Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

[QED Stepfiles]

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

Well theres my guess then Besides, scientifically speaking, the ability to know exactly what someone meant when they wrote something (especially in regards to the bible) is very close to impossible without being able to ask them. Interpretation can be very much flawed considering the writer could have meant pretty much anything from the obvious to the extremely complicated deeper meaning. Either way, we cannot know for sure. So from this religion makes an attempt at it but that does not necessarily say they are completely right. Its their belief and at least they gave it a try eh?

Also, even time frames can be skewed in this same respect. Many people talk about God making the world in seven days because thats what they have read in the bible. However, looking at someone who is outside the bounds of time (God), how can we say that it IS the same to us? Seven days to him may certainly not be seven days as we see them. This is why many people now think that instead it is seven "periods of time" which could even be like 1 day=1 thousand years.

My point is you say that religion attempts to answer these questions and you look down at that because it doesnt follow the scientific process that you hold so dear to your hearts. At least they do just that, they attempt it. Of course they could be wrong, however you cant effectively criticize for explaining something that you cannot just because they didnt do it in a way that seems acceptable to your standards.

Slipstrike,

The problem is not that religious theories are treated by religious people as religious theories. The problem is that you're bent on trying to somehow mold these religious theories into scientific theories, which is not going to work. In scientific theory, interpretation is not at all "flawed," in that scientific questions are all posed in a way that there can be no question as to what the original asker could have meant. If you want to ask questions like "what is our meaning in life?" without clarifying any of your terms, then OF COURSE science cannot answer this question, because this is not a scientifically worded question in the first place, and thus the entire discussion becomes meaningless. So, you seem to be misunderstanding the entire point of the discussion here - it's not that religion is in any way WRONG, it's just that you cannot try to use science to interpret religion's core values.

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by QED Stepfiles

You seem to be operating under the misconception that it's somehow not scientifically valid to formulate a theory and then to backwards extrapolate in terms of seeing effects of that theory after the fact. I'm not sure where you're getting that from, because there are plenty of scientific theories that are only tested in this context, and this by no means makes them "less scientific." Pretty much all of medical research, for example, relies on tests after certain treatments are administered to see the results of that treatment. We are not able to observe how precisely the treatment works on an anatomic scale, but the effects of said treatment are sufficient as scientific evidence of the efficacy of this treatment.

It all comes down to statistical data - we can observe many things that may or may not relate to evolution, but under stringent enough conditions we can conduct experiments in which, should we see effects that comply with evolutionary theory, it is almost statistically impossible that said effects were caused by random chance or anything other than the theory that is being tested. If we were able to observe evolution empirically, and do this without question in a controlled setting, then there wouldn't even be the need of such statistics, but it is nonetheless very compelling evidence if we observe the results of evolution (in a controlled experiment). And these results are, undoubtedly, scientifically valid, in every sense of the word.

I agree; seeing the effects of a stringent process after the fact is scientifically valid. You’re controlling every variable and repeating the process enough times to reasonably account for any statistical fluctuations. I don’t object to the fact that it adheres to the scientific method. I’m just wondering what types of experiments you’re talking about…maybe inducing bacteria to mutate and observing the effects of the change in the makeup of the population? Something along those lines…bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics, etc. This seems like valid scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

The Wikipedia article on evolution starts with what the theory itself is, discussing the observed properties of living things, stuff like variation, mutation, gene drift, gene flow, and natural selection. We often see these mechanisms of evolution in action. The second half of the page discusses the evolutionary history of life. This implies that the theory of evolution =/= the evolutionary history of life. To formulate the evolutionary history of life, we use fossil evidence, homology, vestigial organs, endogenous retroviruses, etc. This is evidence, all right, but it’s not empirical evidence and thus not scientific evidence. We make observations but don’t conduct any particular experiment to put our intuition to the test. I consider this to be more detective work than scientific methodology. It’s also not based on any theory or further application. So any time you’re conducting an experiment to further the evidence for the theory of evolution, you’re doing exactly that; furthering the evidence of the theory. What you’re not doing is experimentally finding a link between two animals. That is from genetic evidence, and it is sort of like a logical guess-and-check, except that there is no check.
…unless the sort of experiment you’re talking about is something I can’t think of right now, something that repeats exact replica of the large-scale evolution that has already occurred.

So no, it is wholly scientifically possible to come up with a theory on how the world was created, and how we came to be in this world, given the question is phrased precisely. It is really possible to create a scientific theory about any phenomenon that is a physical process. Ultimately, evolution is, at its core, a valid scientific theory, and inductive reasoning is used almost ad nauseum in modern scientific thought (and in a way that is scientifically consistent). And, within science, there is no "subjectivity" in terms of answers to these questions. If people disagree, they are not disagreeing on scientific terms, but rather that they disagree with science as a whole.

I think we are getting mixed up with semantics, because I never said that the theory of evolution was not a valid scientific theory. Evolution is a physical process, and the theory describes that physical process pretty well. I said that the story of evolutionary past is not a valid scientific theory, which is why it is not classified as a scientific theory, but rather an undocumented evolutionary history of life. The thing is that understanding these semantics is crucial to understanding the divergence within a field of science between scientific reasoning and unscientific reasoning. Perhaps hypotheses are being formed, and perhaps they are also very correct hypotheses, but the testability isn’t there. It is impossible to control every variable and make a past observation. Furthermore, any hypothesis regarding how the world was created is not falsifiable, because there are always possible ad hoc additions to any inconsistent prediction which in turn cannot be tested to be proven right or wrong. This is why I still hold that it is a different type of reasoning, a non-falsifiable, non-scientific type of reasoning, used to determine our past.

[QED Stepfiles]

Originally Posted by ledwix

I think we are getting mixed up with semantics, because I never said that the theory of evolution was not a valid scientific theory. Evolution is a physical process, and the theory describes that physical process pretty well. I said that the story of evolutionary past is not a valid scientific theory, which is why it is not classified as a scientific theory, but rather an undocumented evolutionary history of life. The thing is that understanding these semantics is crucial to understanding the divergence within a field of science between scientific reasoning and unscientific reasoning. Perhaps hypotheses are being formed, and perhaps they are also very correct hypotheses, but the testability isn’t there. It is impossible to control every variable and make a past observation. Furthermore, any hypothesis regarding how the world was created is not falsifiable, because there are always possible ad hoc additions to any inconsistent prediction which in turn cannot be tested to be proven right or wrong. This is why I still hold that it is a different type of reasoning, a non-falsifiable, non-scientific type of reasoning, used to determine our past.

You do realize that using experimentation, it is absolutely impossible to prove something is correct or not. This isn't a question of semantics - the thing is that macroevolution is definitely testable as a scientific theory through backwards extrapolation (and this includes the evolutionary history of the earth). It is impossible and impractical to form a perfect experiment, but that's why we can statistically evaluate how accurate our measurements are with respect to the specific variable we are trying to test. The bottom line is that there has never been a scientific experiment that has had perfect control. As long as we can say "we are beyond a reasonable doubt that this series of events caused this observable phenomenon, and here are the numbers to prove it," then we are still in the realm of testable hypotheses. In this way, the hypotheses that we have come up with of earth's evolutionary past are still valid as scientific theories, and can be tested accordingly.

[Afrombean]

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

Well theres my guess then Besides, scientifically speaking, the ability to know exactly what someone meant when they wrote something (especially in regards to the bible) is very close to impossible without being able to ask them. Interpretation can be very much flawed considering the writer could have meant pretty much anything from the obvious to the extremely complicated deeper meaning. Either way, we cannot know for sure. So from this religion makes an attempt at it but that does not necessarily say they are completely right. Its their belief and at least they gave it a try eh?

The problem with the idea that you're missing here is that religion is given a conclusion and they attempt to prove the conclusion they're given. Them "trying" in this way, as you put it, is a BAD thing. It's the worst sort of logical fallacy, not even following the basic idea of causality.

Also, even time frames can be skewed in this same respect. Many people talk about God making the world in seven days because thats what they have read in the bible. However, looking at someone who is outside the bounds of time (God), how can we say that it IS the same to us? Seven days to him may certainly not be seven days as we see them. This is why many people now think that instead it is seven "periods of time" which could even be like 1 day=1 thousand years.

Even if you read a metaphoric definition to it, there are plenty of other faults to black-and-white definitions religious texts give. Ok, so the seven days it took God to create the world in Genesis were God-days which were different amount of time in man-days. Ok.

What about other things like the age of the world? We can measure how old the world is using scientific processes, and we can know that the Earth has existed far longer than religious texts claim. The problem here is that the definition IS ALREADY in "man-time" rather than a malleable "god-time".

My point is you say that religion attempts to answer these questions and you look down at that because it doesnt follow the scientific process that you hold so dear to your hearts.

Sorry, is it wrong of me to want answers to questions to be logical and based on reason rather than outlandish stories about omnipotent men hurling lightning bolts from clouds? Personally, I prefer the stance that says that lightning is an exchange of electrons on a large scale, the same principle behind static shock applied to the sky and the ground.

At least they do just that, they attempt it.

That's great, but we don't live in the ancient world. We don't live in the dark ages. We live in a time where science can sufficiently explain many areas of the world around us using logic and reason rather than stories and faith in lieu of evidence. We know that lightning is an exchange of electrons; we don't need to hear stories about how this great and powerful god is mad at us and wants to punish us for our sins.

Of course they could be wrong, however you cant effectively criticize for explaining something that you cannot just because they didnt do it in a way that seems acceptable to your standards.

Hmm? You misunderstand me. I have no problem with people filling in the mysteries with a "God did it" when science hasn't got an answer. However, the only lack of answers like that are:

#1: what caused the Big Bang and where did everything come from before the Big Bang?
#2: what caused the initial spark of life on Earth, at a time before even microscopic life existed? What was the first life on Earth like?

Anything else someone throws a "God did it" answer at is simply wrong. Listen, I might be backing atheism as my stance of choice, but I'm willing to admit other non-ridiculous possibilities may be correct. However, my problem is that all of organized religion has ridiculous circumstances applied to it. They don't just say "God is an extradimensional being with power beyond our imagination who created the Universe and was the one who caused life on Earth to happen." They have to add "oh btw he had a human son who died then came back ps he's coming back again at some point to kill everyone lol". Furthermore, they add what I see as a false morality angle on the whole thing; they don't just say "God created this stuff", they also say "be good or your afterlife will suck". That's another thing though... they take the existence of an afterlife as an absolute given and claim that the only reason to be good in this life is to have a good next life.

It's like a parent bribing a child with Santa. "Be a good little boy or Santa won't bring you any presents." It doesn't teach morality. That stance is what allows the idea of "if I don't get caught, it's ok to do immoral things" to flourish. Morality is driven by respect for others (see: recent thread on Morality in this forum). Telling people the only reason to have morals is if they want to get into Heaven is a terrible means of trying to control the population into having good morals.

ps one final note. I believe that if there is a Great Creator such that the Christian God is supposed to be, he is most certainly not fundamentally good in nature. I think that "neutral" is the only way one can effectively describe what his disposition would be.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by QED Stepfiles

I'm... not even SURE how to begin responding to this post... but here goes?

All scientific evidence complies with the existence of a God?! WHAT?! I have no idea how that follows from anything. You DO realize that even though evolution is still a theory, there are just such copious amounts of evidence that suggest that it is true. And, obviously evidence that supports Darwinian evolution does not exactly support religion. If you went through this thread, this has already been discussed - religion fails in many respects when viewed from a scientific perspective, but at its core, it's not very meaningful to view religion from that point anyways.

I'm also completely not surprised that Darwin himself doubted his own theory. I believe the quote (or at least, idea) you are referring to is this one:

"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Sure, that's nice and all, but when you put this quote into historical perspective, can we really blame Darwin for saying something like this? Especially during that time, such a scientific theory was so groundbreaking that it's natural to have doubts. And, considering that disbelief in a higher power was less acceptable back then, it's no surprise that Darwin would be hesitant.

In any case, I would really like to see you argue that "all scientific evidence complies with the existence of God." That's a huge, broad statement that is obviously not true.

As to the fossils... I'm not impressed? Just because they have not been discovered as of yet is no indication that they have not existed, and definitely no indication that somehow the theory of Darwinian evolution is "inconceivable." All this leads us is to the question: "Why can we not find that many fossils in this 'intermediate' stage?" I'm hard pressed to see how you can justifiably make a logical jump from this question to any meaningful statement about religion. And, obviously, modern evolutionists aren't going around and going "ahhhh... we give up. No fossils! *cries*"

I actually find your assertion about fossils (should they be true - I'm not going to check your sources), doesn't say much about the theory of evolution, since generally, older things are harder to find than newer things. Considering that evolution (should it exist) happens on such a huge time-scale, the age difference between "intermediate fossils" and "final product fossils" is presumably very, very large - who knows what geological and environmental factors could have effected these fossils in that time? Unless you can somehow account for all the variables involved, there is absolutely no logical foundation for your saying that this fossil record somehow gives us substantial insight into anything.

I also completely to fail to see how any of this has to do with some sort of "mathematical aspect," although that may have just been an unintentional misuse of vocabulary on the poster's part.

I apologize if I seem a bit irritated, but that was just, to me, a very bad sweeping generalization.

lol As i recall Darwin became a Christian before he died so that's more than just questioning his theory. And consider the mathematical aspect: You have tons of fossils WHICH DATE ALL OVER THE TIMELINE. So yes, the further you go back the more difficult it is to find well-preserved fossils, but for all the ones that have been recovered almost none show these intermediate stages which must have existed in equal or greater quantity than those found before it. Now what are the odds that we'd find thousands of fossils in their final stages and almost none in the intermediate stages regardless where they are on the timeline? Lets just say I don't have that kind of faith you evolutionists have .

The only decent explanation to this question would be that there was some event that wiped out all fossils beyond a certain period only leaving the ones in their final stages. But this is quickly proven impossible because of all the fossils that've been recovered during the time which this even must've taken place.

Now is evolution true? Partially. Random mutations and natural selection will result in a gradual change in a population over time, but not to the extent of changing entirely. A virus is a great example of this. Or even birds.

Again, this is only one hole in the theory of evolution. There are many many more. I need to research some more to refresh my memory. I'm a little rusty =P.

And I'm not even arguing a specific religion. Just the existence of a God.

[Afrobean]

N.T.M., you're falling into the hole of negative proof fallacy.

Even if evolution was ENTIRELY false, and ALL fossils were COMPLETE LIES, that does not serve as evidence that any sort of god actually exists.

And again, some of you folks misunderstand fossils. They're rare TO BEGIN WITH. You're not going to find a fossil for EVERY in-between stage of evolution, you'll be lucky to find a few decent snapshots of the chain from one species into another.

For example, with the case of humans, there are plenty of bipedal upright apes found in fossils dating all across the board. Some of them are rather similar to how we are now, others are drastically different. Now, it's true that we don't have a straight line from a common ancestor with chimps, but we do have dots along a line. That's all fossils can give; it'll never be a straight line, and you're a fool if you believe that's realistically possible. You don't need to say "oh well i guess all the fossils disappeared lol oh wait thats impossible". Next time, just say, "most living things don't fossilize when they die, and older fossils will be more scarce and/or poorly preserved, so that's why there are many holes in history constructed from looking at fossils."

[Renevatia]

Hmm? You misunderstand me. I have no problem with people filling in the mysteries with a "God did it" when science hasn't got an answer. However, the only lack of answers like that are:

#1: what caused the Big Bang and where did everything come from before the Big Bang?
#2: what caused the initial spark of life on Earth, at a time before even microscopic life existed? What was the first life on Earth like?

Anything else someone throws a "God did it" answer at is simply wrong. Listen, I might be backing atheism as my stance of choice, but I'm willing to admit other non-ridiculous possibilities may be correct. However, my problem is that all of organized religion has ridiculous circumstances applied to it. They don't just say "God is an extradimensional being with power beyond our imagination who created the Universe and was the one who caused life on Earth to happen." They have to add "oh btw he had a human son who died then came back ps he's coming back again at some point to kill everyone lol". Furthermore, they add what I see as a false morality angle on the whole thing; they don't just say "God created this stuff", they also say "be good or your afterlife will suck". That's another thing though... they take the existence of an afterlife as an absolute given and claim that the only reason to be good in this life is to have a good next life.

It's like a parent bribing a child with Santa. "Be a good little boy or Santa won't bring you any presents." It doesn't teach morality. That stance is what allows the idea of "if I don't get caught, it's ok to do immoral things" to flourish. Morality is driven by respect for others (see: recent thread on Morality in this forum). Telling people the only reason to have morals is if they want to get into Heaven is a terrible means of trying to control the population into having good morals.

ps one final note. I believe that if there is a Great Creator such that the Christian God is supposed to be, he is most certainly not fundamentally good in nature. I think that "neutral" is the only way one can effectively describe what his disposition would be.

Morality, is subjective, I believe that moral that everyone has grown up to in the world we live in today has something to do with the 'reward and punishment system'. In kindergarden, you do your homework, and teacher gives you a reward. 'God', assuming existence, does the same thing, with a reward--heaven, punishment--hell. Are you saying that building up morality in the human race with this method, regardless the existence of a greater intelligence entity, is wrong? Maybe it is, but this is the only way human learn right from wrong, we are conditioned to pass judgments on certain action based on experience, and expected aftermath.

'God did it' I don't argue with that, I have no way to prove it incorrect, and I don't think anyone can either.
This 'God' is said to be omnipotent, able to do anything, knows everything, so here is what I've been wondering.

EVERYTHING includes a lot of things, I am sure everyone agrees with that, in fact it includes ALL things, every type of information, possibility.
I thought God made us humans to have our own will, to actually decide our own path which ultimately will lead us to either Heaven or Hell, but he knows EVERYTHING, he must know everything about human, how we will be after we are born. Since time isn't really a problem for God, he must also know the future. There is no such thing as 'maybe' for god.

Hell is a horrible place, many people end up there.
God knows the future, god KNOW those that are in hell, will be in hell before they are even there.
safe to say, he allowed them to be there, suffering, forever, yet he loves us.
he knew that certain person will end up there, but still, he permitted his existance, to end up suffering forever.

This is what I don't get about christianity, it is basically believing predestination.

I have a bit more to this, but this is for now.

I am atheist, my parents are christian, my parents have asked the local church people. The answers they gave me, was dodging the fundamental question of whether 'predestination' was part of what they believe.

internet can do better than that right? :/

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Renevatia

Morality, is subjective, I believe that moral that everyone has grown up to in the world we live in today has something to do with the 'reward and punishment system'. In kindergarden, you do your homework, and teacher gives you a reward. 'God', assuming existence, does the same thing, with a reward--heaven, punishment--hell. Are you saying that building up morality in the human race with this method, regardless the existence of a greater intelligence entity, is wrong? Maybe it is, but this is the only way human learn right from wrong, we are conditioned to pass judgments on certain action based on experience, and expected aftermath.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I learned morality by respecting my fellow man, not by fearing an omnipotent god. Religion is NOT the only way to teach morality, and the fact that I believe it to all be an elaborate lie or mislead, it really does feel exactly like Santa Claus to me, except that all kids tend to stop believing in the absurd stories of Santa Claus when they get a little older.

Why then do children continue to believe the absurd stories of the bible then? Why are those absurd stories more worthy of belief than the stories Homer told about Odysseus?

God knows the future, god KNOW those that are in hell, will be in hell before they are even there.
safe to say, he allowed them to be there, suffering, forever, yet he loves us.
he knew that certain person will end up there, but still, he permitted his existance, to end up suffering forever.

This is what I don't get about christianity, it is basically believing predestination.

Yeah, and not only that, but it's a terrible predestination. "if you don't go to church you go to hell oh but wait i already know you wont go to church because i exist outside the bounds of the 4th dimension hahaha *** go to hell"

It's also a funny point about the duality that must be present in such a god. For this God to do the things he does, there is no way that he can be fundamentally good. I mean, God being all knowing, all powerful... that means that EVERYTHING that has ever happened must have been entirely according to his plan. This means that he planned to have Lucifer pop up and cause trouble. This means that he planned to have Adam and Eve eat of the tree. This means that he planned to kick them out of Eden.

For a god who is all-powerful and all-knowing, who is not bound by time or space, there is no such thing as free will.

[Renevatia]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I learned morality by respecting my fellow man, not by fearing an omnipotent god. Religion is NOT the only way to teach morality, and the fact that I believe it to all be an elaborate lie or mislead, it really does feel exactly like Santa Claus to me, except that all kids tend to stop believing in the absurd stories of Santa Claus when they get a little older.

Why then do children continue to believe the absurd stories of the bible then? Why are those absurd stories more worthy of belief than the stories Homer told about Odysseus?

of course not, and i never said it is, i said it is the same thing as reward and punishment, morality are taught to human by letting them see what comes after certain actions.

this goes to simple things as basic as, why you shouldn't litter, because it will make this world a worse place to live in if everyone does the same, it will make other people look down on you, you will recieve punishments...etc.

christianity is just one form of it. I am saying, it is not necessary a bad way to teach moral, nor is it the only way. It is the 'only kind' of way to teach it as far as i am aware of.

If you know ANY way to teach it, please tell me. Any way to teach morality without involving the reward and punishment system in any way or form.

[Reach]

lol As i recall Darwin became a Christian before he died so that's more than just questioning his theory. And consider the mathematical aspect: You have tons of fossils WHICH DATE ALL OVER THE TIMELINE. So yes, the further you go back the more difficult it is to find well-preserved fossils, but for all the ones that have been recovered almost none show these intermediate stages which must have existed in equal or greater quantity than those found before it. Now what are the odds that we'd find thousands of fossils in their final stages and almost none in the intermediate stages regardless where they are on the timeline? Lets just say I don't have that kind of faith you evolutionists have .

The only decent explanation to this question would be that there was some event that wiped out all fossils beyond a certain period only leaving the ones in their final stages. But this is quickly proven impossible because of all the fossils that've been recovered during the time which this even must've taken place.

Now is evolution true? Partially. Random mutations and natural selection will result in a gradual change in a population over time, but not to the extent of changing entirely. A virus is a great example of this. Or even birds.

Again, this is only one hole in the theory of evolution. There are many many more. I need to research some more to refresh my memory. I'm a little rusty =P.

And I'm not even arguing a specific religion. Just the existence of a God.

Well, let's break this down.

No, no...Charles Darwin did not become a Christian before he died. This is entirely false, although I hear it quite a bit from people that...typically don't know anything about Darwin or evolution. Darwin believed whole heartedly in his theory.

With respect to Intermediate Fossils (Usually called Transitional)...there are dozens of them. Homo Erectus? The idea that we don't have any is just garbage fabricated by creationists, typically.

Evolution is more of a bush that branches out to develop in many areas, not just simplistic ladder development from one species to another. Due to the difficulty of finding well preserved fossils in general, you're never going to catch transition in the 'act' if you will...that's not how it works. You catch it with transitional fossils, and we have already done that.



Either way, this is incredibly simplistic thinking. For one, you differentiate between 'final' and 'intermediate' forms like there is actually such a thing. Nothing is a 'final' form. Evolution is not like Pokemon where you can only evolve to some particular level. Everything is an 'intermediate' form. As such, your argument that "Random mutations and natural selection will result in a gradual change in a population over time, but not to the extent of changing entirely" holds no ground. You're really confessing the fact that evolution (or more specifically macroevolution) does happen...just that you don't want to admit it.

Please explain to me how you can have 'a bit of change' that can't change something 'entirely'. You do realize that these definitions are entirely arbitrary, and that there is nothing preventing an organism from changing more than it already has? There are no boundaries on how much something can evolve...there is no lock down on DNA that will prevent further mutation, and because creatures are always in intermediate form, any form of change is change that if accumulated over long periods of time (sometimes short periods of time) leads to what we have defined as speciation.


Denial of evolution is ignorant. If you want God, you're going to have to incorporate evolution into the equation, because it's a fact. Sure, it's both fact and theory, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens. If you want to deny it, then you have to ignore something we can demonstrate empirically in the lab, and that's more than just ignorant.

However, it's not an easy thing to do. I mean, the church (roman catholic, among others) recognizes evolution as fact but they are constantly getting themselves into a logical disaster because of it.

[devonin]

djr, either post appropriately for this forum, or stop posting in this forum.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Renevatia

of course not, and i never said it is, i said it is the same thing as reward and punishment, morality are taught to human by letting them see what comes after certain actions.

this goes to simple things as basic as, why you shouldn't litter, because it will make this world a worse place to live in if everyone does the same, it will make other people look down on you, you will recieve punishments...etc.

christianity is just one form of it. I am saying, it is not necessary a bad way to teach moral, nor is it the only way. It is the 'only kind' of way to teach it as far as i am aware of.

If you know ANY way to teach it, please tell me. Any way to teach morality without involving the reward and punishment system in any way or form.

When I choose to not litter, I don't choose to because I fear the retribution that might come my way. I don't do it for any sort of a reward, I don't avoid the alternative because of fear of the law.

I do it because I respect others and I treat them in a way that I want to be treated. I know that I ****ing HATE IT when people litter, so I never do it myself. I don't even give two ****s about environmental causes when considering the option to litter or not.

But this train of thought really is more appropriate for the morality thread, so I won't bother going on and on about it here.

ps everything Reach said. Also hop along to Wikipedia and read their entry on fossils. There is a section that talks about how rare the circumstances are that creates fossils and I believe it also branches off into a separate article that talks about the supposed lack of "intermediates".

[Djr Rap dancer]

Originally Posted by devonin

djr, either post appropriately for this forum, or stop posting in this forum.

See, same for here.
Like you with those titles.
It's kinda give you power.
Sorry Mr.devonin if I'm boring you.
But your are a OMG intelligent guy,so I will be tolerant.

[devonin]

Your posts violate the rules of this forum. You've been warned and you persist. Take a week off from posting here.

[somethingillremember]

Okay, I haven't read many other replies, but I kind of wanted to say something about the first post.

Religion actually does undergo quite a bit of scrutiny. But as a Christian, I also think that religious peoples should study their religion, and be prepared to defend it if it undergoes trial. In fact, I think religious people should be glad that they are under scrutiny, because it gives them a chance to show how their religion works, why it is true (if it is), and what misconceptions people have about the religion (especially in a place like this, where you can look up defenses for your religion in between posts - not nearly as difficult as it is when you are talking to someone).

[dore]

Going along with the above post it's safe to say religion would be under a lot more scrutiny if it were actually disprovable. Any time you get into a religious argument with a Christian, for example, they can always back up their claims with "The Bible says ______" thus making the argument overall not worthwhile. Especially fun is religion vs. religion arguments.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by somethingillremember

Okay, I haven't read many other replies, but I kind of wanted to say something about the first post.

Religion actually does undergo quite a bit of scrutiny.

I know that you admitted to not reading every post, but I just want to say that I've already pointed out that it's an ENTIRELY different sort of scrutiny. It's looked at from a literary or philosophical way. It is not under the same kind of scrutiny that science or logic follows.

But as a Christian, I also think that religious peoples should study their religion, and be prepared to defend it if it undergoes trial. In fact, I think religious people should be glad that they are under scrutiny, because it gives them a chance to show how their religion works, why it is true (if it is), and what misconceptions people have about the religion (especially in a place like this, where you can look up defenses for your religion in between posts - not nearly as difficult as it is when you are talking to someone).

If you cannot defend your religion without the help of the Internet on your back, you shouldn't believe so strongly in those things. This is a primary qualm I have with organized religion and its followers; many of them are largely oblivious to just how absurd some of the beliefs they claim are.

Originally Posted by dore

Going along with the above post it's safe to say religion would be under a lot more scrutiny if it were actually disprovable. Any time you get into a religious argument with a Christian, for example, they can always back up their claims with "The Bible says ______" thus making the argument overall not worthwhile. Especially fun is religion vs. religion arguments.

There are plenty of things stated in the bible which can be scientifically disproved.

These things are the areas where reasonable persons throw in the metaphor card. The only thing I don't get is that if "global flood" or "seven days" can be a metaphor, why can't "water to wine" or "walk on water" or "rise from the dead"? In fact, I'd say that the parables of Jesus are more ripe for literary symbolism than the Old Testament absurdities.

[dore]

I'm not talking about events because I wouldn't argue with a Christian about whether the events detailed in the Bible in the Bible actually occurred. That would be dumb and pointless. I'm more talking about ideological concerns of the Bible, such as humans being made in God's image, the validity of the Ten Commandments as moral law, etc. You can't scientifically prove morality so why would you scrutinize the moral implications of a given religion assuming it's within the law and doesn't affect anyone else's unalienable rights?

And you really can't say "Jesus did not turn water into wine" because if you believe in Jesus as the son of God then he isn't limited by time and space as we know through science. You would have to prove without a doubt that Jesus was not the son of God which is impossible because you can't scientifically disprove God by his very definition and therefore you can't scientifically disprove someone who has inherited magical powers from said divine being.

I agree with you it's absurd but it's not disprovable.

[somethingillremember]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

If you cannot defend your religion without the help of the Internet on your back, you shouldn't believe so strongly in those things. This is a primary qualm I have with organized religion and its followers; many of them are largely oblivious to just how absurd some of the beliefs they claim are.

Yeah, I really should be able to back up my religion better, but I have only recently started seriously looking into my own religion, and I'm not going to suddenly know everything about my religion in the first few months of study (in fact, I'm almost worried about posting in these forums, because eventually I'm going to meet someone who knows more than me and will totally chew me out :P). And the things I know I believe in very strongly. Also, although I was definitely thinking of the internet when I said what I said, you could also use your pastor, religious friends, parents, or other people for backup, not just the internet.

But I never said that someone should not have to back up their faith without the help of the internet and other sources, I just said that it's easier. In fact, I totally agree with you. Religious people should be able to back up their faith.

As far as Christianity's claims being absurd, yes, the views of Christianity are radically different from how most of the world thinks (and, frankly, what most of the world thinks they are). And the miracles are very absurd. That's why they're miracles, they're supposed to be wacky.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

There are plenty of things stated in the bible which can be scientifically disproved.

These things are the areas where reasonable persons throw in the metaphor card. The only thing I don't get is that if "global flood" or "seven days" can be a metaphor, why can't "water to wine" or "walk on water" or "rise from the dead"? In fact, I'd say that the parables of Jesus are more ripe for literary symbolism than the Old Testament absurdities.

Except for the beginning of Genesis, which was used to explain the creation of the universe to people who would not understand it, all of the historical parts of the bible are literal. Much of prophesy is highly metaphorical, because if people were to perfectly understand it, then it might not happen. It's not until after the said events occurs that it is understood, like the 70 weeks prophesy in Daniel.
http://www.truthnet.org/dan70.html
If you don't want to read all of that (which I don't think that you do), it's basically a prophesy in Daniel that links to the exact date that Jesus was crucified, but was so filled with metaphors that no one could make sense of it until after it happened.

Many of the historical events themselves are metaphors, like the festival of unleavened bread from the Old Testament, which represented church growth and excommunication in later times, but at the time was just a yearly thing that the Israelites did. So although it was a metaphor, it actually happened historically.

Also, Jesus rising from the dead has to have happened. Jesus' death and revival are the main things in Christianity. Take them away, and the entire religion falls apart.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by dore

I'm not talking about events because I wouldn't argue with a Christian about whether the events detailed in the Bible in the Bible actually occurred. That would be dumb and pointless. I'm more talking about ideological concerns of the Bible, such as humans being made in God's image, the validity of the Ten Commandments as moral law, etc. You can't scientifically prove morality so why would you scrutinize the moral implications of a given religion assuming it's within the law and doesn't affect anyone else's unalienable rights?

Morality is easily explained as a social contract. I've mentioned this in the thread on morality a ton of times, as well as a few times here.

Anyway, all of the commandments that don't involve religion are based on moralistic principles. They're not a bad beacon of moral law.

And you really can't say "Jesus did not turn water into wine" because if you believe in Jesus as the son of God then he isn't limited by time and space as we know through science. You would have to prove without a doubt that Jesus was not the son of God which is impossible because you can't scientifically disprove God by his very definition and therefore you can't scientifically disprove someone who has inherited magical powers from said divine being.

I agree with you it's absurd but it's not disprovable.

If "God created the world in seven days" and "God created man in his image from dirt" are decided to be a metaphors, why then is the New Testament not able to be looked at symbolically rather than literally? That's the point I was trying to make. An omnipotent god could have done any of the absurd things in the bible, even ones that make no sense. For example, how old the Earth is. If he truly is all powerful, then he could have created the world 6000 years ago and all carbon dating and signs pointing to the world (and the Universe) being much older could be elaborate lies that this all powerful god put in place for some reason. Dinosaurs? Why, they never really lived; God just placed those fossilized bones there in the dirt as a joke.

Originally Posted by somethingillremember

Except for the beginning of Genesis, which was used to explain the creation of the universe to people who would not understand it, all of the historical parts of the bible are literal. Much of prophesy is highly metaphorical, because if people were to perfectly understand it, then it might not happen. It's not until after the said events occurs that it is understood, like the 70 weeks prophesy in Daniel.
http://www.truthnet.org/dan70.html
If you don't want to read all of that (which I don't think that you do), it's basically a prophesy in Daniel that links to the exact date that Jesus was crucified, but was so filled with metaphors that no one could make sense of it until after it happened.

That's a problem that religious folks seem to have.

It's not predictive if it's not "understood" until after the fact. Well crafted metaphor can be interpreted many ways. The reader will always paint their own beliefs onto it and look for things they know of. That does not mean that the person who "predicted" those things knew they'd happen, it just means that they gave enough vague detail that another person could fill in the rest.

This is a logical fallacy.

Something which is truly predictive would be understood before the thing has happened.

Many of the historical events themselves are metaphors, like the festival of unleavened bread from the Old Testament, which represented church growth and excommunication in later times, but at the time was just a yearly thing that the Israelites did. So although it was a metaphor, it actually happened historically.

Also, Jesus rising from the dead has to have happened. Jesus' death and revival are the main things in Christianity. Take them away, and the entire religion falls apart.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Basically, you're believing something that is absurd, because if you didn't believe in it, you wouldn't believe in it. Does that make sense?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's why it's so absurd. What reason is there to believe that Jesus was resurrected? Because if he didn't rise from the dead, then the whole religion is based on a lie?

Jesus taught some great things, but come on. He doesn't have to have risen from the dead to be worthy of notice. His stories should be placed alongside the greats of the ancient world, along with the stories of the Greek Heroes. There's plenty to learn from it, but to literally believe this absurd stuff is just... absurd...