LOL I love this club...

Elysium said:
Tell that to the evangelicals please.

Pat Robertson doesn't represent the views of the world's Christian community any more than Rush Limbaugh represents that of the Republican Party.
 
Aneas said:
Consider these "tests" you mention. They are based solely on what we view as fact through our limited sensory perception. Based on this perception, we make assumptions and work to prove them. Next consider that our limited perceptions only afford us a fraction of the actual data upon which to base our proofs. We can come to conclusions that make perfect sense and appear to bear out through our limited means of testing, while still being incorrect.

Pure bullcrap. In one breath you claim we can't understand reality, in the next you're setting down as an absolute that we can only understand "a fraction of the actual data". No matter how much you try to obfuscate, science provides real, repeatable results. Religion provides nothing.

What is this data that we can't perceive? You don't know? That's because you are making shit up and passing it off for truth.

The difference? We've been unable to produce enough "reliable" data where spirituality is concerned for it to even be considered a legitimate concept by those who base their beliefs on "facts", as spirituality is not a science. It is intangible and subject to nothing we can measure or reproduce. Discounting it is akin to deciding that nothing that we don't understand or can't explain or even describe could ever exist.

No, it's just not taking stock in shit people make up because it makes them feel nice about themselves. There is absolutely no rational reason to take stock in God or Buddha or the Loch Ness monster or UFOs until observable data begins to support said quaint notions.

I like the one particular scene from the movie, "Contact" (from memory):

Did you love your father?

Yes. Of course.

Prove it.


Just because you can't prove it, doesn't make it an untruth.

Also for the record, The Bible is not meant to be taken literally. It is a collection of real accounts from the perspectives of many different people told through narrative, metaphor and imagery, just like many other forms of literary art. The parables are there to learn from and live by, but, for example, the world is most certainly more than five thousand years old.

Still, I do believe that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and no differences in that regard have any effect on my attitudes or impressions toward those who don't share my own.

Here is a link you should read, since apparently you've never heard of the concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
 
i think this whole thing should just be deleted, and we should all move on with our lives.


as amusing at it is.
 
Wiz said:
What is this data that we can't perceive? You don't know? That's because you are making shit up and passing it off for truth.

I merely stated that we don't know everything and that we are limited to our own human awareness and sensory perception. We can't even know how close we are to knowing it all. Seems to me that leaves all kinds of possibilities that we are unable to prove or disprove.

I really don't understand why this riles you so, but no matter. My apologies for offending. That really wasn't my intent.
 
Aneas said:
I merely stated that we don't know everything and that we are limited to our own human awareness and sensory perception. We can't even know how close we are to knowing it all. Seems to me that leaves all kinds of possibilities that we are unable to prove or disprove.

I really don't understand why this riles you so, but no matter. My apologies for offending. That really wasn't my intent.

That's great, but completely irrelevant. That we do not know how close we are to understanding it all has no bearing on the general effectiveness of science vs making crap up.

It riles me up because of people like you who celebrate ignorance and pretend as though all the great scientific achievements of mankind have a comparable impact on society and our lives to what some cult leader spouts off about how god abhors pancakes and those who eat it go to hell.
 
Wiz said:
That's great, but completely irrelevant. That we do not know how close we are to understanding it all has no bearing on the general effectiveness of science vs making crap up.

It riles me up because of people like you who celebrate ignorance and pretend as though all the great scientific achievements of mankind have a comparable impact on society and our lives to what some cult leader spouts off about how god abhors pancakes and those who eat it go to hell.

No one is celebrating ignorance. I'm not uneducated with regard to my spirituality. I just have no means of proving its basis to you. I can't prove what I feel in my heart. No one is discounting science. The scientific method has had an incredible impact on our lives and our understanding of the world around us, to say the *very* least. I love science. I merely know that it is not capable of explaining or even observing all things.

Science and spirituality are completely seperate concepts. I don't see why anyone would honestly think that it should be possible to *prove* the principles of one by applying the methods of the other.

That's my take, plain and simple. Now you can continue to misinterpret and misconstrue it all you like.

"Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind." ... Albert Einstein
 
Aneas said:
No one is celebrating ignorance. I'm not uneducated with regard to my spirituality. I just have no means of proving its basis to you. I can't prove what I feel in my heart. No one is discounting science. The scientific method has had an incredible impact on our lives and our understanding of the world around us, to say the *very* least. I love science. I merely know that it is not capable of explaining or even observing all things.

Science and spirituality are completely seperate concepts. I don't see why anyone would honestly think that it should be possible to *prove* the principles of one by applying the methods of the other.

That's my take, plain and simple. Now you can continue to misinterpret and misconstrue it all you like.

"Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind." ... Albert Einstein

So why do spiritualists insist on bringing religion into the material world when clearly belongs in the metaphysical and in the minds of it's believers?
Evolution debate is a clear example


Side note: Einstein on at least one occasion let his religious beliefs cloud his scientific judgement
 
Aneas said:
No one is celebrating ignorance. I'm not uneducated with regard to my spirituality. I just have no means of proving its basis to you. I can't prove what I feel in my heart. No one is discounting science. The scientific method has had an incredible impact on our lives and our understanding of the world around us, to say the *very* least. I love science. I merely know that it is not capable of explaining or even observing all things.

Science and spirituality are completely seperate concepts. I don't see why anyone would honestly think that it should be possible to *prove* the principles of one by applying the methods of the other.

That's my take, plain and simple. Now you can continue to misinterpret and misconstrue it all you like.

"Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind." ... Albert Einstein

In your first paragraph you get it right at first, then you go around and turn it completely wrong again. Spirituality, whether you subscribe to the notion that it's make-belief (like I do) or you feel that it's a fuzzy warm reality, has nothing to do with either science or reality, and the quote below is just dead wrong. I'm aware that it was Einstein who said it, but Einstein wasn't a perfect human being. Science needs spirituality... why? Why does something that concerns itself with reproducable results need wild guesses?

Here's a little hint: You can't say if there is anything beyond what can be scientifically measured. That we can't observe it now doesn't mean it can't be done, and furthermore, if it really is there but we can never measure and understand it, then it is completely irrelevant to everything. Why? Because anything that cannot be scientifically tested also cannot be measured by our senses, and thus we can never know if it's there, what it is, or whether it impacts our life or universe in any way. It's like trying to say that what's beyond the edge of the universe is just as important as what's inside the universe. Is there something there? Probably not. If there is something there, does it matter to our universe? No, not really. If there is something there, can we understand it or define it if it is beyond the scope of anything in our universe (ie, beyond the scientific method)? No, and thus it all becomes a game of making shit up and making a one in 1^infinity chance of getting it right.

Your entire stance relies on the absolute fact that there is a giant magical world outside the material or whatever, but I've yet to see you explain how you know this with anything but "I feel it!" and that has been used to "prove" everything from ancestor worship to finding water with pendulums. Even if you could somehow set down that this magical world exists, you have yet to explain why "spiritualtiy" is important to this magical world and how being "spiritual" lets this world affect ours. Hell, just tell me how magicland impacts my life and what the difference between believing in it and not believing in it is.
 
fsmbrochurehr1.jpg
 
i have several written documents PROVING that he is real.

he even speaks to me. only i can hear it. no one else. i can prove that too.


~!!!!
 
Waldoff said:
FSM is a crock of bullshit.


The great teapot in the sky is the only true god.

SHUT YOUR TEAPOT BULLSHIT UP WALDOFF. ONLY TRUE BELIEVERS ARE TOUCHED BY THE NOODLY APPENDAGE SO GO STEP UP YOUR FAITH GAME
 
I want to know who in the hell was responsible for deciding not to tell me there was religion thread going? I love these things like the dude with the mallet likes it when the mole he's supposed to whack finds its way out of its little hole.
 
Sorry but I have to *Bump* this thread and throw my 2 cents in.

I'll lay down my cards, I'm pretty much a deist and used to be Christian, my family is. So, don't get me wrong for a Christian or Atheist.

I can't help but get in on these discussions when I see problems with both sides. I'd like to start with the Atheist and Science side. Any of you want to tell me how many former scientific beliefs have been overturned from new/updated experiments proving something different?(I'll rephrase if you don't understand) I don't have any problems with Atheist at all, I just hate how they claim that Christians are always jumping down their throats and then they think it's right to do the same thing, rather than just say "Look, I'm not interested. And it's USA ( or wherever you live) and I have the freedom of religion to believe what I want." To take the "You're gonna burn in hell" comments so seriously beats me. I've never heard any of them say it, i'd just say they sure are damn misguided. Not OMFG you dumbass Christian fanatic!(More or less, that's the hostility, I sense)

As for Christians, I don't have any hostility like I see a lot of atheists and pro-science people do for whatever reason it may be.(I've encountered it across quite a few forums with these threads) I suppose they need anger management? But, I'm a deist for a reason and gotta say though it is easy to throw out contradictions in the Bible, I do believe there are a lot of inconsistencies. I can't say I don't think that many Christians are innocent of their harassment to convert sometimes but I understand it's a part of the religion. Unfortunately for many it's a nuisance.

Now to go inbetween, I see the same comments thrown back and forth in different packages in these threads. First of all, it's absolute faith for both to believe in what they believe. Have you done the countless experiments that you are told about? What about evolution, you only know as much as scientist will tell you? Who says they aren't just saying a lot of crap just to have an income? I'm not saying this for a lot of science which is mostly the obvious.
The Bible, it's really tough to know what has happened to it. There are some crazy people in this world that do anything to promote their belief. And I don't believe any of you have ever literally spoken to God and I don't believe the people that have "visions" or whatever.

I just think, screw what people tell you, both sides are gonna bullshit you some way or another just to promote themselves. It's easy enough to live and love without either, Science should agree with this. I'm not saying everything is a lie it's just, I refuse to label myself or attach myself to what I don't know. Which I have to give credit to Christians for being able to "live" on faith. We're all dreamers, but dreams can come true sometimes, ya know? None of us knows what happens when we die, it's all speculation until it happens.

Can't we all just get along? Don't be narrowminded and stereotype, there are plenty of neutrals out there that are of both standpoints and just want to live and let live.

Evolution... gotta say, I still don't believe. Similar bones, genes, etc mean nothing to me. Sure I believe in microevolution but that's very obvious. That's like dog breeding, someone mentioned that earlier, have the dogs lost, altered, or developed NEW limbs or organs? Yes, I'm not clear on the exact way, i've never thoroughly thought about it but I do believe this Universe was created. This doesn't necessarily contradict Evolution at all but, I haven't been proved enough and i've read like 4-5 books on Evolution, both sides to the story.


(Oh and before I get hit by a Category 6 Hurricane for this post, I'm being VERY vague, I'm at school right now and don't feel like going over ever bit of information that's going through my mind right now.)
 
Abismo said:
I can't help but get in on these discussions when I see problems with both sides. I'd like to start with the Atheist and Science side. Any of you want to tell me how many former scientific beliefs have been overturned from new/updated experiments proving something different?
Not a whole lot actually, they have just been modified with new understanding. Newton's law of gravity was generally correct, but had it's flaws. These flaws were corrected in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and this is generally the same for most scientific theories. Only very very rarely do theories get completely thrown out, and I actually can not come up with one at this time in modern history. Maybe the Ether theories of a hundred years ago.

Abismo said:
Have you done the countless experiments that you are told about? What about evolution, you only know as much as scientist will tell you? Who says they aren't just saying a lot of crap just to have an income? I'm not saying this for a lot of science which is mostly the obvious.
Yes, it is a giant conspiracy :tinfoil:
I really think you should educate yourself a little more on the subject
Your example of dogs I find odd. You clearly acknowledge the vast differences in dogs over the past 40,000 years, but refuse to accept it is possible over the 3.5 billion year history of life in a larger scale?
Might want to look into the Galapagos variations of species which have only been going on for <10my
 
Back
Top Bottom