Evolution...

[KB5252]

no one wants to say "I don't know" so they created religion instead. Most humans have a hard time with concepts they can't explain so there must be some rationalization.

So science is just a rationalization as well?

I think both are valid.

 

[rjd970]

or by another definition, belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standard of merit,etc.

It seems like that definition would apply to science in some cases.

Any belief not based on evidence isn't science, by definition.

It is about how the evidence is treated. Either Jesus was born of a galilean virgin, or he wasn't; either there is a God (of any sort) who created the universe and despises homosexuals, or there isn't. It is time that reasonable human beings came to agreement on the standards of evidence necessary to substantiate these kind of truth claims. There are an infinite number of ludicrous ideas that science could not "rule out," but which no sensible person would entertain. Science can't prove that unicorns don't exist, but it can point out that there is zero credible evidence suggesting they do. The issue is whether there is any good reason to believe the sorts of things that religious dogmatists believe -- that God exists and takes an interest in the affairs of human beings; that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception (and, therefore, that blastocysts are the moral equivalents of persons); etc.

 

[KB5252]

Tell that to the Vatican that considered Galileo a heretic for 500 years, yet never excommunicated one member of the third reich, even Hitler himself.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Any belief not based on evidence isn't science, by definition.

Then how is science EVER wrong?

 

[rjd970]

he owes you this answer no more than you owe him that answer. The problem with your stand is that you have no plausible explanation for the big bang.

Your leap of faith is no different than that of the religious folk and is equally unsupportable, so talking down your nose is probably unwarranted.

Oh yeah? Exactly what leap of faith am I making? I am saying I don't know. And there is no explanation "for" the big bang...the big bang "is" a possible explanation.

When somebody says God created the cosmos and sent his only begotten son to be sacrificed, they are making a specific falsifiable claim as to the way the world is. How many of the faithful actually believe it is a very real possibility that God had nothing to do with creating the cosmos? Now, how many scientist are willing to say the Big Bang may actually be completely wrong and off-base? Even the proponents of the theory will concede that point.

The fall back position of the scientist is "I don't know". The fall back position of the theologian is "God did it".

 

[therealUT]

Your simple logic is flawed. If something can't come from nothing, then you have to explain how God came from nothing.

If you say God is eternal and came from nothing by definition, then what's wrong with me saying the universe is eternal and came from nothing?

It is infinitely more honest to say "we don't know" then to say it is all the work of a creator, specifically the christian version, as metaphorically described in the Bible.

That is the beauty of believing in the Super Natural. We do not have to explain where God came from because is not constricted by the laws of nature.

However, since you want to base all your belief in how the world came to be from nothing to what it is today within the laws of nature, you are inherently ****ed from the beginning.

You can use all the logic, rationale, and 180 years of scientific evidence you want, however, in the end logic betrays you if you do not have at least a little faith in mysticism and Super Natural forces.

 

[rjd970]

What does this have to do with anything?

jdsa said:

The issue is the mechanism or standard of proof, not the infallibility of science or any particular scientist. Science has produced plenty of just plain doofus ideas, but it's continually questioned its results and tried establish consistency with what's known about the world.

bpv said:

I think this probably holds true of religion as well.

I said:

Tell that to the Vatican that considered Galileo a heretic for 500 years, yet never excommunicated one member of the third reich, even Hitler himself.

...The thread is not that long or hard to follow.

Focus on the part that says questioned its results and establish consistency part....and then think about the hypocrisy of the Vatican on labeling Galileo a heretic while not excommunicating one member of the third reich.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Oh yeah? Exactly what leap of faith am I making? I am saying I don't know. And there is no explanation "for" the big bang...the big bang "is" a possible explanation.

When somebody says God created the cosmos and sent his only begotten son to be sacrificed, they are making a specific falsifiable claim as to the way the world is. How many of the faithful actually believe it is a very real possibility that God had nothing to do with creating the cosmos? Now, how many scientist are willing to say the Big Bang may actually be completely wrong and off-base? Even the proponents of the theory will concede that point.

The fall back position of the scientist is "I don't know". The fall back position of the theologian is "God did it".

fair enough. You're playing semantics in making no leap of faith.

Congrats, the lone question you need to figure out in this life and you check "undecided."

Given that the religious story is falsifiable, show me where it is false.

I personally have no problem with Atheism or Agnosticism, but I do think every person on earth owes themselves to find this fundamental answer. It, in the end, is the only one that really matters. That's not religious dogma in the least. It is figuring out where you came from and if this life has some meaning beyond what we see today. If there is no meaning, why do we go to work or want better for our kids?

 

[therealUT]

Sorry, wrong again. Faith, by definition, is a belief in the absence of evidence. This reminds me of a quote given by Galileo during his heresy trial:

"The church tells me the earth is flat, but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and it is round, and I have more faith in a shadow than I do the church"

Interesting. I could have sworn that it was Magellan who made that comment...I would imagine that 180 years of science will tell you that Galileo said it though.

 

[KB5252]

Any belief not based on evidence isn't science, by definition.

It is about how the evidence is treated. Either Jesus was born of a galilean virgin, or he wasn't; either there is a God (of any sort) who created the universe and despises homosexuals, or there isn't. It is time that reasonable human beings came to agreement on the standards of evidence necessary to substantiate these kind of truth claims. There are an infinite number of ludicrous ideas that science could not "rule out," but which no sensible person would entertain. Science can't prove that unicorns don't exist, but it can point out that there is zero credible evidence suggesting they do. The issue is whether there is any good reason to believe the sorts of things that religious dogmatists believe -- that God exists and takes an interest in the affairs of human beings; that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception (and, therefore, that blastocysts are the moral equivalents of persons); etc.

It is more than apparent that you have a very deep seated distrust, possibly hate, in all things Christian (probably religious as well). You simply do not have faith in it, yet you do have faith in science (by definition), I guess it is all a matter of where you choose to put your faith.

But you will say "science has evidence" and will be more than happy that it is truth and there is nothing else to it. I see what science can't explain or in some cases has proven theories to be wrong and simply replace it with another one. Science alon just cannot explain everything to me, I just believe there is something behind it all.

 

[KB5252]

jdsa said:



bpv said:



I said:



...The thread is not that long or hard to follow.

Focus on the part that says questioned its results and establish consistency part....and then think about the hypocrisy of the Vatican on labeling Galileo a heretic while not excommunicating one member of the third reich.

If you were talking about two men from a common era your point might have some validity, but since it does not your comparison of two results with different variables is a flawed experiment to begin with.

Early science (alchemy) consisted of experiments and observations that came up with laughable conclusions. Should I discredit science for that fact?

 

[rjd970]

It is more than apparent that you have a very deep seated distrust, possibly hate, in all things Christian (probably religious as well). You simply do not have faith in it, yet you do have faith in science (by definition), I guess it is all a matter of where you choose to put your faith.

But you will say "science has evidence" and will be more than happy that it is truth and there is nothing else to it. I see what science can't explain or in some cases has proven theories to be wrong and simply replace it with another one. Science alon just cannot explain everything to me, I just believe there is something behind it all.

Wrong. And Wrong again. People can believe whatever and there is nothing wrong with it....I don't know how many times I can say this before I go blue in the face. But when people start arguing that Religion and Science go hand-in-hand, or suggest that supernatural explanations are on par or even better than evidenced based natural explanations, then I am going to call BS. Fine, if you want to continually insist I have faith in science then I will say I have faith that I ultimately don't know. That is why there are so many theories in science and so little laws. It is a huge liability in scientific discourse to be certain and wrong, and with religion it is often celebrated on the basis of "faith as a virtue".

Science alon just cannot explain everything to me, I just believe there is something behind it all

I see no problem with this stance. I, personally, just refuse to attribute everything in the "unknown" basket as the product of an omnipotent being.

 

[KB5252]

Wrong. And Wrong again. People can believe whatever and there is nothing wrong with it....I don't know how many times I can say this before I go blue in the face. But when people start arguing that Religion and Science go hand-in-hand, or suggest that supernatural explanations are on par or even better than evidenced based natural explanations, then I am going to call BS. Fine, if you want to continually insist I have faith in science then I will say I have faith that I ultimately don't know. That is why there are so many theories in science and so little laws. It is a huge liability in scientific discourse to be certain and wrong, and with religion it is often celebrated on the basis of "faith as a virtue".



I see no problem with this stance. I, personally, just refuse to attribute everything in the "unknown" basket as the product of an omnipotent being.

Fair enough!

 

[therealUT]

Tell that to the Vatican that considered Galileo a heretic for 500 years, yet never excommunicated one member of the third reich, even Hitler himself.

For someone who seems to be obsessed with Galileo, you are incredibly ignorant to what exactly happened with Galileo and the Catholic Church.

Why don't you do some reading to find out who it was that initially funded Galileo's research? Read further to find out what groups were outraged at his results. Continue reading about the Catholic Church and how they dealt with heretics, and then ask yourself why the Catholic Church simply confined to Galileo to house arrest (in a house that the Catholic Church built, complete with a classroom and the astrological instruments of the day) and allowed him to continue to research and teach. From that point on, yes, the Catholic Church censored what he published, but the Church did not censor what he taught or researched.

 

[rjd970]

Early science (alchemy) consisted of experiments and observations that came up with laughable conclusions. Should I discredit science for that fact?

This is actually a reason you should celebrate science. This is categorical proof that science corrects itself over time. Chemistry replaced alchemy — because chemistry substituted truth for untruth. But humans can live quite easily without alchemy, while religion supplies an antidote to the need for knowing the unknown.

How many scientists practice alchemy? How many christians still believe man was created in his present form 10,000 years ago? This isn't even close, and the same form of rationalization youn-earth creationists used to justify their belief is the same mechanisms every moderate believer uses to justify theirs.

 

[rjd970]

I personally have no problem with Atheism or Agnosticism, but I do think every person on earth owes themselves to find this fundamental answer. It, in the end, is the only one that really matters. That's not religious dogma in the least. It is figuring out where you came from and if this life has some meaning beyond what we see today. If there is no meaning, why do we go to work or want better for our kids?

What religion, may I ask, do you subscribe to? And what is your fundamental answer?

 

[BigPapaVol]

What religion, may I ask, do you subscribe to? And what is your fundamental answer?

God exists and I'm Christian.

I'll assure you that my belief is not a default position. I've explored it and made a very conscious decision about it.

 

[therealUT]

I personally have no problem with Atheism

There are no true atheists, and never have been. Everyone worships something.

 

[KB5252]

This is actually a reason you should celebrate science. This is categorical proof that science corrects itself over time. Chemistry replaced alchemy — because chemistry substituted truth for untruth. But humans can live quite easily without alchemy, while religion supplies an antidote to the need for knowing the unknown.

How many scientists practice alchemy? How many christians still believe man was created in his present form 10,000 years ago? This isn't even close, and the same form of rationalization youn-earth creationists used to justify their belief is the same mechanisms every moderate believer uses to justify theirs.

I would imagine very few.

The second part of that statement I have an issue with. The view on the earth's age relative to religion changed because of information that was not readily available so many years ago. To be specific the translations between the various languages and confusion with words that had multiple meanings depending on the context and use of said word. In the end much in the same mold as science religion revised it's understanding due to new information that had been accepted.

For the record I was raised in a lax Christian setting and went to a Christian private school. I hated the hypocrisy i witnessed there (spoiled rich kids who treated others who were not like dogs). When I made the decision to leave the school I left Christianity behind and began studying other religions and reading about science and ancient civilization. After studying the Bible I came to understand and let go of the bad things I associated with Christianity. I just wanted you to know I am by no means a blind follower.

 

[rjd970]

As somebody that does not believe there is a higher being, that does not mean I can't have emotional and even spiritual experiences. The feeling you may get while praying or worshipping, I get when listening to certain pieces of music or studying the sheer complexity of the universe.

I just find it narcissistic to believe that a God created this entire universe and everything in it....only to create one relatively small galaxy...on the far edge of which resides an obscure star sytem....which contains 9 planets...of which one is capable of supporting life some of the time...on some of its surface, specifically with us in mind. The alternative is much more interesting in my opinion.

 

[BigPapaVol]

There are no true atheists, and never have been. Everyone worships something.

I definitely implied that atheist have come to some conclusion about the world or, at a very minimum, owe themselves to figure out why. I believe that most have, especially those as convicted and as sharp as Mr. Dio appears to be.

 

[rjd970]

God exists and I'm Christian.

I'll assure you that my belief is not a default position. I've explored it and made a very conscious decision about it.

Good. Fair enough.

Then here's the question.

What would constitute "proof" for you that your current beliefs about God are mistaken? (i.e., what would get you to fundamentally doubt the validity of faith in general and of Christianity in particular?). I suspect the answer to this question will say a lot about why you believe what you believe.

 

[JZVOL]

^ Not BPV but the only thing that could change my mind (I am a Christian) is what happens after I die, if that makes sense.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Good. Fair enough.

Then here's the question.

What would constitute "proof" for you that your current beliefs about God are mistaken? (i.e., what would get you to fundamentally doubt the validity of faith in general and of Christianity in particular?). I suspect the answer to this question will say a lot about why you believe what you believe.

If you took away the martyrs who were martyred for their stand for Jesus, I'd be open to many other answers.

There have been hordes of martyrs who died for their blind faith.

Peter was martyred for something he saw. If he knew he were making up the stories he died for, why did he do it? Many have been martyred for their belief, none have been martyred for something they knew to be untrue.

I have a very hard time overcoming those first martyrs for Jesus, who continued to claim his story as truth.

There's more to it, but those guys don't exist and I have a different view.

 

[rjd970]

If you took away the martyrs who were martyred for their stand for Jesus, I'd be open to many other answers.

There have been hordes of martyrs who died for their blind faith.

Peter was martyred for something he saw. If he knew he were making up the stories he died for, why did he do it? Many have been martyred for their belief, none have been martyred for something they knew to be untrue.

I have a very hard time overcoming those first martyrs for Jesus, who continued to claim his story as truth.

There's more to it, but those guys don't exist and I have a different view.

I assume you place similar credibility on all the other religions throughout world history where people have knowingly given up their life for their spiritual beliefs? Do you not find similar stories of martyrdom from other faiths just as compelling?