Is God real post your thoughts!

[fastortoise]

#-o

 

Guys, the definition for scientific theories are different from the one you're thinking of right now. In your mind, theory = hypothesis. :shame: SCIENTIFIC theories are supported by FACTS and thousands of hours of research. In scientific language, facts are pocket change while theories, which consist of entire sack of facts, are the 100 dolla bills. Vocabulary in this debate is pretty important.

[dpattle]

dpattle, nothing is proven in this world. Things are just disproved, and then we accept that the things we cannot disprove through the scientific method as being proven with 100% certainty (if these results can be repeated).

 

 

 

We "don't know" that the Earth revolves around the sun. We "don't know" that cells exist.

 

 

 

All theories are "still being developed". That is what science is, and that is why it's a theory.

 

 

 

Exactly, its a theory, it could infact still be wrong! so why state it as a fact and put it higher than religion??

[dpattle]

[hide=]

You can't say God is "as real as" the toothfairy. It's a total cop-out to equate the thing which is being debated "IS GOD REAL?" to something which we all know is not real.

 

How is this a cop-out? It's a position one would take, much like "God is real," or even "God can exist."

 

 

 

Actually I'm arguing about any conception of God. "God does/can exist."

 

Yet you continually capitalize the term, implying a very specific conception of god. :lol:

 

 

 

Announcing that "any or none of the models of the universe could be correct" seems rather obvious, wouldn't you say?

[/hide]

 

 

 

Soz to double post like this instead of on one...but before i left, i just wanted to say, There is still much debate even over the BBT itself, it can hardly be agreed on at all even by the scientist who understand it the most. Lastly, it state that it is still a theory that is still being developed. In the science world itself, a theory is stated as something that is NOT proven, but just accepted as being true. But if it is not proven, how can it then be stated as fact and put over religion? Wouldn't religion and BBT and evolution all be at the same place since none have actually been proven, even if all have some evidence? Even some of the things used to arrive at conclusions for BBT are using other theory's!! This just seems somewhat weird to me.

 

 

 

If I could just butt in, there are a few points I want to make.

 

 

 

First, it's worth getting the scientific view on the BBT correct. It's not true that there is significant debate that the big bang is the best model; most cosmologists accept it as such. [1]

 

 

 

Sure, there may be some debate about the details and some problems to iron out, but there is no other alternate model which explains as much of the evidence as well as the big bang. Religious ideas weren't formed when we knew about cosmic microwave background radiation and the red shifting of galaxies, so they're not going to be able to cut it with modern science when it comes to explaining the evidence we find. Added, religious ideas don't adapt to the evidence like science does, and they can't be empirically tested. Religious ideas are based ultimately on faith and personal conviction while scientific theories are based ultimately on the objective empirical evidence available.

 

 

 

While it's true that in science a theory is not something which in it's entirety is proven, good theories do contain many facts and some of their main tenets may be treated as facts by virtue of overwhelming evidence. I'm not sure exactly how cosmologists treat the main tenet of BBT, but from what reading I've done it seems it's treated as good as a fact. It's also worth realising that the main purpose of a scientific theory is to serve as an explanation and to make predictions to be tested to further our understanding. They're not half-baked ideas yet to be proven.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Well see, My problem is that it's not KNOWN for sure. and isn't that the whole problem people have with religion? They say it's not KNOWN for sure. Sure there are facts behind the THEORY, but there are facts about religion that are just undeniable, some that science itself even verifies. Why then, being theory, which is comparable to religion "theory," can someone put it higher than any other "theory's" so to speak. The fact of the matter is that it can still be wrong, especially when you get into the technicalities of it which are very hard to speak on seeing as we have never actually been able to prove any of it.

 

 

 

Lastly, i realized while reading last night, (i'm at school atm and cant get on the site for some reason**) that it expresslly states that BBT is the theory for how the world developed, not how it was created. This reminds me of a friend of mine who had once made the statement that science doesn't exist to contradict God or religion, but rather to prove [Christianity] it. Since religion explains the beginning, maybe the BBT is right and after God created it, it expanded and developed? I can't say for sure, maybe and hopefully one day we will be able to. Be it at the 2nd coming of Jesus, or when man is finally able to touch on the harder to explain and verify facts of the universe.

 

 

 

**Hell i'm suprised i can even logg in as i couldn't just a few days ago. I can't even go to tip.it homepage, I have to type it in on google and go to one of the posts. lolz...but we do what we have to?...lolz \

[Lateralus]

[hide=]

You can't say God is "as real as" the toothfairy. It's a total cop-out to equate the thing which is being debated "IS GOD REAL?" to something which we all know is not real.

 

How is this a cop-out? It's a position one would take, much like "God is real," or even "God can exist."

 

 

 

Actually I'm arguing about any conception of God. "God does/can exist."

 

Yet you continually capitalize the term, implying a very specific conception of god. :lol:

 

 

 

Announcing that "any or none of the models of the universe could be correct" seems rather obvious, wouldn't you say?

[/hide]

 

 

 

Soz to double post like this instead of on one...but before i left, i just wanted to say, There is still much debate even over the BBT itself, it can hardly be agreed on at all even by the scientist who understand it the most. Lastly, it state that it is still a theory that is still being developed. In the science world itself, a theory is stated as something that is NOT proven, but just accepted as being true. But if it is not proven, how can it then be stated as fact and put over religion? Wouldn't religion and BBT and evolution all be at the same place since none have actually been proven, even if all have some evidence? Even some of the things used to arrive at conclusions for BBT are using other theory's!! This just seems somewhat weird to me.

 

 

 

If I could just butt in, there are a few points I want to make.

 

 

 

First, it's worth getting the scientific view on the BBT correct. It's not true that there is significant debate that the big bang is the best model; most cosmologists accept it as such. [1]

 

 

 

Sure, there may be some debate about the details and some problems to iron out, but there is no other alternate model which explains as much of the evidence as well as the big bang. Religious ideas weren't formed when we knew about cosmic microwave background radiation and the red shifting of galaxies, so they're not going to be able to cut it with modern science when it comes to explaining the evidence we find. Added, religious ideas don't adapt to the evidence like science does, and they can't be empirically tested. Religious ideas are based ultimately on faith and personal conviction while scientific theories are based ultimately on the objective empirical evidence available.

 

 

 

While it's true that in science a theory is not something which in it's entirety is proven, good theories do contain many facts and some of their main tenets may be treated as facts by virtue of overwhelming evidence. I'm not sure exactly how cosmologists treat the main tenet of BBT, but from what reading I've done it seems it's treated as good as a fact. It's also worth realising that the main purpose of a scientific theory is to serve as an explanation and to make predictions to be tested to further our understanding. They're not half-baked ideas yet to be proven.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Well see, My problem is that it's not KNOWN for sure. and isn't that the whole problem people have with religion? They say it's not KNOWN for sure. Sure there are facts behind the THEORY, but there are facts about religion that are just undeniable, some that science itself even verifies. Why then, being theory, which is comparable to religion "theory," can someone put it higher than any other "theory's" so to speak. The fact of the matter is that it can still be wrong, especially when you get into the technicalities of it which are very hard to speak on seeing as we have never actually been able to prove any of it.

 

 

 

It's not always useful to be completely emphatic in what you're trying to say. Dogmatism is never really useful, but when speaking scientifically it's just a shorter way to say things. For example, if you drop a stone you can't be certain that it's going to obey the laws of gravity and hit the ground, but it would be useless to question this every time you dropped a stone. Nothing can ever be a fact if you view things in this way. The amount of supporting evidence is what gives one theory more weight than the other because it decreases the likelihood that it's incorrect.

[dpattle]

[hide=]

quote="venomai"]

You can't say God is "as real as" the toothfairy. It's a total cop-out to equate the thing which is being debated "IS GOD REAL?" to something which we all know is not real.

 

How is this a cop-out? It's a position one would take, much like "God is real," or even "God can exist."

 

 

 

Actually I'm arguing about any conception of God. "God does/can exist."

 

Yet you continually capitalize the term, implying a very specific conception of god. :lol:

 

 

 

Announcing that "any or none of the models of the universe could be correct" seems rather obvious, wouldn't you say?

 

 

 

Soz to double post like this instead of on one...but before i left, i just wanted to say, There is still much debate even over the BBT itself, it can hardly be agreed on at all even by the scientist who understand it the most. Lastly, it state that it is still a theory that is still being developed. In the science world itself, a theory is stated as something that is NOT proven, but just accepted as being true. But if it is not proven, how can it then be stated as fact and put over religion? Wouldn't religion and BBT and evolution all be at the same place since none have actually been proven, even if all have some evidence? Even some of the things used to arrive at conclusions for BBT are using other theory's!! This just seems somewhat weird to me.

 

 

 

If I could just butt in, there are a few points I want to make.

 

 

 

First, it's worth getting the scientific view on the BBT correct. It's not true that there is significant debate that the big bang is the best model; most cosmologists accept it as such. [1]

 

 

 

Sure, there may be some debate about the details and some problems to iron out, but there is no other alternate model which explains as much of the evidence as well as the big bang. Religious ideas weren't formed when we knew about cosmic microwave background radiation and the red shifting of galaxies, so they're not going to be able to cut it with modern science when it comes to explaining the evidence we find. Added, religious ideas don't adapt to the evidence like science does, and they can't be empirically tested. Religious ideas are based ultimately on faith and personal conviction while scientific theories are based ultimately on the objective empirical evidence available.

 

 

 

While it's true that in science a theory is not something which in it's entirety is proven, good theories do contain many facts and some of their main tenets may be treated as facts by virtue of overwhelming evidence. I'm not sure exactly how cosmologists treat the main tenet of BBT, but from what reading I've done it seems it's treated as good as a fact. It's also worth realising that the main purpose of a scientific theory is to serve as an explanation and to make predictions to be tested to further our understanding. They're not half-baked ideas yet to be proven.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Well see, My problem is that it's not KNOWN for sure. and isn't that the whole problem people have with religion? They say it's not KNOWN for sure. Sure there are facts behind the THEORY, but there are facts about religion that are just undeniable, some that science itself even verifies. Why then, being theory, which is comparable to religion "theory," can someone put it higher than any other "theory's" so to speak. The fact of the matter is that it can still be wrong, especially when you get into the technicalities of it which are very hard to speak on seeing as we have never actually been able to prove any of it.

 

 

 

It's not always useful to be completely emphatic in what you're trying to say. Dogmatism is never really useful, but when speaking scientifically it's just a shorter way to say things. For example, if you drop a stone you can't be certain that it's going to obey the laws of gravity and hit the ground, but it would be useless to question this every time you dropped a stone. Nothing can ever be a fact if you view things in this way. The amount of supporting evidence is what gives one theory more weight than the other because it decreases the likelihood that it's incorrect.

[/hide]

 

 

 

and i understand that, but am i wrong in saying its still just a theory? And thats it's still not known for sure? And obviously i can't question it every time, but BBT hasn't been proven at all, not once, and noone at all is completely sure it's 100% true, for when doing proofs, if even one part is incorrect (especially on universal scales) everything else is then negated. Well i'm out, we're doin midterms and i finished my exam way early...ofcourse tip.it was the first thing i thought of. lolz. (hmm, they should have an "addicted" emote. woulda been great here. lolz.)

[Zierro]

Alright. Call it an analogy. I'm still calling it a strawman.

 

"X is (not) real" is a position, not a rebuttal. Although The Easter Bunny comparison may be loaded with unnecessary ridicule, I certainly wouldn't call it a straw man.

 

 

 

Here is a better example of the straw man fallacy, using relevant material:

 

 

 

Person A takes position X, paraphrased to: "Prayer and other payments to god would be a waste if it was all for nothing [i.e. if god does not exist as assumed]."

 

Person B presents position Y (a distorted view of position X), paraphrased to: "Your life is a waste if you have prayed."

 

Person B then attacks position Y, saying that "Just because you have prayed before does not mean you wasted your one and only life..."

 

 

 

EDIT: I misread part of your post and got rid of my other argument.

 

 

 

It's not a strawman. Maybe you forgot which post you were defending:

 

 

 

What about the possibility that you're wasting the only life you get worrying about what an imaginary man thinks of you?

 

 

 

It's not "wasting" your only life.

 

 

 

How is this a cop-out? It's a position one would take, much like "God is real," or even "God can exist."

 

 

 

You've said before that both God and the toothfairy are undoubtedly false. It's along the same lines of debating the morale concern for homosexuality and equating it to something bad like murder. "Homosexuality is as bad as murder." You're skipping a step.

 

 

 

It's like this:

 

 

 

The toothfairy is false because there is no evidence.

 

Therefore, god is false because there is no evidence. (Even though the idea of evidence for god is laughable anyways.)

 

 

 

Murder is bad because it is not socially accepted.

 

Therefore, homosexuality is bad because it is not socially accepted.

 

 

 

You see, you can make an analogy for nearly anything, but that doesn't mean it holds much weight. See what bad analogies can do?

 

 

 

Yet you meticulously capitalize the term, implying a very specific conception of god. :lol:

 

 

 

Announcing that "any or none of the models of the universe could be correct" seems rather obvious, wouldn't you say? This is what your argument is beginning to sound a lot like.

 

 

 

My mistake. I won't capitalize god anymore.

[Lateralus]

and i understand that, but am i wrong in saying its still just a theory? And thats it's still not known for sure? And obviously i can't question it every time, but BBT hasn't been proven at all, not once, and noone at all is completely sure it's 100% true, for when doing proofs, if even one part is incorrect (especially on universal scales) everything else is then negated. Well i'm out, we're doin midterms and i finished my exam way early...ofcourse tip.it was the first thing i thought of. lolz. (hmm, they should have an "addicted" emote. woulda been great here. lolz.)

 

 

 

To call it a theory is correct yes, but to say it's just a theory derides it in a way that's really not necessary. It's a theory in that it's a model that fits the evidence fairly neatly. Nothing will ever be more than a theory in that sense. For something to be scientific it has to be falsifiable, so to call the God hypothesis a theory is incorrect.

[Madmanpur3]

I couldn't be bothered to read through 150+ pages, but I have read through the previous 3-4 pages and here's my insight on this topic.

 

 

 

God, as well as religion, have brought about many positive things in this world - and while many argue that religion has brought about many bad things as well (crusades, corruption in the church, etc), that's similar to saying marriage brings about many bad things (couples fight, people have murdered their spouses, divorce can bring out the worst of people, etc). Personally, I'm of the opinion that religion/God/marriage do not bring about those bad things, people do. Going back to the positives, religion/God have brought hope to many people for thousands of years and at that point it doesn't matter if God is real or not, or if religion is all one big fake. Hell, the odds are that religion was conceived to bring hope to people during a rought time.

 

 

 

While I'm a confirmed Catholic, I don't believe that any single religion is right. Now, while I choose to not associate myself with any religion (again, I'm a confirmed Catholic, but I don't consider myself to be Catholic), I do believe that there is a higher power/being than us humans...well more like 70% hope that there is and 30% believe there is...because if the best our universe has to offer is us, well then the way I see it we're f-ed.

 

 

 

So again, it's essentially irrelevent whether or not God exists because for a lot of people it's no different than simply hoping you have a good day tomorrow. You can't go around saying that if God doesn't exist (which there's a very good chance is the case) then it's a waste of time to pray or whatever, because when you say that you are defining what's a waste of time and what isn't for other people...which is just plain wrong.

 

 

 

P.S. - I've been capitalizing God not because I'm referring to the Christian God, but because I am referring to a lone higher being/power and I reserve the uncapitalized god for specific gods that are gods of something...like the god of water or something.

 

 

 

P.P.S. - In a rush so I may revise it after I get back.

[venomai]

It's not a strawman. Maybe you forgot which post you were defending:

 

 

 

What about the possibility that you're wasting the only life you get worrying about what an imaginary man thinks of you?

 

 

 

It's not "wasting" your only life.

 

Let's use an example... "Wasting your life watching television" is akin to saying that "television can be wasteful." It is not, however, anything like saying that "your life is a waste if you have watched television."

 

 

 

Do you see how utterly ridiculous this interpretation is?

 

 

 

It's along the same lines of debating the morale concern for homosexuality and equating it to something bad like murder.

 

Talk about a bad analogy... :lol:

 

 

 

Things are either "real" or "not real" -- the same black-and-white distinction cannot be made with the degree to which something is deemed socially acceptable.

[mmmcannibalism]

and i understand that, but am i wrong in saying its still just a theory? And thats it's still not known for sure? And obviously i can't question it every time, but BBT hasn't been proven at all, not once, and noone at all is completely sure it's 100% true, for when doing proofs, if even one part is incorrect (especially on universal scales) everything else is then negated. Well i'm out, we're doin midterms and i finished my exam way early...ofcourse tip.it was the first thing i thought of. lolz. (hmm, they should have an "addicted" emote. woulda been great here. lolz

.)

 

 

 

Its fine to say the bbt is a theory, but it is currently the best theory we have, and there is nothing to disprove it. Incompleteness does not equate to being false, such as how a building that is half built is considered to be the beginning of the final building. A scientific theory doesnt just appear, its based upon all of the scientific data we have available. Now when it was discovered that everything in the universe was moving apart, the thought "hey, maybe everything came from one point" would be a little dubious, but if all further data suggests that is accurate and nothing disproves it we must use that theory until a better explanation can be found.

 

 

 

Take this second example purely on scientific merit(ignore personal beliefs). For a long time, everyone believed humans had always been humans. Darwin's research and book "On the Origin of Species" provided an alternative theory of human existance based off of his studies in the (spelling)galopagos islands. Initially, there was a lot of scientific debate about this theory; however, as more evidence supporting it was exposed(particulary dna in recent history) Darwin's theory gained almost entire support within scientific communities because: a. it explains most if not all phenomenon, b. there is not an opposing scientific theory that is more appropriate

 

 

 

If anyone responds trying to say evolution is not accurate realize Im saying from a scientific stand point not religious, your personal beliefs dont affect what science supports as true.

[Zierro]

Let's use an example... "Wasting your life watching television" is akin to saying that "television can be wasteful." It is not, however, anything like saying that "your life is a waste if you have watched television."

 

 

 

Do you see how utterly ridiculous this interpretation is?

 

 

 

But you're still claiming that theistic actions as a whole are a "waste". If I am driving on my way to school and pray that I don't get in an accident, would that be wasted time or effort or anything? The only thing I would consider a waste is sacrifice without any gain (Islamic infidels and the likes).

 

 

 

And say hypothetically god didn't exist. The only way you would find out that it was a waste is if you discovered he didn't exist - which is impossible. Like I said, what can be considered a waste is only a subjective opinion - coming from human beings who will never know that god doesn't exist but can know that he does exist.

 

 

 

Talk about a bad analogy... :lol:

 

 

 

Things are either "real" or "not real" -- the same black-and-white distinction cannot be made with the degree to which something is deemed socially acceptable.

 

 

 

I thought analogies were only supposed to be related when it came to the subject being discussed and now you say they are too different to be an analogy? :lol: Looks like you got the point I was trying to get across to you. You can either admit that differences that are too great render an analogy useless or you can stand by saying anything can be compared as long as they have at least one similarity like homosexuality and murder.

[warri0r45]

[hide=]

You can't say God is "as real as" the toothfairy. It's a total cop-out to equate the thing which is being debated "IS GOD REAL?" to something which we all know is not real.

 

How is this a cop-out? It's a position one would take, much like "God is real," or even "God can exist."

 

 

 

Actually I'm arguing about any conception of God. "God does/can exist."

 

Yet you continually capitalize the term, implying a very specific conception of god. :lol:

 

 

 

Announcing that "any or none of the models of the universe could be correct" seems rather obvious, wouldn't you say?

[/hide]

 

 

 

Soz to double post like this instead of on one...but before i left, i just wanted to say, There is still much debate even over the BBT itself, it can hardly be agreed on at all even by the scientist who understand it the most. Lastly, it state that it is still a theory that is still being developed. In the science world itself, a theory is stated as something that is NOT proven, but just accepted as being true. But if it is not proven, how can it then be stated as fact and put over religion? Wouldn't religion and BBT and evolution all be at the same place since none have actually been proven, even if all have some evidence? Even some of the things used to arrive at conclusions for BBT are using other theory's!! This just seems somewhat weird to me.

 

 

 

If I could just butt in, there are a few points I want to make.

 

 

 

First, it's worth getting the scientific view on the BBT correct. It's not true that there is significant debate that the big bang is the best model; most cosmologists accept it as such. [1]

 

 

 

Sure, there may be some debate about the details and some problems to iron out, but there is no other alternate model which explains as much of the evidence as well as the big bang. Religious ideas weren't formed when we knew about cosmic microwave background radiation and the red shifting of galaxies, so they're not going to be able to cut it with modern science when it comes to explaining the evidence we find. Added, religious ideas don't adapt to the evidence like science does, and they can't be empirically tested. Religious ideas are based ultimately on faith and personal conviction while scientific theories are based ultimately on the objective empirical evidence available.

 

 

 

While it's true that in science a theory is not something which in it's entirety is proven, good theories do contain many facts and some of their main tenets may be treated as facts by virtue of overwhelming evidence. I'm not sure exactly how cosmologists treat the main tenet of BBT, but from what reading I've done it seems it's treated as good as a fact. It's also worth realising that the main purpose of a scientific theory is to serve as an explanation and to make predictions to be tested to further our understanding. They're not half-baked ideas yet to be proven.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Well see, My problem is that it's not KNOWN for sure. and isn't that the whole problem people have with religion? They say it's not KNOWN for sure. Sure there are facts behind the THEORY, but there are facts about religion that are just undeniable, some that science itself even verifies. Why then, being theory, which is comparable to religion "theory," can someone put it higher than any other "theory's" so to speak. The fact of the matter is that it can still be wrong, especially when you get into the technicalities of it which are very hard to speak on seeing as we have never actually been able to prove any of it.

 

 

 

Lastly, i realized while reading last night, (i'm at school atm and cant get on the site for some reason**) that it expresslly states that BBT is the theory for how the world developed, not how it was created. This reminds me of a friend of mine who had once made the statement that science doesn't exist to contradict God or religion, but rather to prove [Christianity] it. Since religion explains the beginning, maybe the BBT is right and after God created it, it expanded and developed? I can't say for sure, maybe and hopefully one day we will be able to. Be it at the 2nd coming of Jesus, or when man is finally able to touch on the harder to explain and verify facts of the universe.

 

 

 

**Hell i'm suprised i can even logg in as i couldn't just a few days ago. I can't even go to tip.it homepage, I have to type it in on google and go to one of the posts. lolz...but we do what we have to?...lolz \

 

 

 

The whole problem with religious ideas is not just that we don't know if they're true, it's that often they contradict what we know is true because they were written down millennia ago in a time where people were much more ignorant of how the world worked. What's more, religious ideas can't change and aren't able to be tested or falsified. I could claim that last night I made ice melt in a freezer or made lead float on water, but those things contradict what we know and can't be repeated. That's essentially the crux of religious claims, but they're more socially acceptable because they're made under the banner of religion. However, socially acceptable doesn't necessarily mean logical or rational.

 

 

 

In science, such ideas will never be on the same level as real theories, no matter how uncertain such theories are. At least they're consistent. That's where you should start - internal consistency and consistency with what else we know about the universe and it's physical laws. That's most likely why science and religion are separated and not compared how you'd like (if they were, religious claims comparable to what I explained would be laughed at and ridiculed). Scientists aren't going to just give up the most basic principles of science known and give religion a free ride because it's not 100% certain like scientific theories. That's about as far as the similarities between religious and scientific theories go.

 

 

 

On another point, I don't think you fully grasp the nature of a scientific theory yet. They're not fully proven and won't ever be, but that's because they're ever-changing as new evidence is being found and new studies performed all the time. Each piece of evidence and each new study serves as a point where you have to see if the theory can explain it, and if it can't then you have to revise the theory. The thing with theories like the BBT and other falsifiable ideas is that they're not just fleeting explanations that were pulled out of the air yesterday. The BBT has probably been the most well accepted and supported cosmological model for the universe since the 60's when CMBR was discovered.

 

 

 

Even though, by some major error on our part, the BBT could be totally wrong, we can still say with confidence that it's the best model which explains the data. As far as I'm concerned, what you're suggesting is akin to accepting the null hypothesis over the alternative when the p-value for a statistical test is 0.001. Sorry to go crazy with the statistical jargon, but what I mean by that is that any original ideas that we had before the BBT have been so outplayed that it's now time to accept the BBT as the most likely model.

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

As for your second paragraph there, you're quite right to say that the BBT is a theory of the evolution of the universe. It doesn't explain nor does it seek to explain what happened before the original "big bang" event. Many theists have been able to incorporate it into their beliefs, and many even use it as the basis for an argument for theism. And you're also quite right to say that science doesn't exist to contradict god or religion. Many religious people can and do accept scientific ideas about the big bang and evolution.

[venomai]

If I am driving on my way to school and pray that I don't get in an accident, would that be wasted time or effort?

 

It is no concern of mine whether or not you, for example, thank god (or the chef) after a nice meal. I'm much more concerned with constant worship and sacrifice that consumes the time and money of an entire group of people -- a feature which is present in many if not most theistic belief systems.

 

 

 

The only way you would find out that it was a waste is if you discovered he didn't exist - which is impossible.

 

Your reasoning is flawed for two reasons which we have already discussed, neither of which you have yet to refute:

 

(a) you believed in the wrong god, and as a result you were sent to hell.

 

(B) the afterlife is shared by theists and atheists alike. If atheists were treated no differently from those of faith (i.e. God does not respond to worship and prayer), then the atheist's life on Earth, albeit misguided, would not have been wasteful, compared to the theist who spent his time worshipping and sacrificing to no avail. (OBVIOUS NOTE: This is a generalization. Not every theist spends time worshipping. As we've already made clear, we are not talking about theism in its entirety, but rather, specific conceptions of god and their payment-related expectations. Which, mind you, makes up a large portion of all theistic beliefs, if not the majority.)

 

 

 

And although "wastefulness" is primarily a subjective term, it is not derived solely from the individual doing the action. For this reason, the couch potato's actions are considered "wasteful" even if the individual in question feels otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

As for the analogy thing, I'm not sure what you're on about. Homosexuality and murder are not alike in the item being discussed (the degree to which the act is socially acceptable), i.e. they are not analogous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

The only thing I would consider a waste is sacrifice without any gain (Islamic infidels and the likes).

 

This contradicts everything you have been arguing.

[Zierro]

I'm speaking of religious actions "as a whole," like you said, rather than on a case-by-case basis.

 

 

 

It is no concern of mine whether or not you thank god (or the chef) after a nice meal. I'm much more concerned with constant worship and sacrifice that consumes the time and money of an entire group of people -- something which is prevalent in the majority of theistic belief systems.

 

 

 

Then we're in agreement except for one thing... sometimes you do get something in return by the sacrifices you make. I wouldn't consider it a waste for a group of Christians to go to a homeless shelter and provide bums with food. I also wouldn't consider it a waste for a man to preach to a group of people in a chapel and inspire them to do good deeds by telling them stories that hold a lot of moral value. And finally, I wouldn't consider it a waste to start leaving things which you have no control up to god. That's what I do, and by praying I've gotten a lot out of it. I'm a lot happier now as an agnostic than a hardcore atheist. My life has what it's been missing - hope. It's too overwhelming for me to consider it a mere coincidence.

 

 

 

(a) you believed in the wrong god, and as a result you were sent to hell.

 

(B) the afterlife is shared by theists and atheists alike (which seems far more reasonable than separation).

 

 

 

I don't believe in hell. Why would god punish you for the freewill that he gave you? Your argument seems to just be coming from your idea that praying is treated the same in god's eyes as not praying (atheists). In that, you are correct. However, I'm talking on that personal level that I've told you about: Because I believe in a good possibility of there being a god, I am happier now so I am not wasting anything.

 

 

 

If anything, my atheist years were what I would consider a "waste" because it was time that I could have been happy. I don't actually hold that view though, because I've learned to see god through the eyes of a theist and an atheist and I've came to realize the pros and cons for both sides which strengthens the views I hold today as an agnostic.

 

 

 

And although "wastefulness" is primarily a subjective term, it is not derived solely from the individual doing the action. For this reason, the couch potato's actions are considered "wasteful" even if he feels otherwise.

 

 

 

But who can say that it is a waste of time other than human beings who don't have the knowledge of god's existence?

 

 

 

As for the analogy thing, I'm not sure what you're on about. Homosexuality and murder are not alike in the item being discussed (the degree to which the act is socially acceptable), i.e. they are not analogous.

 

 

 

"God is as real as the toothfairy because neither have evidence."

 

 

 

You're saying that there is a black and white distinction between what exists and what does not exist. That is true on the universal level, but speaking as a human being you cannot come to those types of conclusions. The toothfairy is definitely not real, sasquatch is probably not real, the big bang is probably real, and oranges are definitely real. There are different degrees of what we know. You can't tell me that you've never had thoughts that something which you still don't think is true, has a higher possibility of being true than something which is definitely not true.

 

 

 

This contradicts everything you have been arguing.

 

 

 

What do Islamic infidels get in return of their actions? That slight chance that it's what their god wanted? Sorry, but that's completely illogical. It makes much more sense for a god to want us to do the opposite of what these infidels are doing.

[mmmcannibalism]

Then we're in agreement except for one thing... sometimes you do get something in return by the sacrifices you make. I wouldn't consider it a waste for a group of Christians to go to a homeless shelter and provide bums with food. I also wouldn't consider it a waste for a man to preach to a group of people in a chapel and inspire them to do good deeds by telling them stories that hold a lot of moral value. And finally, I wouldn't consider it a waste to start leaving things which you have no control up to god. That's what I do, and by praying I've gotten a lot out of it. I'm a lot happier now as an agnostic than a hardcore atheist. My life has what it's been missing - hope. It's too overwhelming for me to consider it a mere coincidence.

 

 

 

agreed, Im going to try to come to a position both of you can agree on so we stop arguing the specifics of what waste defines actual waste and what is good

 

 

 

if the "waste" helps someone else it is helping society and therefore is not waste

 

if the "waste" is something like refusing a good matress its wateful

 

if the "waste" is not interfering with your life and just making you feel better or more confident its not waste

 

if the "waste" is not interfering with your life and is simply there, its inbetween depending on how you want to look at it

 

 

 

woo, Im not the only agnostic to not believe in hell

[venomai]

I wouldn't consider it a waste for a group of Christians to go to a homeless shelter and provide bums with food. I also wouldn't consider it a waste for a man to preach to a group of people in a chapel and inspire them to do good deeds by telling them stories that hold a lot of moral value.

 

I agree, but these are sacrifices made for fellow humans, not for god.

 

 

 

Why would god punish you for the freewill that he gave you?

 

I've often wondered the same.

 

 

 

That is true on the universal level, but speaking as a human being you cannot come to those types of conclusions.

 

Say I was to claim that "Sasquatch is not real." Even if all of humanity were to disagree with me, this claim still implies that Sasquatch does not exist in reality, as opposed to does exist in reality. Though there is a wide range of human uncertainty, this claim is a black-and-white issue.

 

 

 

e.g.

 

Claiming "Sasquatch is as real as the Tooth Fairy" is different from claiming that "Sasquatch's non-existence is as certain as the Tooth Fairy's non-existence."

 

 

 

What do Islamic infidels get in return of their actions? That slight chance that it's what their god wanted? Sorry, but that's completely illogical. It makes much more sense for a god to want us to do the opposite of what these infidels are doing.

 

It makes more sense to you only because you have been raised with a vastly different conception of god. Keep in mind, the Islamic radicals see your conception of god to be "illogical" and unreasonable.

 

 

 

Who is to say that your specific conception of god is any more accurate than somebody else's?

 

 

 

PS: We are the infidels, or "those without faith [in Islam]."

[Zierro]

Claiming "Sasquatch is as real as the Tooth Fairy" is different from claiming that "Sasquatch's non-existence is as certain as the Tooth Fairy's non-existence."

 

 

 

I guess it was a misunderstanding then. Venomai, I had fun debating with you, but I like having a variety of things to discuss and looks like we're just talking about the same things over and over again at this point. Let's call it another Gun Control, until next time. :)

[Foxtrot17]

God is a Coconut Cream pie in the sky in the sky.

[Lenticular_J]

Because religion is based off a book. And who knows if that's true? Who knows if it has even a single fact?

 

No it isn't. You know that feeling you get when you distinguish between right and wrong? THAT'S religion. The mysteriousness you feel looking up at the big 'ol sky? THAT'S religion.

 

 

 

Personal beliefs are not gathered from man's print. They can be imprinted and enforced, leastwise morals, but personal beliefs are always held in a man's bosum.

 

 

 

Or woman's. Just talking all old style. -_-

[dpattle]

Because religion is based off a book. And who knows if that's true? Who knows if it has even a single fact?

 

No it isn't. You know that feeling you get when you distinguish between right and wrong? THAT'S religion. The mysteriousness you feel looking up at the big 'ol sky? THAT'S religion.

 

 

 

Personal beliefs are not gathered from man's print. They can be imprinted and enforced, leastwise morals, but personal beliefs are always held in a man's bosum.

 

 

 

Or woman's. Just talking all old style. -_-

 

 

 

Also, when it comes to the bible and Christianity, many things stated in the bible have been found true, and historically proven. Other items and artifacts have been found and dug up validating the bible. =P

[Foxtrot17]

How many times do i have to say this? THE BANANA AND COCONUT CREAM PIE ARE GOD(S).

[mmmcannibalism]

Because religion is based off a book. And who knows if that's true? Who knows if it has even a single fact?

 

No it isn't. You know that feeling you get when you distinguish between right and wrong? THAT'S religion. The mysteriousness you feel looking up at the big 'ol sky? THAT'S religion.

 

 

 

Personal beliefs are not gathered from man's print. They can be imprinted and enforced, leastwise morals, but personal beliefs are always held in a man's bosum.

 

 

 

Or woman's. Just talking all old style. -_-

 

 

 

Also, when it comes to the bible and Christianity, many things stated in the bible have been found true, and historically proven. Other items and artifacts have been found and dug up validating the bible. =P

 

 

 

Thats because the bible has a large amount of historical data in it. Obviously, if I take a history book and occasionally imprint some morality story it doesnt make it the word of god. Also, find me evidence the whole world was flooded or that the earth was created in seven days. To the other bit thats up their, feeling something is wrong isnt religion its a moral compass created through evolution to prevent us from killing each other and thus helping the species(well trying to keep us from killing each other), its also a function of a very advanced brain. Things such as the feeling of looking at the stars do have their own religious feeling but to call them religion is a bit of a strech.

[magekillr]

Also, when it comes to the bible and Christianity, many things stated in the bible have been found true, and historically proven. Other items and artifacts have been found and dug up validating the bible. =P

 

 

 

But...a lot of it is not historically accurate whatsoever, and we have no evidence for when there very well should be. Or, other things that are "true" in the Bible are like those "Based on a true story" movies, where the happenings in the movie are a very vague recollection of what actually happened to make it more entertaining.

[tryto]

Because religion is based off a book. And who knows if that's true? Who knows if it has even a single fact?

 

No it isn't. You know that feeling you get when you distinguish between right and wrong? THAT'S religion. The mysteriousness you feel looking up at the big 'ol sky? THAT'S religion.

 

 

 

Personal beliefs are not gathered from man's print. They can be imprinted and enforced, leastwise morals, but personal beliefs are always held in a man's bosum.

 

 

 

Or woman's. Just talking all old style. -_-

 

 

 

Also, when it comes to the bible and Christianity, many things stated in the bible have been found true, and historically proven. Other items and artifacts have been found and dug up validating the bible. =P

 

 

 

 

 

Hundreds of years from now archealogists find a superman comic. They find, that in it, it talks of buildings and cities that do indeed exist. Does it mean the subject matter is true?

[Madmanpur3]

Hundreds of years from now archealogists find a superman comic. They find, that in it, it talks of buildings and cities that do indeed exist. Does it mean the subject matter is true?

 

Could you clarify something for me? I'm a bit confused when you say archaelogists....are you referring to human archaelogists, or future archaelogists of a different race/species?