|
|
#41 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
unless you consider the Bible from a purely literalistic standpoint, which a larger portion of Christians than you seem to believe -do-, in which case you are by necessity making claims that can be put to scientific test and scrutiny (ex: noah's flood, literal creationist theory--which is what i was taught -in science class- to be a scientific truth for much of high school).
__________________
squirrel--it's whats for dinner. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
(+ (- (/ (* 1 2) 3) 4) 5)
|
As has been stated many times before, but seemingly ignored, religion and science are mutually exclusive and have no reason to overlap at all. Science deals with the realm of testable things; as religion, by definition, requires faith in something that is untestable, there's no way that science can attempt to do anything regarding religion. Science deals with facts, not faith.
By the same token, religion shouldn't try to interfere with science. Having ID taught as science in schools is ridiculous. Science is something that is proven with a reasonably degree of certainty, and continues to reinvent itself with the addition of new evidence. Religion assumes, and nothing further can be done about it. There's nothing wrong with having ID in schools; it should just never be discussed in a science class, because ID is not true science. It's merely a cover for creationism. Now, to clear some things up. Someone earlier used the incredibly weak example (by their own admission) of gravity being something that is likely, but not 100% certain. Gravity is accepted fact; once something has been tested again and again and stands up to the rigor of every applicable test, it's safe to say that it is the truth. In fact, gravity is governed by a set of laws that cannot be broken. A law is a simple statement/description of what is happening; gravity is gravity, and that's that. It's worth noting that the word "theory" as used in scientific circles means something incredibly different from its usage in common parlance. A scientific theory consists of an assertion that is backed up by a large body of evidence and is generally accepted as an accurate explanation of a natural phenomenon. "Theory" in common usage means a hypothesis...basically a guess. This confusion has resulted in ID proponents trying to put ID on the same lavel as evolution, with the rationale that both are just "theories." Basically, by definition, science and religion should have nothing to do with each other, and indeed one should not attempt to try and examine one with the other. Doing so leads to nowhere. If both sides left each other alone, the world would be much better off. One last thing, to address the original question. Religion cannot be subject to scrutiny beyond what is present in scripture (obviously there can be various interpretations of different statements, etc.); on the other hand, science should be subject to heavy scrutiny (and indeed thrives on it). The only way for science to be science is if there is continuous testing and attempts to discover more.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 | |||||||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, faith, I know, but why place faith in that? Why not place faith in the stories of Oddyseus or Heracles? Peter Parker or Clark Kent? What makes that particular ancient religious texts worthy of being taken seriously while other ancient literature is scoffed as entirely fictional? Quote:
Are you saying that people who believe in God are more likely to be right than those who believe in Russel's Teapot? Do you honestly think this is true? All are equally (un)likely due to the lack of any sort of evidence in either camp. Quote:
Just to make things clear, I'm not wholly against believing in a divine presence. I just can't stand it when people try to act like it's rational or logical to believe in these things; it's not, that's why it's FAITH. I also can't stand organized religion, and frankly, if there is a god of any kind, I can assure you with great confidence that he is unlike any god in any religion or that anyone has ever thought of. This Great Creator everyone likes to talk of so much is defined as being outside the realm of human understanding, so why would you venture to think that you or anyone else on this planet could know what they're talking about when referring to him? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's like, throughout the entire Universe, we're here to observe what we have. We wouldn't even be here to think of questioning how small the chance is unless the small chance goes through. I just don't understand how people can think like that. How can it matter how small a chance there is of you physically existing if there is actually a chance and given potentially infinite time and chance? And it's not random either. The first spark of microbial life was random chance, but evolution, mutation, and survival of the fittest took us the rest of the way to what we are. That's why the watch example is a poor one. We didn't start out as a watch. We started out as a microscopic living cog, and that cog met other mutated cogs and the cogs worked together in a way that helped them survive and procreate and millions of years later, they were a timepiece. Quote:
Science says: we evolved from apes Religion says: Jesus was crucified, died, then rose from the dead. Science says: It is not possible to be dead for that long of a time, then miraculously revive for "no reason". Religions attempt to define the physicial world in one way or another. That's where it overlaps with science.
__________________
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Banned
|
why was my post deleted?
people nowadays need proof for everything, mostly atheists towards creationism and god. The old testament was written by a king so that he could control his kingdom better by telling them he was a representative of god. What actually happened over 2000 years ago was probably entirely different from what was written. Maybe Jesus did in fact exist, but perhaps he wasn't as miraculous as people believed him to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 | |||||||||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
The whole point of having -faith- in the existance of God is that you are only claiming to believe it, you are not claiming that you know for a fact it is true. if you claimed to know for a fact it was true, you woudln't be demonstrating faith. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Which is actually the Occam's Razor brand simplest explanation for someone winning the lottery 10 weeks consecutively? Is it "What a lucky stiff" or "He has inside info" What if he wins 20 seperate lotteries consecutively? At some point the sheer unlikihood of the accomplishment lends credence to the idea that an outside agent is at work. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Banned
|
Around which time would this old testament be written?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Hi, this one is a little long. Contained herein are comments and replies to Devonin's recent similar response to a previous post of mine, and a cut-em-up response to Synexi-XI's much shorter post. You kiddies out there might just want to skip it, but for those adventurous enough to dig in, I suggest you make a bathroom break before getting into it. For those with weak constitutions, I'll give you a brief summary of the essential points I'm trying to make: why have faith in one piece of ancient writing and scoff at another? Why believe in ancient writing with no other evidence of proof? Why believe that any person- yourself or myself included- could ever come close to identifying the core identity of this divine creator that is so heavily worshiped across the world? Why attempt to claim that your beliefs are based in logic or reason when they are in fact merely you taking faith in the words of long dead anonymous writers and nothing more?
... If your previous post contained the things that this one did, I'll go out on a limb and say it's because you're talking a lot about things you don't know a thing about. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
After all, I don't believe that there was actually a man named Orpheus who ventured into the Underworld to reclaim his fallen love from Hades. But it's still a worthwhile story to know of. Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I don't know how anyone could take it as fact. For me, it'd be like looking at the recent Tim Burton flick about Sweeney Todd and thinking that's how it really was. AND NOW FOR THE FUN STUFF YEE HAWWWWWW Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, and by the way, before you try it, I've decided not to show my telekinesis to anyone. A little trick I learned from God-- see, it'd be a gross display of my power to show actual evidence of it. Quote:
Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form: "X is true because there is no proof that X is false." Just because something cannot be proven false does not mean that it's any more reasonable to believe in it regardless. There are plenty of things which can never be proven false, but do you see people going around believing in such silly things? Can you prove that no one on the Earth has telekinesis? No...? Then I guess there must be someone, RIGHT? Quote:
Essentially, I'm saying that "truth in your mind" and "truth" (as defined by your subjective perception) are the same. But again, this is just spinning words to avoid the real situation- That it is a fallacy to use lack of evidence as evidence. All the lack of evidence proves is that it's possible, but we already knew it was "possible" based on the very simple ideal of "God works in mysterious ways"; God not providing evidence of his existence is just a test of our faith. Quote:
Quote:
They cannot. Any reason any intelligent person could put forward as a reason to believe can be spat back at them as a logical fallacy. "it feels right" "it's not proven wrong" "look at this banana HOLY **** MY HAND FITS IT PERFECTLY LOL" Quote:
The point of it is to point out how illogical it is to believe in something without proof. The point is to show that just because something hasn't been proven false, does not mean that it is MORE worthy of being believed in. Yes, that's right, it hasn't been proven that God does not exist, BUT YOU CANNOT USE THAT AS A LOGICAL FOUNDATION FOR FAITH. I mean, I guess you could, but you'd be relying on a logical fallacy to claim your beliefs to be based in reason rather than faith. If you're going to have faith in this ****, just have faith in it. Don't try to bull**** everyone and say that there is logic or reason to it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All of the evidence in this situation would be one man saying what he'd done and nothing else. It would be his word against NOTHING. Why would you say that Occam's Razor would implicate an outside agent when there is no actual evidence to support such a claim (and yet, there is evidence of the contrary in the one man's eyewitness)? Quote:
It's the New Testament that people believe that bugs me. These miracles in the parables; this man rising from the dead. AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN THESE. It's not like with Genesis where a reasonable person goes "oh, well, it's just a metaphor, see?" They actually believe that this Jewish son of a carpenter was crucified, died, then came back to life a few days later. Quote:
Quote:
What makes these writings worthy of worship, of faith, of belief? I really want to know, because I think it is absurd that you think it's a good idea to believe in this, yet would laugh in the face of someone who worshiped Zeus and believed the stories of his Sons of that God. That's what I don't get about this organized religion stuff; why is it that one ancient book is regarded as Holy and True while another is simply fictional literature to be studied by high school students. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Age: 28
Posts: 988
|
I feel as if the motivation of this thread isn't substantial enough to have anyone use it for any particular reason other than to debate about a debate which leads to the debate itself, then you get confused and that would be the whole purpose of making this thread of reverse psychology, just to self-gratify yourself rather than ask the question out of literal curiosity...
If not, then I just prefer not to get into this myself... I also didn't read even half of what people have been saying in this, but it's not something worth reading in my opinion... but I still believe getting worked up about this thread isn't worth it, lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
#50 | |
|
caveman pornstar
|
Quote:
I believe in a god (not in the Christian sense) because I think that it is arrogant for humans to assume that they are the highest form of consciousness when, by the very fabric of their higher being, something greater than us would not be observable to us. I'm not saying, however, that there is a god or any specific definition of god, just that there is something out there bigger than us who probably doesn't affect our trivial daily lives but probably has affected our development as a society and species. By saying that, I am not saying that "There is a god," I'm saying that "There is a god in my conception of the world." Shown evidence otherwise, sure, I'll change my view to not include a god. But when the very fabric of the being you're trying to debate is (presumably) beyond our observation, you can't suggest that people who believe in said being are trying to propose their ideas as truth. PS I know that many Christians try to propose their ideas as truth but that is because they accept the Bible as truth in an almost scientific way. And I think they're wrong. I'm merely defending religion and spirituality as a whole because it's possible to be religious and not be a part of a major/organized religion.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IREnpHco9mw |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#51 |
|
Banned
|
debating about religion is a debate that can never be ended. this thread could go on for pages upon pages.
and as far as proof is concerned of the events during jesus' era, there were far more specific details about hundreds of events besides jesus' story. We have historical facts about things far older than jesus yet this is one story that has almost no decisive proof at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
#52 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The whole reason there's a disagrement between people over whether the universe just happened, or whether it was caused to happen is because there is no proof either way. So no, the fact that we exist does not PROVE that the random chance occured. it just proves that the necessary alignment FOR WHATEVER AS YET UNPROVEN REASON happened. Quote:
Quote:
They are looking at the circumstances, and making what I consider a logical claim to say "You know, there's at least a basis for considering the idea that a God is responsible for creating the universe, and pending further evidence or investigation, I'm going to decide that I personally think this version is more likely" Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, there's a continuous sequence of people who knew each other for reals here. The contemporaries of Christ himself are the ones who first put down the stories in the new testament, from their own firsthand accounts, and passed those along to other people who came after, who added their own stories, who passed them along to other people who came after etc etc etc. nobody FOUND the bible and went "Hey, let's treat this like sacred fact and build a religion around it!" The faith traces back to Jesus and people who knew him in person. That's the difference between the bible and the AfroBible. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#53 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Double post for great justice. And also so people who aren't Afrobean can just skip our back and forth longposts.
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Banned
|
i meant religion in general. this discussion includes the belief of religion.
i'd like to see where they got these proofs since records of such is complete news to me. i would much like to be proven wrong on this since i've been reading up on lots of history during that era. |
|
|
|
|
|
#55 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
stepmania archaeologist
|
I feel that it is difficult to talk about religions simply because there are so many and each one believes so many things. No common religion just says "God exists" and ends at that; if that was the case, then yes, I do agree that religion and science would not overlap.
But that isn't the case, and (from personal experience) it seems that many people have beliefs which imply testable predictions in the real world. devonin has repeatedly said that intelligent religious people would never follow a belief that predicts testable (and scientifically false) things, but the simple fact is that not everyone is intelligent, and people really do believe things that can be scientifically tested. Unfortunately, when religion and science actually conflict on a testable proposition, and they do, religion sometimes ends up winning. Back in the time of Galileo the prevailing belief in Europe was that the Sun orbited the Earth, a belief which was backed by scripture, and when Galileo came into the scene with evidence that it was the other way around, he ended up being forced to recant his beliefs and put under house arrest! You can say only idiots would do this to him, and I agree, but stupidity happens. Perhaps the best we can say is this: if a certain belief directly implies a testable prediction about the real world, and experiment shows that that prediction is false, then the belief is false. This is just logic, nothing more. And although many beliefs, like the "God exists" belief, do not overlap with science/logic and cannot be proved or disproved, not all beliefs are like this. Look at prayer: some Christians believe that if you pray for something it will be answered, a significant amount of the time. You can actually test this. Say you do a scientific experiment with a large number of people in the same situation (with cancer, say), some of whom pray and some of whom do not. Look at the recovery rate in the two groups. This has been done and I believe the result was that prayer had no effect. In this case, whether you believe in God or not, you would have to conclude that the belief that prayers are granted a significant portion of the time is at best flawed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#57 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Bull****, citation needed. As far as I know there is no proof that Jesus existed except for documents written decades after his death. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I don't have some texts laying around to give you some quotes, but every historian of that period or of christianity that I've ever spoken with tells me that there is plenty of evidence that the man actually existed.
Last edited by devonin; 12-19-2008 at 11:02 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
If you're CT mod you should know you can't randomly state claims with no proof because "I SPOEK WIFF SOME HISTORIANZ AN THEY TOLD ME SO HURR" gtfo my house son, no one can out religious fact grandi |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|