?! #38 .. #44

For the sake of neatness, I think it was justified.

Anyways, I remember my English class having a debate not too long ago, and we had to discuss what happens when people die. It was ridiculous, it seemed like everyone believed that "we go somewhere after death, because there's no way that this life is the only life." and some people attempted to start preaching God or some shit, it failed. The way I explained it was "The time after you die is exactly like the time before you were born. There is nothing, your thoughts are nothing, you are nothing." Then they got butthurt and started asking what nothing looks like and I had to explain that you cannot describe nothing as if it is something, because it's not. It was sad how their little minds could not comprehend the absolute emptiness of nothing, or that we as organisms simply die and that is the end.

The reason science isn't a religion is because it's not about a set of beliefs, it's about knowing something is or isn't true.

Kinda the same thing with why atheism isn't a religion. It's not the belief that there is no theistic being, it's the lack of belief in any sort of supernatural being or god.

It is about a set of believes. You choose to believe that science is true. you make have good reason to believe it, but it's still you deciding that you want to have that way of thinking over another, different way.

Lack of belief is the same thing as believing that it's not, other than if you lack a belief then, it gives you the leeway to believe in the future without really having to change. That's the only way i see that they're different. But many of the people that i have talked to that are atheists (and from what i've seen of yakman, him included), say that god doesnt exist. Which means that they believe he doesnt exist and thus, for them, its more religious than not. But i sort of agree that its not a religion because it alone doesnt really give an substantial belief. I assume its more generally included along with science, which i've already talked about.

I thought religion = believing in theist, Dan Cardin?

I second Dan's views. You must believe in theories the same as you believe in religions.

From: Wizzup?
I suppose because they prefer to actually do something useful with their life. Something you call waste. It is thanks to those people we don't live in the Dark Ages any more.

Discovering new technologies doesn't involve speculating whether or not God is real and why people shouldn't believe in him.

Obviously

Technology = Useful
Debating religion = Pointless

From: Yakman
I don't think so, understanding the origin of the universe is part of understanding the universe.

Sure it's a part of it, but understand which part it is. It's not the part that enhances our lives or anything. No it's sorta the part where we actually use science for what it is was meant for. Calculations and technology.

From: Yakman
Okay.
Good luck with your sincere doubt. I'll stick to facts.

Are you saying it's a fact that these people spent most of their time trying to use science to disprove God and therefore made discoveries like The Theory of Relativity?

Darwin was an exception to this I suppose, but you have to realize almost all of the time worrying about religion/science origin of the universe isn't the same part of science that enhances our lives, its the very thing that drives people apart and wastes time.

It's the same reason people wage war against one another. Something you've contradicted yourself from the very start, unless I misunderstood something.

From: Yakman
You can do both, in fact I do. (Although my education for now consists of learning and understanding what others have discovered, not discovering things on my own yet)

You have to consider that many religious people also attack science, they are powerful politically. They try to teach creationism and other anti-science dogma in US schools. Live and let live simply doesn't work.

Of course you can do both, but just because you do both doesn't mean you're not wasting your time with other just because the other is useful.

In all seriousness though there's a lot of stupid people in the world, and they spread across every type of bigot, belief, science, philosophy, race, country, gender… why waste your time trying to shove down their throat, or arguing with them to convince them something?

You can tell someone something or be told something but it takes two intellectuals to actually listen to each other and make use of a conversation.

From: Yakman
Nobody ever said this. Learn to read please.

You're right, no one ever said this, but then again I never said that anyone had said… much more… they implied it strongly.

Bundling together advances in technology with science trumping religion.

From: Dan Cardin
removed for length reasons

Well obviously this isn't going anywhere. Your idea of atheism and science being a set of beliefs is the same as everyone's who say atheism is a religion, when it is not.

The lack of belief and the belief that something isn't real/true/factual/whatever are not the same. Christians believe that Allah isn't real. Atheists know Allah isn't real and lack any sort of belief in that sense one way or another. Atheism is literally the lack of belief in theism. Not the disbelief.

I don't deem science a religion, although a religion is just a set of beliefs, and that could be a set of beliefs related to scientific things or apples or pies or whatever and have nothing to do with supernatural entities, because of the whole "beliefs" part of a religion. Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. are all religions because they each have their own set of beliefs (which they all share between them, as all organized religions today and in history do), but I do know that they're not religions because of their supernatural ideas, as religions don't necessarily have to do with anything supernatural. Point being, science has nothing to do with faith or believing things are true. In that sense, for people who do just have "faith" that gravity is how it is, science would be religious. But for people who simply know it is true because it is and have no faith or belief in it (Yakman, Wizzup?, me, etc.), it is not a religious thing, as there is no set of beliefs. It's like saying math or English are religions, which they are not.

From: Dan Cardin

Lack of belief is the same thing as believing that it's not,

No it's not, they are completely different concepts. You really should learn to use the English language properly.

I challenge you to quote me just one single time when I said that god definitely doesn't exist.

From: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

Noun
atheist (plural atheists)
1. One who lacks belief in the existence of God, god, Gods or gods.
2. Especially, one who lacks any religious belief; an irreligious person.

If all the evidence in the world showed that god existed, I would be the first to admit it. But until then its just a fairy tale.

Edit: I'll say some more.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? Thought not. But by your logic that's the same as saying Santa Claus certainly doesn't exist, which you cannot say for sure.

From: DanCardin
other than if you lack a belief then, it gives you the leeway to believe in the future without really having to change.

(really should learn to read) I, however ineptly, meant to say that you have the choice to believe in god in the future without ever having contradicted your past beliefs (which is where lies the difference). It's really the same thing, especially in the case of God because you will never get the conclusive evidence of a god. and you know that. and that's why you make threads trying to disprove god or convince others to disbelieve.

That's an offshoot of my original point of, science and religion can easily coexist. You mainly have a problem with a specific set of religions that have specific problems with science. Which I then said, most people don't agree with every single part of a religion's beliefs. So you have a problem with those that do.

Science is almost exactly like a religion in my eyes, it's just different people's interpretations. Lets say that Jesus did exist, and did the things in the bible. For the people back then, I think that their experiences would be just as valid to them, as science is to you.

From: Dan Cardin
It is about a set of believes. You choose to believe that science is true. you make have good reason to believe it, but it's still you deciding that you want to have that way of thinking over another, different way.

Lack of belief is the same thing as believing that it's not, other than if you lack a belief then, it gives you the leeway to believe in the future without really having to change. That's the only way i see that they're different. But many of the people that i have talked to that are atheists (and from what i've seen of yakman, him included), say that god doesnt exist. Which means that they believe he doesnt exist and thus, for them, its more religious than not. But i sort of agree that its not a religion because it alone doesnt really give an substantial belief. I assume its more generally included along with science, which i've already talked about.

Obviously they're entirely different concepts. http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Dan Cardin. You're talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

It says on the right that page is a "Part of a series on Irreligion"

From: Wizzup?
Obviously they're entirely different concepts. http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Thanks. I love Dawkins. :)

fricken computer crashes, i lost most of my reply D:. Anyways.

Wizzup: "Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion." My first problem with his article. It seems to be the only visible difference between his definition of science and religion. I personally don't see why religion needs have faith, nor do i see any real faith in certain religions, like Wicca. In fact other than faith, he writes that science and other religions have many things in common. So really the only distinction is faith, which makes it fairly less obvious. Especially since i haven't had an argument for why religions need be based on faith.


My original point, again, was just to say that religion and science are really not incompatible and whatnot. Since everyone seems to be quoting other people rather than writing their own, i shall direct you to the heading "Science and Religion" where it says II because i think that is the most applicable. http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

From: Dan Cardin
Wizzup: "Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion." My first problem with his article. It seems to be the only visible difference between his definition of science and religion. I personally don't see why religion needs have faith, nor do i see any real faith in certain religions, like Wicca. In fact other than faith, he writes that science and other religions have many things in common. So really the only distinction is faith, which makes it fairly less obvious. Especially since i haven't had an argument for why religions need be based on faith.

Errm, wicca people worship a god and a goddess. How do they know such a god exists? Faith.

From: Dan Cardin

My original point, again, was just to say that religion and science are really not incompatible and whatnot. Since everyone seems to be quoting other people rather than writing their own, i shall direct you to the heading "Science and Religion" where it says II because i think that is the most applicable. http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Einstein's religion (which was pantheism, that doesn't believe in a personal god or anything supernatural) is miles away from what most people see as religion.
Einstein consistently and unambiguously denied believing in personal gods who answered prayers or involved themselves in human affairs. Einstein didn't believe in water turning into wine, he didn't believe in Moses parting the sea or god creating man in 6 days.
They are so dissimilar its quite unfortunate they share the same name.

This thread was meant to be about Iamadam's or kingarabian's religious belief, those guys actually belief really unscientific stuff. Bringing Einstein in is a complete red herring.

From: Albert Einstein in letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

afaik, wicca is very open, and they do not in fact worship a god/goddess. My short google says "We acknowledge a depth of power far greater than that apparent to the average person. Because it is far greater than ordinary it is sometimes called ‘supernatural’, but we see it as lying within that which is naturally potential to all."

If you're specifically targeting Christianity, then it seems a bit off to generalize it to religion in general. If we're specifically targeting wine into water and such, then I don't have much more to say.

Not really a stretch to target all religions by targeting one. They are all the same. They just have different time spans, different names (in a few cases), and a few different types of gods. But they are all about the same thing and all share everything between them. If you disagree you're silly.

I wish I could site a chapter in my sociology textbook called "Religion & Magic," but I can't. :/ It's a good read.

From: Dan Cardin
fricken computer crashes, i lost most of my reply D:. Anyways.

Wizzup: "Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion." My first problem with his article. It seems to be the only visible difference between his definition of science and religion. I personally don't see why religion needs have faith, nor do i see any real faith in certain religions, like Wicca. In fact other than faith, he writes that science and other religions have many things in common. So really the only distinction is faith, which makes it fairly less obvious. Especially since i haven't had an argument for why religions need be based on faith.


My original point, again, was just to say that religion and science are really not incompatible and whatnot. Since everyone seems to be quoting other people rather than writing their own, i shall direct you to the heading "Science and Religion" where it says II because i think that is the most applicable. http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

It's pretty obvious since Faith means that you're basing it on evidence / logic, especially in this context. Religion is essentially the same as Faith (by definition!!!), except for some public influences.

Since faith implies a trusting reliance upon future events or outcomes, it is often taken by some people as inevitably synonymous with a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."

I quote Richard Dawkins because he expresses my feelings directly and in a much more concise way that I could have written them down in a ~20 minutes post on an online forum.

There is only one true religion, help the orphans and widows and stay out of dirty bad stuff (James 1.26,27).

And a true perfect love, that JesusChrist died for me even I being a sinner.

That,s it for me everything else just seems like nonsense.

From: latifundio
There is only one true religion, help the orphans and widows and stay out of dirty bad stuff (James 1.26,27).

And a true perfect love, that JesusChrist died for me even I being a sinner.

That,s it for me everything else just seems like nonsense.

lol this guy..

yea I don't see what is the hassle about having faith in God but all those religions just divide the ppl in this world.

From: latifundio
yea I don't see what is the hassle about having faith in God but all those religions just divide the ppl in this world.

Are you saying Christianity is the only correct religion?

What you call Christianity it is so divided that ppl still argue to this day which doctrine and dogmas are the true ones. I just said above that there is only one true religion and it is love and help others.

I deem Christianity the Christianity that the Bible speaks of, and following the rules and guidelines it speaks of. I do not think most people who call themselves Christian are actually Christian. I do not think you are truly Christian, either.

From: i luffs yeww
I deem Christianity the Christianity that the Bible speaks of, and following the rules and guidelines it speaks of. I do not think most people who call themselves Christian are actually Christian. I do not think you are truly Christian, either.

No one is a true Christian by that. The Bible contradicts itself so many times, that it's impossible to do so!

the old testimant is actualy judism(spell?), with a hint of the ancient sumarian religion to be exact :)

From: latifundio
What you call Christianity it is so divided that ppl still argue to this day which doctrine and dogmas are the true ones. I just said above that there is only one true religion and it is love and help others.

That's not really a religion, because there is no belief in a deity in your example. Although the people of the world would be happier if they could just get along, that part is true.

From: Echo_
That's not really a religion, because there is no belief in a deity in your example. Although the people of the world would be happier if they could just get along, that part is true.

Religions, inherently, have nothing to do with any sort of supernatural beings.

Also, people crave conflict. We won't ever get along.

From: Harry
No one is a true Christian by that. The Bible contradicts itself so many times, that it's impossible to do so!

Care to point some out?