# Science and religion



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 11, 2010)

I watched a two-part video (10 minutes each) about the relationship between science and religion which came to the conclusion that there is no conflict between science and religion. The first part showed a few clips from a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox that emphasised a number of points that came up. The second part addressed the conflict in terms of two examples generally taken to emphasise the conflict between religion and science. I want to tell you, firstly, what was said and, secondly, why it is wrong.


 In the first part of the video it was emphasised that Dawkins and Lennox agreed on a few points.
 "Science grew out of a religious tradition." - Dawkins
 "Modern science  arose out of a theistic background." - Lennox
 There is no debate amongst them that science originally stemmed from religious attempts to understand the world and out of an appreciation for what they saw as the glory of god.  
 Lennox then goes on to add that, "They expected a natural order." and "Far from religion hindering science, it was a driving force behind it."
 So the reason people originally began to look at the world scientifically was that they expected it to be understandable and following a certain natural order because they believed that there was a law-giver, god, who had created the world. In this sense science was originally driven by religion.  


 From this point of agreement though there comes an illogical jump in understanding. It's not said by Lennox in the debate but forms a part of the subtitles that pop up to emphasises what the titler believed was important. It starts, much as I did, by showing the agreement between the two and then adds this on to the end.
 "The 'science vs religion' is therefore a myth."
 This is not a logical jump or even a tenable position. Yes, science has a religious origin. No, it does not logically follow that science and religion are therefore not in conflict. In the beginning of science it was not in conflict with religion, in fact the origin of universities is religious, and a lot of early work was performed by monks, the members of the church being the most educated. Over time though this relationship changed. Science matured and came into its own. The examination of the world revealed that there was no need for a god, the world could function just fine without one. This lack of a god in biology was finalised by the discovery of evolution and probably earlier in physics. If not earlier it has been all but finalised now in Stephen Hawking's new book that declares that the universe is an inevitable product of the laws of physics and that there is no evidence for a god.


 Furthermore the fact something comes from something else does not mean that the two are not in conflict is supported by analogies from both science and religion.
 Modern chemistry arose from the alchemy yet alchemy and chemistry are in conflict. The two work in completely different ways and while chemistry has its roots in alchemy it has also shown nearly every alchemical idea to have been false.
 As a religious example there are the multiple branches of Christianity, or even Christianity and Judaism. All of them have the same origin yet they are not compatible, Christianity maintains that Jesus was the son of god and a belief in him is required in order to enter heaven, yet Judaism, and Islam, both hold Jesus as a prophet and not the son of god. Changes in how Christianity is practised have even led to huge amounts of violence, see the conflict in Ireland between Catholics and Protestants. All of this emphasises that just because something comes from an earlier thing it does not mean that the two do not conflict.


 Religion and science are in conflict due to fundamental philosophical differences. Religion functions on faith and does not require evidence. Science holds evidence as the most important criteria for an idea and is a constant quest to collect more data and explain the world with theories that explain people's observations. This conflict is not simple as science demands evidence of every claim that religion makes. If god is a trinity what evidence is there to support that? What would you expect to see if god is a trinity and what observation would show that god is not a trinity? Religion neglects to offer an answer to these questions and so conflicts with science.  


 The second part of the video attempts to show how two examples of the conflict between religion and science are actually not able to show this. One of them I am not familiar enough with to comment on and will leave it alone, whether it is or is not an example to me is not all that important as the conflict can be shown by the difference in the philosophies. The example I will address though, is the that of Galileo and the Church.


 Galileo made observations that confirmed the theory that the Earth revolved around the sun. This conflicted with the church and he was forced to recant under threat of torture. Lennox claims that this does not illustrate a conflict between science and religion because Galileo was not an atheist but a Christian who both believed in god and supported a scientific idea.  
 Now that is all good and well but no one is claiming that a religious person cannot practice science, a good number of religious people do practice and support scientific ideas. The conflict is shown in the church's punishment of an idea that did not conform to it's teachings. If you have a scientific theory that contradicts the accepted school of thought then you must provide a large amount of evidence to support your view and show how the prevailing view is inadequate in explaining all the observations made. The church was in conflict with science by ignoring such a procedure and acting according to a rigid belief system, which eventually changed as the evidence became overwhelming even for them.


 On a side note it is also claimed that the Galileo example showed that you must be careful how you interpret the bible. This is ironic because Lennox goes on to say that no one believes that, when the bible says that the Earth rests on pillars, it rests on actual concrete pillars. He says that they are instead a metaphor for real stability. This is just the last desperate scramble for religion to try keep its hold in the world. If they accept that the bible is the actual word of god and a literal account of creation then they are forced to conflict with practically every scientific discipline and a lot of our modern morality. If you accept that part are not to be taken literally then you have the problem of deciding which parts are literal and which are not, not to mention how to actually interpret the non-literal portions. In addition if the bible is not literal but a series of metaphors then the religion itself falls apart. Why would you pray to god when he is only a metaphor?


 Despite what accomadationists and some religions say, science and religion are in conflict because they differ philosophically in how you determine the truth. This is a real conflict and just because science has its roots in religion does not mean that they are able to co-exist. Science is based on evidence, while religion is based on faith, an absence of evidence. Without evidence though, there is never a criteria by which you can determine truth from falsehood.


----------



## The DK (Sep 11, 2010)

i was watching something on the history channel on a similar subject a month a go, but it was more on astrology and how science and religion clashed and how on all the new discoveries the church said couldnt exist because it didnt support creationism. nice read btw


----------



## teh silver-wolf (Sep 11, 2010)

Religion + science = philosophies.
Thats why I'm called the philosophical person , Church every Sunday, Workin with steel and fire on the weekdays.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 11, 2010)

I don't know how much of what nowadays in videos and tv shows are correct - don't believe kids.

There is no conflict, and no connections.

Two different waves.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 11, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:
			
		

> There is no conflict, and no connections.
> 
> Two different waves.



Not at all. Religions make claims about the nature of the world. Those claims can then be evaluated and judged scientifically. They overlap completely.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 11, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Not at all. Religions make claims about the nature of the world. Those claims can then be evaluated and judged scientifically. They overlap completely.


 
I don't see how "Oh dear god let's sacrifce a goat for you so you won't kill us and you will help us harvest wheat and whatnot" has connection to science.

In some theories, relligion has a bit of logic, but I am talking about REAL relligion, not your christian toys.
In our relligion I almost don't see science, but there are enough theories and stories.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Sep 11, 2010)

Actually, modern science as we know it started with the most famous rift between science and religion, of which Galileo Galilei was the protagonist.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 11, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:
			
		

> I don't see how "Oh dear god let's sacrifce a goat for you so you won't  kill us and you will help us harvest wheat and whatnot" has connection  to science.



Well for one you can test whether that actually helps. They sacrifice goats to increase their harvest and avoid bad things. So you can look at a number of groups who sacrifice goats to that god and those who do not sacrifice goats to the god and see whether there is a benefit to the goat sacrifices. That's how you can see if there is a scientific basis for the religion.

In a more real case there is faith healing, in particular that prayer can cure diseases. That has been studied a number of times and the overall result is that praying has no effect on how well people recover. In fact there are religious sects where going to doctors is forbidden, as expected they have very high child mortality rates and deaths from easily treatable diseases.


----------



## Eske (Sep 11, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> I don't see how "Oh dear god let's sacrifce a goat for you so you won't kill us and you will help us harvest wheat and whatnot" has connection to science.
> 
> In some theories, relligion has a bit of logic, but I am talking about REAL relligion, not your christian toys.
> In our relligion I almost don't see science, but there are enough theories and stories.



I still can't figure out if you're trying really hard to be a troll, or if you just have some really bizarre opinions...


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 11, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Well for one you can test whether that actually helps. They sacrifice goats to increase their harvest and avoid bad things. So you can look at a number of groups who sacrifice goats to that god and those who do not sacrifice goats to the god and see whether there is a benefit to the goat sacrifices. That's how you can see if there is a scientific basis for the religion.
> 
> In a more real case there is faith healing, in particular that prayer can cure diseases. That has been studied a number of times and the overall result is that praying has no effect on how well people recover. In fact there are religious sects where going to doctors is forbidden, as expected they have very high child mortality rates and deaths from easily treatable diseases.


 I'd see no possible change in the harvest. All I know that the first group wastes half of it's time and goats on god, and the second team wins.
The scietific research is from our perspective, not theirs.

In some cases people still pray for their loved ones even though it doesn't work at all.
They are just blinded by relligion.

From our perspective, we can get facts out, but I doubt there was even that kind of thinking back in those years.
Only relligion.

Take an example of a father who must sacrifice his only son for god. If he doesn't, the whole village is after him and will murder him - if he does sacrifice, he loses his loved one and goes inside insanity.
There is no real science here, just moral.
In that case, I would have taken my son and run away as fast as I can.






Eske said:


> I still can't figure out if you're trying really hard to be a troll, or if you just have some really bizarre opinions...


 
I never try to troll hard, in this case I am completly serious but I just use a bit sarcasam on relligion because I don't like relligion and can't accept it.
Oh, saint YHVH


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2010)

Science and religion are two separate things that should not come in contact with each other, if for some reason they have, _you_ fucked up.  Cause science is *not* a religion and religion is *not* science.  Also inb4 someone doesn't read the second part.


----------



## moon-drummer (Sep 11, 2010)

I think science and religion are only in conflict when politics gets involved in the mix. Just because two schools of thought approach the same question from two different perspectives doesn't automatically put them into conflict with each other. Science and religion operate under different agendas. Science tries to understand HOW things happen the way they happen, how things came to be the way they are, and how things work. Religion tries to extrapolate personal and cultural meaning from these same things in order to help people cope with the inevitable and the unexpected. 
The problems come when science tries to translate a religious statement as a scientific one or vice versa. Also, both science and religion have always been practiced in a political context, and have been used for political ends. There's no such thing as "pure" science or religion, since plenty of developments in both have come from a political motivation rather than any desire to better understand the world. People naturally take statements made from science and religion and try to read political meanings or ramifications into them. It's just what we do.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 11, 2010)

I thought it had been too long since we had a thread like this. v.v


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Sep 11, 2010)

They don't conflict if you're a Deist, or don't believe in holy scripture.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 11, 2010)

Well lets put it this way - Science, for the most part, cannot handle a subject like religion, because it almost explicitly deals in the supernatural - Which science does not, and for the most part cannot (nor would it want to).


----------



## Random_Observer (Sep 11, 2010)

There is definitely conflict between Science and theology, and the myths and dogmas Religion is based off of today.

But there isn't any conflict between science and spirituality, and the true teachings from the original sources. :/


----------



## Lobar (Sep 11, 2010)

Science and religion are inherently in conflict.  The former is driven by doubt, the latter is driven by faith.  They are opposites.


----------



## LLiz (Sep 11, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> I don't know how much of what nowadays in videos and tv shows are correct - don't believe kids.



There are still credible sources of good information out there today, but you're certainly not going to get that from mainstream "glitz and glamour" networks.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 12, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Not at all. *Religions make claims about the nature of the world*. Those claims can then be evaluated and judged scientifically. They overlap completely.


 
No, religions make claims about the nature of God IN RELATION TO THE WORLD.  Tell me something, if walking on water or turning water into wine were within the limits of the natural world, why would we call them "miracles"...?  And just because there are miracles in the world, how would that invalidate the scientific principles God set in motion to make the Universe work?  Religion and science don't conflict except in the minds of those who hear "religion" and think "magic"... I've heard/read plenty of that attitude, here and elsewhere.  The idea that science "proves God doesn't exist" because God is "magic".  And if God is "magic", then science wouldn't exist.  Or some crap like that... sorry, been gone all day to enjoy a classic motorcycle show (got to meet a guy named Perry King... Google is your friend!), so I'm tired, and perhaps not super clear in what I'm trying to say.  Feel free to comment and ask questions for clarity, if such is the case.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, religions make claims about the nature of God IN RELATION TO THE WORLD.  Tell me something, if walking on water or turning water into wine were within the limits of the natural world, why would we call them "miracles"...?  And just because there are miracles in the world, how would that invalidate the scientific principles God set in motion to make the Universe work?  Religion and science don't conflict except in the minds of those who hear "religion" and think "magic"... I've heard/read plenty of that attitude, here and elsewhere.  The idea that science "proves God doesn't exist" because God is "magic".  And if God is "magic", then science wouldn't exist.  Or some crap like that... sorry, been gone all day to enjoy a classic motorcycle show (got to meet a guy named Perry King... Google is your friend!), so I'm tired, and perhaps not super clear in what I'm trying to say.  Feel free to comment and ask questions for clarity, if such is the case.


 Here's food for thought, if god/s existed before the universe was created then he/she/they would not have to follow our laws of physics because he/she/they do not come from our universe.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 12, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Here's food for thought, if god/s existed before the universe was created then he/she/they would not have to follow physics because he/she/they do not come from our universe.


 
Yes, THEY wouldn't have to "follow physics"... but then again, how long have we been studying physics?... do we know everything about how the Universe works?... and would the fact THEY can defy physics change the fact that THEY created the Universe to work under certain natural laws?  You know, those same natural laws science has discovered?  After all, even if THEY exist/existed in a different Universe, WE don't.  Understand?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yes, THEY wouldn't have to "follow physics"... but then again, how long have we been studying physics?... do we know everything about how the Universe works?... and would the fact THEY can defy physics change the fact that THEY created the Universe to work under certain natural laws?  You know, those same natural laws science has discovered?  After all, even if THEY exist/existed in a different Universe, WE don't.  Understand?


 Yes I do.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 12, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Yes I do.


 
That's a relief... I haven't had supper yet, so I wasn't sure I was making sense.


----------



## BrennanTheWolfy (Sep 12, 2010)

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij9G3-ZBMEA[/yt]


----------



## Slyck (Sep 12, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> there is no conflict between science and religion.



*GENESIS 1:**6* And God said, â€œLet there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.â€ *GENESIS 1:7* So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.* GENESIS 1:**8* God called the expanse â€œsky.â€

source: http://niv.scripturetext.com/genesis/1-1.htm


Unless outer space is made of water, I'm calling a grand old..
*"BULLSHIT!"*

..on this whole ordeal. At lease in the case of Christianity.

EDIT: And Judaism -- http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=1&chapter=1&verse=5&portion=1


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 12, 2010)

Slyck said:


> *GENESIS 1:**6* And God said, â€œLet there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.â€ *GENESIS 1:7* So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.* GENESIS 1:**8* God called the expanse â€œsky.â€
> 
> Unless outer space is made of water, I'm calling a grand old..
> 
> ...


 
Before the Flood, the earth had a shield of water above the atmosphere, as well as the seas/oceans on the earth's surface (or more likely, under the earth's surface, since that is also how plantlife used to receive water, a mist rising from the ground from the "waters below").  Yes, the "waters".  Remember the "waters above" and the "waters below"...?  The waters above shielded the earth from the sun's UV radiation, which is why humans lived so long before the flood, and why God told Noah, after the floodwaters receeded, that the human lifespan would now be seriously shortened.  Because that shield no longer existed, having fallen to flood the earth.  So now, all we have is ozone to protect us from UV radiation.  And if you are familiar with UV radiation, you know it's not good for living flesh.  In fact, UV lasers are used in surgery because they work by disolving flesh, not burning it away, like infrared lasers.  And if you are familiar with ozone, you know how fragile it is.  And that, without it, UV radiation would reach lethal levels of exposure.  Damage the organic tissues of every living thing on the planet.  Water is a far better insulator against UV radiation.


----------



## Oni (Sep 12, 2010)

Science > Religion 

However, science is just systematic methodology; it does not teach morality.


----------



## Slyck (Sep 12, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Before the Flood, the earth had a shield of  water above the atmosphere


 Again, bullshit. The earth orbits the sun. Please, explain to me, how  the water remained nicely around the earth. Outside of the  temperature-regulating effects of the atmosphere temperature will vary  madly. Some of this so-called water will be ice, some steam, some in  liquid form.



Roose Hurro said:


> that is also  how plantlife used to receive water, a mist rising from the ground from  the "waters below").


Gravity. Enlighten me as to how this water  just flied right on through the soil with no problem to water the  plants. 



Roose Hurro said:


> Water is a far better insulator  against UV radiation.


Far better than what exactly?



Roose Hurro said:


> And if you are familiar with  ozone, you know how fragile it is.


UV radiation interacting with  oxygen (O2) is what produces ozone (O3). If much of this  radiation was to be blocked by water the ozone layer would be incredibly  thin to the point where it is useless. Also the UV radiation emitted by lightning alone produces 361'152 tons of ozone daily. * * * 




Roose Hurro said:


> In fact, UV lasers are used in surgery because they work by disolving flesh, not burning it away, like infrared lasers.


All magnetic radiation has the same effect on flesh. It's radiation that gets absorbed by whichever matter it's directed at and is dissipated as heat. The extent of this effect can vary, however. For instance UV radiation is of a much higher frequency and therefore is more energetic than infrared radiation. No doubt it will heat you up faster. Besides, if it melted flesh then please explain sunburns to me.


If you don't know shit about science do yourself a favor and don't argue with those who do.


Also, I'd like if you were to give me $50 via PayPal. I'm truly asking this of you. 

*LUKE 6:30* Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

*MATTHEW 5:42 *Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

I know it might seem ludicrous coming from me but I am in a financial rut right now and I'd be very grateful. God bless.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 12, 2010)

When jesus was nailed to a cross, they used gravity to keep him up there and in pain

Gravity is part of science
haha religionfags


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 12, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Before the Flood, the earth had a shield of water above the atmosphere, as well as the seas/oceans on the earth's surface (or more likely, under the earth's surface, since that is also how plantlife used to receive water, a mist rising from the ground from the "waters below").  Yes, the "waters".  Remember the "waters above" and the "waters below"...?  The waters above shielded the earth from the sun's UV radiation, which is why humans lived so long before the flood, and why God told Noah, after the floodwaters receeded, that the human lifespan would now be seriously shortened.  Because that shield no longer existed, having fallen to flood the earth.  So now, all we have is ozone to protect us from UV radiation.  And if you are familiar with UV radiation, you know it's not good for living flesh.  In fact, UV lasers are used in surgery because they work by disolving flesh, not burning it away, like infrared lasers.  And if you are familiar with ozone, you know how fragile it is.  And that, without it, UV radiation would reach lethal levels of exposure.  Damage the organic tissues of every living thing on the planet.  Water is a far better insulator against UV radiation.


You're joking right

like

you're not being serious are you?
Water just floated around in space??
Mist is created with heat and water [humidity], it wouldn't be able to water plants. How would mist come up from inside the ground anyways? Did the sun just jolt through the earth into water underground? idk man what the fuck



> The waters above shielded the earth from the sun's UV radiation


What
How did the plants get light? Plants need light and rain [not mist] to survive.

Also, when you get sunburned [sun's UV rays], your skin doesn't dissolve away. It gets BURNED. You get cooked like a piece of bacon. I would know because when I went to Canada's Wonderland, my face didn't dissolve from the sun, it got fucking cooked like a chicken


----------



## Nyloc (Sep 12, 2010)

Slyck said:


> Also, I'd like if you were to give me $50 via PayPal. I'm truly asking this of you.
> 
> *LUKE 6:30* Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
> 
> ...



Got him over a barrel with that one.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 12, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Tell me something, if walking on water or turning water into wine were within the limits of the natural world, why would we call them "miracles"...?


 
I can turn water into ice
Water into steam
White milk into brown milk
Raw bacon into cooked bacon
Raw meat into a taco

etc
all in front of your very eyes. It's a miracle!

EDIT: oh yeah and I can turn grains into alcohol and grapes into wine if you give me enough time. it's okay if you want to praise me and call me god now.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 12, 2010)

Clayton said:


> You're joking right
> 
> like
> 
> ...


 
no, creationists actually believe this, I've argued with enough of them before


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 12, 2010)

Lobar said:


> no, creationists actually believe this, I've argued with enough of them before


Ohmygod.
good lord.


----------



## Wakboth (Sep 12, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Not at all. Religions make claims about the nature of the world. Those claims can then be evaluated and judged scientifically. They overlap completely.


I beseech you to chant the mantra "Non-overlapping magisteria" five hundred times, and thus become enlightened.

Or, to be a bit less gnomic and snarky, the whole "science vs. religion" thing is a false dichotomy of the same sort as the whole bullshit "emotion vs. reason" divide. Religion has, of course, been used in the past - and still is, by ignorant people - to come up with answers to questions that are better handled by science, but this doesn't mean religion is worthless, any more than the existence of screwdrivers makes hammers useless. All you need to know is to when use one tool and when the other.

For example, you can't meaningfully derive answers to most any ethical, let alone spiritual, questions using scientific method, because it's not something meant for such uses.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 12, 2010)

CannonFodder said:
			
		

> Science and religion are two separate things that should not come in contact with each other, if for some reason they have, _you_ fucked up.  Cause science is *not* a religion and religion is *not* science.  Also inb4 someone doesn't read the second part.



How do you come to this idea that they are separate? Can you explain or are you just going to say that they are and then stick your fingers in your ears and play deaf?



			
				Lastdirewolf said:
			
		

> Well lets put it this way - Science, for the most part, cannot handle a  subject like religion, because it almost explicitly deals in the  supernatural - Which science does not, and for the most part cannot (nor  would it want to).



Something is supernatural because there is no evidence or reason to believe it is true.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> No, religions make claims about the nature of God IN RELATION TO THE  WORLD.  Tell me something, if walking on water or turning water into  wine were within the limits of the natural world, why would we call them  "miracles"...?  And just because there are miracles in the world, how  would that invalidate the scientific principles God set in motion to  make the Universe work?



The age of the Earth, to use an example, is a scientific question, not one about the nature of god in relation to the world. If miracle did happen then they would constitute evidence for religion. The thing is, miracles do not happen.



			
				Wakboth said:
			
		

> I beseech you to chant the mantra "Non-overlapping magisteria" five hundred times, and thus become enlightened.



NOMA is absolute rubbish, that's the whole thing I'm arguing against here.



			
				Wakboth said:
			
		

> Or, to be a bit less gnomic and snarky, the whole "science vs. religion"  thing is a false dichotomy of the same sort as the whole bullshit  "emotion vs. reason" divide. Religion has, of course, been used in the  past - and still is, by ignorant people - to come up with answers to  questions that are better handled by science, but this doesn't mean  religion is worthless, any more than the existence of screwdrivers makes  hammers useless. All you need to know is to when use one tool and when  the other.



Not at all. Emotion and reason clash when it comes to methods for making a decision and in certain situations one can be preferable to the other. Religion is worthless though because even in the case of ethics it is just a pathetic framework and is far surpassed by philosophy. Spiritual questions only make sense if the claims to spirituality are real or not, i.e. whether we have a spirit, and such claims are the domain of science.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2010)

^Rakuen, nobody should argue with you.
Anybody with a lick of common sense would not argue with you.
So I'm just going to ignore you.


----------



## Azure (Sep 12, 2010)

CannonFodder and Roose, both missing the point completely. Science and religion are not compatible. Science deals in reason, religion in faith. They should remain separate. But religion insists consistently that Science is on its side. It's been said way better above, I just wanted to point out that you're both missing the point.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> They should remain separate.


 You do realize that was my whole point right?


----------



## Azure (Sep 12, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> You do realize that was my whole point right?


 Which means that religion is never again allowed to use science in an attempt to justify itself, like it does every day, right? Right. So stop it. Also, cherry picking dialogue is what allowed you to miss the point in the first place.


----------



## Jude (Sep 12, 2010)

My chemistry teacher is Christian. I asked him about it and he said he believes in the values and goes to church, but he doesn't believe there is literally a god in the sky waving his finger at us. Like, he believes in the big bang and evolution, but he and his family go to church for moral reasons. He seems like a well rounded individual.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Which means that religion is never again allowed to use science in an attempt to justify itself, like it does every day, right? Right. So stop it.


 Then never again say, "science disproves the existence of god" or things along those lines.
"They should remain separate" goes both ways.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 12, 2010)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Then never again say, "science disproves the existence of god" or things along those lines.
> "They should remain separate" goes both ways.



They aren't separate though. Science can't disprove god, that's not the way anything works, but religion cannot provide evidence for god. In the absence of evidence you assume something does not exist.



			
				DrumFur said:
			
		

> My chemistry teacher is Christian. I asked him about it and he said he  believes in the values and goes to church, but he doesn't believe there  is literally a god in the sky waving his finger at us. Like, he believes  in the big bang and evolution, but he and his family go to church for  moral reasons. He seems like a well rounded individual.



A fair number of people hold this view. It sounds all good until you realise that the church is the worst moral example you could think of. The only time I'd use it as an example is as what you should not do.


----------



## Azure (Sep 12, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Then never again say, "science disproves the existence of god" or things along those lines.
> "They should remain separate" goes both ways.


 See below. The problem solves itself. Now hurry up and get the fuck out of my legal system.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 12, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> They aren't separate though. Science can't disprove god, that's not the way anything works, but religion cannot provide evidence for god. In the absence of evidence you assume something does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> A fair number of people hold this view. It sounds all good until you realise that the church is the worst moral example you could think of. The only time I'd use it as an example is as what you should not do.


 
Lets presume god does exist. Lets also presume that the big bang theory did happen. Now what is too say that "god" didn't come along after the big bang and create this planet? Whats not to say god didn't start the "ball rolling" so to speak and as the years went on evolution happened? Whether or not god exists I believe evolution would have happened anyway.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 12, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:
			
		

> Lets presume god does exist. Lets also presume that the big bang theory  did happen. Now what is too say that "god" didn't come along after the  big bang and create this planet? Whats not to say god didn't start the  "ball rolling" so to speak and as the years went on evolution happened?  Whether or not god exists I believe evolution would have happened  anyway.



Sure, that's a possibility. But you can't just presume god exists and then explain everything in light of that. You need to continually go back and assess your previous claims. So, if evolution would've happened anyway we can ignore that in terms of whether god does exist or not. Then we have the creation of Earth by god. We look into space and use what we know about the laws of physics and find that the Earth would've been able to form on its own without god, so that doesn't help us much. In fact the observation of the hundreds, thousands, billions of other stars and planets would suggest that god didn't make this one. If he did, why would he have made so many apparently useless ones? Going with those starting examples we find we don't have any evidence for god, so if there is no evidence for god we don't presume there is a god. 

You could resume that a race of sexy fox furs is out in space and the Earth is just a stray ball of their cum floating in space. You can presume it but without evidence there's no reason to take it seriously, even if it can't be disproved.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> See below. The problem solves itself. Now hurry up and get the fuck out of my legal system.


 You do realize I will never leave right?
I'll be here forever and ever.
and ever.


----------



## Azure (Sep 12, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> You do realize I will never leave right?
> I'll be here forever and ever.
> and ever.


 I was speaking colloquially about your religion and it's disgusting infestation of what should be a godless legal and judicial process. Not to worry, one day your silly faith will no longer be needed, and it will crumble to dust like all the rest before it.


----------



## Rathinias (Sep 12, 2010)

It is at this point where I sigh at the state of humanity. You see I have never supported nor wil I ever support the idea that just because does not agree with an idea one should right it off completely. Unfortunately people who have taken their religion far too seriously have decided it was okay to become narrow-minded and vicious. However that can also be said of those who hold high the banner of science simply stating that because of science god, or the great spirit, or bhudda or whomever one worships cannot exsist and therefore anyone who believes so is stupid and superstitious. Regardless of whether a god exsists being petty and close-minded is simply pathetic. If you want to present a reasonable arguement please do so. I am more than willing to listen to a calm, reasoned debate but when folken deign to reduce themselves to what is nothing more than verbal mud-slinging we've lost sight of the entire point of the discusssion.

Now with that out of the way I would like to present a basic theory and please feel free to judge and critique as you will I'm here to listen. My theory is this; if science cannot explain all that there is, (which most anyone can tell you with our current limitations it cannot), and religion cannot explain all that there is, (as has oft been pointed out by many people over the centuries) would it not be logical to say that each might be making an attempt to make up for the other's lack?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 12, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Sure, that's a possibility. But you can't just presume god exists and then explain everything in light of that. You need to continually go back and assess your previous claims. So, if evolution would've happened anyway we can ignore that in terms of whether god does exist or not. Then we have the creation of Earth by god. We look into space and use what we know about the laws of physics and find that the Earth would've been able to form on its own without god, so that doesn't help us much. In fact the observation of the hundreds, thousands, billions of other stars and planets would suggest that god didn't make this one. If he did, *why would he have made so many apparently useless ones?* Going with those starting examples we find we don't have any evidence for god, so if there is no evidence for god we don't presume there is a god.
> 
> You could resume that a race of sexy fox furs is out in space and the Earth is just a stray ball of their cum floating in space. You can presume it but without evidence there's no reason to take it seriously, even if it can't be disproved.



You are presuming he made all stars and planets. If it was possible for life to start all on it's own, why hasn't it started on ANY other planet in our own system? Also, if creatures and plants and other life forms evolved over the years to suit their environment, why hasn't that happened on any other planet.


----------



## Azure (Sep 12, 2010)

Rathinias said:


> It is at this point where I sigh at the state of humanity. You see I have never supported nor wil I ever support the idea that just because does not agree with an idea one should right it off completely. Unfortunately people who have taken their religion far too seriously have decided it was okay to become narrow-minded and vicious. However that can also be said of those who hold high the banner of science simply stating that because of science god, or the great spirit, or bhudda or whomever one worships cannot exsist and therefore anyone who believes so is stupid and superstitious. Regardless of whether a god exsists being petty and close-minded is simply pathetic. If you want to present a reasonable arguement please do so. I am more than willing to listen to a calm, reasoned debate but when folken deign to reduce themselves to what is nothing more than verbal mud-slinging we've lost sight of the entire point of the discusssion.
> 
> Now with that out of the way I would like to present a basic theory and please feel free to judge and critique as you will I'm here to listen. My theory is this; if science cannot explain all that there is, (which most anyone can tell you with our current limitations it cannot), and religion cannot explain all that there is, (as has oft been pointed out by many people over the centuries) would it not be logical to say that each might be making an attempt to make up for the other's lack?


The problem with this theory is that one of these things tries to rule the lives of men and the other just exists. Religion is a joke, always has been, always will be. I can appreciate that it helped man have false hope under the guise of unassailable moral authority and a perceived reward for good behavior, but the time for that kind of silly dodge is well gone, and we don't need it. We've established morals that have transcended religion, and don't need an invisible daddy to keep us from dying off. Religion explains nothing, nothing at all.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 12, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Religion explains nothing, nothing at all.


Funny.  I didn't realize science answered the questions of: Is there an afterlife?  What's the nature of the human soul?  Does God (or do any gods) exist?  If so, what's His (their) nature?  Does good & evil truly exist?  What is evil, anyway?

Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not the supernatural realm exists at all.  But science is powerless to explain such a realm if it does exist.  What science does, and does very well, is to explain the natural realm.  Can science explain the natural world with perfection?  Of course not!  But the gaps in our knowledge are shrinking, and shrinking rapidly, thanks to the proper application of the scientific method... and largely, society is better off for it.

But the scientific method is powerless to explain something that cannot be tested and cannot be verified.  For that, you have to turn to philosophy and religion.


----------



## Rathinias (Sep 12, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> The problem with this theory is that one of these things tries to rule the lives of men and the other just exists. Religion is a joke, always has been, always will be. I can appreciate that it helped man have false hope under the guise of unassailable moral authority and a perceived reward for good behavior, but the time for that kind of silly dodge is well gone, and we don't need it. We've established morals that have transcended religion, and don't need an invisible daddy to keep us from dying off. Religion explains nothing, nothing at all.



And now just for my sake would you please explain what these morals that we have established are? As I have seen from your earlier comments you seem to hold the ideal, now correct me if I am wrong, that judicial law is all we need or that is should replace religion. 

Now if that is indeed your view I would like to state that religion need not be an organized church. Religion is a collection of beliefs and as such you could by exstension state that any set group of beliefs held by an individual is their own personal religion. So maybe rather than saying religion explains nothing at all, maybe a more correct statement would be that organized religion explains nothing at all. Just a thought.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Not to worry, one day your silly faith will no longer be needed, and it will crumble to dust like all the rest before it.


 And on that day scientology and other beliefs which believe in aliens will replace it.


----------



## A10pex (Sep 12, 2010)

That is so weird, we just talked about that in church and watched that move with Rob Stine Expelled


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 12, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Funny.  I didn't realize science answered the questions of: Is there an afterlife?  What's the nature of the human soul?  Does God (or do any gods) exist?  If so, what's His (their) nature?  Does good & evil truly exist?  What is evil, anyway?
> 
> Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not the supernatural realm exists at all.  But science is powerless to explain such a realm if it does exist.  What science does, and does very well, is to explain the natural realm.  Can science explain the natural world with perfection?  Of course not!  But the gaps in our knowledge are shrinking, and shrinking rapidly, thanks to the proper application of the scientific method... and largely, society is better off for it.
> 
> But the scientific method is powerless to explain something that cannot be tested and cannot be verified.  For that, you have to turn to philosophy and religion.


 
It's more of "Shouldn't be used to try and explain the supernatural" than "powerless to explain the supernatural".


----------



## Lobar (Sep 12, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Funny.  I didn't realize science answered the questions of: Is there an afterlife?  What's the nature of the human soul?  Does God (or do any gods) exist?  If so, what's His (their) nature?  Does good & evil truly exist?  What is evil, anyway?
> 
> Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not the supernatural realm exists at all.  But science is powerless to explain such a realm if it does exist.  What science does, and does very well, is to explain the natural realm.  Can science explain the natural world with perfection?  Of course not!  But the gaps in our knowledge are shrinking, and shrinking rapidly, thanks to the proper application of the scientific method... and largely, society is better off for it.
> 
> But the scientific method is powerless to explain something that cannot be tested and cannot be verified.  For that, you have to turn to philosophy and religion.


 
It is an absolute fallacy to assert that just because science does not currently have a definitive answer to something, that religion does have an answer.  What's wrong with saying "We don't know"?


----------



## Lobar (Sep 12, 2010)

Also sorry to doublepost but apparently Creationism just isn't enough for some because they're holding a Geocentrism conference.  It's unknown if any flat-Earthers will be in attendance.

http://www.galileowaswrong.com/

Cue facepalm in 5...4...3...


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 12, 2010)

teh silver-wolf said:


> Religion + science = philosophies.
> Thats why I'm called the philosophical person , Church every Sunday, Workin with steel and fire on the weekdays.



I always ask atheist zealots how they can logically justify their altruism...  rarely get an answer.  Of course, I don't want to make nihilists out of them...


----------



## Oni (Sep 12, 2010)

Someone should comprehensively define an official morality for the humans of this world. Many people derive morality from religion, Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, Chaos and Creation, ect ect ect...

God
Allah
Buddah
Chronos
Ra
Aeon

All are "Gods" or sub identities or spawn of something incredibly intelligent and powerful.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 12, 2010)

Lobar said:


> It is an absolute fallacy to assert that just because science does not currently have a definitive answer to something, that religion does have an answer.  What's wrong with saying "We don't know"?


No, it's a fallacy to say that religion has a definitive answer, when there is no way to prove or disprove such things.  There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know," but not knowing is no excuse for not exploring the answers that have been proposed & deciding for yourself what you believe.  I can respect someone who says "I don't believe in the supernatural realm," or "I don't know for sure, but I believe X," but I have no respect for someone who says "I don't know; I don't care" and then criticizes me for believing anything at all.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 13, 2010)

Slyck said:


> Again, bullshit. The earth orbits the sun. Please, explain to me, how  the water remained nicely around the earth. Outside of the  temperature-regulating effects of the atmosphere temperature will vary  madly. Some of this so-called water will be ice, some steam, some in  liquid form.



It was simply a supposition I've heard.  This probably explains things better:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

This also gives some good info:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/canopy.html

And this:

http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/does-bible-speak-vapour-canopy




Slyck said:


> Gravity. Enlighten me as to how this water  just flied right on through the soil with no problem to water the  plants.



Again, just a supposition I've heard.  And this, a very long time ago.  Oh, and another thing:  You are aware water lies underground, and can bubble up through the soil, if it's close enough to the surface.  Not to mention, a plant's roots dig into the soil in search of moisture, no matter where it might come from, either rain from the sky or water "stored" underground.




Slyck said:


> Far better than what exactly?



http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_UV_radiation_filtered_out_by_the_ozone_layer

*"*Ozone absorbs UV light shorter than 260 nm or so. This includes UV-B, UV-C and more energetic light. Only ozone in our atmosphere absorbs UV-B, which would otherwise be stopped only by soil, *meters depth of water*, or the DNA of all surface life on Earth.*"*

Looks like a wash.  Oh, well.




Slyck said:


> UV radiation interacting with  oxygen (O2) is what produces ozone (O3). If much of this  radiation was to be blocked by water the ozone layer would be incredibly  thin to the point where it is useless. Also the UV radiation emitted by lightning alone produces 361'152 tons of ozone daily. * * *



Actually, I found something far more interesting on the subject of human lifespans pre and post-flood:

http://www.kjvbible.org/windows_of_heaven.html




Slyck said:


> All magnetic radiation has the same effect on flesh. It's radiation that gets absorbed by whichever matter it's directed at and is dissipated as heat. The extent of this effect can vary, however. For instance UV radiation is of a much higher frequency and therefore is more energetic than infrared radiation. No doubt it will heat you up faster. Besides, if it melted flesh *then please explain sunburns to me*.



Okay, here you go:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-when-you-get

As for what I was talking about:

http://www.abhishekarora.com/2010/01/laser-eye-surgery-facts-history.html



> Refractive surgery is the term used when an ophthalmologist changes a patientâ€™s eye measurements by a surgical procedure. Rangaswamy Srinivasan found out that an ultraviolet laser could perform an operation *without damaging the surrounding tissue* in 1980. Since then UV lasers were used to correct optical difficulties.



... because UV lasers don't generate heat:

http://www.cheaplasertreatment.com/laser surgery.html



> Laser eye surgery uses a type of laser called an excimer laser, often times it is also termed properly as an exciplex laser and is a form of ultraviolet laser.
> 
> This type of laser used in eye surgery *does not cut or burn the soft skin on the surface of the eye but instead adds just enough energy to disrupt at the molecular level the bond of the tissue. Essentially, the tissue is vaporised into the air in a controlled manner of ablation.*
> 
> The common misconception that lasers emit a high temperature beam of light is wrong, in laser eye surgery, an ultraviolet beam disrupts the area of skin precisely and is perfect for surgeries like LASIK.






Slyck said:


> If you don't know shit about science do yourself a favor *and don't argue with those who do*.



Oh... well, excuse me, _Professor_......... might want to re-read what I underlined in your previous quote-section, and then read what I underlined in the passage, above.




Slyck said:


> Also, I'd like if you were to give me $50 via PayPal. I'm truly asking this of you.



Can't get blood out of a turnip, Bub.




Slyck said:


> I know it might seem ludicrous coming from me but I am in a financial rut right now and I'd be very grateful. God bless.


 
I'm also in a dire financial situation, no job and no income whatsoever, so I have nothing to give except this:

http://www.marshu.com/articles/imag...ts-on-us-paper-money/fifty-50-dollar-bill.jpg




Clayton said:


> You're joking right


 
As I said to Slyck, just repeating what I heard a long time ago.  Doesn't mean I agree with it... have fun with the linkage, it provides food for thought.




Nyloc said:


> Got him over a barrel with that one.


 
Exactly what barrel would that be?




Clayton said:


> I can turn water into ice
> Water into steam
> White milk into brown milk
> Raw bacon into cooked bacon
> ...


 
Sarcasm doesn't look good on you...




Lobar said:


> no, creationists actually believe this, I've argued with enough of them before


 
Eh... as I said, just repeating what I heard.  Have fun with the linkage, as well.




AzurePhoenix said:


> CannonFodder and Roose, both missing the point completely. *Science and religion are not compatible.* Science deals in reason, religion in faith. They should remain separate. But religion insists consistently that Science is on its side. It's been said way better above, I just wanted to point out that you're both missing the point.


 
Have fun with the linkage, AzureP...




Lobar said:


> It is an absolute fallacy to assert that just because science does not currently have a definitive answer to something, that religion does have an answer.  *What's wrong with saying "We don't know"?*


 
I really don't know.........




Lobar said:


> Also sorry to doublepost but apparently Creationism just isn't enough for some because they're holding a Geocentrism conference.  It's unknown if any flat-Earthers will be in attendance.
> 
> * http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ *
> 
> Cue facepalm in 5...4...3...


 
Oh my... I have the sinking feeling this site is not a joke.  Major facepalm, indeed.




Fenrir Lupus said:


> I always ask atheist zealots how they can logically justify their altruism...  rarely get an answer.  Of course, *I don't want to make nihilists out of them...*


 
Indeed, you really don't.


Oh, and a few other interesting links:

http://www.kjvbible.org/

http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bc/bc.98.04.htm


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 13, 2010)

RandyDarkshade" said:
			
		

> You are presuming he made all stars and planets. If it was  possible for life to start all on it's own, why hasn't it started on ANY  other planet in our own system? Also, if creatures and plants and other  life forms evolved over the years to suit their environment, why hasn't  that happened on any other planet.



How do you know life hasn't started on any other planet? In our solar system it hasn't started because the conditions are not right. Life can only start if the conditions for life are met, and so far the only place we know this has been true is on Earth.



			
				Telnac said:
			
		

> Funny.  I didn't realize science answered the questions of: Is there an  afterlife?  What's the nature of the human soul?  Does God (or do any  gods) exist?  If so, what's His (their) nature?  Does good & evil  truly exist?  What is evil, anyway?
> 
> But the scientific method is powerless to explain something that cannot  be tested and cannot be verified.  For that, you have to turn to  philosophy and religion.



It can answer those questions because there will be evidence for them if they are true. If there is not evidence for them then it's stupid to believe in them. If something cannot be tested then you'll do just as well to write yes or no on the sides of a coin and flip it as to ask religion.



			
				Telnac said:
			
		

> I can respect someone who says "I don't believe in the supernatural  realm," or "I don't know for sure, but I believe X," but I have no  respect for someone who says "I don't know; I don't care" and then  criticizes me for believing anything at all.



I don't respect any ideology that believes in something that has no proof just because it can't be disproved.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 13, 2010)

Wow, Roose, why not link some 9/11 Truther sites or Time Cube just to provide some "food for thought."  I mean, if you're talking about biblical pre-flood lifespans, you should check this out.  Methuselah may have lived for 969 years, but with Alex Chiu's Eternal Life Device I could probably live longer than that!  Truly a modern miracle, since it was written up on that website and there's no reason to disbelieve it, just as there's no reason to dispute Jesus Christ existing as written in the Bible, performing the asserted miracles of walking on water and turning water into wine.

Before you call it bullshit, it's just something I heard about and thought I'd pass along to further discussion here....  Since I'll stop just short of advocating belief and truth in these things and simply heavily imply it, while denying the fact that I believe in Alex Chiu's Eternal Life Device while simultaneously asking further rhetorical questions in defense of its validity.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 13, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> Wow, Roose, why not link some 9/11 Truther sites or Time Cube just to provide some "food for thought."  I mean, if you're talking about biblical pre-flood lifespans, you should check this out.  Methuselah may have lived for 969 years, but with Alex Chiu's Eternal Life Device I could probably live longer than that!  Truly a modern miracle, since it was written up on that website and there's no reason to disbelieve it, just as there's no reason to dispute Jesus Christ existing as written in the Bible, performing the asserted miracles of walking on water and turning water into wine.
> 
> Before you call it bullshit, it's just something I heard about and thought I'd pass along to further discussion here....  Since I'll stop just short of advocating belief and truth in these things and simply heavily imply it, while denying the fact that I believe in Alex Chiu's Eternal Life Device while simultaneously asking further rhetorical questions in defense of its validity.


 
BS?  Why do you continue to blather like this?  It's got to be embarrassing for you, I'd imagine.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 13, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> BS?  Why do you continue to blather like this?  It's got to be embarrassing for you, I'd imagine.


 
Hey, I'm not the one trying to explain biblical miracles and the great flood, here.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 13, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> Hey, I'm not the one trying to explain biblical miracles and the great flood, here.


 
Lol
You're not trying to explain water floating in space


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 13, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> Hey, I'm not the one trying to explain biblical miracles and the great flood, here.



Way to quote to obvious, BS.  Do you think... oh, I don't know... do you think, perhaps, you could read the material and comment on that?  You know, take part in the discussion?




Clayton said:


> Lol
> You're not trying to explain water floating in space


 
Obviously, you didn't read the linkage.  Shame...


----------



## Random_Observer (Sep 13, 2010)

Creationism and fundamental literal practices of Christianity are a non-issue. Long ago religious establishments have hijacked the bible and have twisted and perverted it's meaning. They claim to be behind God's love yet promote intolerance and hatred.

These people are far removed from Jesus' actual teachings, and today are committing acts that the historical Jesus would find absolutely deplorable.

Secular Atheism is almost worse, They claim to be on the side of science and logic, but in truth only tout a narrow, blind belief in materialism. They don't acknowledge the rich spiritual history of the world and instead only believe in material qualities for what they can physically touch and see, even though science has already shown that physical attributes are an illusion.

Secular Atheist regimes have, by sheer numbers alone, caused more death and destruction in the world than any religious conflict.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 13, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Obviously, you didn't read the linkage.  Shame...


I'm not wasting time out of my day to read your batshit insane thoughts about mythical men and water in space. Sorry.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 13, 2010)

Clayton said:


> I'm not wasting time out of my day to read your batshit insane thoughts about mythical men and water in space. Sorry.


 
They're not my thoughts... if they were my thoughts, I'd have written them out and made clear they were mine, not provided a link, and perhaps some quote bits.  Or, you know, mentioned they were simply ideas/concepts/explainations I'd heard.  And it's rather pointless of you to comment if you refuse to read the material under discussion, and insist on being rude and ignorant over the subject matter under discussion.  So, either read and discuss, or don't reply to my posts.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 13, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> They're not my thoughts... if they were my thoughts, I'd have written  them out and made clear they were mine, not provided a link, and perhaps  some quote bits.  Or, you know, mentioned they were simply  ideas/concepts/explainations I'd heard.  And it's rather pointless of  you to comment if you refuse to read the material under discussion, and  insist on being rude and ignorant over the subject matter under  discussion.  So, either read and discuss, or don't reply to my posts.



No one is going to go chasing down all your links. If there is something of value in them then you can post it here. Links are only necessary if someone wants to know where you got the information or if they want to read further. If it was just one link then it might be readable but you have almost 10 links.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 13, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Creationism and fundamental literal practices of Christianity are a non-issue. Long ago religious establishments have hijacked the bible and have twisted and perverted it's meaning. They claim to be behind God's love yet promote intolerance and hatred.
> 
> These people are far removed from Jesus' actual teachings, and today are committing acts that the historical Jesus would find absolutely deplorable.
> 
> ...


 
*yawn* You haven't magically become convincing since the last time you posted this crap, you know.


----------



## Random_Observer (Sep 13, 2010)

Lobar said:


> *yawn* You haven't magically become convincing since the last time you posted this crap, you know.



Oh, It's you.

Going after the person instead of focusing on the message.

As always.


----------



## Wakboth (Sep 13, 2010)

Roose, _please_. As a Christian I beseech you: don't make any bigger ass of yourself by repeating these old, debunked Creationist distortions and lies. You're just giving the local atheists more reasons to dismiss all believers as ill-informed or downright brainless. Putting aside the obvious and incontroversible fact that the Deluge is mythical, this vapor canopy wouldn't have accomplished any of the things you claim there; it would merely have turned Earth into a gigantic pressure cooker.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 13, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Oh, It's you.
> 
> Going after the person instead of focusing on the message.
> 
> As always.


 
Only in your case, as your message never has any substance to focus upon.


----------



## Aozn (Sep 13, 2010)

I have many different views on religion and science.
On topic: 
I believe that religion and science do conflict with each other.

Off topic:
I don't follow any religions because over the years they have become corrupted. I do believe there is a "higher power" but it is not of modern day religions.
I also have the view that religions have done far more harm then good. Another one of my views is that religions were started to boost moral in desperate times for people who needed a way out and to be free.
For science I do follow but it cant explain everything, and theres things it shouldn't try to explain. 
We all have different views and there is no "correct" view to choose.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 13, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> They're not my thoughts... if they were my thoughts, I'd have written them out and made clear they were mine, not provided a link, and perhaps some quote bits.  Or, you know, mentioned they were simply ideas/concepts/explainations I'd heard.  And it's rather pointless of you to comment if you refuse to read the material under discussion, and insist on being rude and ignorant over the subject matter under discussion.  So, either read and discuss, or don't reply to my posts.


 
Here, have some linkage of your own, maybe you could read the entire website from start to finish and give an honest appraisal of it in the interest of a nice discussion.

It's all very interesting, how this guy ties so many things together into a fully-fledged and self supporting theory of conspiracy.  They're not my thoughts, they're simply ideas/concepts/explanations I'd heard.

Unless you'd rather have some discussion on homeopathy or trepanation?  Hell, Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) has been fighting the good fight against evolution and for creationism, maybe you should buy some of his books and spend hours of your time reading.  Speaking of books, I heard the Twilight series is pretty bad.  Should I keep an open mind and not comment on it until I've read every book cover to cover?  We could easily discuss the merits on how dreamy Edward Cullen is with all his sparkling, unless you, yourself, have avoided enriching yourself by reading Twilight.  In which case, I also suggest you get you some reading material and come back once you've finished it.  The series wasn't my idea, it's simply an idea/concept/explanation that I'd heard.


----------



## Azure (Sep 13, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Creationism and fundamental literal practices of Christianity are a non-issue. Long ago religious establishments have hijacked the bible and have twisted and perverted it's meaning. They claim to be behind God's love yet promote intolerance and hatred.
> 
> These people are far removed from Jesus' actual teachings, and today are committing acts that the historical Jesus would find absolutely deplorable.
> 
> ...


 Uhhh, prove the part in bold? Didn't respond to the rest, it's pretty much the kind of ignorance I'm talking about all time. Who give a shit about spiritual history?


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 13, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Uhhh, prove the part in bold? Didn't respond to the rest, it's pretty much the kind of ignorance I'm talking about all time. Who give a shit about spiritual history?


 
Don't you know?  Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and etc. killed trillions of people in the name of godlessness
it makes sense if you're retarded


----------



## Azure (Sep 13, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> Don't you know?  Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and etc. killed trillions of people in the name of godlessness
> it makes sense if you're retarded


 I'm pretty sure this was the Back To The Future script that was never produced. 88 MPH Marty!


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 13, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I'm pretty sure this was the Back To The Future script that was never produced. 88 MPH Marty!


 
GREAT SCOTT


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 13, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I'm pretty sure this was the Back To The Future script that was never produced. 88 MPH Marty!


 
And then, the Earth and cosmos were created when he blasted the space conglomerate of rocks with ONE POINT TWENTYONE JIGGAWATTS.

Those silly Scientists today now call it "The Big Bang"


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 13, 2010)

Bobskunk said:
			
		

> Don't you know?  Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and etc. killed trillions of people in the name of godlessness
> it makes sense if you're retarded



If I remember none of them killed people because of atheism. They killed people for various nationalistic reasons. And in the case of Hitler he wasn't even atheist, he saw himself as a Catholic and often mentioned god and Jesus in his speeches.


----------



## Rathinias (Sep 13, 2010)

Aozn said:


> We all have different views and there is no "correct" view to choose.


 
Thank you that is exactly what I was trying to get at earlier. We ought to respect one other here after all we're all adults here we should act like it.



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> If I remember none of them killed people because of atheism. They killed people for various nationalistic reasons. And in the case of Hitler he wasn't even atheist, he saw himself as a Catholic and often mentioned god and Jesus in his speeches.



All of which is true. However these people used religion for an entirely wrongheaded purpose, political dominion. That is not to say that they did not believe it is to say that they removed themselves from true faith to zealotry and hatred with a dash of manipulation.  Over the centuries this same sort of thing has occurred over and over, people losing sight of what they're faith was teaching and moving into the realm of bigotry and hatred, slaughtering innocent people all for they sake of a faith they've lost sight of somewhere along the way. And before anyone decides to throw it in my face, yes I do include the Crusades in that.

Now I am well awrae of the limitations of religion however it does something rather well that science has a rather depressing lack of an ability to do, namely provide a ,(at minimum), half-way useful moral compass. Science has no morals only reason. However this lack can be tempered by common sense.  That said it has been my experience that a vast majority of people do not exercise this sense so to be perfectly honest 'common sense' doesn't seem to be that common.  Just look at the various groups that hold high the banner of complete stupidity and intolerance, such as the KKK. And yes I am well aware that many such groups are religious zealots and to reply I would direct you to my statements above.

Now I am no historian nor am I a biblical scholar and I am certainly not certified by a degree in any field of science whatsoever but even I can use my head.  Requiring prior knowledge to _EVERYTHING _that could possibly show up in an arguement is utterly ridiculous.  Its simply an impossible task.  Regardless of whatever evidence one may throw into a debate our reactions will be colored by our own paradigm and therefore despite one's best intentions _somebody_ is bound to draw an entirely different conclusion from your thought process than you did.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 13, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> *No one is going to go chasing down all your links.* If there is something of value in them then you can post it here. Links are only necessary if someone wants to know where you got the information or if they want to read further. If it was just one link then it might be readable but you have almost 10 links.


 
First, you don't have to "chase" my links... they're right there, all you have to do is click and read.  Which brings me to the second point:  ALL the info provided needs to be read, if you wish to understand it, especially in the proper context.  If you don't want to read it, fine.  Just don't comment in reply, then, since you obviously won't have the info/knowledge to argue/discuss any relevant points.  It's not like any of the links are "War and Peace" length novels, just single pages.

And I'm not cherry-picking anything out of them.




Random_Observer said:


> Oh, It's you.
> 
> *Going after the person instead of focusing on the message.*
> 
> As always.


 
This is a common occurance on FAF... it means they have nothing to say on the subject, and so have to turn to insults.  When, really, they just need to not reply at all, if they have nothing of value to say.




Wakboth said:


> Roose, _please_. As a Christian I beseech you: don't make any bigger ass of yourself *by repeating these old, debunked Creationist distortions and lies*. You're just giving the local atheists more reasons to dismiss all believers as ill-informed or downright brainless. Putting aside the obvious and incontroversible fact that the Deluge is mythical, this vapor canopy wouldn't have accomplished any of the things you claim there; it would merely have turned Earth into a gigantic pressure cooker.


 
Ahhh... shame, it seems you didn't bother to read the material, either.  Someone commmented, asked questions, and yes, I presented the "Creationist" view (whatever that is)... at first.  Then I provided links to scientific speculations on events recorded in the Bible.  Oh, and I find it very interesting, your claim to be a Christian, yet your apparent disbelief that God created the Universe and all within it.  If I have misread you, please, feel free to correct me (though I don't think you'll be able to, given you've called The Flood a "myth").  And remember, I'm providing this info for educational purposes, so people here can understand, not necessarily BELIEVE the info.  To have an intelligent discussion on the subject of "Science and Religion"... the topic of this thread... then you need to be educated on where science and religion both agree and disagree.  Whether you accept the scientific explainations of events in the Bible is up to you.




Bobskunk said:


> Here, have some linkage of your own, maybe you could read the entire website from start to finish and give an honest appraisal of it in the interest of a nice discussion.
> 
> It's all very interesting, how this guy ties so many things together into a fully-fledged and self supporting theory of conspiracy.  They're not my thoughts, they're simply ideas/concepts/explanations I'd heard.
> 
> Unless you'd rather have some discussion on homeopathy or trepanation?  Hell, Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) has been fighting the good fight against evolution and for creationism, maybe you should buy some of his books and spend hours of your time reading.  Speaking of books, I heard the Twilight series is pretty bad.  Should I keep an open mind and not comment on it until I've read every book cover to cover?  We could easily discuss the merits on how dreamy Edward Cullen is with all his sparkling, unless you, yourself, have avoided enriching yourself by reading Twilight.  In which case, I also suggest you get you some reading material and come back once you've finished it.  The series wasn't my idea, it's simply an idea/concept/explanation that I'd heard.


 
Bob... Bob... Bob.  This is a discussion about science and religion, not conspiracy theories.  Still, thanks for the link.  I'll be reading it later, after I get something to eat, so I may get back to you on it, though if you really want to discuss such off-topic material, you really should start another thread, and I can get back to you there.  Meanwhile, you can read the linked material I've provided, so we can have a relevant discussion here on the proper topic of "Science and Religion".  Oh, and you could also provide links to RELEVANT information of your own, for counter-discussion.

Otherwise, you're just being an ass.




Rathinias said:


> Thank you that is exactly what I was trying to get at earlier. We ought to respect one other here *after all we're all adults here* we should act like it.


 
I hate to break it to you, Rath, but that isn't the case.




Rathinias said:


> Regardless of whatever evidence one may throw into a debate our reactions will be colored by our own paradigm and therefore despite one's best intentions _somebody_ is bound to draw an entirely different conclusion from your thought process than you did.


 
Indeed.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 13, 2010)

Clayton said:


> batshit


 
Why do so many people here feel the need to use this?
Ok, I get it, you're obsessed with animals.  This isn't a conversation about that interest.


----------



## Slyck (Sep 13, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> It was simply a supposition I've heard.  This probably explains things better:
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.htmlhttp://www.cai.org/bible-studies/does-bible-speak-vapour-canopy


  There are several things I see wrong with the logic used in that article:



> Dr. Joseph Dillow did much research into the idea of a blanket of water vapor surrounding the earth before the flood.[8]  In a modification of the canopy theory, Dr. Larry Vardiman suggested  that much of the â€œwaters aboveâ€ could have been stored in small ice  particles distributed in equatorial rings around the earth similar to  those around Venus.[9]


Explain to me how rings around the earth, rather than a complete shield, would do much anything to prevent UV radiation from passing thru.


> Some have argued that God's use of the rainbow as the sign of His covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:12-17) suggests that there were no rainbows, and therefore no clouds or rain, before the flood. However, if rainbows (and clouds) existed before the flood, this would not be the only time* God used an existing thing as a special â€œnewâ€ sign* of a covenant (e.g., bread and wine in the Lord's Supper).


Saying that something more or less ordinary has suddenly amassed a meaning is pure tomfoolery. Under this logic anything could be a 'sign'.


> referring to God's miraculous intervention in sending rain...(In saying there was no rain before this supposed flood.)


They're saying that god made the earth (originally) in such a way as the normal water cycle would not happen. So, he did the work of it manually so-to-speak. And then he comes in deciding he did it wrong and sets it up all okie-dokie. Do I even need to say it?


I could nit pick the arguments you've presented and press my point, etc. but I have dinner to eat and things to do. Besides, it would take a long-ass time considering how much time merely going at one part of one citation you've made has taken already.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 13, 2010)

Slyck said:


> There are several things I see wrong with the logic used in that article:



Good, I was hoping someone would finally read and debate the material.




Slyck said:


> Explain to me how rings around the earth, rather than a complete shield, would do much anything to prevent UV radiation from passing thru.



Doesn't sound to me like it would do anything much, to me, either.  But in science (and its examination of religious claims), even such theories as this need to be looked at, if only to see that they don't work, and need to be revised.  Which is why I provided a link to another article with a different view as to how/why Pre-Flood humans lived so long:

http://www.kjvbible.org/windows_of_heaven.html



> In researching the cause of these greatly expanded pre-flood age-spans, my first inclination was that this must be somehow connected with the functioning of the human pituitary gland. But what was different after the flood that could cause the aging process to accelerate? I considered increased amounts of solar and cosmic radiation in the post-flood world as a possibility, but the existence of C14 in organics dating from the times of Adam and even before him ruled out cosmic radiation. I considered the possibility that perhaps the atmosphere of the Earth back in those days may have filtered out some other form of solar radiation. This could have been part of the answer but did not seem to be enough by itself.
> 
> Then recently, while reading an article about Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy for treating injuries, the answer came in a bolt of inspiration: Much of the reason men lived longer in pre-flood days was because the Earth's atmospheric pressure was considerably higher back then, and man was originally made to thrive in a higher-pressure atmospheric environment.
> 
> I arrived at this conclusion after studying the subject more closely. In Hyperbaric therapy a person is placed in a pressurized chamber, and the air pressure is increased 1 to 2 times of normal sea level atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi). Under the increased air pressure more oxygen gets into the bloodstream. This process seems to accelerate healing of wounds, promotes tissue repair, and even favorably affects metabolic rates and the performance of the hormonal systems. In fact, in researching the subject, there appears to be a wide range of medical benefits from living in a pressurized environment. It almost seems to be something that should be natural. So why isn't the world like that today if such conditions are so naturally beneficial? Perhaps before the flood, it was he natural order of things.






Slyck said:


> Saying that something more or less ordinary has suddenly amassed a meaning is pure tomfoolery. *Under this logic anything could be a 'sign'.*



Indeed.  But, you see, even if rainbows existed Pre-Flood, the very fact God "pointed" to the rainbow and said it was a sign of his promise gave meaning to the rainbow... now, every time man looked at the rainbow, he could know God's promise, because the rainbow... something that occurs after the rain... would remind him that the earth would never again be destroyed by flood.  As for the bread and wine, Jesus said "Eat and drink in remembrance of me."  In remembrance of his promise and his teachings.  Yes, anything can become a sign... put a ring on a woman's finger, say "I do", and she becomes your wife, that ring, a sign of a promise made.




Slyck said:


> They're saying that god made the earth (originally) in such a way as the normal water cycle would not happen. So, he did the work of it manually so-to-speak. And then he comes in deciding he did it wrong and sets it up all okie-dokie. *Do I even need to say it?*



No, you don't.  But that doesn't mean the idea can't be examined.  This is how we discover new things about the way "reality" works.  Through scientific inquiry and examination of claims made.




Slyck said:


> *I could nit pick the arguments you've presented and press my point, etc.* but I have dinner to eat and things to do. Besides, it would take a long-ass time considering how much time merely going at one part of one citation you've made has taken already.


 
Yes, you could.  And yes, to thoroughly examine an issue requires time and effort you and others might not be willing to give to the subject.  That's fine.  We all have other things to spend time and effort on, some more important than others.  I've just given some info I found interesting and relevant to the topic under discussion.  If it interests you and you want to discuss it further, great.  If not, fine, just don't reply with empty inanities.

Oh, by the way... enjoy your dinner.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 13, 2010)

Roose, the issue is that these people in Creation Science take their premise from a literal interpretation of scripture and either jam facts in to fit it or toss it out without evaluating the idea itself.  If we accept dinosaur bones as more than just tests of god or temptations of satan, then to fit with ideas like the earth being 6000 years old dinosaur bones are clearly no more than a thousand years old- they're fresh!  If they were really millions of years old they'd have crumbled into nothing!  I mean, come on, how easy is that?  All the dinosaurs died off at one point? Well, simple, that was the work of the great flood.  Great job, scientists, you're just proving their point!  

Except they aren't and don't.  Hell, even some fellow creationists argue against this sort of thing, with one of the fundamental differences being the distinction of old earth and young earth creationism.  The former are more open to considering facts more openly, whereas the latter have a very rigid box to fit everything in, in a very limited span of time.  However, both camps still look first to the Bible for explanation and history foremost, a book of metaphor and myth and a focus on morals and behaviors rather than science and record.  It's from that point, taking the Bible as literal and infallible and the only reference anyone really needs, that you get situations like this.  The Bible says Pi is exactly 3.  Pi is clearly not 3, just as 2 + 2 is not 5.  To take that passage as metaphorical or incorrect undermines the claim that the Bible is an authoritative, literal and infallible tome.  wat do?

The issue of Creation Science is that it is based in an already unfalsifiable line of thinking: Everything the Bible said is true, and God is all powerful.  The great flood is in the Bible, as are the plagues of Egypt and 900 year old men.  Therefore, all of those things actually happened.
Scientists look for evidence and facts to support hypotheses.  If events like the flood and people living natural lifespans of centuries definitely happened (by virtue of being written in the Bible,) then evidence and facts can only prove what they already know to be true.  Therefore, any evidence that does not support or even contradicts events like the flood is either irrelevant, faulty, or simply a test of faith from God.

It's confirmation bias, Roose.  For everything that supports their belief they throw out or misinterpret ten things.  Not only that, the pieces of evidence they claim as proof aren't mutually exclusive with theories that contradict creationism- as if any given fact can support only one of a number of competing theories.  My ultimate criticism is that creation science seeks only to prove itself, rather than test or consider the validity of what it is they're setting out to prove, period.  No matter what they find that flies in the face of what they believe, the mantra will always be "it definitely happened, we're just having trouble finding solid evidence that it did happen."  It's irrelevant.  If you believe that a great flood happened, your faith should be enough- there's no need to muddy the waters by making a mockery of the scientific process to prove your faith.  Faith does not need evidence, and if you're secure enough in your belief in God's power and the infallibility of the Bible, then the only thing looking for the remains of Noah's Ark actually shows is doubt.  Pure faith is incompatible with doubt as pure reason is incompatible with ignorance.

Jeez, these people.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 13, 2010)

I just saw your "rainbow as proof of God's promise" line.  This is along the very same line as saying the path of the sun between rising and setting is because it's moving across the sky in Ra's boat, or that the mountains and clouds are the frost giant Ydir's bones and brains or lightning bolts are tossed down by Thor.  It's ascribing meaning and origin to an existing phenomena not only because it couldn't be explained at the time, but because it adds credence to the power and awe of their gods.  The description of those sort of thing as being the work of gods is relevant in context of the mythology of various religions or anthropological studies, but simply because it was written down long ago doesn't make it factual.  Yet, you state it as a fact, with emphasis, that "god pointed to the rainbow" and said it was his promise.  I won't say it objectively didn't happen, because I'm really not looking to insult your religious beliefs, but I will say I absolutely do not believe that was at all the case, and not simply because the only record is in the Torah/OT.

Rejecting assertions like "Rainbows are God's promise that we won't get our asses flooded again" isn't being closed-minded, before you go on.  The reason I mentioned all those garbage conspiracy theory links earlier is because, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, you will let nearly any idea into your head for consideration unconditionally and have a hard time evicting any.  It's basically a crazy cat lady approach to thinking- hoarding all the cute little concepts regardless of merit because of the idea that the more ideas you have, the broader your understanding.  Except, if you're filling your head with ideas that are more like diseased, three legged and piss everywhere and attack normal cats (i.e. existing ideas that are incompatible with other ideas)  Kinda like how 9/11 truthers cannot accept that 9/11 was 'simply' a bunch of hateful people flying planes into buildings instead of a huge government conspiracy, that anybody saying otherwise is part of the conspiracy or is just a tool, because once they started reading, "everything just starts making sense" and they're "down the rabbit hole."  That's self-reinforcing delusion.

Check it:
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/YT]

Dude has some cool videos.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 14, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> Roose, the issue is that these people in Creation Science take their premise from a literal interpretation of scripture and either jam facts in to fit it or toss it out without evaluating the idea itself.  If we accept dinosaur bones as more than just tests of god or temptations of satan, then to fit with ideas like the earth being 6000 years old dinosaur bones are clearly no more than a thousand years old- they're fresh!  If they were really millions of years old they'd have crumbled into nothing!  I mean, come on, how easy is that?  All the dinosaurs died off at one point? Well, simple, that was the work of the great flood.  Great job, scientists, you're just proving their point!



On that first article, yes, it may have taken only a couple weeks for bones to permineralize, but he makes no real mention of the fact a great many dinosaur bones are found locked in ROCK STRATA.  So, no, don't agree with this guy's conclusions.

As for the second article... no.  It's very possible that passage of Job is describing a dinosaur, but it certainly has nothing to do with living dinosaurs co-existing within the time of man.  Not to mention, given the size of many dinosaurs and the size of the ark, again, no way.  For all we know, that description could fit an elephant just as well as a dinosaur.  It could also refer to a whale, pehaps, since Genesis mentions the first life God created was aquatic.  Which would fit with our knowledge of the early life on earth.  I have to say, not a very well thought-out presentation.




Bobskunk said:


> Except they aren't and don't.  Hell, even some fellow creationists argue against this sort of thing, with one of the fundamental differences being the distinction of old earth and young earth creationism.  The former are more open to considering facts more openly, whereas the latter have a very rigid box to fit everything in, in a very limited span of time.  However, both camps still look first to the Bible for explanation and history foremost, a book of metaphor and myth and a focus on morals and behaviors rather than science and record.  It's from that point, taking the Bible as literal and infallible and the only reference anyone really needs, that you get situations like this.  The Bible says Pi is exactly 3.  Pi is clearly not 3, just as 2 + 2 is not 5.  To take that passage as metaphorical or incorrect undermines the claim that the Bible is an authoritative, literal and infallible tome.  wat do?



Your first link here is good, brings up lots of relevant info that points out the flaws in young-earth Creationism, though it's nothing new to me.  I had many interests as a child, dinosaurs amongst them, along with an abiding love of books.  Though my childhood readings on dinosaurs are perhaps decades out of date, I've kept up my interest by trying to stay current, just as I try to stay current on technological developments and the like.

Hmmm... your second link here is very interesting, but did you click on the link at the end, here?*:*

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/1Kings7v23.html



> Pi lies. Pi lies by nature of its transcendence, and has no relationship to reality. In fact, by its very nature, the more accurate we represent pi in numbers, the less accurate it represents nature!
> 
> Because pi is transcendent, it can not be written down in a finite string of numbers, not even in the Bible even if the Hebrews had decimal notation, which they didn't. Pi is also not rational and can therefore not be written down as the ratio between two other numbers. Pi can not even be caught in any finite algebraic equation. In other words, the number pi can not be fully written down in any way! It leans heavily on the concept of infinity, like the whole number sequence does, and infinity does not occur in nature.
> 
> ...



And, on the bottom of that page is another link to further information.  Which I won't go into, since I have already provided enough for continued discussion, for now.




Bobskunk said:


> The issue of Creation Science is that it is based in an already unfalsifiable line of thinking: Everything the Bible said is true, and God is all powerful.  The great flood is in the Bible, as are the plagues of Egypt and 900 year old men.  Therefore, all of those things actually happened.
> *Scientists look for evidence and facts to support hypotheses.  If events like the flood and people living natural lifespans of centuries definitely happened (by virtue of being written in the Bible,) then evidence and facts can only prove what they already know to be true.*  Therefore, any evidence that does not support or even contradicts events like the flood is either irrelevant, faulty, or simply a test of faith from God.



I take it you're talking about Creation scientists, not scientist scientists (or whatever you want to call the alternative)?  If so, then it looks like there is a contradiction in the scientific method used between the two.  I prefer to get my scientific facts from "normal" science, not Creation science.  I prefer to make my own conclusions.  Though you have to admit, they can be amusing, and provide good material for writing fiction.




Bobskunk said:


> It's confirmation bias, Roose.  *For everything that supports their belief they throw out or misinterpret ten things.*  Not only that, the pieces of evidence they claim as proof aren't mutually exclusive with theories that contradict creationism- as if any given fact can support only one of a number of competing theories.  My ultimate criticism is that creation science seeks only to prove itself, rather than test or consider the validity of what it is they're setting out to prove, period.  No matter what they find that flies in the face of what they believe, the mantra will always be "it definitely happened, we're just having trouble finding solid evidence that it did happen."  It's irrelevant.  If you believe that a great flood happened, your faith should be enough- there's no need to muddy the waters by making a mockery of the scientific process to prove your faith.  Faith does not need evidence, and if you're secure enough in your belief in God's power and the infallibility of the Bible, then the only thing looking for the remains of Noah's Ark actually shows is doubt.  Pure faith is incompatible with doubt as pure reason is incompatible with ignorance.
> 
> Jeez, these people.


 
I've noticed that, myself.  But that's the crux of the matter, isn't it?  "Interpretation."  Even in "science" science, results can be misinterpreted... mistakes can be made.  Which is why we have the scientific method, a way to try and lessen the "human error" part of research.

Ahhh, yes... too true, the underlined.  But then, we are all human, aren't we?  Subject to error and bias.  Though the Bible does say to "test your faith, to see that it is true."  For a believer, it is possible to have false faith.  So, asking questions can help in that reguard.  To see if what you believe is true, or whether you misinterpreted God's Word.  Given the nature of language, it is quite possible to lack a full understanding.  This makes science a good way to test faith.  Far as I'm concerned.

You have to admit, it is a complex and troubling issue.




Bobskunk said:


> I just saw *your "rainbow as proof of God's promise" line*.  This is along the very same line as saying the path of the sun between rising and setting is because it's moving across the sky in Ra's boat, or that the mountains and clouds are the frost giant Ydir's bones and brains or lightning bolts are tossed down by Thor.  It's ascribing meaning and origin to an existing phenomena not only because it couldn't be explained at the time, but because it adds credence to the power and awe of their gods.  The description of those sort of thing as being the work of gods is relevant in context of the mythology of various religions or anthropological studies, but simply because it was written down long ago doesn't make it factual.  Yet, you state it as a fact, with emphasis, that "god pointed to the rainbow" and said it was his promise.  I won't say it objectively didn't happen, because I'm really not looking to insult your religious beliefs, but I will say I absolutely do not believe that was at all the case, and not simply because the only record is in the Torah/OT.



I don't really see where my line fits in your examples.  Like I also said, I can take a ring, something that existed in the past, slip it on a woman's finger, say "I do", and that ring will become a symbol of my vows, a "sign" of my promise to "love, honor and cherish."  You do understand symbolism?... I can't imagine you don't.  The rainbow is, in effect, a "ring" given by God to cement a vow, a promise made.  To put it another way, a flag... a simple piece of cloth sewn in colors and patterns... can "symbolize" a nation.  We look towards that flag, and it means more than the sum of its parts.  I becomes more than just a fancy piece of cloth.  It becomes a sign of something bigger.

But this is, of course, based on the idea that the rainbow existed Pre-Flood.  Which is a whole other can of worms.




Bobskunk said:


> *Rejecting assertions like "Rainbows are God's promise that we won't get our asses flooded again" isn't being closed-minded, before you go on.*  The reason I mentioned all those garbage conspiracy theory links earlier is because, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, you will let nearly any idea into your head for consideration unconditionally and have a hard time evicting any.  It's basically a crazy cat lady approach to thinking- hoarding all the cute little concepts regardless of merit because of the idea that the more ideas you have, the broader your understanding.  Except, if you're filling your head with ideas that are more like diseased, three legged and piss everywhere and attack normal cats (i.e. existing ideas that are incompatible with other ideas)  Kinda like how 9/11 truthers cannot accept that 9/11 was 'simply' a bunch of hateful people flying planes into buildings instead of a huge government conspiracy, that anybody saying otherwise is part of the conspiracy or is just a tool, because once they started reading, "everything just starts making sense" and they're "down the rabbit hole."  That's self-reinforcing delusion.



Oh, feel free to reject it.  I don't mind.  And yes, I do let nearly any idea into my head, but the only reason they may in any way stay there is as a point of reference... I freely reject young-earth Creationism because it doesn't gell with the facts science has so far discovered.  As a child raised in "The Faith", I did indeed run up against the claims of science and the claims of faith, my need to poke and prod for something that made sense leading me in many directions, false included.  And I'm still "poking the waters", so to speak.  Still looking for a place where science and faith can live in harmony.  If I spend the rest of my life doing so, I won't feel cheated.  If anything, it's been fun so far, digging through all the excretia to find the truth of my faith.  Yes, I still hold on to certain basics, but I'm open to anything that helps.  Though, as always, I reserve the right to test it and reject it, if I don't feel it fits.  Or, at the very least, put it on a shelf for later consideration, should more info arise.  However, I do have a special bin for the waste.  After all, if you don't get rid of it, you'll never find the pony.      (Still, you never do completely forget the smell.)

Does that help?







Bobskunk said:


> Check it:
> [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/yt]
> 
> Dude has some cool videos.


 
Yes, I've been linked to these in the past, but thanks for the reminder... I'd forgotten about these.  And yes, they are pretty neatly presented viewpoints.


----------



## Wakboth (Sep 14, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Oh, and I find it very interesting, your claim to be a Christian, yet your apparent disbelief that God created the Universe and all within it.  If I have misread you, please, feel free to correct me (though I don't think you'll be able to, given you've called The Flood a "myth").


Oh, I do believe in God creating the universe and all within it. But I believe He is great enough, in power and in vision, that He can do it without using cheap conjuring tricks; and I believe He is not intentionally set out to deceive us. Because the only way Young-Earth Creationism works is if God has faked _everything_ we see with malice aforethought. Biblical "Literalism" is very much a minority position among Christians, pretty much restricted to the (generally theologically ignorant) American Fundamentalist Protestantism. My god is a cosmic one, a God of galaxies and deep time, to whom a billion years is like unto a day.

And the story of Deluge is a myth, just like the story of the Garden of Eden is a myth. We have evidence of things that cannot be reconciled with the idea of a global flood and the Ark story; on the other hand, we absolutely have no evidence of things that would inevitably result from such an event. But, you see, I'm not using "myth" as a synonym for "falsehood" or "fiction" or "untruth" here, but in its original meaning: a story which tells us things that are culturally and religiously significant and can be a source of meaningful and valuable spiritual understanding. The modern fundamentalists don't get it; they are so thoroughly steeped in the modern rationalistic scientism that they think the Bible _must_ be useful as a science textbook for it to have any validity. This is completely silly, if you pause to think about it for a second.

Edited to add: Oh, yes, I'd like to point you (and everyone else interested) to the direction of Talk.Origins archive, especially the must-read FAQs and the Index to Creationist Claims


----------



## Olaunn (Sep 14, 2010)

Suppose the _entire_ world decided to fund either science or religion for an absolute end to all illnesses. What would be the logical choice for the global funding? 

 Translation: What cured your nasty/unbearable headache today? Science or religion?


----------



## Random_Observer (Sep 14, 2010)

Olaunn said:


> Suppose the _entire_ world decided to fund either science or religion for an absolute end to all illnesses. What would be the logical choice for the global funding?
> 
> Translation: What cured your nasty/unbearable headache today? Science or religion?


 
The question is illogical. That's like asking to choose between cooking your food by either using plain water or fire. It doesn't apply.

Now, you *can* heat up water to help with the cooking process, much like applying spiritual practices and meditation to *help* with healing.


----------



## Aozn (Sep 14, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> If I remember none of them killed people because of atheism. They killed people for various nationalistic reasons. And in the case of Hitler he wasn't even atheist, he saw himself as a Catholic and often mentioned god and Jesus in his speeches.


This^

Every religion is different, this is another reason I don't follow them. I follow my own personal beliefs that are similar but not. How ever more blood as been spilled over religion then anything else you cant deny that. For example even if Hitler wasn't doing it for religious reasons, he still killed all the Jews because of their religions and views. 
As I stated before and was quoted on  There is no "correct" view to choose, because this is true there will always be conflict(s) with religion.


----------



## Wolf70 (Sep 14, 2010)

People are free to worship any tribal fetish that tickles their fancy, but religion should never come into decision making. Religion is based on the idea that one's faith is correct despite no evidence. If one makes a decision based on faith they are thereby making an uninformed decision. If someone uses scientific method to make a decision, their mind follows a logical path that may not lead the exact right decision, but generally a good one.

Example: Human rights: The Bible and Koran claim that women are inferior to men. This led to women not have equal human rights, but what is the decision to not give women grounded in. A 2000 years old book that some opium high monks wrote. Using scientific method one would see that there is difference in male and female mental capacity and that this is unjust. Religious ideals should never be used to govern, it will only lead to dangerous practices.

Religion blinds people from reality.

"I've seen religion, but the light has left me blind" Bible Black by Heaven and Hell


----------



## Azure (Sep 14, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> The question is illogical. That's like asking to choose between cooking your food by either using plain water or fire. It doesn't apply.
> 
> Now, you *can* heat up water to help with the cooking process, much like applying spiritual practices and meditation to *help* with healing.


 Stop posting, forever. The question is totally logical, because there are loads of people who believe in "Faith Healing". Haven't you watched any of those televangelist shows?


----------



## Aozn (Sep 14, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Stop posting, forever. The question is totally logical, because there are loads of people who believe in "Faith Healing". Haven't you watched any of those televangelist shows?


I assume your talking about Random_Observer, he will never stop posting as long as he has something to say. Thus take away things for him to talk about and he'll stop posting.

As for beliefs every one is different and believe what they want to.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 14, 2010)

Roose: I disagree with you even now, but I feel like I can respect your views on this matter.  I have half a response drafted up but I may not even finish it.  Just got back from classes and considering just flopping into bed right now.  Again I'll reiterate, though, a ring COULD symbolize a wedding between two people, but unless you can confirm with the wearer that their intended meaning of wearing that ring is to symbolize and showcase their marriage vows with another it's harder to assume that's exactly what it is without being told, since, for example, some people wear rings for other purposes.  Class rings, family signets, or simply as decorative jewelry, but that's merely many possibilities of a ring's meaning aside.

If you can ask the person if it's a wedding ring, you will either get confirmation ("Yes, I am happily married"), denial ("Oh, no, my grandmother left this to me as part of her jewelry") or maybe even confirmation/denial that is not factual, like a jewelry ring passed off as a wedding ring so someone won't get hit on in a bar.  If you can't ask the person directly, then you can't be sure.

In your case, the assertion that rainbows as a whole, whether they existed before or after the great flood which may or may not have happened, are a symbol of the promise by God never to flood the earth again.  However, unlike a wedding ring worn by someone you can talk to, you cannot ask God if that's what rainbows are _supposed_ to symbolize, if they are even meant to symbolize anything at all.  The evidence that this is the case is in the Bible, am I not mistaken?  So there is the origin of the assertion, which can only hold weight if you assert everything in the Bible is explicitly God's true and ineffable word, instead of a collection of stories written by man.  Once you do that, it's not falsifiable in any way: The Bible says something, The Bible is the Word of God, God is always right, therefore what the Bible said is right.  If you do not accept the Bible as God's true and ineffable word, then it is harder to swallow the assertion that rainbows explicitly symbolize a promise made with man after the great biblical flood, another assertion that's hard to swallow.

Also the Bible directly states Pi as 3 with no wiggle room.  It does not say "and a little more."  Maybe if it's due to a lack of decimal notation or what, but if stating Pi as 3 isn't true, then what was the purpose for writing it as 3, or even making a declarative statement at all?  Regardless of your views on Catholicism, that's like the Pope not only saying "there may be aliens" but invoking _ex cathedra_ and saying that aliens do exist and they exist in the Small Magellanic Cloud and look like little plungers with a single hand at the top (each finger with an eye on the end.)  By the accepted tenets of the faith, what the Pope said is infallible, just like everything in the Bible is God's word, thus infallible.  What happens when it turns out the Pope took a hit of peyote while reading Slaughterhouse-Five and that the Pope was wrong?  The Catholic Church takes a doctrinal hit from that, just like the Bible would take many hits if it was taken literally and perfect.

Even if it _was_, it still had to be translated and interpreted by man so you could have your printed-up little KJV in a language you could actually understand.  Translating something like words with multiple degrees of intent, like "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as "Thou Shalt Not Murder" does offer wiggle room in terms of translation and interpretation: a stark number like 3, does not, especially to Biblical literalists.  Even worse is when some argue that because it's in the Bible, pi should be defined as a straight, whole, rational 3, and that everyone ELSE is wrong for pi calculating to 3 because it contradicts the Bible.  Even though it's pretty damned clear it's more than 3 with diagrams like this.

EDIT:


AzurePhoenix said:


> Stop posting, forever. The question is totally logical, because there are loads of people who believe in "Faith Healing". Haven't you watched any of those televangelist shows?


 
Yeah R_O, don't you remember Peter Popoff?  He duped a LOT of people with faith healing, bilking them out of a lot of money, even got in trouble with it and had his fraud directly exposed.  Despite that, people still believed he was doing the work of God in healing people through his shouts and shoves.  And yet, he's come back with even more scams.  You'd think a charlatan like him would stop, but people still fall for it and send him money.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 14, 2010)

By BobSkunk





> Yeah R_O, don't you remember Peter Popoff?  He duped a LOT of people  with faith healing, bilking them out of a lot of money, even got in  trouble with it and had his fraud directly exposed.  Despite that,  people still believed he was doing the work of God in healing people  through his shouts and shoves.  And yet, he's come back with even more  scams.  You'd think a charlatan like him would stop, but people still  fall for it and send him money.



If ever I had a big gripe with some religious groups, this here is up with one of the bigger ones. I can't stand how fucking retarded people are. Back when I moderated a group full of atheists, agnostics, and the odd religious person who wanted to observe the stances those two take and why...we had a thread up that was about "Faith healing". One of the things often talked about and linked were the cases where children were often obviously ill. The parents were well off and could afford a doctor's visit. But...the child dies. Why? Because they parents are convinced that their god will heal their child.

While they gather a circle for faith healing, the child is slipping through their hands. Some of them get away with this form of murder...or that is how I see it. I hate it. I hate it with every fiber of my being. Why the hell would you think that your god would heal your children? If that same god didn't do a damn thing during the Black Plague, why the hell would he/she/it suddenly care now about your kid?

There are other cases where religion gets it's way into science or puts on it's lab-coat and fucks up humanity in the process. A good example is in this day in age in America, it's showing that Abstinence only education is not working. It's no wonder it doesn't work when it's pushed people who intentionally lie and spread misinformation to push their own religious bias, and part of their "Facts" come from faux scientists who push lies and misinformation, and try to erode reality and fact.

Buh meh, just a bit of my own views there. I don't like religion that tries to masquerade as science.


----------



## Random_Observer (Sep 14, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Stop posting, forever. The question is totally logical, because there are loads of people who believe in "Faith Healing". Haven't you watched any of those televangelist shows?



Wrong kind of faith healing. There is a difference between meditation and applied conciousness and having a true quack simply touch you and pretend to be Jesus.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 14, 2010)

TL;DR, someone tell me how this thread is about dogfucking


----------



## Azure (Sep 15, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Wrong kind of faith healing. There is a difference between meditation and applied conciousness and having a true quack simply touch you and pretend to be Jesus.


 Yeah, well why don't you go get anal cancer, and meditate that away, and then come back and prove something. Until then, I'll rely on Science and medical technology for all of my butt cancer.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 15, 2010)

Wakboth said:


> *Oh, I do believe in God creating the universe and all within it.* But I believe He is great enough, in power and in vision, that He can do it without using cheap conjuring tricks; and I believe He is not intentionally set out to deceive us. Because the only way Young-Earth Creationism works is if God has faked _everything_ we see with malice aforethought. Biblical "Literalism" is very much a minority position among Christians, pretty much restricted to the (generally theologically ignorant) American Fundamentalist Protestantism. My god is a cosmic one, a God of galaxies and deep time, to whom a billion years is like unto a day.
> 
> And the story of Deluge is a myth, just like the story of the Garden of Eden is a myth. We have evidence of things that cannot be reconciled with the idea of a global flood and the Ark story; on the other hand, we absolutely have no evidence of things that would inevitably result from such an event. But, you see, I'm not using "myth" as a synonym for "falsehood" or "fiction" or "untruth" here, but in its original meaning: a story which tells us things that are culturally and religiously significant and can be a source of meaningful and valuable spiritual understanding. The modern fundamentalists don't get it; they are so thoroughly steeped in the modern rationalistic scientism that they think the Bible _must_ be useful as a science textbook for it to have any validity. This is completely silly, if you pause to think about it for a second.
> 
> Edited to add: Oh, yes, I'd like to point you (and everyone else interested) to the direction of Talk.Origins archive, especially the must-read FAQs and the Index to Creationist Claims


 
Lots of material in those links, so I'll have to look into them later... thanks.  Should be informative.

So, I apparently didn't quite get what you were saying, then.  Thanks for the correction.  And though I don't agree with your particular outlook, IDIC is a good way to look at the issue.  Hopefully at least some of my links have been informative, in return.  And yes, I've thought about it.

Sorry for being so brief.




Olaunn said:


> Translation: What cured your nasty/unbearable headache today? Science or religion?


 
Neither, since I don't have nasty/unbearable headaches.




Aozn said:


> This^
> 
> Every religion is different, this is another reason I don't follow them. I follow my own personal beliefs that are similar but not. *How ever more blood as been spilled over religion then anything else you cant deny that.* For example even if Hitler wasn't doing it for religious reasons, he still killed all the Jews because of their religions and views.
> As I stated before and was quoted on  There is no "correct" view to choose, because this is true there will always be conflict(s) with religion.


 
Actually, I can deny that, to a point... more people have been killed over POLITICS than anything else.  After all, the only reason we have conflict over religion is due to the politics involved, the politics of human behavior.  Here, these might help:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/pol-rel.html

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1652




Bobskunk said:


> Roose: I disagree with you even now, but I feel like I can respect your views on this matter.  I have half a response drafted up but I may not even finish it.  Just got back from classes and considering just flopping into bed right now.  Again I'll reiterate, though, a ring COULD symbolize a wedding between two people, but unless you can confirm with the wearer that their intended meaning of wearing that ring is to symbolize and showcase their marriage vows with another *it's harder to assume that's exactly what it is without being told*, since, for example, some people wear rings for other purposes.  Class rings, family signets, or simply as decorative jewelry, but that's merely many possibilities of a ring's meaning aside.
> 
> If you can ask the person if it's a wedding ring, you will either get confirmation ("Yes, I am happily married"), denial ("Oh, no, my grandmother left this to me as part of her jewelry") or maybe even confirmation/denial that is not factual, like a jewelry ring passed off as a wedding ring so someone won't get hit on in a bar.  If you can't ask the person directly, then you can't be sure.



But that is exactly what the Biblical account tells us, that God told Noah, so he could pass that information on/write it down, so others would know, see the rainbow after it rains, and remember God's promise.  The "ring" analogy was the closest I could think to something similar, a physical symbol of a promise made.  But you do have a point, in not being able to ask the person directly... however, having it written down is better than nothing.

Not to mention, after all this time, given all the people involved are dead, I don't think many people worry that much about it, anyway.  Promise or not.




Bobskunk said:


> In your case, the assertion that rainbows as a whole, whether they existed before or after the great flood which may or may not have happened, are a symbol of the promise by God never to flood the earth again.  However, unlike a wedding ring worn by someone you can talk to, you cannot ask God if that's what rainbows are _supposed_ to symbolize, if they are even meant to symbolize anything at all.  The evidence that this is the case is in the Bible, am I not mistaken?  So there is the origin of the assertion, *which can only hold weight if you assert everything in the Bible is explicitly God's true and ineffable word*, instead of a collection of stories written by man.  Once you do that, it's not falsifiable in any way: The Bible says something, The Bible is the Word of God, God is always right, therefore what the Bible said is right.  If you do not accept the Bible as God's true and ineffable word, then it is harder to swallow the assertion that rainbows explicitly symbolize a promise made with man after the great biblical flood, another assertion that's hard to swallow.



Ahhh, but this is what faith is about, isn't it?  We read that this is what God promised to Noah, the only person God actually spoke this promise to, so we look to the rainbow, and we remember that promise.  Even if only a "story", it is still a part of what builds a culture of belief and faith, what gives color to the world.  I was also something of a student of myth and legend when I was a kid, so I know how such elements work.  You have to admit, true story or not, the rainbow as a sign the earth will never suffer such a flood again makes for good material.

Oh, and you've discovered an aspect of faith that even believers can have trouble with... doubt.  Indeed, some things can be hard to swallow.  You have to determine within your own mind and heart what you believe and what you don't believe, what sounds true, and what you need to take on faith.




Bobskunk said:


> Also the Bible directly states Pi as 3 with no wiggle room.  It does not say "and a little more."  Maybe if it's due to a lack of decimal notation or what, *but if stating Pi as 3 isn't true, then what was the purpose for writing it as 3, or even making a declarative statement at all?*  Regardless of your views on Catholicism, that's like the Pope not only saying "there may be aliens" but invoking _ex cathedra_ and saying that aliens do exist and they exist in the Small Magellanic Cloud and look like little plungers with a single hand at the top (each finger with an eye on the end.)  By the accepted tenets of the faith, what the Pope said is infallible, just like everything in the Bible is God's word, thus infallible.  What happens when it turns out the Pope took a hit of peyote while reading Slaughterhouse-Five and that the Pope was wrong?  The Catholic Church takes a doctrinal hit from that, just like the Bible would take many hits if it was taken literally and perfect.



Ah, but that's the thing, the passage, as written, says nothing about the value of Pi being three, it simply gives measurements without any fractional/decimal notation.  Or further embellishment.  In the age in which this verse was written, as mentioned in the article section I linked to, a "cubit" was not an exact measure.  In fact, I believe the very mathematical concept of Pi didn't exist back then.  When you read the Bible, you have to take into account the times, and also, what is important, the Spiritual Truths, if you will.  Not argue over some rough measurements given, as if such a thing was vitally important.  And yes, God's Word, inspired by God... but written by men.  And translated from Hebrew and Greek, both languages you would need to be familiar with, to read the original texts.  And to understand how translating from these languages into others has its particular difficulties, when it comes to clarity.

It's one of the reasons the Bible is studied so extensively by believers.




Bobskunk said:


> *Even if it was, it still had to be translated and interpreted by man so you could have your printed-up little KJV in a language you could actually understand.*  Translating something like words with multiple degrees of intent, like "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as "Thou Shalt Not Murder" does offer wiggle room in terms of translation and interpretation: a stark number like 3, does not, especially to Biblical literalists.  Even worse is when some argue that because it's in the Bible, pi should be defined as a straight, whole, rational 3, and that everyone ELSE is wrong for pi calculating to 3 because it contradicts the Bible.  Even though it's pretty damned clear it's more than 3 with diagrams like this.


 
Yes, indeed, as I've mentioned, above.

And I can understand feeling that way, when you have people like that taking an innocent passage of no real import, and blowing it up like that.  Especially when a bit of study makes it clear that passage is not saying what they claim.  It is simply providing a crude measure of a physical object, not a scientific disertation on the value of Pi.  And as you noted with the translation issue, everything is not always perfect.  What is that phrase?  "Sometimes, things get lost in translation."  I think that's the case, here.  Though I do have to say, I think a few other things have also been "lost" here, with these people.  If you know what I mean.........

Oh, and thanks for that link.  Neat little animation, would be interesting to perform in a real life experiment... in front of those "Pi equals three!" dopes.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 15, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> But that is exactly what the Biblical account tells us, that God told Noah, so he could pass that information on/write it down, so others would know, see the rainbow after it rains, and remember God's promise.  The "ring" analogy was the closest I could think to something similar, a physical symbol of a promise made.  But you do have a point, in not being able to ask the person directly... however, having it written down is better than nothing.
> 
> Not to mention, after all this time, given all the people involved are dead, *I don't think many people worry that much about it, anyway.  Promise or not.*



If I was playing my bolding game I'd have had to bold the entire first paragraph because of so many things that make my head spin there.  Yes, it is exactly what the Biblical account tells us.  That doesn't make it an actual event.

The second part I did bold because if it's not much to worry about, mentioning it and arguing for it and then saying "just saying" is suuuuch a distraction and gives me the biggest headaches.



> Ahhh, but this is what faith is about, isn't it?  We read that this is what God promised to Noah, the only person God actually spoke this promise to, so we look to the rainbow, and we remember that promise.  Even if only a "story", *it is still a part of what builds a culture of belief and faith*, what gives color to the world.  I was also something of a student of myth and legend when I was a kid, so I know how such elements work.  You have to admit, true story or not, *the rainbow as a sign the earth will never suffer such a flood again makes for good material*.



Yes, I won't say that it isn't or that it doesn't.  Mythology is usually interesting, and if that idea brings someone solace, great.  It's the part about taking it literally that worries me.



> Oh, and you've discovered an aspect of faith that even believers can have trouble with... doubt.  Indeed, some things can be hard to swallow.  You have to determine within your own mind and heart what you believe and what you don't believe, what sounds true, and what you need to take on faith.



Yes, and half the time they might not even realize it, as I said about the people who try to take biblical events and match up physical evidence- not because of it being interesting, but because they need to prove to themselves that it REALLY HAPPENED.  The book should be enough.  And the passage about, I can't remember it, finding truth and testing it, basically using your "God-given" wits and intelligence to learn more about the world, that always struck me as ironic.  It's one of those good messages, like loving thy neighbor, that gets overlooked because they can't get past fapping over Levitical law.




> Ah, but that's the thing, the passage, as written, says nothing about the value of Pi being three, it simply gives measurements without any fractional/decimal notation.  Or further embellishment.  In the age in which this verse was written, as mentioned in the article section I linked to, a "cubit" was not an exact measure.  In fact, I believe the very mathematical concept of Pi didn't exist back then.  When you read the Bible, you have to take into account the times, and also, what is important, the Spiritual Truths, if you will.  Not argue over some rough measurements given, as if such a thing was vitally important.  And yes, God's Word, inspired by God... but written by men.  And translated from Hebrew and Greek, both languages you would need to be familiar with, to read the original texts.  And to understand how translating from these languages into others has its particular difficulties, when it comes to clarity.
> 
> It's one of the reasons the Bible is studied so extensively by believers.



But pi is independent of units.  It's not like a circle with a diameter of 1 foot will have a different relative circumference to a circle with a diameter of 1 cubit- they'll have a circumference of pi feet, and pi cubits respectively.  Of course the mathematical concept of pi as a transcendent constant didn't exist back then.  That doesn't change the fact that in that passage, distinct measurements were given when there was no need.  It could have been left at 10 cubits from lip to lip as diameter, 5 cubits from lip to center as radius, and left the circumference alone.  By explicitly stating circumference, the Bible explicitly declares Pi to be 3 by calculations.  Now either that part was put in by man and embellished, leaving the entire book at risk for the same meddling, God was wrong, or God was right, essentially making the divine equivalent of declaring that 2 and 2 is 5.

It doesn't have to give fractions or ratios.  It does give a clear implication of a circle: if it was less than or more than 10 cubits in diameter at any arc, since it was already giving so much unnecessary detail, it could be like "9 cubits at the least, 11 cubits at the most".  But where's the sea in this passage?  How is it visualized?  It's a vessel, below land, with the sky (full of a billion gallons of water and a load of stars too, apparently, lol) above the land.  Since God is perfect, why couldn't he or wouldn't he make the superbowl of water perfectly round?  It's not oval, either.

And again, it's basic math.  You take the circumference, stated as 30 cubits, and put it over the diameter, which is ten cubits.  30/10 = 3.  And that just doesn't work.  That's like if I gave you a diagram of a triangle with distances and angles, said it wasn't dimensionally correct (i.e., the drawing of a triangle was simply a visual cue,) and it ended up with angles that added up to 193 degrees and impossible distances that could be dismissed under basic side/angle tests.  This is basic geometry.

And not even God knows what a cubit is, lol.[/QUOTE]




> Yes, indeed, as I've mentioned, above.
> 
> And I can understand feeling that way, when you have people like that taking an innocent passage of no real import, and blowing it up like that.  Especially when a bit of study makes it clear that passage is not saying what they claim.  It is simply providing a crude measure of a physical object, not a scientific disertation on the value of Pi.  And as you noted with the translation issue, everything is not always perfect.  What is that phrase?  "Sometimes, things get lost in translation."  I think that's the case, here.  Though I do have to say, I think a few other things have also been "lost" here, with these people.  If you know what I mean.........
> 
> Oh, and thanks for that link.  Neat little animation, would be interesting to perform in a real life experiment... in front of those "Pi equals three!" dopes.



Of course things get lost in translation.  Of course it was a rough set of figures someone put in to gussy it up a little, because that part ultimately doesn't matter.  Again, I'll say that the problem is people who take the facts figures and events as literal things and feel that it's more important as a dictative science or history tome are often the ones that miss out on the spiritual and moral lessons that could benefit anyone, because they're so wrapped up in unimportant, or even obsolete aspects of their Bible (again, focusing on Levitical law and ignoring Jesus's new covenant or things like the sermon on the mount.)

If Jesus came back he'd be crucified even faster this time for being a damned middle eastern looking hippy, by the same people who purport to follow him.

I probably missed a bunch but I'm tired as hell and I think having a bunch of tabs open playing Fantadroms and being unable to isolate which tabs I was using and which I were not have basically fried my brain.  p.s. i own


----------



## Aozn (Sep 15, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Actually, *I can deny that, to a point*... more people have been killed over POLITICS than anything else. After all, the only reason we have conflict over religion is due to the politics involved, the politics of human behavior. Here, these might help:
> 
> http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/pol-rel.html
> 
> http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1652


 
You can deny it but as you said only to a point.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 19, 2010)

I was going to say something but it seems you guys have the resident fundies handled.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 19, 2010)

Aozn said:


> This^
> 
> Every religion is different, this is another reason I don't follow them. I follow my own personal beliefs that are similar but not. How ever more blood as been spilled over religion then anything else you cant deny that. *For example even if Hitler wasn't doing it for religious reasons, he still killed all the Jews because of their religions and views. *
> As I stated before and was quoted on  There is no "correct" view to choose, because this is true there will always be conflict(s) with religion.



He didn't kill Jews for religious reasons, but you are saying he killed them BECAUSE of their religion and views?

So infact he DID kill them for religious reasons, you just contradicted yourself.


----------



## Thatch (Sep 19, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> TL;DR, someone tell me how this thread is about dogfucking


 
I don't think it is. From what I noticed, OP is able to actually discuss dogfucking and religion separately. That's twice as bad :V


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 19, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> He didn't kill Jews for religious reasons, but you are saying he killed them BECAUSE of their religion and views?
> 
> So infact he DID kill them for religious reasons, you just contradicted yourself.



the distinction is religion as a group and religion as a motivation

the motivation wasn't religion- it was madness, desire to create a state enemy/scapegoat, etc.
the jews could have easily been any other group- left handers, for example.  gypsies, homosexuals and others were also persecuted in an actual sense.  not to the same degree or in the same ways or in the same numbers as the jews endured, but you certainly can't cite religion in those cases- it's simply a matter of belonging to a group.

it was pure batshit insane politics as a means of holding on control and consolidating the "REAL GERMANS" from "the others" that would seek to destroy der vaterland, yu betcha


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 20, 2010)

Sorry for the wait, job popped up suddenly Friday, and Saturday was also a go, so I've been too tired to give this thought... but I'll give it a try now.



Bobskunk said:


> If I was playing my bolding game I'd have had to bold the entire first paragraph because of so many things that make my head spin there.  Yes, it is exactly what the Biblical account tells us.  *That doesn't make it an actual event.*
> 
> The second part I did bold because if it's not much to worry about, mentioning it and arguing for it and then saying "just saying" is suuuuch a distraction and gives me the biggest headaches.



Then why are we even having this conversation?

Honestly, if you don't want to take God "at his Word", so to speak, just for the sake of discussion, why should either of us care if the rainbow is a sign or not?  Doesn't really matter if the rainbow existed pre or post Flood, just that God said it was His sign that the earth would not be destroyed by flood again.  That should be good enough.




Bobskunk said:


> Yes, I won't say that it isn't or that it doesn't.  Mythology is usually interesting, and if that idea brings someone solace, great.  *It's the part about taking it literally that worries me.*



Why is it such a problem to take literally?  Earth is "wiped clean" by a flood, and the "survivors" are given a promise that they will never have to go through such a situation ever again... all they have to do is see the rainbow, and remember the promise.  If you're simply talking the Flood itself, well, I believe it actually happened, you believe (I assume) that it is a myth.  Without a time machine, you cannot say for sure... and then again, neither can I.  I just have to trust that the account of events is a recording of history, not just fiction.  It's why Christians are called "believers"...




Bobskunk said:


> Yes, and half the time they might not even realize it, as I said about the people who try to take biblical events and match up physical evidence- not because of it being interesting, but because they need to prove to themselves that it REALLY HAPPENED.  *The book should be enough.*  And the passage about, I can't remember it, finding truth and testing it, basically using your "God-given" wits and intelligence to learn more about the world, that always struck me as ironic.  It's one of those good messages, like loving thy neighbor, that gets overlooked because they can't get past fapping over Levitical law.



Good point, and I agree.  Personally speaking, I find it interesting to "match up physical evidence" of events.  It's like digging for dinosaur bones.  Find enough of the bits and pieces, and you can assemble them in to a complete picture of the "animal".  And yes, that is ironic.  I've always enjoyed poking the world, just to hear it squeak.  Quite often, this leads to disection, so I can put the parts in labeled jars, so I know what's what.  Know how the world "ticks".




Bobskunk said:


> But pi is independent of units.  It's not like a circle with a diameter of 1 foot will have a different relative circumference to a circle with a diameter of 1 cubit- they'll have a circumference of pi feet, and pi cubits respectively.  Of course the mathematical concept of pi as a transcendent constant didn't exist back then.  That doesn't change the fact that in that passage, distinct measurements were given when there was no need.  It could have been left at 10 cubits from lip to lip as diameter, 5 cubits from lip to center as radius, and left the circumference alone.  By explicitly stating circumference, the Bible explicitly declares Pi to be 3 by calculations.  Now either that part was put in by man and embellished, leaving the entire book at risk for the same meddling, God was wrong, or God was right, essentially making the divine equivalent of declaring that 2 and 2 is 5.
> 
> It doesn't have to give fractions or ratios.  It does give a clear implication of a circle: if it was less than or more than 10 cubits in diameter at any arc, since it was already giving so much unnecessary detail, it could be like "9 cubits at the least, 11 cubits at the most".  But where's the sea in this passage?  How is it visualized?  It's a vessel, below land, with the sky (full of a billion gallons of water and a load of stars too, apparently, lol) above the land.  Since God is perfect, why couldn't he or wouldn't he make the superbowl of water perfectly round?  It's not oval, either.
> 
> ...



A "cubit" is anywhere from 15 to 18 inches, from what one of those linked pages said.  Depends on whose forearm you happen to be using for the measure.  I'd also imagine measuring a curve with your forearm is a rather difficult/imprecise way to find the circumference of a circle.  

*"Eh... it's a bit over thirty cubits, I'd say."

"Let's just call it thirty, then."*

Given the age in which this measure was made, I'd say "Ignorance is bliss."  You just have to take into account that the cubit is an imprecise measure, with lots of room for "fudging".




Bobskunk said:


> Of course things get lost in translation.  Of course it was a rough set of figures someone put in to gussy it up a little, because that part ultimately doesn't matter.  *Again, I'll say that the problem is people who take the facts figures and events as literal things and feel that it's more important as a dictative science or history tome are often the ones that miss out on the spiritual and moral lessons that could benefit anyone, because they're so wrapped up in unimportant, or even obsolete aspects of their Bible* (again, focusing on Levitical law and ignoring Jesus's new covenant or things like the sermon on the mount.)
> 
> If Jesus came back he'd be crucified even faster this time for being a damned middle eastern looking hippy, by the same people who purport to follow him.
> 
> I probably missed a bunch but I'm tired as hell and I think having a bunch of tabs open playing Fantadroms and being unable to isolate which tabs I was using and which I were not have basically fried my brain.  p.s. i own


 
Oh, yes, you have to know what to take literally, and what to take with that grain of salt.  This whole "Pi is really equal to three" nonsense is just a grain of salt issue.  It's not like they had rocket science back then.  And it's not like these people have any brains.  So... I wouldn't worry.  Though I do have to admit, it is annoying.

Hope you got a good night's sleep.




Aozn said:


> You can deny it but as you said only to a point.


 
Indeed, but the point is, politics and religion are tied together.  In some ways, you could say religion is the earliest form of social politics... or at least "one of" the earliest.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 20, 2010)

Roose: Why do you accept the Bible and the supposed word of the Christian god as true as opposed to let's say the Greek gods? Or the Hindus? If they also have a holy text that they claim is the word of god why don't you believe them?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 20, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Roose: Why do you accept the Bible and the supposed word of the Christian god as true as opposed to let's say the Greek gods? Or the Hindus? If they also have a holy text that they claim is the word of god why don't you believe them?


 
First, because I was raised a Baptist, taken to church every Sunday by my grandparents, and... most important... never found the need to "look elsewhere".  Nothing else ever gelled.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 20, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> First, because I was raised a Baptist, taken to church every  Sunday by my grandparents, and... most important... never found the need  to "look elsewhere".  Nothing else ever gelled.



So doesn't that suggest that your religion, particularly if just going on faith, is more a matter of where you were born. If you were born Muslim or Buddhist it sounds like you would have just as much faith in that. Lots of people don't feel the need to find something else because they have faith. Doesn't that bother you?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 20, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> So doesn't that suggest that your religion, particularly if just going on faith, is more a matter of where you were born. If you were born Muslim or Buddhist it sounds like you would have just as much faith in that. Lots of people don't feel the need to find something else because they have faith. *Doesn't that bother you?*


 
Nope.  Why should it?


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 20, 2010)

That's weird, Roose. Being raised Christian made me hate it even more. I've always hated the idea of "tradition" anyways. 
"Why are you torturing that pig by putting it in an enclosed pen with hunting dogs"
"Tradition!"

Maybe it is my fierce teenage independence but just because something has been going on for generations or whatever doesn't make it right.


That's all I have to say


----------



## peli_kan (Sep 20, 2010)

@OP

This thread threatens to thoroughly consume my time and energy because it touches on issues that strongly define who I am, so I'll just say that I wholeheartedly agree.  Thank you for pushing this topic.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 20, 2010)

Molly said:


> That's weird, Roose. *Being raised Christian made me hate it even more.* I've always hated the idea of "tradition" anyways.
> "Why are you torturing that pig by putting it in an enclosed pen with hunting dogs"
> "Tradition!"
> 
> ...


 
To each their own, right?  And it's not so much tradition as it is exposure, and finding it fits.  Isn't that how people learn?  How they find out if a belief fits?  Expose yourself to what's out there, to see if it "agrees" with you.  Sometimes the exposure is a matter of birth, other times, a matter of choice.  And sometimes, both.  In either of these cases, you have the freedom to accept or reject what you learn.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 20, 2010)

Nope.  Why should it? 						





			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Nope.  Why should it?



Because you are so adamant about protecting your faith yet freely admit that on of the major reasons for believing what you do is how you were raised. It's just chance that you were raised Christian and not some other faith, which you probably would have been equally sure was true. That means that you might as well list all the religions in the world, pick one at random each day and go about believing it is the truth.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 20, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Nope.  Why should it?


 
Because the location you were born should have no impact on which (if any) belief system is "true", yet has been the greatest factor in which one you came to accept.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 20, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> I was going to say something but it seems you guys have the resident fundies handled.


 
What are you? The atheist police? Gotta make sure these people know their place? I know understand why you stick around and only hit up these threads.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 20, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> To each their own, right?  And it's not so much tradition as it is exposure, and finding it fits.  Isn't that how people learn?  How they find out if a belief fits?  Expose yourself to what's out there, to see if it "agrees" with you.  Sometimes the exposure is a matter of birth, other times, a matter of choice.  And sometimes, both.  In either of these cases, you have the freedom to accept or reject what you learn.


 I like having the freedom to choose without having an influenced opinion. And as most of us know, if your parents are doing something because their parents did it , they're going to force that crap on you, too.

That's p much why I have Buddhist ideals, because although I was exposed to Buddhism, it was completely by my own choice. And like what Lobar said, just because you were raised around something doesn't make it ant more or less "true" than anything else. 

Either way, no matter what I'm exposed to, I do my own personal research before coming to any conclusions on what I should or shouldn't believe in. My relatives and environment do not decide for me, though it might influence it.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 20, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> *Because you are so adamant about protecting your faith* yet freely admit that on of the major reasons for believing what you do is how you were raised. It's just chance that you were raised Christian and not some other faith, which you probably would have been equally sure was true. That means that you might as well list all the religions in the world, pick one at random each day and go about believing it is the truth.


 
Huh?  "Protect" my faith?  I don't need to protect it... if it can't stand on its own two feet, to be accepted or rejected by anyone and everyone who "meets" it... well, what can I do except share my views of it with others?  After all, isn't this the point of discussing such topics?  Sharing our viewpoints?  Yes, it's quite possible I would have found some other faith "true", if I'd been raised in it.  However, as others here have made clear, choice is an individual decision... some people choose to reject what they were raised to believe, while others accept it.  Why?  Well, if l had the answer to that, I'd be God, wouldn't I?




Lobar said:


> Because the location you were born should have no impact on which (if any) belief system is "true", yet has been the greatest factor in which one you came to accept.


 
And you have a problem with that... why, exactly?




Molly said:


> *I like having the freedom to choose without having an influenced opinion.* And as most of us know, if your parents are doing something because their parents did it , they're going to force that crap on you, too.
> 
> That's p much why I have Buddhist ideals, because although I was exposed to Buddhism, it was completely by my own choice. And like what Lobar said, just because you were raised around something doesn't make it ant more or less "true" than anything else.
> 
> Either way, no matter what I'm exposed to, I do my own personal research before coming to any conclusions on what I should or shouldn't believe in. My relatives and environment do not decide for me, though it might influence it.


 
Ahhh, but that's just the thing... you have the freedom to choose, "influenced opinion" or not.  As you have brought up in the underlined, "truth" is something everyone has to find for themselves.  Just because I accepted the faith I was raised in doesn't mean I didn't have the freedom to reject it, and search for a different "Truth".  And don't assume, just because I accepted the faith I was raised in, that I didn't know about other faiths.  I may have been "influenced", but I was never brainwashed.  I made my own decisions.




Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> What are you? The atheist police? Gotta make sure these people know their place? I know understand why you stick around and only hit up these threads.


 
Hey, it's Mojo... it's what he does.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 21, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Hey, it's Mojo... it's what he does.


 
Sigh, couldn't miss that opportunity to be condescending, eh Roose?



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> What are you? The atheist police? Gotta make sure these people know their place? I know understand why you stick around and only hit up these threads.


 
I only felt they were doing, and am doing, a fine job dealing with the crazy fundie types, but you fundies gotta stick together, right Crackers? All I gotta do is sit back and Roose will dig himself a deeper and deeper hole.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 21, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Sigh, couldn't miss that opportunity to be condescending, eh Roose?



And you couldn't miss that opportunity to call all Christians "Fundies", eh Mojo?




Mojotech said:


> I only felt they were doing, *and am doing*, a fine job dealing with the crazy fundie types, but you fundies gotta stick together, right Crackers? All I gotta do is sit back and Roose will dig himself a deeper and deeper hole.


 
"And ARE doing"...

And so far, Mojo, you're the only one here waving a shovel.  Might want to throw that away and make intelligent, on-topic comments.  You know, like Bobskunk.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 21, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> And you couldn't miss that opportunity to call all Christians "Fundies", eh Mojo?
> 
> "And ARE doing"...
> 
> And so far, Mojo, you're the only one here waving a shovel.  Might want to throw that away and make intelligent, on-topic comments.  You know, like Bobskunk.


 
I never said that, and will entirely say the opposite. Not all christians are fundies. All christians being fundies was entirely your idea. What I did say is that this thread contained fundies and they weren't doing too well, which immediately put you on the defensive.

I was on topic. I was saying that a certain subset of the thread was doing fine, and the other was not, which is entirely within the scope of a discussion. It's a vague statement of support. Now if I suddenly brought up Glenn Beck or Beef Ravioli something, that would be off topic. (Also you really do need to stop with the figurative language, and being a grammar nazi isn't exactly going to help your argument either.)


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 21, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> ... Might want to throw that away and make intelligent, on-topic comments.  You know, like Bobskunk.


 
oh don't worry about that for long
there's a campaign going on to get rid of me for good


----------



## CerbrusNL (Sep 21, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> oh don't worry about that for long
> there's a campaign going on to get rid of me for good


 Yea, None of it is your fault, you're not to blame for any infractions you're getting, It's all us forum staff. We're evil.
Ontopic:
We worship the banhammer. Cult? Maybe...


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 21, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> Yea, None of it is your fault, you're not to blame for any infractions you're getting, It's all us forum staff. We're evil.
> Ontopic:
> We worship the banhammer. Cult? Maybe...


 
now when did i say or even imply that you silly goose


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 21, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> I only felt they were doing, and am doing, a fine job dealing with the crazy fundie types, but you fundies gotta stick together, right Crackers? All I gotta do is sit back and Roose will dig himself a deeper and deeper hole.



You know, someone a while back called you a self-righteous atheist, and you told them that wasn't the case, but I guess it was. You're so neurotic you gotta to fight those religious people because it's your atheistic duty. 

Also, I thought you said I wasn't a fundie? 

To add more, stop being paranoid, I've been leaning more atheist.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 21, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You know, someone a while back called you a self-righteous atheist, and you told them that wasn't the case, but I guess it was. You're so neurotic you gotta to fight those religious people because it's your atheistic duty.
> 
> Also, I thought you said I wasn't a fundie?
> 
> To add more, stop being paranoid, I've been leaning more atheist.



I think that was you, something along the lines of "atheist wannabe". I don't feel it's my duty or anything, I was just impressed by some of the responses in this thread and wanted to voice approval, you're the one trying to turn it into something negative.

I can't really tell anymore. Poe's law I guess? You may or may not be a fundie, but you're still kinda mean so it's a bit of a wash.

I wasn't being paranoid in the first place, but alright.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 21, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> *I never said that*, and will entirely say the opposite. Not all christians are fundies. All christians being fundies was entirely your idea. What I did say is that this thread contained fundies and they weren't doing too well, which immediately put you on the defensive.



You were being so general, you might as well have.




Mojotech said:


> I was on topic. *I was saying that a certain subset of the thread was doing fine, and the other was not, which is entirely within the scope of a discussion.* It's a vague statement of support. Now if I suddenly brought up Glenn Beck or Beef Ravioli something, that would be off topic. (Also you really do need to stop with the figurative language, and being a grammar nazi isn't exactly going to help your argument either.)


 
This can be argued, perhaps.  But then, "vague" makes the claim questionable.




Bobskunk said:


> oh don't worry about that for long
> *there's a campaign going on to get rid of me for good*


 
Maybe if you laid off the "boner" material for awhile?   




Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You know, someone a while back called you a self-righteous atheist, and you told them that wasn't the case, but I guess it was. You're so neurotic you gotta to fight those religious people because *it's your atheistic duty*.


 
Hey, Mojo just _has_ to express his bigotry... we have no right to tell him to shut up.  First Amendment rights, and all that.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 21, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Maybe if you laid off the "boner" material for awhile?


 
oh it has nothing to do with that


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 21, 2010)

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER

Bobskunk for best poster 2010. I have seen the light.


----------



## Tsula (Sep 21, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Science and religion are two separate things that should not come in contact with each other, if for some reason they have, _you_ fucked up. Cause science is *not* a religion and religion is *not* science. Also inb4 someone doesn't read the second part.


 
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. 
*Albert Einstein*"


Wow this thread has went from a guy asking opinions about science/religion connections to an all out war. This sux, but I wanna say something:

1. I think religion and science are intertwined. I mean the Bible has scientific truths in it that are 100's to 1000's of years before they were discovered. ( examples: blood is needed for life, the water has currents, the earth is suspended in space)

2. This is my attempt at stopping the flame wars.

*TO THE CHRISTIANS*- there is no point in arguing with the atheist/agnostics, your only concrete evidence is the Bible...which they don't believe in. It is like arguing with a lamp, nothing will be acomplished.

*TO THE ATHEIST*- seriously guys..if you claim to not believe in God...then why are you spending time arguing that he is not real. I mean if I were to believe that aliens arent real, I would never think about them and dismiss any argument against me as trivial informaton.

Come on guys, we are adults....lets act like them plz.

~This i not a personal attack, plz do not reply yelling at me for offending you...I am speaking to the public here 

Thnx for reading mah message...imma go post somewhere else now.

oh by the way...im a hardcore fundy, but I understand limits and when and when not to cross them. If you wanna talk to me about my beliefs, veiws, opinions, or favorite condiments, plz shoot me a private message. I LOVE to talk


----------



## Lobar (Sep 21, 2010)

Tsula said:


> "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
> *Albert Einstein*"


 
Now go look up what Einstein considered to be "religion" to fully understand that quote.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 22, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> I think that was you, something along the lines  of "atheist wannabe". I don't feel it's my duty or anything, I was just  impressed by some of the responses in this thread and wanted to voice  approval, you're the one trying to turn it into something negative.
> 
> I can't really tell anymore. Poe's law I guess? You may or may not be a  fundie, but you're still kinda mean so it's a bit of a wash.
> 
> I wasn't being paranoid in the first place, but alright.



Then why did you call me a fundie if you weren't being paranoid? Just  admit it(rhetorical), you are a self-righteous, pompous, atheist, who  has a little too much emotional stake in religious threads. Can't say  that for me, I've haven't been a one of these for like five months(doubt  you could ever do that), but you, you have zero self-control, and that  just shows your emotional immaturity.  

yeah yeah I know your reply. Mean, stupid, crackers, doho, silly, some Ad Whatever, pretend you're having a cool head. 

Stop crying about about me being _mean _on the internet. Grow a tougher skin or leave.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 22, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> oh it has nothing to do with that


 
Huh... I would have sworn that was the reason.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 22, 2010)

Tsula said:


> *TO THE CHRISTIANS*- there is no point in arguing with the atheist/agnostics, your only concrete evidence is the Bible...which they don't believe in. It is like arguing with a lamp, nothing will be acomplished.


This is pretty much why I stated my opinion & left well enough alone.  I love a lively debate, but this isn't a topic I can really see that really has much debate.  If someone wants to reject all belief systems that cannot be proven objectively, that's their choice.  I choose to do otherwise, and rely on the subjective evidence I've experienced as a guide to discovering what the truth may be about things for which there can be no objective test.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 22, 2010)

Tsula said:
			
		

> 1. I think religion and science are intertwined. I mean the Bible has  scientific truths in it that are 100's to 1000's of years before they  were discovered. ( examples: blood is needed for life, the water has  currents, the earth is suspended in space)



In Lord of the Rings it says if you get your head chopped off, you die. That's a scientific truth so I guess LOTR is intertwined with science.



			
				Tsula said:
			
		

> *TO THE ATHEIST*- seriously guys..if you claim to not believe in  God...then why are you spending time arguing that he is not real. I mean  if I were to believe that aliens arent real, I would never think about  them and dismiss any argument against me as trivial informaton.



Because people believe that he is real and that belief affects the way that they behave and judge other people. There's a chance aliens might be real but no evidence, so if someone claims to know there are aliens I would call him out on it. But it's not particularly important because alien believers might act strange, wear tinfoil hats and stare at the stars all night but that's not harmful. I can disagree with them and ignore them. Religion has no evidence yet the actions that people do based on what they hear in religion are incredibly harmful and need to be stopped.
Alien believers: Stare at stars at night.
God believers: Discriminate on gender and sexual orientation, sabotage education and justify holy war on ancient books.
That's why I spend more time arguing against one than the other.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 22, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> You were being so general, you might as well have.
> 
> This can be argued, perhaps.  But then, "vague" makes the claim questionable.
> 
> Hey, Mojo just _has_ to express his bigotry... we have no right to tell him to shut up.  First Amendment rights, and all that.



Err, no? You're just making up whatever context is convenient for you, which is dishonest at least.

The point is I didn't mention who the fundies were, and you immediately got on my case because you apparently thought I was referring to the both of you or something. Although given some of your interesting creation claims, I can safely you are one of them, Roose.

Sigh, Roose, what'd we tell you about the backhanded comments?



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Then why did you call me a fundie if you weren't being paranoid? Just  admit it(rhetorical), you are a self-righteous, pompous, atheist, who  has a little too much emotional stake in religious threads. Can't say  that for me, I've haven't been a one of these for like five months(doubt  you could ever do that), but you, you have zero self-control, and that  just shows your emotional immaturity.
> 
> yeah yeah I know your reply. Mean, stupid, crackers, doho, silly, some Ad Whatever, pretend you're having a cool head.
> 
> Stop crying about about me being _mean _on the internet. Grow a tougher skin or leave.


 
I have plenty of self control. You're the one sitting here trying writing insulting rants like that and expecting people to believe I'm the one who's emotional. 

I'm not pretending, Crackers.

I can't really take that advice, given me saying "Nice posts, guys." led to this ragepost by you. It's like people trying to be positive successfully trolls you. Are you a care bear villain?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 22, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Err, no? You're just making up whatever context is convenient for you, which is dishonest at least.
> 
> The point is I didn't mention who the fundies were, and you immediately got on my case because you apparently thought I was referring to the both of you or something. Although given some of your interesting creation claims, I can safely you are one of them, Roose.
> 
> ...



First off, wipe your tears. Second, you're paranoid, I'm not rallying  people against you. I couldn't possible do it even if I wanted to  because 99% of people here are gay, atheist and hate religion. So _obviously _you have some paranoid delusions about me, which explain why you baw about me. And even if I did, are you so self-absorbed that you actually care about what people think about you online, on a furry message board? 

Also, if you truly had self-control and weren't self-righteous and all that, you would not have said "*I was going to say something but it seems you guys have the resident fundies handled.*" This shows that if those people weren't fighting _those people_(which, btw, shows you have an us against them mentality.) you would have to be fighting them yourself, which shows that you feel like you have to fulfill some kind of atheistic duty to keep _those people_ in line.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 22, 2010)

I swear Roose and Mojo are always arguing about something.

They remind me of two grumpy old men.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 22, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> First off, wipe your tears. Second, you're paranoid, I'm not rallying  people against you. I couldn't possible do it even if I wanted to  because 99% of people here are gay, atheist and hate religion. So _obviously _you have some paranoid delusions about me, which explain why you baw about me. And even if I did, are you so self-absorbed that you actually care about what people think about you online, on a furry message board?
> 
> Also, if you truly had self-control and weren't self-righteous and all that, you would not have said "*I was going to say something but it seems you guys have the resident fundies handled.*" This shows that if those people weren't fighting _those people_(which, btw, shows you have an us against them mentality.) you would have to be fighting them yourself, which shows that you feel like you have to fulfill some kind of atheistic duty to keep _those people_ in line.


 
It's not so much a matter of caring as much as a matter of acknowledging that people have opinions about each other, even on the internet. You really need to calm down. I'm not beholden or have a "duty" to some sort of greater organization or something either, if that's what you're implying, there is no atheist conspiracy crackers.




RandyDarkshade said:


> I swear Roose and Mojo are always arguing about something.
> 
> They remind me of two grumpy old men.


 
Hey now, he's the curmudgeon, I'm just here to politely correct him when he's wrong. Which is always.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 22, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Err, no? You're just making up whatever context is convenient for you, which is dishonest at least.
> 
> The point is I didn't mention who the fundies were, and you immediately got on my case because you apparently thought I was referring to the both of you or something. Although given some of your interesting creation claims, I can safely you are one of them, Roose.
> 
> Sigh, *Roose, what'd we tell you about the backhanded comments?*


 
Nothing of any value, I'm afraid.

You didn't have to mention who the fundies were, since you have already "accused" me of being a "fundie" in the past, with rabid insistence.  So, yes, that would point to your comment being directed at me, as well as others.  Oh, and by the way?  You can't safely say anything about anyone you haven't met.  I can't even "safely say" you're an anti-religious bigot, since I have no idea who you are or what you're like IRL.  All I see of you, and all you see of me, is the "mask".  For all I know, you may be a 16 year old girl pretending to be a smart(ass) guy who thinks he's clever.  Or what have you.  So, who's making up context?  You know, calling people fundies... who aren't.  Thinking you know things, arrogant to a fault.

And no, it isn't the "NIce posts, guys" comment that led to such a response.




RandyDarkshade said:


> I swear Roose and Mojo are always arguing about something.
> 
> *They remind me of two grumpy old men.*


 
Heh... sorry, couldn't help it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhQh0YVjamg&feature=related

This is a goldmine of good stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14njUwJUg1I




Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Also, if you truly had self-control and weren't self-righteous and all that, you would not have said "*I was going to say something but it seems you guys have the resident fundies handled.*" This shows that if those people weren't fighting _those people_(which, btw, shows you have an us against them mentality.) you would have to be fighting them yourself, which shows that you feel like you have to fulfill some kind of atheistic duty to keep _those people_ in line.


 
I think this is a fair assumption.




Mojotech said:


> *It's not so much a matter of caring as much as a matter of acknowledging that people have opinions about each other*, even on the internet. You really need to calm down. I'm not beholden or have a "duty" to some sort of greater organization or something either, if that's what you're implying, there is no atheist conspiracy crackers.



Ahhh, yes... but "opinion" is not "fact", is it?  In my opinion, you're an anti-religious bigot.  But that may not be a true impression, given the limitations of internet communication.  Though I could say with some certainty, if you didn't enjoy doing this, you wouldn't keep coming back.




Mojotech said:


> Hey now, *he's the curmudgeon*, I'm just here to politely correct him when he's wrong. Which is always.



   Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGfx3QAV64M


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 23, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> It's not so much a matter of caring as much as a matter of acknowledging that people have opinions about each other, even on the internet. You really need to calm down. I'm not beholden or have a "duty" to some sort of greater organization or something either, if that's what you're implying, there is no atheist conspiracy crackers.


 
You're right, there isn't any atheist conspiracy. It's just you being a self-righteous, neurotic, atheist, who feels that if it wasn't for you this place would descend into religouse fundamentalism. And wow, you probably also think the local atheists here are so stupid that they would convert if it wasn't for you, also. Oh ye of little faith.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 23, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You're right, there isn't any atheist conspiracy. It's just you being a self-righteous, neurotic, atheist, who feels that if it wasn't for you this place would descend into religouse fundamentalism. And wow, you probably also think the local atheists here are so stupid that they would convert if it wasn't for you, also. Oh ye of little faith.


 
I'm sorry you think that way, but it's completely inaccurate. It was nothing more than a simple attempt at encouragement, and you're reading way too much into it. Go for a relaxing walk or something and come back when you're less angry.



Roose Hurro said:


> You didn't have to mention who the fundies were, since you have already "accused" me of being a "fundie" in the past, with rabid insistence.  So, yes, that would point to your comment being directed at me, as well as others.  Oh, and by the way?  You can't safely say anything about anyone you haven't met.  I can't even "safely say" you're an anti-religious bigot, since I have no idea who you are or what you're like IRL.  All I see of you, and all you see of me, is the "mask".  For all I know, you may be a 16 year old girl pretending to be a smart(ass) guy who thinks he's clever.  Or what have you.  So, who's making up context?  You know, calling people fundies... who aren't.  Thinking you know things, arrogant to a fault.


 
Well, to be fair, I'm not a bigot against religion, since that implies I'm unfairly biased against something. I do think religion does more harm than good, and at best is highly inefficient and at worst is, well... Regardless, the point is I criticize religion for things that are entirely fair to criticize it for. Whereas you are a straight-up fundie, I mean you even posted the "Kent Hovind's Shield of water around the earth" story in response to a serious question which is some serious creationist baloney, nevermind your more mundane forms of mysticism. In short, your critical thinking skills need some work, Roose. (Also, I *do* know things.)


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 23, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Well, to be fair, I'm not a bigot against religion, since that implies I'm unfairly biased against something. I do think religion does more harm than good, and at best is highly inefficient and at worst is, well... Regardless, the point is I criticize religion for things that are entirely fair to criticize it for. Whereas you are a straight-up fundie, I mean you even posted the "Kent Hovind's Shield of water around the earth" story in response to a serious question which is some serious creationist baloney, nevermind your more mundane forms of mysticism. In short, your critical thinking skills need some work, Roose. (*Also, I *do* know things.*)


 
By continuing to call me a "fundie", you prove you know nothing.  And by focusing on the very first link I put out, with the "Kent Hovind" material, and ignoring all the other matterial I provided links to, for contrast, shows exactly how biased you are.  You want to prove otherwise, be my guest.  Go back, read the other links, and discuss.  I've already heard what you think about religion, and I've heard others like you, so what you have to say in that reguard is nothing new.  It's already a given, in your case.  And also, in the same manner you feel free to criticize religion, I feel free to criticize your views, in return.

Heh... I find it funny, your use of the word "mysticism", given you've made clear your point of view on religion, both in general and in specifics.  It just seems an odd word to use, in the particular context in which you use it.  And just because you find the "shield of water around the earth" idea "baloney", doesn't mean it can't be brought up in a serious discussion... AS CONTRAST.  A question was asked, I simply dug up some info to answer it.  Found what was out there, and brought it up for discussion.  You know, since the question was asked.

If you don't like the material, so be it.  Dig up your own, then.


----------



## Tsula (Sep 24, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Now go look up what Einstein considered to be "religion" to fully understand that quote.



true that, he was Jewish.

interesting suggestion Lobar, that'll teach me to post ignorantly lol XD


----------



## Tsula (Sep 24, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> In Lord of the Rings it says if you get your head chopped off, you die. That's a scientific truth so I guess LOTR is intertwined with science.


 
You could say that, I was just saying the bible has scientific stuff in it. What is even more interesting is that the mostly that stuff was discoved later down the road. 

It wasnt till a bout 500+ years ago ( i might be wrong) that we found out the earth was not on a man's, turtle's or elephants back, but just suspended in a vacuum.  cool concept.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 24, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> By continuing to call me a "fundie", you prove you know nothing.  And by focusing on the very first link I put out, with the "Kent Hovind" material, and ignoring all the other matterial I provided links to, for contrast, shows exactly how biased you are.  You want to prove otherwise, be my guest.  Go back, read the other links, and discuss.  I've already heard what you think about religion, and I've heard others like you, so what you have to say in that reguard is nothing new.  It's already a given, in your case.  And also, in the same manner you feel free to criticize religion, I feel free to criticize your views, in return.
> 
> Heh... I find it funny, your use of the word "mysticism", given you've made clear your point of view on religion, both in general and in specifics.  It just seems an odd word to use, in the particular context in which you use it.  And just because you find the "shield of water around the earth" idea "baloney", doesn't mean it can't be brought up in a serious discussion... AS CONTRAST.  A question was asked, I simply dug up some info to answer it.  Found what was out there, and brought it up for discussion.  You know, since the question was asked.
> 
> If you don't like the material, so be it.  Dig up your own, then.


 

You're free to criticize my views, but you haven't seemed to come up with more than calling me a bigot. And just because I disagree (strongly) with you doesn't mean I'm biased, that implies I'm unwilling to consider your ideas. I have, and each time they've been found lacking. (You're too wrapped up in anecdotes usually. You need to be able to look at the bigger picture.) 

Well, that's what it is. Mysticism. Voodoo. Superstition. And it would have been fine, Except you didn't use it as contrast. You presented it at it's face and only backpedaled afterwards. You need to consider what ideas you use before putting them into public, Roose, instead of just accepting the first answer you find that seems convenient.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 24, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> I'm sorry you think that way, but it's completely inaccurate. It was nothing more than a simple attempt at encouragement, and you're reading way too much into it. Go for a relaxing walk or something and come back when you're less angry.


 
Stop projecting yourself onto me. If anything you jumped the gun and read too much into it yourself. You already accused me of being a fundie and also trying to rally the forum against you. At least you've stopped the whole poor me bit.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 25, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Stop projecting yourself onto me. If anything you jumped the gun and read too much into it yourself. You already accused me of being a fundie and also trying to rally the forum against you. At least you've stopped the whole poor me bit.


 

Except I never did those last two things, or the first thing, or really any of that except accusing you of being a fundie.  I still stand by it, though.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Sep 25, 2010)

A science vs. Religion thread? I think I just got a hard on. 

Normally I'd give you my two cents on a topic like this, in fact there's enough stuff here to provoke me to go ape shit twice round. Instead of glueing my caps-lock key down though, I, Redfoxtwo, megasciencetroll (or so I'm called) will simply give you a third perspective that no-one's touched yet:

Religions are absolutely essential to human success, I can't deny it, much as I loathe them. They provide the group spirit and stickability necessary to be synergistically successful. To all the people who boo altruism as stupid, do remember that it is the cheat-to-win method for social prisoner's dilemmas. 

As for the religions preaching universal love thing, do bear in mind that no-where in the bible does it specify ALL people. It refers more specifically to one's fellow Christians. 

As for those children of the book on this thread, I must say that I am impressed by your capacity for imagination regarding human history. That is all.

But anyway, Jesus (LOL, topical profanity), what a lot of arguments here. I must sincerely congratulate ALL parties here for the interesting arguments that they have forwarded. I remember a newspaper survey recently in which the overwhelming result was that popular opinion of teenagers was that they were hard working, intelligent and interested in topical ideas. So a non-:V congrats to you all.

Finally, I have to briefly say on behalf of the mods: By all means debate this fantastically engaging subject, but please don't stoop so low as to directly attack people for their beliefs. Not only is it against forum rules, but it says something unsavoury about your character. I won't point my finger at anyone in particular, but everyone should heed this. 

Thanks. (ps. Sorry for any typos, I didn't check my stuff)


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 26, 2010)

If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactionsâ€¦ â€¦ Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 26, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> As for the religions preaching universal love thing, do bear in mind that no-where in the bible does it specify ALL people. It refers more specifically to one's fellow Christians.


 
Actually, the Bible teaches you to love your enemies.


----------



## Wreth (Sep 26, 2010)

The thing about religion, is that it completely ignores occahms (sp?) razor, a fundamental concept for science.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 26, 2010)

Mojotech said:


> Except I never did those last two things, or the first thing, or really any of that except accusing you of being a fundie.  I still stand by it, though.


 
You're right, and I apologize about the rally part. And that comes from the bottom of my heart.

And I know you think that. That's why you accused me of being a fundie right off the bat. Even though I haven't argued religion once in here. It's about you being a self-righteous atheist. And I can say I'm right about that. You said "you got the resident fudies handled," you only comment in religious threads, and you defend atheism religiously(no pun intended) to the point where it becomes a personal duty to you. Like I pretty much said before, I don't think your sense of duty would ever allow you to ignore a religious thread.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Sep 26, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactionsâ€¦ â€¦ Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.



One day I sat down and realized the enormity of how simple the universe is. 

I AM the inter-neuron electrical activity between a few million eukaryotic cells, each the cumulation of self propogating catalystic reactions.

Life IS in existance for the sole reason that it existed before, a chance occurance formed from the unstable chemical compounds encased in volcanic rock.

The universe IS there, will always be, and our insignificant planetoid sheathed in a fragile skin of nitrogen and carbon chain reactions WILL DIE.


And

I

Love it.


----------



## virus (Sep 26, 2010)

what happens when you mix a base and an acid? They fizz.

There you go. 

Anything thats unexplained clearly cannot be explained. There is no reason to come up with some visions of grandeur idea just because. I'm aware of human curiosity. 

I mean, all those mythological creatures are not fables but actual animals that lived but found as fossils of early civilizations and mislabeled as something far more sinister. They didn't understand yet that things lived before them. Centaurs for example came out of finding bones of a man and horse together and thinking the human torso was attached to the horses body. I kid you not.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 26, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> One day I sat down and realized the enormity of how simple the universe is.
> 
> I AM the inter-neuron electrical activity between a few million eukaryotic cells, each the cumulation of self propogating catalystic reactions.
> 
> ...


 
This means that, truth, morals, and all ethical standards mean absolutely nothing. In fact, this would mean everything means nothing.
This means no one is smarter than someone else because everything is a chemical reaction. this also means love, tragety, happyness are all empty feelings as those are also just random chemical reactions.

I can go on to say, why should I follow the law, The law was just someones chemical reaction, and that means nothing.
Which would lead me to say, nothing is true, and everything is permited.
And if this is true, then the world would be utter chaos.

Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 26, 2010)

Wreth said:


> The thing about religion, is that it completely ignores occahms (sp?) razor, a fundamental concept for science.


 
Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 27, 2010)

Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> This means that, truth, morals, and all ethical standards mean  absolutely nothing. In fact, this would mean everything means nothing.



Very true, but if you like that or not is irrelevant to its validity.



			
				Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> I can go on to say, why should I follow the law, The law was just someones chemical reaction, and that means nothing.
> Which would lead me to say, nothing is true, and everything is permited.
> And if this is true, then the world would be utter chaos.



That would be assuming that you only follow the rules because you are told to by god. It's at this point where you get to make a decision. Do you want to live in a world of chaos or will you rather have a more ordered world and make a decision to act in a way which promotes that. If you decide that laws are good because the lifestyle under them is better than without them and then follow those laws there will be chaos.

[QUOTE='"Ruhk_Whitefang"]Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is  necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however,  the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs  explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't  account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's  needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed. 						[/QUOTE]

You shouldn't add entities in the first place if you don't have evidence for them. God is not an explanation for anything, just a way of giving up.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 27, 2010)

What I meant is, why should I follow someones elses law, I mean its just someones chemical fizz, the same as mine. Therefore my laws hold the same merit. My reasoning is just as good as someone elses.

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my  opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a  movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but  of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'.


If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then  the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and  the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.  If so, then all our  present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the  movement of atoms.  And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists  and astronomers as well as for anyone else's.  But if their thoughts -  i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why  should we believe them to be true?  I see no reason for believing that  one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the  other accidents.  It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the  splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of  how the jug was made and why it was upset.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 27, 2010)

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Check this out. Its interactive, and I think it would help explain what I am saying.


----------



## TrickyDick (Sep 27, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Check this out. Its interactive, and I think it would help explain what I am saying.


 This one is way better. But only because of Danny Boy :V. Seriously though, religion is dumb.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 27, 2010)

TrickyDick said:


> Seriously though, religion is dumb.


 

Wow, fantastic contribution to this 7 page thread...
This is a debate, not a place to bash someones beliefs.


----------



## TrickyDick (Sep 27, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wow, fantastic contribution to this 7 page thread...
> This is a debate, not a place to bash someones beliefs.


 Well, I see differently. TBH, that website is interactive, but it contains forced logic, and is rather leading throughout the entire ordeal. I'll bash whatever I want, but I can debate too. However, you're busy with so many debates, most of which, in my estimation, you are losing rather horribly, I decided just to be a snipah. It's late here, so I'll go to bed, but if you want to debate, I'll be back tomorrow, and I'll respond to every single one of your posts. A lot of it will be repeat material, because it's been shouted over and over ITT, and nobody has contrived a decent excuse for it. Ta ta.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 27, 2010)

TrickyDick said:


> Well, I see differently. TBH, that website is interactive, but it contains forced logic, and is rather leading throughout the entire ordeal. I'll bash whatever I want, but I can debate too. However, you're busy with so many debates, most of which, in my estimation, you are losing rather horribly, I decided just to be a snipah. It's late here, so I'll go to bed, but if you want to debate, I'll be back tomorrow, and I'll respond to every single one of your posts. A lot of it will be repeat material, because it's been shouted over and over ITT, and nobody has contrived a decent excuse for it. Ta ta.


 

Please explain why it is forced logic. Either there is Absolute Truth in the universe or there isn't.


Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in  self-deception.  You may know things, but you cannot account for  anything you know.  Arguing against God's existence would be on par with  arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while.  You  use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics,  science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions,  but you cannot account for them.
Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial,  unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of  faith, or wishful thinking.  Isn't it interesting that this is exactly  what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 27, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> What I meant is, why should I follow someones elses law, I mean its just  someones chemical fizz, the same as mine. Therefore my laws hold the  same merit. My reasoning is just as good as someone elses.



But if you were created by a god then some people's reasoning would be better than others?



> The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my   opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a   movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but   of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'.



It's true if the thought created by those patterns correctly describes how things work.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> I see no reason for believing that  one accident should be able to  give me a correct account of all the  other accidents.  It's like  expecting the accidental shape taken by the  splash when you upset a  milk-jug should give you a correct account of  how the jug was made and  why it was upset.



Because they are not random accidents, they build on each other. A random thought won't describe something very well. But our thoughts are not totally random, they are built on earlier thoughts that were shown to have some merit and gradually become better, more accurate thoughts. 



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial,   unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of   faith, or wishful thinking.  Isn't it interesting that this is exactly   what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of?



It's not a blind leap of faith, it's following the evidence. If there is no evidence for god then there is no reason to believe in him.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 27, 2010)

If there wasn't intellegent design, then explain how the world is not an accident.

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous  explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was  the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the  universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
  Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated,  "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in  that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature  in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in  motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into  being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.
  Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of  this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million  degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light.
  The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused  that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light  and matter.

Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day  after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a  counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the  speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.
  How is it that we can identify laws of nature that _never_ change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
  "The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is.  There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone  one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs  from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way.  It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change  unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which  things pop in and out of existence.
  Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics,  said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are  rules at all is a kind of miracle.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 27, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> If there wasn't intellegent design, then explain how the world is not an accident.



The world is an accident so far as no one planned it. It happened because of chance and the laws of physics. I said that thoughts are not just accidents, they are built on one another. If you look at this thread no one has designed it or is moving it to a specific point, it is created bit by bit by many different individuals and yet it follows on from itself. This is because people don't just post randomly but post in reply to the posts before it and so the thread achieves a certain amount of structure without there being any design.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused   that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light   and matter.



And neither does religion. You could say god did it and then you need to say what caused god. That leads to an infinite regress. So we stop at the last point that has evidence, the universe exists. You can't go further back to a god unless you have evidence for a god and the lack of another explanation does not count as evidence.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> How is it that we can identify laws of nature that _never_ change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?


 
I suppose you should call it luck. It doesn't necessarily mean anything else. If it did change then we wouldn't be here. So we don't know why it is constant, and we might never know, but we do know that it has to be constant because we are here. If it has to be constant then it's not a surprise at all that it is constant. You don't marvel at how the internet exists because otherwise this forum couldn't exist, that's the wrong way to look at it. Since this forum exists you already know the internet has to work.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 27, 2010)

I do not need to say what caused God, Your implying that the the deity lives within our laws of nature. God has always existed. Its a hard concept to grasp.

But do you know the statistics for this universe to accidentally happen? Its nearly improbable. So how can one justify chance and luck is why we are here.
Your also implying that the laws of physics just existed, where did these laws come from. If you follow the laws of physics then one would have to say in this universe, something has to come from somewhere.

Also, Man cannot create matter, we can destroy matter to create energy, we can change something into something else, but we and the universe cannot create something out of non-being. In this universe, something has to come from somewhere. The laws of nature say this. Where did everything come from to make the Big Bang. Matter and energy had to have come from something. The only explanation in my opinion is a Deity that exists outside of our universe, that is not constrained by the laws of the universe. To say that everything is chance and luck is illogical.

This is intirely my guess in why people refuse to to even think there is the slightest possibility that Intellegent Design exists.

God exist whether or not men may choose to believe in Him.  The reason  why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is  intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God  forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to  such a God.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 27, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> I do not need to say what caused God, Your implying that the the  deity lives within our laws of nature. God has always existed. Its a  hard concept to grasp.​



Yes, you do. It's not a hard concept to grasp but it is one that is based on faith, not evidence. An argument proposed without evidence can be rejected without evidence. 



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> But do you know the statistics for this universe to accidentally happen?  Its nearly improbable. So how can one justify chance and luck is why we  are here.
> Your also implying that the laws of physics just existed, where did  these laws come from. If you follow the laws of physics then one would  have to say in this universe, something has to come from somewhere.



It doesn't have to have been probable, it happened. We are here so it has to have happened, no matter what the probability.
I don't know where they came from but god is not the answer because god would also have had to come from something.



			
				Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> The only explanation in my opinion is a Deity that exists outside of our  universe, that is not constrained by the laws of the universe. To say  that everything is chance and luck is illogical.



And proposing a made-up being simply because you can't grasp the universe is logical? You're just making stuff up as you go along. Without evidence there's no reason to take the idea of god seriously.



			
				Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> God exist whether or not men may choose to believe in Him.  The reason   why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is   intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God   forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to   such a God.



It's because there is no evidence for such a god. You have faith in god but not evidence. There are many religions with faith in their gods or gods and arguing by faith there's no reason for you to see your god as any better than any other god.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Sep 27, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> This means that, truth, morals, and all ethical standards mean absolutely nothing. In fact, this would mean everything means nothing.
> This means no one is smarter than someone else because everything is a chemical reaction. this also means love, tragety, happyness are all empty feelings as those are also just random chemical reactions.
> 
> I can go on to say, why should I follow the law, The law was just someones chemical reaction, and that means nothing.
> ...


 
Herpy Derpy da derp.

These 'morals' you speak of a relatively undefined parameters which your religion lays down for you to follow. Do you ever question them? Of course not - that would be blasphemous. 

On the other hand - I, the terrible, terrible person you speak of, ACTUALLY THINK before I do.

I know, it's just... Awful.

You are amazingly narrow minded in saying that just because I am writing this due to the inter-neuron electrical interactions, it means that everything in the world is magically equal. Just because one man's chemical reactions "fizz" (as you put it) slightly differently to the next man's does not mean even slightly that they are equal. It is what they do with those reactions that counts. It's like the stupid statement (but so lovable) "Guns don't kill people! It's the bullet ploughing through their flesh!".

Oncemore, you are oversimplifying greatly when you say that the emotions were "empty". To state so is to imply that there is some greater force behind emotions then the simple chemical reaction that you stated it to be.

It is a hormone released by your selfish genes to influence your devolved brain like a slave to act in the genes' interest.

It is that you are religious - to seek meaning where there is ABSOLUTELY NONE. It is almost the definition of religion. I pity you for it.

Finally, I have never heard that retarded definition come from any atheist. I personally know exactly where I came from, where the planet came from, what happened up until this point, as you read this, from the start of the universe - when all matter was quarks and quanta. And I cannot disprove you, but I suspect that if there was a God, he really doesn't give a shit about us.

At least not you, or else he would have stopped you from posting that trash.


----------



## TrickyDick (Sep 27, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Please explain why it is forced logic. Either there is Absolute Truth in the universe or there isn't.


Because truth is relative. And which truth are we talking about? Moral truths? Relative to the person. Dealing in absolutes is a fallacy and always has been. That's why it is forced, and false, because nothing is absolute, except of course that which is not logical, which is God.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in  self-deception.  You may know things, but you cannot account for  anything you know.  Arguing against God's existence would be on par with  arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while.  You  use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics,  science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions,  but you cannot account for them.
> Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial,  unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of  faith, or wishful thinking.  Isn't it interesting that this is exactly  what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of?


 This is all wrong here. I know things, and I can account for them, the air I breathe, the ground I walk on, the food I eat, all explainable by the laws of science. It is your leap of faith YOU must take to fill in those tiny gaps with God. It is my acceptance that science is incomplete but ever evolving, and I don't need to fill in what I don't know with a being that doesn't even abide by the rules I'm attempting to understand.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 27, 2010)

You said it yourself RedFoxTwo (I also will be answering Trickydick as well in this post, you cannot disprove God doesn't exist. One would think using logic, if you can't disprove of something, then that leads to the possibility of it being true. But oh no, you can't even believe that. Science even states not to throw out all the possibilites. And here I have been the only one that has been able to explain where everything has come from. Just saying we don't know is a load of crap. And you know it.

If there is no meaning to anything, then why should I help humanity? Why is it, that we do? Why are we wired to be compassionate beings? Science can tell us how to do many things. But it can not tell us what ought to be done. And furthermore, now I ask you what the point of this whole thread is. Because your not even open to the possibility that God exists. Anyone can deny anything even if proof is sitting right in front of them. And before you ask me the same question, I did at one point think the same thing I am asking you. But logic showed me that God exists.

You cannot explain where morality, ethics, or even the laws of science come from. Because in this universe, everything has to have a source. But you cannot give me an account for it. I asked you to give me a scientific reason to where everything came from. And you can't. Because science itself states that something cannot be created out of nothing. And all the laws of science, math, logic and absolute morality are unchanging. And if the laws of science says something cannot be created out of nothing, then this universe is scientifically impossible. And yet, here we are. The universe itself coming into being defied the laws of science. And science cannot give an explanation for it. To say that we have not yet found out yet, or we just don't know is illogical. Because if you believe in the laws of science then the universe is explainable. But its not. Are you noticing a pattern here? Its a circle. Science cannot prove God doesn't exist. Why, because the unchanging laws of science cannot explain where everything came from. But the laws of science, logic, mathematics are absolute truth.

If the universe was an accident, then logically thinking, the laws of science, logic and mathematics are accidents. Which in turn means there is no absolute truth. But if you say there is no absolute truth, then that statement in itself becomes an absolute truth. Did you get that?
This means absolute truth exists. Moving on now.

Do you believe in the laws of logic? If not, If you believe the laws of logic do not exist, how do you make decisions about the most basic things in life? How do you decide which side of the road to drive on? How do you decide to drink water or poison for nurishment? One interesting aspect of denying laws of logic, like the law of non-contradiction is that since you do not believe in the laws of logic, you actually believe in the laws of logic. If contradictions are allowed in your worldview then so is that one. You would have had to use logic to come to the conclusion that the laws of logic do not exist. Which that means the laws of logic do exist.

The same thing can be said about the laws of mathematics. Do you believe in the laws of mathematics? The laws of mathematics are an absolute truth. If absolute doesn't exist, then the laws of mathematics do not exist. If you believe the laws of mathematics does not exist what would you do in this scenario?
Lets say you walked into a bank and asked for change for a $100. If the teller handed you only 2 $5s would you be satisfied with his or her personal intereptation of the laws of mathematics, or would you apeal to a universal law of mathematics to show that they are wrong. I suspect the latter.
The same question goes for the law of science (another absolute truth) You say you believe in the laws of science, yet that is an absolute truth, which can't be possible if the universe is an accident, because that would make you say absolute truths do not exist, which is an absolute...

I have seldom heard anyone deny the laws of logic, mathematics, or science. I have often heard people deny the existance of absolute moral laws. Where as some laws like those that govern science and mathematics describe reality and how things do behave. Absolute moral laws perscribe how human ought to behave, or not behave. Rape and child molestation are 2 examples of absolute moral laws. Is it wrong to rape or molest a child? Uh yes. I hope you don't try an argue that absolute truth. You have acknowleged that laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality exists. Next I want to examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material or inmaterial? In other words, are they made up of matter or are they abstract entities-are they physical or non physical things. If you say they are material, if you believe these laws are made up of matter. Please show me where in nature these laws are. Can you touch them, taste them, see them, smell them or hear them? Rather than have you say a material physical law I will narrow down the field for you. Just show me where the number 3 is in nature. Not 3 things, not a writtten representation of number 3, but just material number 3. You cannot. This means that the laws are inmaterial.
You acknowllege these laws exist and are not made of matter. The next question is whether you believe them to be universly true or up to the individual. (trickdick here is your answer)
Does 2+2=4 only where you are, and only because you say it does or is this a universal law? They are most definately universly true, or else the universe couldn't exist. But one could say thatthey are all up to the individual. If you believe the inmaterial laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are all up to the individual then it would be perfectly alright for anyone to come up with their own laws in these matters. Not only would these alternate rules be common, they would have to be right since there would be no universal standard to evaluate their correctness. Not only could no conflict be ever be resolved, there would be no conflicts because everyone would be right. We know that simly is not the case. In base 10 mathematics, when you add 2+2 you expect the correct answer to be 4 and would not accept a different answer as being correct from one who lived down the street or in Bangkok. You would not expect that child molestation would be right anywhere in the universe. You would not accept a logical contradiction as being acceptable no matter where or when you were confronted with one.
You acknowllege  the laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality exist. They are not made of matter, and they are universal. The next question is whether you believe these laws are changing or unchanging. If you believe these laws are changing then living with the expectation that they so not change would be inconsistant with your belief. No doubt, you wake up every morning expecting these laws to be the same as the day before. You don't think twice about drinking pure water because you know the properties of water that nourished you yesterday will not kill you today. You don't wonder whether it will still be right to love your children in the morning. This being said, The laws are unchanging. They are constant.

God is a necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, inavarient laws by the impossinility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to understand ANYTHING. Therefore...
The proof that God exists is that without him you couldn't prove anything.

But I already know that you will still say God doesn't exist.
Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in  self-deception.  You may know things, but you cannot account for  anything you know.  Arguing against God's existence would be on par with  arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while.  You  use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics,  science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions,  but you cannot account for them.  These laws are not the only way God  has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the  irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.
  There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has  nothing to do with proof.  I can show this to you.  Examine what your  initial reaction was to the proof of God's existence offered.  Did you think that you could continue to deny God because you  are not a scientist, or philosopher but 'Surely somewhere, sometime, a  philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for universal,  immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?'  Did you try to come up  with an alternate explanation on your own? OR Did you even consider that  the proof was valid?
Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial,  unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of  faith, or wishful thinking.  Isn't it interesting that this is exactly  what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of? Please examine the real reason why you are running from God.



In the end it is a choice to believe or not. And I leave that choice to you.  It is my prayer that God will open your eyes and change your heart so  that you may be saved from your sin, embraced by His forgiving love, and  come to know the peace which passes all understanding.

Farewell.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 28, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *And here I have been the only one that has been able to explain where everything has come from.* Just saying we don't know is a load of crap. And you know it.



... and theists have the nerve to claim that _atheists_ are arrogant.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God is a necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, inavarient laws by the impossinility of the contrary.



Wrong. This is simply your assertion. It doesn't logically follow from your argument.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> These laws are necessary to understand ANYTHING. Therefore...
> The proof that God exists is that without him you couldn't prove anything.



Another assertion.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in  self-deception.  You may know things, but you cannot account for  anything you know.  Arguing against God's existence would be on par with  arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while.  You  use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics,  science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions,  but you cannot account for them.  These laws are not the only way God  has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the  irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.



And condescension, right on cue - the old favourite of _"Actually, you secretly believe in God, but you deliberately deceive yourself because... oh, I don't know, you're guilty or something."_ Yet another baseless assertion, derived solely from _your_ refusal to accept that others don't see the world as you do.

If I used your exact same argument but replaced the word "God" with "Ganesh", would _you_ be convinced to become a Hindu? I don't think so.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 28, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> The universe itself coming into being defied the laws of science. And  science cannot give an explanation for it. To say that we have not yet  found out yet, or we just don't know is illogical. Because if you  believe in the laws of science then the universe is explainable. But its  not. Are you noticing a pattern here? Its a circle. Science cannot  prove God doesn't exist. Why, because the unchanging laws of science  cannot explain where everything came from. But the laws of science,  logic, mathematics are absolute truth.



You do know science is a description of the universe right? It's our best explanation of how it works. The world is not confined to what science says but science has to change to accurately reflect the world. It's not illogical to say that we don't know something yet, it is the truth. We know of many things we don't know and there are almost surely things that we don't even know we don't know still to be discovered. Just because something can't be disproved does not make it true, or even believable. 



			
				Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> The laws of mathematics are an absolute truth.



You're just showing you don't know much about maths. Maths rests on axioms, statements that cannot be proved but are assumed to be true. Those axioms are used to build up the entire foundation of maths but they cannot be proved in the system that they are used as axioms. They might not be right but so far they haven't been wrong.

And isn't your ending paragraph the same as what you already posted?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 28, 2010)

Prove to me absolute truth doesnt exist. Because this is what your saying at its core. And aparently you need to re read my wall of text because I explained how the Laws of Science are unchanging. You still after all this fail to give a scientiific reason to how the universe came into being. You say you believe in the laws of science but you throw out the law of thermodymanics.
The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy. "Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?

Now on to absolute truth, which you deny, even though that makes your statement an absolute...
"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truthâ€¦ "There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes. "Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves. "Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement. "No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true. There are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!

I can use the same argument you are using against me Rakuen Growlithe, You say They might not be right but so far they haven't been wrong. but I can use that to say the same thing about the Law of Gravity, it may be right today but that doesn`t mean it will tomrorow.
Your logic is flawed, I hate to say it. 

 Again you say, It's not illogical to say that we don't know something yet, it is the truth. We know of many things we don't know and there are almost surely things that we don't even know we don't know still to be discovered. Just because something can't be disproved does not make it true, or even believable. 

Again you say there is no absolute truth, yet your statement above said there is a truth... To believe in something, you have to believe itss ablosute truth. You keep contradicting yourself stating otherwise. To not believe in something means there has to be an absolute truth out there, again contradi cting with your statement there is no absolute truth.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 28, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> And condescension, right on cue - the old favourite of _"Actually, you secretly believe in God, but you deliberately deceive yourself because... oh, I don't know, you're guilty or something."_ Yet another baseless assertion, derived solely from _your_ refusal to accept that others don't see the world as you do.
> 
> If I used your exact same argument but replaced the word "God" with "Ganesh", would _you_ be convinced to become a Hindu? I don't think so.


 
You need to re read what I stated. It is not a baseless assertion that using science you cannot acount for the laws that govern the galaxy. Because please do give me an account using the laws of thisgalaxy to explain how the universe came into being out of nothing. That breaks the law of thermodynamics, look to my other post where I explained that.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 28, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> If I used your exact same argument but replaced the word "God" with "Ganesh", would _you_ be convinced to become a Hindu? I don't think so.


 
Actually you cant. Because Ganesha is not the Hindu god that created the universe. Ganesha is The son of Shiva and Parvati. He is the Lord of success and destroyer of evils and obstacles. He is also worshipped as the god of education, knowledge, wisdom and wealth.

Who you would be thinking of is the hindu god Brahman. He is there supreme god. But I can still prove that this agrument doesnt work.
In Hinduism, Brahman has the power to bring things into appearance. However, the pantheistic component of Hinduism claims God did not create the world: God is the world, along with everything in it. The world was not created, it always was, just like the soul that always has existed and will always exist.

But the Laws of Science prove that the universe had a begeinning. using Hindusism to defunct my claims doesnt work. Because then that would disprove the Laws of thermodymanics and other Laws of science. Because according to hinduism the world always existed. Which science has proved is not true.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 28, 2010)

Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Prove to me absolute truth doesnt exist.



You can't prove something doesn't exist. In any case I didn't say there was no absolute truth, that would be the way things are, I said that you didn't understand the way maths works.



			
				Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Now on to absolute truth, which you deny, even though that makes your statement an absolute...
> "Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable,  unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable  fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are  absolutely no round squares.



That's just playing around with words. That sort of statement is a description of other things, not of itself. 



			
				Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable.  The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We  logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a  finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its  most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is  winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been  winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?



Ignoring the rather weak understanding of thermodynamics your question is wrong. It's not who wound up the clock but what. And I don't know, but that does not mean that some mythical figure is a better answer. In any case I do not understand physics and cosmology and am not in a position to even attempt to answer those questions. What I do know is that there are plenty of theories, from the universe making and destroying itself cyclically to the inevitability of the universe and theories that say this is one of billions of similar universes that exist in different dimensions. 



			
				Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> I can use the same argument you are using against me Rakuen Growlithe,  You say They might not be right but so far they haven't been wrong. but I  can use that to say the same thing about the Law of Gravity, it may be  right today but that doesn`t mean it will tomrorow.



That's true, unlikely according to history but possible. Even if that happened what's your point?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 28, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> You can't prove something doesn't exist. In any case I didn't say there was no absolute truth, that would be the way things are, I said that you didn't understand the way maths works.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

How do I not know how math works? I gave a clear description of base 10 mathematics.

Explain how I am just playing with words. You cannot argue against absolute truth, because in doing so you make your statement an absolute truth. You contradict yourself.

Explain how my understanding of the law of thermodynamics is weak. You tell me things but you can`t explain anything. You have given me no facts, just your own opinion.

The theory that the universe makes and destroys itself over and over is flawed. Because it doesn`t give a catalyst.
How can something be made out of nothing. What causes the universe to suddendly remake itself? Again you would need to have an explanation of what defies the laws of the universe.

You state that science, which includes the laws of the universe is ever changing. Yet if that is the case then none of it is absolutely true. And you cannot disprove an absolute truth. If the laws of the universe are ever changing then nothing would be constant throughout the universe. An example of that would be that the speed of light isnt constant, but that simply isnt true. The laws of the universe are unchanging and constant as I have stated before.

My whole point in this, is that you cannot use Science to disprove Gods existance.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 28, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> How do I not know how math works? I gave a clear description of base 10 mathematics.



You said the laws of mathematics are absolute truth. They are a method of describing the world that works through unprovable axioms that have to be assumed true before you can use the system. Those axioms cannot be proven in the system in which they are accepted and so our maths laws could be wrong but so far they have not been.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Explain how I am just playing with words. You cannot argue against  absolute truth, because in doing so you make your statement an absolute  truth. You contradict yourself.



That is playing with words, taking a statement made about something and then including the statement itself as what is being described. In any case I didn't argue against absolute truth.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Explain how my understanding of the law of thermodynamics is weak. You  tell me things but you can`t explain anything. You have given me no  facts, just your own opinion.



Well for one entropy is not unusable energy, it's just disorder. I doubt there's even such a thing as unusable energy. Also the universe not gaining energy does not mean that it is not eternal, that doesn't even follow. Then you say that matter couldn't be created to make the universe because of the laws of thermodynamics. Again you are missing that those laws are descriptions of what we see now. It's possible that the beginning of the universe had different laws. In any case I'm not a physicist so if you really want to learn about theories of the universe's origins go find proper books.



			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> My whole point in this, is that you cannot use Science to disprove Gods existance.



You don't have to because there is nothing to support god's existence.

If I tell you FA is another dimension and your computer screen just acts like a portal to show you what's there you can't disprove that but I certainly hope you don't believe it.


----------



## jeff (Sep 28, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Who you would be thinking of is the hindu god Brahman. He is there supreme god.


 
not according to the majority of hindus


----------



## Random_Observer (Sep 28, 2010)

Why are both sides talking about God as if he's a person or thing.

"Prove He didn't create everything." "Prove He did."

It's like you people are telling the readers that you don't know what you are talking about.

Most peoples understanding and experiences with God is a *projection*. Gods had human qualities, bickered, fought, loved, hated, carried scorn, deceived, and gossiped during the times of the Greeks and Romans.

God was a misguided father in the old testament, an control freak in the new testament. All projections.

But then again, *God*, is the only reality.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 28, 2010)

Shartblaster said:


> not according to the majority of hindus


You mean 'It'. The Brahman is supposed to be the Ultimate Truth, Supreme Reality, yadda yadda....
Think of it as the *GOD* that the "gods" worship.
I think...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 28, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You need to re read what I stated. It is not a baseless assertion that using science you cannot acount for the laws that govern the galaxy. Because please do give me an account using the laws of thisgalaxy to explain how the universe came into being out of nothing. That breaks the law of thermodynamics, look to my other post where I explained that.



It is an assertion.

No doubt there was a catalyst that started life on this planet, but just because there was a catalyst it does not prove that catalyst was god, you are just assuming that the catalyst was god.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 28, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Why are both sides talking about God as if he's a person or thing.
> 
> "Prove He didn't create everything." "Prove He did."
> 
> ...


It's very difficult to expect much assistance or any remarkable amount of compassion from a human god (or one that resembles any other organism, for that matter). 
Best not to imagine that It looks like anything in particular. 
And now for my actual contribution to this thread:
Assuming that there IS some benevolent thing deserving of the title of "God", and that entity is non-corporeal but capable of intervening with material affairs  when it feels so inclined, there is but one explanation for the suffering of living beings: To intervene with every little thing would take energy, of which the divine consists, and therefore It can't fix everyone's problems for them, because if it did there would be no God at all after a period of time.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 28, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> It's very difficult to expect much assistance or any remarkable amount of compassion from a human god (or one that resembles any other organism, for that matter).
> Best not to imagine that It looks like anything in particular.
> And now for my actual contribution to this thread:
> Assuming that there IS some benevolent thing deserving of the title of "God", and that entity is non-corporeal but capable of intervening with material affairs  when it feels so inclined, there is but one explanation for the suffering of living beings: To intervene with every little thing would take energy, of which the divine consists, and therefore It can't fix everyone's problems for them, because if it did there would be no God at all after a period of time.



Also, if said entity interfered and fixed everyone's problems, we would not learn how to deal with things ourselves or how to fix our own problems, we can not always rely on someone else to fix our problems even if it is a powerful entity.


----------



## jeff (Sep 28, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You mean 'It'. The Brahman is supposed to be the Ultimate Truth, Supreme Reality, yadda yadda....
> Think of it as the *GOD* that the "gods" worship.
> I think...


 
i think he was referring to brahma the deity, since brahman is a nebulous spiritual concept and he said "supreme god"

so, that only applies to smarti hindus
but since the bulk of hindus are vaisnavists, saivists, and shaktists it isn't really a safe call to fall back on as anything but a minority belief

shiva is the center and supreme reality in saivism (sometimes shakti, or alternatively shakti/shiva and shiva/vishnu)
vishnu is the center of reality in vaisnavism
and shakti is the center and supreme reality of shaktism

all hindus follow some derivational sect, but smarti hindus attempt to reconcile the conflicting "supreme deity" as manifestations of One Reality, Brahma

they all do that to some degree, though
smarti hindus are just more liberal about the crossover and scripture

tl;dr: yeah.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 28, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Who you would be thinking of is the hindu god Brahman. He is there supreme god. But I can still prove that this agrument doesnt work.
> In Hinduism, Brahman has the power to bring things into appearance. However, the pantheistic component of Hinduism claims God did not create the world: God is the world, along with everything in it. The world was not created, it always was, just like the soul that always has existed and will always exist.
> 
> But the Laws of Science prove that the universe had a begeinning. using Hindusism to defunct my claims doesnt work. Because then that would disprove the Laws of thermodymanics and other Laws of science. Because according to hinduism the world always existed. Which science has proved is not true.



The point I was trying to make is that your "logic" can be used to justify the "truth" of religions other than Christianity simply by substituting "God" for the deity of your choice - and the only reason you choose the Christian god instead of another is because of your_ faith_, not by any actual logic. Try the same thing with "Allah" and see what happens - ready to be a Muslim yet?

"When you understand why you reject other gods, you'll understand why I reject yours."


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 28, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> The point I was trying to make is that your "logic" can be used to justify the "truth" of religions other than Christianity simply by substituting "God" for the deity of your choice - and the only reason you choose the Christian god instead of another is because of your_ faith_, not by any actual logic. Try the same thing with "Allah" and see what happens - ready to be a Muslim yet?
> 
> "When you understand why you reject other gods, you'll understand why I reject yours."



Mayfurr, you were the first furry I ever talked to (via e-mail), back when you still checked your old website. It's good to catch up with you again. I think that was...2006?
Still witty as ever!


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Sep 28, 2010)

Aww crap, I go away for one day - one lousy day - and this thread leaves me way behind.

Anyway...

Nice speech BTW, very touching, but I have a few counterpoints to make.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Science even states not to throw out all the possibilites. And here I
> have been the only one that has been able to explain where everything has come from. Just saying we
> don't know is a load of crap. And you know it.



To say that one doesn't know is common scientific practice. I think that in believing you have an answer to 
everything is crass and immature. Could YOU tell me how it is that the brain of a cat has pockets of 
neurons, each dealing with either vertical or horizontal movement in each area of it's vision, and that if you 
pass an object in that area in the required direction, it ceases to hum, but fires in bursts?
Don't know? Shame.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If there is no meaning to anything, then why should I help humanity?
> Why is it, that we do?



Maybe you do. I certainly don't, unless there's something in it for me.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Science can tell us how to do many things. But it can not tell us what
> ought to be done.



Damn straight it can, Science has outlined the prime methods and how to achieve them with respect to 
beating Global Warming. Science does tell us what ought to be done. It tells us that a lot, but people never 
listen. 

Don't forget Sarah Palin's lovely comment: "Global Warming: It's just God hugging us tighter!"



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And furthermore, now I ask you what the point of this whole thread
> is. Because your not even open to the possibility that God exists. Anyone can deny anything even if proof is
> sitting right in front of them. And before you ask me the same question, I did at one point think the same
> thing I am asking you. But logic showed me that God exists.



No, go ahead, please tell me in detail your implied logic behind your conclusion that God exists. As a 
scientist, I would love to know the truth, and I don't have a bias against any particular truth. If you could 
show me heavier scientific evidence in favor of God, I will convert. BTW if you evade this question in your 
next post by not answering it, I WILL make a point of it.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You cannot explain where morality, ethics, or even the laws of science
> come from. Because in this universe, everything has to have a source. But you cannot give me an account
> for it. I asked you to give me a scientific reason to where everything came from. And you can't.



I distinctly remember that you didn't ask me, so I'll tell you the answer now that you have essentially asked 
me.

Morality and ethics stem from a deeply ingrained social factor that has evolved over human evolutionary 
history. It exists because of the prisoner's dilemma. If one side can prove that they will be trustworthy in a 
situation that the other party cannot monitor, then both sides will gain from an agreement. It's like having 
one side announce that it will never defect. 

Altruism is the embodiment of this, as it is the gesture which conveys one's willingness to play the game 
nicely. Being trustworthy strengthens the assumption that that person will be trustworthy in future.
Through our laws of physics, things CAN come from no-where. One suggestion as to how the universe 
came about is that it was the result of a creation-annihilation gone wrong. You see, quantum mechanics 
states that at any time, in any space, two particles are created right next to each other, one the negative 
of the other, and they both instantly annihilate and vanish. This would have been fizzing in the pre-big 
bang. One of them went 'wrong' due to quantum fluctuation, and created considerably more matter then 
antimatter. The antimatter half could not annihilate the matter half, so we see what we have today.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Because science itself states that something cannot be created out of
> nothing.



Derp.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And all the laws of science, math, logic and absolute morality are
> unchanging. And if the laws of science says something cannot be created out of nothing, then this universe
> is scientifically impossible.



Double derp.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And yet, here we are. The universe itself coming into being defied the
> laws of science. And science cannot give an explanation for it. To say that we have not yet found out yet,
> or we just don't know is illogical. Because if you believe in the laws of science then the universe is
> explainable. But its not. Are you noticing a pattern here? Its a circle. Science cannot prove God doesn't
> ...



Someday, we will, because unlike religion, we continue to evaluate and understand new things. Religion 
repeats the same old and stale arguments again and again. Soon, if not already, Science will overtake 
Religion as having more, better answers.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If the universe was an accident, then logically thinking, the laws of
> science, logic and mathematics are accidents. Which in turn means there is no absolute truth. But if you say
> there is no absolute truth, then that statement in itself becomes an absolute truth. Did you get that?
> This means absolute truth exists. Moving on now.



No-one ever said that there wasn't absolute truth. 

I am. 

That's my only absolute truth. Quantum ensures 
that.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Do you believe in the laws of logic?



Yep.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> If not, If you believe the laws of logic do not exist, how do you make
> decisions about the most basic things in life? How do you decide which side of the road to drive on? How
> do you decide to drink water or poison for nurishment? One interesting aspect of denying laws of logic, like
> the law of non-contradiction is that since you do not believe in the laws of logic, you actually believe in the
> ...



Yep.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The laws of mathematics are an absolute truth. If absolute doesn't
> exist, then the laws of mathematics do not exist. If you believe the laws of mathematics does not exist
> what would you do in this scenario?
> Lets say you walked into a bank and asked for change for a $100. If the teller handed you only 2 $5s would
> ...



They're laws, douche. They're obviously immaterial.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> In other words, are they made up of matter or are they abstract
> entities-are they physical or non physical things. If you say they are material, if you believe these laws are
> made up of matter. Please show me where in nature these laws are. Can you touch them, taste them, see
> them, smell them or hear them? Rather than have you say a material physical law I will narrow down the
> ...



Derp.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You acknowllege these laws exist and are not made of matter. The
> next question is whether you believe them to be universly true or up to the individual. (trickdick here is
> your answer)



I can't disobey the laws of physics, but I can my genes.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Does 2+2=4 only where you are, and only because you say it does or
> is this a universal law? They are most definately universly true, or else the universe couldn't exist. But one
> could say thatthey are all up to the individual. If you believe the inmaterial laws of logic, mathematics,
> science, and absolute morality are all up to the individual then it would be perfectly alright for anyone to
> ...



Banobo chimps are evolved to fuck their offspring as a gesture of social welcome.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> You would not accept a logical contradiction as being acceptable no
> matter where or when you were confronted with one.
> You acknowllege  the laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality exist. They are not made of
> matter, and they are universal. The next question is whether you believe these laws are changing or
> ...



Fine.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> God is a necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract,
> inavarient laws by the impossinility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to understand ANYTHING.
> Therefore...
> The proof that God exists is that without him you couldn't prove anything.



Woah, woah! Time out! What? Nothing can be proved anyway, let alone with God. But then again, when 
you use your imagination, you don't have to make sense. Ah, ok. I can understand your perspective now.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But I already know that you will still say God doesn't exist.
> Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in  self-deception.  You may know things, but
> you cannot account for  anything you know. Arguing against God's existence would be on par with  arguing
> against the existence of air, breathing it all the while.  You  use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws
> ...



I can account for the air I breathe. The air is primarily composed of nitrogen, N2. These molecules are each 
a pair of covalently bonded atoms, each posessing a total of 14 protons and neutons, plus orbiting 
electrons. Each neutron is composed of a proton plus an electron, each tied in to the other to form a new 
particle. Electrons are indivisible, but protons can be broken down each into three quarks of different types.
There, not so hard to account for it. As for the quarks and electrons? Created in the lopsided quantum 
fluctuation we call The Big Bang.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> These laws are not the only way God  has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the  irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.
> There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has  nothing to do with proof.  I can show
> this to you.  Examine what your  initial reaction was to the proof of God's existence offered.  Did you think
> that you could continue to deny God because you  are not a scientist



Ahem.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> or philosopher but 'Surely somewhere, sometime, a  philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for universal,  immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?'  Did you try to come up  with an alternate explanation on your own? OR Did you even consider that  the proof was valid?
> Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial,  unchanging laws can someday be found apart
> from God, is a blind leap of  faith, or wishful thinking.  Isn't it interesting that this is exactly  what professed
> unbelievers accuse Christians of? Please examine the real reason why you are running from God.
> ...



D'awwww. How touching... 

Me? I think that if it makes you feel good, do it. That applies to everything in life. 
So if you take pleasure in your belief, I for one am not going to stop you, it's just that I disbelieve everything that comes out your mouth, and as I take pleasure in knowlege, I will go my way.

Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 28, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> You said the laws of mathematics are absolute truth. They are a method of describing the world that works through unprovable axioms that have to be assumed true before you can use the system. Those axioms cannot be proven in the system in which they are accepted and so our maths laws could be wrong but so far they have not been.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Aparently you dontunderstand the laws of thermodymanics. I simplified it because it is complicated. But I will take a definition of the second law of thermodynamics from Scott Bembenek, Ph.D., Theoretical Chemist
"It is nearly universally accepted that the universe began in a much more compact and ordered state than it does now. If the Big Bang hypothesis is right then the universe began in a state of zero entropy. We can observe the matter in the universe spreading out and cooling down (i.e. cosmic microwave background) even now. If we apply the second law of thermodynamics to this then we can see that the universe will continue to spread out and become less ordered and if it survives for long enough will eventually end in the 'Heat Death' when all of the matter has reached equilibrium and the entropy is at its highest. There may well be almost infinitesimal fluctuations but other than that the universe as we know it will be dead."

In other words, the univrse has a beginning and an end. Is that clear enough. Or are you going to debate a scientist who has studied this matter for far longer than you have.

Your argument that the beggining of the universe had different laws has been proven wrong by many scientists.

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120would completely negate the effect.

I suggest you go and do some research because you have given no facts about anything I have asked.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 28, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> I can account for the air I breathe. The air is primarily composed of nitrogen, N2. These molecules are each
> a pair of covalently bonded atoms, each posessing a total of 14 protons and neutons, plus orbiting
> electrons. Each neutron is composed of a proton plus an electron, each tied in to the other to form a new
> particle. Electrons are indivisible, but protons can be broken down each into three quarks of different types.
> ...


 
So, what caused the big bang? The law of thermodynamics pretty much states that something cannot be created out of nothing.

And as for quantuim mechanics. I suggest you go and read this link. I believe it explains quite well that it is flawed.
Its way too much text to post in here.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics

As for proof, I think the 3 links below do a pretty good job of it. Its split into 3 parts. I hope you read them all. (Mayfurr these links below also show Why I choose my God over another religion)
Part 1 http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
Part 2 http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html
Part 3 http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro3.html


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Sep 29, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, what caused the big bang? The law of thermodynamics pretty much states that something cannot be created out of nothing.
> 
> And as for quantuim mechanics. I suggest you go and read this link. I believe it explains quite well that it is flawed.
> Its way too much text to post in here.
> ...


 
Allow me to clarify. I will not believe anything on a website with the words Religion or God in the title.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 29, 2010)

Science has proven that at the time of the big bang there was at least 9 different dimentions of space and time. This means God exists in every dimention. We are one dimentional beings, and it is for this reason why we as humans cannot understand or comprehend how God just is. The Bible says he is the Alpha and Omega (beginning and end) Its also states that he is a trinity, The Father, Son and holy spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. He exists is the past, present, and future because he exists in every dimention.I guess the best way to describe it, is describe what I felt when I believed. Everything just clicked. Like I knew it was true even if I couldnt comprehend it. I can`t acurately describe how I felt. Its behond our minds capabilities.
Now this is where faith comes in. Since we as humans cannot describe God, in the sense of how is just is. We just believe. That is what faith is, believing in the uncomprehendable. Its is very difficult to explain how God justs exists. He is the uncaused cause for the Universe.

Saying all this, this is probably the end of our discussion. Because you will not understand what I am trying to say. (don`t take that the wrong way, as I said the human mind is incapable of understanding God completely.) I have faith that what I know is true. I cannot explain God because he is unexplainable. To explain God completely I would have to know everything about him. Which isnt possible right now.

So, I leave you with a question, are you willing to bet your life that God doesn`t exist? If you are right, then I have nothing to lose believing in God. But if I am right, well I assume you know the consequences if I am right. Are you willing to bet your life on that?

I do not fear death. In fact I welcome it, And sometimes I wish it I was already gone from this world. But I am not, which means my task here is not complete. And when it is, my time is up.

You probably look upon this post and think of me as a freak. And I am okay with that. More than that I love it.

So I leave, quoting a very famous Christian music band DC Talk. I am a Jesus Freak.



Edit: I realized I never apologized for my pride in this thread.. I was trying to force you to believe in God. God does not need me to defend himself. So again I apologize for my pride.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 29, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> As for proof, I think the 3 links below do a pretty good job of it. Its split into 3 parts. I hope you read them all. (Mayfurr these links below also show Why I choose my God over another religion)
> Part 1 http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
> Part 2 http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html
> Part 3 http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro3.html



I had a look at the links you posted, and basically it's a whole bunch of unsubstantiated begging-the-question assertions where Christianity miraculously fills in the gaps and is superior to what is frankly a "straw-man" definition of atheism. (Not to mention that the site is bloody hard to read.)

Did you actually chose Christianity over another religion in the sense that you carefully analysed other religions and Christianity with a dispassionate view to selecting the "truth"? Or was it because you grew up in a Christian family in a predominantly Christian culture (just like I did), and you became a Christian by osmosis or though some kind of evangelical rally?

I strongly suspect that if you were living in a non-Christian country with a predominant *non*-Christian culture, we'd be discussing why you you're a believer in Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other non-Christian religion and why you thought it was "the truth".


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Sep 29, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:
			
		

> Damn straight it can, Science has outlined the prime methods and how to achieve them with respect to
> beating Global Warming. Science does tell us what ought to be done. It tells us that a lot, but people never
> listen.



That's one point he's right on. Science does not tell you what you should do, it only describes. What you should do is determined by what you are trying to achieve and what philosophies you follow. Science tells you about global warming but not what you should do about it. If you want to continue global warming science will tell you how to do that. If you want to stop global warming science will tell you how to do that too.



			
				Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> In other words, the univrse has a beginning and an end. Is that clear  enough. Or are you going to debate a scientist who has studied this  matter for far longer than you have.



Where was the word end anywhere in that paragraph?



			
				Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Your argument that the beggining of the universe had different laws has been proven wrong by many scientists.



I didn't argue it I was saying it was possible. I suppose you are referring to your big copy paste from somewhere as proof that the laws couldn't have been different. It doesn't show that. The laws could have been different as the universe was created and then settled down into what allowed it to take its current form.



			
				Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Science has proven that at the time of the big bang there was at least 9  different dimentions of space and time. This means God exists in every  dimention. We are one dimentional beings, and it is for this reason why  we as humans cannot understand or comprehend how God just is.



That doesn't mean a thing about god. You just put him there without evidence. We aren't one dimensional either, we live in four dimensions; up and down, left and right, forward and backwards and time. 



			
				Ruhk_Whitefang said:
			
		

> So, I leave you with a question, are you willing to bet your life that  God doesn`t exist? If you are right, then I have nothing to lose  believing in God. But if I am right, well I assume you know the  consequences if I am right. Are you willing to bet your life on that?



Are you willing to bet every other religion is wrong? That's a stupid argument for belief. Why would god want you to lie and say you believe in him? You can't just decide to start believing in god.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 29, 2010)

Yaaay for deleted posts :v Even some of my good posts :l


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 29, 2010)

On a related note, here's something ironic: *Atheists top religious knowledge survey*


> They may not believe in God or gods but they know a thing or two about them.
> 
> Atheists and agnostics topped a survey of religious knowledge among Americans released  by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
> 
> ...



The actual study is here.

I find it amusing that _"More than four-in-10 Catholics do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion actually become the body and blood of Christ"_, given that it's one of the tenets of Catholic Communion...


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 29, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, I leave you with a question, are you willing to bet your life that God doesn`t exist? If you are right, then I have nothing to lose believing in God.



*Which* "God"? The one thing we're not short of on this planet is "gods".



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> But if I am right, well I assume you know the consequences if I am right. Are you willing to bet your life on that?



You are, of course, assuming that "God" is the _Christian _God. That's a BIG assumption to make, because if "God" happens to be Allah, Zeus, or Ra, you as a Christian are just as screwed as I am as an atheist!


----------



## Telnac (Sep 29, 2010)

Wreth said:


> The thing about religion, is that it completely ignores occahms (sp?) razor, a fundamental concept for science.


 Ironically, Occam's Razor isn't a scientific principle, but a philosophic one.  While the simplest explanation is most often the correct one, it doesn't hold true that the simplest explanation is always the correct one.  Occam's Razor is employed in science, correctly I might add, as a way to say that one theory is preferable to another if it is the simpler explanation.  If more experimentation shows that the formerly simple explanation would have to become the more complex one to explain the results of these experiments, then the now simpler one, even though it was formerly the more complex one, becomes the more preferred theory.

The problem with applying Occam's Razor to religion is that there are no experiments one can perform to explain things such as whether or not there is life after death.  Occam's Razor alone can't say yes or no to such questions, and there are no scientific experiments one can perform to gather any data on the subject.

I don't have much time to debate this topic, which is why I haven't been very active in this thread, but I did want to say: my faith doesn't rely on things believing things without evidence.  I have subjective evidence for the things I believe, but there's a big difference between subjective evidence & objective evidence.  The former may be enough to convince me, but absent the latter I will not be able to convince you.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Sep 29, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Science has proven that at the time of the big bang there was at least 9 different dimentions of space and time. This means God exists in every dimention. We are one dimentional beings, and it is for this reason why we as humans cannot understand or comprehend how God just is.


 
You scored! 

(on the bullshit test)

Nine dimensions? What the f***? The universe we are in occupies three dimensions of space, x,y and z and one dimension of time. (Time being like a spacial dimension except that it is a self destroying chaos pattern)

Humans occupying one? What the double f***? We are composed of matter, which can only exist within the boundaries of our 3+1 dimesions. 

You fail't at dimensions for one.




Rakuen Growlithe said:


> That's one point he's right on. Science does not tell you what you should do, it only describes. What you should do is determined by what you are trying to achieve and what philosophies you follow. Science tells you about global warming but not what you should do about it. If you want to continue global warming science will tell you how to do that. If you want to stop global warming science will tell you how to do that too.


 
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. So lemme just check I know what you're saying: 

Science provides the method to achieve one's goals, but it is down to philosophy, morality and one's capacity for decision making to decide whether to act on the method science paves.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Sep 30, 2010)

Looks like everyone's just abandoned this thread. Shame, I was having so much fun. 

Maybe Rukh has just run out of steam.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## Nyloc (Sep 30, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, I leave you with a question, are you willing to bet your life that God doesn`t exist? If you are right, then I have nothing to lose believing in God. But if I am right, well I assume you know the consequences if I am right. Are you willing to bet your life on that?


 
That's called _Pascal's Wager_ and is perhaps the most shallow justification for believing in a deity that promises eternal life and paradise.

Good job.


----------



## jeff (Sep 30, 2010)

do you think god will find out that i only say i believe in hir so if s/he exists s/he wont send me to hell


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 2, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> *Which* "God"? The one thing we're not short of on this planet is "gods".
> 
> 
> 
> You are, of course, assuming that "God" is the _Christian _God. That's a BIG assumption to make, because if "God" happens to be Allah, Zeus, or Ra, you as a Christian are just as screwed as I am as an atheist!



Fun-fact: Common misconception that Muslims worship a different God, Allah is the arabic word for 'God'. Islam and Christianity are both offshoots of Judaism.

Also, not all religious teach that following their own path-of-faith is the only one that leads to a rewarding afterlife. Sikhism, buddism, certain branches of Christianity amoungst many others believe this. Many of them agree what is more important is to uphold an over-all good moral standard in your actions during your life.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 2, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> Fun-fact: Common misconception that Muslims worship a different God, Allah is the arabic word for 'God'. Islam and Christianity are both offshoots of Judaism.
> 
> Also, not all religious teach that following their own path-of-faith is the only one that leads to a rewarding afterlife. Sikhism, buddism, certain branches of Christianity amoungst many others believe this. Many of them agree what is more important is to uphold an over-all good moral standard in your actions during your life.


 
It may be still the same concept of God, but some of the religions that believe in God have different aspects they believe of him. Take the Mormon God vs. the Christian God, for example. It's intended to be the same guy (or girl, or herm, or eunuch, depending on the religion), but yeah :v


----------

