Evolution vs. Creation page 4

955 posts

Flag Post

(By the way i havent found out how to quote yet :P)
“People will disbelieve a lot of things for religion.”

Indeed they would. But many of the agnostics would be more likely to sway towards the scientific proved area. Simply because it was true. If science was to say that everyone who is religious has been living a lie, surely that would stir up something big.

 
Flag Post

lets face it, if someone PROVED that God didn’t exist, then Christianity … and most religions would crumble.

Freud is the most readily disproven ‘scientist’ in history. Doesn’t stop people from quoting him or using his ideas on a daily basis.

(By the way i havent found out how to quote yet :P)

bq. TEXT or <blockquote>TEXT</blockquote>
 
Flag Post

It isn’t even a competition anymore. Ev. wins, gg, no re. Creationism is mythology now.

 
Flag Post

Darkruler, you generalize most of all in this forum. ‘Everyone’ flames Christianity, ‘all’ scientists think they have the advantage over religious people, etc.

If that is the only thing you can even make a mildly negative comment on, stop bothering. Yes, I called “the people I saw typing here” as “everyone”, does that suddenly reduce my argument to dust? Nope.

Get a grip.

That coming from someone who randomly drops in here and starts flaming the crap out of anyone he dislikes.

Well, add “I believe that …” before the opening statement. Doesn’t change the absurdity of the argument.

A belief is false? Am I understanding you correctly? It is absurd to have a belief? Is this some way of saying you wouldn’t accept anyone unless he/she is following your own views?

How is “I believe in the existence of an unprovable entity” different to “I believe in an unprovable assertion”?

You need to read my entire post before coming up with an adequate counter-argument. More specifically, the post you quoted directly beneath this one.

If I trusted in the greenness of the sky to give me strength, and believing that allowed me to accept that strength given to me, would the colour of the sky then be non-provable?

Where does this argument come from? How did you make this connection? I say in one post that God isn’t provable or unprovable, because it goes far beyond our comprehension. Colour doesn’t go beyond your comprehension, does it? Colours are written-down matches. If you see a certain colour, it is already fixed what name it has. It doesn’t mean you can’t believe that the sky is another colour, especially if that belief gives you the strength you need, but the sky is already assumed to be the colour we written down as blue. As a written rule, or so to say. Are there written rules about God?

How is “I have a belief and it is not there to be proven” different to “I don’t have to prove my belief to you”?

Big difference, read it again. We cannot prove it, because proving it will not make a belief any more. I never said I do not have to prove it to you. If I wanted to make science out of my belief, I would probably try to, but I think that doing this will remove the essential faith of this belief.

So you’re claiming that belief in God is illogical?

Are you viewing everything in black and white? There’s no middle path for you? For you, there’s logical and illogical? Mind that I’m merely referring to the way you think, not if it has a positive or negative tone with it.

In either way, I’m afraid it’s completely wrong to see only the two extremes. If there is a purely logical mind, he will not believe in God, since there is no evidence for it. Someone does not accept the logical way at all, will not trust in science, purely in beliefs. And then? There’s the path in between. You can both understand the beliefs someone’s having and trust in the evidence science is giving to you for other matters.

Can you offer an alternative standard by which to debate than logic? Or is God something that shouldn’t be debated at all, and instead just accepted unquestioningly?

An interesting question, I’ve been trying to push this from day one. In the beginning, I thought people were claiming it is “wrong” to believe. I would say to that everyone is allowed to believe in whatever they like, there are no restrictions on that. If the debate was going about such stuff alone, I would say drop it.

Then I thought that the discussion was about why someone believes. I’ve been trying to tell them why, that God is a source of strength to me. They accepted happily and continued on discussing why science conflicts with religion.

Further on, I tried to reflect my views on science “versus” religion. I don’t think the two have to clash. I argued that my views on religion isn’t at all that we are trying to prove things. Science is there to prove. For me, God was the creator, but he is not “making things happen” any more. That is why I don’t think the two are colliding with each other on one subject or another.

Yet then I find out people are debating there is no reason to believe in God, because there is no “evidence”. I’ve been trying to push forward that a belief does not require evidence to exist. I’ve been hearing people argue that something cannot exist without evidence, but they can’t actually answer the statement of being unable to prove or disprove God at all.

What is this debate truly about? I’ve been trying to answer to all four of the above, yet it still doesn’t come through.

Proof is what someone needs to back a theory

Let’s make an extreme example. All of the scientists now force believers to come up with proof or at least evidence for religion. Naturally, it won’t happen, since a belief is not science. Science is to be proven, religion is to be believed in (I simply cannot understand why people continue to refuse accepting this). Okay, so no proof. Then what? Theory dismissed. By whom? The scientists. Also by the believers? Nope, they continue to believe. Then what? Forbidding to believe? Restrictive laws on it? Are you willing to do all of that just to close down one simple “theory”, as you’d like to call it?

Indeed they would. But many of the agnostics would be more likely to sway towards the scientific proved area. Simply because it was true. If science was to say that everyone who is religious has been living a lie, surely that would stir up something big.

Truth? Wow, wait a second. You’re willing to set a 100% chance, no questions asked, definite stamp of truth on science? How on Earth are you going to back this up?

It isn’t even a competition anymore. Ev. wins, gg, no re. Creationism is mythology now.

Or;

“It isn’t even a competition any more. Creationism wins, good game, no re-match. Evolution is mythology now.”

If you come into the area of serious discussion, you’re expected to seriously discuss, not just blindly call something you find hilarious to say.

 
Flag Post

“It isn’t even a competition any more. Creationism wins, good game, no re-match. Evolution is mythology now.”
If you come into the area of serious discussion, you’re expected to seriously discuss, not just blindly call something you find hilarious to say.

But he’s right. In order to think that Evolution is false you have to be willfully ignorant. He only put it like that because no one here wants to take the time to spoon-feed idiots the information.

 
Flag Post

But he’s right. In order to think the evolution is false you have to be willfully ignorant. He only put it like that because no one here wants to take the time to spoon-feed idiots the information.

Would you like me to backfire your own post upon yourself, or do you see on your own that there’s a heavy credibility loss in your story if you start swearing at people?

If at least people would take the time to read through some of the posts, they would be able to make legit responses. Don’t bother to reply if you’re just going to make some statements. Or worse, if you’re just going to flame everyone not agreeing with your views.

 
Flag Post

I thought we have got over this creation vs evolution discussions? Don’t force them against each other. One is the journey, the other is the vessel that carry you around. God doesn’t need any defending. He’ll only need to explain how to live, not explaining how He make things. Else the Bible would be like a thick book of “Idiot Guide to Creation” …. Science is a way of proving. Its almost like the light of truth…. figuratively of course.

 
Flag Post

I don’t know where to begin with that. Swearing? When did I swear? and I thought you believed in Evolution anyway?

To answer some of your earlier points that I expected other people to rip to to shreds before I did:

It is absurd to have a belief?

Believing in something for which there is no proof? Sounds absurd to me.

Let’s make an extreme example. All of the scientists now force believers to come up with proof or at least evidence for religion. Naturally, it won’t happen, since a belief is not science. Science is to be proven, religion is to be believed in (I simply cannot understand why people continue to refuse accepting this). Okay, so no proof. Then what? Theory dismissed. By whom? The scientists. Also by the believers? Nope, they continue to believe. Then what? Forbidding to believe? Restrictive laws on it? Are you willing to do all of that just to close down one simple “theory”, as you’d like to call it?

I don’t think Scientist have laws stopping people believing the earth is flat, but it’s not true.

Truth? Wow, wait a second. You’re willing to set a 100% chance, no questions asked, definite stamp of truth on science? How on Earth are you going to back this up?

I don’t know about Jabor, but I am.

 
Flag Post

Creation – No prove
Evolution – not much prove

=-)

 
Flag Post

‘proof’

Where are you getting the idea that there’s not much proof for evolution?

 
Flag Post

Guys, I think we’ve been replaced

Now whenever creationists have an argument they can just look up the response.

 
Flag Post
Truth? Wow, wait a second. You’re willing to set a 100% chance, no questions asked, definite stamp of truth on science? How on Earth are you going to back this up?

Science is backed by proof. Proof is backed by evidence.

Everyone in the world will have their own views on the whole science vs religion. Even if someone does show evidence of either evolution or creationism, there’ll be at least someone who will believe the opposite. I dont think that Faith can ever be destroyed or swayed. Like i’ve said, i dont believe in God, yet i’d like there to be something in the afterlife, whether you’re reborn or carry on living subconciously. If someone was to prove that it was wrong, i’d probably carry on believing cause it’s like a path of direction.

 
Flag Post

I don’t know where to begin with that. Swearing? When did I swear?

If I said “some idiots don’t know the meaning of swearing”, would you find it acceptable and move on? I’m not saying I will, because saying things like that only worsens the view people have of you, but I’m trying to understand why “idiot” is a normal word to use.

and I thought you believed in Evolution anyway?

That doesn’t mean you have the right to go around calling people idiots.

Believing in something for which there is no proof? Sounds absurd to me.

Welcome to Earth. Outside life can be observed by going out of the front door of your house. On your right, a believer. On your left, a scientist. These are spread throughout the world. Any questions about the tour?

Oh, by the way, are you now trying to state that beliefs can somehow be proven without becoming science?

I don’t think Scientist have laws stopping people believing the earth is flat, but it’s not true.

The theory of the Earth being flat has been “disproven” (still quoting the word) by using evidence, then concluding it isn’t flat. I haven’t seen any direct evidence against God.

This is not what I truly need to say about this, though. What I’m trying to get at is if you people actually need proof or evidence for religion in order to understand what the beliefs are about. If so, we can stop right here. We’re believing in something that goes far beyond our comprehension, far beyond the measly word called “proof”. We aren’t technologically advanced enough to find evidence of such a power. Not that we should. If we wanted to prove our views of God, we wouldn’t be believing in it, we would be scientists actively searching for an answer. Is this really so hard to understand?

I don’t know about Jabor, but I am.

Then you clearly have a lot to learn. Science is far from the one truth. Nothing is certain.

Now whenever creationists have an argument they can just look up the response.

If you have anything to add that actually makes some sense, please come back. If you’re just going to make a mockery out of everything including yourself, then what do you really expect us to do with you?

Science is backed by proof. Proof is backed by evidence.

But it isn’t truth. We don’t know the exact truth. We’re just searching to assume it.

 
Flag Post

The error you seem to be making, Darkruler2005, is the assumption that since science is not 100% on anything it is therefore on an equal setting with religious faith. That is quite an error.

And by the way, throughout your debate I’ve been substituting “belief” with “faith” in my head, as I think you’re using the wrong term.

 
Flag Post

The error you seem to be making, Darkruler2005, is the assumption that since science is not 100% on anything it is therefore on an equal setting with religious faith. That is quite an error.

But your error is that I’m not saying they’re on equal settings. They don’t even belong in the same area. Some religious people try to get them in the same area and they are wrong to do so. The bad thing is that it makes some people think all followers of religion are like that.

Science is not 100% certain, therefore I can say that it can never be the argument of any of you that religion is wrong to believe in. Science has evidence to support it’s assumptions, that’s perfectly fine, I’m studying to become a scientist myself. Religion has no evidence, no proof, no back-up, yet it is strongly believed in. Why? Because it is not just a simply theory about the creation of the universe. It holds much more.

And by the way, throughout your debate I’ve been substituting “belief” with “faith” in my head, as I think you’re using the wrong term.

No, I think I’ve been using them correctly. If ever you notice I use the wrong term, please inform me. I rarely use the word faith, mostly it’s about the beliefs.

 
Flag Post

I’ve been forced to read books nobody liked up from year 1 in highschool .. we’ve had 6.

Then read some books you do like, or books that other people would recommend you. Never trust education to get you into reading.

Causes. Just a simple approximation of what could trigger it would do. If this is a theory with pure speculating evidence, you could put it aside the “theory” of God.

Ah, causes. In that case, yes, God is yet another theory to add to the list. Although if I remember rightly there is mathematical evidence for certain theories. It’s not physical, but it’s more than purely speculative.

Can’t remember for the life of me what the evidence was though. Probably because I didn’t understand it.

Wait, what? First everyone starts flaming the Christians for trying to prove their beliefs, bash them down to hell for even trying such an absurd thing and put them back in the place where they belong. Then you come up ahead and say we actually have to prove things and say we are refusing? Extreme contradiction.

Anyone who flames anyone for trying to prove something is an idiot. End of. I haven’t done it, and I never will. I try to encourage everyone to try and prove their ideas and beliefs, because, if nothing else, it will give the person in question a better understand of why they believe what they do.

I believe what you are referring to is the case when a Christian (or anyone else for that matter) is flamed for saying their beliefs are already proven, without giving any explanation of evidence to back it up.

Let’s put that aside, though. You’ve gone back before me explaining why beliefs cannot be proven (actually, nothing can, but that’s for another topic). Beliefs are not to be proven, or they will become science. Can you seriously ask a belief to prove itself or else you’ll just take it as trash? Read the sentence in italics again.

In that case, do you consider a belief to have the same weight in a debate as a scientific theory backed up with evidence? Many people I have seen on here seem to think that is true, but I can’t see how it can come even close.

I respect a person’s beliefs, but I will not accept them as my own until they are proven and are facts (or as proven as is reasonable). I personally see no difference between science and belief, belief merely being an unproven hypothesis.

I cannot believe that this is the reasoning people are coming with. I already explained “evidence” is hardcoded into the human mind. Without evidence, it will never be accepted. Those who believe understand that religion is a different case.

Okay. Now you’ve lost me. I think you might have to explain how this works. I can understand having personal beliefs without evidence, but declaring your beliefs as a fact is something else entirely. The only way I can think of proving something is evidence. It doesn’t always have to be physical, but it has to prove it. What exactly is the different case?

[Long reply to my ‘Sky is Green’ bit that would take forever to copy]

Right, so you are saying that your belief is valid as you are free to do so. I agree. What I don’t see is how belief becomes valid in the context of a debate.

So, basically, I think that religion is another scientific hypothesis. I considered myself a Roman Catholic once, so I understand the feelings that you describe as a result of belief. I understand what you are saying about personal belief, and I agree that that is completely valid to you, but in the context of a debate (eg. this forum), things must be backed up with evidence for them to have any weight in the argument.

I’m pretty sure that’s where we stand now. This is getting very complicated, very quickly. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure what the point is that you are trying to put forwards…

EDIT:

Because it is not just a simply theory about the creation of the universe. It holds much more.

So does science. It can give hope, give strength, give power. But most importantly, it gives results.

 
Flag Post

Then read some books you do like, or books that other people would recommend you. Never trust education to get you into reading.

I’ve been reading books, of course. The only two types I read are those I need for my study and those that are for pure enjoyment. I do not randomly pick a book about, for example, biology to have a nice study about it.

Ah, causes. In that case, yes, God is yet another theory to add to the list. Although if I remember rightly there is mathematical evidence for certain theories. It’s not physical, but it’s more than purely speculative.

Yes, of course, because you have to back up your theories as a scientist. Trust me, I’m studying to become one, and we’ve even discussed this very subject today. If you bring up a theory as a scientist, you are forced to find supporting evidence. If you don’t, there’s nothing you can do in the scientific world. You should rather follow religion if you’re going to be like that.

God can be assumed as a theory, but not from the scientific side. It is therefore not needed for the believers (this part is essential) to have any back-up or evidence. Pure scientists do not accept that, because theories always need evidence to back it up.

Can’t remember for the life of me what the evidence was though. Probably because I didn’t understand it.

That’s why I don’t dare to move outside my economic area to read about some theories. >_<

Anyone who flames anyone for trying to prove something is an idiot. End of. I haven’t done it, and I never will.

Appreciated, I don’t like everyone I’m discussing with, but you’re one I find sympathy with. Nothing said about your points and if they’re wrong or not, but about the way you bring it.

I try to encourage everyone to try and prove their ideas and beliefs, because, if nothing else, it will give the person in question a better understand of why they believe what they do.

There’s our problem. As I said above, us believers do not need the evidence or proof to back up our beliefs. This is entirely different when trying to explain it to scientists! Do you understand the difficulty of what we’re trying to achieve here? I will gladly refer you to any of my other posts in which I state why I believe, but it won’t give you any evidence.

I believe what you are referring to is the case when a Christian (or anyone else for that matter) is flamed for saying their beliefs are already proven, without giving any explanation of evidence to back it up.

Even though I disagree with a Christian saying their beliefs are proving, I think it is unfair to flame them for it. You can tell them it does not work like that and leave them be if they do not accept. I simply don’t support the usage of insults to try and make your point come over stronger.

In that case, do you consider a belief to have the same weight in a debate as a scientific theory backed up with evidence? Many people I have seen on here seem to think that is true, but I can’t see how it can come even close.

I apologize if I ever came over as saying beliefs are on equal grounds in a debate as scientific theories are. But really, what do you expect me to do here? I’m a scientist myself, and a believer. I’m not here to vouch for any side. I’m here to vouch for both. The problem is that I’m talking to either scientists or believers. Neither will accept. What points do I have left to make, then?

I respect a person’s beliefs, but I will not accept them as my own until they are proven and are facts (or as proven as is reasonable).

Okay, wait a moment, I just want to clear up this little problem. A belief will no longer be a belief if it is proven. It will become science. I’ve said this many times before. Thank you for respecting a person’s beliefs, but do not expect us to prove it without us immediately turning into scientists due to that. And one point I’d like you to understand is that I’m never forcing my beliefs onto you. I’m merely trying to make you understand the point of a belief.

I personally see no difference between science and belief, belief merely being an unproven hypothesis.

You could view it like that .. maybe. However, believers are not trying to prove their “hypothesis”, simply because they know the supernatural is far beyond their comprehension.

Okay. Now you’ve lost me. I think you might have to explain how this works. I can understand having personal beliefs without evidence, but declaring your beliefs as a fact is something else entirely. The only way I can think of proving something is evidence. It doesn’t always have to be physical, but it has to prove it. What exactly is the different case?

Would this discussion become easier for you if I hereby state that I never intended to project my beliefs as facts? If my arguments make you think like that, I apologize, but that’s not the way I wanted to work.

Right, so you are saying that your belief is valid as you are free to do so. I agree. What I don’t see is how belief becomes valid in the context of a debate.

I did not start this debate. In fact, if you take it like that, I don’t even think we should be debating. What is there to discuss if beliefs are not considered valid in the context of of a debate any way? What are you even trying to do?

All I’ve been trying to do here is to make people see why I believe. I keep on saying to accept that and move on, but what I’ve been seeing is “you have no evidence! clearly you are wrong!” by the look of some posts here. I’ve been trying to explain that us believers do not need this evidence to believe in God and receive the strength from the faith we have.

So, basically, I think that religion is another scientific hypothesis. I considered myself a Roman Catholic once, so I understand the feelings that you describe as a result of belief. I understand what you are saying about personal belief, and I agree that that is completely valid to you, but in the context of a debate (eg. this forum), things must be backed up with evidence for them to have any weight in the argument.

Every time I hear this argument, I’m inclined to just say “you win”. Again, I did not start this debate, I did not want to start it. But really, if one needs evidence, clearly religion stands no chance. That’s why it is illogical for a believer to start a debate. However, it is useless for a scientist to start the same debate, simply because they know there will be no evidence from the opposing side any way.

I’m pretty sure that’s where we stand now. This is getting very complicated, very quickly. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure what the point is that you are trying to put forwards…

You want an honest answer? Neither am I sure from what you are trying to say. I’ve made my point. I’ve told you why I believe. I’ve told you that religion cannot hold in a debate and can therefore never be discussed, it will always “lose”, at least as long as evidence is required to make some sense. Therefore I’m not even trying to argue here. I’m merely trying to point out any accidental errors, and then explaining the way beliefs work. That’s it. Nothing more can be expected.

EDIT:

So does science. It can give hope, give strength, give power. But most importantly, it gives results.

But does that persuade people to stop believing? If you can find a way for every believer to find a “God” in science, stop believing, and still be able to find the strength they need as a scientist, I think everyone would be happy. The point is that science does not give these feelings you describe as such. You’re merely happy to find evidence for the things about life you assume. Some people find strength in their work, of course, but you could consider this a belief as well. The strength you gain from being a scientist is not science in itself, it’s a belief.

At least, for me, I’m sure many will disagree.

 
Flag Post

Would this discussion become easier for you if I hereby state that I never intended to project my beliefs as facts?

It would in fact render null and void most of this discussion. I see what you are saying now, it’s probably because I came in halfway through the thread. I thought that you thought of beliefs as not needing evidence, but that they still had an equal objective importance in a debate (For everyone, not just you). It makes a lot more sense now, thanks :)

Still interesting to discuss, even if we were discussing different things.

I’ve been reading books, of course. The only two types I read are those I need for my study and those that are for pure enjoyment. I do not randomly pick a book about, for example, biology to have a nice study about it.

Oh, those kind of books. As informative as they are, yes, they’re not always interesting. There are many good non-fiction books out there though. Read Bill Bryson, he’s brilliant. His ‘A Short History of Nearly Everything’ covers huge amounts of information, but also talks about how they were discovered. As you are studying to become a scientist, it might be of some interest. It covers a lot of things discussed in this forum too.

What area of science are you studying, by the way?

That’s why I don’t dare to move outside my economic area to read about some theories. >_<

Hehe :)

There’s our problem. As I said above, us believers do not need the evidence or proof to back up our beliefs.

There are a lot of believers out there who would disagree with that one. All the same, discussing, if not proving, your beliefs and presenting them as an argument does wonders for the understanding of your own views. Not just on religion, but anything.

Appreciated, I don’t like everyone I’m discussing with, but you’re one I find sympathy with.

No problem. A bit of sympathy or empathy is all the world needs at times.

I came over all philosophical there…

I simply don’t support the usage of insults to try and make your point come over stronger.

You’re right. On the other side, I assume you’ve seen some of the people who come on here, religious or not…

A belief will no longer be a belief if it is proven.

Will it? A belief in the end is a conviction or opinion and that is what both science and religion are based upon. I believe that the chair I’m sitting on is not about to be sucked into a black hole. It could happen, but the chances are so small that is in practical terms impossible. That is how I’ve always considered a belief to work. I don’t think religion and science are that different at all.

You could view it like that .. maybe. However, believers are not trying to prove their “hypothesis”, simply because they know the supernatural is far beyond their comprehension.

I don’t believe in the word supernatural. Everything can be explained, there is nothing beyond the reaches of our capabilities. Perhaps we personally could not comprehend it, but it can be represented in a way that is understandable, at least to some people.

You want an honest answer? Neither am I sure from what you are trying to say. I’ve made my point. I’ve told you why I believe. I’ve told you that religion cannot hold in a debate and can therefore never be discussed, it will always “lose”, at least as long as evidence is required to make some sense. Therefore I’m not even trying to argue here. I’m merely trying to point out any accidental errors, and then explaining the way beliefs work. That’s it. Nothing more can be expected.

Nothing more is expected. Although how exactly would proving God exists reduce the worth of religion? People often say this one, but I think proving religion right would only make it stronger. It might remove the faith element, believing against the opposing or lack of evidence, but I never found religion to be just about faith.

But does that persuade people to stop believing? If you can find a way for every believer to find a “God” in science, stop believing, and still be able to find the strength they need as a scientist, I think everyone would be happy. The point is that science does not give these feelings you describe as such. You’re merely happy to find evidence for the things about life you assume. Some people find strength in their work, of course, but you could consider this a belief as well. The strength you gain from being a scientist is not science in itself, it’s a belief.

I suppose science itself doesn’t give happiness and strength all the time, but the results of it do. Medecine, technology, all of these things make life better for millions of people, and it is that that gives people strength and hope. It doesn’t pull people from religion at all (well, not always), but sometimes an ill person feels happier with a pill in their hand than a prayer. Of course, the opposite is also true.

I think I’ve already mentioned how I consider a belief to be a part of science, the words ‘hypothesis’ and ‘belief’ being often interchangable. If I haven’t, I have now.

 
Flag Post

It would in fact render null and void most of this discussion. I see what you are saying now, it’s probably because I came in halfway through the thread. I thought that you thought of beliefs as not needing evidence, but that they still had an equal objective importance in a debate (For everyone, not just you). It makes a lot more sense now, thanks :)

Np. Glad we worked that out.

Still interesting to discuss, even if we were discussing different things.

Of course, no problem.

Oh, those kind of books. As informative as they are, yes, they’re not always interesting. There are many good non-fiction books out there though. Read Bill Bryson, he’s brilliant. His ‘A Short History of Nearly Everything’ covers huge amounts of information, but also talks about how they were discovered. As you are studying to become a scientist, it might be of some interest. It covers a lot of things discussed in this forum too.

I might. The problem is that many people will recommend different titles and I end up not being able to choose any. I’ve been given a lot of articles through my study, so I guess the references in those are good reads as well.

What area of science are you studying, by the way?

Business economics. In the past, I thought scientists were those guys in white suits experimenting in some dark lab on explosive fluids, but that was a long time ago. Science has a very broad definition, in fact.

There are a lot of believers out there who would disagree with that one.

I mean to ourself. We believe and do not need evidence for ourself, because we already accept it.

All the same, discussing, if not proving, your beliefs and presenting them as an argument does wonders for the understanding of your own views. Not just on religion, but anything.

Yes, yes, but the problem is religion is so difficult to prove. Even if we could, by now some skeptical scientists wouldn’t take any evidence given for religion any more, just because so many believers in the past tried to push forward their beliefs as fact with meager evidence or none at all.

No problem. A bit of sympathy or empathy is all the world needs at times.

I came over all philosophical there…

It’s a coincidence how they’re teaching me a philosophical view on economics this period. You might be an interesting subject to study!

You’re right. On the other side, I assume you’ve seen some of the people who come on here, religious or not…

I did, and I’m none too happy with they way they present their way of arguing as the way it should be done. If you have to come over stronger by insults, I believe it is only to make up for your lack of real arguments.

Will it? A belief in the end is a conviction or opinion and that is what both science and religion are based upon. I believe that the chair I’m sitting on is not about to be sucked into a black hole. It could happen, but the chances are so small that is in practical terms impossible. That is how I’ve always considered a belief to work. I don’t think religion and science are that different at all.

I’ve been viewing beliefs very differently from science. They have an entirely different way of working. That is, ironically, one of my beliefs, just as your belief is that science and beliefs aren’t all that different. I suppose there’s nothing here to say except to accept our own views on that.

As to your example, this is one hypothesis I can say about won’t do more than just state that hypothesis. Believing in God is not only saying you believe in the creation of the universe, it’s also trusting to be given strength when prayed for. Believing it is improbable your chair doesn’t get sucked into a black hole may give you some comfort, but isn’t truly strengthening or anything like that.

I don’t believe in the word supernatural. Everything can be explained, there is nothing beyond the reaches of our capabilities. Perhaps we personally could not comprehend it, but it can be represented in a way that is understandable, at least to some people.

Funny how mention “believe”. That is the exact thing what religion is all about. We believe in the supernatural. You, as a (probably) pure logical thinker do not. You do logically say everything can be explained, nothing is beyond our capabilities. This is exactly what you do not think as a believer. We believe God cannot be reasoned for or reasoned away. It is beyond us. For you, it is not beyond yourself to reason him away. You cannot now, but you believe you can in the future. This is one part of the entire science “versus” religion discussion.

Nothing more is expected. Although how exactly would proving God exists reduce the worth of religion? People often say this one, but I think proving religion right would only make it stronger. It might remove the faith element, believing against the opposing or lack of evidence, but I never found religion to be just about faith.

This is due to our disagreement on beliefs and science being about the same or not. We no longer have to believe if God is proven to be true, we can from that moment on become scientists. It doesn’t stop the going to church and praying for him, since he obviously can still give you strength, but you no longer need to believe in him. Believing, in general, in my opinion is assuming something to be true without any evidence or back-up. If evidence is found, you no longer have any reason to believe, you can assume it to be true through science.

I suppose science itself doesn’t give happiness and strength all the time, but the results of it do. Medecine, technology, all of these things make life better for millions of people, and it is that that gives people strength and hope. It doesn’t pull people from religion at all (well, not always), but sometimes an ill person feels happier with a pill in their hand than a prayer. Of course, the opposite is also true.

This is why I keep stressing the fact that I like to combine the two. God gave us the ability to cure diseases, help out the weak. Discovering how to do it is science. A prayer, if you believe in it, will still give the person you prayed for strength in times of need. It is not enough to help the person survive without medicines, but it is enough to give that person hope.

Again, to come back to your former argument, people can believe in science, if they want. They can actually find strength in how it is done. I would accept it as much as any other religion. However, some merely find science to do what it physically does, while being strengthened by their faith in God.

I think I’ve already mentioned how I consider a belief to be a part of science, the words ‘hypothesis’ and ‘belief’ being often interchangable. If I haven’t, I have now.

As I’ve already explained, I think a belief is something more than just a hypothesis. The theory may lie in the fact that we’re claiming the universe was “created”, but the worth of a belief is not purely that issue. A scientific hypothesis normally does not do the things we do as believers. I do not expect you to understand this, as it is rare someone who never actively participated as a believer understands how on Earth you would be strengthened by a belief. However, all I think you need to see is that the hypothesis of religion is merely built in our beliefs. That’s why it is something more than a simple scientific theory.

 
Flag Post
Science is not 100% certain, therefore I can say that it can never be the argument of any of you that religion is wrong to believe in.

Haven’t been keeping track of this thread much, but I certainly don’t say “religion is wrong”. I might say “religion is pointless”, or “religion is a memetic disease”, or even “religion is the worst thing to survive the Common Era above cancer”, but being the pedant I am I know I cannot say “religion is wrong”.

Religion has no evidence, no proof, no back-up, yet it is strongly believed in. Why?

Already answered that one; see “memetic disease”.

And by the way, throughout your debate I’ve been substituting “belief” with “faith” in my head, as I think you’re using the wrong term.

No, I think I’ve been using them correctly. If ever you notice I use the wrong term, please inform me. I rarely use the word faith, mostly it’s about the beliefs.


From what I’ve read of you before, you seem to think that a belief with evidence ceases to be belief. This is not clear from the definition of belief, but would be inherently true for faith. I believe the Earth is round – being as sure of that as anyone can be doesn’t stop me from believing that it is the case. However, I can’t say I have faith in it because I do have justification for the belief.

Just scanning up this page of the thread I can see a few different definitions of “belief”; perhaps worthy of a separate discussion?

 
Flag Post

Religion has no evidence, no proof, no back-up, yet it is strongly believed in. Why? Because it is not just a simply theory about the creation of the universe. It holds much more.

Replace religion with Bermuda triangle, bigfoot, aliens, or any other ‘theory’ about what might be. Coming at it from this angle the claims of it being illogical and to a point absurd make sense.

 
Flag Post

Haven’t been keeping track of this thread much, but I certainly don’t say “religion is wrong”. I might say “religion is pointless”, or “religion is a memetic disease”, or even “religion is the worst thing to survive the Common Era above cancer”, but being the pedant I am I know I cannot say “religion is wrong”.

I misunderstood the topic title. I now see it reads “come here to bash religion!”. Are you even trying to participate seriously here? Why must you use insults to make up for your lack of arguments? And if you do call your so-called points “arguments”, why even bother letting the religious side explain and not just shut them all up by calling their religion a supposed illness?

Already answered that one; see “memetic disease”.

See “person who has had it with this discussion and has to resort to random insults”. If this is how you intend to chase me out, you’re succeeding. It is far from fair to be a racist as it is far from fair to call religion a disease. I’m not going to bother discussing with pathetic statements like that.

I believe the Earth is round – being as sure of that as anyone can be doesn’t stop me from believing that it is the case.

Why would you believe in something you’re sure of? When you say “I believe…” you show uncertainity. So, again, if you’re sure, why would you believe?

Just scanning up this page of the thread I can see a few different definitions of “belief”; perhaps worthy of a separate discussion?

Your call.

Replace religion with Bermuda triangle, bigfoot, aliens, or any other ‘theory’ about what might be. Coming at it from this angle the claims of it being illogical and to a point absurd make sense.

Hey, you know what? You’re right! I’ve been having this belief, but you just opened my eyes by comparing it to the Bermuda triangle and aliens! Religion is so absurd, I don’t even know why I started to believe in it!

Well, guys, I guess this discussion is over. We’ve concluded religion is bogus. Let’s get back to solving world hunger.

 
Flag Post

It’s a coincidence how they’re teaching me a philosophical view on economics this period. You might be an interesting subject to study!

Where do I sign up?

I do not expect you to understand this, as it is rare someone who never actively participated as a believer understands how on Earth you would be strengthened by a belief.

I was a Roman Catholic for a very long time. I was coming pretty close to fundamentalism with my beliefs, so I feel that I can speak from both ends of the spectrum. I know exactly how it feels to be strengthened by it, to feel hope, to feel part of something that is so much bigger and more wonderful than I thought I could explain. Since then I’ve found that religion is not the only way to feel like that, family and friends give me strength and hope. Science now seems to be more beautiful and huge than religion did for me before. It is done in a different way, but with the same end results for me.

As to your example, this is one hypothesis I can say about won’t do more than just state that hypothesis. Believing in God is not only saying you believe in the creation of the universe, it’s also trusting to be given strength when prayed for. Believing it is improbable your chair doesn’t get sucked into a black hole may give you some comfort, but isn’t truly strengthening or anything like that.

Perhaps not in the same way, but I find it to be the same kind of belief, just towards something else.

However, all I think you need to see is that the hypothesis of religion is merely built in our beliefs. That’s why it is something more than a simple scientific theory.

I’m not entirely sure I understood the wording of this part. Could you elaborate further?

Anyways, I think the general conclusion to draw from this is that belief and the effect of religion is pretty much totally subjective, seeing as you and I seem to have had a different experience with it.

Just scanning up this page of the thread I can see a few different definitions of “belief”; perhaps worthy of a separate discussion?

That might be a good idea. If no one else does it I might make one in a bit.

 
Flag Post

Ahem, I didn’t insult anybody. Try again.

Why would you believe in something you’re sure of? When you say “I believe…” you show uncertainity. So, again, if you’re sure, why would you believe?

Because of its definition.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something
WordNet 3.0 2006 by Princeton University
any cognitive content held as true
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law
a degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence
 
Flag Post

Where do I sign up?

Right here. shoves blank paper under his nose

I was a Roman Catholic for a very long time. I was coming pretty close to fundamentalism with my beliefs, so I feel that I can speak from both ends of the spectrum. I know exactly how it feels to be strengthened by it, to feel hope, to feel part of something that is so much bigger and more wonderful than I thought I could explain. Since then I’ve found that religion is not the only way to feel like that, family and friends give me strength and hope. Science now seems to be more beautiful and huge than religion did for me before. It is done in a different way, but with the same end results for me.

It’s great you find your strength now in science. If you weren’t happy with religion, you certainly shouldn’t have stayed. I find happiness in both.

I’m not entirely sure I understood the wording of this part. Could you elaborate further?

I’m saying that the belief is partly about the hypothesis of religion, partly about the way you can find strength in it. I don’t think it works like this for scientific theories.

Anyways, I think the general conclusion to draw from this is that belief and the effect of religion is pretty much totally subjective, seeing as you and I seem to have had a different experience with it.

It is. Those who have negative experiences with it should leave, those who have positive experiences should stay.

Ahem, I didn’t insult anybody. Try again.

I never said your insults were directed towards a person. Try again.