mya Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 This video actually raises the same question without sounding so loony. I sometimes wonder if there isn't really a New World order "society" in the shadows. It's after all the perfect plan to take over the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted October 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 I'm sure if you don't have a right hand, they will gladly put it in your left. And then what? God will save you? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 Yuuckh... that reminds me of people in Africa cutting thumbs/hands to prevent being forced to fight for a certain faction. Only worked for a while. Then they started to kill anyone missing a limb... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 Hell if you ever read the ten commandments' date=' look at how each one is really just good advice to keep from having society degenerate into anarchy. Its like a guide by which to behave. A list of things you should and shouldnt do to keep things civil.[/quote'] Thou shalt have no other gods before me, thou shalt not worship graven images, and thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy don't really strike me as necessary or even helpful for producing a civil and moral society. And as George Carlin pointed out, that we covet things our neighbors have is what keeps the economy going. The Sermon on the Mount is a FAR better bit of moral teaching than the Ten Commandments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 1º "Eu sou YHWH, teu Deus [Elo.hím], que te fiz sair da terra do Egito, da casa dos escravos. Não terás outros deuses em desafio a Mim [o Deus de Abraão]." This one prevents them from worshiping another god. In that time other "gods" where bad. Some requesting human sacrifices, orgies and other stuff. It makes sense. "Não farás imagem esculpida [em hebraico péshel], referindo-se a ídolos, nem semelhança alguma do que há em cima nos ceús, nem embaixo na terra, nem nas águas debaixo da terra. Não adora-las-á, nem prestar-lhes-á culto, por que eu, YHWH, teu Deus, sou Deus zeloso ["Deus que exige devoção exclusiva" ou "Deus ciumento"; em hebraico El qan.ná e em grego Theós zelotes], e que puno o erro dos pais nos filhos até sobre a terceira geração e sobre a quarta geração dos que me odeiam, mas que uso de benevolência para com até a milésima geração dos que me amam e que guardam os meus mandamentos." Not worshiping images, makes sense as it prevents building of god-staues and wars about possession of god statues. Ok these where ... a bit thin. But: "Lembra-te do dia do Sábado, para o santificar. Seis dias trabalharás, e farás todo o teu trabalho; mas o sétimo dia é o Sábado [em hebraico, shab.báth] de YHWH, teu Deus. Nesse dia não farás trabalho algum, nem tu, nem teu filho, nem tua filha, nem o teu servo, nem a tua serva, nem o teu animal, nem o estrangeiro que está dentro das tuas portas. Porque em seis dias fez YHWH o céu e a terra, o mar e tudo o que neles há, e ao sétimo dia descansou; por isso YHWH abençoou o dia do Sábado, e o santificou." A free day to rest, is needed. If you work 7-7 like most people did your health sufers. It also prevents you from having decent free time for family and art/invention. People hobbies during free times was what made science go during those days. If you do not take time to think you will improve little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HouselessRogue Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 I do believe in God but I don't go to church. I have seen way to much to stupid crap happen in church. We had a paster once that left his wife for his 14 year old daughter's best friend. Another that took almost $60k from church coffers to buy a boat. Yeah, people suck. If you want to converse with the almighty why do you need to be in huddled masses to do it? Oh.. yeah.. you don't. Honor the sabbath and keep it holy... Doesn't mean you have to go to church. How about a little family time and football. I am sure God loves football. With that being said I think our forefathers showed a lot of foresight in separating church and state. Too bad the last 8 years have totally defunct those ideals. Now anytime a candidate talks about his religion as it relates to a factor in government I think he should be kicked in the nutts or "scorpion filled vagina" whatever the case may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icor Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 Christian means Christ-like. God doesn't matter without Jesus. 'Course, I don't exactly walk around whacking people on the head with a bible. I believe that if we could prove that God or Jesus exist(ed), then there would be no point; faith in what we cannot prove makes our faith valuable to him. That is the only way I can rationalize it, because there’s no way I’m gonna try to prove to you that he exists or not, that doesn’t get anywhere anyway. Atheists... awesome. I'm not gonna try to change your mind or tell you you're going to hell just because I believe that you will. It's your life, if you want to be what you want to be, there is no reason to say that you're making the wrong choice. In essence, all I think you're doing is choosing a less "healthy" road, and that concerns me, but not to the point of obnoxious Baptist obsession. The biggest reason I am a Christian is because my particular lifestyle does not cooperate with the Theory of Evolution. I prefer to think that I am more than just an animal, and was created by something very smart as opposed to being the offspring of soup. Because there is something bigger and smarter than me to create me, there's no way I could worship myself, but at the same time, I have great incentive to invent things of my own. After all, my “father” was an inventor. That's my philosophical angle on Christianity in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 I do believe in God but I don't go to church. I have seen way to much to stupid crap happen in church. We had a paster once that left his wife for his 14 year old daughter's best friend. Another that took almost $60k from church coffers to buy a boat. Yeah, people suck. If you want to converse with the almighty why do you need to be in huddled masses to do it? Oh.. yeah.. you don't. Honor the sabbath and keep it holy... Doesn't mean you have to go to church. How about a little family time and football. I am sure God loves football. With that being said I think our forefathers showed a lot of foresight in separating church and state. Too bad the last 8 years have totally defunct those ideals. Now anytime a candidate talks about his religion as it relates to a factor in government I think he should be kicked in the nutts or "scorpion filled vagina" whatever the case may be. You hear "Going to church is mandatory", says the bible and diocese. But there is no one that makes you, nor are you ever punished in any way for not going. I personally think church is a tool. Many people don't like to use it for the stereotypes of priests, or the inconvenience it causes them. I go to church, and enjoy it because my particular community is SO extremely awesome. It works for me, and because it's true that there is aLOT of crap that stems from people, I'm lucky to have such a good situation. There are alot of places where, if I lived, I very likely would not go to church. EDIT: On another note, one of my completely no-offense meant responses to atheism is this: If I didn't believe in God inherently anyway, I'd choose to believe in God, or a god, for the sole purpose of selfishness. After all, going to a "Heaven" is way more appealing to me than ceasing to exist, imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HouselessRogue Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 It is good that you have found something like the TB. I haven't. You are correct, I am sure I would be more willing if I could find a situation and place that suited me. I have a terrible time trying to even put myself into a religious denomination. Nothing seems to fit. I like aspects of several religions and even spent a few years (college time) exploring various religions. Nothing fits perfectly. I believe. I pray. I try to be kind and treat others with respect regardless of their views. That's my niche I guess. Not once have I felt like I am condemned because I don't go to church. I think that idea is ludicrous. Many churches will tell you that and many think that their way is the ONLY way. All others are hellbound. Again.. ludicrous. Just my opinion. I could be wrong, but then again, so could you. :eek: (not directed at anyone just a generalization). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 I believe. I pray. I try to be kind and treat others with respect regardless of their views. Sometimes, this that I'm about to say shows that I'm not as "good a catholic as I should be" but according to what you say here, in my opinion: You're golden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 The biggest reason I am a Christian is because my particular lifestyle does not cooperate with the Theory of Evolution. I prefer to think that I am more than just an animal' date=' and was created by something very smart as opposed to being the offspring of soup.[/quote'] Just because you want something to be true/false does not make it true/false. I am sorry to break it to you, but the jury is in here... we evolved. stuff No offense Mya, but that was one of the biggest attempts to grasp at straws I've ever seen. The first two are there to try and move away from Yahweh's origins as part of a pantheon (yes, very early on the Hebrews were pagans too) and establish him as THE god instead of one of many gods (and seriously... because other gods were bad? Have you READ the things Yahweh does in the Pentateuch? He was originally a WAR god, and he lives up to that title nicely). EDIT: By the way, what's wrong with orgies? EDIT 2 because I didn't see this at first...: EDIT: On another note' date=' one of my completely no-offense meant responses to atheism is this: If I didn't believe in God inherently anyway, I'd choose to believe in God, or a god, for the sole purpose of selfishness. After all, going to a "Heaven" is way more appealing to me than ceasing to exist, imho.[/quote'] There are many, many problems inherent with Pascal's Wager (which this is). First, can you actually "choose" to believe things, or do you come to believe things based on experiences? It's a hard question to answer, though I tend to think it's the latter... I find it incredibly difficult to choose to believe anything, but rather I must be convinced of its veracity. Second, which god are you going to believe in? You're making a false dichotomy here... it is not the Abrahamic god or atheism, it's any one of literally millions of gods people have believed in over time that could exist, or it could be a god nobody's ever conceived of yet that exists. You're looking at A and B as choices and forgetting that the alphabet has a lot more letters to pick from. Plus, a lot of those other gods would have problems with you believing in the Abrahamic god... I doubt Thor and Odin would be very happy with it, and if they're the right gods, you're just as screwed as an atheist regarding the afterlife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icor Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 Lol, Pali... I don't think Evolution is full of lies or is false. We evolved, we didn't evolve... I've seen so many different people arguing both sides, and they all claim to have the most valid points while pointing out the other side's faults. You can't just pick because one is more valid or most valid, there always seem to be counter arguments; thousand-page word documents with rebuttals to Creationist seminars, 6 hour christian college courses about Evolutionary "non-conformities", the list goes on. It isn't about that for me anymore, it is about the implications of the different belief and how they effect someone's lifestyle. I very voluntarily abide by the idea that I am not an animal, and have greater purpose than turn into soil when I die. That's pretty much it. Outside of that, I thoroughly enjoy Evolutionary theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchaeius Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 Plus' date=' a lot of those other gods would have problems with you believing in the Abrahamic god... I doubt Thor and Odin would be very happy with it, and if they're the right gods, you're just as screwed as an atheist regarding the afterlife.[/quote'] Well, considering the only way to get into Valhalla (the Norse equivalent of Heaven) is to die a violent warrior's death - I am not so sure they care about who you believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Well' date=' considering the only way to get into Valhalla (the Norse equivalent of Heaven) is to die a violent warrior's death - I am not so sure they care about who you believe in.[/quote'] Okay, bad examples. Still, my basic point remains... you cannot simultaneously please every potential deity. When an infinite number of possibilities have the same likelihood for being correct, there's no point in chosing any of them AS correct. You can't just pick because one is more valid or most valid' date=' there always seem to be counter arguments[/quote'] There is not a single scientific argument in favor of special creation or intelligent design that had held up to scrutiny. The predictions of evolutionary theory are confirmed on a daily basis. You honestly think that these are equal views? This is the only Western country on the planet where evolutionary theory is doubted, and it is because of the high percentage of the population here that is heavily religious, not because there's science casting that doubt on it. It isn't about that for me anymore, it is about the implications of the different belief and how they effect someone's lifestyle. The consequences of a belief have nothing to do with that belief's validity. If you want to pick fantasy over fact, fine. Just don't expect me to take you seriously in doing so. If you think you've got actual arguments that show you to be correct, I'd be happy to hear them... but "this is what I want to believe" is not an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 We evolved' date=' we didn't evolve... I've seen so many different people arguing both sides, and they all claim to have the most valid points while pointing out the other side's faults. You can't just pick because one is more valid or most valid, there always seem to be counter arguments; thousand-page word documents with rebuttals to Creationist seminars, 6 hour christian college courses about Evolutionary "non-conformities", the list goes on. It isn't about that for me anymore, it is about the implications of the different belief and how they effect someone's lifestyle. I very voluntarily abide by the idea that I am not an animal, and have greater purpose than turn into soil when I die. That's pretty much it. Outside of that, I thoroughly enjoy Evolutionary theory. Sad thing is. These "Christian" rebuttals are lies. I said it. They blantantly MAKE up things. And you are an animal. Wether or not you believe in evolution (which isn't really a choice, you can deny the existence of gravity all you want. It's still a fact.) you are an animal. Look up the definition of the word. You fit in there perfectly. You don't believe they are lying? Look at this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/may/22/religion.usnews EDIT: There is also another museum, denying that it is religious, puts T-Rex next to Humans. Saying that a T-Rex was a vegetarian! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Sad thing is. These "Christian" rebuttals are lies. I said it. They blantantly MAKE up things. Well, to be fair, I'd say that the majority of them are simply ignorant of the science that has been done in the areas they are criticizing. I think that many of the people who feel that the fossil record is too incomplete simply don't realize how incredibly huge and filled out our fossil record is now. Yes, sixty years ago or so we didn't have that much... now, we've got numerous detailed transitions from reptile to bird, reptile to mammal, land mammal to whale, ape to man. Michael Behe certainly believed his support of irreducible complexity, but the Dover trial showed conclusively that he simply hadn't done the research (at the trial, he said that there wasn't enough information about the evolution of the immune system, and then had dozens of books on the subject that he admitted he'd never read piled on the stand in front of him). EDIT: Also relevant is that most of the ID/creation supporters who chime in regarding evolutionary theory are not biologists. They are mostly physicists and mathematicians, and they are speaking WAY outside their fields of expertise. The problem is that when you just stand from afar and hear what the people are saying, yes, it sounds like both sides make a good case. But when you go the step further and look into it yourself, an incredibly different picture is painted. P.S. I also find it amusing how so many religious debates turn into questioning evolutionary theory... there are a great many theologies that fully embrace it. Accepting evolution does not necessarily turn you into an atheist... if the universe is entirely deterministic, a creator god could've simply started things at what he knew to be just the right moment that eventually humanity as it is now would emerge through the purely natural processes since that point. We could still be the desired (and indirectly designed) result of a deity's creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 I agree. You can full well believe in Evolution and religion. Though that is not the problem. People don't want to be forced to "think." You want them to challenge their current beliefs? They won't. They can't. That is likely why they are religious in the first place. But thats beside the point.. Did you know, the creators of Intelligent Design(ID) have NEVER submitted their work for peer review of the scientific community? They merely wrote out what they thought. It is not a theory. It is merely a hypothesis. Even more curious. When Creationism books were "Updated" to become "Intelligent Design" books you know what happened? They took the EXACT same book and where it said God, they replaced it with Intelligent Designer. Literally. It is the exact same book with very few phrases or words just replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchaeius Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Science has been consistently wrong over the years as well. Let us not put the carriage before the horse here. Having blind faith in the merits of science because of itself is as debilitating as that which you criticize. The very spirit of science itself, from the latin root scire, is to know - and it can never rest on its own laurels. It must constantly attempt to prove and disprove itself. You do not have very long ways to go to find hotly debated "facts" of science. As technology improves, so does our general knowledge - but for all of our erudition - there lies an even vast number of things we cannot explain, not to mention (to borrow a phrase from Donald Rumsfeld) things we do not know that we do not know. My point: No matter what your "faith" is in - whether it be science or religion - to refuse to be open is much more of a tragedy to personal growth. So sayeth the Demon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Wise words of the demon. Though I do not mean to put science on a pedestal. Science never truly says, "This is how it is. No matter what." (Except a few things) Science is more, "This is how we know it, so far." or "The common knowledge is..." It is true. Science is ever-changing-evolving if you will. However, there are things that are scientific and things that are not. Religion is not. ID is not. The two are best left separate. There is no reason someone cannot believe in both. I do not. But many people can/do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchaeius Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 This discussion has sparked my memory of a wonderful Russian short story I once read called The Bet by Anton Chekov: "You are mad, and gone the wrong way. You take lie for truth and ugliness for beauty. You would marvel if by certain conditions frogs and lizards should suddenly grow on apple and orange trees, instead of fruit, and if roses should begin to breathe the odor of a sweating horse. So do I marvel at you, who have bartered heaven for Earth. I do not want to understand you" EDIT: Here is the whole thing if you are interested. It is a pretty short read - albeit a bit tangential to this current thread. http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/Bet.shtml or http://www.russianshortstories.com/chekhov/the_bet/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yxlist Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 See, the thing is, for christians (well, some of us, I can't speak for all of us), as I said before, we don't HAVE to have concrete evidence to prove what we believe. Some choose to call that ignorance. Its not. That implies a lack of learning or knowledge. I personally believe evolution and creationism support each other. You can ask me how, I won't get into all that here, just explaining what I and some other christian folk believe. we have faith. Faith is defined for us as being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. To many, that's ignorance, to us, that's Faith. Sorry if that's redundant, just trying to make the point. on the other hand you can note that i dont think any person who wrote a note on this thread who is christian has attacked anyone's views, only simply stated their own. However lots of non-believers have attacked their views, maybe not directly, and implicitly, but still its there. Maybe I misunderstood some of the posts, but that's how it came across to me. And its just funny to me because we're told we'll be persecuted in his name. Its a minor sort of persecution, but you get the idea. We find stuff like that all the time that helps us reinforce our faith. We can find signs and attribute things however we want, just like anyone else. Sometimes I agree with them,sometimes I don't. Its all basically a matter of choice, or free will. I don't believe free will evolved out of a billion and one chance of lightning striking water and sparking a cell of life a gazillion years ago. That's my choice. The other thing is, there's no point in being a nay sayer. Whether you can scientifically prove something or not, doesn't mean its true. What you say? I'm just a moron and don't know that obviously if something is a hypothesis, and then tested over and over and over and the same thing happens every single time it HAS to be true, and that hypothesis in short order went to a theory, and is now a scientific law, right? Wrong. Things throughout history have been accepted by the entire scientific community at large just to later be found incorrect. Examples, the earth is flat. The earth is the center of the universe. Yes, they don't apply now, and it seems 'obvious' to everyone, well of course hind sight is 20/20. Back then you and I both would have agreed with them, though a few people wouldn't. Its foolish to say that science is perfect, its not. Science itself means to learn about something, which basically says it will always have more to learn about, and things we think are 'true' aren't. Its also foolish to say christianity is perfect, or christians, and we also will always have more to learn about, and learn what is true. Ok, this is way too long. If anyone has questions and such, feel free to ask me, I have a ton of opinions on this. Kudos to the guys who can not find a denomination that suits them, also. Don't feel left out for it. Denominations actually seperate the church (the body of Christ)...we're told not to do that. Making a denomination is like cutting your own hand off, I think. I'm not bashing anyone's denomination either, I'm Southern Baptist myself, but really just believe we're all christian, and tags like denominations shouldn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yxlist Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 oh, and lol at Malch, he said alot of the same things as me, basically at the same time, just alot more eloquently. Thanks for making me look like a verbal lightweight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 I've read all the posts, and and am intrigued much. But what one of my main ideologies that I may not have stated before is how I define faith. It's not about pointing out who is wrong, but accepting what someone has to say whether or not you choose to believe it, and believing what you believe anyway. I believe in Evolution. I believe we are animals. Under all this overwhelming pressure to believe scientific fact, I have a strong sense of faith. Faith is what tells me, this is how it is, despite EVERYTHING you know. Why would someone want to do this? Well, why not? It may not be so neurologically simple, but that is also a good question. And Pali, yes. I agree with you regarding your reply to me. Sure, under that mindset, (which I'm merely entertaining the idea of as it is not mine-what I pitched before is how I think I would think without an already hardened sense of faith) that I'd prefer to be selfish and believe in a God, or any god does extend to ANY god. Though my point didn't go much further than that, only to express how I don't understand anyone would prefer to cease existence over continued life. After all, that's one of the most pondered situations in human history. Furthermore, and one of the reasons I am a self-proclaimed "bad catholic" is that I do believe most people will end up in whatever a good afterlife is, however they see it, and within any religion. When I think about it, I guess it is somewhat arbitrarily that I say that, but I refuse to believe in a world where God is not good, or doesn't exist. I may sound a bit preachy now, but in my defense, it is in a positive way. I believe any one of you will go to Heaven (or what ever you wish to call it) if you live a good life, and regret terrible things you do. (eating the last lemon square and lying about it doesn't count) Now everything I believe here, I realize I could be wrong, but I take it in faith that I am not. Since it is possible to believe in something that doesn't exist, then I have to accept the possibility that I am wrong. But I do not believe I am, for one second, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icor Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 In the Bible, "Faith" is to hope for things which are not seen. If having faith in a scientifically unprovable God is grounds to call me stupid, (i.e. "ignorant of science"), then fine. The defensiveness is not exactly amusing, all I told you was what I believed in. I didn't try to tear anyone down about what they believed in. Do I have to explain why I believe these things? Is my blind, misguided, self-deceived stupidity that offensive? It is simply what I have chosen to believe. I cannot, and will not explain myself. Suffice it to say, I studied both sides during a period of great dilemma in my life concerning the origins (my mother is a Creationist, and my dad was like Pali), and I have discovered that both sides are right in many ways. I was able to see the benefits of both because I studied both equally (considering I did not have a choice). I am not as dogmatic as other Creationists, which I think is more effective for education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 The very spirit of science itself' date=' from the latin root scire, is to know - and it can never rest on its own laurels. It must constantly attempt to prove and disprove itself.[/quote'] Which is exactly why I feel it is more likely to produce real knowledge than religious belief is, which DOESN'T have to test itself and change its positions based on new information. Yes, no scientific theory should be taken as absolutely true and should always remain open to change based on new information. However, that does not stop it from being the best explanation we DO have for the time being. ...only to express how I don't understand anyone would prefer to cease existence over continued life. It's not a question of preference. It's a question of what there is good reason to think is the case based upon objective examination of reality. If we were going based off of preference, I'd believe in magic, vampires, aliens having visited Earth... maybe a deity of some kind, though I've never been a fan of superpowered dictators who decide everyone else's fate. But no matter how much I may want these things to be the case, there is no reason to think they are, so I do not. Faith is defined for us as being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. And I fail to see any value in that. I'm just a moron and don't know that obviously if something is a hypothesis' date=' and then tested over and over and over and the same thing happens every single time it HAS to be true, and that hypothesis in short order went to a theory, and is now a scientific law, right? Wrong.[/quote'] Yes, this is wrong, though not in the way you think it is. Scientific laws and scientific theories are not the same thing. They are very similar, but a law is not a theory that's been confirmed a zillion times and is no longer in doubt. A scientific law is a universal description of behavior... an example is the law of gravity, which is the equation that describes the acceleration that masses exert upon each other. A scientific theory is actually a higher level of understanding than a law... for example, the theory of general relativity gives us a model by which we can understand how gravity works (the warping of space-time by mass), and understanding how it works is far more explanatory than simply having a formula to predict what it does. Let me say this again... a law is not only a different kind of explanation than a theory is, it is a LOWER LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING than a theory is, and BOTH remain open to revision based on new information... laws are no more unchangeable than theories. Examples' date=' the earth is flat. The earth is the center of the universe. Yes, they don't apply now, and it seems 'obvious' to everyone, well of course hind sight is 20/20.[/quote'] These beliefs were not beliefs arrived at through anything closely resembling the modern scientific process of testing by observation. They were beliefs arrived at through philosophy and religion, and they were beliefs that the first users of the scientific process like Eratosthenes and Copernicus proved wrong with that process. Now, you are right that scientific theories hold the potential to be proven wrong. I think this is a good thing... we should never hold onto an idea that has been shown to be wrong, and we should always be testing our beliefs against new information to make sure they stay relevant... and as you mention, that science follows this process has removed a lot of our previous beliefs about reality. It is self-correcting over time. The problem is that religious faith does NOT follow this process. You say we're attacking your ideas. Well, yes, we are! Why is that a problem? What is wrong with questioning ideas? If having faith in a scientifically unprovable God is grounds to call me stupid I called having faith to be choosing fantasy over fact. If that's what you want to do, fine, so long as you recognize that it's what you're doing. Now, I WOULD say that disbelieving in evolutionary theory is ignorance of science. I do not say this as an insult, but as a simple statement of fact. Evolution is as certain a theory as the atomic theory of matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.