Science and Religion

[Mash]

You couldn,t give a clue to a dung beetle on where to find, well, you know. You,re fear of the belief in God is just sad. Are you afraid that you will be captured and talked into becoming a believer. They wouldn,t waste their time. Been to any good lynchings lately:lol. This is my final word on this subject, go peddle you hate somewhere else, you must have me mixed up with someone who actually cares what you think, bye, bye🙂

Let me rephrase this:

"I can't provide a valid argument, so I'm going to throw in a half-assed analogy in a pathetic attempt to insult you. Next, I'm going to switch it up a bit and throw in a baseless accusation that is supposed to make you feel less important. And to top it all off, I'm going to be a moron and say that I don't care what you think, even though I've been stalking you throughout the forums trying to provoke you. Oh, and even though I'm saying good-bye, I guarantee you that you will hear from me again."

Yeah...yeah that sounds about right. Good on ya.

 

[likeasong1]

Therein lies the problem; it's only slander/libel if you can prove it. Since they're not willing to show the government where their money goes, nor you or I can prove anything. So, just as you are free to call me "McCarthyistic", I am free correct your errors. 🙂 I'll stop calling them thieves when they fill out a Form 990 and prove that they're not conniving bastards.

So you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty"? You're basically condemning them until they can prove they are innocent. That's not the way it works.

Reality is not a video game (as far as we know) where you can outweigh your evils (like increasing the suffering of dying people) by feeding a couple of homeless people.

Increase the suffering? Did she drive thumbscrews into them? Did she slip them things they were allergic too? And once again, you also ignore the incredible amount of good in the other things I've pointed out.

That was a perfectly good waste of time for you to write. The whole point of science is that nothing is certain until it is proven so. How did you manage to forget that?

I didn't. But the argument for science boils down to "with enough time, we'll be able to understand everything through science," which is a statement of faith. And to respond to Mash, atheism answers the five major questions. To them, nothing is divine, we're products of eons of evolution, we're worm chow, we keel over and die, science is how we know. Atheism qualifies as a religion.

You've also avoided my question, which is how can you proclaim that non-christian religions are incorrect when you've no metric for determining the validity of god?

I did answer it. Actually, Mash did. Faith. "The righteous shall live by faith." And I didn't actually say we had no metric. I believe I was hinting more that what we do have is of insufficient scale, but that's really neither here nor there.

 

[Mash]

So you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty"? You're basically condemning them until they can prove they are innocent. That's not the way it works.

She's not condemning anything. In a court of law, if you have evidence that will confirm your innocence, you present it when given the chance. She's given them the chance. It's not like they have to put any actual effort in to fill out one of those forms, so I don't see what the problem is.

I didn't. But the argument for science boils down to "with enough time, we'll be able to understand everything through science," which is a statement of faith. And to respond to Mash, atheism answers the five major questions. To them, nothing is divine, we're products of eons of evolution, we're worm chow, we keel over and die, science is how we know. Atheism qualifies as a religion.

Yeah, but that argument isn't unfounded. Through the last couple thousand years, our intelligence and overall understanding of the universe has increased dramatically. Combine that with the fact that we have barely gotten our foot in the proverbial door of the Universe, then I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there will be much, much more to find.
I'm surprised that I actually have to explain this again, but a religion, if you would be so kind as to look up, is a belief in a supernatural power. Atheism doesn't believe in a supernatural power.

I did answer it. Actually, Mash did. Faith. "The righteous shall live by faith." And I didn't actually say we had no metric. I believe I was hinting more that what we do have is of insufficient scale, but that's really neither here nor there.

Here's the problem with this argument. You have faith that your God is correct, and that all other Gods are incorrect. Guess how many other religions have the exact same viewpoint?

And here's the fun part; they run on the very same 'metric' as you, faith. So, if you all measure your God's validity using the same metric, then either that metric is unsubstantial and flawed, or ALL of the religions are right.

So, go ahead and take your pick.

 

[likeasong1]

She's not condemning anything. In a court of law, if you have evidence that will confirm your innocence, you present it when given the chance. She's given them the chance. It's not like they have to put any actual effort in to fill out one of those forms, so I don't see what the problem is.

But she doesn't have probable cause to drag them into a court of law in the first place. Not filling out that form does NOT constitute "probable cause".

Yeah, but that argument isn't unfounded. Through the last couple thousand years, our intelligence and overall understanding of the universe has increased dramatically. Combine that with the fact that we have barely gotten our foot in the proverbial door of the Universe, then I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there will be much, much more to find.

I don't disagree with this, but I think the general point of sciencists is that "we'll be able to understand everything there is to be understood and disprove the existence of God" which I think is just plain wrong because the more we discover, the more questions it usually ends up raising, and also because humanity tends to be a disappointment unto itself.

I'm surprised that I actually have to explain this again, but a religion, if you would be so kind as to look up, is a belief in a supernatural power. Atheism doesn't believe in a supernatural power.

I'm using a more liberal definition that basically includes belief systems that directly address the subject of deity(-ies), in which case atheism also belongs.

Here's the problem with this argument. You have faith that your God is correct, and that all other Gods are incorrect. Guess how many other religions have the exact same viewpoint?

And here's the fun part; they run on the very same 'metric' as you, faith. So, if you all measure your God's validity using the same metric, then either that metric is unsubstantial and flawed, or ALL of the religions are right.

So, go ahead and take your pick.

False dichotomy. It's also possible that only one is a metric applied correctly, and the others are falsely applied, like measuring loudness in inches rather than decibels.

 

[Mash]

But she doesn't have probable cause to drag them into a court of law in the first place. Not filling out that form does NOT constitute "probable cause".

Well, I guess it depends on how you would define probable cause. Personally, I think they're acting a little too suspiciously, despite the fact that the suspicion could easily be thrown out by just filling out that form. I mean, it's not like this is some billion dollar investment that could cost them their charity.

I don't disagree with this, but I think the general point of sciencists is that "we'll be able to understand everything there is to be understood and disprove the existence of God" which I think is just plain wrong because the more we discover, the more questions it usually ends up raising, and also because humanity tends to be a disappointment unto itself.

No scientist will ever claim that they will disprove God. It's simply not possible. They will however, try and disprove the organizations that try and tell people how their bastardized version of history happened with no evidence to support that version. We will discover a lot, and many questions will be answered, but I don't think the existence of a God will be one of those answered questions.

I'm using a more liberal definition that basically includes belief systems that directly address the subject of deity(-ies), in which case atheism also belongs.

Well, I'm going to go ahead and use the accurate definition. Religion implies prayer or belief in some higher power.

False dichotomy. It's also possible that only one is a metric applied correctly, and the others are falsely applied, like measuring loudness in inches rather than decibels.

Here's the problem with this argument. It IS possible for the metric to be applied incorrectly, but once again, you have faith, the possibly incorrect metric, as the only determining factor in that. You don't know that your metric is being used incorrectly, you just have faith that it isn't. You see the circular logic, here?

When you enter in another 'metric', that validates your faith, then you will be believable. Until then, you could be just as wrong as every other religion. You have no way of knowing. That's how faith works.

This didn't even occur to me until some time after writing this, but how exactly do you determine a 'correct' way to apply faith, anyway? Faith is subjective, and it's different for everybody. There is no right or wrong way it can be applied, as faith is not supported by tangible, substantial evidence. You can't tell somebody that their faith is incorrect unless you have substantial evidence to support your claim. That being said, scientists do not try and tell people that the belief in God is wrong. However, I have no problem saying that Christianity as a whole is wrong, because it is one giant contradiction that can't seem to agree with itself.

 

[PurpleStyle]

So you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty"? You're basically condemning them until they can prove they are innocent. That's not the way it works.

Increase the suffering? Did she drive thumbscrews into them? Did she slip them things they were allergic too? And once again, you also ignore the incredible amount of good in the other things I've pointed out.

I didn't. But the argument for science boils down to "with enough time, we'll be able to understand everything through science," which is a statement of faith. And to respond to Mash, atheism answers the five major questions. To them, nothing is divine, we're products of eons of evolution, we're worm chow, we keel over and die, science is how we know. Atheism qualifies as a religion.

I did answer it. Actually, Mash did. Faith. "The righteous shall live by faith." And I didn't actually say we had no metric. I believe I was hinting more that what we do have is of insufficient scale, but that's really neither here nor there.

1. Straw man. You keep forgetting that I have the right to say whatever I want about people, since I'm not taking any legal action.

2. You forgot the part where I didn't ignore it, and said that it doesn't make up for all the evil she did.

3. Nobody said that "with enough time, science will understand everything". That's a ridiculous statement for a myriad of reasons I don't wish to explain.

4. Your scale is as about as sufficient as Scientology's, unless you can prove that yours has more worth. You seem to forget this, too.

 

[Rox_My_Sox1]

I think you all just need to buy a monkey's paw from a reputable (yet annoyingly shady) street vendor and make wishes to your hearts content. After all, it worked for me.

(gets out two fingered Monkey Paw)...I wish for a new TMNT Cartoon.

(gets her wish...but not in the way she wanted)

WHAT? APRIL IS STILL A ANTIQUE DEALER? SHE'S NOT A HAWT YELLOW JUMPSUIT REPORTER? UNACCEPTABLE!

MMMOOONNNKKKEEEYYY PPPAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

 

[Jagermeistered]

Great! I think this thread has only proven two things:

1. Hard science can't prove that God doesn't exists.

2. God believers are ignoramuses.

If we want to put the final nail in God's coffin... Maybe, we should look more to epistemology: the branch of philosophy in regards to knowledge.

Likeasong, can you honestly draw a honest theoretical conclusion to the origin of the Old Testament(let alone the New Testament)? I don't think so... Why? What documentation do we know of that led to either of these testaments of the Lord all mighty being true in the first place? Scrolls in a cave, or wherever Christian Archaeologists have dug to prove that their faith is real? Tall Tales of the past?

I want to pick on Christians because they are the effect, too the elimination of humanity! (If you disagree, read some history. May I warn you, it is full of blood and gory violence!)
I remember studying and practicing Korean martial arts in my younger years. One statement that has always stuck with me: Perfection is not achieved in life, but in death... The highest degree you can get from what I can recall off hand is a 9th dan black belt. The next color belt is midnight blue, and the only way you can conceive such a status... Is after your dead...

If the higher anointed one that is God, is perfect; shouldn't that mean he is dead? Like Nietzsche also pointed out in, "The Gay Science". I think the Koreans and the German Nietzsche(should have been, Greek) Philologist has something here...

Perhaps, God is like a black hole waiting to suck in the light? After all, I believe light can't escape from a black hole(maybe wrong)... Their is your heaven Christians! A ball of black mass or anti-mass that doesn't matter, it only destroys celestial bodies!

Alas, Christianity, a moral code of decadence and darkness, and the fruition of death... Forget about life! God has a 'bigger plan' waiting for you in the hole!

 

[Mash]

Considering that the argument seems to have died out, I invite anyone else still opposed to the ideas of Atheism to do one thing.

http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup#p/u/13/5wV_REEdvxo

Watch that video. If you watch the whole thing, and actually understand it, then I openly invited you to continue trying to logically justify your beliefs. If you are not going to watch the video, or make attempts to understand it, then don't bother responding.

 

[likeasong1]

1. Straw man. You keep forgetting that I have the right to say whatever I want about people, since I'm not taking any legal action.

No, but you are committing a crime by committing slander, which is NOT protected free speech. And if you can't back that up, then I reserve every right to criticize your condemnation.

2. You forgot the part where I didn't ignore it, and said that it doesn't make up for all the evil she did.

"All the evil"? She didn't kill anyone. They were already dying. She simply gave them a last home. Even if it's not benevolent, it's not evil.

3. Nobody said that "with enough time, science will understand everything". That's a ridiculous statement for a myriad of reasons I don't wish to explain.

That is the defense when anyone points out critiques or reservations of any scientific theory... that it will fully proven and understood in enough time.

4. Your scale is as about as sufficient as Scientology's, unless you can prove that yours has more worth. You seem to forget this, too.

To answer this and Mash's... there are miracles or otherwise unusual occurrences that defy scientific explanation all the time. But it is dismissed out of hand as being simply beyond our current understanding of science at this time. Wouldn't these occurrences, these pieces of historical evidence, count as a metric of sorts? True, other religions will chalk it up to their deities as well. But it is still a metric that can be used.

Likeasong, can you honestly draw a honest theoretical conclusion to the origin of the Old Testament(let alone the New Testament)? I don't think so... Why? What documentation do we know of that led to either of these testaments of the Lord all mighty being true in the first place? Scrolls in a cave, or wherever Christian Archaeologists have dug to prove that their faith is real? Tall Tales of the past?

Origin of the Old Testament? There were many Books of the Old Testament that were written over the course of many, many years. Even if you doubt the veracity of Genesis, most of the books regarding the king-led era of the Israelite nations are pretty much unquestioned (again, aside from science-defying events occurring). The scrolls that are dug up, and verified as being from that era of Biblical time... do you think they were planted? Do you deny the nation of Israel (as it was back then) even existed?

We're pretty much going around in circles here. You demand a God that succumbs to the Laws of Science (not to mention the Laws of Man), and I demand the assumption that science is not the highest authority in the universe (heck, I don't think scientific law even reigns superior to Murphy's Law). That is where we are at an impasse. We're not making any ground either way, and it's honestly sucking the enjoyment out of the rest of the forum for me. I acknowledge that I can't prove my faith over any other, be it scientology or Islam or Rastafarianism, etc. But it's a calculated and acceptable risk. And more to the point, as long as I don't abuse my faith in the committing of atrocities, and if my faith is the guide by which I refrain from doing more bad things than I already do (for I'm still imperfect) and partake in doing good things that I wouldn't ordinarily otherwise wouldn't do, then you have no evidence that the way I live out my faith is a false one.

 

[Jagermeistered]

Likeasong: We demand nothing from God! We ask you if thou exists? Where is he? He is known of in the gospels, but is unseen in modern era. Is he waiting for his conscious to flabbergast, and destroy those who have no loyalty too him? Or, is he waiting for Satan to make a wrong move?

But.....

What if Pazuzu is waiting in a corner to slit his throat, and does...

Will Zeus answer to the call?

Will Ra, say, "Fuck you, Yahweh! I'm gonna explode right now, and take your humans with me!"

Give it up Likeasong, your faith goes in cycles, and is nowhere near the Truth!

 

[Mash]

Looks like I spoke too soon.

No, but you are committing a crime by committing slander, which is NOT protected free speech. And if you can't back that up, then I reserve every right to criticize your condemnation.

It's not slander if it can't be proven false.

To answer this and Mash's... there are miracles or otherwise unusual occurrences that defy scientific explanation all the time. But it is dismissed out of hand as being simply beyond our current understanding of science at this time. Wouldn't these occurrences, these pieces of historical evidence, count as a metric of sorts? True, other religions will chalk it up to their deities as well. But it is still a metric that can be used.

Until you can measure them, and then definitively label them as acts of your God, then they hold no scientific meaning.

We're pretty much going around in circles here. You demand a God that succumbs to the Laws of Science (not to mention the Laws of Man), and I demand the assumption that science is not the highest authority in the universe (heck, I don't think scientific law even reigns superior to Murphy's Law).

If he is God, then he very well can succumb to the laws of science, otherwise he is not all powerful. If us Humans can do it, then so can he.

We're not making any ground either way, and it's honestly sucking the enjoyment out of the rest of the forum for me. I acknowledge that I can't prove my faith over any other, be it scientology or Islam or Rastafarianism, etc. But it's a calculated and acceptable risk.

It's true that we aren't making any progress here, but honestly, I never expected to. This is in a different thread for a reason. To some, jumping in a pool of radioactive waste would be a calculated and acceptable risk.

The problem with that, is that since faith is not tangible, you didn't calculate anything. If you actually realized the scale of this risk, then I don't think you would consider it 'acceptable'.

then you have no evidence that the way I live out my faith is a false one.

That's true; however, that is only if you look at things subjectively. Objectively, religion is the most 'wrong' thing to rear it's ugly head over humanity as a whole.

 

[Budweiserbob!]

... Wow. This discussion is intense. Just remember the 'Be Polite' rule. 🙂

I'll just highlight where I stand. I'm an Atheist. I don't believe there's a God and I consider the idea of a conscious super being laughable. But that's my opinion. 😛

The thing I never truly understood about 'God' (and hated) is that he/she is so Cryptic... I mean, in Christianity (the religion I grew up around), God only allows the people who have faith in him and his existence, follow his rules and commit to that way of life for the entirety of their own lives in to heaven. To me, that's ridiculous. It doesn't reward the 'good' people, it just rewards the 'obedient' ones. If God truly wants us to believe, then surely he'd give us an irrefutable sign. A sign that can't be denied. Like writing 'Hi, this is God. Yeah, I exist... just so you know...' in the stars. Then I would follow the way of life he wants us to live. None of this 'he gave me a sign... in my heart' stuff.

Besides, if God is like the God written in the bible... then I'd rather not worship him. He doesn't sound like a truly 'good' person.

Well, that's my opinion. Take it or leave it. I've only really contributed to this thread to remind y'all that the Mods are looking, so try and tame down the personal attacks. It's ok expressing opinions about your personal beliefs to others, and we don't mind if you express these opinions with some slight aggression. But if this debate starts to turn into a volley of insults then the admin team will have to step in.

Have a nice day. 🙂

 

[Jagermeistered]

... Wow. This discussion is intense. Just remember the 'Be Polite' rule. 🙂

I'll just highlight where I stand. I'm an Atheist. I don't believe there's a God and I consider the idea of a conscious super being laughable. But that's my opinion. 😛

The thing I never truly understood about 'God' (and hated) is that he/she is so Cryptic... I mean, in Christianity (the religion I grew up around), God only allows the people who have faith in him and his existence, follow his rules and commit to that way of life for the entirety of their own lives in to heaven. To me, that's ridiculous. It doesn't reward the 'good' people, it just rewards the 'obedient' ones. If God truly wants us to believe, then surely he'd give us an irrefutable sign. A sign that can't be denied. Like writing 'Hi, this is God. Yeah, I exist... just so you know...' in the stars. Then I would follow the way of life he wants us to live. None of this 'he gave me a sign... in my heart' stuff.

Besides, if God is like the God written in the bible... then I'd rather not worship him. He doesn't sound like a truly 'good' person.

Well, that's my opinion. Take it or leave it. I've only really contributed to this thread to remind y'all that the Mods are looking, so try and tame down the personal attacks. It's ok expressing opinions about your personal beliefs to others, and we don't mind if you express these opinions with some slight aggression. But if this debate starts to turn into a volley of insults then the admin team will have to step in.

Have a nice day. 🙂

It's not about being aggressive to each other, but the intelligence. No atheist wants to kill Likeasong, or wish evil upon him! if we did, we wouldn't be atheists(you included). It's a ranting that has over lived it's existence... Like God!

 

[PurpleStyle]

Ah likeasong, I no longer think you're malevolent, just cursed with a severe lack of understanding. If you truly believe that we believe we'll "understand everything in sufficient time", then you're not getting it at all.

The whole point of this thread (for me personally, I don't care why it was started xD) was to find out whether or not religion had any merit. This isn't fair, because I already knew that it had none. It has shown me however, that otherwise rational people are willing to rationalize irrational (miracles count as a metric, but technically they can count for anyone!) / down-right horrible (it was your choice to burn in hell by being a skeptic, not ours!) concepts to justify the existence of your outdated, poisonous religion. It shakes my faith in humanity just a bit.

 

[Jagermeistered]

Ah likeasong, I no longer think you're malevolent, just cursed with a severe lack of understanding. If you truly believe that we believe we'll "understand everything in sufficient time", then you're not getting it at all.

The whole point of this thread (for me personally, I don't care why it was started xD) was to find out whether or not religion had any merit. This isn't fair, because I already knew that it had none. It has shown me however, that otherwise rational people are willing to rationalize irrational (miracles count as a metric, but technically they can count for anyone!) / down-right horrible (it was your choice to burn in hell by being a skeptic, not ours!) concepts to justify the existence of your outdated, poisonous religion. It shakes my faith in humanity just a bit.

Oh; the beautiful scientist switches roles for a post, and becomes a humorist. I love it!

 

[tickle_monster]

It never stops amazing me how certain people will put there faith in science and just accept that everything in our awesome universe just happened out of chance of the big bang or our planet was seeded by a passing comet OH and humans came from apes, BUT you take issue from a CREATOR whom caused the big bang and the planets to form ,GOD created the heavens and the EARTH HIS WAY not mans way. and yes it does take faith and I belive GOD and science co exist.. because he CREATED IT . I think people who are non belivers are scared to answer for there sins. I am a christian and very proud to know that Jesus is GOD and he and he alone CREATED our wonder world and universe......HIS WAY!!!!

 

[Jagermeistered]

It never stops amazing me how certain people will put there faith in science and just accept that everything in our awesome universe just happened out of chance of the big bang or our planet was seeded by a passing comet OH and humans came from apes, BUT you take issue from a CREATOR whom caused the big bang and the planets to form ,GOD created the heavens and the EARTH HIS WAY not mans way. and yes it does take faith and I belive GOD and science co exist.. because he CREATED IT . I think people who are non belivers are scared to answer for there sins. I am a christian and very proud to know that Jesus is GOD and he and he alone CREATED our wonder world and universe......HIS WAY!!!!

Who created, GOD, than hot shot? Were did God's moral valuations come from? Let alone... His creative energy to make us. If God is infinite, and time doesn't exist. Why do I walk around with a watch?

 

[desk]

The majority of great scientists, the overwhelming majority of great scientists had some type of religious affliation. Yet atheists insist that science and religion are like a mixture of oil and water? DUH! Many of the posts in this forum are just hateful rants of religious intolerance and are without purpose.

 

[Mash]

It never stops amazing me how certain people will put there faith in science and just accept that everything in our awesome universe just happened out of chance of the big bang or our planet was seeded by a passing comet OH and humans came from apes, BUT you take issue from a CREATOR whom caused the big bang and the planets to form ,GOD created the heavens and the EARTH HIS WAY not mans way. and yes it does take faith and I belive GOD and science co exist.. because he CREATED IT . I think people who are non belivers are scared to answer for there sins. I am a christian and very proud to know that Jesus is GOD and he and he alone CREATED our wonder world and universe......HIS WAY!!!!

It never ceases to amaze me how people can jump into a thread and reiterate ideas that have already been discussed and dismissed.

There is no evidence to suggest that a God has ever existed. As any gambler will tell you, those are NOT acceptable odds to put faith into. All of the things you say are baseless ramblings taken from a book whose validity is similar to the Harry Potter series. You are a Christian and very proud to believe that Jesus is God. You know nothing of the sort.

 

[Mash]

The majority of great scientists, the overwhelming majority of great scientists had some type of religious affliation. Yet atheists insist that science and religion are like a mixture of oil and water? DUH! Many of the posts in this forum are just hateful rants of religious intolerance and are without purpose.

We've already discussed why religion and science don't co-exist peacefully. Next topic.

 

[likeasong1]

Likeasong: We demand nothing from God! We ask you if thou exists? Where is he? He is known of in the gospels, but is unseen in modern era. Is he waiting for his conscious to flabbergast, and destroy those who have no loyalty too him? Or, is he waiting for Satan to make a wrong move?

Yes, God exists. Where is He? He fills the universe. Is a visible presence of Him required? It wouldn't make a difference, to be honest. Any miracle of God would be dismissed. The return of Jesus would be called an illusion created by a nutjob.

Give it up Likeasong, your faith goes in cycles, and is nowhere near the Truth!

I would say you're nowhere near the truth.

It's not slander if it can't be proven false.

If stated as an opinion, you'd be right. But to simply say "They are thieves" is slanderous, and actionable in a court of law.

Until you can measure them, and then definitively label them as acts of your God, then they hold no scientific meaning.

If he is God, then he very well can succumb to the laws of science, otherwise he is not all powerful. If us Humans can do it, then so can he.

Once again claiming the supremacy of science, when that is not the point at all. And He did do it once, as Jesus. But the foundation of your request is flawed. If He succumbed to the laws of science, in the manner that you suggest, then He wouldn't be all-powerful.

The problem with that, is that since faith is not tangible, you didn't calculate anything. If you actually realized the scale of this risk, then I don't think you would consider it 'acceptable'.

Objectively, religion is the most 'wrong' thing to rear it's ugly head over humanity as a whole.

Religion has more often been a scapegoat in matters that involved ulterior motives.

Ah likeasong, I no longer think you're malevolent, just cursed with a severe lack of understanding. If you truly believe that we believe we'll "understand everything in sufficient time", then you're not getting it at all.

Maybe it's not what you yourself believe, but for scientists like Dawkins and Hawking, their agenda IS the disproof of God. And the disproof of God practically necessitates the understanding of everything.

The whole point of this thread (for me personally, I don't care why it was started xD) was to find out whether or not religion had any merit. This isn't fair, because I already knew that it had none. It has shown me however, that otherwise rational people are willing to rationalize irrational (miracles count as a metric, but technically they can count for anyone!) / down-right horrible (it was your choice to burn in hell by being a skeptic, not ours!) concepts to justify the existence of your outdated, poisonous religion. It shakes my faith in humanity just a bit.

Religion has merit. You pointed out the Moors who brought the Rennaissance. It was Christians who gave us the scientific method because they believed the fallibility of man required repeated demonstrations to understand the methods of God. I could enumerate the number of things that God has done in my life, but honestly, it would be simply opening myself up to personal attacks. Outside of that, you discount everything from the concepts of hope, love, and justice to the tangible, day-to-day works of both global Christian charities like CRWRC, to local ones like the ones going on in the community where I live.-- as not being "merit". Like it or not, those ARE the merits of religion, because those are the good things that have helped build stronger communities and helped out people, that were done out of faith, out of gratitude for salvation, and out of obedience to God; and if you think that why they did it is irrelevant, then you are sadly missing the point. They are doing great things on both large and small scales because of their faith in Christ. If that's poison, I'll gladly swallow a full beaker of it, because for every nutjob that makes waves, there are myriads more of the same faith fighting back with ripples to counteract them and rectify the damage done, with others making positive waves of their own. And let's drop the pretense, too. When you say "religion", you don't mean Buddhism, Hinduism, or even Islam or Judaism, you're only going after Christianity. You call the concepts I speak irrational... and while the miracles can be for anyone, they still hint towards the supernatural regardless of which avenue you go down. You call it horrible, but substitute it with a logic that is both contradictory and self-serving. I'm not looking to eradicate scientific progress, but you seem to be looking to eradicate faith or justify the sense of superiority you feel over those who still have it. And you originally thought me malevolent. I have tried to be respectful of your points of view because to some degree, I share them. Every Christian struggles with doubt at times, and their faith shaken when they think simiilar thoughts; so I do understand your point-of-view better than you give me credit for (even if not completely). In the end though, I still simply disagree with it, and that does not and should not qualify me as mentally ill, a retarded, an ignoramus, or a hate-crime waiting to happen, as I have been so subtly labeled in this discussion.

 

[TheChameleon]

Fact checking.

The majority of great scientists, the overwhelming majority of great scientists had some type of religious affliation. Yet atheists insist that science and religion are like a mixture of oil and water? DUH! Many of the posts in this forum are just hateful rants of religious intolerance and are without purpose.

Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.

The results were as follows (figures in %):

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.

I love how you guys aren't personally attacking each other. Thank you.

 

[Mash]

If stated as an opinion, you'd be right. But to simply say "They are thieves" is slanderous, and actionable in a court of law.

Slander is defined as, "Words falsely spoken to damage the reputation of another." Until it can be proven false, opinion or otherwise, it is not slander.

Once again claiming the supremacy of science, when that is not the point at all. And He did do it once, as Jesus. But the foundation of your request is flawed. If He succumbed to the laws of science, in the manner that you suggest, then He wouldn't be all-powerful.

If he can't do it, then he isn't all-powerful. Science is the study of the Universe and all things within. In terms of tangible, proven, and logical concepts, it is supreme.

I love how you guys aren't personally attacking each other. Thank you.

Arguments tend to be more productive when they're kept civilized. ^.^

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

We've already discussed why religion and science don't co-exist peacefully. Next topic.

Interesting... I follow scientific theory and progress while still remaining spiritual. If I follow the logic that if no matter what factors are present that science and religion can not co-exist peacefully then why is it possible for me to have the opinion that I do?

If you live in a completely black and white world where every little problem has a definite cause then sure you can go ahead and state that opinion as such a basic fact that all debate on it is meaningless. Unfortunately, the world is far more complex than that. In the world of sociological cause and effect there are often contributing factors which influence the way people act. You can't say that all religious people hate science any more than you can say that all people who value science hate religion.

Sure there are some instances where science and religion has not existed peacefully, but that is not the end all be all of all discussion on the topic.

"Well he started it! No she started it!" That is what this whole debate boils down to. 😉