What takes more faith to believe?

[BigCatDaddy]

This is regards to the creation of the universe

The nothing created something or the somethiing created something?

[milkman]

It's too damn early in the morning for philosophical questions like this.

[Simplex3]

I wish this was un-f**king-believable, but it's not here at Christ-Planet.

[Simplex3]

Hey mods, can we get an "I'm insecure about my religion so I feel the need to convince others I'm right to validate my beliefs" forum please?

[Hammock Parties]

How about not caring? Does that take faith? :rolleyes:

[BigCatDaddy]

How about not caring? Does that take faith? :rolleyes:


It looks like I struck a nerve with a few of you. I just thought it was interesting question. Maybe this board is the wrong place to discuss this. I apologize.

[jspchief]

How about not caring? Does that take faith? :rolleyes:No, that takes security.

Insecurity demands faith.

[trndobrd]

Hey mods, can we get an "I'm insecure about my religion so I feel the need to convince others I'm right to validate my beliefs" forum please?


Or a "Would someone please help my write my Philosophy paper?" Forum...

[tiptap]

Well it depends upon whether you see existence coming from the top down or from the bottom up. I do not know of anything that is complicated that isn't made up of zillions of little parts. That is what atomic philosophy is all about. So I only have to have some confidence that the small repeating parts were "created." However you contend that there is some source entity that is whole and unto itself, consistent and universal. I have never seen anything like that in the universe. Anything of distinction, that can be distinguished comes from building up from small repeating unit.

[el borracho]

It's the same; either one accepts that they cannot explain the origin of the universe or one accepts that they cannot explain the origin of the creator of the universe- either way, there is a point of origin beyond our understanding.

[Wrasse]

M-Theory takes some faith because I certainly cannot do the math.

[Zebedee DuBois]

Both positions take an essentially equal amount of faith. There is no observable data for either premise.

After the creation of the somethings (carbon, oxygen,etc), however, there is more data for the non-directed, rather than the directed, random building of more complex molecules.

[boogblaster]

We all came from a fungi..it just keeps regenerating.....

[Ugly Duck]

Definately takes more faith to belive the talking snake version.

[Uncle_Ted]

This isn't a perfect analogy, but I think it's still instructive:

Suppose you arrive at the scene of a building in the middle of nowhere that was destroyed long ago. You do not know whether it was destroyed intentionally or unintentionally, or whether it was caused by a fire, an explosion, a wrecking ball, termites, a natural disaster, whatever. There were no witnesses.

Even though no one saw what happened, trained investigators could examine the evidence left at the site (the condition of the rubble, the effect on the surroundings, the presence of chemicals, etc.), but there are no reports of weather conditions for the area that day it was destroyed. Depending on the findings the results may be conclusive, probable, or inconclusive. The investigators cannot agree on a definitive conclusion, but based on the evidence they have it narrowed down to a few possibilites (some of which are more likely to have happened than others), and a majority of them agree on one particular theory of how the building was destroyed. Many other potential causes can be definitively ruled out.

People who now live in the surrounding area claim to know what happened though. They all claim that a ray of light descended from the sky and destroyed the building. None of them saw it happen, none of them know anyone who saw it happen, but they all read about it in a book by a group of anonymous reporters who admit that they did not witness the event either, but claim that God told them that was what happened.

The reporters' account of the event may be correct. Let's assume or the sake of argument that it actually is correct, and that the physical evidence led the investigators astray. But the question is, which conclusion takes more "faith" to believe? The investigators' or the reporters'? Unless your definition of "faith" is radically different than the commonly accepted usage of the term, clearly it is the latter.

[Nightwish]

This is regards to the creation of the universe

The nothing created something or the somethiing created something?
That something has no origin, no beginning, yet still exists.

[Ugly Duck]

It looks like I struck a nerve with a few of you. No way.... if you had struck a nerve - this thread would have blown up bigtime. When you strike a Planet nerve, you'll know it.

[RealSNR]

Faith? Lord Xenu is SCIENCE. It takes no amount of faith because I KNOW he exists.

[sd4chiefs]

Here is the answer to all your questions.

http://www.venganza.org

[Rausch]

Faith? Lord Xenu is SCIENCE. It takes no amount of faith because I KNOW he exists.
ROFL

[unothadeal]

No, that takes security.

Insecurity demands faith.
Insecurity of what?

[htismaqe]

I wish this was un-f**king-believable, but it's not here at Christ-Planet.

There's far more people her that are anti-Christian than Christian.

And they're more vocal about it, too.

[luv]

Insecurity of what?
In anything other than yourself. If you have faith in yourself, you're likely not insecure.

[Bearcat]

It might be easier to believe something came from something instead of something coming from nothing, but where did the something come from so it could create something?

[Rain Man]

I got a nice visit at my house yesterday from a couple of gentlemen who wanted to talk about religion with me, but only their own beliefs.

It was kind of funny because they asked me my religious beliefs, and I told them that was private information. Then one of them looked past me, where I've got a life-size statue of an ancient Egyptian god in my entry.

"Is that Egyptian?"

"Yeah. And my beliefs are private."

[Rain Man]

It might be easier to believe something came from something instead of something coming from nothing, but where did the something come from so it could create something?

I believe that everything can come from anything, because if something can come from nothing then something can come from anything, which means that everything can come from anything if you believe that something can come from everything.

[Stewie]

Anything is something... and vice versa

And now back to something completely different... or similar... or a simile... ah, screw it.

[Ugly Duck]

It might be easier to believe something came from something instead of something coming from nothing, but where did the something come from so it could create something?The something that created the something had to come from nothing unless it came from some other something, etc., etc., etc..

[chop]

There's far more people her that are anti-Christian than Christian.

And they're more vocal about it, too.

Vocal? That's putting it mildly.

I think it's a shame that people here have to come out and be hostile against Christians. If a poster were to attack someone on their race here we would get the mods to interfere but people here seem to have the right to attack Christians as they see fit.

Flame away, I know what's going to happen now.

[Hammock Parties]

Nobody attacks Xtians until they start spamming their nonsense.

[chop]

Nobody attacks Xtians until they start spamming their nonsense.

Thanks for your input. I always knew you would add something special to the conversation.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I wish this was un-f**king-believable, but it's not here at Christ-Planet.



ROFL What? You don't want some Jesus Juice?

[Believer]

Vocal? That's putting it mildly.

I think it's a shame that people here have to come out and be hostile against Christians. If a poster were to attack someone on their race here we would get the mods to interfere but people here seem to have the right to attack Christians as they see fit.

Flame away, I know what's going to happen now.

anti-christian hostility? here??

nahhhhhh :shake:

[Stewie]

ROFL What? You don't want some Jesus Juice?

Now, that's funny!

[keg in kc]

You choose to believe what you believe, and whether the philosophy you choose to follow is supernatural in origin or anchored in our current understanding of science, in the end, whichever religion you choose, it comes down to the same degree of faith. Because, make no mistake, science is a form of religion, too, and whether you believe in a guy with a flowing white beard sitting on a cloud who snapped his fingers and made it all come to be, or that the universe sprang from a giant bang, it's all a matter of faith, a way to try to force reality to fit into the confines of our limited comprehension and understanding.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

You choose to believe what you believe, and whether the philosophy you choose to follow is supernatural in origin or anchored in our current understanding of science, in the end, whichever religion you choose, it comes down to the same degree of faith. Because, make no mistake, science is a form of religion, too, and whether you believe in a guy with a flowing white beard sitting on a cloud who snapped his fingers and made it all come to be, or that the universe sprang from a giant bang, it's all a matter of faith, a way to try to force reality to fit into the confines of our limited comprehension and understanding.


Well said.

[keg in kc]

As for the 'attacking' of Christians, perhaps if there was less trolling for said attacks, they'd happen a bit less often. There's an awful lot of martyrdom going on lately.

[htismaqe]

Nobody attacks Xtians until they start spamming their nonsense.

As a completely unbiased 3rd-party (I'm neither Christian nor do I harbor them any ill will) I have to respectfully, but vehemently, disagree.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

As a completely unbiased 3rd-party (I'm neither Christian nor do I harbor them any ill will) I have to respectfully, but vehemently, disagree.


I disagree too. A lot of people who are anti Christian look at them as silly for their beliefs. While I believe in God, I am not Christian and have been guilty of this in the past as well. It's difficult for anyone to be objective in this situation because everyone believes SOMETHING.

[Believer]

who created science?

[Pants]

Vocal? That's putting it mildly.

I think it's a shame that people here have to come out and be hostile against Christians. If a poster were to attack someone on their race here we would get the mods to interfere but people here seem to have the right to attack Christians as they see fit.

Flame away, I know what's going to happen now.

Religion is a choice, you ****tard.

[keg in kc]

If someone other than goatcheese had said that, I might agree. He's sort of on his own with that as far as I'm concerned, being a fairly notorious troll himself. What I said, however, I stand by. I think there are some folks on here who post certain things in a pretty blatant effort to draw anti-christian bs, so they can then turn around and say "see! everybody hates christians!" Sort of poking the dog with a stick, so to speak. And then acting the victim when the dog bites back. Trolling 101.

The other side of the aisle is guilty of the same thing. I don't think there's a whole lot of innocent and geniune desire to talk about religion here. It's what I like to call "DC behavior" on the main board.

[htismaqe]

I don't think there's a whole lot of innocent and geniune desire to talk about religion here. It's what I like to call "DC behavior" on the main board.

Bingo.

Unfortunately, it's not limited to religion.

Just about ever topic nowadays is discussed in this fashion, INCLUDING the Chiefs.

[Hammock Parties]

If someone other than goatcheese had said that, I might agree. He's sort of on his own with that as far as I'm concerned, being a fairly notorious troll himself.

It's true. How many people do you see going out of their way to post "GOD SUCKS TO HELL WITH CHRISTIANS" threads?

[htismaqe]

It's true. How many people do you see going out of their way to post "GOD SUCKS TO HELL WITH CHRISTIANS" threads?

As a mod, I saw quite a few threads hijacked with that very sort of thing, even though the threads in question weren't even remotely evangelical.

[Bearcat]

I believe that everything can come from anything, because if something can come from nothing then something can come from anything, which means that everything can come from anything if you believe that something can come from everything.
Good point....

Came from nothing -> Terrell Owens
Came out of no where -> Franco Harris
Came from a black hole -> Al Davis
Came out of a black hole -> Rod Woodson
Came out of a black hole to go to Heaven, then CBS -> Marcus Allen
Came from Hell -> Mike Shanahan
Came from Canada -> Mike Vanderjagt

[Adept Havelock]

who created science?

It's called Google. Look into it.

While far from the best source, here's a good starting point for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

[Rain Man]

Vocal? That's putting it mildly.

I think it's a shame that people here have to come out and be hostile against Christians. If a poster were to attack someone on their race here we would get the mods to interfere but people here seem to have the right to attack Christians as they see fit.

Flame away, I know what's going to happen now.


If you think it's bad here, you should visit a Lions board.

[keg in kc]

If you think it's bad here, you should visit a Lions board.Did you just tell him to go to hell?!?!

[Gonzo]

http://www.adultswim.com/games/biblefight/index.html

[Uncle_Ted]

You choose to believe what you believe, and whether the philosophy you choose to follow is supernatural in origin or anchored in our current understanding of science, in the end, whichever religion you choose, it comes down to the same degree of faith. Because, make no mistake, science is a form of religion, too, and whether you believe in a guy with a flowing white beard sitting on a cloud who snapped his fingers and made it all come to be, or that the universe sprang from a giant bang, it's all a matter of faith, a way to try to force reality to fit into the confines of our limited comprehension and understanding.

I respectfully disagree. Equating science with religion on the "faith" scale is a red herring to deflect criticism of religion and attack science. Comparing science and religion is comparing apples to oranges.

Most scientists are NOT atheists, and they do not worship at the altar of science. Yet they seem to get along just fine having both a "spiritual" life and a "scientific" life. The truth is that no religion can meet the elements necessary to consider itself a "science", nor will science ever be able to answer the fundamental question of whether God exists and what role He plays in the creation and ongoing existence of the universe. Both science and religion are necessarily the subject of philosophical inquiry, but the nature of their fundamental truths are NOT the same.

So why is this important? Because some religious sects have long attempted to inject their religious beliefs into the realm of science, to either suppress or trump science, because they believe that scientific investigation of the fundamental nature of the universe is incompatible with and threatens their religious beliefs. That's why a lot of people (whether religious or not) throw such a fit whenever "creationism" (now rebranded as "intelligent design") is taught in public schools -- because it isn't "science", it doesn't belong in science class, and it shouldn't be taught as scientific fact.

[tiptap]

If you think it's bad here, you should visit a Lions board.

They feed Christians to the Lions still. Oh my.

[keg in kc]

I respectfully disagree. Equating science with religion on the "faith" scale is a red herring to deflect criticism of religion and attack science. Comparing science and religion is comparing apples to oranges. I'm an atheist, so the idea that I'm deflecting criticism of religion or attacking science is...well, a joke.

What I stated was what I believe to be true. The fact that some individuals choose both "science" and "religion" in their belief structure, rather than one or the other, supports my view, and I in fact, never stated that the two have to be in conflict or opposition. I never stated that religion is a form of science, nor would I, being a belief structure based not on observable reality but on superstition, although I do believe that science is a religion, to a large degree. Essentially what I'm saying is that both are cut from the same philosophical cloth, that both are assigned the same task, that being to fit the universe at large into our current, limited understanding. They both seek to answer the greater questions, such as who we are, why we're here, and where we come from.

Both can arrogant, both can be righteous, and both involve a degree of faith.

And, while I'm thinking about it, I don't limit "religion" to Christianity, or even western (or modern) religions. Whether it's a pantheon of Greek or Norse gods, the holy trinity, ancient tribal spirits or reductionism butting heads with quantum indeterminacy, it's all about choosing what interest you vest your belief and faith in. "Belief" is in fact probably the key word.

[Logical]

You choose to believe what you believe, and whether the philosophy you choose to follow is supernatural in origin or anchored in our current understanding of science, in the end, whichever religion you choose, it comes down to the same degree of faith. Because, make no mistake, science is a form of religion, too, and whether you believe in a guy with a flowing white beard sitting on a cloud who snapped his fingers and made it all come to be, or that the universe sprang from a giant bang, it's all a matter of faith, a way to try to force reality to fit into the confines of our limited comprehension and understanding.


I find it hard to believe anyone does not realize they have faith in something. Now whether I would call that religion, no I don't think I would.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "If God created the universe, who created God?"

Nice tautology, OP.

[keg in kc]

I find it hard to believe anyone does not realize they have faith in something. Now whether I would call that religion, no I don't think I would.I think it is comparable to religion, because in many cases it involves established groups of people who have a vested interest (or should I say "tenure") in maintaining the status quo, passing on their belief structures to future generations of scientists. Because, in my view, science itself, be it physics or "natural" sciences, is often very, very conservative, in terms of resistance to change and the consideration of new, often 'heretical' views.

[Herzig]

I respectfully disagree. Equating science with religion on the "faith" scale is a red herring to deflect criticism of religion and attack science. Comparing science and religion is comparing apples to oranges.

Most scientists are NOT atheists, and they do not worship at the altar of science. Yet they seem to get along just fine having both a "spiritual" life and a "scientific" life. The truth is that no religion can meet the elements necessary to consider itself a "science", nor will science ever be able to answer the fundamental question of whether God exists and what role He plays in the creation and ongoing existence of the universe. Both science and religion are necessarily the subject of philosophical inquiry, but the nature of their fundamental truths are NOT the same.

So why is this important? Because some religious sects have long attempted to inject their religious beliefs into the realm of science, to either suppress or trump science, because they believe that scientific investigation of the fundamental nature of the universe is incompatible with and threatens their religious beliefs. That's why a lot of people (whether religious or not) throw such a fit whenever "creationism" (now rebranded as "intelligent design") is taught in public schools -- because it isn't "science", it doesn't belong in science class, and it shouldn't be taught as scientific fact.

I couldn't have said this better myself. As a science teacher and a Catholic Christian, I couldn't agree more. I believe in God, the Big Bang, and the theory of Evolution. In fact, most "mainstream" Christians believe in Theistic Evolution.

[DaneMcCloud]

I couldn't have said this better myself. As a science teacher and a Catholic Christian, I couldn't agree more. I believe in God, the Big Bang, and the theory of Evolution. In fact, most "mainstream" Christians believe in Theistic Evolution.

I've said this before on the 'Planet (and to others) and I'll say it again, since you're a science teacher. Jesus, Mohammed and any of the so-called prophets could have EASILY proven that they were either God on Earth or were in direct communication with God by proclaiming one of the following three simple declarations:

1. The Earth is not flat. It's round.
2. The Earth revolves around the Sun. The Universe does not revolve around the Earth.
3. Hey Jews, let's pack up and go some place that we won't be persecuted. Like North America!

These are three very simple principles that would have taken all the guess work and "faith" out of the equation.

Can someone please explain why this didn't happen?

[keg in kc]

I couldn't have said this better myself. As a science teacher and a Catholic Christian, I couldn't agree more. I believe in God, the Big Bang, and the theory of Evolution. In fact, most "mainstream" Christians believe in Theistic Evolution.Back when I was Catholic, about 15 years ago, we called this Creative Evolution.

[RealSNR]

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "If God created the universe, who created God?"

Nice tautology, OP.So where did all of the matter in the universe come from? What's up with all these hydrogen atoms floating around? Was it just there?

It goes both ways.

[Uncle_Ted]

I'm an atheist, so the idea that I'm deflecting criticism of religion or attacking science is...well, a joke.

What I stated was what I believe to be true. The fact that some individuals choose both "science" and "religion" in their belief structure, rather than one or the other, supports my view, and I in fact, never stated that the two have to be in conflict or opposition. I never stated that religion is a form of science, nor would I, being a belief structure based not on observable reality but on superstition, although I do believe that science is a religion, to a large degree. Essentially what I'm saying is that both are cut from the same philosophical cloth, that both are assigned the same task, that being to fit the universe at large into our current, limited understanding. They both seek to answer the greater questions, such as who we are, why we're here, and where we come from.

Both can arrogant, both can be righteous, and both involve a degree of faith.

And, while I'm thinking about it, I don't limit "religion" to Christianity, or even western (or modern) religions. Whether it's a pantheon of Greek or Norse gods, the holy trinity, ancient tribal spirits or reductionism butting heads with quantum indeterminacy, it's all about choosing what interest you vest your belief and faith in. "Belief" is in fact probably the key word.

I apologize if I offended you ... pretty much everyone I've ever encountered who espouses that "science" is grouded on
"faith" was coming from a different belief system than yours with a particlular goal in mind -- the one that I was attacking.

Nevertheless, I still think your argument is deeply flawed. Just because both may have arisen out of the desire to better understand the universe and its origins, the methodologies employed by each couldn't be more different. Example: If 2 people are trying to call forth a rainstorm, and the first does a rain dance while the second dumps dry ice into the clouds, you can say that both efforts arise from the same effort to make rain, but to equate the two methods as both relying on eqaul quantities of "faith" in their methods is silly. Maybe both methods are equally successful, and some people may think that both are equally effective methods of calling forth rain, but neither method of achieving the result has anything to do with the other. The rain dancer won't have a "scientific" answer for why he was successful, and the cloud-seeder's explanation of success has nothing to do with his beliefs -- whether the latter "believes" his method will work or not is irrelevant. Science and religion can be in opposition to each other, or they can be thought of as in harmony, it doesn't matter because they are on different "planes of existence", so to speak. Apples and oranges.

I understand what you are saying ... that some atheists essentially make "science" their core belief system to the exclusion of any "religious" belief system. But what I'm saying is that having "faith" in science and having "religious faith" are not the same kind of "faith" -- they are different concepts based upon fundamentally different methods for examing and understanding the universe. I think the English language is lacking in this regard, and I'm guessing there are some languages that don't use the same word to describe the two kinds of "faith" we are talking about here. (Sort of how "loving" the Chiefs, "loving" your wife, and "loving" your mother are all different concepts.)

Science is based on the physical laws of the universe; religious faith has nothing to tell us about the physical laws of the universe. Just because some people rely solely on one to the exclusion of the other, and others are to reconcile them within their own belief systems, having "faith" in religion and having "faith" in science are not the same thing.

[keg in kc]

Science is based on the physical laws of the universe; religious faith has nothing to tell us about the physical laws of the universe.This is the flaw with what you're saying, and the main point behind what I am. Many of the "physical laws of the universe" come with the caveat "as we understand them", and many are assumptions made on information that is either incomplete or eventually proven to be incorrect. Science is arrogant, in thinking that mankind is master of its universe, that we understand an iota of how things work, as arrogant as religion in basing its fundamental belief structures on things that cannot be proven to be true, or by forcing "reality" to match what science wants it to be. Beyond that, there's a lot of bad science, where research is done not simply for the sake of advancing knowledge, but rather it's done to prove a preconceived notion or preexisting point. There's a lot of assumptions and leaps in logic, where holes are filled with theory and conjecture. And that's how science is like religion. That's where the arrogance and the self-righteousness breeds.

500 years from now, the 'science' of today will be looked at the same way as we look at 'science' from 3000 years ago. We're the ancient Greeks, we may understand some of the basics, but we think we know it all. When the reality is we don't know anything. We're infants, barely even crawling, thinking we're ready to run a marathon.

Just how I see things.

[chop]

If you think it's bad here, you should visit a Lions board.
People like you think they have some sort of right to treat others with disrespect and, if they don't like it, they can leave.

[tiptap]

This is the flaw with what you're saying, and the main point behind what I am. Many of the "physical laws of the universe" come with the caveat "as we understand them", and many are assumptions made on information that is either incomplete or eventually proven to be incorrect. Science is arrogant, in thinking that mankind is master of its universe, that we understand an iota of how things work, as arrogant as religion in basing its fundamental belief structures on things that cannot be proven to be true, or by forcing "reality" to match what science wants it to be. Beyond that, there's a lot of bad science, where research is done not simply for the sake of advancing knowledge, but rather it's done to prove a preconceived notion or preexisting point. There's a lot of assumptions and leaps in logic, where holes are filled with theory and conjecture. And that's how science is like religion. That's where the arrogance and the self-righteousness breeds.

500 years from now, the 'science' of today will be looked at the same way as we look at 'science' from 3000 years ago. We're the ancient Greeks, we may understand some of the basics, but we think we know it all. When the reality is we don't know anything. We're infants, barely even crawling, thinking we're ready to run a marathon.

Just how I see things.

This is like saying Newton's theory of gravity was wrong. That isn't so. It was incomplete. Einsteins theory now supercedes Newtons but for non moving frames of reference and non moving objects within the frame Einsteins Theory looks just like Newtons. (Well Einstein gives us an explanation what gravity is lacking in Newtons). There are out and out wrong theories especially early in investigations. But most of the present understanding will not be proven wrong simply incomplete and will be extended to a larger set of circumstances. However it should be noted that you use theory and conjecture as being about guessing. While scientists use theory to talk about a system that has been shown to be correct over a wide range of circumstances. There is no guessing involved at that point only application of the theory to the physical system with an understanding of the range of variables possible outcomes. You know, say how much would you weigh on the moon as a simple extention of gravitational system. That is quite different from what religion offers as a system with any consistent discrete verifiable predictions that we can point to.

[KCChiefsMan]

so what do ya guys think about teaching evolution in schools? :p

[DaneMcCloud]

People like you think they have some sort of right to treat others with disrespect and, if they don't like it, they can leave.

Huh???

[keg in kc]

This is like saying Newton's theory of gravity was wrong. That isn't so. It was incomplete. Einsteins theory now supercedes Newtons but for non moving frames of reference and non moving objects within the frame Einsteins Theory looks just like Newtons. (Well Einstein gives us an explanation what gravity is lacking in Newtons). There are out and out wrong theories especially early in investigations. But most of the present understanding will not be proven wrong simply incomplete and will be extended to a larger set of circumstances. However it should be noted that you use theory and conjecture as being about guessing. While scientists use theory to talk about a system that has been shown to be correct over a wide range of circumstances. There is no guessing involved at that point only application of the theory to the physical system with an understanding of the range of variables possible outcomes. You know, say how much would you weigh on the moon as a simple extention of gravitational system. That is quite different from what religion offers as a system with any consistent discrete verifiable predictions that we can point to.This is probably a point I'm not getting across: in the context of this discussion, you have to think in terms of the layman, not the scientist. There are millions of people who believe in the truth of evolution, for instance, or the structure of matter, or any of a number of areas of science, without understanding any more than the basics. If they even understand that much. I count myself in this group; I don't know anything, honestly, about evolution, beyond the idea of "survival of the fittest", but I believe it to be true. And that makes it, by its very nature, a matter of faith. For me, and for anyone like me, who isn't up to his eyebrows in biology.

And eveyone has to be like that, to a degree. Because no matter how intelligent you are, there's no way you can know everything. You have to rely on the judgement of others, and trust that their conclusions are valid. That, again, is faith.

[Logical]

People like you think they have some sort of right to treat others with disrespect and, if they don't like it, they can leave.
Are you really a member of this BB?

I take it this is sarcasm.

[Uncle_Ted]

This is the flaw with what you're saying, and the main point behind what I am. Many of the "physical laws of the universe" come with the caveat "as we understand them", and many are assumptions made on information that is either incomplete or eventually proven to be incorrect. Science is arrogant, in thinking that mankind is master of its universe, that we understand an iota of how things work, as arrogant as religion in basing its fundamental belief structures on things that cannot be proven to be true, or by forcing "reality" to match what science wants it to be. Beyond that, there's a lot of bad science, where research is done not simply for the sake of advancing knowledge, but rather it's done to prove a preconceived notion or preexisting point. There's a lot of assumptions and leaps in logic, where holes are filled with theory and conjecture. And that's how science is like religion. That's where the arrogance and the self-righteousness breeds.

500 years from now, the 'science' of today will be looked at the same way as we look at 'science' from 3000 years ago. We're the ancient Greeks, we may understand some of the basics, but we think we know it all. When the reality is we don't know anything. We're infants, barely even crawling, thinking we're ready to run a marathon.

Just how I see things.

I see your point, and maybe you are in a field where your contact with arrogant scientists is pervasive, but I've never seen scientists to be nearly as arrogant and inflexible about their understanding of the universe as religious fundamentalists are. Of course some become wedded to their pet theories, or refuse to give due weight to contrary evidence, but that's hubris and ego -- faith in themselves not the science. All the physicists I've ever known (i.e., most of my friends from college) were acutely aware of the gaps in scientific knowledge that exist. It was those gaps that motivated them and still drives the careers of several of them.

Sure there's lots of "bad science", and of course the explanations and theories of past scientists were usually wrong, but that's what science is ... it starts with trial and error (mostly error) which leads to reproducable results, which in turn provide evidence upon which to base theories that attempt to explain the observations. Theories are subjected to the scrutiny of others and are tweaked/modified/rejected over time as more knowledge accumulates and technological advances allow for better measurement and observational techniques. New techniques, new discoveries, new theories and new mathematics accumulate and expand our knowledge of the universe. Religious beliefs cannot be "tested" and proven or disproven in the same way. Which is why if you are religious, you've got to have faith.

You can talk about all the things that we don't know, and sure when you compare it to "infinite knowledge" it might not amount to much, but that doesn't mean that science is some sort of hocus pocus that does not increase our understanding of the universe. The technological advances of the last century are very real and are based on that science, and would seem so mysterious as to be like magic to anyone who lived even a few hundred years ago. As for the ancient Greeks, they would have attributed our weapons, medicine, and other technological advancements to their gods ... now that's "faith"!

[Slick32]

If you think it's bad here, you should visit a Lions board.

Last time you sent someone there Daniel messed up their whole day!

[Ugly Duck]

But what I'm saying is that having "faith" in science and having "religious faith" are not the same kind of "faith" -- they are different concepts based upon fundamentally different methods for examing and understanding the universe.

You go, Uncle Ted. Many religionists even go so far out that they claim "science is a religion because there is an element of faith involved." They kinda slip back & forth between the different definitions of "religion" as if they are the same. They are not:

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

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

The same kinda religionists equate the Scientific Theory of Evolution with "evolution is just a theory." I'd suggest that them folks break out a dictionary..... but then their fallicious arguments would fall flat, so they won't.

[ClevelandBronco]

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "If God created the universe, who created God?"

IMO, God created more than just the universe. He created everything we experience, including linear time. There must have been a creation event for the universe, which clearly has a measurable, recordable and predictable past, present and future. However, there is no necessary creation event necessary for a Creator that exists outside of linear time.

God was not created. God is the Great "I Am." He's not the Great "I Was," nor the Great "I Will Be." YHVH has existed forever before and will exist forever to come only as the present tense, "I Am," no creation necessary, thank you.

That's just one way to look at it, of course.

[Uncle_Ted]

This is probably a point I'm not getting across: in the context of this discussion, you have to think in terms of the layman, not the scientist. There are millions of people who believe in the truth of evolution, for instance, or the structure of matter, or any of a number of areas of science, without understanding any more than the basics. If they even understand that much. I count myself in this group; I don't know anything, honestly, about evolution, beyond the idea of "survival of the fittest", but I believe it to be true. And that makes it, by its very nature, a matter of faith. For me, and for anyone like me, who isn't up to his eyebrows in biology.

And eveyone has to be like that, to a degree. Because no matter how intelligent you are, there's no way you can know everything. You have to rely on the judgement of others, and trust that their conclusions are valid. That, again, is faith.

OK, that's interesting. I'm starting to think that maybe we've been talking past each other a bit. What I think you are saying is that because science is increasingly becoming more and more complex, a person not familiar with a particular field basically has to take scientific pronouncements (like global warming, for instance) "on faith", and that is the same as taking religious pronouncements "on faith".

I think you are right in that every day we put our trust (our "faith") in the accomplishments, techniques, knowledge, and works of others. But that still isn't the same concept as having "religious faith". Religious faith is the belief in matters that cannot be proven or disproven by science. That's why faith in the scientific method isn't the same thing ... it provides its own means of testing itself.

[DaneMcCloud]

IMO, God created more than just the universe. He created everything we experience, including linear time. There must have been a creation event for the universe, which clearly has a measurable, recordable and predictable past, present and future. However, there is no necessary creation event necessary for a Creator that exists outside of linear time.

God was not created. God is the Great "I Am." He's not the Great "I Was," nor the Great "I Will Be." YHVH has existed forever before and will exist forever to come only as the present tense, "I Am," no creation necessary, thank you.

That's just one way to look at it, of course.

So, who created "God"? How can anything just "Be"?

[Pants]

IMO, God created more than just the universe. He created everything we experience, including linear time. There must have been a creation event for the universe, which clearly has a measurable, recordable and predictable past, present and future. However, there is no necessary creation event necessary for a Creator that exists outside of linear time.

God was not created. God is the Great "I Am." He's not the Great "I Was," nor the Great "I Will Be." YHVH has existed forever before and will exist forever to come only as the present tense, "I Am," no creation necessary, thank you.

That's just one way to look at it, of course.

Yeah, except this concept is not comprehendable by the human mind.

[Ugly Duck]

IMO, God created more than just the universe. He created everything we experience, including linear time. There must have been a creation event for the universe, which clearly has a measurable, recordable and predictable past, present and future. However, there is no necessary creation event necessary for a Creator that exists outside of linear time.

You need to study up on relativity. If all matter existed at singularity before the Big Bang, then Einstein's Theory of General Relativity tells us that time could not exist at that point. Therefore, the phrase "before the universe" has no meaning because "before" is a description of time (which did not exist at singularity). Time began at the Big Bang.... as we all know time is dependent upon matter. So your Creator may exist outside of time, but so did the universe at singularity.

[keg in kc]

OK, that's interesting. I'm starting to think that maybe we've been talking past each other a bit. What I think you are saying is that because science is increasingly becoming more and more complex, a person not familiar with a particular field basically has to take scientific pronouncements (like global warming, for instance) "on faith", and that is the same as taking religious pronouncements "on faith".

I think you are right in that every day we put our trust (our "faith") in the accomplishments, techniques, knowledge, and works of others. But that still isn't the same concept as having "religious faith". Religious faith is the belief in matters that cannot be proven or disproven by science. That's why faith in the scientific method isn't the same thing ... it provides its own means of testing itself.Honestly, what I think it comes down to is basic human nature. We take sides. We choose what to believe, and then we stand by that belief regardless of whatever evidence there is to substantiate it. You can see it in a microcosm on this board, whether it's about the Chiefs, or lefties and righties bickering on DC. Global warming, which you mentioned, is a perfect example, as well.

In the context of this thread, I think "science" is (for the layman) less about the scientific method than it is about the label itself. I think in a way, it is seen as sort of an omiscience, and there's a conscious choice to put one's faith in the hands of the scientist caste, rather than the religious caste. The fact that followers of science believe their tenets can be proven objectively still doesn't differentiate it from religion, where followers also believe their tenets can be proven, whether it's through the bible or prophecy, or any of a number of ways.

And again, the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. One can believe in science and religion both, particularly if said individual believes that their divinity or pantheon of choice is the origin of science. Deism, the religion this country was essentially founded on, is an example of that.

[ClevelandBronco]

You need to study up on relativity. If all matter existed at singularity before the Big Bang, then Einstein's Theory of General Relativity tells us that time could not exist at that point. Therefore, the phrase "before the universe" has no meaning because "before" is a description of time (which did not exist at singularity). Time began at the Big Bang.... as we all know time is dependent upon matter. So your Creator may exist outside of time, but so did the universe at singularity.

I think we agree, even though you may not agree completely with the following: Until the moment of Creation, the universe was only was His "idea" (I don't know what else to call it), at which point it existed outside of time. At the instant of "singularity" (or the instant that the "idea" became creation), it was confined by linear time.

[ClevelandBronco]

Honestly, what I think it comes down to is basic human nature. We take sides. We choose what to believe, and then we stand by that belief regardless of whatever evidence there is to substantiate it. You can see it in a microcosm on this board, whether it's about the Chiefs, or lefties and righties bickering on DC. Global warming, which you mentioned, is a perfect example, as well.

In the context of this thread, I think "science" is (for the layman) less about the scientific method than it is about the label itself. I think in a way, it is seen as sort of an omiscience, and there's a conscious choice to put one's faith in the hands of the scientist caste, rather than the religious caste. The fact that followers of science believe their tenets can be proven objectively still doesn't differentiate it from religion, where followers also believe their tenets can be proven, whether it's through the bible or prophecy, or any of a number of ways.

And again, the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. One can believe in science and religion both, particularly if said individual believes that their divinity or pantheon of choice is the origin of science. Deism, the religion this country was essentially founded on, is an example of that.

Your statements on the subject at hand are probably the most refreshing opinions I've read in several years of visiting various discussion forums.

[HolmeZz]

Vocal? That's putting it mildly.

I think it's a shame that people here have to come out and be hostile against Christians. If a poster were to attack someone on their race here we would get the mods to interfere but people here seem to have the right to attack Christians as they see fit.

Flame away, I know what's going to happen now.

It must've been tough being born Christian.

[RealSNR]

So, who created "God"? How can anything just "Be"?You avoided my previous post, so I'll say this again. How can all the energy in the universe just "be"? It had to come from somewhere. What's up with all these atoms we have around here? How did they get here?

[Thig Lyfe]

I'll go with C) Carl Peterson

[elvomito]

I think we agree, even though you may not agree completely with the following: Until the moment of Creation, the universe was only was His "idea" (I don't know what else to call it), at which point it existed outside of time. At the instant of "singularity" (or the instant that the "idea" became creation), it was confined by linear time.thanks for bringing that up. i've never heard anyone in these little arguments ever consider the fact that time may not be absolute, but i've believed it for a long time(maybe a little time dilation?).
perhaps God made everything and our attempt to reverse-engineer that process leads us to describe it as evolution(since we are going from bottom-up)? so, the whole creation of earth and the universe could have happened less than 10,000yrs ago but all of our science says it was 4+bn... both can be true at the same time.

[tiptap]

thanks for bringing that up. i've never heard anyone in these little arguments ever consider the fact that time may not be absolute, but i've believed it for a long time(maybe a little time dilation?).
perhaps God made everything and our attempt to reverse-engineer that process leads us to describe it as evolution(since we are going from bottom-up)? so, the whole creation of earth and the universe could have happened less than 10,000yrs ago but all of our science says it was 4+bn... both can be true at the same time.

Let me first just say when you state there is a time dilation involving the universe that is measured on supreme being scale of 10,000 you have imposed that absolute scale to measure this universe's time by. That absolute notion is what is completely dismissed by Einsteins General Theory of Gravity. There is no ticking clock outside the universe that measures time differently.

But I admit this idea is hard to get across. The traditional explanation of General Theory of Gravity is thinking of existence as a pliable mat that is deformed and everything is embedded in that mat, including time. But we look at the deformation standing outside the mat and it supports the notion that there is some absolute reference to make that observation. That is not true.

[jidar]

lolo

[KC Kings]

This is like saying Newton's theory of gravity was wrong. That isn't so. It was incomplete. Einsteins theory now supercedes Newtons but for non moving frames of reference and non moving objects within the frame Einsteins Theory looks just like Newtons.

The problem with any science vs. religion debate, is that 99% of the people from both sides can't offer any educted oppinion on the matter. The theory of evolution as a lot of holes in it, as do most theories. Even Einsteins theory of gravity has some quesitonable pieces to it and the unit created to measure gravity isnot quantifiable. The major difference between religion and science is this...

Science: A theory might be incomplete, but one works to fill in the gaps assuming the theory as a whole is correct until proven otherwise.

Religion: A theory might be incomplete, but one knows in their hearts that it is correct, and belives the theory as a while is correct without needing physical proof.

If the Bible is the infallable word of God, then the earth was created 6,000 years ago. The ice age never happened, and there is something seriously flawed with carbon dating. There is a small group of Christians that do believe this, but most modify their interpreatation of the Bible to believe that the 6 days were "periods of time" and not 24 hour days, or believe that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth...", creatures evolved to ape like creatures that resemble man, then something happened to destroy all of the creatures "and the earth was void." That is a lot to happen inbetween vs 1 and 2, but it is a way to fill in the gap.

The theory of evolution is very intersting, and nobody who has ever read or taken a class on the Origin of Species will ever say that it is complete or unquestionable. Something as simple as reproduction is very interesting because at some point most creatures went from being asexual to needing to find an opposite sex mate that was in the same evolved state as they were to reproduce with.

[Amnorix]

Wait ----- either the universe was created by nothing or something, in which case God is the thing that was "created by nothing".

So (blasphemously stated): you ask us to question whether there must have been a chicken (God) to create the egg (the universe), but then I wonder if God him/her/itself didn't need to have come from an egg...

Ugggg...busy at work. I'll exit this thread now. :)

[Amnorix]

thanks for bringing that up. i've never heard anyone in these little arguments ever consider the fact that time may not be absolute, but i've believed it for a long time(maybe a little time dilation?).
perhaps God made everything and our attempt to reverse-engineer that process leads us to describe it as evolution(since we are going from bottom-up)? so, the whole creation of earth and the universe could have happened less than 10,000yrs ago but all of our science says it was 4+bn... both can be true at the same time.


Read Stephen Hawking's Brief History of the Universe for details on this.

[BucEyedPea]

Time does not exist.
The manifestation of change is what we refer to as time.

Theory of relativity is an arbitrary.

[DaneMcCloud]

You avoided my previous post, so I'll say this again. How can all the energy in the universe just "be"? It had to come from somewhere. What's up with all these atoms we have around here? How did they get here?

Sorry, I didn't see that it was directed towards me. I didn't avoid you.

That being said, I don't have the explanation. If I did, I'D be looked upon as a god of some sort.

[Believer]

Science is fact?

So is Pluto a planet this week or is it not?

[Slick32]

So, who created "God"? How can anything just "Be"?

Ever heard of 

[Adept Havelock]

Time does not exist.
The manifestation of change is what we refer to as time.

Theory of relativity is an arbitrary.

So time does not pass in an absolute vacuum? There is no change, so by your theory, there is no time.

:hmmm:....according to my math book, if Time does not exist, neither does Space.

If that's the case, as Charlie Pace once said..."Guys, where are we?"

Science is fact?

So is Pluto a planet this week or is it not?


Yep, Science is based on facts. A constantly "evolving" process of learning facts without reference to the supernatural, leprechauns, or the flying spaghetti monster. Unless they can be proven by the Scientific Method, in which case they no longer belong to the realm of the "Supernatural".

For more information, here's a decent start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

BTW- Differences over categorization is not the same as quibbling over it's existence. Pluto, the mass of rock and ice exists. It exists even if we call it a planet, a planetoid, a moon, or a self-sealing stimbolt.


Amnorix- Right on! :thumb:

[HolmeZz]

Science is fact?

So is Pluto a planet this week or is it not?

Why did God make Pluto?

[Slick32]

Science is fact?

So is Pluto a planet this week or is it not?

I went to Disney last week. Pluto is a big fluffy dog.

[tiptap]

The problem with any science vs. religion debate, is that 99% of the people from both sides can't offer any educted oppinion on the matter. The theory of evolution as a lot of holes in it, as do most theories. Even Einsteins theory of gravity has some quesitonable pieces to it and the unit created to measure gravity isnot quantifiable. The major difference between religion and science is this...

Science: A theory might be incomplete, but one works to fill in the gaps assuming the theory as a whole is correct until proven otherwise.

Religion: A theory might be incomplete, but one knows in their hearts that it is correct, and belives the theory as a while is correct without needing physical proof.

If the Bible is the infallable word of God, then the earth was created 6,000 years ago. The ice age never happened, and there is something seriously flawed with carbon dating. There is a small group of Christians that do believe this, but most modify their interpreatation of the Bible to believe that the 6 days were "periods of time" and not 24 hour days, or believe that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth...", creatures evolved to ape like creatures that resemble man, then something happened to destroy all of the creatures "and the earth was void." That is a lot to happen inbetween vs 1 and 2, but it is a way to fill in the gap.

The theory of evolution is very intersting, and nobody who has ever read or taken a class on the Origin of Species will ever say that it is complete or unquestionable. Something as simple as reproduction is very interesting because at some point most creatures went from being asexual to needing to find an opposite sex mate that was in the same evolved state as they were to reproduce with.

Just for the record I have read Origin of the Species and it is incomplete because the mechanism of genetics wasn't known. Around 1904 the Hardy Weinberg equation for population genetics was started. Later Dr. Fisher, of Student T test in statistics, worked out the equation to a greater detail to include evolution. This process works wonderfully for sexually generated species. The premises of Hardy Weinburg is that the allele (gene) frequency in a population will not change from generation to generation and two that the allele ferquencies of mendalean trait (dominant recessive) is described fully by binomial expresion of p squared ptimesq and q squared that accounts for genotype (the expression of gene) frequencies. Complex process may be covered by more than one gene so that a more smooth distribution can exist (say how tall one is as opposed to blue eye OR brown eye) as many genes may be involved in expression. This represent the null hypothesis. That there is no selection, there is no mutation, there is no migration, there are no chance events and individuals mate at random. If this is the case then allele frequencies do not change. Each of these conditions have there own range (read complex play for example Natural Selection) of failing to meet premise and as a result allele frequencies CHANGE WITHIN THE POPULATION. Two seperated populations will show different rates and direction of change in allele frequencies and over many generations can become incompatible sexually. Each of the 5 conditions can be tested and therefore falsified. Add time to this and one gets the Modern Synthesis of Biological Descent with Modification. Because of this even creationist say this is true. They simply add that there is some inherent limit that stops the process leading to changes from "one kind to another." Inherent within this statement is the unsubstantiated notion that there are fixed kinds not unlike the notion of elements in Chemistry. The modern limiting process is trumpeted as Irreproducable Complexity. I will skip showing why this fails. I don't know you would follow not because you can't, simply I don't know the level of your understanding. I will simply say for the origins of sexuality we still have in very primitive one cell organisms transfers of DNA that increase the rate of change and passes new information in bacteria illustrated by resistance to antibiotics between widely different species. Full sexual reproduction increases the rate of incorporating successful genes in a population. So successful that once started it became quite competitive with bacteria and other established asexual organisms. But the change would have always been in a population of organisms that progressed in step to more fully sexual mitigated reproduction. There would have always been a body of organisms with mutually conducive method of transferring genetic material. It is within a population that evolution takes place.

[tiptap]

Science is fact?

So is Pluto a planet this week or is it not?

Pluto didn't disappear say like talking snakes or asses. Didn't quit continuing in motion unlike the the earth and moon needed to stop moving to allow the sun and moon to quit moving across the sky by Joshua's command (and then start up again). Simply the designation of definitions to better represent the different astronomical bodies in the solar system.

[Halfcan]

I like the Big Bang thing. It sounds cool.

[Nightwish]

Science is fact?

So is Pluto a planet this week or is it not?
Science, by its very nature is always changing, always growing, always learning new things and recasting the big picture as new information becomes available. Science is never wrong, but scientists and theories sometimes are. Reputable and responsible scientists admit when they are in error, and they make amends to their theories as need be. It's called falsifiablity, and it is what makes science a much, much, much better, more rational focus than religion will ever be. That's not to say that there is no place for religion - to be certain, there is. It is a very valuable and constructive tool, when used properly. But it has its proper place, and when religion starts trying to preempt science and change the facts to fit the theories, as religion so often does (science, when it is responsible science, changes theories to fit the facts, not vice versa), it makes itself look pretty foolish.

[tommykat]

I'm an atheist, so the idea that I'm deflecting criticism of religion or attacking science is...well, a joke.

What I stated was what I believe to be true. The fact that some individuals choose both "science" and "religion" in their belief structure, rather than one or the other, supports my view, and I in fact, never stated that the two have to be in conflict or opposition. I never stated that religion is a form of science, nor would I, being a belief structure based not on observable reality but on superstition, although I do believe that science is a religion, to a large degree. Essentially what I'm saying is that both are cut from the same philosophical cloth, that both are assigned the same task, that being to fit the universe at large into our current, limited understanding. They both seek to answer the greater questions, such as who we are, why we're here, and where we come from.

Both can arrogant, both can be righteous, and both involve a degree of faith.

And, while I'm thinking about it, I don't limit "religion" to Christianity, or even western (or modern) religions. Whether it's a pantheon of Greek or Norse gods, the holy trinity, ancient tribal spirits or reductionism butting heads with quantum indeterminacy, it's all about choosing what interest you vest your belief and faith in. "Belief" is in fact probably the key word.

Just hitting on your first line.....I have never seen or heard an atheist on his/her death bed not ask "God" help me. Nor in a foxhole in war. Just ask someone that has been there.

[papasmurf]

Just hitting on your first line.....I have never seen or heard an atheist on his/her death bed not ask "God" help me. Nor in a foxhole in war. Just ask someone that has been there.


There are no atheist in a foxhole.

[Nightwish]

Just hitting on your first line.....I have never seen or heard an atheist on his/her death bed not ask "God" help me. Nor in a foxhole in war. Just ask someone that has been there.
I've been there, and I've seen it. I haven't been in the foxhole, but I've been at an atheist's deathbed, and not once did he ask for "God," at least not out loud. He simply died, and beyond that is anyone's guess.

[tommykat]

There are no atheist in a foxhole.

That came from a person that was in Vietnam.......he should know.

Believe as you will, one day you will understand. I just hope not to late.

[elvomito]

Read Stephen Hawking's Brief History of the Universe for details on this.do you mean "a brief history of time?"

[Slick32]

There are no atheist in a foxhole.

I heard that first on M*A*S*H

[Slick32]

I've been there, and I've seen it. I haven't been in the foxhole, but I've been at an atheist's deathbed, and not once did he ask for "God," at least not out loud. He simply died, and beyond that is anyone's guess.

Oh hell yes, one instance sets the standard for all. Your argument is without merit.

[Nightwish]

Oh hell yes, one instance sets the standard for all. Your argument is without merit.My argument is without merit? What argument would that be? He said to "ask someone who has been there." As someone "who has been there," I felt it appropriate to respond. Thus my argument was simply that I have been at the deathbed of an atheist who did not call out for God. Unless you want to accuse me of lying outright, then you really don't have much grounds for claiming that argument is without merit. Note that nowhere did I make the argument that "most atheists don't call for God on their deathbeds." I have no idea if that argument would have merit or not, just as you honestly have no idea if the implied argument that "most atheists do call for God on their deathbed (or in a foxhole)" has any merit. It's certainly a fashionable thing for anti-atheists to say (in a bumper sticker sort of way), but whether it holds water is entirely another story.

[Ugly Duck]

I think we agree, even though you may not agree completely with the following: Until the moment of Creation, the universe was only was His "idea" (I don't know what else to call it), at which point it existed outside of time. At the instant of "singularity" (or the instant that the "idea" became creation), it was confined by linear time.Most interesting.... we come from opposite perspectives & yet seem to describing essentially the same thing (using verbage biased towards our chosen perspective, of course). You Donk-loving bastard.

[tiptap]

My argument is without merit? What argument would that be? He said to "ask someone who has been there." As someone "who has been there," I felt it appropriate to respond. Thus my argument was simply that I have been at the deathbed of an atheist who did not call out for God. Unless you want to accuse me of lying outright, then you really don't have much grounds for claiming that argument is without merit. Note that nowhere did I make the argument that "most atheists don't call for God on their deathbeds." I have no idea if that argument would have merit or not, just as you honestly have no idea if the implied argument that "most atheists do call for God on their deathbed (or in a foxhole)" has any merit. It's certainly a fashionable thing for anti-atheists to say (in a bumper sticker sort of way), but whether it holds water is entirely another story.

Let's take the example of Darwin. A Christian, lady Hope, tried to say that she had seen Darwin and he had recanted and called upon God on his deathbed. It turns out, by way of Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was a christian, that this women never got to talk to Darwin and Darwin offered no recanting of his findings. Religious people are always looking to state people call upon god at death. It isn't true for Buddhist's either. They are atheistic though they believe in reincarnation. Certainly it isn't the same though that they pray to god at death.

[DaFace]

My argument is without merit? What argument would that be? He said to "ask someone who has been there." As someone "who has been there," I felt it appropriate to respond. Thus my argument was simply that I have been at the deathbed of an atheist who did not call out for God. Unless you want to accuse me of lying outright, then you really don't have much grounds for claiming that argument is without merit. Note that nowhere did I make the argument that "most atheists don't call for God on their deathbeds." I have no idea if that argument would have merit or not, just as you honestly have no idea if the implied argument that "most atheists do call for God on their deathbed (or in a foxhole)" has any merit. It's certainly a fashionable thing for anti-atheists to say (in a bumper sticker sort of way), but whether it holds water is entirely another story.

Yep. I stay out of these threads except as a lurker, but there's a lot of ignorance about atheism going on in here, and this comment is spot on.

[Slick32]

My argument is without merit? What argument would that be? He said to "ask someone who has been there." As someone "who has been there," I felt it appropriate to respond. Thus my argument was simply that I have been at the deathbed of an atheist who did not call out for God. Unless you want to accuse me of lying outright, then you really don't have much grounds for claiming that argument is without merit. Note that nowhere did I make the argument that "most atheists don't call for God on their deathbeds." I have no idea if that argument would have merit or not, just as you honestly have no idea if the implied argument that "most atheists do call for God on their deathbed (or in a foxhole)" has any merit. It's certainly a fashionable thing for anti-atheists to say (in a bumper sticker sort of way), but whether it holds water is entirely another story.

I feel that you are just arguing your side of the pool. You have professed to be a wiccan so you opinion might be one sided. I have not heard a single atheist say a word on their death bed, but I have heard a couple call out "God Help ME" when in a situation that was inherently dangerous. My two "I heard's" are just as loosly acceptable as your never having heard the one person say a word.

The claims are without merit when no documented evidence exists.

[Slick32]

Yep. I stay out of these threads except as a lurker, but there's a lot of ignorance about atheism going on in here, and this comment is spot on.


Yep, spot on yer ass!

[DaFace]

Yep, spot on yer ass!

How...how did you know about that?

[tiptap]

Oh hell yes, one instance sets the standard for all. Your argument is without merit.

let's see. Both of my in-laws were atheists. Neither one of them, my mother in law with cancer or my father in law by heart attack ever came close to calling upon god and I was there. And yet they are two of the most generous and interesting people I have had the pleasure to know. And while my father in law wasn't in a foxhole when he died, he was in the Phillipines during WWII and was usually one of the first in directing the establishment of airfields so had bullets fly his way. All the time refusing to carry a gun. (His degree was from Harvard)

[Slick32]

How...how did you know about that?

There were pictures last week. Didn't you post them?

[Slick32]

let's see. Both of my in-laws were atheists. Neither one of them, my mother in law with cancer or my father in law by heart attack ever came close to calling upon god and I was there. And yet they are two of the most generous and interesting people I have had the pleasure to know. And while my father in law wasn't in a foxhole when he died, he was in the Phillipines during WWII and was usually one of the first in directing the establishment of airfields so had bullets fly his way. All the time refusing to carry a gun. (His degree was from Harvard)

Dude! You've been around totally too many people dying. That is really a shame.

[DaFace]

I feel that you are just arguing your side of the pool. You have professed to be a wiccan so you opinion might be one sided. I have not heard a single atheist say a word on their death bed, but I have heard a couple call out "God Help ME" when in a situation that was inherently dangerous. My two "I heard's" are just as loosly acceptable as your never having heard the one person say a word.

The claims are without merit when no documented evidence exists.

I think the issue that I have with the previous statement is that the phrase "There are no atheists in foxholes." is an incorrect generalization. While there may be some people who call themselves atheists that may change their mind when the situation is dire, there are certainly many that do not.

Simplifying the logic, if you say that all balloons are blue, and I show you one that is red, I have disproved your supposition. That's what Nightwish did.

[tiptap]

Dude! You've been around totally too many people dying. That is really a shame.


Sure I should only love people enough to be with them in the best of times and not at the end.

[Nightwish]

I feel that you are just arguing your side of the pool. You have professed to be a wiccan so you opinion might be one sided.
You might want to rethink that argument. Wiccans are theists, so if my opinion is one-sided, and I am arguing "my side of the pool," then I would be siding with those who believe in God. Wiccans are on the other side of the pool from atheists. However, I'm not so much an avowed Wiccan anymore as an agnostic neopagan ... and agnostics aren't atheists, either.

[stevieray]

I always find it amusing that the people who don't believe God spend more time in these threads trying to make their case than those who do..

[Nightwish]

Let's take the example of Darwin. A Christian, lady Hope, tried to say that she had seen Darwin and he had recanted and called upon God on his deathbed. It turns out, by way of Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was a christian, that this women never got to talk to Darwin and Darwin offered no recanting of his findings. Religious people are always looking to state people call upon god at death. It isn't true for Buddhist's either. They are atheistic though they believe in reincarnation. Certainly it isn't the same though that they pray to god at death.
It reminds me of Constantine (I think), who has been mistaken for a Christian by the church for many years, because he recognized the wisdom in turning the Christian warriors to his cause rather than against him, by declaring Christianity the official religion of Rome (which wouldn't have stood in the way of anything, because "official religion" didn't really mean much of anything to the Romans). They take what was in reality a clever manipulation of Christians, and invent (as far as anyone can tell) a story that he supposedly converted to Christianity on his deathbed. Only two problems with that: 1) there isn't a shred of historical evidence that he did any such thing, and 2) if his gathering of the Christians into his fold meant that he was a Christian, then why would he wait until his deathbed many years later to actually make the conversion?

[tiptap]

I always find it amusing that the people who don't believe God spend more time in these threads trying to make their case than those who do..

I went 15 of more years ignoring Christians and their beliefs and then suddenly Christians are using the government to advance their particular religious beliefs like creationism and a notion of end time beliefs that guide decisions about our foreign policy. If these things enter the public arena they require a response.

[chagrin]

I went 15 of more years ignoring Christians and their beliefs and then suddenly Christians are using the government to advance their particular religious beliefs like creationism and a notion of end time beliefs that guide decisions about our foreign policy. If these things enter the public arena they require a response.

All I will say about that statement is that non-believers such as Agnostics, Atheists, etc also lobby the government for their own agenda as well, there is no difference here. Stevie has a valid point - non-believers are the ones who will do everything possible to try and prvoe there is no God. But what's funny is how it always comes down to one single argument for them, "if I can't see it I do not believe it" even when it's all around you, including your beloved Science.

[donkhater]

I've only read part of this thread (mainly the very interesting dialogue between keg and Uncle Ted). I feel compelled to throw my own views into this.

I have a PhD in organic chemistry while at the same time consider myself Catholic.

I have to agree with Uncle Ted's view on this. Belief in science is different than belief in a higher being. The two don't have to be exclusive of the other. In fact, the more I learn about biology, microbiology, chemistry and physics, the more I am CONVINCED of a divine creator.

Being aware of the complexity of living organisms and the perfection in which they operate makes it harder for me NOT to believe in God. I echo keg's observation that perhaps many who do espose a belief in science do so on faith and not from any real investigation of their own. Who exactly is the one being brainwashed?

I have my own theory for the popularity of atheism. (Mind you that this pertains only to those who have not undergone a real philisophical journey of self reflection).

People subscribe to atheism so as to act and live on this earth as they choose without eternal consequences. Living and acting in accordance to the laws and wishes of a higher power is too difficult, so if they choose to believe he doesn't exist, then their conscience is clear.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[C-Mac]

Since we are still waiting on a scientist to re-create even the most simple form of life, I'm sticking with the thought that something created the scientist.

[tiptap]

I've only read part of this thread (mainly the very interesting dialogue between keg and Uncle Ted). I feel compelled to throw my own views into this.

I have a PhD in organic chemistry while at the same time consider myself Catholic.

I have to agree with Uncle Ted's view on this. Belief in science is different than belief in a higher being. The two don't have to be exclusive of the other. In fact, the more I learn about biology, microbiology, chemistry and physics, the more I am CONVINCED of a divine creator.

Being aware of the complexity of living organisms and the perfection in which they operate makes it harder for me NOT to believe in God. I echo keg's observation that perhaps many who do espose a belief in science do so on faith and not from any real investigation of their own. Who exactly is the one being brainwashed?

I have my own theory for the popularity of atheism. (Mind you that this pertains only to those who have not undergone a real philisophical journey of self reflection).

People subscribe to atheism so as to act and live on this earth as they choose without eternal consequences. Living and acting in accordance to the laws and wishes of a higher power is too difficult, so if they choose to believe he doesn't exist, then their conscience is clear.

Just my 2 cents worth.

You grant that the would-be-atheist undergoes a real philosophical journey of self reflection, that would include an epistemological reflection (how and what is the substance of knowledge). And that investigation leads to a conclusion that knowledge is gathered and filtered through human and only human activity (humanism). Accumulated knowledge may, as a scientist, reflect to great detail real physical events (positivism which supercedes humanism's restraint on knowledge), assessing that the world is knoweable, is self consistent at least to some degree to be paralleled in human understanding (Spinoza, Einstein). That the bias of human assessment has been self serving (selfish biological reptile mentality). The choice at this point would be to embrace the self serving as you project upon so many atheists that they do so to avoid eternal consequences or to assess that the claim of eternal reward to some insignificant amount of matter (earth compared to universe) is just one more bias of self aggrandizement by human hubris. The suggestion in your comment is that Atheists are inherently immoral. They have no philosophical grounding to act with reflection beyond themselves. Might take the time to read about Pythagoreans. Before St. Francis, before Jesus these atheists were considered the kind, unselfish actors in Asia Minor and Greece. (They did believe in reincarnation.)

I might as easily dismiss Christian devotion to act morally since the choice seems less internalized but originating from some external reward and punishment system that at times seems arbitrary in its application toward others.

[donkhater]

The suggestion in your comment is that Atheists are inherently immoral. They have no philosophical grounding to act with reflection beyond themselves. Might take the time to read about Pythagoreans. Before St. Francis, before Jesus these atheists were considered the kind, unselfish actors in Asia Minor and Greece. (They did believe in reincarnation.)

I might as easily dismiss Christian devotion to act morally since the choice seems less internalized but originating from some external reward and punishment system that at times seems arbitrary in its application toward others.
As an atheist where do you believe that your morality comes from? Your sense of 'right' and 'wrong'? The primordial ooze? Why then don't other species have a moral compass?

[tiptap]

To the degree that people have internalized a moral code, be it by religion or philosophy or other, I have in the past been relunctant to challenge personal beliefs. But as dogma moves to displace scale and judgement and generosity, I am compelled to point to inconsistencies to give pause, allowing time for reflection and an assessment of the possible misappropriation of one's own collection of words and stated beliefs to an end less than worthy of the original intent.

[tiptap]

The primordial ooze for me, more cogently encompassed by muticelled creatures in the concept of Natural Selection has been based upon individual action to propigate a collection of genes. Yet the better success comes from a coordinated front. Multicelled existence gained an advantage over single celled existence in large part to specialization and coordination of cells to garner a wider range of husbanding of materials. Even in specialization the core informational material was the same for an individual. And mostly even within species individuals acted selfishly reflective of the degree of shared genetic material.

But having seredipitously gained a brain that is capable of paralleling the finding of cooperation, to be able to abstract the idea, to lead to betterment of more, and not just the individual at the expense of others. The moral imperative is to value human cooperative activity that seeks to maximise individual potential as well. To seek to forgive because the allegory of "narrow is the path" is meant to acknowledge our lack of infinite knowlege and to be willing to redeem all of us from our misteps. Selfish Natural Selection is our biological inheritance. Moral assessment makes use of the capacity of our brains to see beyond that and to maybe create something worthy of something beyond the biological.

(you do realize this is too short of statement to be thorough)

[stevieray]

I went 15 of more years ignoring Christians and their beliefs and then suddenly Christians are using the government to advance their particular religious beliefs like creationism and a notion of end time beliefs that guide decisions about our foreign policy. If these things enter the public arena they require a response.

uh, the first schoolbook was the Bible.

[papasmurf]

I heard that first on M*A*S*H


deep show

[HolmeZz]

I get all my religious philosophies from sitcoms starring Jamie Farr.

[tiptap]

uh, the first schoolbook was the Bible.

It represented the best of the technology and material of printing at that time.

[Adept Havelock]

uh, the first schoolbook was the Bible.


Really? They used the Christian Bible as a textbook (or textscroll) in the gymnasia of ancient Greece? Or in the Schools of Ancient China, thousands of years ago?

Amazing. You learn something new every day.

[HolmeZz]

The Bible is infallible.

[stevieray]

Really? They used the Christian Bible as a textbook (or textscroll) in the gymnasia of ancient Greece? Or in the Schools of Ancient China, thousands of years ago?

Amazing. You learn something new every day.

In the United States...I wasn't aware of tip tap discussing Greece or China.

But then again, I'm quite certain you already knew that.

[Hammock Parties]

The Bible is infallible.

Is this post a joke?

[Slick32]

deep show

Maybe, but probably not.

[Brando]

You know how we can tell that God was a man? A woman wouldn't have put the shitter so close to the dining room.

I have no problem with organized religion and I understand that people find comfort and direction from it. That makes it a great thing.
However using religion to treat others like shit is a crutch that is used far too much. Whether it's muslims trying to kill Jews and or Christians or if it's Christians trying to keep gay men and women from getting married.
Passing judgement on other people because they look or act differently then what your belief system supports is truly against most religious teachings.
Last I checked one of the main principles of Christianity was not judging others and leaving said judgement up to the "divine" creator.

Now I have some very close friends that are extremely devout in their beliefs and we do not argue with each other. We simply respect each others different opinions. I believe that a majority of religious people are just like that.

Does anyone really care what my thoughts are on religion or the begining of the universe? Not really...that is unless they can find points to argue with.

[Smed1065]

It must've been tough being born Christian.

Maybe the religions are all the same and do not speak out against each other? EX: Fanatic Christians that are radical like Muslims?


Stir, stir.

but this is how I see it across all religions.

I am right and you are wrong because it says so.

[HolmeZz]

Maybe the religions are all the same and do not speak out against each other? EX: Fanatic Christians that are radical like Muslims?


Stir, stir.

but this is how I see it across all religions.

I am right and you are wrong because it says so.

The hell did you just say?

[elvomito]

this article was posted (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=143377&highlight=horizon+problem) a while back, i'm curious what you think:
http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524911.600
we have a long way to go

[keg in kc]

I think this will put an end to the evolution/creation debate:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9zwbhAXe5yk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9zwbhAXe5yk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Adept Havelock]

If that doesn't....this might. ;)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aj1KGZSFmfs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aj1KGZSFmfs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>