[quote]Makavali wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
that’s why you don’t take the book word for word - besides how many times does a story get altered just between when it happens and when you hear it? quick example a couple weeks ago the cops shot someone here. the story as it actually happened was… cops pull over a stolen car driver backs into one cop and drags another, a cop opens fire and kills the driver and the other suspect was on the run. do you know what i heard happened? that there was a shootout between some kids and the cops and that three cops got killed. people exaggerate the fuck out of everything, everyone adds something to a story when they tell it.
anyway, there are other stories in the bible about strength, discipline, etc
and theres absolutely nothing wrong with looking at the bible from that perspective. things just get dangerous when you start looking at it word for word as divine truth.
Which means we are able to cherry pick what we find moral. The book isn’t needed.
What basis would you use to say “hey I probably shouldn’t stone this guy to death”?[/quote]
seriously?
the bible says thou shalt not kill
so im guessing you wouldnt read that then decide, i should kill someone.
the bible is an OLD handbook of various situations where people can read stories and try to find an interpretation in their lives from them and then seek the right thing to do. is that really hard for you to understand because it sounds like you just want to argue any and every thing related to the bible.
I would just like to meet this guy…and see if hes so fucking tough when he meets a man who thinks beating women is for pussies…No matter the religion or culture.
He might whip my ass, but he would know he fought a man and not just picked on a weak woman…
Morons like him need to have their head handed to them on a platter…nuff said
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Way to address points. Theory is a philosophical word as I noted, science doesn’t own the word. They borrowed it. Yes it is beyond scientific endeavor. I’ve been saying that all along.
Okay, to address previous point you’ve made that I’ve glossed over…
DoubleDuce wrote:
What part of relativity was tested while Einstein was alive?
English solar eclipse expidition. 1919.
[/quote]
Entirely observational evidence. Tests weren’t done until particle accelerators.
Entirely observational evidence. In fact, observational study is one of the main tenets of philosophy. Science came along and pointed out the flaws in them.
To scientifically test many things in nature requires manipulation of elements beyond our control forcing reliance on observation.
Suggested reading: the scientific method
There are a lot of very smart people that disagree. An expanding universe is no more evidence of a big bang than colored eggs are of the easter bunny.(because the fundamental axioms of science extrapolated over infinity are bound to be wrong at some point). See I can do it too. It doesn’t make me right though.
How bright? How fast? All measurable (what science is built on) are estimations. Extrapolate continuous error terms in a dynamic system over the history of the universe. What kind of error do you think that amounts to?
Depends on how hard I jump. However, how fast do I fall, how hard do I hit? Estimate, and round. Now lets try something harder (though fundamentally simple in the scale of the universe), do I die? Science has defined life, it “knows” the physics of falling, but it can’t answer with any real certainty. It can’t even predict how a coin will land with better than 50% accuracy (the same as a monkey).
In addition, to get deeper into the question, gravity is still quite the enigma for physics. It’s the one force that they can’t fit into a more universal theory. And gravitational theory (general relativity), even by Einstein’s admission, breaks down at singularities. It plan doesn’t work there. Kinda hard to call it law then.
Which can lead into another point, the event horizon surrounding singularities. Because not even light can escape direct testing, study, or interaction with singularities is impossible. And not just now, but forever.
It doesn’t outline those things. It also doesn’t tell us that the sky is blue. Doesn’t make genesis and a blue sky mutually exclusive. Ditto for the evolution thing.
Got me on that one.
You cannot test evolution. You can test some fundamental aspects. Evolution is not a repeatable experiment. I just really don’t want to get into it. If you go search in PWI there are dozens of threads on the subject.
Yes, talking about god in reference to science. Science has nothing to say about god.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Way to address points. Theory is a philosophical word as I noted, science doesn’t own the word. They borrowed it. Yes it is beyond scientific endeavor. I’ve been saying that all along.
Okay, to address previous point you’ve made that I’ve glossed over…
DoubleDuce wrote:
What part of relativity was tested while Einstein was alive?
English solar eclipse expidition. 1919.
Entirely observational evidence. Tests weren’t done until particle accelerators.
DoubleDuce wrote:
There are countless theories that are not currently testable. String theory and other unification theories. Evolution. Things like the big bang. Not testable. Now there are observational studies, but exactly 0 tests for any of these things. No testability, no scientific method. However, as I was stating before I consider existence observational evidence of a higher power.
First point - not currently testable does not mean not testable. And how is evolution not testable? It’s being tested in lab experiments all the time. Not to mention 1000s of fossils that support the theory. And genetic evidence. You’re not well informed if you think that evolution is not/has not/will not be tested.
Entirely observational evidence. In fact, observational study is one of the main tenets of philosophy. Science came along and pointed out the flaws in them.
To scientifically test many things in nature requires manipulation of elements beyond our control forcing reliance on observation.
Suggested reading: the scientific method
[/quote]
Interesting what you’ve done here. First you use observational evidence to support your hypothesis that God created you, then you bash observational evidence as being unscientific and proves nothing. I believe you’ve just invalidated your own hypothesis.
Observational evidence can support a scientific theory as long as the observations are consistent with what one would expect to see from said theory. If there exists observational evidence that disputes the theory, then the theory SHOULD be rejected or revised to explain the observation. Science does this regularly - religion does not.
Scientific theory is not written in stone, and should never be. It is changing, evolving. Our understanding of the universe is expanding because the scientific community is willing to revise their collective worldview to incorporate all the testable evidence and observational evidence. Religion - saying “God did it” - is a show stopper. The argument ends there and no new understanding results. I think you’re a very bright individual, but what you’re trying to do by hijacking the validity of science is disturbing.
I haven’t read The Scientific Method yet, but I’ll put it on my list of future reading.
Interesting what you’ve done here. First you use observational evidence to support your hypothesis that God created you, then you bash observational evidence as being unscientific and proves nothing. I believe you’ve just invalidated your own hypothesis.
Observational evidence can support a scientific theory as long as the observations are consistent with what one would expect to see from said theory. If there exists observational evidence that disputes the theory, then the theory SHOULD be rejected or revised to explain the observation. Science does this regularly - religion does not.
Scientific theory is not written in stone, and should never be. It is changing, evolving. Our understanding of the universe is expanding because the scientific community is willing to revise their collective worldview to incorporate all the testable evidence and observational evidence. Religion - saying “God did it” - is a show stopper. The argument ends there and no new understanding results. I think you’re a very bright individual, but what you’re trying to do by hijacking the validity of science is disturbing.
I haven’t read The Scientific Method yet, but I’ll put it on my list of future reading.
[/quote]
Actually I was comparing the validity of theories based on observation. My posts taring down modern theory were supposed to be illustrative and sarcastic.
Like I was saying belief in god and scientific theories are not mutually exclusive. Even if you want to get into specifically Christian teachings, show me where in genesis it says there was no evolution. On top of that I personally know zero Christians that don’t read the creation story as allegory.
Religion has both facilitated and regressed science. It isn’t fair to denote either as being fundamental characteristics of religion. And yes even the catholic church updates and changes itâ??s teachings. Religion is constantly changing. Ever wonder why there are so many denominations.
Science can get pretty dogmatic too by the way. In addition, many science breakthroughs happen because people reject the fundamental “laws” of science. It’s the very evolution of science that prevent there from being any laws.
Note: the scientific method I was referring to are the guiding scientific principles of experimentation and modern science, not a book. It’s what made modern science different from strictly observational philosophy. There are several steps in it that are essentially impossible to apply to things like the big bang, evolution, and more importantly god.
so your argument is that because science is ever-changing due to new discoveries it cannot be factual?
whereas religion never changes no matter what actual facts are found in the universe and instead tries to bend everything around its own views.
yea there may be new denominations but they arent created out of change from the bible, they’re created for personal reasons and usually have significant political influence.
example, protestantism started as a means for the king of england to not pay any money to the pope and also so that he could marry as often as he pleased.
there were changes in the church too, not as gaudy, etc but nothing fundamental changed. you can’t be a ‘Christian’ and have any fundamental religious believes different than any other ‘Christian’. You can have a reverened, a priest, or a minister lead your service but at the end of the day you all believe the same things. i think even Mormons are classified as their own independent religion as their views are so different from other Christians.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
big bang was tested and confirmed
they basically mapped out how heat would have disapated or some shit i forget the details i saw it on one of those The Universe shows on Discov channel
i dont have a problem with the studying of the bible but i think you fail to distinguish between the bible being a book of morals instead of a book of absolute facts of creation and events.
you really believe that god, as a figure, destroyed an entire civilization just because he was mad at them? you think let alone you believe an omnipotent being responsible for the grand design of the universe and reality itself would even feel emotion? let alone jealousy? are you serious?
the problem with these religious extremists is that they are flat out brainwashed. a lot of them are smart people but that doesnt escape you from being brainwashed and a brainwashed person is never going to admit to it, regardless of their logic because well…thats how brain washing works.
DoubleDeuce you’re a design engineer, im not sure what that is exactly but it sounds like your probably do something with computer software…not something any slouch can just do. i’m sure you’re a bright and good natured guy. my guess is that being you’re from Tennessee you’ve grown up with religion your whole life and probably a baptist, a sect of Christianity well known for it’s preaching and deep religious commitments.
you may or may not be aware of this, but people can be trained to think all kinds of ways. you’ve been taught to think the way you do, to the point where when it comes to religion it isn’t “thought” at all, its reciting what you’ve been told.
you don’t believe me though, right? ok.
the military widely announces that it’s aim to break people down and build them back up, make them function how they want.
there are also NUMEROUS cults who do the same, with lethal effects.
example, Jim Jones cult leader who got his group from the Mid West to commit the largest mass suicide ever. except, no one ever signs up to commit mass suicide, they sign up looking for love, protection, shelter, etc. slowly Jim Jones was able to get these people do anything he wanted including massive orgies and moving to Guyana, South America where over 900 people killed themselves. Do you think any single one of these people wanted to kill themselves? no, they were brainwashed. you were brainwashed and honestly i don’t even expect you to comprehend any of this because you probably cant even rationalize it - i’m just explaining to everyone else why it’s impossible to reason with fanatics.
[/quote]
Mechanical/electrical engineer designing cranes. Only been in Tennessee about a year. I was not brought up deeply religious or particularly Christian. My religious pursuits are entirely my own. I do not share the same beliefs as my parents (nor with anyone else I know).
As for brain washing, this is something science is at least equally guilty of.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
so your argument is that because science is ever-changing due to new discoveries it cannot be factual?
[/quote]
That it cannot hold itself to be absolute.
My religious views change with scientific discovery.
[quote]
yea there may be new denominations but they arent created out of change from the bible, they’re created for personal reasons and usually have significant political influence.
example, protestantism started as a means for the king of england to not pay any money to the pope and also so that he could marry as often as he pleased.
there were changes in the church too, not as gaudy, etc but nothing fundamental changed. you can’t be a ‘Christian’ and have any fundamental religious believes different than any other ‘Christian’. You can have a reverened, a priest, or a minister lead your service but at the end of the day you all believe the same things. i think even Mormons are classified as their own independent religion as their views are so different from other Christians. [/quote]
But there is only 1 fundamental belief in order to be a Christian. A belief that science doesnâ??t have a lot to say about.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
big bang was tested and confirmed
they basically mapped out how heat would have disapated or some shit i forget the details i saw it on one of those The Universe shows on Discov channel
i dont have a problem with the studying of the bible but i think you fail to distinguish between the bible being a book of morals instead of a book of absolute facts of creation and events.
you really believe that god, as a figure, destroyed an entire civilization just because he was mad at them? you think let alone you believe an omnipotent being responsible for the grand design of the universe and reality itself would even feel emotion? let alone jealousy? are you serious?
the problem with these religious extremists is that they are flat out brainwashed. a lot of them are smart people but that doesnt escape you from being brainwashed and a brainwashed person is never going to admit to it, regardless of their logic because well…thats how brain washing works.
DoubleDeuce you’re a design engineer, im not sure what that is exactly but it sounds like your probably do something with computer software…not something any slouch can just do. i’m sure you’re a bright and good natured guy. my guess is that being you’re from Tennessee you’ve grown up with religion your whole life and probably a baptist, a sect of Christianity well known for it’s preaching and deep religious commitments.
you may or may not be aware of this, but people can be trained to think all kinds of ways. you’ve been taught to think the way you do, to the point where when it comes to religion it isn’t “thought” at all, its reciting what you’ve been told.
you don’t believe me though, right? ok.
the military widely announces that it’s aim to break people down and build them back up, make them function how they want.
there are also NUMEROUS cults who do the same, with lethal effects.
example, Jim Jones cult leader who got his group from the Mid West to commit the largest mass suicide ever. except, no one ever signs up to commit mass suicide, they sign up looking for love, protection, shelter, etc. slowly Jim Jones was able to get these people do anything he wanted including massive orgies and moving to Guyana, South America where over 900 people killed themselves. Do you think any single one of these people wanted to kill themselves? no, they were brainwashed. you were brainwashed and honestly i don’t even expect you to comprehend any of this because you probably cant even rationalize it - i’m just explaining to everyone else why it’s impossible to reason with fanatics.
Mechanical/electrical engineer designing cranes. Only been in Tennessee about a year. I was not brought up deeply religious or particularly Christian. My religious pursuits are entirely my own. I do not share the same beliefs as my parents (nor with anyone else I know).
As for brain washing, this is something science is at least equally guilty of.
[/quote]
not really. science doesn’t have anything to do with persuasion or motivational speeches, science is very cold. from a scientific standpoint in the end you die and that’s it, then billions of years later the universe ends itself. science doesn’t give anyone a sense of hope, it just provides facts. science doesn’t claim to have it all figured out, the people working on this stuff know that the cumulative information is that of a grain of sand to an entire beach.
religion on the other hand seems to have this idea that all the information of the world can be simplified into the bible. entertaining and sometimes helpful stories? yes. absolute truth? furthest thing from it.
also as i’ve said before, science doesn’t stop working when you stop believing in it. unlike religious views which state if you don’t accept jesus christ as your lord and savior that you will burn in hellfire. nothing like fear mongering to gain loyalty, sounds like brainwashing to me.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Actually I was comparing the validity of theories based on observation. My posts taring down modern theory were supposed to be illustrative and sarcastic.
Like I was saying belief in god and scientific theories are not mutually exclusive. Even if you want to get into specifically Christian teachings, show me where in genesis it says there was no evolution. On top of that I personally know zero Christians that don’t read the creation story as allegory.
[/quote]
I will agree with you that one can believe in God and accept scientific theories. My beef is people who try to undermine scientific endeavors by using their religious beliefs. Just because you don’t know any Christians that don’t read the creation story literally, doesn’t mean that there aren’t any. If fact, there are many. They’re organized against the scientific community and the implications of scientific research based on their spiritual understanding of the universe.
I didn’t realize you were trying to be sarcastic - the written word is vague at times.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Religion has both facilitated and regressed science. It isn’t fair to denote either as being fundamental characteristics of religion. And yes even the catholic church updates and changes itÃ?¢??s teachings. Religion is constantly changing. Ever wonder why there are so many denominations.
[/quote]
Actually, I do wonder why there are so many denominations. Doesn’t speak too highly of the infallible word of God if it can be interpreted so many ways, does it?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Science can get pretty dogmatic too by the way. In addition, many science breakthroughs happen because people reject the fundamental “laws” of science. It’s the very evolution of science that prevent there from being any laws.
[/quote]
You are right about this point - but that doesn’t mean that that is the way it’s supposed to be. The resistance to change in the scientific community can be viewed as dogmatic, but the important difference is that it’s not true Dogma. There are tenets of most religions that ARE Dogma and it’s members will kill to uphold it’s “truth”. Even the most stubborn of erroneous scientific theories will be replaced if sufficient reliable evidence exists to usurp it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Note: the scientific method I was referring to are the guiding scientific principles of experimentation and modern science, not a book. It’s what made modern science different from strictly observational philosophy. There are several steps in it that are essentially impossible to apply to things like the big bang, evolution, and more importantly god.
[/quote]
Oh, that scientific method! I’m familiar with it but avoid it at all costs I think Donald Rumsfeld made a most eloquent statement that applies here:
There are things we know we know,
there are things we know we don’t know,
there are things we don’t know we know,
and there are things we don’t know we don’t know.
Forgive me if I’ve mis-quoted him - it was something to this effect. I would like to add a couple more…
There are things we know we can’t ever know,
and there are things we don’t know we can’t ever know.
The universe is a fantastic mystery that we’re trying to unravel. Perhaps in unraveling the universe we’ll find out that there is a God behind it all. Perhaps we’ll find that there isn’t. Regardless, I’m open to seeing the universe for what it is - not what I want it to be. If there is evidence for the God hypothesis that isn’t based on superstition or religious dogma, and it can withstand serious skeptical examination, then I’ll believe. Otherwise, it’s one of those things I know I don’t know.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
so your argument is that because science is ever-changing due to new discoveries it cannot be factual?
That it cannot hold itself to be absolute.
whereas religion never changes no matter what actual facts are found in the universe and instead tries to bend everything around its own views.
My religious views change with scientific discovery.
yea there may be new denominations but they arent created out of change from the bible, they’re created for personal reasons and usually have significant political influence.
example, protestantism started as a means for the king of england to not pay any money to the pope and also so that he could marry as often as he pleased.
there were changes in the church too, not as gaudy, etc but nothing fundamental changed. you can’t be a ‘Christian’ and have any fundamental religious believes different than any other ‘Christian’. You can have a reverened, a priest, or a minister lead your service but at the end of the day you all believe the same things. i think even Mormons are classified as their own independent religion as their views are so different from other Christians.
But there is only 1 fundamental belief in order to be a Christian. A belief that science doesnâ??t have a lot to say about.
[/quote]
that makes no sense, just because there are new scientific discoveries does not talk away from the merit of science. im failiing to see any rational here. so because at one point in time there was no concept of gravity that means gravity never existed once it’s properties were uncovered?
how can your religious views change as science changes yet you claim that scientific discoveries themselves take away credit from science as fact? looks like you just caught yourself up with that one.
i don’t really get what you were trying to say with your last point there. you left a lot of information out.
Oh, that scientific method! I’m familiar with it but avoid it at all costs I think Donald Rumsfeld made a most eloquent statement that applies here:
There are things we know we know,
there are things we know we don’t know,
there are things we don’t know we know,
and there are things we don’t know we don’t know.
Forgive me if I’ve mis-quoted him - it was something to this effect. I would like to add a couple more…
There are things we know we can’t ever know,
and there are things we don’t know we can’t ever know.
The universe is a fantastic mystery that we’re trying to unravel. Perhaps in unraveling the universe we’ll find out that there is a God behind it all. Perhaps we’ll find that there isn’t. Regardless, I’m open to seeing the universe for what it is - not what I want it to be. If there is evidence for the God hypothesis that isn’t based on superstition or religious dogma, and it can withstand serious skeptical examination, then I’ll believe. Otherwise, it’s one of those things I know I don’t know.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
big bang was tested and confirmed
they basically mapped out how heat would have disapated or some shit i forget the details i saw it on one of those The Universe shows on Discov channel
i dont have a problem with the studying of the bible but i think you fail to distinguish between the bible being a book of morals instead of a book of absolute facts of creation and events.
you really believe that god, as a figure, destroyed an entire civilization just because he was mad at them? you think let alone you believe an omnipotent being responsible for the grand design of the universe and reality itself would even feel emotion? let alone jealousy? are you serious?
the problem with these religious extremists is that they are flat out brainwashed. a lot of them are smart people but that doesnt escape you from being brainwashed and a brainwashed person is never going to admit to it, regardless of their logic because well…thats how brain washing works.
DoubleDeuce you’re a design engineer, im not sure what that is exactly but it sounds like your probably do something with computer software…not something any slouch can just do. i’m sure you’re a bright and good natured guy. my guess is that being you’re from Tennessee you’ve grown up with religion your whole life and probably a baptist, a sect of Christianity well known for it’s preaching and deep religious commitments.
you may or may not be aware of this, but people can be trained to think all kinds of ways. you’ve been taught to think the way you do, to the point where when it comes to religion it isn’t “thought” at all, its reciting what you’ve been told.
you don’t believe me though, right? ok.
the military widely announces that it’s aim to break people down and build them back up, make them function how they want.
there are also NUMEROUS cults who do the same, with lethal effects.
example, Jim Jones cult leader who got his group from the Mid West to commit the largest mass suicide ever. except, no one ever signs up to commit mass suicide, they sign up looking for love, protection, shelter, etc. slowly Jim Jones was able to get these people do anything he wanted including massive orgies and moving to Guyana, South America where over 900 people killed themselves. Do you think any single one of these people wanted to kill themselves? no, they were brainwashed. you were brainwashed and honestly i don’t even expect you to comprehend any of this because you probably cant even rationalize it - i’m just explaining to everyone else why it’s impossible to reason with fanatics.
Mechanical/electrical engineer designing cranes. Only been in Tennessee about a year. I was not brought up deeply religious or particularly Christian. My religious pursuits are entirely my own. I do not share the same beliefs as my parents (nor with anyone else I know).
As for brain washing, this is something science is at least equally guilty of.
not really. science doesn’t have anything to do with persuasion or motivational speeches, science is very cold. from a scientific standpoint in the end you die and that’s it, then billions of years later the universe ends itself. science doesn’t give anyone a sense of hope, it just provides facts. science doesn’t claim to have it all figured out, the people working on this stuff know that the cumulative information is that of a grain of sand to an entire beach.
[/quote]
Geocentric universe embraced by guys like Aristotle. It was a scientific concept, not a religious one.
Walk up to a biologist and tell them you disagree with parts of evolution. See how dogmatic they get. They probably won’t even listen to you.
Science brought us wonders like racial inequality and lobotomies too. There was a time when the frontal lobotomy was the miracle cure for the mentally ill.
Science may be cold and unbiased, but the people that practice it are just as fallible as the ones that practice religion.
Your flaw is to reduce all religion to your understanding of “the bible” so you can attack it.
[quote]
also as i’ve said before, science doesn’t stop working when you stop believing in it. unlike religious views which state if you don’t accept jesus christ as your lord and savior that you will burn in hellfire. nothing like fear mongering to gain loyalty, sounds like brainwashing to me. [/quote]
Actually that belief would be that Christianity doesn’t stop working when you stop believing which would make it similar to, not dissimilar from, science.
I also don’t know that you mean by “working”. Sounds like you are attributing the functioning of the universe to science. Science is just a manmade label for sets of equations and labels. It doesn’t DO anything. Science doesn’t ask the what does things question.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So your agnostic?[/quote]
I’m an agnostic atheist.
I don’t KNOW if there is a God, but I also don’t BELIEVE that there is one.
One can also be an agnostic theist where they don’t know if God exists, but they believe God exists regardless. Being agnostic is not a middle ground between belief and non-belief, it’s a term used to describe those that don’t claim to know that God exists. Atheism only deals with the belief part of the question.
The opposite of agnostic is of course gnostic - which is used to describe someone that claim to have spiritual knowledge of the existence of God. Freemason are Gnostic - that’s what the G in the square and compass is referring to. Other religious sects identified themselves as gnostic. There could also be Gnostic Atheists, but I find that to be very unlikely. How could one not believe in something if one has knowledge of it’s existence?
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
So your agnostic?
I’m an agnostic atheist.
I don’t KNOW if there is a God, but I also don’t BELIEVE that there is one.
One can also be an agnostic theist where they don’t know if God exists, but they believe God exists regardless. Being agnostic is not a middle ground between belief and non-belief, it’s a term used to describe those that don’t claim to know that God exists. Atheism only deals with the belief part of the question.
The opposite of agnostic is of course gnostic - which is used to describe someone that claim to have spiritual knowledge of the existence of God. Freemason are Gnostic - that’s what the G in the square and compass is referring to. Other religious sects identified themselves as gnostic. There could also be Gnostic Atheists, but I find that to be very unlikely. How could one not believe in something if one has knowledge of it’s existence?[/quote]
I’m aware. I’m an agnostic (or negative atheist) theist. I believe there is a god, but I don’t believe there is proof.
Positive atheism is as unprovable (and no more scientific) as positive theism.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m aware. I’m an agnostic (or negative atheist) theist. I believe there is a god, but I don’t believe there is proof.[/quote]
Nothing can be proven. Only mathematical relationships are provable - science cannot prove anything. This is an important thing to note by all sides. It is impossible to prove anything. However, it is possible to disprove something. The scientific community attempts to disprove things all the time. We use our reason to try to determine why something happens the way it does by coming up with an explanation that is constrained by the observed information and then we design tests to try to disprove it. Or we actively seek out observational evidence that disproves it. After exhaustive testing/research nothing is proven, but that does not invalidate a theory because it hasn’t been. Only when it’s been disproved can we invalidate the theory.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Positive atheism is as unprovable (and no more scientific) as positive theism.[/quote]
True, however we can disprove many claims about the universe made by theists. This may never unravel the question of God’s existence, but it does challenge many other beliefs that are held sacred in religion.
I’m aware. I’m an agnostic (or negative atheist) theist. I believe there is a god, but I don’t believe there is proof.
[/quote]
So you believe that there is no proof for god’s existance. But you “like” the explanation religion provides for the fact that we “exist” to quote one of your earlier posts. Of course the idea of a creator and an afterlife is more comforting and attaractive than the unknown. This is why religions exist in the first place, but some of us can’t put faith in legends because its more comfortable. A god may indeed exist but I am quite sure it is nothing like any of our man-made passed down religions.
i made my point about religion not working clear, at least i thought it did but let me break it down for you even more…as if thats possible:
if you don’t believe in a religion, presuming none of it ever happened and it is mere mythology, the religion doesn’t ‘exist’. i used the example of Santa Clause earlier, you can go back and read it again if you need to.
as compared with science which does exist regardless of belief.
this is because whether or not you ‘believe’ that the earth travels round the sun, it in fact does. this is proof.
another example, lets go back 10,000 years to when people worshiped with polytheism and had a god for say fertility. well whether or not you appeased the gods back then the fate of your crops was not affected by the sacrificing of 5 goats.
the way the world works is not in the hands of an omnipotent being. every single detail no matter how minute can be measured. that equals science. the functioning of the universe is scientific, there is no ‘chance’.
chance only exists because of our lack of ability to analyze certain things in real time. when you roll a dice there is no chance as to what comes up, but we see it that way because we don’t carry around a laboratory to measure the force we rolled the dice, what number the dice was on, the frcition of the surface the wind in the room, etc, etc. however all those details essentially have the potential to be measured.
a lot of things seem very magical to us because we lack the comprehension to understand it. much as peek-a-boo is a wildy entertaining game to a child due to their lack of object permanence. the universe is intriguing to us because we can hardly understand it but all the pieces are still there to be understood.
the real irony in your posts is that books like the bible are essentially the first science books ever created. religion started as an attempt to understand the world around us. our ancestors couldnt grasp the sun, earth and moon being rotational objects in space so they invented stories such as the sun being chased by its evil brother the moon in order to rationalize what was going on. no one knew about geography and tectonic plates so earthquakes, volcanoes, etc were acts of a mysterious god, because thats the only explanation anyone had.
you say you change your religion with science, well if that were true you wouldnt study the bible which is essentially a 2,000 year old science book itself.
and did you just say you don’t believe in evolution? im just going to stop right here if thats the case.
I think Donald Rumsfeld made a most eloquent statement that applies here: