Religion

[Ryan the Terrible]

I'm a strong atheist and always will be. But lately my thoughtful side has been showing up again, and I've come to some conclusions. If there is a conscious force that created the universe:

-It changed a lot of natural laws after it created the universe.
-There are no religions based on it.
-It is imperfect.
-It doesn't want us to believe in it, because we will start asking for things to be changed if we do.
-If it allows good people to live after their death, we won't be tested based on whether we believed in it. Our results will be based on how well we used what it gave us. (For example, NOT completely throwing away our logic to blindly believe in the impossible.) Also, it would probably just cut off the lives of those who it doesn't think deserve salvation, rather than torture them for eternity.

I felt sort of weird calling this "it", but for obvious reasons a deity would definitely be genderless.

This all said, I still highly doubt that a deity exists, and will remain an atheist until I see solid proof of otherwise.

 

[Tarvos]

Also, religion is just an alternate belief than some beliefs of science. The universe is not completely perfect, it can't be described by a set of beliefs, or scientific laws, or anything. Each is just an attempt at explaining it.

science is not a belief scientific laws are pretty much set in stone because there is solid evidence to back it up

In many instances, science and religion can coincide with each other. Science deals with the tangible, while religion deals with the intangible. Therefore, why can't they coexist with each other?
(I probably contradicted myself a couple of times there.)

religion steps on science's turf continually. NOMA is dumb

 

[Sage Noctowl]

science is not a belief scientific laws are pretty much set in stone because there is solid evidence to back it up



religion steps on science's turf continually. NOMA is dumb

Scientific Laws are set in stone, but none of those contradict religion. I was saying that these laws don't and can't describe perfectly every aspect of the universe.
Some scientific theories are just that. Theories. Religion can also be considered a theory. Just because you don't need something doesn't mean it can't be true. Even though science says God doesn't have to exist, doesn't mean he doesn't.

 

[departuresong]

Some scientific theories are just that. Theories. Religion can also be considered a theory.

A scientific theory is based on logic and can be tested. To my understanding (which is admittedly very little), it also changes based on new data and evidence.

 

[Ruby]

Obviously it is true that there are some scientific ideas which have been suggested but not proved. They are probably not called "theories" except in day-to-day language.

 

[Ryan the Terrible]

Scientific Laws are set in stone, but none of those contradict religion. I was saying that these laws don't and can't describe perfectly every aspect of the universe.
Some scientific theories are just that. Theories. Religion can also be considered a theory. Just because you don't need something doesn't mean it can't be true. Even though science says God doesn't have to exist, doesn't mean he doesn't.

That's true in a way, but there are some things, like evolution, that are only still considered theories because of religion. The pieces of the puzzle fit together flawlessly, but so many people would go crazy if it was presented as a fact in textbooks, because it goes against God. It's also been scientifically proven that snakes don't talk, people don't rise from the dead, and there was more than a week of Earth's existence before humans showed up.

 

[Sage Noctowl]

That's true in a way, but there are some things, like evolution, that are only still considered theories because of religion. The pieces of the puzzle fit together flawlessly, but so many people would go crazy if it was presented as a fact in textbooks, because it goes against God.

How are you going to PROVE that animals change through time? It's easy to infer from all of the obvious information that we have, but we can't just jump in a time machine and go, hey, look, a partially evolved creature. Fossils may be able to say some things, but we can't know for certain. For all you know, some crazy reptilian intelligence decided to mix the genes of feathers with a flying reptile, a crazed man decided to take a chiesel to old rock and put some convincing carbon ratio samples, or something of that nature.

It's also been scientifically proven that snakes don't talk,

According to the religious text of Christianity and Judaism, there are a couple possibilities. The curse of the snake (the craftiest animal) may have eliminated his speech, or more likely, the curse of men on the world left them without interaction with animals. Lastly, the tower of Babel could have taken away from this, but it is doubted by me.

people don't rise from the dead,

According to the Christian bible, JESUS IS GOD, why wouldn't he be able to rise from the dead? If an almighty being created the universe, wouldn't you think that a child of his would be able to come back from the place where his father resides?

and there was more than a week of Earth's existence before humans showed up.

'Days' are units of time. Time is not an ever-flowing river. God's perspective of 'day' would no doubt be different from an earthly perspective of 'day'

 

[Flora]

It's also been scientifically proven that snakes don't talk...and there was more than a week of Earth's existence before humans showed up.

If there's one thing that I learned from theology class, it's that the Old Testament is generally supposed to be taken figuratively. The first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) weren't even written until the Babylonian exile, and their main purpose was (and still is) to communicate religious truths, not historical facts.

How are you going to PROVE that animals change through time? It's easy to infer from all of the obvious information that we have, but we can't just jump in a time machine and go, hey, look, a partially evolved creature. Fossils may be able to say some things, but we can't know for certain. For all you know, some crazy reptilian intelligence decided to mix the genes of feathers with a flying reptile, a crazed man decided to take a chiesel to old rock and put some convincing carbon ratio samples, or something of that nature.

(You're late to the party, the pope said he agrees with evolutionism :D)

Firstly, yes, evolution is a theory, but technically creationism is too. They can coexist, you know; who says God didn't create the basic forms of life and let them evolve on their own?

Secondly, while it's true that we can't know for sure, scientific evidence is highly supportive of evolution.

Thirdly, those last two examples aren't fairly convincing (and I'm 99% sure that chiseling a rock doesn't change carbon ratios).

That aside, I can't remember if I posted here before, but I'm some weird nondenominational Christian, I guess... Born Catholic but their position on certain things is just ridiculous.

 

[Sage Noctowl]

That's what I've been saying. And I said that the crazy guy put carbon in with different ratios, not chiseled to change them.

 

[1. Luftballon]

gravity is just a theory.

 

[Flora]

That's what I've been saying. And I said that the crazy guy put carbon in with different ratios, not chiseled to change them.

Oh, okay. From the sound of it, it seemed like you were arguing against evolutionism because of creationism.

(I don't think it works that way either, though.)

 

[Sage Noctowl]

No, I was arguing that science had theories of the same capabilities as religion, and that nothing is certain. However, gravity is a scientific law (hence the 'law of gravitivity')

 

[Vipera Magnifica]

I was raised Catholic, I am now an "open-minded" Christian. I believe in a mix of things.

Don't take the old testament literally. You will become very confused if you do so.

 

[opaltiger]

ARGHHHHH

Let me say this for the one millionth damn time: THEORIES EXPLAIN FACTS. Theories are NOT a level lower in the hierarchy of certainty. They are explanations of observations.

Evolution is both a theory and fact. It is a fact that organisms have changed over time: this is the fact of evolution. It is backed up by evidence from countless fields. Evolution is also a theory - the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution by reference to mechanisms like natural selection.

Theories are the highest level of scientific explanation. Gravity is a theory. Relativity is a theory. Cell theory. Germ theory. No one would ever call these "just a theory", and evolution has more evidence going for it than most of those.

Firstly, yes, evolution is a theory, but technically creationism is too. They can coexist, you know; who says God didn't create the basic forms of life and let them evolve on their own?

No, no it is not. Perhaps it is a theory in the colloquial sense, but then evolution isn't. If you're speaking of scientific theories, creationism doesn't come close. The only way you can call both creationism and evolution theories is if you deliberately apply different definitions of the word. Also, biblical creationism quite clearly states that all creatures were created as they are, which obviously contradicts the facts.

However, gravity is a scientific law (hence the 'law of gravitivity')

No it isn't.

 

[xkze]

thank you for that, opal. that is the most infuriating thing.

 

[Tarvos]

Scientific Laws are set in stone, but none of those contradict religion. I was saying that these laws don't and can't describe perfectly every aspect of the universe.

no scientific laws are never set in stone they are frequently even inaccurate models, they are theories - they change - BUT they explain observations adequately which is why we use them

religion does no such thing

Some scientific theories are just that. Theories. Religion can also be considered a theory. Just because you don't need something doesn't mean it can't be true. Even though science says God doesn't have to exist, doesn't mean he doesn't.

even though science says god could exist, doesn't mean he does either

what bollocks reasoning seriously

 

[Minish]

No, I was arguing that science had theories of the same capabilities as religion, and that nothing is certain. However, gravity is a scientific law (hence the 'law of gravitivity')

You can't call evolution "just a theory" and then go on to say that gravity is an actual scientific law. Make up your mind.

 

[Phantom]

Atheist here. Which is weird. I went to private Catholic schools from K-12 and my parents aren't quite happy with the choice.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Scientific Laws are set in stone, but none of those contradict religion. I was saying that these laws don't and can't describe perfectly every aspect of the universe.
Some scientific theories are just that. Theories. Religion can also be considered a theory. Just because you don't need something doesn't mean it can't be true. Even though science says God doesn't have to exist, doesn't mean he doesn't.

You're confusing the terms hypothesis and theory.

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon that has not been proven by experimentation or observation.

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules that express relationships between observations of such concepts, or in layman's terms, it's a hypothesis that has been proven by experimentation and observation.

So no, creationism is not a theory, it's a hypothesis, about as scientifically valid as me hypothesising that the Big Bang was caused by Matthew Gray Gubler's decision to become one of the most memorable actors in the 21st century crime show genre.

Also, just to pick a few more nits, there's no "law of gravity", there's "Newton's law of universal gravitation" which has itself been succeeded by Einstein's general theory of relativity.

As for how it can be proven, try Googling Richard Lenski.

 

[Sage Noctowl]

All I'm trying to say is that neo-creationism isn't necessarily flawless, just as archae-creationism isn't flawless. Religion, however, asks for faith, whilst science asks for proof.