Thread: Religion
View Single Post
Old June 29th, 2009, 05:09 PM  
INFERNO
Awesome Poster
 
INFERNO's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: December 27, 2008
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Default Re: Religion

Quote:
Originally Posted by trevor20800 View Post
Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution is that, what caused it. What caused everything to explode in the big bang theory. There was not more matter, because according to the law of conservation of matter, matter can not be created or destroyed, so there would be nothing to cause the "big bang" to happen. So if it did happen, what caused it??? and where was all of this matter that was the size of a speck located?
We are not entirely sure as to what exactly caused it. For the location of the speck, how do you plan to define its location? We usually would try to give its location in comparison to something else but if there is nothing else there, then how are we meant to give a precise location?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trevor20800 View Post
Evolution says we evolved from single celled organisms. How is that possible they are single celled, and if that did happen, wouldn't it be cancer! (cancer is the over reproduction of cells). So, if evolution did happend, what casued us to slowly change over time. How did a fish suddenly come out of the water and breath. And what fish did it mate and survive with it to give it legs and arms. That is not how breeding works.
Cancer is much more than over-reproduction of cells but I'll save you the molecular genetics explanations of it. In simple terms, you have single-celled organisms that "bind" with other single-celled organisms. Keep doing this and you can easily see how a multi-cellular organism can arise.

Evolution has numerous forces, some of them include mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc... . For your fish example, there is a type of fish still alive called a lungfish because it has lungs and can breath outside of the water. Any one of these forces could have caused the development of the lungs allowing it to flop on land until it found another water place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trevor20800 View Post
all of this must be cause by something and weather it did happen or not, something must have caused it! done!
And your point is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
You truly believe that it's possible that there's no true science? If you're athiest, how else does this world work? And if you're not arguing to try to promote or dispel God, then what are you arguing for? The quote you gave me looked quite anti-religous to me.
Yes I do believe it is possible for the world to survive without science. I see no reason why it would be unable to survive. Perhaps the inhabitants on the Earth would not fare very well but the world nonetheless would continue to survive.

Right now, I'm arguing against an atheist whose views I do not agree with about religion. There is no reason why I must argue for or against god while being an atheist. I'm perfectly happy if others believe in it while I don't. I don't see why an atheist would have to argue for or against god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
But that seems to be a difficult way in which to do it. Basically, are you saying that you can find religious texts or similar items and say why they were written and what the ycould mean in a non-religous sense? Are you saying that you could say that it needn't have anything to do with God since it can be seen from a non-religious persective and has certain morals in it?
It may be difficult, however, it adheres to the philosophy of religion and does not mix science into it.

You're coming closer to understanding it, however, you're still not getting it. It is using a religious paradigm and it is being viewed from a religious perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
I suppose that faith does prove that you are devoted to something but if that's all it does, then that's little proof. If some stranger were to come up to you, you a dagger and say "God has spoken to me. He has said that those with faith shall reap great rewards. You are to give this dagger to another man and tell them to plunge it in their chest. That person should have faith in me, the lord their god and in doing so, will not be hurt but instead will have great wisdom afterwards, njoy good health for the rest of their life, have special privallages in heaven, and enjoy more money than they've ever dreamed off while still on Earth. You must give this dagger to someone and test them.", would you do it?
I don't know how many times I have to say it: RELIGION DOES NOT NEED THE PROOF THAT SCIENCE DOES. Would I do it? No, I'd probably refuse to take the dagger but if I had to, I'd take the dagger home or somewhere else but not use it. May just have it as a nice ornament if anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
Would you have blind faith and stab yourself? or would you walk away and leave it? I don't like having faith because there's nothing to tell me that it's true. other peoples' faith will not satisfy me since the could say pretty much anythign and I'd have to believe it. I don't want to be blind like that. One thing that I do agree with you about however is that the book called "The Bible" (I refuse to just call it "the Bible" since it implies that it is a special book beyond the rest and that is bullshit - call me picky) is not evidence but only suggests that said content exists in peoples' minds. It all exists for them. One question though; does that mean that it truly exists?
Your own faith in theory would be good enough to make it true for yourself. If someone else has faith in something different, then you always have a choice. You don't need to believe in what they believe as being true or false.

Are you asking if the bible truly exists? I think it does, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
So what are scientific facts then? Is science not based on facts? It must be since science is always proved so it's factual. Religion on the other hand is based on faith which is no evidence because you could say anything and use it as evidence wheras science looks for the answers without making them up to what they want it to be. Science even admits that there are things that are not understood and hav yet ot be explained. Religion on the other hand, 'knows it all'. Do you really thinks so? Really? Also, why would God answer one person but not another? If one truly believes that God has answered him, they are either hallucinating, or assuming God has helped them when in reality it was something completely different.
Science is heavily based on scientific theories which in no way are facts. Science is always proved? No, you can show that something may be true or false but that does not mean that it is 100% or 0% true or false.

Faith is not meant to have evidence to satisfy science.

Science and religion both use paradigms, although the paradigms have a different focus. Religion and science could both be given the same phenomenon yet give completely different views on it. So, science does look for things that will satisfy it as does religion.

The "knowing it all" part to me is simply a reflection of someone's faith being very strong. It can be both good and bad. I'm not sure I agree with it though because it can violate their own religious beliefs.

You're right, it could be something completely different but they view it as god having answered their prayers. However, the issue with that is the argument as it would apply to you, that is, god has answered your prayers but you view it as something else. You see the problem now that we are faced with is your word. Only you can be the most reliable source to tell me if that is correct or not, I can suggest it may be right or wrong, and I could bring in a devout believer to give me their answer on it. We're then left with your word vs. theirs. The argument on whether he answered each of your prayers probably will go nowhere because it's simply a "yes-no" back and forth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
Say, Nick prays to God and asks him to make him do well in his football match. God does not actually speak to him (in the same way as standard, person-to-person conversations) as far as he's concerned but when he ends up doing well in the match, he then says that God has answered his prayer and his faith is maintained. What do I think? Rubbish; it was not God that made him do well, it's all the practice and effort he put into it as well as the perfomance of his teamates who would have needed to help as well as pot luck and the perfomance of the opposition - it has nothing to do with God as I see it.
That is also completely true. However, hopefully you're understanding what a paradigm is (you gave a good example of it in this). His paradigm is a religious one whereas yours is not, so he is inclined to view it and use religious beliefs for it. You on the other hand, use a different paradigm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
INFERNO, if you cannot argue in the same way that you just asked me to, it suggests that you are not even able to. Why ask me to do something you can't do yourself? I do agree that you should let people just believe in whatever wild nonsence the like, just so long as they do not preach and if you are on a religion debate, that is a pretty poor argument to use. We are here to debate religion - why tell people to just let people speculate without facts? Why tell people not to debate? Seems pointless to me. And yes, I understand that some religous people are so tied down to one of many deities, but that doesn't mean that you could make them consider other possibilities and be more open-minded on a debate now does it? You do however, have a bit of a point here.
I can do it myself all I want, however, I choose not to because I see it as pointless and probably wasting my time. I also have no reason to do so whereas you seem much more inclined to do so, so why not let you? My only reason would be to satisfy you and frankly, I don't care about satisfying you one way or another. I can easily pick up some biblical passages and scream "God doesn't exist!!!" but I have no real reason to do so.

You're correct, I could try to make them more open-minded but then comes a few questions. First, if they are so devoted, then what are the chances of me changing their views? Not very high. Second, do I have any reason for making them more open-minded other than simply to make them more open-minded?

Wait... you allow others to believe in what they want as long as they do not preach? Funny, you going around trying to show god doesn't exist seems awfully close to preaching to me. Back with your example about Nick and the football game, you go against his possible argument and even called his view rubbish. I'm having a hard time believing that you allow others to freely believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
See the above. I hate it when religious people say stuff exists and use nthing to back it up. Faith won't do for the reasons that I gave above as well. We should be debating here and thus, refuting others' beliefs with facts and whatnot should be allowed. Likewise, they can do it to me for all I care; so long as they do not expect me to believe stuff without backing it up and explaining the why of it. This would not be preaching. It would only be preaching if they did it outside a debate and simply talk about God as if he exists wihout any proof at all.
If faith won't do, then the question becomes, what will satisfy you? If you say science, then we both know that it won't be a happening thing. For religion, what facts do you propose to be used? Toss around whatever quotes from religious books, give our interpretations on them, and similar stuff?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
A lot of scientific facts suggest that God doesn't exist. I have heard about this wasp that have their homes in a hole in the ground. They go off to find food for their young in the hole but first, learn the appearance of the area so that they can find it again. When they return with food, they then put it doen and chekc to see if anything is blocking the hole. In the incredible likely event that nothing is blocking it, they then pick the food up and bring it in. Well, one glitch there I'm afraid. One person, when the wasp was checking, he moved the food. The wasp went to ehere it left the food only to find it missing. Consequently, the wasp looked around and then saw it. It then moved the food to the hole and then dropped it just outside and checked the hole again. Naturaully, the man moved the food again and the wasp did the same hting over and over. Basically, the wasp kept re-checking the hole everytime and was not intelligent enough to understand what was going on and thus, the food never entered the hole until the man finally got bored.
That is a scientific fact?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death View Post
INFERNO, this is a scientific fact. Now tell me, did God create unintellgent and flawed wasp? Wouldn't God have created something better which wouldn't be fooled by such simple things? Let's have another exapmle. When giving birth, the anatomy used is shaped to help the baby come out in only one position. If the baby is in any other position, it becomes a whole lot more complicated. Okay, so a lot of the time, the baby comes out correctly, however, this isn't always the case and things get ugly and difficult. Now tell me, did God design this flawed system? Would he not have allowed the baby to come out in several different positonis and allow appropiate anatomy to support this? There are many other scientific facts that question the power or existacne of God. Please think about what I've said.
Hold on, so your argument is that since something is flawed in some way, then that means god does not exist and/or is not very powerful? In the bible, it makes it very clear that humans are not as powerful nor as perfect as god. About non-humans, this is a reflection of the social times at that time when it was written: humans were considered much more important than other animals, so your wasp example is not really applicable because the bible is for humans not for other animals. Your wasp argument is then void.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you're telling me that a scientific fact is an observation of something. So since science is based on scientific theories, which are not facts, then science is therefore factual? The observations can be facts but the theories explaining them in no way are facts.

"That is my ambition, to have killed more people, more helpless people, than any man or woman who has ever lived." - Jane Toppan

"There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, it's just a son of a bitch getting there" - Sully Erna of Godsmack
INFERNO is offline   Reply With Quote