What's with the hostility towards Christians?

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by ieatyourlvllol

Basically...

The inability to prove the existence of something does not necessarily guarantee its nonexistence.

The inability to disprove the existence of something does not necessarily guarantee its existence.

it's a mystery oooo

Right.

You can't be sure my alien doesn't exist.

But you're pretty sure, aren't you.

[funmonkey54]

Why do you believe Science is the supreme ruling factor in the world? You base every last little thing you say off of science. You assume every last thing a scientist says is correct! Why? Why are scientists so correct apparently? Science is your religion I guess, because you treat it like one. I don't really need to respond to anything else you say because "Your scientific standards" don't approve of anything people are saying. Really, such close-mindedness is astounding. To sit there and tell me that everything in the world revolves around your little theories and equations is just simply insane.

But, when it gets down to it, believe what you want to believe. I guess ultimately we will all find out eventually what is real and what isn't.

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by qqwref

/thread

No, not the thread. I did not use or say anything in a way that he did not also say it. That does not create hostility towards Christians. The hostility towards Christians comes with the same hostility towards anything that is different. Different religion, different race, different anything. The fact of the matter is this, we are all going to think we are right with what we believe. Doesn't matter what you believe. Hostility will exist. I am guilty of it, he is guilty of it, you are guilty of it. And that can be proven in whatever way you want.

[Grandiagod]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

Why do you believe Science is the supreme ruling factor in the world? You base every last little thing you say off of science. You assume every last thing a scientist says is correct! Why? Why are scientists so correct apparently? Science is your religion I guess, because you treat it like one. I don't really need to respond to anything else you say because "Your scientific standards" don't approve of anything people are saying. Really, such close-mindedness is astounding. To sit there and tell me that everything in the world revolves around your little theories and equations is just simply insane.

But, when it gets down to it, believe what you want to believe. I guess ultimately we will all find out eventually what is real and what isn't.

You're confusing "science" with "facts and evidence"

Yes it's close minded to think it's stupid that people believe in magic sky fairies.

SURE.

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by Grandiagod

You're confusing "science" with "facts and evidence"

Yes it's close minded to think it's stupid that people believe in magic sky fairies.

SURE.

And yes it's close minded to think it's stupid that people believe everything around them happened when 2 little particles hit each other.

[Grandiagod]

Well, yes that would be stupid to think that.

Good thing no one actually thinks that.

[A2P]

Religion is an abstract idea. A sort of moral codes to live by, rather than a cult following.

I hate faithful people who want to push their belief into everybody (you know, the YOU'RE GOING TO HELL FOR blahblahblah type), because in their ranting, they contradict their beliefs. I also hate atheist people who rely too much on science to guide their lives. Science is a marvelous invention, but remember that the theory of the big bang, evolution, etc. are still theories and therefore not yet proven. Everybody has to moderate themselves into a medium in between being faithful and being analytical. If we can find that medium, there will be peace in this world.

[Squeek]

People in this thread need to read the posts before making posts.

@"You love science too much!" guy - I already explained why intelligent people put stock in science. Science is a concept that allows for anybody to prove it wrong. If you don't like something about science, do your own experiments proving the concept wrong. Many people in the past have done this. People like Galileo, who decided that the idea of the Earth being the center of the Universe was simply absurd. Ptolemy went against the modern idea of a flat Earth and posited that the Earth was really round, and even went so far as to estimate its size. So, if you don't agree with evolution, come up with a way to prove it wrong. The scientific community will listen.

@"Science just has theories" guy. A scientific theory is not a guess. A scientific theory is basically a fact. The only reason it's not called a fact is because we can't fully test it. We cannot create gravity to prove the theory of gravity. We cannot great a solar system to prove the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Likewise, we cannot create billions of years of evolution to prove the theory of Evolution.

You know what else is a theory? The theory that allows you to measure the area of a circle. It's just a theory! The Pythagorean Theorem is how we can measure triangles with only the knowledge of two sides. But, it's only a theory! Though this is math, it's still under the same rules. They're not facts because we cannot test every single value, since numbers continue into infinity.

I've already explained why I have hostility for Christians. I honestly couldn't care less what you believe, but when Christians use their views of life to impact my life, then I have a problem. Our ex-president was swayed by the religious right to ban stem-cell research--research that can cure illnesses that kill millions of people every year. Our current president reversed this ban because he understands that it was a purely faith-based initiative on the part of the ex-president and that the research can save millions of lives. It's good that we've swapped Presidents with someone who understands the values of the Constitution and the wills of the forefathers, but we still have Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, City Councils, School Boards, etc. making poor decisions purely based on their faith. This is a problem and it needs to be stopped.

I consider myself extremely lucky that I was able to go to a school whose science department wasn't so jaded that they thought the teaching of Creationism went hand-in-hand with the teaching of Evolution. Creationism is not science. To teach it in a science classroom is the height of absurd. The only reason such a practice even exists is because of Christians whose only goal is to discredit the science that contradicts the teachings of their faith.

That's why I am angry at Christianity.

[A2P]

A scientific theory is basically a fact

So...almost a fact yet not quite a fact?

I'm not saying that science is an evil invention wrought upon the world. It has helped us tremendously no doubt, and I also believe that creationism should not be taught in science classes. However, we should not assume that science has all the answers in life. If reliant too much on science, we might think that we are "God," and eventually bring horrible omens to the world. We already have, in fact. If you don't believe me, look up Hiroshima 1945 on google and tell me what you find.

[Necros140606]

Originally Posted by A2P

So...almost a fact yet not quite a fact?

I'm not saying that science is an evil invention wrought upon the world. It has helped us tremendously no doubt, and I also believe that creationism should not be taught in science classes. However, we should not assume that science has all the answers in life. If reliant too much on science, we might think that we are "God," and eventually bring horrible omens to the world. We already have, in fact. If you don't believe me, look up Hiroshima 1945 on google and tell me what you find.

sounds like you're trying to justify religion as it instills morals, while science doesn't. you're wrong, because morals do not come from religion or science, but from one's environment and intelligence. for instance, using science in a way that does not harm the natural world it's only natural, because in an interconnected ecosphere/biosphere everything affects everything, and ultimately us humans. you could say that bad use of science (or anything else) is just symptom of a limited capacity of reading the world, and lack of empathy. a form of egoism that harms other living or not living things is a blind suicide. those who decided to lauch an atomic bomb were of course fooled by the critters of the war. not a good example. thiking that we are "god" will not be possible either because we will always lack the ability to create from scratch, which is imputed to god.

[sp1nzoK]

Originally Posted by Bolth mannn

What is the meaning of life?

if your an atheist, there is none. you live life, then you die, then thats it.

cause honestly, if theres no meaning to life, we should all kill ourselves to get it over with, all lifes going to bring is more troubles and pains.

whats the point?

This is just being thick man.

Atheists search for the meaning of life from deep within, you're just putting words into mouths of atheists because you want to bash them for not believing in some afterlife bonus and living their life in the moment, enjoying and embracing the time on this earth that they have.

You aren't even trying to understand non-christians and it's as apparent as it comes.

-

On-topic; christianity as a religion is very large, and the larger a religion gets, the more people join it for wrong reasons further enlargening it, furthermore many christians don't join it by their free will since baptizing is done in families by tradition, blessing a child into the religion since very early age, not everyone would join a religion if they were asked to as an adult, not many will leave their religion since it doesn't really hurt them to be in the religion even if they are only name-christians.

SIZE, PRETENTIOUSNESS & CLOSEMINDEDNESS are few qualities present in christianity that are suspectible to hate, not to mention the converting acts and past bloodsheds.

[devonin]

I think everybody needs to take a step back and a deep breath before they keep doing things like accuse other members of this forum of being close-minded, or ignorant, or foolish, or absurd.

Sure, this isn't a CT thread (And it warms my heart to see a thread like this elsewhere in the forum) but you still need to be addressing ideas not posters.

Since you guys have been posting fiends in the past day, I'll only respond to stuff on the last 2 pages.

Originally Posted by Dorby

The only reason I look down upon them is because they

1. Believe in someone that never existed
2. Some (not all are like this) base their life off of christianity, once again, something that is not real, it did not happen, etc.

There is evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. The Romans were nothing if not great keepers of records, and there are records supporting the census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, and I believe (Though it would take me a while to dig it out) that there's records of the crucifixion being ordered and carried out also. Historical Jesus as "Some guy who went around preaching" existed, but then if you've ever seen the preaching scene of Monty Python's Life of Brian, it was actually like that at the time. Being a travelling prophet was a pretty common life choice for persuasive people at the time.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "christianity [being] something that isn't real" Even if Jesus weren't actually divine in any way, and was just some guy who had some logical things to say about how we should live, that doesn't mean that "a belief system based on the teachings of this person" somehow isn't actually -real- just not based on the divine foundation they want to say it is.

Originally Posted by Bolth Mannn

sure christians dont have physical proof, thats where faith comes in. christianity actually has a lot of evidence to support it. the only thing noone is entirely sure about is about jesus/big man in sky.

but theres heaps of evidence that support some of the stories in the bible.

Except that the ENTIRE BASIS OF CHRISTIANITY is predicated on the existence of "jesus/big man in the sky". To say that the only thing you aren't sure about is the primary support for your system is a pretty big thing to be not sure about.

Also...the fact that various historical accounts in the bible match up to other evidence for those historical events in no way suggests that all of the bible is automatically correct.

I recently bought a book entitled "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" which is an adaptation of the Jane Austen novel, only, with zombies. Now here's the thing. 85% of the text of that novel is word-for-word Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. You saying that even if 85% of the bible is provably correct due to other historical evidence and concluding that therefore 100% of the bible is correct (Or even just that because many of the things have evidence, you believe even the things that don't) would be the same as my insisting that Jane Austen wrote a book about zombies and Mr Darcy. After all, MOST of the text is the same as the original versions of the novel.

Originally Posted by dean_machine

Are you serious? You should look into apologetics either on the internet or in books. There's plenty of proof.

As somebody who has taken courses in christian apologetics, who actually owns a book entitled "The handbook of christian apologetics" let me just say that apologetics in no way constitutes "proof".

The purpose of apologetics is to respond to objections lodged against you. If you basically remove all evidence presented in the bible as necessarily begging the question being responded to (which you should) you'll find surprisingly little by way of actual claims of fact, let alone proven claims of fact in christian apologetics. And most of it tends to revolve around the fact that a lot of the stories presented in the bible have corroborating evidence elsewhere (which is legitimate) and then springboarding from there to the claim that therefore other stories presented in the bible must also be correct, despite the lack of corroborating evidence (which is not legitimate)

Originally Posted by Bolth Mannn

What is the meaning of life?

if your an atheist, there is none. you live life, then you die, then thats it

The christian experince is "Life is a test" The whole purpose of this mortal existance is to try and earn our way into heaven by living a certain way according to certain rules, and if we do a good job, we get eternal reward.

The atheist experience is "Life is a life" The whole purpose of this mortal existance is to live a pointful life that we enjoy, and derive what enjoyment and pleasure we can from our existance because we're aware that when we die, that's it, we're done.

Just because atheists don't have an end goal in mind with an eye towards persistance after death doesn't mean they don't have an end goal in mind. Maybe something like "I want to live a good life, with good friends, and a family that loves me, and leave my mark on the world so that I won't be forgotten after I'm gone." Man, what a HORRIBLE way to want to live a life...oh wait.

Originally Posted by Wickedawesomeful

If there's no evidence of any existence at all, we CAN say with certainty that it doesn't exist.

Actually you can't. In the same way that a lack of proof against doesn't make something true, lack of proof for doesn't make something false automatically.

There is currently no proof of intelligent extraterrestrial life in the universe. But we can't "say with a certainty" there is none unless or until we've personally gone out and checked every single place it could even potentially be. This is the distinction Squeek has been drawing repeatedly about scientific theory. At it's root, most scientific logic is necessarily inductive rather than deductive logic. Scientists conclude a general theory based on an increasingly large number of individual specific cases.

To take the Pythagorean theorem mentioned earlier, you start from something like A^2 + B^2 = C^2, and go "Okay, lets draw a triangle, measure A, B and C and see if this works. Oh look it did. Now let's draw another triangle, measure A, B and C and see if it works again. Oh look it did. Now we'll exhaustively check another 100,000 different triangles, we'll invite anybody else to show us a triangle that doesn't work this way, and see if it works. Oh look it did. This seems like a pretty correct equation. BUT SINCE WE CAN'T TEST EVERY SINGLE POTENTIALLY EXISTING TRIANGLE we can't actually CONCLUDE that it ALWAYS works, but seriously, keep testing, and if you find one that doesn't work, we'd love to hear about it.

So it doesn't matter how much evidence there -isn't- for something. You aren't "saying with certainty" anything until you've tested -everything-

Originally Posted by Bolth Mannn

show me proof he doesnt exist
show me proof he DOES exist.

need I say more.

Yes, you need say more.

us christians have our reasons that none of you atheists would understand seeing as you block off all views so quickly, and you wont even give us any evidence so whatever.

Try them. Atheists are nothing if not willing to hear a theory to explain something about how the universe works. Since their core belief is "It doesn't work by magic" they tend to have a strong desire to know how it -does- work. If you had evidence to support deism or theism, they'd be glad to hear it.

Telling them in response "Prove God doesn't exist" is logically worthless because you can't disprove a negative. You need proof for, not proof for not. To prove something does exist, you need, fundamentally to show it to us in some fashion. To prove something does not exist, you basically can't, unless you have the ability to somehow check absolutely everything.

Consider the statement "I was home alone last night" and then your objection: "Prove I -wasn't- home alone last night" The only way to disprove the claim that you were home alone is to show that you were somewhere else. The only way to -prove- the claim that you were home alone would be functionally, to prove that you were NOT at every single other place you could potentially be.

This is what you're demanding when you counter "prove god exists" with "prove he doesn't" Clearly we can't prove he doesn't exist, because we lack the tools to make that investigation. However we CAN say "Every place we've looked so far, there's no God, so unless you can show us a counter-example, this seems more likely"

The burden of proof is on you.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Scientists don't have to believe in something we know to be true. We've tested it. We know it's true. This is not a faith-based initiative. Someone posited a hypothesis, a bunch of people tested it, and now we know it's the truth. The old Pope (JP2) even said it was credible!

BIG problem here, and considering how I still see it pop up, I'm going to big-text this.

TRUTH IS NOT THE PURVIEW OF SCIENCE.

Science cannot and will not tell us what actually happens or happened. It can give us evidence and its best educated guess, but that is all.

What does claim to have truth? Religion. Truth is, in fact, the purview of religion.

This is a great distinction in such debates. Science can point in a direction, but you'll have to look to religion to see if it's actually right or not. Science may very well be right; I'll be quite surprised if, say, atoms weren't made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. But you know what? There's still the chance that all of our evidence misleads us, that it all agrees and points to a very logical conclusion. We could all live out the remainder of humanity's days under this false conclusion and never have a problem with its falsity. But in the end, it turns out to be wrong. In such a case, science did everything it could and can hold its head up high. It formed a hypothesis, mounted corroborating evidence, modified the original hypothesis to fit contradictory evidence, and pointed to the most likely conclusion. That's all science can do, all we ask it to do, and that's great!

It still can never say with absolute certainty what the truth is, however.

Take evolution.
The evidence: species adapted over millions of years to give rise to the population we have today.
The reality: who knows? God does. He was around that whole time. It could be that he was a Watchmaker who set the big bang into action and let everything, including evolution as we see it, take place. It could be that ten thousand years ago he winked everything into existence, including fossil records, geologic strata, and the such.

Either way, science is going to point to the same conclusion: that evolution happened. What is the truth? Science neither knows nor cares; that's not its job.
In the first "reality" case, it points to the truth. Hey, look at that, science, you were right! Give yourself a pat on the back for a job well done.
In the second "reality" case, it doesn't point to the truth. Hey, look, at that, science, you were wrong! Give yourself a pat on the back for a job well done.

As such, you'll have to look to religion if you want truth.

Exhaustive examples aside, I'll get back to the quoted part...

The big problem? You said science claims truth, which just isn't true. This is why Christians (like the aforementioned pope, for a good example) can embrace evolution and other scientific claims that "go against Christianity". Such claims cannot and do not contradict religion, because religion preaches truth whereas science does not.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Necros140606]

how can you possibly say that religion speaks ultimate thruth. are you implying that, whatever is discovered by science, religion will always be the answer?

[YaBoySM]

I think what he's trying to say is that you should look at both points of view before going to a conclusion

[GuidoHunter]

@YaBoySM: No, that's not at all what I was trying to say.

Originally Posted by Necros140606

how can you possibly say that religion speaks ultimate thruth.

I said it claims the truth, which it does. Whether it be Heaven, Enlightenment, or what have you, the end result is a knowledge of the truth.

are you implying that, whatever is discovered by science, religion will always be the answer?

I'm trying to say that science will never have an answer, whereas religion is chock-full of them.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[qqwref]

Originally Posted by Squeek

\The Pythagorean Theorem is how we can measure triangles with only the knowledge of two sides. But, it's only a theory! Though this is math, it's still under the same rules. They're not facts because we cannot test every single value, since numbers continue into infinity.

I just felt I had to point out that this isn't actually how it works. A theorem in math actually is fact (it is proved by a logical argument, rather than by experiment, so it is guaranteed to always be true), as long as you accept the basic axioms that math provides. On the other hand large swaths of math are often labeled as a 'theory' - number theory, group theory, etc. These fields are somewhat like scientific theories in their own way, because they attempt to provide an abstract foundation for things we have seen (for instance, number theory is a model which allows us to investigate the properties of whole numbers), and if you think they are not the best model for those things then you can always try to create your own.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

I'm trying to say that science will never have an answer, whereas religion is chock-full of them.

Wait a minute though. Just because religion claims to have many answers does not mean the answers are actually *true* - what you say seems to imply that you think whatever religion says actually IS truth. Religion may claim that things are absolute truths where science can only say "this is our best guess given the observational evidence", but I would be extremely surprised if it didn't turn out that science had found more actual truths than religion had. Religion is only able to say things are truth (when they very well might not be) because they are impossible to test; and the only reason science does not say its theories are truth is to cover its bases in case some important evidence was missed. In the end religion claims more accuracy, and yet has less evidence to back its accusations up... to me it looks like science is much more trustworthy.

[funmonkey54]

In all honesty, Devonin and Guido have thoroughly satisfied me in that I think they kinda hit the nail on the head. I don't really have any more to say here at the moment. And that's the truth.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by qqwref

Wait a minute though. Just because religion claims to have many answers does not mean the answers are actually *true* - what you say seems to imply that you think whatever religion says actually IS truth.

Ugh. I had a difficult time wording that last post how I wanted to, and in the end I was just hoping you would catch my meaning, but I guess I wasn't explicit enough.

No, of course we can't know if or what religions are true. Within the scope of each religion, however, they do profess truth, and they each require a measure of faith, yadda yadda. My posts would have been excessively wordy if I had to make such distinctions every time, so I started with "claims to have truth" at the beginning and ran with it from there. Sorry for any confusion, but we're on the same page, here.

I mean, that's not to say I don't personally believe; I'm a Christian, but that's not my point.

Religion is only able to say things are truth (when they very well might not be) because they are impossible to test; and the only reason science does not say its theories are truth is to cover its bases in case some important evidence was missed.

Careful, here. Religion claims truth where science does not because of their respective fields. Religion can claim truth because it deals with God himself, or other supernatural places/beings/whathaveyou. God, being God, knows all and tells us what's up, and that's where the truth comes from; it's not from the mere fact that constructs are untestable.

Science doesn't claim truth because that's not what it does or is intended to do, not because it might be wrong. Science always knows it might be wrong and even loves being wrong, because disproving things is an integral part of the scientific method. It deals with evidence and the scientific method. Truth doesn't fit in anywhere in science's realm, and ignoring it is far from some base CYA excuse.

In the end religion claims more accuracy, and yet has less evidence to back its accusations up... to me it looks like science is much more trustworthy.

Uh-oh. You're mixing science and religion, which is a big no-no. "Evidence" is scientific, and belongs nowhere near the realm of religion. Faith is religious, and belongs nowhere near the realm of science. Trying to mix the two only ends in bad things. Religion and science have nothing to do with each other and want nothing to do with each other, so take care not to commingle them.

Whichever you decide to trust in the end is based on your faith (or lack thereof).

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Squeek]

Fine. Replace my "truth" with "current established standard" and my sentence is just fine.

I posted several things later that go along with this concept, since scientists have the capacity to override the current established standard with new evidence, much like Galileo and Ptolemy did.

My problem is that I can't have "faith" in something that has no evidence. When I want the answer to a question, even if it's a bad answer, it's better than "oh, you know, God did it. God's all-powerful and can do anything, so anything that doesn't make sense, God did it!" That just doesn't cut it for me, sorry. Even if the information we currently have is terrible, it's better than just ignoring it and saying it was God.