The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
Bringing it back i feel that they are incompatible because they both try to explain the same things but in different ways. One uses evidence the other just uses mythology and hacked up stories from Prue-history.
the last line of my Sig, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".
are you familiar with that ?
Quote:
Perhaps Meow you are confusing religion with spirituality which are different things. But even then its because you have developed your own morals and your life experiences that makes you the person you are. Religion doesn't make you a good person, you do that on your own.
well religion is used variedly, but the thread states religion, maybe it should state which religion next time then that ties it down a bit, or even just Deity if thats what really interested in.
no one develops good morals on their own, that is i believe a proven fact, you need a certain amount of teaching to hide the basic animal instincts. doesn't need to be religion ofc, but the trouble is today we don't have have a good non religious regime which is taught at school as it can not be relied on at home.
Quote:
Anywho, as a trained geologist and one who has been exposed to religion a fair bit i can quite happily say that those who believe in the supernatural explanations for everything are for all intents and purposes ignorant (in the true sense of the word), and deluded, theres too much contradiction. It is a shame that religion is forcing itself into our education and government, we should have been done with it by now.
I think the creationists trying to force their way in to the science room have failed haven't they ?
I think Christianity is on the decline here in the UK but anyone would be foolish to think religion is going to die out anytime soon. I think its a shame people cant tolerate eachothers views, whether it be different religions or science v religion.
Quote:
People can believe what they like, unfortunately we have evolved in such a way as to deny clear evidence in favour of silly alternatives; see faith healing, homeopathy. I prefer evidence, an arbitrary completely evidence free worldview does nothing for us or our knowledge.
its a fact that placebos do work ! honestly in a double blind trial placebos were far more likely to work than a regular pain pill - if the doctor assured the patient it was going to work. heck i wish a sugar pill would solve my problems but alas no.
Quote:
As for viewing the atom. Please see New Scientist which has a feature on the first real life view of an electron cloud, as in physically viewed, which also happens to help prove atomic theory.
Lastly look up science history, you will find that the idea of the atom first began circa 2000+yrs ago. I think Democritus had something to do with it, i cant really remember.
[/quote]
thanks, il have a look. ofc you realise that it cant actually be viewed with light ? I work in electronics so I'm used to the concept of only seeing whats going on purely through instruments.
i vaguely remember science history, - there were two competing trains of thought, one said something could be divided infinitely, the other said there was some smallest part that could not be divided and called it the atom. basically 50/50 - one of them was right the other not.
Sorry Meow but Occams razor is a valid point. The onus is on people of religion to prove a deity exists.
Here's a good example, there is a teapot orbiting the sun opposite to the planet earth. I know it's there because i had a vision, and so did a few others, i have read about it. Therefore it must be true, and there are some revelations about how this teapot is a god and how he wants me to live my life.
I challenge you to deny that my teapot god exists. Of course it is an absurd claim, however, i maintain my right to believe that it is true and any writings to the effect are irrefutably the word of the teapot. You have absolutely no chance of proving this wrong.
You can change teapot for spaghetti monster if you like, or raylians, or branch davidians, or catholics or islamists or judaism. My tenet for the teapot is the same as the other religions, heck why dont we all believe in Wotan or Zeus anymore? what happened to those gods?
Eextraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. While I am sure you will rebutt that with, a lot of scientific theory requires extraordinary evidence, you will be perfectly correct, which is why it goes out of its way to find that evidence whereas, in a religion you generally go by texts some hundreds to thousands of years old, and no evidence whatsoever. This is why occams razor is valid. Shame on you for twisting a very well known "test"
Secondly observable evidence of the big bang goes back to about the first 100,000yrs of the universes existance, the rest is theory and so far the evidence has proven the expansion theory correct. However, the big bang theory does not explain the origins it explains how it expanded, the big bang theory has never talked about the state of universe before expansion, its a common misconception unfortunately also held by a fair few scientists.
From an emotional point of view religion is fine, if someone is looking for a comfort blanket or scared of their own mortality and can't quite face that we are insignificant in the universe and not important at all. Again, it is a part of our evolution that we are so self aware and aware of our surroundings that ironically has led us down a path of superstition.
The 2 world views are not compatible because they infringe upon each other in terms of enquiry, social and political development and progress.
the last line of my Sig, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".
are you familiar with that ?
yes i am
Quote:
well religion is used variedly, but the thread states religion, maybe it should state which religion next time then that ties it down a bit, or even just Deity if thats what really interested in.
id agree with that
Quote:
no one develops good morals on their own, that is i believe a proven fact, you need a certain amount of teaching to hide the basic animal instincts. doesn't need to be religion ofc, but the trouble is today we don't have have a good non religious regime which is taught at school as it can not be relied on at home.
The problem here is, define "good" morals. Behaviours are learnt. I'd agree with you here, you dont need religion to be morally good, but they claim to be the only way to be "good"
Quote:
I think the creationists trying to force their way in to the science room have failed haven't they ?
Yes and no, they have failed to be inscience class in the uk, but creationist schools are being allowed to be built in the UK, and ofc in the USA "teaching the controversy" has had some impact even though the Dover trial has officially kept it out of science class.
Quote:
I think Christianity is on the decline here in the UK but anyone would be foolish to think religion is going to die out anytime soon. I think its a shame people cant tolerate eachothers views, whether it be different religions or science v religion.
actually christinaity in the UK is having a bit of a resurgance.
Quote:
its a fact that placebos do work ! honestly in a double blind trial placebos were far more likely to work than a regular pain pill - if the doctor assured the patient it was going to work. heck i wish a sugar pill would solve my problems but alas no.
i agree placebos do work, claims of homeopathy to cure various diseases including cancer, asthma, TB no less are common, which is the big big problem.
Last night watchdog showed a guy who claimed he could cure cancer by touching people, indeed in the hidden camera he stated that he would tell people to stop using conventional medicine. he also stated that he cured 60-65% of people of cancer.
that is a huge claim, and downright dangerous, but people fall for it, placebo or not its unethical and bad. they might "feel" better from the stress but thats all.
Quote:
thanks, il have a look. ofc you realise that it cant actually be viewed with light ? I work in electronics so I'm used to the concept of only seeing whats going on purely through instruments.
Yes i know it wasnt light, it was a 1 atom thick carbon plate prepaired for a laser microscope. If you see it on NS theres a pic with 4 different light blobs on it. Its fascinating reading anyway.
Quote:
i vaguely remember science history, - there were two competing trains of thought, one said something could be divided infinitely, the other said there was some smallest part that could not be divided and called it the atom. basically 50/50 - one of them was right the other not.
yup, i think Docrinitus or whoever was wrong, but at least the greeks were thinking along scientific lines, and were surprisingly close to reality, even the earth was fairly accurately measured and was known to be spehrical then. A pitty we went backwards after christians took over the roman empire, a lot discovery lost, otherwise we might be living on mars by now
well good point, but is it provable or testable ? either way the proof available is about as much as is available for god ie not much if any.
Well, black holes are singularities as was our universe before it began to exist. So, you know that matter (and energy and light) that enters a black hole is there but what you don't know is what form it takes after the event horizon. So, to test it is a bit hard, but to observe and understand what it is is easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
I haven't studied what might be an official version of it in detail, but it seems that if it was infinitesimally small and expanding rapidly then you should be able to follow that back even further in time and it would be nothing, they don't go further than something like about a nano second after the beginning is it ?
Why you keep claiming that everything is nothing?
I assume that you do know that matter actually is full of emptiness.
We don't know (yet) what properties a singularity holds besides it's a dense spot in space (actually a hole in space, a piercing). Current physics and maths can't calculate further than to the point that space-time started to exist, that's approx. 10^−43 seconds after ground zero. And of course those calculations are debatable, but science corrects itself if it's found to be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
however you think of it its kind of absurd to try and conceptualise the beginning of the universe, one can only guess and perhaps play around with numbers, but this doesn't really fit with the level of proof you require from god.
The big bang theory fits the evidence as we know perfectly, and all we need for it is natural phenomena.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
lol double wrong. the proof lies with you to prove god doesn't exist as thats the claim you made in this thread - and the universe isn't simple enough to understand. no one understands it nor can claim to know for sure how it was created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
like Ive said before lack of evidence isn't proof of non existence.
I thought it went so that the lack of evidence is not a proof of existence. On the other hand meow, can you disprove Santa Claus, Tooth fairy, flying spaghetti monster or Zeus?
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
Occam's razor is the typical absurdity which so many scientists get wrong in this debate, I'm surprised at you tbh. Occam's razor states the proof which doesn't require god is to be preferred. how can that be used to prove god doesn't exist ? that is a self supporting argument. (ie one that isn't supported by anything.)
Religion: God exists and has created the universe, lots of assumptions and creates more questions than answers.
Science: Big bang theory, theory of relativity and theory of evolution, no assumptions, just models that explain evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
If you put this forward as a valid scientific argument then I'm afraid you allow religion to exist because your basically saying - "some man said so therefore its true" therefore you allow religion to be accepted as its much the same thing.
Nothing can _disprove_ anything, but if that's used as a valid argument of existence of anything then also all delusions must be true. I know religion is never wiped from this planet as long there's humans living on it. I'm just hoping that every day less and less people think that their god is a drunk jewish carpenter zombie whose blood and body you must eat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
I hope you see the point I'm trying to make if I put it this way :- that by challenging god's existence you are putting yourself in the position of proving he doesn't exist. which is impossible.
Yes, disproving anything is impossible, that's why I'm a pearlist and I use Occam's razor to disprove god's existence.
In terms of them coexisting, they obviously do, as we have both. I do think they contradict each other however, and only continue to coexist through dogged persistence, ending up in a very confused mish-mash.
One example: The Bible asserts that the exodus happened. In order to test this, we look at evidence to support it. One test would be, that if such a thing occurred, there should be vast remains of an Egyptian army at the location the Bible says the army was wiped out. No remains are found, and combined with the impossible logistics of such an event, as well as no corroborating historical evidence, the claim appears to be false.
Science would have to adopt that this event did not happen, which would contradict the God of the Bible.
Here we have an example of one saying the other cannot be true, therefore in my opinion, they can't coexist. Obviously some people can either ignore/debate this and so religion and science continue to exist together.
In regards to the Big Bang, I think it is perhaps false to think of what there was before the event. We of course, think of time as a linear thing, whereas time may not even have existed before such a point, or may have been in such a form that we can't comprehend.
In regards to the Big Bang, I think it is perhaps false to think of what there was before the event. We of course, think of time as a linear thing, whereas time may not even have existed before such a point, or may have been in such a form that we can't comprehend.
What was before big bang is equivalent of asking what is north of north pole.
Sorry Meow but Occams razor is a valid point. The onus is on people of religion to prove a deity exists.
sorry wrong again. the point i made about Occam's razor is that it is a fallacy of argument to use it to disprove god. its called a self supporting argument. ie one that isn't supported by anything at all, - like trying to hold yourself in the air by holding on to your shoelaces.
hardly worthy of someone who claims to be a scientist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
Here's a good example, there is a teapot orbiting the sun opposite to the planet earth. I know it's there because i had a vision, and so did a few others, i have read about it. Therefore it must be true, and there are some revelations about how this teapot is a god and how he wants me to live my life.
have you ever heard of psychotic illness ? i hear chlorazipam is quite effective for delusions. i think they accept religious delusions as normal, but if you show any signs to harm anyone or yourself they lock you up unless you take your meds properly.
also have you seen floor 13 ? theres a few others too eg matrix etc. the point is we cant see outside of the big box. to require proof of what is impossible to ever be able to see is an absurdity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
I challenge you to deny that my teapot god exists. Of course it is an absurd claim, however, i maintain my right to believe that it is true and any writings to the effect are irrefutably the word of the teapot. You have absolutely no chance of proving this wrong.
well thats my point entirely, you have no chance of disproving god so why do you keep arguing it ? i think you've lost the plot as you've just made my point better than i could - you've no chance of proving it doesn't exist.
the laughable fact is that you make a similar claim about evolution in that no one has proved it wrong for 150 years and so that adds to it correctness - doesn't that seem rather two faced ?
the onus on me isn't to prove god exists (or not) heck i dont even believe in god, I'm just challenging the argument of science can disprove god and you've just demonstrated how absurd it is to try.
again and again the mistake is to confuse science and religion. A quick read up on science history jogged my memory about the different sciences - natural science, empirical science formal science etc, and how each requires a particular kind of proof. well I believe religion belongs to theological science.
the only interesting part to me is the study of how religion affects people. this is quite different to the study of god of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
You can change teapot for spaghetti monster if you like, or raylians, or branch davidians, or catholics or islamists or judaism. My tenet for the teapot is the same as the other religions, heck why dont we all believe in Wotan or Zeus anymore? what happened to those gods?
Eextraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. While I am sure you will rebutt that with, a lot of scientific theory requires extraordinary evidence, you will be perfectly correct, which is why it goes out of its way to find that evidence whereas, in a religion you generally go by texts some hundreds to thousands of years old, and no evidence whatsoever. This is why Occam's razor is valid. Shame on you for twisting a very well known "test"
no way !
shame on you for not realising that to use a test which starts off by rejecting god (with no evidence or even any explanation) is a fallacy of argument to use it to disprove god.
Quote:
Secondly observable evidence of the big bang goes back to about the first 100,000yrs of the universes existance, the rest is theory and so far the evidence has proven the expansion theory correct. However, the big bang theory does not explain the origins it explains how it expanded, the big bang theory has never talked about the state of universe before expansion, its a common misconception unfortunately also held by a fair few scientists.
so you can understand the phrase "its only a theory".
the observable evidence of expansion still holds true, however the initial idea of expansion from a singularity which seemed to fit within the data available at the time does not fit with more recent and accurate data of the speed of the observable galaxies.
big bang theory doesn't attempt to explain anything before the big bang however I remember reading about how m/string theory may be able to explain what happened before but this was mostly conjecture at the time.
again this is like your teapot god, ie no one can dispute it.
Quote:
From an emotional point of view religion is fine, if someone is looking for a comfort blanket or scared of their own mortality and can't quite face that we are insignificant in the universe and not important at all. Again, it is a part of our evolution that we are so self aware and aware of our surroundings that ironically has led us down a path of superstition.
why do grown people resort to such childish statements as "its only a crutch" or "comfort blanket" etc such statements are just intended to be derogatory.
maybe its because the argument cant really be won.
Quote:
The 2 world views are not compatible because they infringe upon each other in terms of enquiry, social and political development and progress.
I dont see why you say science infringes on religion in terms of social or political development ?
science does study social issues - social science, but science has nothing to do with politics, thats not to say science isn't used as a tool by politicians though for good and bad, just as the negative aspects of religion are brought about by people using religion as an excuse.
science does affect society. advances in medicine are good not many people will argue with that, the examples you gave of people dieing refusing treatment are less than the people that die from drug related problems. our jobs and environment and our working life are also affected, for the benefit of some but at the cost of others.
the major impact on our lives these days comes in the form of stress, this is where my interests lie, how the various factors affect this, and how our quality of life is suffering as a general population.
various forms of religious and non religious spirituality and similar things have been scientifically studied, and their effects on stress monitored, of particular interest is the reduction in rate of problems with blood pressure/heart disease etc. the results were sufficiently encouraging that the USA are funding a further 20 million dollars to extend this research.
its not that they are incompatible, its the people who are intolerant of other peoples views.
Ive personally known a couple of people who held religious beliefs very strongly who were exceedingly good at maths and understood these theories better than I did.
did you look up who the author of the quote in my signature is ?
Quote:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
I think thats a fairly big piece of evidence that not everyone thinks science and religion are incompatable ?
I say again its not religion and science being incompatible, its individual people and their own views that are.
theres considerable debate about religion and science if you'r interested in some of it theres loads on the web such as :- Albert Einstein: Religion and Science which came up looking for the above quote, but of which i haven't read more than the first page.
Why you keep claiming that everything is nothing?
I assume that you do know that matter actually is full of emptiness.
too many issues to reply on now, and as Ive made my point several times on many of them if not all I'm getting deja vu.
however the aspect of what is matter or even a solid for that matter is interesting, its basically just a human concept of the mind, which is fine for the large scale but at the small scale everything just becomes a field density, ie atoms dont have solid edges but a sharply increasing field strength as you get close to it. this is testable with STM.
as for the sub atomic particles this is less clear, as STM cant probe these, although theory probably predicts so.
I dont claim everything is nothing, I simply challenge the idea that everything has been around for ever, again a lot of these ideas are untestable.
as for singularities every one knows now these only exist on star trek - sorry to disappoint you but I think Stephen hawkings recanted on one aspect of the idea of singularities in connection with hawkings radiation and information loss ie the black hole information paradox. Personally I never believed in them.
but its like Tagreds tea pot god, although they cant be proved with any level of validity, guess I cant disprove them either.
oh and no matter how many times you try and validate trying to apply Occam's razor the reply will always be its a fallacy of argument to use this in this context. look up fallacy of argument. if you're going to argue science v religion from a science point of view, at least be scientific, this requires having some objectivity and sound logic.
As a practical person I know well that it is pretty much always a mistake to take a tested formulae and extrapolate it so far from its known and tested working points. this is why we end up with the singularity.
I also know as an engineer that whenever a singularity crops up in an equation that means the equation no longer has any useful meaning. such singularities crop up in radio communication equations/graph plots when you dont include the complex frequency domain for example.
I really dont know why scientists dont also realise this. I think its the attitude of "its ok were scientists so it doesn't matter if we are wrong becuase we can just correct it". personally i find this attitude unaceptable - it makes science look lame.
Well to answer the original question, I have no belief in religion as to my mind there is no proof that I would consider adequate for such a bold claim.
Also, I consider it pointless debating the point because religious people aren't really considering the evidence as such; its a matter of "faith". No amount of apparent contradictions are ever going to make the slightest difference, it will probably be explained away by the phrase "God is testing us."
A more interesting debate would be to take the point of view that God does exist, and then ask the question why would he bother with such insignificant insects (humans) in the first place. There doesn't on the face of it seem to be any point.
I say again its not religion and science being incompatible, its individual people and their own views that are.
theres considerable debate about religion and science if you'r interested in some of it theres loads on the web such as :- Albert Einstein: Religion and Science which came up looking for the above quote, but of which i haven't read more than the first page.
What Einstein really thought about religion:
Quote:
Letter to Eric Gutkind (partial)
Albert Einstein (1954)
Translated from the German by Joan Stambaugh...
... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and `rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
Interesting,,, a quick search reveals that letter surfaced quite recently and seems seems to be contrary to his previously known writings. It seems he wrote quite a lot on the subject or was written about him.
You really didn''t get what my point was, did you...
I'll respond in detail later, but I see little point, your rigid aggressive view towards religion, is even more rigid than that of any religious extremist, making it impossible to have a sensible discussion with you on this subject. I'm not religious as initially stated, but the constant bombardment towards those that are, is seriously offensive and I can understand why nobody at all can be bothered to keep on going over the same ground, when those that can't understand religion are so outrightly nasty against it.
Iv not bothered reading the rest of this thread, because what det said there is sooo ture. The 'feed the Christians to the lions' attitude is not something I will subject myself to. So my views on this thread are not going to be aired, although I did want to make the point about the hostility towards any one that chooses the religious path in life.
Iv not bothered reading the rest of this thread, because what det said there is sooo ture. The 'feed the Christians to the lions' attitude is not something I will subject myself to. So my views on this thread are not going to be aired, although I did want to make the point about the hostility towards any one that chooses the religious path in life.
I can't speak for the others, but myself and I imagine the other people on this thread have absolutely no problem with you being Christian. Whatever gets you through the day.
I don't however, understand your position and I feel it's unjustified and frankly, silly. Now this is my opinion, just as you might think I'm silly for playing D&D or playing computer games or dressing in a certain way or whatever.
What I would like you to do is tell me why you believe what you do and why you don't think it's silly. You can then tell me why you think my beliefs are wrong and tell me you think I'm silly/immoral/blinded or whatever.
Please don't refrain from posting because people don't agree with you and indeed think you're delusional. If we all did that, then forums and debate probably wouldn't exist. If anything, I'm interested in your reply more than anyone elses.
What I believe and why is not up for public debate. If you cant understand my 'silly' position on this then you need to go look at other post that have been made on religious matters.
What I believe and why is not up for public debate. If you cant understand my 'silly' position on this then you need to go look at other post that have been made on religious matters.
Just to clarify, by 'position', I meant your religious beliefs, as opposed to your position on this thread.
I can see I'm not going to be able to engage you in a debate on this, civilised or not. This is a shame, but fair enough. I don't think it's fair however, to come on here and criticise us for saying that religious beliefs are silly or delusional, if you're not going to justify your position.
Well, I'm not trying to feed christians to lions, but it seems that people of faith become very childish and angry when their belief is questioned. Maybe that's why many religion has a tenet telling you that your faith will be tested... *sigh*
I'm trying to make them crack the bottle of religion in which they live in, looking at the world through it's mouth. Once cracked then just tear it down and you're on your way of relying on senses, knowledge, physical evidence and reasoned logic. That's all we really need.
I know I'm not very polite in any way when I'm expressing my understanding of religion as what it really is, childish superstition and a barrier. I'm not even trying to be subtle.
I was referring to the thread. In most cases its not the subject of the thread that is attacked but the person posting.
lol you both have just made it clear that your not willing to listen, just to demand that any religious person needs curing of their stupidity. Im not angry and Im certainly not childish. I am not silly, stupid or sub human. I just dont want to discuss my own personal beliefs. You will never change my mind, you will never make me doubt what I believe in. However, every person has the rights to believe in what they want and to worship, or not worship how they wish as long as it dosnt involve the harm of any one. It is usually non religious people that start debates such as these. Why? I dont know, you tell me?
All I will say is that I am happy believing in what I do and living how I am. The only people getting angry is those I refuse to 'debate' with. Some debates are thought provoking and each person adding to it gets some thing out of it. But not debates on religion
I am not silly, stupid or sub human. I just dont want to discuss my own personal beliefs. You will never change my mind, you will never make me doubt what I believe in. However, every person has the rights to believe in what they want and to worship, or not worship how they wish as long as it dosnt involve the harm of any one. It is usually non religious people that start debates such as these. Why? I dont know, you tell me?
I never said you're sub human. Actually I know it's very human-like to believe in the supernatural.
Sometimes it just passes the line of good taste and is even dangerous. I'm referring the pseudo-scientists that 'help' (they may try if they're genuine, what I doubt though) children with paranormal experiences and/or talents, while the most likely traditional diagnose would be they're schizophrenic. Now, after these 'scientists' are done the children are left to believe that what they experience is true even nobody else near them isn't experiencing the same. That ends up a perfectly treatable condition pass without medication and that may have serious consequence the later life of the child in question.
This is why I always demand physical evidence for supernatural experiences, evidence from personal experience isn't valid evidence.
Just a quick question, do you teach your children (to believe in) the same beliefs you have?
Just a quick question, do you teach your children (to believe in) the same beliefs you have?
My children can choose for themselves what they believe in. The youngest three do go to church with me because they want too, they know all they have to do is say they dont want to go and I wont take them. I would rather they choose for themselves and look into what we really believe than be led by blind faith, as Im sure lots of children do when they follow their parents into a religion. Freedom of choice is a big thing with me, but if they do choose to follow me then I would rather they do it to the best of their ability and not half heartedly. But that goes for anything they do not just their choice in religion.
The oldest three have decided that its not for them. One of my daughters is wiccan, Im fine with that and have bought her books and things that go along with that and I can see why it appeals to her. I am proud of my children, all of them but their is a little disappointment in me that they have chose not to go to 'my' church any more.
Im not a perfect person, religion is not for perfect people. I dont see myself better than others because I chose to believe in what I do. I do believe that we are all equal. what makes us all different is how we treat others and what we do of others.
Iv just realised Iv skirted around your question. Yes I guess I do, but it is by their choice.
You're an intelligent person that's clear. However, re-read what you posted. It's a bit disingenious of you to use the strawman argument, indeed direct contradiction to what you are saying. A classic move used by many, and one of the best being Dinesh D'Souza, who clearly fit the evidence to the view not the other way round.
Firstly, Occams razor is an established and accepted test. It is accepted that the onus is on the religious to provide proof of god. Indeed there have been "scientific" attempts to do just this. remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. A deity is an extraordinary claim, is it not?
Please do not use the .."god is outside the universe..." a convenient and utterly useless argument from no evidence. Personal incredulity is not evidence.
The idea of intelligent design through irreducable complexity sounds scientific, on the surface sounds plausible, but very quickly it is found to be utter nonsense. It is still on a par with faith, i.e requiring no evidence.
i find it dissapointing that your arguments are basically strawmen, please provide evidence of anything for the existance of a deity.
Science accepts that it does not have all the answers, thats why there are still studies, looking at the available evidence and making conclusions based on that evidence. Again your arguments about what was before the big bang is another strawman, science doesnt know, so you get m-thoery, string theory super string theory, multi-dimensional theory, none of which adequately explain the evidence it's true, but then "god did it" is not an answer, at least science looks for those answers.
Please do not use quote from past scientists about their apparent religiosity, einstein was an atheist, so is Hawkins (often quoted by the christian right as religious). I have no problem with past scientists being religious, however most of them do state how they found it hard to reconcile the need for a god when there own studies points to the opposite.
My teapot or spaghetti monster analogy is apt, read it again, and you will see that the spaghetti monster god is as valid as any abrahimic god, or indeed any other religion you care to remember. the spaghetti monsters requires exactly the same amount of evidence as does a god, i.e., none.
If people have faith in something thats fine, but dont be deluded that there will be a kingdom of heaven and all your apparent sins will be forgiven. we are not important in the universe, get used to it.
I say again, on what basis, supposition, idea, "evidence" do you think there is for a deity.
Linear Mode
