88 replies to this topic

[Ash]

Proven? No. Evidence suggesting? Yes.

In science, nothing can ever be unequivocally proven, because evidence may arise later that completely disproves, resulting in a total revision of the theory.

In religion, the word of the scripture is law, immutable and accepted wholly as truth, despite evidence to the contrary.

[Bart]

Vortigern, take care to differ between faith and religion. It's the latter we're generally bashing.

[Vortigern]

I know, but it's the source of faith. That's the point. Some people need religion to keep their lives in order. Maybe I didn't explain that too well. I admit I went a little tangential.

[Puppeteer]

Why is the existence of a god so important? Or a prophet, or a relic, or some sacred story. They just get in the way of things. Faith is important: faith in humanity; faith in our own, subjective morality; faith in our progression (you choose whether you want social, economic, communal etc.). Religion? No, I don't consider it important, or significant. When you centralise beliefs into an organisation, some individuals tend to forget their own, independent beliefs which they've pondered for many years, and accept the beliefs of the organisation. Religion have started as a way of collecting individuals with similar beliefs, but along the course of history dogma and pride were introduced, and suddenly the collectivisation of faith has become a way of manipulating people, all in the name of God.
Maybe that's what I object to: dogma and pride. Maybe I don't have faith in humanity after all, those being human factors.

Edited by Puppeteer, 15 October 2009 - 04:26 PM.

[Ash]

I was just thinking that last bit; Look over the last 32,000 years of the history of our species of humanity, and find me something particularly laudable that we, as a species, have done. If you're speaking about the metaphorical 'humanity', referring to conscience and forethought, the question still stands.

[Pasidon]

The last 32,000 years differ between science and religion. According to the bible, the skyscraper was invented before the wheel.

[Taralom]

Religion? No, I don't consider it important, or significant.

I don't consider it important either, but I do consider the feelings of other people. Religion might be a total farce, but I don't see why you can utterly bash it if you disagree.

[Puppeteer]

Religion? No, I don't consider it important, or significant.

I don't consider it important either, but I do consider the feelings of other people. Religion might be a total farce, but I don't see why you can utterly bash it if you disagree.

That's rich. Maybe you should change your sig?
At what point have we utterly bashed it? Have we not been asking for someone intelligent and deeply religious to come along for a discussion?

Edited by Puppeteer, 15 October 2009 - 09:02 PM.

[Devon]

Do you, as the brilliant scientists you pose yourselves as, notice the similarities between the crusades and the things that happen here?

Of course! OH wait, the crusades actually killed people...

Both of these explanations are ways to understand the diverse world around us. But can either one of them be said to be superior? Is it a matter of words being superior above others? I think not. It is a matter of what you think is correct.
Therefore, my conclusion is the following:

Science is Faith

You can have faith in science, but science is not a Faith. Saying atheism is a religion is like saying off is a TV channel or silence is a sound.


As for your superiority question, no, you can't objectively say it's superior. But it is still the strongest theory as supported by evidence. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation supported by the facts is almost always the correct one. Going back to the court room scene, you have the defendant who is found at the scene with the dead body and the bloody murder weapon in his hands. He can give the jury some long, detailed story about time-travel and shape shifting aliens and potential worse things happening that manages to explain why he isn't guilty, but who would you, as the jury, decide in favor of?

[Pasidon]

Did you italicize that 'is'?

I don't think Science or Religion can qualify as 'better than the other'. In one scenario, a ball of something created something, and the other, an explosion of nothing created something. Guess which is which.

[Devon]

The big bang theory is the main reason I'm agnostic. I'm speaking more along the lines of age of the earth, evolution, etc.

[Pasidon]

Dunno why God can't be credited in creating Adam and Eve apes in which that eventually evolve into homosapians.

May I also say how much I love how a topic about utensils turned into this.

Edited by {IP}Pasidon, 16 October 2009 - 03:16 AM.

[Rattuskid]

Because that's retarded.

[Vortigern]

No it isn't. I know plenty of Christians that credit God with the creation of life but believe humanity then evolved from the initial spark, and as they believe God to be omniscient, He would have known humanity would eventually come around and worship Him. I don't see why that argument is any harder to swallow than "God made people! As we are, right now. Anyone who says anything else is a liar." Maybe it's because religion makes people stupid.

[Beowulf]

The big bang theory is the main reason I'm agnostic.

Do you believe in God? If the answer is no, you are an atheist agnostic.

Maybe it's because religion makes people stupid.

Don't you mean stupider?

[some_weirdGuy]

You know who was deafened by the big bang? god, thats why your prayers go unanswered.

One of my friends at school said that. I don't know if he got it from somewhere or came up with it himself, but it made me chuckle. One of my other friends is a devout believer. He denies evolution, his biggest argument being 'they haven't proved it', even though they obviously have or it wouldn't be accepted in science, and even though religion has infinitely less proof then anything scientific.


I am truly perplexed how he can reallly not believe in evolution. Its evidence is all around, its happening even now, yet he refuses to accept the truth. I have even said the two aren't mutually exclusive, but still he chooses faith over science.


*sigh* Oh well, thats up to him. I find it funny that some parts he takes literally while other parts he obviously does not. Who chooses what parts of the bible are literal and what parts aren't? it even contradicts itself. The old and new testaments are like two entirely different gods for example.

[Pasidon]

You never really see God in the New Testament. I guess that's a change since he tended to pop up at random occasions in random ways back in the day.

[Devon]

The big bang theory is the main reason I'm agnostic.

Do you believe in God? If the answer is no, you are an atheist agnostic.

I think it depends how you define God. The more abstract, the more believable it is to me. But yeah, I guess I'm really more atheist than truly agnostic. I just don't think it really matters. I'm going to try to be a decent person regardless of a possible afterlife or eternity in hell as punishment.

[Rattuskid]

No it isn't. I know plenty of Christians that credit God with the creation of life but believe humanity then evolved from the initial spark, and as they believe God to be omniscient, He would have known humanity would eventually come around and worship Him.

That's not the part that's retarded though. The notion the bits in Genesis that are incapable of being reconciled with abiogenesis, evolution or the formation of the solar system being interpreted at best metaphorically, or dualisticly (true, but not true) don't really do anything towards crediting God, but rather the biblical stories themselves which often describe in detail things that have little to do with God's motives, and more to do with ritual and his methodology which has since been proven wrong.

A lot of Genesis is old OLD mythology about how the universe was formed with original Sumatran, Egyptian or Greek gods getting their name whited out and replaced by the capital G. It was an explanation in the first millennium about how things were made that was mostly based upon magic and "because!".

Edited by Rattuskid, 18 October 2009 - 05:22 AM.

[Allathar]

It's rather plagiasm of the old Babylonian mythologies.