athiests and agnostics know more about religion than churchgoers

[rjd970]

Who's the idiot to which you referred?

Once identified, I'd be interested to learn of how you identified that portion of their argument which you believe to be invalid, and how you've reached this conclusion.

Any yahoo that thinks creationism (or ID, whatever) is a legitimate scientific viewpoint that should be taught in schools.

There are any number of their argument I find to be completely invalid. For starters, who created the creator. Simply saying he/she/it is eternal and outside of time is just as valid (and simple-minded) as me saying the universe is eternal and outside of time.

 

[IPorange]

How could a true atheist believe otherwise?

It seems impossible that you could have intrinsically believed in the existence of a God at birth, considering that you do not now believe that he exists?

That is, unless he has died since you were born.

Or, unless you want to subscribe to the Lewis (C.S.) theory that all humans are born with an innate understanding of God, and that His existence is now somehow predicatd on your individual dis/belief.

It's much easier, and far less messy, just to disavow any belief, whatsoever, I would think.

There are some interesting neurological studies that are ongoing that seem to indicate we have a "god spot" in our brain that gives us feelings of spirituality and of a divine presence. It is larger/more responsive in some people than in others.

I don't think being born with a particular belief or whatever has much bearing on the question of a belief's validity one way or the other.

It isn't like you see Catholics being born to Hindu parents or anything. You're taught religion.

 

[Tenacious D]

Any yahoo that thinks creationism (or ID, whatever) is a legitimate scientific viewpoint that should be taught in schools.

There are any number of their argument I find to be completely invalid. For starters, who created the creator. Simply saying he/she/it is eternal and outside of time is just as valid (and simple-minded) as me saying the universe is eternal and outside of time.

I believe your position to be sincere, as is mine.

Admittedly, I find compelling arguments on both sides of the issue, holding most no more/less likely than the other.

Now, with that caveat used as a frame of reference as to my personal beliefs, I'd ask what scientific discovery has effectively refuted the existence of God.

Whatever role s/he might have played in the creation of our universe seems insignificant to that one, wouldn't you agree?

 

[rjd970]

I believe your position to be sincere, as is mine.

Admittedly, I find compelling arguments on both sides of the issue, holding most no more/less likely than the other.

Now, with that caveat used as a frame of reference as to my personal beliefs, I'd ask what scientific discovery has effectively refuted the existence of God.

Whatever role s/he might have played in the creation of our universe seems insignificant to that one, wouldn't you agree?

This is where everything breaks down and we get mired in arguments over what we don't know. Bottomline, unfalsifiable claims do not mean a thing. Science, afterall, hasn't refuted the existence of unicorns or astrology either. That is hardly good enough evidence to say such claims have any intellectual merit.

And, if one wants to claim a creator, then the obvious observation is they are, at best, an underachiever. We live on a small planet, in the middle of nowhere in the universe, on the edge of a non-descript galaxy, in ordinary solar system, on a planet that supports life some of the time on some of its surface, only to be engulfed by an exploding sun in 5 billion years. This is to say nothing of the fact that greater than 95% of all life that has ever lived on this planet is now extinct. And, for some non-existent explanation, said creator decided to implant 400,000 different species of beetles on said planet.

Right...none of that exudes radomness. It was all designed. :ermm:

 

[IPorange]

Now, with that caveat used as a frame of reference as to my personal beliefs, I'd ask what scientific discovery has effectively refuted the existence of God.

How can something that doesn't exist be proven not to exist? It's why science operates off of the null hypothesis instead of the other way around.

 

[IPorange]

This is where everything breaks down and we get mired in arguments over what we don't know. Bottomline, unfalsifiable claims do not mean a thing. Science, afterall, hasn't refuted the existence of unicorns or astrology either. That is hardly good enough evidence to say such claims have any intellectual merit.

And, if one wants to claim a creator, then the obvious observation is they are, at best, an underachiever. We live on a small planet, in the middle of nowhere in the universe, on the edge of a non-descript galaxy, in ordinary solar system, on a planet that supports life some of the time on some of its surface, only to be engulfed by an exploding sun in 5 billion years. This is to say nothing of the fact that greater than 95% of all life that has ever lived on this planet is now extinct. And, for some non-existent explanation, said creator decided to implant 400,000 different species of beetles on said planet.

Right...none of that exudes radomness. It was all designed. :ermm:

damn, that was well put.

 

[rjd970]

damn, that was well put.

Some Hitchens and Harris sprinkled in there....but it is full of solid points.

 

[KB5252]

I personally believe religion and science are ultimately trying to explain the same thing. I see little difference in the scientific explanation of how the universe was created and how scripture explains it, keep in mind that I do not believe the Bible word for word and I am using this as my frame of reference.

Bottom line for me is that science tries to explain the mechanisms by which it happened while religion deals only with the spiritual aspects. Perhaps religion, Christianity in this particular case does have it wrong and and has misinterpreted the entire "God" issue. I don't look at that as a flaw of religion or God but more of a problem of man's limited ability to understand and convey the concept. Perhaps over time as we learn more religion/spirituality is forced to change as a result of scientific knowledge or just maybe religion/spirituality is supported by scientific findings, we simply don't know but for either side to try and claim the other idea false at this point is as problematic because we understand so little.

 

[rjd970]

I personally believe religion and science are ultimately trying to explain the same thing. I see little difference in the scientific explanation of how the universe was created and how scripture explains it, keep in mind that I do not believe the Bible word for word and I am using this as my frame of reference.

Bottom line for me is that science tries to explain the mechanisms by which it happened while religion deals only with the spiritual aspects. Perhaps religion, Christianity in this particular case does have it wrong and and has misinterpreted the entire "God" issue. I don't look at that as a flaw of religion or God but more of a problem of man's limited ability to understand and convey the concept. Perhaps over time as we learn more religion/spirituality is forced to change as a result of scientific knowledge or just maybe religion/spirituality is supported by scientific findings, we simply don't know but for either side to try and claim the other idea at this point is as problematic because we understand so little as of now.

I see huge, massive differences. One explanation deals in metahpysical claims, the other in evidence and theory based claims.

Over the last 2000 years, and especially the last 200 or so, the only thing religion has been good for in this realm is continually changing the target and filling in gaps where science is currently lacking. It gets pushed out of one gap and fills another.

Not saying there isn't merit to spiritual claims and legitimate human experiences...but when these claims start intruding (sometimes overtly) in the realm of science then it needs to be called out for what it is.

Contrary to popular belief, religion and science address very different magistra, and there is (or should be) no overlap.

 

[KB5252]

I see huge, massive differences. One explanation deals in metahpysical claims, the other in evidence and theory based claims.

Over the last 2000 years, and especially the last 200 or so, the only thing religion has been good for in this realm is continually changing the target and filling in gaps where science is currently lacking. It gets pushed out of one gap and fills another.

Not saying there isn't merit to spiritual claims and legitimate human experiences...but when these claims start intruding (sometimes overtly) in the realm of science then it needs to be called out for what it is.

Contrary to popular belief, religion and science address very different magistra, and there is (or should be) no overlap.

I agree they are separate and should remain so. That doesn't change my belief that ultimately they are trying to explain the same thing. Science take a much different approach for sure but your statement about filling in the gaps is also prevalent in science and switching the puzzle pieces until they fall into line is commonplace. Religion/Spirituality doesn't have the benefit of do overs since it doesn't deal with any measurable or verifiable substance (at least not yet) but science will find the way if possible given time.

 

[Tenacious D]

This is where everything breaks down and we get mired in arguments over what we don't know. Bottomline, unfalsifiable claims do not mean a thing. Science, afterall, hasn't refuted the existence of unicorns or astrology either. That is hardly good enough evidence to say such claims have any intellectual merit.

And, if one wants to claim a creator, then the obvious observation is they are, at best, an underachiever. We live on a small planet, in the middle of nowhere in the universe, on the edge of a non-descript galaxy, in ordinary solar system, on a planet that supports life some of the time on some of its surface, only to be engulfed by an exploding sun in 5 billion years. This is to say nothing of the fact that greater than 95% of all life that has ever lived on this planet is now extinct. And, for some non-existent explanation, said creator decided to implant 400,000 different species of beetles on said planet.

Right...none of that exudes radomness. It was all designed. :ermm:

So, science is incapable of offering proof of nonexistentialism?

Is that correct?

 

[Tenacious D]

How can something that doesn't exist be proven not to exist? It's why science operates off of the null hypothesis instead of the other way around.

So, lacking scientific proof of existence, it is presumed not to have existed. Is that right?

Admittedly, I am not well-versed on this subject (and a vast array of others, unfortunately), and want to be certain that I understand your point, considering both my limited knowledge and reasoning.

 

[Tenacious D]

I see huge, massive differences. One explanation deals in metahpysical claims, the other in evidence and theory based claims.

Over the last 2000 years, and especially the last 200 or so, the only thing religion has been good for in this realm is continually changing the target and filling in gaps where science is currently lacking. It gets pushed out of one gap and fills another.

Not saying there isn't merit to spiritual claims and legitimate human experiences...but when these claims start intruding (sometimes overtly) in the realm of science then it needs to be called out for what it is.

Contrary to popular belief, religion and science address very different magistra, and there is (or should be) no overlap.

Gould would agree (were he here, but at least now he knows what afterlife exists, if any at all, and with some certainty), Dawkins would not.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

How can a self-avowed atheist not find relgious beliefs (and, in turn, their believers) moronic?

I don't believe in pixies, and would find anyone who did to be moronic.

Because I know I'm not 100% correct on the origins of our world.

Also, I'm not an asshoIe.

 

[Tenacious D]

Because I know I'm not 100% correct on the origins of our world.

Also, I'm not an asshoIe.

How do you know you're not correct?

What do the origins of our world have to do with your atheism? Here's a hint: if you don't believe in the existence of God, strike "God" from your list of potemtial originations. Which leads back to my original question.

What does your personality have to do with anything?

You're statement continues to be illogical, but I appreciated how you said it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[ridethelightening]

Why doesn't randomness continue to happen? Hasn't had time to? Has this been proven or is it a "faithful" belief?

 

[VolBurgers]

I would like to hear the "compelling arguments" for creationism.

 

[GVF]

Because the Bible is my religion, not a church.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I also consider the bible my religion, and I attend where I believe NT christianity to be practiced as close to what I interpret the scriptures to say to the best of my ability. That alone does NOT make me a christian. What makes me a christian is that I accepted those teachings, repented, confessed Christ to be the Son of God, and was immersed in baptism as directed by the scripture to be saved. That you are searching and studying is great, when you open yourself to the commands to gain salvation and put christ on, then you are truly a christian.

Teachings that edit out certain progressions of the act of salvation are not teaching NT christianity accurately.

 

[IPorange]

So, science is incapable of offering proof of nonexistentialism?

Is that correct?

Logic is incapable. Think about it. Try to disprove the Greek gods' existence. You can't.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[GVF]

That's a matter of interpretation. There are many christian sects that do not believe nonbelievers go to hell. or at least believe that the only way to go to hell is to reject god when you die (i.e. to meet god and then say he doesn't exist which obviously most of us wouldn't do). The "i don't hate you, but i just want you to know you are going to hell" argument is really a ridiculous one. You are still telling me i'm going to hell. Not exactly a friendly thing to say.

"If a man does not confess me before others, I will not confess him before my Father in Heaven."

"Depart from me, I know you not."

"Neither drunks, nor revelers, nor effeminate, nor fornicators, nor adulterers...shall ever enter the kingdom of heaven." {Of course, this would apply only to those that die in their state of sin. Accepting God in baptism clearly by scripture affords one grace and salvation.}

"Believe in me and be baptized and you will be saved."

Some christians misinterpret their duties as christians. The Bible also admonishes those who judge others and the consequences of such. God accepts those that come as they are. What one does with it from there is between them and God. One should study and open themselves to the truth. The New Testament is not complicated. If one were to ask me what would would happen to them....my only answer would be to open the scripture let them read for themselves, and tell me what they think. A chrisitians duty is to only plant the seed. God will give the increase as He will also judge on that day.

 

[GVF]

i'm failing to see your point? there's ample evidence the bible was writen decades after jesus death. this really isn't in doubt. surely it's POSSIBLE that everything in it isn't the word of god.

There is also ample eveidence that men accompanied Jesus and the apostles on their journeys to record what was seen and said. Not to mention that the New Testament was authored by these same Apostles of Christ and the writings were either first hand or inspired by God and validated by their apostleship to Christ. It would be frivilous for anyone to argue that the Apostle Paul wrote all of his books while with Christ when Christ had already been crucified prior to some of his missionary journeys. The time frame of the apostles and their teachings and biblical writings only confirm that God's teaching continued after Christ's death and christianity grew. Therefore saying parts of the Bible are innaccurate or false because they were wrote a couple of decades later, is itself false. The apostles were still active and alive, and continuing to teach and write the letters to the churches that eventually came together as one Bible. And the biblical content of these letters never contradicted the teachings of Christ himself.

 

[Tenacious D]

Logic is incapable. Think about it. Try to disprove the Greek gods' existence. You can't.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Were I to say that Martians existed on Mars, but none were seen nor evidence of their existence detected after the totality of the planet had been completely explored, wouldn't this suffice to satisfy the broad tenants of most scientific standards, effectively, proving their nonexistence?

Secondly, why doesn't science provide similiar opposition to the "you-can't-prove-what-doesn't-exist" argument where gaps in the fossil record are known to exist? Instead, doesn't evolutionary science suggests that we simply believe (as irony would have it, on "faith") that such a fossil must exist, despite its absence?

If we say that God's nonexistence is "proven" by a lack of evidence to support the claim, why would such not also be true of the fossil record?

Again, as someone with little knowledge of this subject and who remains unencumbered by either camp's claims - it seems that both sides expect faith when it suits their assumed or intended end, and categorical refutation when it does not.

 

[Tenacious D]

There is also ample eveidence that men accompanied Jesus and the apostles on their journeys to record what was seen and said. Not to mention that the New Testament was authored by these same Apostles of Christ and the writings were either first hand or inspired by God and validated by their apostleship to Christ. It would be frivilous for anyone to argue that the Apostle Paul wrote all of his books while with Christ when Christ had already been crucified prior to some of his missionary journeys. The time frame of the apostles and their teachings and biblical writings only confirm that God's teaching continued after Christ's death and christianity grew. Therefore saying parts of the Bible are innaccurate or false because they were wrote a couple of decades later, is itself false. The apostles were still active and alive, and continuing to teach and write the letters to the churches that eventually came together as one Bible. And the biblical content of these letters never contradicted the teachings of Christ himself.

The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God. Where does the Bible, itself, claim to be inerrant?

 

[rjd970]

Were I to say that Martians existed on Mars, but none were seen nor evidence of their existence detected after the totality of the planet had been completely explored, wouldn't this suffice to satisfy the broad tenants of most scientific standards, effectively, proving their nonexistence?

Secondly, why doesn't science provide similiar opposition to the "you-can't-prove-what-doesn't-exist" argument where gaps in the fossil record are known to exist? Instead, doesn't evolutionary science suggests that we simply believe (as irony would have it, on "faith") that such a fossil must exist, despite its absence?

If we say that God's nonexistence is "proven" by a lack of evidence to support the claim, why would such not also be true of the fossil record?

Again, as someone with little knowledge of this subject and who remains unencumbered by either camp's claims - it seems that both sides expect faith when it suits their assumed or intended end, and categorical refutation when it does not.

Again, two different camps of thought. The scientific approach is continually trying to prove itself wrong. It is really the only school of thought where it is a good thing to prove something wrong, because it usually means you have made a more substantial discovery.

The main difference, though, is everything is built upon evidence. Faith isn't required. Take DNA for example. Is it possible it doesn't work they way we think it does with genetic inheritence? Sure...I guess...but if this is the case, then mother nature has A LOT of explaning to do to counter the mountains of evidence we have in favor of it. What are the chances it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with genetic inheritence? It is effectively zero.

This is the same argument with the fossil record contiually trotted out in these discussions. Are there gaps? Sure. But what are the chances that evolutionary theory is wrong because of this? Given the mountains of other evidence, it is effectively zero. And given the fact that, while there are gaps, it still fits nicely within the evolutionay theory, it is worthy of mention as evidence. It is just another independent piece of the puzzle when trying to put this story together.

The specific mechanism of how evolution happened is still debated ans studied. But nobody worth their PhD is disputing it happened is some fashion. No matter how many little holes you poke in different evidence, this fact doesn't change.

 

[Tenacious D]

Again, two different camps of thought. The scientific approach is continually trying to prove itself wrong. It is really the only school of thought where it is a good thing to prove something wrong, because it usually means you have made a more substantial discovery.

1. If the scientific community is constantly trying to prove itself wrong:
a. Why aren't the gaps in the fossil record fully explored - instead of simply being minimalized as not having yet been discovered? Perhaps the theory that they don't exist warrants further consideration....much like my example of looking for Martians on Mars.

b. Is the rationalizing of missing evidence and empirical data a common element of scientific study, as a whole, or is it strictly contained to the theory of evolution?

c. Why isn't every possible alternative to the theory of evolution more fully explored - be it intelligent design, or any other possible alternative theories? Where is the harm in exploring other possibilities?

d. It seems that the presumption of the scientific community is to assert that evolutionary theory isn't simply true, but that it must be true. Do you think that most in the scientific community begin with the presumption that evolutionary theory is true, and now seek to align the evidence to support their intended conclusion - or are they willing to explore these alternatives and encourage others to do so, as well?

The main difference, though, is everything is built upon evidence. Faith isn't required.

Merriam-Webster offers one definition of faith as being a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Given the many missing transitional fossils, the scientific community not only seems to be exercising some level of faith (as properly defined, above, void of religious connotation) in asserting their existence, but then further applies this faith to substantiate the correctness of evolutionary theory. This begs a question:

How can scientists not only use - but require - some element of faith (again, as properly defined) to support their belief, but disallow and disavow others to do so in its opposition? If we are going to say that matters of faith are inadmissable, shouldn't that apply to all sides of the debate?

Take DNA for example. Is it possible it doesn't work they way we think it does with genetic inheritence? Sure...I guess...but if this is the case, then mother nature has A LOT of explaning to do to counter the mountains of evidence we have in favor of it. What are the chances it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with genetic inheritence? It is effectively zero.

But it's not zero, is it? And as such, the exploration of DNA's many mysteries continues, right. Why is evolutionary theory expempted from the same (and rigthful) level and degree of scientific scrutiny?

This is the same argument with the fossil record contiually trotted out in these discussions.

Perhaps such occurs because it is so poorly explained, and continues to be left unexplored (the "trotted" answer being, "We cannot prove they exist with empirical evidence, but trust us, they do - we just haven't found them yet."

Are there gaps? Sure.

Thank you for your honesty. The next best question now becomes: Why?

But what are the chances that evolutionary theory is wrong because of this? Given the mountains of other evidence, it is effectively zero.

Using your earlier example, then why is DNA continued to be intensively studied and subjective to rigorous study - but evolutionary theory is dissimiliarly exempted?

And given the fact that, while there are gaps, it still fits nicely within the evolutionay theory, it is worthy of mention as evidence. It is just another independent piece of the puzzle when trying to put this story together.

I think you better defined, "working in reverse, from a intended conclusion" better than may authors I have read. As to your statement, yes, if you first assume that evolutionary theory is true, I agree that no amount of missing evidence could hinder your belief......but now, here is where faith and science divert.

If I first presume that pixies must exist, the lack of pixie dust cannot dissuage my personal belief. We just haven't found any pixie dust, at this point. Sound familiar?

The specific mechanism of how evolution happened is still debated ans studied.

Agreed. However, this "debate" is still confined to an assumption that it must be true, right?

But nobody worth their PhD is disputing it happened is some fashion.

So, you would question the credentials of any scientist who disputed the "truth" of evolutionary theory?

No matter how many little holes you poke in different evidence, this fact doesn't change.

That these "little holes" exist is not of my doing. They exist because they, well, exist.

That you, someone with a clearly superior understanding of this intricate topic than I, are wholly unconcerned with them and unwilling to contemplate its possible alternatives speaks more to your own personal faith, than science.