SX and Paradise Lost = Satanic ??

[Wander]

It's one of my favourite debates too, always goes to the same rambling no matter what the forum is.

@ Yngwai x: I am very surprised that someone actually believes in absolutes like that. Seems as absurd to me as believing in God.

I also got the feeling that some people claiming that murdering being bad is a fact. I don't feel this way. Any act isn't good or bad without people judging the act to be good or bad. That's my opinion anyway.

Yeah, I don't really care to take part to the main topic though. Yep... Yeah... Right...

 

[CantoX]

Erm... Einstein was a very strongly opinionated Athiest...

Einstein - "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"

And you're right, nobody can "prove" anything, be they scientists or religious people.

But at least scientists can find evidence to suggest their theories are correct.

Erm.. ( an onomatopoeia )
I'm pretty sure he was a strong Christian..

Evidence? Is that all you need to believe in something or not to believe in it? So let's say tomorrow that scientists announce that Human beings evoloved from Rocks, you'll automatically believe it because they have evidence to prove it... ?

But at least scientists can find evidence to suggest their theories are correct.

See, you just put theories and correct in the same sentence.

def:
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

A theory cannot be correct because it is a proposition, it is not a fact.

edit..
Ah, I just saw the "suggest" in the sentence. lol

Yeah, they wrote the whole thing on Jesus's birthday.

Thats why I put ( or so ) because I wasn't sure. lol

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Evidence? Is that all you need to believe in something or not to believe in it? So let's say tomorrow that scientists announce that Human beings evoloved from Rocks, you'll automatically believe it because they have evidence to prove it... ?

Um.... yes. Because they've proven it's so. Right now, there's no evidence or proof that we evolved from rocks and based on what we know, that is a preposterous thing to say, but if there is absolute proof, why woul you not believe it?

This is one of the single dumbest posts i've seen anyone say. In essence, you have said "just because something is proven doesn't mean i have to believe it". Pure ignorance.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

And you're right, nobody can "prove" anything, be they scientists or religious people.

But at least scientists can find evidence to suggest their theories are correct.

Exactly my point, but this isn't Science vs. Religion, it's science vs. science. Dr. Mcichael Behe isn't a creationist at all and he's one of the leading researchers in the Intelligent Design field. The same goes for Dr. Peter Denton, who crafted the "Valid Inference For Design" principle. These are all highly educated scientists who realize that students today are in a dogma and are not being told the full story with Darwinism. Life could not have originated by chance alone, it's impossible. They don't care who or what the designer was, they can just see there had to be one. Has nothing to do with religion

 

[CantoX]

Um.... yes. Because they've proven it's so. Right now, there's no evidence or proof that we evolved from rocks and based on what we know, that is a preposterous thing to say, but if there is absolute proof, why woul you not believe it?

This is one of the single dumbest posts i've seen anyone say. In essence, you have said "just because something is proven doesn't mean i have to believe it". Pure ignorance.

I wouldn't believe in the rocks thing that I made up because I don't believe that we evoloved from apes. It's the same theory.

Obviously you are missing my point. Someone has to think for themselves instead of just relying on what they've been told. My point remains, science can never really be certain, therefore it can never be proven completely true. It's the same with religion, it can never be proven completely true, but in the end you gotta think for yourself.

Please, you've seen dumber posts... trust me. I've seen you write that phrase for a couple of posts. lol

 

[OfSinsAndShred]

I wouldn't believe in the rocks thing that I made up because I don't believe that we evoloved from apes. It's the same theory.

No, they're not the same theory. You just made one of them up, and the other has hordes of evidence gathered from many people around the world.

Someone has to think for themselves instead of just relying on what they've been told.

Also, nothing makes me laugh harder than a religious person saying this while talking down on the value of science.

In science, we accept when someone finds something new IF THEY CAN PROVE IT WITH FACTS. People think for themselves instead of just trusting what they've been told. On the other hand, in religion... people rely on what has been written down thousands of years ago and trust it to the word, and don't do any investigation into whether or not the events depicted are actually true.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

No, they're not the same theory. You just made one of them up, and the other has hordes of evidence gathered from many people around the world.

Also, nothing makes me laugh harder than a religious person saying this while talking down on the value of science.

In science, we accept when someone finds something new IF THEY CAN PROVE IT WITH FACTS. People think for themselves instead of just trusting what they've been told. On the other hand, in religion... people rely on what has been written down thousands of years ago and trust it to the word, and don't do any investigation into whether or not the events depicted are actually true.

Wow, it's obvious you're just a bigot towards anyone who is a person of faith. This is apparent by what you said regarding events written down thousands of years ago. I find it hard to believe you independently researched the validity of every fact stated in the textbooks you read in school, or the facts your instructors threw out. So you my friend are no different than the religious persons you hate so much, 'blindly' accepting facts you read as valid. Grow up.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

I wouldn't believe in the rocks thing that I made up because I don't believe that we evoloved from apes. It's the same theory.

Obviously you are missing my point. Someone has to think for themselves instead of just relying on what they've been told. My point remains, science can never really be certain, therefore it can never be proven completely true. It's the same with religion, it can never be proven completely true, but in the end you gotta think for yourself.

Please, you've seen dumber posts... trust me. I've seen you write that phrase for a couple of posts. lol

.... alright, you've got me there

I understand the point of thinking for yourself, but science very well can prove things and does. I for one am not going to spend time studying plants and the process of photosynthesis, so i will absolutely rely on the word of reputable scientists who have devoted their lives to researching that very subject.

Evolution: that is as much of a belief system as religion. Science *can* prove it, but it has not been proven yet. Still, there is strong evidence to indicate that this is the case, but there's reasonable room for doubt. I very well understand people not believing this theory to be true since it is still the theory of evolution, but i believe the evidence is sufficiant that it has convinced me. But to say that science can't prove anything as fact is still absolutely wrong.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Wow, it's obvious you're just a bigot towards anyone who is a person of faith. This is apparent by what you said regarding events written down thousands of years ago. I find it hard to believe you independently researched the validity of every fact stated in the textbooks you read in school, or the facts your instructors threw out. So you my friend are no different than the religious persons you hate so much, 'blindly' accepting facts you read as valid. Grow up.

Huh... strange coming from you. I think you're the one who needs to follow your own advice... stop thinking you're superior to everyone who choses to be agnostic/athiest because honestly, you have more flawed logic than anyone i've ever spoken to. And take a tip from yourself and do some growing up of your own eh?

And you've also implied you don't believe in christianity. what is it that YOU believe? Why not defend your own belief system instead of hiding behind this facade of superiority?

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Huh... strange coming from you. I think you're the one who needs to follow your own advice... stop thinking you're superior to everyone who choses to be agnostic/athiest because honestly, you have more flawed logic than anyone i've ever spoken to. QUOTE]

Yet you fail to back your statement up with anything...typical.

 

[OfSinsAndShred]

Wow, it's obvious you're just a bigot towards anyone who is a person of faith. This is apparent by what you said regarding events written down thousands of years ago. I find it hard to believe you independently researched the validity of every fact stated in the textbooks you read in school, or the facts your instructors threw out. So you my friend are no different than the religious persons you hate so much, 'blindly' accepting facts you read as valid. Grow up.

Just because I'm an atheist taking part in a debate doesn't mean I'm a bigot towards people of faith. I mean, me and my family do just fine together, and they're all very very religious. Same with a good deal of my friends from high school - they even brought me to Bible study for a whole year. ...Wait, what the hell am I doing? I don't need to justify this - just trust me, I don't have a problem with religious people.

And no, I'm not going to go back from the beginning and re-verify every scientific experiment to arrive at the laws and leading theories of today. We don't have to do that, that's why science progresses. If Einstein had to re-discover Newtonian motion, he wouldn't have had enough time left in his life to formulate relativity. If Schrodinger had to re-discover Bohr's findings on the structure of atoms, he wouldn't have been able to advance quantum theory.

I trust science because of the way the scientific community works - it's a lot harder than most people think for a theory or law to become accepted. Also, I don't need to independently research it, because the information on how the laws and theories were formed all completely and meticulously documented and subjected to experiment constantly. You don't have to "trust" them, because it's all there in the form of equations and data (pretty friggin' hard to argue with).

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Huh... strange coming from you. I think you're the one who needs to follow your own advice... stop thinking you're superior to everyone who choses to be agnostic/athiest because honestly, you have more flawed logic than anyone i've ever spoken to.

Yet you fail to back your statement up with anything...typical.

Yet you chose to select only parts of a post that you have a response to and turn a blind eye to the rest. Typical. You're a joke.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Just because I'm an atheist taking part in a debate doesn't mean I'm a bigot towards people of faith.

And no, I'm not going to go back from the beginning and re-verify every scientific experiment to arrive at the laws and leading theories of today. We don't have to do that, that's why science progresses. If Einstein had to re-discover Newtonian motion, he wouldn't have had enough time left in his life to formulate relativity. If Schrodinger had to re-discover Bohr's findings on the structure of atoms, he wouldn't have been able to advance quantum theory.

I trust science because of the way the scientific community works - it's a lot harder than most people think for a theory or law to become accepted. Also, I don't need to independently research it, because the information on how the laws and theories were formed all completely and meticulously documented and subjected to experiment constantly. You don't have to "trust" them, because it's all there in the form of equations and data (pretty friggin' hard to argue with).

Fair enough, but you should lay off the other guy when he believes that the events documented by the Physician/Historian Luke regarding Christ's life are true. He is doing no different than you, just accepting facts as valid because the methods for gathering them are valid.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Yet you chose to select only parts of a post that you have a response to and turn a blind eye to the rest. Typical. You're a joke.

No I just feel that if you can't tell what my religious beliefs are by what I have said then I am dong a better job of being objective in my statements than the next guy. If you're not going to back your statements up with anything then I don't owe you a response.

 

[OfSinsAndShred]

Fair enough, but you should lay off the other guy when he believes that the events documented by the Physician/Historian Luke regarding Christ's life are true. He is doing no different than you, just accepting facts as valid because the methods for gathering them are valid.

Well, I have no problem with people studying the life of Christ. It's of great historical significance (since a large portion of the world bases their lives on his teachings 2,000 years later). But that sounds purely historical to me, not religious. I don't think there's going to be any physical evidence that Christ was the son of God.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Fair enough, but you should lay off the other guy when he believes that the events documented by the Physician/Historian Luke regarding Christ's life are true. He is doing no different than you, just accepting facts as valid because the methods for gathering them are valid.

First, there's nothing but the word of the people who wrote the collective bible to "prove" any of it. Jeff's point is that the scientific community requires proof and the process is entirely transparent, so anyone can see how the person arrived at their conclusions and what evidence they have to support it. The bible doesn't have that. Now, if one chooses to believe it and take it on faith that this is the truth (as is the whole point of the religion), that's awesome. Good for them. It's strange when Canto will be ok with that method but deny things that require sticking to strict guidelines to prove.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

No I just feel that if you can't tell what my religious beliefs are by what I have said then I am dong a better job of being objective in my statements than the next guy. If you're not going to back your statements up with anything then I don't owe you a response.

i have backed up my statements enough. Go back and look. There has been nothing you've asked that has not been addressed directly and in depth. It is not my fault that you cannot accept anything i have to say, it's your own stubbornness that is dragging this conversation in circles. You are absolutely blind to anything that doesn't fit in your reality, yet you have the nerve to immediately judge anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[CantoX]

You know what bothers me.. when people say they are going to pray to their Lord, Jesus Christ..

Okay.. I thought their Lord was God ? Many times have I heard Jesus Christ being replaced by God by many Christians. Is it not that Christ is just the son and not the actual God of Christians ?

Yes.. random thought I know lol. But it has something to do with religion !

 

[Wander]

Don't the christians believe God to be schizophrenic as he has three personalities or something? And one of them is Jesus Christ.

Btw. One thing that annoys me is when people think that Evolution means that humans came from monkeys. It doesn't mean that! I means that humans and monkeys have the same progenitor/ancestor.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

You know what bothers me.. when people say they are going to pray to their Lord, Jesus Christ..

Okay.. I thought their Lord was God ? Many times have I heard Jesus Christ being replaced by God by many Christians. Is it not that Christ is just the son and not the actual God of Christians ?

Yes.. random thought I know lol. But it has something to do with religion !

The Trinity- God the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit are all separate entities but also all God at the same time. Though you are supposed to pray to God the father in the son's name, not to the son. Kind of bugs me too, good post.