What price religion?

JEM said:My point was where in the heck does this guy get off rejecting anyone elses unproven theory when just about everything he argued for is unproven science theory?


Need to address this single point.

The problem here is that he is NOT rejecting anyone elses
unproven theory. He is rejecting their unsupported hypothesis.

They have ZERO evidence for their garage dragon.
It therefore does not qualify as a THEORY at all.

He is correct to support scientific THEORY, because it DOES
have *strong evidence* supporting a hypothesis. (Definition of a scientific theory)

There is a WORLD of difference between a mere fabricated
story of an invisible dragon (a weak hypothesis), or gods, or santa,
and a scientific theory with strong supporting evidence which the
scientific community has spent tens of thousands of man hours researching.


peace

axeman
 
Quote from Turok:

The literal definition of a/gnostic is "not/knowing" which of course is a far cry from a believer.
More...

The English (Webster's) definition of agnostic is "one who believes that any ultimate reality is unknowable," which is different both from believing in, or not believing in something.

By the book, an agnostic answers the question, "Does God exist?" with "there is no valid answer to that question; it is unknowable."

To say that results of 72% atheist and 21% agnostic = 93% non-believer is simply wrong, equally misleading as calling the results 72% atheist and 28% non-atheist.

To complicate things, many people use "agnostic" to mean someone who has doubts about God's existence or isn't sure if he exits or not.
 
Quote from axeman:

There is a WORLD of difference between a mere fabricated
story of an invisible dragon (a weak hypothesis), or gods, or santa...
More...

Axe, I know you don't believe in him, but Santa still gets a capital "S" because he is a proper noun!
 
I am not arguing against science and scientific principals.

First we must apply the same standard to science and religion before we can have a legimate debate.

I can't have one side saying that I believe in dragons in my garage (religion) while the they do not even have to look for dragons in their garage (evolution).

Now I find it amazing that almost every person in the United States who does not believe in God believes it is a fact that we evolved from monkeys and primordial soup.

Are you not embarrassed for them. We now see that evolution is a big theory and apparently some of it is fact but the evolution from monkeys thing is only theory but it is a really good one. How come our country does not know that.

As you think people who are interested in religion are so mislead, I sit there in bewilderment of what passes for fact.

Now once we realize we must subject both sides of a debate to equal scrutiny we can get started on the evidence. But I will never let someone tell me something in science is a fact because it is widely accepted by scientists. Come on we all know that sciene probably has more posers than trading. Widely accepted to me means most likely to need special scrutiny.
 
Quote from jem:

But I will never let someone tell me something in science is a fact because it is widely accepted by scientists.
More...
Quite so and well said Jem, I agree - neither would I.
Neither would anyone else I suggest, who is interested in reaching purposeful and rational conclusion, especially to such an important question of existence and creation.

Based on sound evidence, it is in my view essential to at least weigh up anything anyone tells you, including stuff from scientists - but I suggest especially the stuff of religionists !

But at least the rigours which drive real science are in their very essence made up from the quality in knowledge of logical validity.

The notions which drive religion bear no resemblance to the qualities required by science. Religion is based on the unknown, wherever the unknown pops up. It is based on things remaining invisible, unknowable. On fear, threat or superstition, and on an arrogation of the meanings of true and good.

If science does anything it is to establish knowledge where previously there was little or none.

And as it is possible to be sceptical of scientific claims, it does not mean that claims of religion must therefore be correct.

I venture to say you will have an impossible job on your hands subjecting religion to an equal and substantial level of scrutiny which science demands of itself.

The musings of scientists is not science. Science is a continuous interrogation based on useful and meaningful knowledge - discovered by - and of itself.

Even at the level of hypothesis, the standards of supporting evidence required by science simply leaves the religious explanation of things set rigid in the realms of an infantile make believe.
 
Quote from axeman:

.

What has NOT been proven is that species evolve
into other species, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Although its not much of a leap to make, in my opinion, unless
you have some religious dogma in the way.
More...


Correctamundo. Who are these guys kidding? It's not as though they've STUDIED the subject and can point out its flaws. They just reject it reflexively because it conflicts with their religious beliefs; namely, that WE ARE SO SPECIAL, that everything is here for us, that WE are the goal of the universe -- but even that's not good enough, they don't really care if EVERYTHING ELSE EVOLVED, it has to be that WE were SPECIALLY CREATED. Religious dogma, pure and simple.

This is nothing new. As I've said, religion has a long history of retreating where science has been able advance. Natural theories ALWAYS trump supernatural guesswork. Always. Christians understand this when it comes to the claims of other religions' creation myths. I'm sure there aren't any christians campaigning to have australian aborigines' 'Dream Time' creation stories treated on equal footing with scientific theories.

What's really funny to me is that they can sit back and nitpick every tiny aspect of a scientific theory they don't like, yet they are more than content to ignore the glaring absurdities in the bible. From the patently outrageous and more than obviously man-invented genesis creation bit, to the portrayal of god as a cruel monster (plenty of that, lol) who is supposed to be "loving", to the irreconilable jesus genealogies, to the obvious growth of myth from Paul's barebones letters to John's fleshed out gospel, to the failed prophecies.

What's more, they COMPLAIN about the scientific theories they taught, but are more than happy to see kids brainwashed and indoctrinated into religion. THAT is truly, truly sad.

Yes, let's whole heartedly accept myth and superstition but oh wait, let's not rush into accepting scientific discoveries. If that's not backwards I don't know what the hell is.

There's nothing rational about this at all. It's a completely emotional decision. Christians can't let go of god because they like the benefits too much or because they're too afraid of the repercussions. Either way you cut it, it's purely emotional.
 
I think one important distinction needs to be made.

Most if not all Jews and Christians acknowledge that belief is based on faith. They/we are not arguing it is a fact subject to verification by rigorous testing. No one says you must believe in God because it is a fact. (few do). Everyone says you must believe in the dogma of evolution because it is a fact. Religion is willing to admit it is a fire breathing dragon to a scientist. Why can't scientists admit they have fire breathing dragons?

Who is more messed up. I still seem to sense that you believe that one day a monkey turned into a man. You have great faith but zero facts. Your belief system must be based on indoctrination. That is all I am saying. When I was in school embryos had gills and they went through a mini evolution, now technology has straightened science out.

I propose a new challenge. You put forth your evidence for the fact that monkeys turned into men and I will put forth my evidence for the existence of God. Does anyone think that evolution is more scientific.

P.S.

First evolution does not conflict with the Catholic Church doctrine at least the last time I checked.

Two Jesus's genealogies are not in conflict, they trace down through different sides one from Mary and one from Joseph. (yes we know Joseph was not his real dad).

Three, I have never seen a failed prophecies after fully investigating. The explanations are sometime subject to good lawyering though. Could you point one out.


edit
Stu by the way I agree with you mostly.
 
Quote from peterfigliozzi:

The English (Webster's) definition of agnostic is "one who believes that any ultimate reality is unknowable," which is different both from believing in, or not believing in something.

By the book, an agnostic answers the question, "Does God exist?" with "there is no valid answer to that question; it is unknowable."

To say that results of 72% atheist and 21% agnostic = 93% non-believer is simply wrong, equally misleading as calling the results 72% atheist and 28% non-atheist.

To complicate things, many people use "agnostic" to mean someone who has doubts about God's existence or isn't sure if he exits or not.
More...

Excellent point!

Paul Davies for example definitely believes the evidence leans towards design in the universe but is a committed agnostic from what I've heard. We simply don't know how many of the above agnostics believe that design is a distinct possibility but simply don't believe it's possible to determine it's measurability and authenticity.

I have cited many top level scientists that believe in design yet are not committed Christians/Jews. Now the numbers that axe quoted make a lot more sense...
 
Quote from stu:


The notions which drive religion bear no resemblance to the qualities required by science. Religion is based on the unknown, wherever the unknown pops up. It is based on things remaining invisible, unknowable. On fear, threat or superstition, and on an arrogation of the meanings of true and good.
More...

I wish that non-believers would stop trying to "Freudianize" believers. You despise it when we do that do you.

I can tell you for a fact that I do not believe because of "fear, threat or superstition".

Can't Christians and Jews be motivated by higher purposes such as improving their character, seeking truth, desiring to raise a strong family, etc. just like you guys?

Again, I know hundreds of Christians and with a few exceptions I know noone that is motivated by "fear, threat and superstition", but you can keep believing that if you want to...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top