Atheism

[Taylor Swift]

No we have proof that jesus is real by doucument and they say that he did all this things. But alot of people dont belive that any body; not even jesus, can do these thing. and really we can't for sure say jesus could do these things but we can say he was real and he made changes in peoples life that were amazing

 

[Davey Gaga]

No we have proof that jesus is real by doucument and they say that he did all this things. But alot of people dont belive that any body; not even jesus, can do these thing. and really we can't for sure say jesus could do these things but we can say he was real and he made changes in peoples life that were amazing

Look, the simple fact of the matter is that you DON'T have proof that Jesus existed and you CAN'T prove that he carried out all of these miracles. You've said it yourself: "we can't fore sure say jesus could do these things."

Saying that Jesus was real, in any shape or form, is not a fact - it's YOUR OPINION.

 

[Taylor Swift]

so the roman made up documents. WHY?????? for a pracktly joke lol

 

[Davey Gaga]

No; most likely because they BELIEVED in what they have written down on those "documents."

This topic is starting to de-rail.

 

[Taylor Swift]

Because THEY say JESUS do those THINGS>?>?>

 

[der Astronom]

It's the same reason why someone might decide to write a bible one day and say that God put two people, a woman and a man on the planet and made the man dominate over the woman so that people would have a reason to believe that gender equality doesn't exist (which is a load of bull, by the way), and then make canaanites inferior to white people and jews because canaanites were the descendents of some guy who might have done something wrong (this is a racial inequality), and then let people get away with slavery. As long as people believe in it, they'll mistaken what they believe and what they know (or should know) with the truth.

 

[Rasputin]

Exactly the same thing is true with Atheism. Except there is no "ancient book of Atheism". There is no religious background of atheism. There is no atheist patriarch, there is no history of atheists "healing the sick" or "fighting for individual rights". There's no atheistic moral doctrine, there is no atheist church, there is clear benefits of becoming an atheist. There is no promise that becoming an atheist will make you happier or give you more friends. The only thing that is clear in atheism is that people are not allowed to believe in God.

When it comes right down to it, Atheism is one of the most pointless and selfish doctrines imaginable. I'd put in on the same level as traditional Calvinism and the extremist Jewish church in the 1'st century BC.

 

[Taylor Swift]

So are you saying that people that are atheis are selfish and there beliefs are pointless.

 

[der Astronom]

Exactly the same thing is true with Atheism. Except there is no "ancient book of Atheism". There is no religious background of atheism. There is no atheist patriarch, there is no history of atheists "healing the sick" or "fighting for individual rights". There's no atheistic moral doctrine, there is no atheist church, there is clear benefits of becoming an atheist. There is no promise that becoming an atheist will make you happier or give you more friends. The only thing that is clear in atheism is that people are not allowed to believe in God.

When it comes right down to it, Atheism is one of the most pointless and selfish doctrines imaginable. I'd put in on the same level as traditional Calvinism and the extremist Jewish church in the 1'st century BC.

That's not entirely true. It just means you choose not to believe in God, but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to have any other morals. It's true that atheism doesn't necessarily make you happier or give you more friends, but neither do any of the other religions; you can only be happier with it if you believe that it is making a good impact on your life--even if it isn't. Being an atheist allows you a lot of freedom in thought because religion doesn't tell you what you're allowed or not allowed to think. In fact, you may one day say to yourself that you don't see any reason to stop believing in God and choose to leave atheism if you wish--atheists have nothing against that if that is what you choose to believe. Just because you think atheism is a selfish "religion" doesn't mean all atheists are selfish people. You can't deduce "selfishness" from atheism if all it says is atheists don't believe in God. Because people could choose to not believe in God for many different reasons, and not all of them could be considered selfish.

Besides, I think it's ridiculous to believe what religion says just because a bible said it was true. I'd rather believe in "pointless" things that have impacted me and meant more to me in my own experiences than take the word of some obsolete, authoritarian fairytale book that was written by people who had no idea what science was.

 

[OmniscientOnus]

some obsolete, authoritarian fairytale book that was written by people who had no idea what science was

Is it really necessary to degrade religion so much just because you don't choose to follow or believe in them? There is no reason you can't just say that you don't believe what the Bible says because you think that it's foundations are based on something that is just seemingly too illogical for you to choose to base your entire life, and resulting actions, around it.

And, of course they knew what science was. They may not have known the exact cause of as much as we do now, and they may not have actually had a word for it, but that doesn't mean that they didn't study and learn about how things worked, which is all that science really is when you get down to it.

Furthermore, science doesn't disprove that there is a God in any way you look at it. For all you know, the reason things work the way they do is because God created them. Since science is just a form of studying and recording the world around us to better understand it, science may ultimately just be the study of exactly how God decided things should work.

Last, but not least, as an Administrator you are just adding to the flaming and bashing on the forums instead of helping to rid them. Stating your opinions is one thing, but to outright call a person's beliefs "obsolete", and to say that they are based on an "authoritarian fairytale book that was written by people who had no idea what science was" is just uncalled for. Respect is one of the things this forum is based on, not something to be thrown aside by the people who are supposed to enforce it just because they have more power on this site than others. I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job or anything, but I'm getting kind of tired of seeing the people who are supposed to be enforcing the rules (I won't name names) breaking them instead.

 

[der Astronom]

Is it really necessary to degrade religion so much just because you don't choose to follow or believe in them? There is no reason you can't just say that you don't believe what the Bible says because you think that it's foundations are based on something that is just seemingly too illogical for you to choose to base your entire life, and resulting actions, around it.

I might have gotten carried away. Excuse me for it, but I'll explain. It is my opinion that the bible is obsolete because it was written 6000 years ago. I'd rather trust the people who have been constantly doing radioactive dating to figure out the true age of the Earth than listen to the people who never did any of this and assumed that the Earth was 6000 years old. Whether or not you like it, the bible is considered an authoritarian book because it tells people how to live their lives. And I choose not to let a book tell me how to live my life because what a book says isn't always right. As for the fairytale part...believing in those miracles in the bible to me is as ridiculous as believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

And, of course they knew what science was. They may not have known the exact cause of as much as we do now, and they may not have actually had a word for it, but that doesn't mean that they didn't study and learn about how things worked, which is all that science really is when you get down to it.

No they didn't. There is nothing in the bible that shows that they had any kind of scientific knowledge. They did not tell us how they knew the earth was flat, or that it was 6000 years old; only God told them it was, and they did not explain how God works, or how they know he exists, or perhaps why he doesn't exist now. They did not leave us any kind of method in which we could try for ourselves in which we could determine that God exists or how he works. They only left us with "skepticism is bad" and that we are not supposed to find out how God exists. Rather unscientific, wouldn't you agree?

Furthermore, science doesn't disprove that there is a God in any way you look at it. For all you know, the reason things work the way they do is because God created them. Since science is just a form of studying and recording the world around us to better understand it, science may ultimately just be the study of exactly how God decided things should work.

I never said it does, but I would rather accept or trust something that is scientific, and tried and possibly true than something that isn't. Science completely evades the concept of things working because God created them, and there has been no such thing found in science. That's one reason why science doesn't talk about God. It's come to be that if you must resort to saying "God did it", then you have failed as a scientist and refused to admit that you do not know or understand how something works.

Last, but not least, as an Administrator you are just adding to the flaming and bashing on the forums instead of helping to rid them. Stating your opinions is one thing, but to outright call a person's beliefs "obsolete", and to say that they are based on an "authoritarian fairytale book that was written by people who had no idea what science was" is just uncalled for. Respect is one of the things this forum is based on, not something to be thrown aside by the people who are supposed to enforce it just because they have more power on this site than others. I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job or anything, but I'm getting kind of tired of seeing the people who are supposed to be enforcing the rules (I won't name names) breaking them instead.

I did not say that people's beliefs are obsolete; I was speaking strictly of the book. If I were to say that believing in the story of Santa Claus is ridiculous, am I somehow also offending the kids that believe in it too? I mean come on, lots of people believe that believing in Santa Claus is ridiculous. So great. Are you telling me I can't criticize a book now because it's going to hurt people? I'm only explaining why I choose not to believe in the book--I don't believe in trusting authoritarian fairytales.

 

[OmniscientOnus]

No they didn't. There is nothing in the bible that shows that they had any kind of scientific knowledge. They did not tell us how they knew the earth was flat, or that it was 6000 years old; only God told them it was, and they did not explain how God works, or how they know he exists, or perhaps why he doesn't exist now. They did not leave us any kind of method in which we could try for ourselves in which we could determine that God exists or how he works. They only left us with "skepticism is bad" and that we are not supposed to find out how God exists. Rather unscientific, wouldn't you agree?

Have you even read the Bible? I'm thinking no. If you did, you clearly did not understand it, which I wouldn't blame you for, of course, considering most Christians don't even come close to understanding it.

First of all, why would a book that is meant to bring people the knowledge that God is the one true omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and ever loving being that governs our every move (authoritarian? ok, we agree here) bother to stop and tell us why the earth was thought to be flat? That would just be plain off topic. And as for why the Earth was believed to be flat, well, it just seemed logical and the instruments to determine whether it really was or not just didn't exist. But to say that because they lacked some of what we would call "basic" reasoning behind their knowledge doesn't mean that they weren't scientific about obtaining knowledge.

You can't really mean to tell me that these people didn't know how to create a, say, nice big fire, do you? I mean after all, they would have to understand at least some of the mechanics behind it, would they not? They obviously didn't understand it on a molecular scale, and probably weren't even 100% sure about the whole friction idea either. But that didn't mean that they didn't study and try to determine how these things worked. After all, if they just said "God made the fire. That is all I need to know". If they did then why did they ever try to do anything?

A person who truly believes that God is the sole entity, the entire reason and cause behind every action and reaction in this world (as you state a Christian would) would never bother to create even the simple fire I'm referencing. Which would lead me to wonder: "Are the atheists truly the sole purpose I am at this computer typing to this person today? Did no Christian ever bother to lift a finger because he figured that God magically made all of these things happen?


Lets consider the following for a moment here. Let us say that there is, in fact, a God. He is truly everything the Bible says he is, and he truly did everything that it says he did. Now, nothing about our world would be different if this was true, because after all, this is what Christians believe and their world is the same as ours. Essentially what I am saying is, let us assume that God, today as we sit here, is absolutely real.

Does this really make a difference in our scientific community from a standpoint of what we have accomplished? Does it negate all we have come to know? No. Not one bit. In fact, all it would really change about our past observations, tests, studies, and records, is that the way our world works is not merely an accident (after all, that's about the best theory we have as far as science goes as to how exactly we all came into existence in the first place) but instead was designed that way.

Lets look at another example. Lets say that one morning you awoke to find a strange unidentified object in your bedroom. You quickly rush and tell your best friend about it. When your best friend finally sees it, he says to you, and fully believes that, his "imaginary friend must have created it, it can't just be a fluke of nature, it's way too complex". You, on the other hand insist that whatever this thing is must have evolved into what you see from, well, what exactly you don't know, but some strange guy no one has ever heard of before just didn't make it out of thin air.

So, you begin to study it to find out how it works, how it really did get there, where exactly it came from, and most importantly, why it's there in the first place. After time you come up with many good ideas that you believe to be fact in regards to how it works and why it does some of the things it does. What you cannot seem to prove however, is where it came from, or why it's there. It does seem, however, that it may have possibly evolved from a dirty dinner plate underneath your mattress, it does, after all, share similar characteristics with the dinner plate.

You share your findings with your friend to try and dissuade him as to how it got there exactly, but your friend is not swayed and sticks to his theory. He agrees with you on how this thing works, and even why it does what it does, but not on how it got there.

Then, one day, seemingly from nowhere your friends' "imaginary" friend reveals himself to you, and it turns out that he is not so imaginary after all. This being is indeed, real. What's more, he did, in fact, create the thing you have been studying all this time.

Now, I ask you, does the fact that this being created the thing you were studying change anything about how and why it works and does the things it does? Of course not. All of your findings were still very scientific, although your theory on how it got there was a little flawed. The weird thing is that the once thought to be imaginary being did actually evolve the dinner plate to make this thing. So, in a way you were technically correct in everything you found to be scientifically true, but wrong in the one thing you couldn't seem to prove: whether it was evolved because of nature, or whether another being that you couldn't physically account for in one way or another created it. The only real difference that this creation theory changed about what you observed in your studies is that the theories and ideas that you recorded about it did not originate out of a fluke, but out of a specific design instead.

So, I say to you, do you really still believe that these people had no scientific knowledge whatsoever? Sure, they probably didn't do as much research as we do now because the were able to just use the scape goat of "Well, God just made it that way", but that not only doesn't mean they weren't ever scientific, but it doesn't mean they were wrong either.

I never said it does, but I would rather accept or trust something that is scientific, and tried and possibly true than something that isn't. Science completely evades the concept of things working because God created them, and there has been no such thing found in science. That's one reason why science doesn't talk about God. It's come to be that if you must resort to saying "God did it", then you have failed as a scientist and refused to admit that you do not know or understand how something works.

Saying that "God did it" does not mean you failed as a scientist in any way. Scientist do not all agree that there is no God, but simply that they can't prove either way whether there is one or not. The issue they have is that if you can't seem to figure out how something works, or why things are they way they are, you shouldn't just go pointing your finger towards the heavens and state that something more powerful than the rest of the known universe must have been the only logical cause.

Scientists want simply to find the truth. I don't believe that any scientist would be angry if he managed to prove (on purpose, or accidentally) that God exists. In fact, I think he would be absolutely thrilled. He would certainly be revered as a sort of hero amongst human kind (most of them at least). To prove that God exists does nothing to harm our theories and ideas on how the universe works. It only answers the one question that we predict we will probably never find the answer to in our lifetime which is: "Are we all just a mathematical anomaly, or were we designed by a being much more intelligent than ourselves?"

I did not say that people's beliefs are obsolete; I was speaking strictly of the book. If I were to say that believing in the story of Santa Claus is ridiculous, am I somehow also offending the kids that believe in it too? I mean come on, lots of people believe that believing in Santa Claus is ridiculous. So great. Are you telling me I can't criticize a book now because it's going to hurt people? I'm only explaining why I choose not to believe in the book--I don't believe in trusting authoritarian fairytales.

First of all, by saying that believing in Santa Claus is ridiculous you are only hinting at the fact that believing in something that we can prove to be false is unintelligent and counterproductive. You aren't degrading the entire belief system of a large group of human beings you live their life based on the belief that there is a higher being of sorts out there, and one you can't prove to be false at that.

Besides all of that, the real issue I have is mostly with the words "fairy tales" to describe a religion that you can't prove isn't true. The only way I can really describe it better than I have is to say that you probably wouldn't be all too thrilled if a religious person said that they thought that science was silly because:

"Why would I believe a bunch of close minded, know it alls, who say that God can't exist simply because they can't see it with their fancy little microscopes, or telescopes, or prove it with mathematical equations (which by the way, they came up with). I mean, how can I trust a group of people who manage to prove themselves wrong on major issues all the time? First the world was flat, then it was spherical. First it was the center of the universe, now we don't even know where exactly it is in relationship to the rest of the universe. First eggs were good for you, then they were bad for you, now they're good for you again. Science is nothing but a bunch of guessing! Every time they claim to know what they are talking about, another one proves them wrong and then they have to start all over again! They can claim they have all the 'facts' that they want to, at least what I believe in hasn't changed in thousands of years! God existed back then, and he still does now. Can you scientists say that about anything you have proven to be true?"

I mean, after all, they would have a point. The idea of "God" has been around and unchanged for thousands of years. Most scientific "facts" are merely babies in comparison. Not to mention, every day scientific "facts" are proven wrong. The Earth was flat before, now it's essentially spherical, maybe tomorrow it will be some odd shape we've never even heard of before. Einstein proved that we can't travel through time, yet we have scientists saying that we might actually be doing just that very soon. Not to mention that scientists are constantly disagreeing with each other. At least the idea that God is the one and only true creator of everything has stayed the same since it was first recorded.

Don't get me wrong, I think that science is terrific, and that we need to constantly continue to expand and to grow. But, from a scientific standpoint, it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that God does not exist without proof that he doesn't. Until we can prove something one way or another, we should not throw out any idea as a possibility. To say that God does not exist without having proof that he doesn't is every bit as bad (from a strictly scientific standpoint) as saying that he is the cause behind everything we see without proof that he is.

EDIT:

They only left us with "skepticism is bad" and that we are not supposed to find out how God exists.

I forgot to mention that if you had read the Bible, then you would know that this is not true. God indeed encourages man to test his existence. He chooses to do so with things that hold monetary value. Essentially he says that if you donate money to him and his cause (in one way or another) that he will reward you greatly, and that you will never be plagued with issues of wealth for as long as you continue to give. God does say, however, that this is the one and only issue in which you should test him.

 

[der Astronom]

Have you even read the Bible? I'm thinking no. If you did, you clearly did not understand it, which I wouldn't blame you for, of course, considering most Christians don't even come close to understanding it.

I've read parts of it, but I can't be bothered to waste my time with a book that bores me to tears and is something I'd consider outdated. I actually get more out of reading something written by Oscar Wilde then reading about some horrible atrocities about how God is going to destroy some city and let people get away with slavery. As for the understanding part, it's probably more accurate to say that nobody really understands it truly, or that there is no one way of understanding it because everyone has different interpretations of it. So you can't be wrong for saying something as long as you can back up your claims. It's like any literary analysis; people can disagree with what is actually being said in a piece of literature, but there's no such thing as "the" right interpretation.

First of all, why would a book that is meant to bring people the knowledge that God is the one true omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and ever loving being that governs our every move (authoritarian? ok, we agree here) bother to stop and tell us why the earth was thought to be flat?

How should I know? That's just what it says. It's not necessarily stated there as a plain random fact, but something that the writers believed in, and even if they might not have thought much of it because they never believed someone could find out, it is a hint that they lack the scientific knowledge to know better. And by the way, the whole omnipotence thing is contradictory, as well as omniscience, when applied to free will.

That would just be plain off topic. And as for why the Earth was believed to be flat, well, it just seemed logical and the instruments to determine whether it really was or not just didn't exist. But to say that because they lacked some of what we would call "basic" reasoning behind their knowledge doesn't mean that they weren't scientific about obtaining knowledge.

And if it is off topic, maybe those bible writers weren't very good ones. You can't necessarily eliminate that concept just because it's the bible. If they assumed it was flat without bothering to find out, that would be considered a scientific dishonesty. The least they could have done was to admit they didn't know.

You can't really mean to tell me that these people didn't know how to create a, say, nice big fire, do you? I mean after all, they would have to understand at least some of the mechanics behind it, would they not? They obviously didn't understand it on a molecular scale, and probably weren't even 100% sure about the whole friction idea either. But that didn't mean that they didn't study and try to determine how these things worked. After all, if they just said "God made the fire. That is all I need to know". If they did then why did they ever try to do anything?

Just because you know how to do something doesn't necessarily mean you understand how it works. You can learn to make a fire, but you're not required to understand why putting flint with tinder creates a spark that leads to a fire, or the necessary chemical reactions involved with it. It's not science without the scientific method; if there was no hypothesis involved that was related to some observation, then it's not science. The act of putting flint to tinder is not science itself; questioning why putting flint with tinder creates a spark and creating a hypothesis around it does. To my knowledge, they didn't really start doing that until around Galileo's time. And actually, a lot of ancient civilizations believed that their gods or deities were responsible for fire.

A person who truly believes that God is the sole entity, the entire reason and cause behind every action and reaction in this world (as you state a Christian would) would never bother to create even the simple fire I'm referencing. Which would lead me to wonder: "Are the atheists truly the sole purpose I am at this computer typing to this person today? Did no Christian ever bother to lift a finger because he figured that God magically made all of these things happen?

Unless they really believed God told them to. Maybe they created the fire to kill their son because God told them to. In fact, they'll probably say that they're typing to me because God put me here so that I could debate with them.

Lets consider the following for a moment here. Let us say that there is, in fact, a God. He is truly everything the Bible says he is, and he truly did everything that it says he did. Now, nothing about our world would be different if this was true, because after all, this is what Christians believe and their world is the same as ours. Essentially what I am saying is, let us assume that God, today as we sit here, is absolutely real.

I usually only make assumptions to disprove something.

Does this really make a difference in our scientific community from a standpoint of what we have accomplished? Does it negate all we have come to know? No. Not one bit. In fact, all it would really change about our past observations, tests, studies, and records, is that the way our world works is not merely an accident (after all, that's about the best theory we have as far as science goes as to how exactly we all came into existence in the first place) but instead was designed that way.

I already mentioned that God has nothing to do with science, and the concept of whether or not we've been designed or we're an accident is purely speculation.

Lets look at another example. Lets say that one morning you awoke to find a strange unidentified object in your bedroom. You quickly rush and tell your best friend about it. When your best friend finally sees it, he says to you, and fully believes that, his "imaginary friend must have created it, it can't just be a fluke of nature, it's way too complex". You, on the other hand insist that whatever this thing is must have evolved into what you see from, well, what exactly you don't know, but some strange guy no one has ever heard of before just didn't make it out of thin air.

So, you begin to study it to find out how it works, how it really did get there, where exactly it came from, and most importantly, why it's there in the first place. After time you come up with many good ideas that you believe to be fact in regards to how it works and why it does some of the things it does. What you cannot seem to prove however, is where it came from, or why it's there. It does seem, however, that it may have possibly evolved from a dirty dinner plate underneath your mattress, it does, after all, share similar characteristics with the dinner plate.

You share your findings with your friend to try and dissuade him as to how it got there exactly, but your friend is not swayed and sticks to his theory. He agrees with you on how this thing works, and even why it does what it does, but not on how it got there.

Then, one day, seemingly from nowhere your friends' "imaginary" friend reveals himself to you, and it turns out that he is not so imaginary after all. This being is indeed, real. What's more, he did, in fact, create the thing you have been studying all this time.

Now, I ask you, does the fact that this being created the thing you were studying change anything about how and why it works and does the things it does? Of course not. All of your findings were still very scientific, although your theory on how it got there was a little flawed. The weird thing is that the once thought to be imaginary being did actually evolve the dinner plate to make this thing. So, in a way you were technically correct in everything you found to be scientifically true, but wrong in the one thing you couldn't seem to prove: whether it was evolved because of nature, or whether another being that you couldn't physically account for in one way or another created it. The only real difference that this creation theory changed about what you observed in your studies is that the theories and ideas that you recorded about it did not originate out of a fluke, but out of a specific design instead.

That's just an example of when evidence exists to show that there was a designer. I'm just not going to conclude something in which I have no evidence of.

So, I say to you, do you really still believe that these people had no scientific knowledge whatsoever? Sure, they probably didn't do as much research as we do now because the were able to just use the scape goat of "Well, God just made it that way", but that not only doesn't mean they weren't ever scientific, but it doesn't mean they were wrong either.

No, I still believe they didn't. The fact that science might not be able to determine whether we've been designed or born out of an accident does not change the fact that these bible writers had no scientific knowledge. It's completely irrelevant. If they had scientific knowledge, maybe they could have given me an experiment I could conduct so that I could see that God exists. The bible doesn't give us one.

Saying that "God did it" does not mean you failed as a scientist in any way. Scientist do not all agree that there is no God, but simply that they can't prove either way whether there is one or not. The issue they have is that if you can't seem to figure out how something works, or why things are they way they are, you shouldn't just go pointing your finger towards the heavens and state that something more powerful than the rest of the known universe must have been the only logical cause.

That is what I meant when I said saying "God did it" means you have failed as a scientist.

Scientists want simply to find the truth. I don't believe that any scientist would be angry if he managed to prove (on purpose, or accidentally) that God exists. In fact, I think he would be absolutely thrilled. He would certainly be revered as a sort of hero amongst human kind (most of them at least). To prove that God exists does nothing to harm our theories and ideas on how the universe works. It only answers the one question that we predict we will probably never find the answer to in our lifetime which is: "Are we all just a mathematical anomaly, or were we designed by a being much more intelligent than ourselves?"

You must also realize that most scientists aren't concerned with something as philosophical or theological as God. They don't care to prove his existence because their observations don't indicate anything about his existence. It may in the future, but if it's not observable, they don't care for it.

First of all, by saying that believing in Santa Claus is ridiculous you are only hinting at the fact that believing in something that we can prove to be false is unintelligent and counterproductive. You aren't degrading the entire belief system of a large group of human beings you live their life based on the belief that there is a higher being of sorts out there, and one you can't prove to be false at that.

Well naturally, since I believe faith is blind. It doesn't make sense to believe in things you don't know to be true, and it is especially a waste of time to believe in things that have already been shown not to be true. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at with the last part of that paragraph.

Besides all of that, the real issue I have is mostly with the words "fairy tales" to describe a religion that you can't prove isn't true. The only way I can really describe it better than I have is to say that you probably wouldn't be all too thrilled if a religious person said that they thought that science was silly because:

Well, think about it. How in the world can you simply turn water into wine? If the bible had been more scientific, maybe someone can conduct that experiment and show how you can turn water into wine. Or how about the global flood? Scientists have already found that it violates the laws of physics to do such a thing. Or how about when the bible says God causes natural disasters or weather? Meteorology has found a more adequate explanation to those things. Or how about the notion that black or Asian people are the descendants of Ham, Jews are descended from Shem and white people are descendants of Japheth? There has been no evidence that every single race spawned from the three sons of one parent all at once, but plenty of evidence to show that one came before the other (dark skin and dark hair, particularly), and that they evolved separately (as in not all from the same parent necessarily). Of course, the bible writers couldn't know that because they thought the Earth was only 6000 years old, and didn't know that this was happening before that. And seriously. When a book says the world is flat, they can't mean to be talking about the same, spherical world that we live in, can they?

"Why would I believe a bunch of close minded, know it alls, who say that God can't exist simply because they can't see it with their fancy little microscopes, or telescopes, or prove it with mathematical equations (which by the way, they came up with). I mean, how can I trust a group of people who manage to prove themselves wrong on major issues all the time? First the world was flat, then it was spherical. First it was the center of the universe, now we don't even know where exactly it is in relationship to the rest of the universe. First eggs were good for you, then they were bad for you, now they're good for you again. Science is nothing but a bunch of guessing! Every time they claim to know what they are talking about, another one proves them wrong and then they have to start all over again! They can claim they have all the 'facts' that they want to, at least what I believe in hasn't changed in thousands of years! God existed back then, and he still does now. Can you scientists say that about anything you have proven to be true?"

That's not news to me. I've seen people bashing atheists before. Unfortunately, I can't really join in on them because I'm not much of an atheist. I just choose not to believe in God because I don't believe in things I don't know exist. I don't care if people don't trust scientists or other people who don't believe in God; they're obviously hitting the strawman for two reasons; one being that science doesn't say God doesn't exist and scientists never said at one point that the world was flat. Even if it were, they'd only say that if they assumed scientists were perfect people, but then again, lots of laymen don't understand what science really is. Science may start with guessing, but it doesn't end there. Errors in science arise because we lack further observations that might make our current hypotheses wrong or inaccurate, or because of human error. But there is something to be said. Consider Newtonian physics for a moment. After Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum physics, this might have made Newtonian physics seem inaccurate in comparison. However, this does not mean that Newtonian physics is completely useless; on the contrary. In fact, it is capable of accurately predicting most of mechanics that we use on Earth today, and has useful applications. Scientists are not perfectionists; they are practical people. There is also a fallacy in the belief that science is a collection of fact. The fact is only a result; there is only so much you can do with the "facts" that are a result of the experiments. But the beauty and power of science does not come from the fact; it comes from the experiments which lead to the facts. Of course, I'd only be wasting my time with these people because there's lots they don't understand. I realize that maybe you're trying to say that I don't understand Christianity, and who knows; maybe it's true, maybe I don't understand religion. But that still doesn't mean I'm not allowed to voice my opinion of what I think it is. Maybe it's that I can't understand religion without taking away reason or logic, which is something I'd rather not do. It also means that I'm not trying to offend religious people. They can think what they want; that's none of my business. If they think I don't understand religion, I don't see how that's suppposed to offend them.

I mean, after all, they would have a point. The idea of "God" has been around and unchanged for thousands of years. Most scientific "facts" are merely babies in comparison. Not to mention, every day scientific "facts" are proven wrong. The Earth was flat before, now it's essentially spherical, maybe tomorrow it will be some odd shape we've never even heard of before. Einstein proved that we can't travel through time, yet we have scientists saying that we might actually be doing just that very soon. Not to mention that scientists are constantly disagreeing with each other. At least the idea that God is the one and only true creator of everything has stayed the same since it was first recorded.

You do realize that an authoritarian book that's been around for a long time would obviously remain unchanged. So of course the concept of God might remain unchanged. But if there's something for sure, that would be that God's existence hasn't been proven for a long time. Don't assume necessarily that just because it's been around for a long time that it must be right. The concept of God is only around for so long because people believe in it. But believing in something doesn't necessarily make it right. I view scientific fact being changed constantly as a good thing because it means that scientists are honest people who are willing to admit their mistakes. Again, scientists are not perfectionists; they are practical people. If they were wrong in their discoveries and tried to hide it, we might have lower standards of living and less technology. The fact that God's existence has been around for so long and remains unchanged is irrelevant. It only matters that we can show that he exists or not; if we cannot, then it is inconclusive and redundant until the evidence exists.

Don't get me wrong, I think that science is terrific, and that we need to constantly continue to expand and to grow.

Science making errors is a part of scientific growth. In fact, accidents and errors often lead to great discoveries, and I suppose few people acknowledge or realize that.

But, from a scientific standpoint, it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that God does not exist without proof that he doesn't. Until we can prove something one way or another, we should not throw out any idea as a possibility. To say that God does not exist without having proof that he doesn't is every bit as bad (from a strictly scientific standpoint) as saying that he is the cause behind everything we see without proof that he is.

I did not say God does not exist, nor did I say science has made any such claim. I only said I did not believe in God because I do not believe in things I do not know exist.

EDIT:
I forgot to mention that if you had read the Bible, then you would know that this is not true. God indeed encourages man to test his existence. He chooses to do so with things that hold monetary value. Essentially he says that if you donate money to him and his cause (in one way or another) that he will reward you greatly, and that you will never be plagued with issues of wealth for as long as you continue to give. God does say, however, that this is the one and only issue in which you should test him.

That is not true at all.

Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.

The fact that he's encouraging us to donate money to him only distracts the attention away from the fact that we're trying to figure out if he exists. The fact that you may get rewarded for donating money does not mean that God exists. Conversely, you may also receive no reward.

 

[OmniscientOnus]

I've read parts of it, but I can't be bothered to waste my time with a book that bores me to tears and is something I'd consider outdated. I actually get more out of reading something written by Oscar Wilde then reading about some horrible atrocities about how God is going to destroy some city and let people get away with slavery. As for the understanding part, it's probably more accurate to say that nobody really understands it truly, or that there is no one way of understanding it because everyone has different interpretations of it. So you can't be wrong for saying something as long as you can back up your claims. It's like any literary analysis; people can disagree with what is actually being said in a piece of literature, but there's no such thing as "the" right interpretation.

That is the same as the religious person saying: I can't sit down and learn and read all of these recorded facts, it's just boring (read an actual test study result some time, it is often more boring than the Bible) and therefore I'm not going to believe in science.

You have obviously opened up to the wrong parts of the book when you did decide to read parts. The whole thing isn't about God destroying and killing people. Most of it is about how he saves his people, and helps them, and guides them along. You should really stop saying that he's not but a murderer until you've read the whole thing and are able to get an idea of why he does some of those things.

There is a right way to interpret the Bible, just as there is a correct way to interpret each and every thing that has been written. The author had a purpose, and just because we may not be sure of it doesn't mean that there isn't an interpretation that the author meant to convey.

How should I know? That's just what it says. It's not necessarily stated there as a plain random fact, but something that the writers believed in, and even if they might not have thought much of it because they never believed someone could find out, it is a hint that they lack the scientific knowledge to know better. And by the way, the whole omnipotence thing is contradictory, as well as omniscience, when applied to free will.

Just because a being is omnipotent and omniscient doesn't mean we don't have free will. God is considered all powerful and all knowing, but chooses instead to let us make our own choices and decisions. That is why many Christians believe that we cannot see him or feel him or sense him, because if we could, how could we possibly not follow him? (Considering he is everything that he says he is). If he was truly everything he claims, and he just showed himself to us, we would all instantly bow, unless you had some sort of fetish for Satan or eternally suffering I suppose.

And if it is off topic, maybe those bible writers weren't very good ones. You can't necessarily eliminate that concept just because it's the bible. If they assumed it was flat without bothering to find out, that would be considered a scientific dishonesty. The least they could have done was to admit they didn't know.

I'm not sure how the Bible and the Earth being flat or not are at all related. It never says anything about the Earth's general shape in the Bible.

Just because you know how to do something doesn't necessarily mean you understand how it works. You can learn to make a fire, but you're not required to understand why putting flint with tinder creates a spark that leads to a fire, or the necessary chemical reactions involved with it. It's not science without the scientific method; if there was no hypothesis involved that was related to some observation, then it's not science. The act of putting flint to tinder is not science itself; questioning why putting flint with tinder creates a spark and creating a hypothesis around it does. To my knowledge, they didn't really start doing that until around Galileo's time. And actually, a lot of ancient civilizations believed that their gods or deities were responsible for fire.

The mere fact of knowing, and discovering, that putting flint and tinder together to create sparks, which if used on the right materials makes fire, is about as scientific as you can get. It wasn't just a big accident that it happened. Maybe the people who wrote the Bible didn't discover fire, but I'm sure in the 200 years or so it took to write it, they discovered something or other.

And people have been using scientific methods since long before Galileo. The simple idea to take two certain kinds of rock, strike them together near a pile of certain materials and thus create fire, has the scientific method written all over it.

Unless of course you want to try and tell me that everything that was discovered up until Galileo was all nothing but a freak accident. The wheel may have been found out in nature, but it didn't put itself on my wheelbarrow.

Unless they really believed God told them to. Maybe they created the fire to kill their son because God told them to. In fact, they'll probably say that they're typing to me because God put me here so that I could debate with them.

So, every action ever taken by any Christian to ever walk the Earth was because God told them to? No wonder you think Christianity is so ridiculous!

I usually only make assumptions to disprove something.

How very unscientific of you.

No, I still believe they didn't. The fact that science might not be able to determine whether we've been designed or born out of an accident does not change the fact that these bible writers had no scientific knowledge. It's completely irrelevant. If they had scientific knowledge, maybe they could have given me an experiment I could conduct so that I could see that God exists. The bible doesn't give us one.

If you continued to read on, you would know that they did.

That is what I meant when I said saying "God did it" means you have failed as a scientist.

At least we agree on something.

You must also realize that most scientists aren't concerned with something as philosophical or theological as God. They don't care to prove his existence because their observations don't indicate anything about his existence. It may in the future, but if it's not observable, they don't care for it.

How do you figure that they aren't?! What were all of those shows on the discovery channel about finding Noah's Ark all about? You are sadly mistaken to think that not one of your precious little scientists concerns him or her self with the existence of God. Millions have done nothing but.

And the things that are not observable are often our most sought after answers. Scientists didn't create the microscope because they thought it looked pretty. They created it to view something that was otherwise not observable. Scientist aren't as shallow minded as you to only try and observe the world they can see outright with no help. If a scientist had an idea of how he could build something to physically see Heaven and Hell, you damn well better believe that he'd be busting his ass to build it.

Well naturally, since I believe faith is blind. It doesn't make sense to believe in things you don't know to be true, and it is especially a waste of time to believe in things that have already been shown not to be true. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at with the last part of that paragraph.

The last sentence of that paragraph just referenced the first. By saying that believing in Santa Claus is ridiculous you are only ridiculing the idea of believing in something we know is not true. However, to call religious doctrines equal to fairy tales, you are ridiculing a belief system that has been in place for thousands of years, and could very well be true.

Well, think about it. How in the world can you simply turn water into wine? If the bible had been more scientific, maybe someone can conduct that experiment and show how you can turn water into wine. Or how about the global flood? Scientists have already found that it violates the laws of physics to do such a thing. Or how about when the bible says God causes natural disasters or weather? Meteorology has found a more adequate explanation to those things. Or how about the notion that black or Asian people are the descendants of Ham, Jews are descended from Shem and white people are descendants of Japheth? There has been no evidence that every single race spawned from the three sons of one parent all at once, but plenty of evidence to show that one came before the other (dark skin and dark hair, particularly), and that they evolved separately (as in not all from the same parent necessarily). Of course, the bible writers couldn't know that because they thought the Earth was only 6000 years old, and didn't know that this was happening before that. And seriously. When a book says the world is flat, they can't mean to be talking about the same, spherical world that we live in, can they?

Turning water into wine was a miracle. It was meant to be something that was outside of the realm of the world as we know it. It was meant to put the non-believers in their place. The mere fact that there is no experiment that we can create to see how he did it (because there is no way for anyone outside of an omnipotent being who could do such a thing) is thee ultimate slap in the face to everyone who says that science is the only answer.
The same goes for everything else that God chooses to do. You can't figure out how he did it because he isn't bound to your silly rules and guidelines that we are. He is omnipotent (ALL powerful), omniscient (ALL knowing), and omnipresent (EVERYWHERE at once). To think that such a being would have need for your fancy physics, or science, or would need to prove himself to you... ha, what a joke!
As for all the races, the Bible explains that with the tower of Babel.
And as for the book saying the Earth is flat...

READ THE BOOK before you make these assumptions.

Science making errors is a part of scientific growth. In fact, accidents and errors often lead to great discoveries, and I suppose few people acknowledge or realize that.

I recognize that to it's fullest. If scientist hadn't discovered some things on accident, I wouldn't be here (long story, far too off topic).

That is not true at all.

Both of those verses you referenced were God talking to Satan, not man. Once again I say, read the book if you want to have even an idea of what's going on in this particular part of the forums.
As you can clearly see, things are easily taken out of context when the Bible is quoted by verse. That is why in another thread I stated that if you want to quote the bible, it would be wise to quote more than just single sentence verses from one place. At least you did have two examples.

Also, I've come to the conclusion that I don't particularly care for religious debate, so I'm going to stop posting in here. I'm not just trying to get the last word or something, because I'll read whatever you have to say about what I posted. I just think that people's beliefs on religion are too strong to ever really be swayed, so debating them becomes fruitless. Especially when it ultimately boils down to two atheists/agnostic (I'm technically agnostic, not atheist, I don't know about you) debating religion, I just kind of perceive it as extra silly.

 

[der Astronom]

That is the same as the religious person saying: I can't sit down and learn and read all of these recorded facts, it's just boring (read an actual test study result some time, it is often more boring than the Bible) and therefore I'm not going to believe in science.

At least I'm not going to lie and say I know enough about religion to tell people I know what's right for them.

You have obviously opened up to the wrong parts of the book when you did decide to read parts. The whole thing isn't about God destroying and killing people. Most of it is about how he saves his people, and helps them, and guides them along. You should really stop saying that he's not but a murderer until you've read the whole thing and are able to get an idea of why he does some of those things.

But you can't ignore his destruction just because there are other parts of the bible that say he's loving. In fact, that would be contradictory, and I would be lead to believing his actions over the statements the bible makes about him. Don't dodge the fact that God has killed many people, and for reasons I do not agree with.

There is a right way to interpret the Bible, just as there is a correct way to interpret each and every thing that has been written. The author had a purpose, and just because we may not be sure of it doesn't mean that there isn't an interpretation that the author meant to convey.

Just because the author had a purpose in mind doesn't mean you can't interpret the book in any other way. Otherwise literature classes would be too black and white to be enjoyed. This is why we have literary analyses, because we may not understand the real intent the writer had in mind (by the way, that may also include controlling the masses), but we can try to interpret what it may be.

Just because a being is omnipotent and omniscient doesn't mean we don't have free will. God is considered all powerful and all knowing, but chooses instead to let us make our own choices and decisions.

I see you're not familiar with these ones. I will explain. If free will exists, then fate does not exist. If fate does not exist, this implies that God does not know the future. Since there is something that God does not know, he cannot be omniscient. If God must be omniscient and is required to know the future, then fate exists and whatever free will we have is meaningless. No matter what kind of a choice I make, there is someone who knows what I will choose, and that defeats the purpose of making any choice I desire. And don't tell me that Christians don't believe in that so it's not true; I've already told you that beliefs have nothing to do with what actually exists. As for omnipotence, it's a contradiction. If you wish, I can show you a complete and detailed proof for it.

That is why many Christians believe that we cannot see him or feel him or sense him, because if we could, how could we possibly not follow him? (Considering he is everything that he says he is). If he was truly everything he claims, and he just showed himself to us, we would all instantly bow, unless you had some sort of fetish for Satan or eternally suffering I suppose.

I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense. Are you telling me that people believe in him more because there's no evidence for him? I'm afraid that's a ridiculous statement because it's not logical or sensical to believe in things for which you cannot see. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but putting all your hopes in something that you can't see that possibly doesn't exist is a waste of time to me.

I'm not sure how the Bible and the Earth being flat or not are at all related. It never says anything about the Earth's general shape in the Bible.

Yes it does. There are plenty of verses that describe the Earth as having four pillars or corners, edges, cannot be moved and can be seen all at once (and spherical objects can't) or (and in a rather contradictory manner) being a circle. Either way, these imply that the Earth is flat, seeing that a circle is not a sphere, nor does it have corners, edges or pillars. Maybe they mentioned this mutually for a different purpose but nonetheless, it shows their ignorance of science, since they assume the Earth is flat.

The mere fact of knowing, and discovering, that putting flint and tinder together to create sparks, which if used on the right materials makes fire, is about as scientific as you can get. It wasn't just a big accident that it happened. Maybe the people who wrote the Bible didn't discover fire, but I'm sure in the 200 years or so it took to write it, they discovered something or other.

No it's not. Where's the hypothesis involved in this observation? Where are the experiments done to show or disprove something? Where are the results recorded? Why do we not have any conclusions that might explain why putting flint to tinder creates sparks? The simple discovery of putting flint to tinder by itself completely evades the scientific method, and is incomplete. Please do not argue about what is and isn't science if you do not know what it is. As I have already explained, there are lots of laymen who do not understand what science really is.

And people have been using scientific methods since long before Galileo. The simple idea to take two certain kinds of rock, strike them together near a pile of certain materials and thus create fire, has the scientific method written all over it.

You have yet to explain to me where the hypothesis, reports and conclusions are in all of this. If they had understood how flint and tinder create sparks, they would have been able to make matches sooner.

Unless of course you want to try and tell me that everything that was discovered up until Galileo was all nothing but a freak accident. The wheel may have been found out in nature, but it didn't put itself on my wheelbarrow.

That's an innovation, not science. Please learn to distinguish the difference.

So, every action ever taken by any Christian to ever walk the Earth was because God told them to? No wonder you think Christianity is so ridiculous!

I'm sure there are other less intense Christians, but they're usually the ones that denounce the bible and wouldn't be offended if I said the bible was just a mere fairytale.

How very unscientific of you.

If hypotheses were assumptions, they could be disproven, but never proven. There is nothing unscientific about creating a hypothesis so that it could be disproven. In fact, science is all about disproving, mostly. It would be unscientific to think that you could prove things in science though. How funny that someone who doesn't know what science is is telling me I'm being unscientific.

If you continued to read on, you would know that they did.


At least we agree on something.



How do you figure that they aren't?! What were all of those shows on the discovery channel about finding Noah's Ark all about? You are sadly mistaken to think that not one of your precious little scientists concerns him or her self with the existence of God. Millions have done nothing but.

Most of them are so called creation scientists, but they're hardly scientists. Please also learn to distinguish between real ones and creation scientists, who just attach the word "scientist" to their names just to make people treat them more seriously, even though they're being dishonest.

And the things that are not observable are often our most sought after answers. Scientists didn't create the microscope because they thought it looked pretty. They created it to view something that was otherwise not observable. Scientist aren't as shallow minded as you to only try and observe the world they can see outright with no help. If a scientist had an idea of how he could build something to physically see Heaven and Hell, you damn well better believe that he'd be busting his ass to build it.

Scientists didn't create the microscope because they believed in things they couldn't see; they created it because they were curious to see what certain objects looked like at larger magnifications. But they did not assume that there must have been something there; that would be putting the conclusion before the evidence. If they saw nothing there, they would have no problems accepting that. The problem is, there is no observation that leads us to thinking we could observe heaven or hell. It's not like the case of the microscope where when you see an infected piece of tissue, you want to see what it looks like in a larger magnification. What evidence in nature is there that leads us to heaven or hell? No scientist has found one. It's just something that was written about in a book that has no scientific credentials, nor can its "observations" be accounted for.

The last sentence of that paragraph just referenced the first. By saying that believing in Santa Claus is ridiculous you are only ridiculing the idea of believing in something we know is not true. However, to call religious doctrines equal to fairy tales, you are ridiculing a belief system that has been in place for thousands of years, and could very well be true.

Oh, now are you saying it could very well be true just because it's been around for thousands of years? I'm sorry, but that also sounds ridiculous. I happen to know why Christianity has been around for a long time, and it does not help its credibility much. Christianity has been around for a long time because people were persecuted for believing otherwise; scientists like Galileo got persecuted just for making his discoveries, and there were missionaries to make sure Christianity wouldn't go away, and furthermore, people have been driven in fear to believe in Christianity. And I recently read something by Richard Dawkins about how epidemology explains why Christianity is still around; you learn it from your parents when you're a child, and it's usually difficult for you to get away from it because you're programmed to believe whatever they say. Do these points make Christianity more likely to be true? No they don't. They only explain why it's still around. People being pressured to do something out of belief does not constitute evidence of any kind of truth.

Turning water into wine was a miracle. It was meant to be something that was outside of the realm of the world as we know it. It was meant to put the non-believers in their place. The mere fact that there is no experiment that we can create to see how he did it (because there is no way for anyone outside of an omnipotent being who could do such a thing) is thee ultimate slap in the face to everyone who says that science is the only answer.

Only if you believe it really happened. Since they don't have an experiment to show it could have happened, there is no credibility in that statement that water can be turned into wine.

The same goes for everything else that God chooses to do. You can't figure out how he did it because he isn't bound to your silly rules and guidelines that we are. He is omnipotent (ALL powerful), omniscient (ALL knowing), and omnipresent (EVERYWHERE at once). To think that such a being would have need for your fancy physics, or science, or would need to prove himself to you... ha, what a joke!
As for all the races, the Bible explains that with the tower of Babel.
And as for the book saying the Earth is flat...

There has been no evidence that something or someone exists that is not bound by the laws of physics or logic.
Unfortunately, the tower of babel story is also inaccurate as languages evolved and changed separately, and did not split all at once. If God had wanted people to completely not understand each other, then there would be no similarities between two different languages. It is often the case that there are. And again, the races didn't split all at once at one time; they did it gradually and eventually. This is just a flat out lie to explain something they were completely clueless about. And it also doesn't comply with the story of Ham, Shem and Japheth because either the races were descended from three sons or God split them up because they built the tower of babel. It can't be both or else that would be a contradiction.

READ THE BOOK before you make these assumptions.

I have read enough of it to know that it says the Earth has four pillars, corners, edges, looks like a circle (however that works), can be seen all at once and cannot be moved.

I recognize that to it's fullest. If scientist hadn't discovered some things on accident, I wouldn't be here (long story, far too off topic).

Yet throughout your post, you make it seem like science making errors or changing what it says is a bad thing in comparison to the concept of God existing for thousands of years, even though a concept existing for a long time does not make it necessarily more true or meaningful.

Both of those verses you referenced were God talking to Satan, not man. Once again I say, read the book if you want to have even an idea of what's going on in this particular part of the forums.
As you can clearly see, things are easily taken out of context when the Bible is quoted by verse. That is why in another thread I stated that if you want to quote the bible, it would be wise to quote more than just single sentence verses from one place. At least you did have two examples.

Actually, I would advise you to read that quote again because it says "Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"" If he had simply only been addressing Satan and it would not apply to anyone else at all, he wouldn't have bothered saying the bolded part.

Also, I've come to the conclusion that I don't particularly care for religious debate, so I'm going to stop posting in here. I'm not just trying to get the last word or something, because I'll read whatever you have to say about what I posted. I just think that people's beliefs on religion are too strong to ever really be swayed, so debating them becomes fruitless. Especially when it ultimately boils down to two atheists/agnostic (I'm technically agnostic, not atheist, I don't know about you) debating religion, I just kind of perceive it as extra silly.

Well, you were the one who jumped at my statements, even though I've tried to explain them as best I could.

 

[OmniscientOnus]

I know I said I was done posting here, and every letter I type makes me feel foolish that I feel the need to say even these few words. But to say that I do not know what science is, for whatever reason, has come very close to making me lose my temper.

Look up science in the dictionary before you criticize me for not knowing. Science isn't always as fancy and complicated, and difficult to understand, as you would like to make everyone believe. Science can be as simple as, and I quote from the American Heritage Dictionary:

"Knowledge, especially that gained through experience."

To make things a little easier on you, in case even that went over your head I will give this example:

Man hits his hand with a hammer. Man's hand hurt. Man connects the two (hitting his hand and the pain). Man has scientifically learned about the result of hitting his hand with a hammer.

You don't always have to go through a bunch of bullshit just to call it science. So why don't you take your high and mighty opinion on science and take it off the fucking pedestal you have been putting it on.

Also, if there is a God, he could possibly be omniscient and omnipotent. Since you obviously don't understand, let me explain. Just because a being knows what we are going to choose in the future, doesn't mean we don't have a choice in how we act. It simply means that he knows ahead of time. He is not making the choice for you, but simply already aware of how we are going to act.

I see how this may be confusing for you. After all, if he knows what you are going to do, then how can we say that you were able to choose differently? If you could say yes or no, and haven't decided yet, then how can he possibly know. Consider this possibility: what if the world has already been played out in front of his eyes, and now he God is basically watching us as if our lives were some kind of re-run. Impossible you say? Then you obviously don't understand the nature of God. If God is real, and the Christians are right (which is the only logical way to debate religion) then God is capable of doing the impossible. After all, as I've said before, God doesn't have to follow any rules or laws. It's very probable that you still don't understand how God works because he doesn't have to follow the same rules as you, so you of course try to use logic to reason him away, despite the fact he didn't have to follow any sort of logic to begin with. It's not a problem though. "Laymen" often have difficulty with this idea.

I'm sorry I lost my cool there. Ahem. It's just that in order to properly debate an issue, everyone has to be clear on exactly what is going on. And you sir, clearly do not. And furthermore, you have the gull to tell me what I do and do not understand. You make for a poor debater.

And with the knowledge you have just given me, that you clearly do not understand your own point of view well enough to debate mine, I will no longer be checking this thread, nor will I most likely be replying to any of your posts on any other thread. It's kind of sad actually. Up until this point, you had gained my interest, you voiced your opinions clearly and with basis, and you made me think.

 

[der Astronom]

I know I said I was done posting here, and every letter I type makes me feel foolish that I feel the need to say even these few words. But to say that I do not know what science is, for whatever reason, has come very close to making me lose my temper.

Look up science in the dictionary before you criticize me for not knowing. Science isn't always as fancy and complicated, and difficult to understand, as you would like to make everyone believe. Science can be as simple as, and I quote from the American Heritage Dictionary:

"Knowledge, especially that gained through experience."

So, you think that by quoting the dictionary, that you know what science is? I'm afraid it is a lot more complicated than you give it credit for. A lot of the lexicographers who wrote the definition of science weren't scientists, and don't necessarily have a clue as to what it entails. Having taken enough courses in university to know what science is (so don't go around telling me I don't know what it is), I know that science is not simply knowledge gained through experience. It is knowledge gained through observations that were thoroughly tested over, and over, and over again. Otherwise you are probably just speaking of a "science" that is casually used by laymen that does not actually refer to the science I'm speaking of.

To make things a little easier on you, in case even that went over your head I will give this example:

Man hits his hand with a hammer. Man's hand hurt. Man connects the two (hitting his hand and the pain). Man has scientifically learned about the result of hitting his hand with a hammer.

Not real science, I'm afraid. There has been no experiment used to determine what's actually going on inside the man's hand or his nerves that causes him to feel the pain. Or you're going to have to explain to me what kind of a hypothesis lead to this experiment of hitting the hand with the hammer, and what this tells us about the hypothesis.

You don't always have to go through a bunch of bullshit just to call it science. So why don't you take your high and mighty opinion on science and take it off the fucking pedestal you have been putting it on.

Only someone who doesn't understand science would say that. There are several requirements for science:

-It must be falsifiable.
-It must be observable (that is, science cannot be simply any study under the sun.)
-It must be objective.
-It must follow the scientific method (it must use the hypothesis-experiment-conclusion format)
-It must be peer reviewable, which means other people can look at it and criticize it.

That's alright if you didn't know that. Lots of people don't. Again, lots of people don't understand what science is, even though they think they do. It's not an easy subject to learn, and the media makes it harder.

Also, if there is a God, he could possibly be omniscient and omnipotent. Since you obviously don't understand, let me explain. Just because a being knows what we are going to choose in the future, doesn't mean we don't have a choice in how we act. It simply means that he knows ahead of time. He is not making the choice for you, but simply already aware of how we are going to act.

If we had a choice, then our choices would be redundant because someone knows the future. What's the point of choosing something that's already determined to happen? He's already passively made the choice for us and I don't have to make a choice because that future has already determined the choice or outcome I'm going to make.

I see how this may be confusing for you. After all, if he knows what you are going to do, then how can we say that you were able to choose differently? If you could say yes or no, and haven't decided yet, then how can he possibly know. Consider this possibility: what if the world has already been played out in front of his eyes, and now he God is basically watching us as if our lives were some kind of re-run. Impossible you say? Then you obviously don't understand the nature of God. If God is real, and the Christians are right (which is the only logical way to debate religion) then God is capable of doing the impossible. After all, as I've said before, God doesn't have to follow any rules or laws. It's very probable that you still don't understand how God works because he doesn't have to follow the same rules as you, so you of course try to use logic to reason him away, despite the fact he didn't have to follow any sort of logic to begin with. It's not a problem though. "Laymen" often have difficulty with this idea.

If I haven't made my choice, and he can't know that, then he's not omniscient. If our lives were being played like a video tape, then that's not much of free will, is it? The problem with believing the Christians are right is that the assumption has no evidence for it. There has been no evidence of any being or thing that violates the rules or laws of the universe, and I don't assume these things are true without the evidence. And laymen don't have a problem believing these things because they are illogical themselves, and most of them believe in God. Why don't you do me a favor and look up laymen yourself. Unlike science, this is one of those words you can simply look up in the dictionary.

I'm sorry I lost my cool there. Ahem. It's just that in order to properly debate an issue, everyone has to be clear on exactly what is going on. And you sir, clearly do not. And furthermore, you have the gull to tell me what I do and do not understand. You make for a poor debater.

The irony of it is that you don't understand what science is. Here you are, telling someone who has had years of experience with science, knowing full well what it is, that they don't understand science. How strange.

And with the knowledge you have just given me, that you clearly do not understand your own point of view well enough to debate mine, I will no longer be checking this thread, nor will I most likely be replying to any of your posts on any other thread. It's kind of sad actually. Up until this point, you had gained my interest, you voiced your opinions clearly and with basis, and you made me think.

You think I don't understand my point of view well because you're using your own definitions of science without understanding what they really are. I don't care if you choose not to check on this thread or don't understand science. That's your loss.

 

[OmniscientOnus]

Ok, ok, for some reason you really have the tendency to get on my nerves, so not only am I going back on what I said about not posting, but I think I'm going to stop saying that I'm not going to post. Obviously some part of me is not mature enough to let something stand. However, what I do have to say is short, and I am calm enough about it to state my point without being as harsh as I was last time.

Science can be considered everything you say it is when you refer to it by it's most common definition, or when you refer directly to the scientific process. Since you obviously have somewhat of a passion for the subject, I can see why you would anger when someone makes it out to be so simplistic. The fact of the matter here is that I would tend to agree with you. Science shouldn't be dumbed down to the point where everything is called scientific. That would just create chaos. On the other hand, when you use such a vague term as "science", you can't help but expect that some people are going to go by it's definition in the dictionary, which logically is the only place to have your terms defined. If we don't have something we all can agree on, we can't have a good debate. Language, I believe should be the first and most important issue that we all agree on. Nothing makes for a more redundant and pointless debate as two people arguing about something when, if they understood each other better, they would realize that they are on the same side).

Since the word science has many definitions, some making it exactly what you say it is, others making it very simplistic, I think that you should be more concise about exactly what terms you use. Make it very clear (as you did somewhat in your last post) that you are referring to science in the terms of the scientific process.

What I think you don't understand about my posts is that, first of all, in no way am I degrading science. I love science. I love the idea of learning by ways that will actually lead you to the true cause and reasons behind it. You have no idea how many times I have literally yelled at the TV when watching shows where people are supposed to be scientific. I'm always saying things like, "well, you didn't test this aspect of it," or "you can't just assume that!". The point I am trying to make is that I think you think that I don't like science, when in fact I love it. I think that too many people do just what I have done above and make science out to be no big deal, and then act like they understand what's going on.

The second thing I think you may not understand about my posts is that I am not always debating the side that I believe in. I find that too often everyone gets in the rut of agreeing with each other and it becomes difficult to find someone who can intelligently debate both sides of an issue. And since most devil's advocates are out there just to make the good debaters squirm in their seats, sometimes I jump in and act for them.

The final thing that I believe may just not be getting through to you (and most others I debate with) is the fact that often times I am not actually debating the subject at hand, but instead the am debating the use of words and the ability to use them laconically. You see, I am a big stickler on the proper usage of words. If I see someone using a term to define something that doesn't do it justice, or is too vague, I often speak out about it. This would be the case in my last post. I don't have a problem with you debating from a scientific point of view, and I certainly don't have a problem with science. My problem comes in when you try and say that a group of people had no concept of science. Of course they did. According to the definition of science, everyone uses science everyday, all day long. However, where most people lack is in the use of the scientific process, and more specifically, the use of it properly.

With that being said, I'm going to surrender my point of view in this thread (on the actual topic, not on my point on proper terminology) seeing as how it wasn't all too much of my own. The only real reason I even posted in the first place is because too often I see religion being bashed unnecessarily. Frankly, I don't like the lack of foresight on how certain wording of opinions may make others feel. I feel that it is only respectful that you voice your opinion in a way that is the most respectful as possible. For instance, you don't need to call the Bible a "fairy tale" book just because that is the way you feel about it. There are many other words in the English language that convey the same idea, but without the negative connotations.

Well, that wasn't really all that short. I just like to be completely clear on the ideas that I try to get across.

Finally, I would like to formally apologize for my actions earlier. I lost my temper and said some things that weren't all too nice. Even though proper usage of the English language (which is near impossible with all of the multiple meanings of almost every word) is one of my pet peeves, I should not have let it get the best of me. I hope you continue to be one of the top debaters as you have been up until now, but I also hope that you take my words under serious consideration and try to be as precise and accurate as possible when speaking on an idea. I know it really sucks, especially in the digital age where "lolz, u r so fnuny" passes off as a completely acceptable sentence to use in a conversation, I just think that in a debate forum we should be as clear, concise, and precise as possible so that we're not all getting mad when we're really all on the same page.

Thank you for your time, and once again I am sorry that this has turned into more of a personal issue than a real debate.

 

[der Astronom]

Ok, ok, for some reason you really have the tendency to get on my nerves, so not only am I going back on what I said about not posting, but I think I'm going to stop saying that I'm not going to post. Obviously some part of me is not mature enough to let something stand. However, what I do have to say is short, and I am calm enough about it to state my point without being as harsh as I was last time.

Science can be considered everything you say it is when you refer to it by it's most common definition, or when you refer directly to the scientific process. Since you obviously have somewhat of a passion for the subject, I can see why you would anger when someone makes it out to be so simplistic. The fact of the matter here is that I would tend to agree with you. Science shouldn't be dumbed down to the point where everything is called scientific. That would just create chaos. On the other hand, when you use such a vague term as "science", you can't help but expect that some people are going to go by it's definition in the dictionary, which logically is the only place to have your terms defined. If we don't have something we all can agree on, we can't have a good debate. Language, I believe should be the first and most important issue that we all agree on. Nothing makes for a more redundant and pointless debate as two people arguing about something when, if they understood each other better, they would realize that they are on the same side).

Well, I was referring to the complete definition of science, not the casual one the entire time. I assumed that was what we were talking about because we rarely ever bring the casual definition of science into a religion or creationism vs. evolution debate. Otherwise, you're just hitting the strawman there.

Since the word science has many definitions, some making it exactly what you say it is, others making it very simplistic, I think that you should be more concise about exactly what terms you use. Make it very clear (as you did somewhat in your last post) that you are referring to science in the terms of the scientific process.

The only true definition of science is the one I've defined for you. You can call the other ones a "casual" definition of science since it has little to do with real science.

What I think you don't understand about my posts is that, first of all, in no way am I degrading science. I love science. I love the idea of learning by ways that will actually lead you to the true cause and reasons behind it. You have no idea how many times I have literally yelled at the TV when watching shows where people are supposed to be scientific. I'm always saying things like, "well, you didn't test this aspect of it," or "you can't just assume that!". The point I am trying to make is that I think you think that I don't like science, when in fact I love it. I think that too many people do just what I have done above and make science out to be no big deal, and then act like they understand what's going on.

Then what's the need to compare the age of scientific fact with the age of the concept of God? Was that just devil's advocate? My friend was just going to suggest another example--the concept of vampires have been around for a long time, but that doesn't make their existence more credible.

The second thing I think you may not understand about my posts is that I am not always debating the side that I believe in. I find that too often everyone gets in the rut of agreeing with each other and it becomes difficult to find someone who can intelligently debate both sides of an issue. And since most devil's advocates are out there just to make the good debaters squirm in their seats, sometimes I jump in and act for them.

I'm aware devil's advocates exist, and I appreciate you for trying because it does make debate more interesting. What I'd really like to see is a devil's advocate that realizes the logical inconsistencies in my opponent's arguments and try to correct them with better arguments so that I might have more fun debating them.

The final thing that I believe may just not be getting through to you (and most others I debate with) is the fact that often times I am not actually debating the subject at hand, but instead the am debating the use of words and the ability to use them laconically. You see, I am a big stickler on the proper usage of words. If I see someone using a term to define something that doesn't do it justice, or is too vague, I often speak out about it. This would be the case in my last post. I don't have a problem with you debating from a scientific point of view, and I certainly don't have a problem with science. My problem comes in when you try and say that a group of people had no concept of science. Of course they did. According to the definition of science, everyone uses science everyday, all day long. However, where most people lack is in the use of the scientific process, and more specifically, the use of it properly.

Well, you can say that everyone is using the casual definition of science, but technically, it makes the real definition of science incomplete. That is, you're either performing an observation in which there is no hypothesis or you're performing an experiment in which the hypothesis, results and records are missing. If you were referring strictly to the casual definition of science, then that would be a strawman to my argument, since I'm speaking of the real definition of science. That is, real science did not exist when the bible writers existed.

With that being said, I'm going to surrender my point of view in this thread (on the actual topic, not on my point on proper terminology) seeing as how it wasn't all too much of my own. The only real reason I even posted in the first place is because too often I see religion being bashed unnecessarily. Frankly, I don't like the lack of foresight on how certain wording of opinions may make others feel. I feel that it is only respectful that you voice your opinion in a way that is the most respectful as possible. For instance, you don't need to call the Bible a "fairy tale" book just because that is the way you feel about it. There are many other words in the English language that convey the same idea, but without the negative connotations.

Do you have any suggestions? Because I sure don't.

Well, that wasn't really all that short. I just like to be completely clear on the ideas that I try to get across.

Well, thanks for coming back. I think we're kind of silly for getting so worked up over a simple definition.

Finally, I would like to formally apologize for my actions earlier. I lost my temper and said some things that weren't all too nice. Even though proper usage of the English language (which is near impossible with all of the multiple meanings of almost every word) is one of my pet peeves, I should not have let it get the best of me. I hope you continue to be one of the top debaters as you have been up until now, but I also hope that you take my words under serious consideration and try to be as precise and accurate as possible when speaking on an idea. I know it really sucks, especially in the digital age where "lolz, u r so fnuny" passes off as a completely acceptable sentence to use in a conversation, I just think that in a debate forum we should be as clear, concise, and precise as possible so that we're not all getting mad when we're really all on the same page.

Thank you for your time, and once again I am sorry that this has turned into more of a personal issue than a real debate.

Apology accepted.

 

[Crash]

Well of course it's a personal issue. God is either your personal savior or a confession of personal weakness. I like the miracles of science better, because they, y'know, exist. If you're not too caught up on your beliefs being true then yeah, maybe religion is for you.