Creepier Belief system (5 Viewers)

[Giant Wooden Badger]

I believe science will prove the existence of God.

This will probably happen before you are proven to be female.

 

[larry_boy_44]

so you can say there is no God and try to prove it, but no one can say "there is a God" and try to prove it...

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Belief in supernatural powers is the antithesis of scientific reasoning.If you believe in supernatural powers, you cannot use scientific reasoning to "prove" your belief. It is the "insert miracle here" argument that someone else just mentioned.

but all your really saying is:I'm right, your wrong, and not only can you not convince me, you can't even say something I would accept as a reason to be convinced...aka - you refuse to engage what I say,not the other way around (As some on here have been saying)

 

[larry_boy_44]

I simply resign to the idea that God can never be proven logically to exist or not exist.

That's a perfectly fine stance to take.But Larry is arguing that belief in the supernatural is akin to belief in science. And that will simply not be tolerated.

no, I am saying belief in science as a way to DETERMINE HOW THE WORLD CAME INTO EXISTENCE is akin to believing that GOD CREATED EVERYTHING!!aka...if you believe that abiogenesis/big bang/etc. happened, you are putting as much faith into it as I am believing God created everything, becasue you can't prove either happened...I am not saying believing in science is the same as believing in God, I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

 

[larry_boy_44]

God does not require proof. God, or any deity, requires faith. so lets move on from that.However, when people complain about Creationist theory not being taught in school as an alternative to Evolution, there is a problem:Evolution is taught in science class, and is subject to the rigors of the scientific theory. Since Creationism relies upon the existence of a supreme being capacble of acting as a force on the universe, without being constrained by the very laws of that universe, you have an unproveable theorem. Foucault's last theorem remained non-science for several hundred years because it could not be proven. Beta as a measure of correlating one stock to the movement of the Market remained unprovable as data continues to be gathered.Being equally 'unproveable' does not allow Creationism to be brought into the same conversation with evolution. It must be subject to the same rigors as evolution, which is, an evolving scientific principle.

I don't think creation should be taught in school with evolution...but i don't really think abiogenesis/big bang should be taught as fact...If they are taught, it needs to be told to the kids that htese are THEORY and not FACT and the difference needs to be explained...otherwise those kids are being just as indoctrinated as someone who was taught God created everything...

 

[Gold Dragon]

I am not saying believing in science is the same as believing in God, I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

I would agree with you that there is an element of faith in accepting any scientific theory. But how do you measure faith? What units do you use to say that one belief requires as much faith as another?I believe that it does take more faith to believe in my belief that God was intimately involved in the creation of the world than a completely naturalistic view of our origins. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Statorama]

I think we should all just say God created the Big Bang and go order a pitcher of margaritas.

 

[the rover]

have you ever met a scientologist? really, really creepy.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

have you ever met a scientologist? really, really creepy.

Is anyone on this board a Scientologist? I have heard rumors that they look to evolve into their own Gods through increased knowledge, but I don't know if that is true or not. I know some Mormons believe that they can be Gods of their own universes (at least that is what a Mormon buddy told me, but I don't know if he was pulling my leg).

 

[Statorama]

have you ever met a scientologist? really, really creepy.

Is anyone on this board a Scientologist? I have heard rumors that they look to evolve into their own Gods through increased knowledge, but I don't know if that is true or not. I know some Mormons believe that they can be Gods of their own universes (at least that is what a Mormon buddy told me, but I don't know if he was pulling my leg).

I've heard Mormons have to wear special underwear, and that they can no longer have multiple wives.

 

[Jericho]

I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

We've been through this already. You're not listening again.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

have you ever met a scientologist?  really, really creepy.

Is anyone on this board a Scientologist? I have heard rumors that they look to evolve into their own Gods through increased knowledge, but I don't know if that is true or not. I know some Mormons believe that they can be Gods of their own universes (at least that is what a Mormon buddy told me, but I don't know if he was pulling my leg).

I've heard Mormons have to wear special underwear, and that they can no longer have multiple wives.

I think the underwear thing is true. I play basketball with one guy who played for the Utes and another guy that played for BYU. They wear what can best be described as modified long-johns (at first I asked them why they were wearing sliding pants which is what they really looked like). the one guy is 6'4 300, so I didn't joke around too long for fear of being squashed like a grape.

 

[The Football Freak]

I simply resign to the idea that God can never be proven logically to exist or not exist.

That's a perfectly fine stance to take.But Larry is arguing that belief in the supernatural is akin to belief in science. And that will simply not be tolerated.

no, I am saying belief in science as a way to DETERMINE HOW THE WORLD CAME INTO EXISTENCE is akin to believing that GOD CREATED EVERYTHING!!aka...if you believe that abiogenesis/big bang/etc. happened, you are putting as much faith into it as I am believing God created everything, becasue you can't prove either happened...I am not saying believing in science is the same as believing in God, I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

Maybe not prove, which is a truly rare thing to absoluteloy prove anything, but there is muuuuuuuuch more in the way of physical proof for a big bang theory (ie, movement of planets, expansion of space, etc). In the physical world there is more proof for the bib bang than the bible. There is even more proof for the new creation theory coming about that changes some of the things in the big bang then there is for the bible. The bible is faith, science by definition cannot be faith.

 

[ScottNorwood]

have you ever met a scientologist? really, really creepy.

I've never met a scientologist or a creationist (as far as I know).

 

[larry_boy_44]

I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

We've been through this already. You're not listening again.

no, actually your not listening... lolbut... whatever...

 

[The Football Freak]

God does not require proof. God, or any deity, requires faith. so lets move on from that.However, when people complain about Creationist theory not being taught in school as an alternative to Evolution, there is a problem:Evolution is taught in science class, and is subject to the rigors of the scientific theory. Since Creationism relies upon the existence of a supreme being capacble of acting as a force on the universe, without being constrained by the very laws of that universe, you have an unproveable theorem. Foucault's last theorem remained non-science for several hundred years because it could not be proven. Beta as a measure of correlating one stock to the movement of the Market remained unprovable as data continues to be gathered.Being equally 'unproveable' does not allow Creationism to be brought into the same conversation with evolution. It must be subject to the same rigors as evolution, which is, an evolving scientific principle.

I don't think creation should be taught in school with evolution...but i don't really think abiogenesis/big bang should be taught as fact...If they are taught, it needs to be told to the kids that htese are THEORY and not FACT and the difference needs to be explained...otherwise those kids are being just as indoctrinated as someone who was taught God created everything...

Nope, this is the slippery slope that is already screwing up the separation of church and state. Big Bang is always described as theory and the difference between theory and fact is always described in science classes and/or mathematics classes, so the distinction is well known. The last thing we need is to undermine scientific discovery to couch things to make those with certain religious beliefs more comfortable. Teach it at home to your own children if you have to, but this type of thinking is dangerous in relations to school.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Nope, this is the slippery slope that is already screwing up the separation of church and state. Big Bang is always described as theory and the difference between theory and fact is always described in science classes and/or mathematics classes, so the distinction is well known. The last thing we need is to undermine scientific discovery to couch things to make those with certain religious beliefs more comfortable. Teach it at home to your own children if you have to, but this type of thinking is dangerous in relations to school.

it is NOT always taught as theory... both my siblings are in high school right now, and they aren't teaching it as theory,t hey aren't pointing out its theory...Seriously, maybe its just laziness, but they don't say its a theory other than saying "the Theory of Evolution", but they teach it as much as fact as gravity or Newton's laws and stuff...But the thing is is that abiogenesis is not on the same level as Newton's laws... It CAN happen, but they aren't teaching that it CAN happen, they are teaching that it DID happen...there is a huge difference...

 

[larry_boy_44]

oh yeah, and seperation of church and state is saying that the Catholic, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian church cannot be the official state church of the US, not that religion needs to stay out of anything that has to do with the government...

 

[The Football Freak]

I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

We've been through this already. You're not listening again.

no, actually your not listening... lolbut... whatever...

No, it is you. You seem like a goopd enough guy, but you have to stop insiting that there is as much faith involved in the big bang theory as there is in the bible. The big bang has some physical proofs that line up for it, as well as against it, but there are proofs there to be used by all. The bible is something to believe or not based solely on faith alone, but there is no proof for or against it (meaning the knowledge therein, not the bible itself).

 

[Jericho]

I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

We've been through this already. You're not listening again.

no, actually your not listening... lolbut... whatever...

I'm listening just fine. The only faith science takes is faith that natural laws won't whimsically change once in a while (as you have previously asserted they might). Once you accept that faith, everything else falls into place. That's not really too big a leap of faith. Nowhere near the level of coming up with some complicated eternal omnipotent father figure manipulating the universe like his own little Fisher Price playset.

 

[The Football Freak]

Nope, this is the slippery slope that is already screwing up the separation of church and state. Big Bang is always described as theory and the difference between theory and fact is always described in science classes and/or mathematics classes, so the distinction is well known. The last thing we need is to undermine scientific discovery to couch things to make those with certain religious beliefs more comfortable. Teach it at home to your own children if you have to, but this type of thinking is dangerous in relations to school.

it is NOT always taught as theory... both my siblings are in high school right now, and they aren't teaching it as theory,t hey aren't pointing out its theory...Seriously, maybe its just laziness, but they don't say its a theory other than saying "the Theory of Evolution", but they teach it as much as fact as gravity or Newton's laws and stuff...But the thing is is that abiogenesis is not on the same level as Newton's laws... It CAN happen, but they aren't teaching that it CAN happen, they are teaching that it DID happen...there is a huge difference...

Yes it is. You are wrong! People subscribe to it based on the evidence they are given, but it is the most plausible explainiation that is available to modern science. The word theory, which everyone on this board knows to ascribe to the big bang, is what makes what I am saying true.

 

[The Football Freak]

oh yeah, and seperation of church and state is saying that the Catholic, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian church cannot be the official state church of the US, not that religion needs to stay out of anything that has to do with the government...

It also has to do with state sponsored religions, which means that you can't enact laws and amendments, etc with that churchs best interests or morals at heart. Literal translations of the constitution really only help when someone is desperately trying to prop up their argument while leaving out intent or subtext.

 

[larry_boy_44]

oh yeah, and seperation of church and state is saying that the Catholic, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian church cannot be the official state church of the US, not that religion needs to stay out of anything that has to do with the government...

It also has to do with state sponsored religions, which means that you can't enact laws and amendments, etc with that churchs best interests or morals at heart. Literal translations of the constitution really only help when someone is desperately trying to prop up their argument while leaving out intent or subtext.

I could be wrong... but I thought seperation of church and state wasn't in teh Constitution...am I wrong?I thought it came out of seperate papers written by some of hte framers...Also, state-sponsored religions...I'm sorry... athiesm is a religion... but its ok for the state to sponsor that?*on soapbox*Also, don't get me started on state sponsored non-Christian religion, 'cuz it happens all the time...our government is so anti-Christianity its sickening... especially since most of hte country claims Christianity...we really don't have much of seperation of church and state... we have seperetation of Christianity and state...*off soapbox*

 

[Dickies]

Larry is trying to say that since you cannot "prove" science, that faith is reasonable. There is a problem here. The very idea of a god is an unprovable one. There is zero evidence, and likely always will be zero evidence. While scientific theories are just theories, evidence can be gathered to support them. There is simply no way to gather evidence to support creationism.

 

[Bubba]

I could be wrong... but I thought seperation of church and state wasn't in teh Constitution...am I wrong?I thought it came out of seperate papers written by some of hte framers...

Ah, yes...Jefferson's famous 'Seperate Papers and Stuff'.

 

[Jericho]

I'm sorry... athiesm is a religion...

 

[larry_boy_44]

I could be wrong... but I thought seperation of church and state wasn't in teh Constitution...am I wrong?I thought it came out of seperate papers written by some of hte framers...

Ah, yes...Jefferson's famous 'Seperate Papers and Stuff'.

hey look... and answer that has no real purpose other than proving your an ###... good job *thumbs up*

 

[The Football Freak]

oh yeah, and seperation of church and state is saying that the Catholic, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian church cannot be the official state church of the US, not that religion needs to stay out of anything that has to do with the government...

It also has to do with state sponsored religions, which means that you can't enact laws and amendments, etc with that churchs best interests or morals at heart. Literal translations of the constitution really only help when someone is desperately trying to prop up their argument while leaving out intent or subtext.

I could be wrong... but I thought seperation of church and state wasn't in teh Constitution...am I wrong?I thought it came out of seperate papers written by some of hte framers...Also, state-sponsored religions...I'm sorry... athiesm is a religion... but its ok for the state to sponsor that?*on soapbox*Also, don't get me started on state sponsored non-Christian religion, 'cuz it happens all the time...our government is so anti-Christianity its sickening... especially since most of hte country claims Christianity...we really don't have much of seperation of church and state... we have seperetation of Christianity and state...*off soapbox*

1st amendment/establishment clause.

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

God does not require proof. God, or any deity, requires faith. so lets move on from that.However, when people complain about Creationist theory not being taught in school as an alternative to Evolution, there is a problem:Evolution is taught in science class, and is subject to the rigors of the scientific theory. Since Creationism relies upon the existence of a supreme being capacble of acting as a force on the universe, without being constrained by the very laws of that universe, you have an unproveable theorem. Foucault's last theorem remained non-science for several hundred years because it could not be proven. Beta as a measure of correlating one stock to the movement of the Market remained unprovable as data continues to be gathered.Being equally 'unproveable' does not allow Creationism to be brought into the same conversation with evolution. It must be subject to the same rigors as evolution, which is, an evolving scientific principle.

I don't think creation should be taught in school with evolution...but i don't really think abiogenesis/big bang should be taught as fact...If they are taught, it needs to be told to the kids that htese are THEORY and not FACT and the difference needs to be explained...otherwise those kids are being just as indoctrinated as someone who was taught God created everything...

The Big Bang/abiogenesis are not taught in schools as fact. They are taught as the leading theory that we have right now according to the evidence we have at hand. If they are being taught as fact I would say that it is either that they have a terrible science teacher (believeable since I had a high school science teacher that taught things that were flat out wrong) or the youths in question have just as difficult time with understanding the scientific method and what exactly is a scientific theory as you do.This debate is extremely frustrating because you refuse to differentiate between proof and evidence. Let's just look at a hypothetical here. Say you noticed that your wife always wore her shortest skirts and lowest cut tops on Thursdays with her nicer lingerie beneath. Say you also came across a string of charges for motel rooms on a credit card in her name. Say she has been having to "work late" on Thursdays for the last month. If these things were happening I certainly would theorize that my wife was having an affair and would probably investigate further. If you found out that the credit card was her corporate visa and that she had a business associate from another branch for Thursday planning meetings you might change your theory to assume that they have late meetings and she is reserving a room for her out of town associate or some other explanation. However, if you had her followed and found out that she arrived at 3:30 on Thursday arm in arm with an unidentified man that would strengthen your theory and you would probably either confront her or investigate further. At this point you might be pretty certain she's having an affair but you still wouldn't have your "proof" unless you were hidden in the closet and actually saw them doing the horizontal mambo. Now let's go further and say that you have a buddy who is certain that his wife is having an affair because he read an article in Men's Health that said that 75% of wives cheat on their husbands and that she recently raved about a book about an adulterous wife. In these two cases neither of the two individuals have absolute "proof" of the affair but anyone with any common sense whatsoever could tell you which guy's wife is more likely to be an adulterer.You keep referring to scientific theories as "guesses" which is an extremely simple minded belief. If you think that scientists are just coming up with wild ideas and then trying to search for evidence you have even less of a clue of the scientific method than we imagined. A scientific theory typically starts with an observation and a theoretical explanation for that observation. That theory is tested repeatedly and often modified with further evidence until it becomes an accepted theory for the observation or until it is disproven and scrapped.

 

[The Football Freak]

free exercise clause

 

[tangfoot]

our government is so anti-Christianity its sickening...

Funny that I see it exactly the opposite.Talk to me again when Under God is removed.

 

[shining path]

I am not saying believing in science is the same as believing in God, I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

I would agree with you that there is an element of faith in accepting any scientific theory. But how do you measure faith? What units do you use to say that one belief requires as much faith as another?I believe that it does take more faith to believe in my belief that God was intimately involved in the creation of the world than a completely naturalistic view of our origins. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I measure mine in Ohms.

 

[Bubba]

I am not saying believing in science is the same as believing in God, I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

I would agree with you that there is an element of faith in accepting any scientific theory. But how do you measure faith? What units do you use to say that one belief requires as much faith as another?I believe that it does take more faith to believe in my belief that God was intimately involved in the creation of the world than a completely naturalistic view of our origins. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I measure mine in Ohms.

try cubic inches...hipple will help you oot

 

[Jericho]

I am not saying believing in science is the same as believing in God, I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

I would agree with you that there is an element of faith in accepting any scientific theory. But how do you measure faith? What units do you use to say that one belief requires as much faith as another?I believe that it does take more faith to believe in my belief that God was intimately involved in the creation of the world than a completely naturalistic view of our origins. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I measure mine in Ohms.

Bunning racks.

 

[Statorama]

I am not saying believing in science is the same as believing in God, I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

I would agree with you that there is an element of faith in accepting any scientific theory. But how do you measure faith? What units do you use to say that one belief requires as much faith as another?I believe that it does take more faith to believe in my belief that God was intimately involved in the creation of the world than a completely naturalistic view of our origins. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I measure mine in Ohms.

Bunning racks.

Cunning Runts?

 

[Jericho]

I am not saying believing in science is the same as believing in God, I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

I would agree with you that there is an element of faith in accepting any scientific theory. But how do you measure faith? What units do you use to say that one belief requires as much faith as another?I believe that it does take more faith to believe in my belief that God was intimately involved in the creation of the world than a completely naturalistic view of our origins. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I measure mine in Ohms.

Bunning racks.

Cunning Runts?

A cunning array of stunts?

 

[Rocco]

God does not require proof. God, or any deity, requires faith.

so lets move on from that.

However, when people complain about Creationist theory not being taught in school as an alternative to Evolution, there is a problem:

Evolution is taught in science class, and is subject to the rigors of the scientific theory. Since Creationism relies upon the existence of a supreme being capacble of acting as a force on the universe, without being constrained by the very laws of that universe, you have an unproveable theorem. Foucault's last theorem remained non-science for several hundred years because it could not be proven. Beta as a measure of correlating one stock to the movement of the Market remained unprovable as data continues to be gathered.

Being equally 'unproveable' does not allow Creationism to be brought into the same conversation with evolution. It must be subject to the same rigors as evolution, which is, an evolving scientific principle.

I don't think creation should be taught in school with evolution...but i don't really think abiogenesis/big bang should be taught as fact...

If they are taught, it needs to be told to the kids that htese are THEORY and not FACT and the difference needs to be explained...

otherwise those kids are being just as indoctrinated as someone who was taught God created everything...

I hae always been taught it was a theory - the currently best one to explain the development of life on earth. And then of course the physics of how the universe formed.Personally, I think Creationists split hairs on the words being used. It needs to be taught, period.

Read Carl Sagan's Candle in the Darkeness, i think is the title. He talks about the pseudo science that goes on today.

When asked if he believes in Aliens visiting earth, he says [said] no. He says the probability of life on other planets is statistically probable, but has seen nothing that cannot first be explained by some terrestial activity. And barring an answer, a deity or extra-terrestial is not an acceptable answer.

For science the unknown is a chance to explore new questions.

for religion, it is another example of the finger of God.

That will always be the difference.

 

[Bubba]

it is NOT always taught as theory... both my siblings are in high school right now, and they aren't teaching it as theory,t hey aren't pointing out its theory...

Seriously, maybe its just laziness, but they don't say its a theory other than saying "the Theory of Evolution"

well...that certainly is misleading...

 

[Statorama]

I am not saying believing in science is the same as believing in God, I'm saying believing in abiogenesis/big bang/evolution as a way of how we got here is requiring the same amount of faith as it would to simply b elieve God did it...

I would agree with you that there is an element of faith in accepting any scientific theory. But how do you measure faith? What units do you use to say that one belief requires as much faith as another?I believe that it does take more faith to believe in my belief that God was intimately involved in the creation of the world than a completely naturalistic view of our origins. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I measure mine in Ohms.

Bunning racks.

Cunning Runts?

A cunning array of stunts?

It's like the difference between a pickpocket and a peeping tom...A pickpocket snatches watches.

 

[Rocco]

At the time Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, the Old Testament had been already accepted as Scripture.

So in essence, this is really just Paul's opinion on how God feels about Scripture?Hmmm...I'm going to have to revoke my earlier retraction and say that this isn't really a reasonable basis for the Bible validating itself.

All Scripture had human authors, including the Old Testament. God didn't write stuff down and drop it from heaven. He inspired human writers and used them to communicate His word. It's not an issue of Paul's opinion. Again, there is a measure of faith involved.

How does this sort of thing fall in line with "free will" that we are supposed to have. We are supposed to be imperfect and intentionally created that way by God yet we are supposed to believe that we got the right things written down in the Bible? You will tell me that there was divine intervention yet I thought that he didn't do that? If man is flawed and the Bible is written by man, who is to say that it isn't flawed? If you get to make up explanations for everything it is pretty damn easy to explain damn near anything.

Yes, man does have free-will and is fallible. But at the same time God is sovereign and in control of everything. Can I explain how that works? Nope. Do I believe it to be true? Yep.

Does that qualify as science.Nope.

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

God does not require proof.  God, or any deity, requires faith.

so lets move on from that.

However, when people complain about Creationist theory not being taught in school as an alternative to Evolution, there is a problem:

Evolution is taught in science class, and is subject to the rigors of the scientific theory.  Since Creationism relies upon the existence of a supreme being capacble of acting as a force on the universe, without being constrained by the very laws of that universe, you have an unproveable theorem.  Foucault's last theorem remained non-science for several hundred years because it could not be proven.  Beta as a measure of correlating one stock to the movement of the Market remained unprovable as data continues to be gathered.

Being equally 'unproveable' does not allow Creationism to be brought into the same conversation with evolution.  It must be subject to the same rigors as evolution, which is, an evolving scientific principle.

I don't think creation should be taught in school with evolution...but i don't really think abiogenesis/big bang should be taught as fact...

If they are taught, it needs to be told to the kids that htese are THEORY and not FACT and the difference needs to be explained...

otherwise those kids are being just as indoctrinated as someone who was taught God created everything...

I hae always been taught it was a theory - the currently best one to explain the development of life on earth. And then of course the physics of how the universe formed.Personally, I think Creationists split hairs on the words being used. It needs to be taught, period.

Read Carl Sagan's Candle in the Darkeness, i think is the title. He talks about the pseudo science that goes on today.

When asked if he believes in Aliens visiting earth, he says [said] no. He says the probability of life on other planets is statistically probable, but has seen nothing that cannot first be explained by some terrestial activity. And barring an answer, a deity or extra-terrestial is not an acceptable answer.

For science the unknown is a chance to explore new questions.

for religion, it is another example of the finger of God.

That will always be the difference.

You are dead on there. The tangent of this post is how creationists spend all of their time trying to disprove evolution without realizing that even if they managed to disprove evolution that it in no way makes creation a more viable answer. With all of the scientific discovery in recent history, even if evolution were disproved the evidence would still point towards something miles away from creation. Disproving one theory in no way, shape, or form proves another theory to be correct.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

Who won?

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

I'm sorry... athiesm is a religion... but its ok for the state to sponsor that?*on soapbox*Also, don't get me started on state sponsored non-Christian religion, 'cuz it happens all the time...our government is so anti-Christianity its sickening... especially since most of hte country claims Christianity...we really don't have much of seperation of church and state... we have seperetation of Christianity and state...*off soapbox*

re·li·gionn. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. B. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 2. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. What part of the definition of religion indicates that athiesm is a religion?Belief and reverence for a supernatural power? Nope.System grounded in such belief and worship? Doesn't seem to fit.Life or system of a person in a religious order? Not even close.Spiritual leader? Nada.Cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion? Negative, ghost rider, the pattern is full.

 

[Jericho]

3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

 

[PlebsforPresident]

Every other human myth has a basis in reality, except dragons...

This is ridiculous.

really?

which one do you think has NO basis AT ALL with something that is real?

I don't think there's ever been a creature with the head of a man and the body of a lion. Or the head of a man and the body of a goat. Or a humanoid species with one eye in the middle of its forehead. Need I go on?

But there are both lions and man. Thats all the inspiration needed for man to come up with a creature that shares the head of a man with the body of a lion. Larry is a slight bit confused about his theory that everything that man has invented is based on "truth". It's not based on truth, its inspired by what man sees in his existence. It doesn't mean that these things actually existed, it just means they were inspired in some way by something that did exist and he experienced at some point.

Read Emerson's On History. I happen to think Emerson has people pegged pretty well.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What units do you use to say that one belief requires as much faith as another?

Cubits.

 

[Jericho]

What units do you use to say that one belief requires as much faith as another?

Cubits.

"Ohms" was funnier. Sorry.

 

[ScottNorwood]

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Seriously, maybe its just laziness, but they don't say its a theory other than saying "the Theory of Evolution", but they teach it as much as fact as gravity or Newton's laws and stuff...

Common descent is as much a fact as gravity and Newton's laws are.They are all theories, and they are all facts. The two are not mutually exclusive.Some people seem to think that theories are things that would be facts if only they had better proof. Not so. A fact is a thing that happens. A theory is a testable explanatory description of how or why it happens.It is a fact that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. It happened.It is also a theory, involving such concepts as mutation, selection, adaptation, speciation, etc. These are general concepts that together form a theory of evolution that explains the fact of evolution.Similarly, the theory of gravity (that objects are attracted to each other in proportion to the product of their masses, but inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them) explains the fact of gravity (that apples fall downward instead of upward).Evolution and gravity are both theories. And facts.Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is not a known fact. It is speculative.(By the way, judging from some of your previous posts, I think you misunderstand what abiogenesis means. It does not mean 'turning from one species into another.' That's just good old-fashioned evolution, and it's a fact. It's been directly observed. Abiogenesis concerns the origination of life from non-living matter. This has not been directly observed.)

 

[larry_boy_44]

it is NOT always taught as theory... both my siblings are in high school right now, and they aren't teaching it as theory,t hey aren't pointing out its theory...

Seriously, maybe its just laziness, but they don't say its a theory other than saying "the Theory of Evolution"

well...that certainly is misleading...

yes, but it is a theory in name only...after they get done titling it that (if they even do title it that), they proceed to tell the kids what DID happen...

nice theory, huh?

 

[larry_boy_44]

I'm sorry... athiesm is a religion... but its ok for the state to sponsor that?*on soapbox*Also, don't get me started on state sponsored non-Christian religion, 'cuz it happens all the time...our government is so anti-Christianity its sickening... especially since most of hte country claims Christianity...we really don't have much of seperation of church and state... we have seperetation of Christianity and state...*off soapbox*

re·li·gionn. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. B. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 2. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. What part of the definition of religion indicates that athiesm is a religion?Belief and reverence for a supernatural power? Nope.System grounded in such belief and worship? Doesn't seem to fit.Life or system of a person in a religious order? Not even close.Spiritual leader? Nada.Cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion? Negative, ghost rider, the pattern is full.

read that last part again...many athiests are more aggressive in spreading athiesm than Christians are at spreading Christianity...