Escapecraft

furdabip wrote:

Andrew_Dayton wrote:69 answer me this, if religion and science are enemies then why am I a christian who loves science?

That's a good question - why DO you claim Christianity, when you seem to believe all the things that go against the basic dogma of your religion? Have you read the bible, and seen how your god expects you to live? You're already sinning. If you DON'T believe in the bible, then, again, why cling to Christianity, or any religion at all?

Because Furd, I do not think science and religion are enemies. I believe in evolution just as I believe that the reason it happens is because God planned it out in the first living cell. He did make all animals at once, it's just that their codes were within that first cell. I believe he created the universe in the big bang and as a result I believe that God itself (because something infinite I doubt has a defined gender) is located at the exact center of the universe and from there it influences everything.

Andrew_Dayton wrote:69 answer me this, if religion and science are enemies then why am I a christian who loves science? I love understanding more about the universe and I spent many years learning about military technology (before learning I can't join due to horrible military discrimination). Despite the fact that I love science I gave three dead baby birds a christian funeral in my backyard and I go to church (except for the past few weeks during which I hate my pastor).

"Enemies" is a poor choice of word. Science is not out to disprove religion. Science is simply a method by which we try to understand the universe. The more we learn about the universe however the less compatible that knowledge becomes with the view presented in the Bible. In order to embrace both science and religion you need to either relegate large section of the bible once considered literal to the realm of allegory, or pick and choose among scientific theories to find those compatible with Biblical accounts. The more science advances, the more the blank corners of the map get filled in, the harder it becomes to reconcile these contradictions.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, what kind of discrimination held you back from joining the military? I had a friend who's dream was to join the air force, but he got rejected on account of his vision.

Jake55778 wrote:

Andrew_Dayton wrote:69 answer me this, if religion and science are enemies then why am I a christian who loves science? I love understanding more about the universe and I spent many years learning about military technology (before learning I can't join due to horrible military discrimination). Despite the fact that I love science I gave three dead baby birds a christian funeral in my backyard and I go to church (except for the past few weeks during which I hate my pastor).

"Enemies" is a poor choice of word. Science is not out to disprove religion. Science is simply a method by which we try to understand the universe. The more we learn about the universe however the less compatible that knowledge becomes with the view presented in the Bible. In order to embrace both science and religion you need to either relegate large section of the bible once considered literal to the realm of allegory, or pick and choose among scientific theories to find those compatible with Biblical accounts. The more science advances, the more the blank corners of the map get filled in, the harder it becomes to reconcile these contradictions.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, what kind of discrimination held you back from joining the military? I had a friend who's dream was to join the air force, but he got rejected on account of his vision.

I have autism, impressed an admiral with my knowledge while I was in NJROTC in high school but can't join because of that and I need medication to help me control it.

furdabip wrote:

Andrew_Dayton wrote:69 answer me this, if religion and science are enemies then why am I a christian who loves science?

That's a good question - why DO you claim Christianity, when you seem to believe all the things that go against the basic dogma of your religion? Have you read the bible, and seen how your god expects you to live? You're already sinning. If you DON'T believe in the bible, then, again, why cling to Christianity, or any religion at all?

Even though I want nothing to do with this conversation, I am against misinformation. I'm not quoting or singling you Furd, so please don't take it that way. I have seen other posts containing some very ridiculous claims as well.

The most basic teaching of Christianity is not about through what methods the universe was formed, but about how humanity itself is flawed and is saved through sacrifice by Jesus Christ. Everything else is minor compared to this. The entire theme of the Bible is man's failure and their redemption.

That's it. That is the most basic (and most important) fundamental of Christianity. If the creation of the universe was that important, I think there would be a few more chapters regarding it.

Honestly, it seems like a lot of people in this thread should research before they post. And I mean really research. It's easy to just slap some keywords into Google and post what you find, but to really understand a lot of the Bible you have to understand the cultures and context of where and when the Bible was written.

It seems like some of you either had a very bad experience with religion or just hate it without truly either understanding or researching it.

Cause why not, if there isnt a god or afterlife wheres the harm in believing in one as long as you arent harming anything/anyone? And before you point it out, yes i do know that much violence comes from religious people, but that doesnt mean every religious person is involved in any way in that violence. The majority of people arent involved in said violence, those responsible are very small minorities.

Second: what sneaky said bout misinformation

Also wow that sucks, i know a guy who spent his senior year dedicated to getting ready for the military and then got turned down.

Andrew_Dayton wrote:69 answer me this, if religion and science are enemies then why am I a christian who loves science? I love understanding more about the universe and I spent many years learning about military technology (before learning I can't join due to horrible military discrimination). Despite the fact that I love science I gave three dead baby birds a christian funeral in my backyard and I go to church (except for the past few weeks during which I hate my pastor).

There's something called a logic-tight compartment. Something in one of those tends to miss out on having things applied to it. Science deals with empiricism - that which is observable, essentially. Religion deals with guesses and occasionally adjusting the guess, or saying that it was metaphorical, or other such things.
So, the reason you can love science and what science learns through the scientific method and believe in unfalsifiable hypotheses is logic-tight compartments.

Andrew_Dayton wrote:

furdabip wrote:

Andrew_Dayton wrote:69 answer me this, if religion and science are enemies then why am I a christian who loves science?

That's a good question - why DO you claim Christianity, when you seem to believe all the things that go against the basic dogma of your religion? Have you read the bible, and seen how your god expects you to live? You're already sinning. If you DON'T believe in the bible, then, again, why cling to Christianity, or any religion at all?

Because Furd, I do not think science and religion are enemies. I believe in evolution just as I believe that the reason it happens is because God planned it out in the first living cell. He did make all animals at once, it's just that their codes were within that first cell. I believe he created the universe in the big bang and as a result I believe that God itself (because something infinite I doubt has a defined gender) is located at the exact center of the universe and from there it influences everything.

Now, as a scientist would say: Prove it.
Scientists have to prove why they think things. The things you love about science need to be proven by scientists. Religion has no such constraints. They simply have to say something and have people believe it.

Also, your understanding of evolution is terrible.
And your understanding of the big bang. The big bang did not create the universe. It simply explains why the universe is expanding.

I too, do not want to partake in this conversation, but I wanna throw in my two cents.
I was baptized a catholic, but have since "renounced" from Catholicism, and all religion, for that matter.
What I honestly don't like about religions, is what they impose upon you, like the bible. The bible was most definitely not written by God, which is overstated. It was written by a human being, such as you, and I. In the book of Ecclesiastes 8:17, it is stated:

then I saw all that God has done.
No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun.
Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning.
Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.

So, if a wise man cannot explain God, then how in the same hell can he write a book about him. Yeah...

Honestly, I do believe that there is some type of "higher being" up there, perhaps God, perhaps someone else, as a means of not being so scared as to when I die. Pretty much, I use him as a means of consolidation, because I don't want believe that life ends here on Earth. So I am neither proving nor disproving his existence, as I personally believe in him, without much cause.

Then again, I could be wrong, and there may be no God, as all the civilizations that came before us believed in their own Gods. If our God really does exist, then what reason is there as for the other gods of previous civilizations not to also exist.

In the end, I think all of this is a mind fuck, just to piss us all off more.

trainreqx2 wrote:So, if a wise man cannot explain God, then how in the same hell can he write a book about him. Yeah...

It's not really written about him - it's mostly a collection of parables and stories from the life of Jesus, from the point of view of an observer.

I found the video I wanted to post earlier about the probability of life arising in the universe, even though the topic has switched from the creation of it;



Also,

I guess I remember now why I said I wouldn't post here. This isn't really a conversation. A conversation would be a nice thing to have on this subject for once, but it always turns into a contest to disprove the other. I've known many offensive religious people who force their beliefs onto others and I absolutely hate it. But to be honest, I've been seeing that same behavior from more atheists than anyone else lately. Going out of your way to tell people why what they believe in is wrong is the same thing as a Christian telling you what you do not believe in is wrong.

Hearing it come from a Christian or an Atheist makes me feel equally as sick as the other. Both parties have been doing it in this thread. But both parties have also had some good points and have been handling the conversation with a bit more maturity. I just wish the whole thread was like that.

--

The only time I truly think that convincing someone that they should change their beliefs is understandable is when it's someone very very close to you.

From the religious man's view:
If there is an afterlife then he doesn't want to lose the one he loves for the rest of eternity cause he couldn't get them to believe.

From the Atheist's view:
He doesn't want the one that he loves to waste their life fighting to get to the afterlife instead of enjoying the only life they have here with them.

Both are completely understandable (and i know not every falls into either of these beliefs).

But the thing I don't understand is fighting and debating with people you really don't know or who might be complete strangers and telling them what they think is wrong... Why not let them believe what they want? I mean, how often have one of these threads converted someone to stop believing what they believe? I've never seen it. I've never even seen it happen in real life.

697134002 wrote: That is the position of Earth in the universe. We are unimaginably tiny. Why would a being capable of creating that even care about us? Assuming you accept evolution as fact, what makes humans special enough to go to eternal paradise and not other creatures? Shouldn't chimpanzees or bonobos be able to go to heaven, too? Okay, so then they do. What about gorillas? Orangutans? Gibbons? What about other primates? Other mammals? Reptiles? Fish? Trees? Single-celled organisms? Viruses?

I don't know if you think you know what my beliefs are or not, but I've definitely never mentioned anything about animals. I've never said Humans are any more special than animals. In fact I believe Humans are the least innocent of any living creature. If there's an afterlife I would wish all the animals I've known, seen, and cared for to make it there before I do.

Cpt_Harlock wrote:

697134002 wrote: That is the position of Earth in the universe. We are unimaginably tiny. Why would a being capable of creating that even care about us? Assuming you accept evolution as fact, what makes humans special enough to go to eternal paradise and not other creatures? Shouldn't chimpanzees or bonobos be able to go to heaven, too? Okay, so then they do. What about gorillas? Orangutans? Gibbons? What about other primates? Other mammals? Reptiles? Fish? Trees? Single-celled organisms? Viruses?

I don't know if you think you know what my beliefs are or not, but I've definitely never mentioned anything about animals. I've never said Humans are any more special than animals. In fact I believe Humans are the least innocent of any living creature. If there's an afterlife I would wish all the animals I've known, seen, and cared for to make it there before I do.

Okay. So if animals go to heaven, what about viruses? Trees? Where do you draw the line? Despite being a comic, the comic I posted a link to right there was very good at explaining what I'm getting at.

697134002 wrote:

Cpt_Harlock wrote:

697134002 wrote: That is the position of Earth in the universe. We are unimaginably tiny. Why would a being capable of creating that even care about us? Assuming you accept evolution as fact, what makes humans special enough to go to eternal paradise and not other creatures? Shouldn't chimpanzees or bonobos be able to go to heaven, too? Okay, so then they do. What about gorillas? Orangutans? Gibbons? What about other primates? Other mammals? Reptiles? Fish? Trees? Single-celled organisms? Viruses?

I don't know if you think you know what my beliefs are or not, but I've definitely never mentioned anything about animals. I've never said Humans are any more special than animals. In fact I believe Humans are the least innocent of any living creature. If there's an afterlife I would wish all the animals I've known, seen, and cared for to make it there before I do.

Okay. So if animals go to heaven, what about viruses? Trees? Where do you draw the line? Despite being a comic, the comic I posted a link to right there was very good at explaining what I'm getting at.

If there is a heaven then I wouldn't be the one drawing the line and deciding who goes in. All I said is I would want animals to get in before I do, but that's just what I hope.

And I completely understood the comic, It had a good point at first. But then it started to get a bit out of hand, but I guess that was the point. And to be honest I'm starting to feel like the little girl in that comic, as odd as that sounds.

Cpt_Harlock wrote:I guess I remember now why I said I wouldn't post here. This isn't really a conversation. A conversation would be a nice thing to have on this subject for once, but it always turns into a contest to disprove the other. I've known many offensive religious people who force their beliefs onto others and I absolutely hate it. But to be honest, I've been seeing that same behavior from more atheists than anyone else lately. Going out of your way to tell people why what they believe in is wrong is the same thing as a Christian telling you what you do not believe in is wrong.

Hearing it come from a Christian or an Atheist makes me feel equally as sick as the other. Both parties have been doing it in this thread. But both parties have also had some good points and have been handling the conversation with a bit more maturity. I just wish the whole thread was like that.

Just re-read the whole thread. Aside from Furd (and possibly Sneaky) being somewhat antagonistic, everybody else seemed to do a decent job of keeping things calm and reasonably mature. As for it being "a contest to disprove the other" most of the disproving was done with accepted science. As an example, if someone were to go around saying that the Earth is flat, would you simply say "Well that's their opinion and they're entitled to it?" Just because it's an opinion or a belief doesn't mean that it can't be objectively incorrect. I see correcting people on matters like that not unlike telling a guy their fly is open, it's the nice thing to do.

I also think it's worth noting that the OP was one of the main people in the conversation, and I don't believe he said he was offended by any of this even once.

Cpt_Harlock wrote:But the thing I don't understand is fighting and debating with people you really don't know or who might be complete strangers and telling them what they think is wrong... Why not let them believe what they want? I mean, how often have one of these threads converted someone to stop believing what they believe? I've never seen it. I've never even seen it happen in real life.

Because it has become obvious that no good comes out of a world divided by religion. Different people from different religions seem to have a hard time getting along in any way that could be described as peaceful. When people stop killing abortion clinic doctors, when they stop bullying their non-straight children/peers, when our history and science textbooks are no longer subject to religious interference, when people no longer blow themselves up in the name of their God, when the religious moderates stop enabling those who do these extremist actions, then we will be happy to let you believe what you want to believe. Then it really will be harming no one.

(And unless you've seen Atheists go door to door with The God Delusion, I think we're orders of magnitude better at letting people believe what they want.)

Yeah, this has probably the most civil religion-based discussion I've ever been in or read, on the internet and in real life. Most of the time one of the two parties starts throwing insults around.


Asi, I've always wondered this and never been given an answer by someone. What explanation is there for some religions being right and others being wrong? From what I understand, religion is a way to try and explain how the universe came to be, and how all of the amazing things in it happened. Other religions do pretty much the same thing as Christianity, they provide an explanation based on faith. Why is Christianity the right religion to you, but not something like Greek mythology, or Judaism, to use something more similar?

Well, I'm not so sure why there are so many abandon thread posts. If you want to abandon the thread, the easiest thing to do is to stop posting in it or reading in it.

@Furd,

You remind me of a woman I met when I was a Wiccan. First, she asked me if I believed in magic. And when I said yes, she refused to let me define what it meant in the context. She proceeded to define it in a way no Wiccan I've ever read would agree with. And then proved that magic couldn't exist by her definition. And therefore concluded that all Wiccans were wrong because she could prove that her definition of magic didn't exist.

It was your posts that Christians had to follow the Bible literally or they weren't Christian that reminded me of her.

@To the scientists,

Evolution is a scientific theory. Sorry, Vallorn, it's not a fact. A fact is a piece of data. Evolution is not a piece of data. I do not believe in Evolution because I have yet to see supporting data for it. I have, however, seen plenty of supporting data about changes in population density.

@To the "Creation should be taught in school" folks,

Sure, teaching Creation in school is fine. It would go in the study of religion, philosophy, culture, etc. classes Not in science classes. Creation is a myth, a belief - not a scientific theory.

On a similar note, I know plenty of people (myself included) who support both science and religion. I do not consider them at war with each.

On the subject of war, in no war that I have studied has religion been a root cause of that war. The root cause tends to be "resources". However, people are very smart - and it's much easier to get someone to fight and die for their beliefs, then resources. So, religion is often used as the reason for why the war is a good thing and should be supported.

Thread is being re-opened.

Keep it civil. Keep it on topic. Don't let it get to you.

Remember, this subforum's whole purpose is this:

This is a place for mature discussion about religious and political philosophies.

Abide by it.

Thank you, and carry on.

Tulonsae wrote:@To the scientists,

Evolution is a scientific theory. Sorry, Vallorn, it's not a fact. A fact is a piece of data. Evolution is not a piece of data. I do not believe in Evolution because I have yet to see supporting data for it. I have, however, seen plenty of supporting data about changes in population density.

Evolution is not the scientific theory. Natural selection is. Evolution is observation. Natural selection is a theory supported by all available evidence, proposing how evolution works.

I'm honestly not going to type all this up again, so I'm just going to link you to the E. coli experiment by Richard Lenski. Evolution is observed there, and, using the data, natural selection is inferred, as all of the mutations which become prominent in the separate populations are better than the status quo.

Glad to see things back to normal. Also, I know I said this somewhere else, but Gravity is also a theory, and while you can see it in your own lifetime, it doesn't make it any less of a "theory" than Natural Selection or Evolution. The geologic timescales needed to witness evolution at work are far beyond the lifespan of a single human. However there is evidence in our geologic past as well as continued observations of species right now that are giving empirical evidence for the theory of evolution.

That's about all I'm willing to go into right now, so talk amongst yourselves.

Tomenaki wrote:Glad to see things back to normal. Also, I know I said this somewhere else, but Gravity is also a theory, and while you can see it in your own lifetime, it doesn't make it any less of a "theory" than Natural Selection or Evolution. The geologic timescales needed to witness evolution at work are far beyond the lifespan of a single human. However there is evidence in our geologic past as well as continued observations of species right now that are giving empirical evidence for the theory of evolution.

That's about all I'm willing to go into right now, so talk amongst yourselves.

Gravity is not a theory. Gravity is fact, for it is observation. Gravitation, the mechanism by which gravity works, is a scientific theory.

Also, the timescales needed to witness evolution are not beyond a human's lifespan. I'm going to have to point back to Lenski.

697134002 wrote:

Tomenaki wrote:Glad to see things back to normal. Also, I know I said this somewhere else, but Gravity is also a theory, and while you can see it in your own lifetime, it doesn't make it any less of a "theory" than Natural Selection or Evolution. The geologic timescales needed to witness evolution at work are far beyond the lifespan of a single human. However there is evidence in our geologic past as well as continued observations of species right now that are giving empirical evidence for the theory of evolution.

That's about all I'm willing to go into right now, so talk amongst yourselves.

Gravity is not a theory. Gravity is fact, for it is observation. Gravitation, the mechanism by which gravity works, is a scientific theory.

Also, the timescales needed to witness evolution are not beyond a human's lifespan. I'm going to have to point back to Lenski.

I meant in general terms when it came to gravity, 697. I also mean for larger organisms other than bacteria, since most people think of human evolution in this whole argument.

I'll have to take a look at that experiment.

Although, interestingly enough, I've seen proof of natural selection - just not of evolution.

And yes the other things are theories, too. And why yes, it does bother me when they are taught as fact in school rather than theory.

But back to the topic. Who is God to me?

Well, that could probably take awhile to explain because I consider it a rather complicated subject. But, I guess, in a summary (that I'm sure someone will distort , I consider God to be a power or natural force or something that many people refer to as a deity. And, it's my personal choice to believe in him/her.

Although I do know that people get upset about this entire issue, there is a part of me that doesn't really understand why. Yes, I know the intellectual reasons why. But really, my belief in God doesn't harm anyone and probably helps me and helps me to help others.

Tulonsae wrote:I'll have to take a look at that experiment.

Although, interestingly enough, I've seen proof of natural selection - just not of evolution.

And yes the other things are theories, too. And why yes, it does bother me when they are taught as fact in school rather than theory.

Scientific theories are indistinguishable from fact as far as humans are able to discern at any point in time. They are testable as well. The only reason they are not referred to as facts is because they can be disproven with new evidence. Evolution and gravity, because they can be observed, cannot be disproven because they are observations. They are like "I perceive the sky as I colour which I refer to as blue." The only reason natural selection is not referred to as a fact is because you could find new evidence tomorrow showing that, rather than natural selection driving evolution, it is the whim of a fat leprechaun.

@697,

Please take a look at the OP and the title of this thread.

This thread is not about scientific theory. Now, if you want to discuss that and why I think you're wrong about what you just posted, then feel free to start another thread. And we can talk there.

vallorn wrote:Now. Please give me documented empirical evidence of your Diety's Miracles.

The biggest miracle is undoubtedly the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The proof we have are the eyewitness accounts. The gospels were written with primary, secondary, and include tertiary information. The stories in them all came from eyewitnesses. So, how do we know that they were the same back then as they were today? Here is a chart and an article about why the gospels are reliable (I am sending you the Link instead of saying it out because I'm on an iPad and am not fully flexible with the charts and info). http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence. This is a detailed article about Manuscript evidence for the reliability of the NT.

asi1998 wrote:

vallorn wrote:Now. Please give me documented empirical evidence of your Diety's Miracles.

The biggest miracle is undoubtedly the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The proof we have are the eyewitness accounts. The gospels were written with primary, secondary, and include tertiary information. The stories in them all came from eyewitnesses. So, how do we know that they were the same back then as they were today? Here is a chart and an article about why the gospels are reliable (I am sending you the Link instead of saying it out because I'm on an iPad and am not fully flexible with the charts and info). http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence. This is a detailed article about Manuscript evidence for the reliability of the NT.

The Bible is not proof of anything depicted as happening in the bible. The bible claims that the world was made in 6 days; science has shown that to be false. The bible claims that the world was flooded; science has shown that to be false. The bible claims that a man was born to a virgin and a deity and did miracles and was killed then resurrected. The bible is the only source remotely near that era claiming such a thing. The same bible which was wrong about so many other things.
I'm just going to ignore all of the scientific problems with Jesus existing for now. You cite the bible as proof of Jesus existing and, therefore, the god depicted in it existing. But what of other books, such as the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, the Tao Te Ching, the Torah, the Qur'an, the Avesta, the Vanaya Pitaki and many other holy books? If the bible alone is proof of its god, why aren't all of those books proof of their respective deities/beliefs? That was actually asked earlier in this thread. By Sti, I think.

Also, that link of yours... Isn't that the same site which proudly hosts a page detailing the flawed cosmological argument? Its argument is also that the new testament is accurate about things. Which it isn't, as I explained above.

Also, Tulon, I'm not going to start a thread on that. I said everything that I needed to say.

@Asi,

I take it by your latest posts in this thread, that you're no longer interested in your original topic?

More that the topic has changed a bit. It'd be kind of silly to make a new thread every time the topic changed slightly.

Sti_Jo_Lew wrote:More that the topic has changed a bit. It'd be kind of silly to make a new thread every time the topic changed slightly.

It's a lot more than slight.