U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-10-2012, 12:42 AM
 
Location: Metromess
11,798 posts, read 21,978,743 times
Reputation: 5074

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12 View Post
Wasn't science created?
Yes, but its findings can be tested for accuracy as it relates to the natural universe. Religious claims depend upon ancient writings, miracles, and personal revelations which cannot be verified. One simply must have faith and believe, which is a completely different matter from the scientific method.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2012, 07:43 AM
 
705 posts, read 943,750 times
Reputation: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12 View Post
Wasn't science created?
I don't think science was created, that's loke saying mathematics or history was created. The term and the practice of conducting certains aspects of it may have been conceptualized, but it's existence is not created, it's more of a result of the existence of the elements and studying them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2012, 10:11 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
17,247 posts, read 19,545,740 times
Reputation: 13002
Personally, I think it evolved rather than was created. :-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2012, 10:04 PM
 
24 posts, read 19,118 times
Reputation: 13
Religion is man-made. God is NOT. It's that simple.

What do you want us to believe...that we evolved from monkeys?

Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
Yes, but its findings can be tested for accuracy as it relates to the natural universe. Religious claims depend upon ancient writings, miracles, and personal revelations which cannot be verified. One simply must have faith and believe, which is a completely different matter from the scientific method.
I think it takes more faith to believe in science than God. Of course I am referring to the philosophical science that spawned theories like evolution and the big bang (that's not really science).

Last edited by cbs1507; 02-21-2012 at 10:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2012, 11:22 PM
 
16,095 posts, read 17,895,645 times
Reputation: 15891
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbs1507 View Post
Religion is man-made. God is NOT. It's that simple.

What do you want us to believe...that we evolved from monkeys?



I think it takes more faith to believe in science than God. Of course I am referring to the philosophical science that spawned theories like evolution and the big bang (that's not really science).
You obviously have no understanding of what evolutionary theory says if you think it says humans evolved from monkeys.

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

Quote:
1. Did we evolve from monkeys?
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
Quote:
5. What do humans have in common with single-celled organisms?
Evolution describes the change over time of all living things from a single common ancestor. The "tree of life" illustrates this concept. Every branch represents a species, each connected to other such branches and the rest of tree as a whole. The forks separating one species from another represent the common ancestors shared by these species. In the case of the relatedness of humans and single-celled organisms, a journey along two different paths -- one starting at the tip of the human branch, the other starting at the tip of a single-celled organism's branch -- would ultimately lead to a fork near the base of the tree: the common ancestor shared by these two very different types of organisms. This journey would cross countless other forks and branches along the way and span perhaps more than a billion years of evolution, but it demonstrates that even the most disparate creatures are related to one another -- that all life is interconnected.
As for the big bang theory, of course it is scientific. Note that knowledge of the big bang is incomplete, but science revises theories as new evidence becomes available.

THE BIG BANG

Quote:
In summary, we have made a first attempt at explaining the answers that science has revealed about our universe. Our understanding of the Big Bang, the first atoms and the age of the universe is obviously incomplete. As time wears on, more discoveries are made, leading to infinite questions which require yet more answers. Unsatisfied with our base of knowledge research is being conducted around the world at this very moment to further our minimal understanding of the unimaginably complex universe.

Since its conception, the theory of the Big Bang has been constantly challenged. These challenges have led those who believe in the theory to search for more concrete evidence which would prove them correct. From the point at which this chapter leaves off, many have tried to go further and several discoveries have been made that paint a more complete picture of the creation of the universe.

Recently, NASA has made some astounding discoveries which lend themselves to the proof of the Big Bang theory. Most importantly, astronomers using the Astro-2 observatory were able to confirm one of the requirements for the foundation of the universe through the Big Bang. In June, 1995, scientists were able to detect primordial helium, such as deuterium, in the far reaches of the universe. These findings are consistent with an important aspect of the Big Bang theory that a mixture of hydrogen and helium was created at the beginning of the universe.

In addition, the Hubble telescope, named after the father of Big Bang theory, has provided certain clues as to what elements were present following creation. Astronomers using Hubble have found the element boron in extremely ancient stars. They postulate that its presence could be either a remnant of energetic events at the birth of galaxies or it could indicate that boron is even older, dating back to the Big Bang itself. If the latter is true, scientists will be forced once again to modify their theory for the birth of the universe and events immediately afterward because, according to the present theory, such a heavy and complex atom could not have existed.

In this manner we can see that the research will never be truly complete. Our hunger for knowledge will never be satiated. So to answer the question, what now, is an impossibility. The path we take from here will only be determined by our own discoveries and questions. We are engaged in a never-ending cycle of questions and answers where one will inevitably lead to the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2012, 01:54 AM
 
24 posts, read 19,118 times
Reputation: 13
@nana053

I actually am aware that the evolution theory suggest that all life forms evolve from bacteria. I was being somewhat playful. Essentially if someone doesn't believe in God, the will likely believe in science. So that was my little insinuation. At the end of the day, those are just theories and will change over time. God's word will not change and is forever. IMO it takes more faith to believe in something that will change in 10 years than something that has been around forever unscathed. JMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2012, 10:02 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
17,247 posts, read 19,545,740 times
Reputation: 13002
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbs1507 View Post
I actually am aware that the evolution theory suggest that all life forms evolve from bacteria. I was being somewhat playful. Essentially if someone doesn't believe in God, the will likely believe in science. So that was my little insinuation. At the end of the day, those are just theories and will change over time. God's word will not change and is forever. IMO it takes more faith to believe in something that will change in 10 years than something that has been around forever unscathed. JMO.
It seems very unlikely that God exists. But even if God does exist, it is very unlikely that the Bible or any other religious scripture is God's word.

I think it is far more likely that science is closer to being God's word than religion is. I base this on the fact that so much about life and the universe we understand now only because of science. Before modern science, much of reality was shrouded in mystery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2012, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,372,762 times
Reputation: 3735
Default Let's put this one to bed, but le's do it logically. Like, you know.... science would?

Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12 View Post
Wasn't science created?
The SI (Scientific Method) is a carefully crafted ruleset, a methodological toolbox if you will, that was designed to try to answer questions posed to it by a regular, methodical, step-wise & highly logical process. It seeks to eliminate or significantly reduce poor research methods or politically motivated errors brought on by falsified evidence, a-priori*conclusions, and the purposeful avoidance of inspection of the research being conducted, by requiring a peer-review process.

(*"a priori" means that the researcher is under the influence of a prior understanding or conclusion before or during his or her research study, thus contaminating it's validity and outcome. He has a pre-conceived idea of what results he expects to see, or will accept. A very biased process, but one that the formal SI will typically weed out, esp. if the biased guy's research experiment is re-done by another scientist! Very embarrassing, and with potentially career-damaging consequences within the self-policing scientific community. BTW, this is certainly not so with religious claimants, who happily utilize "a priori" arguments almost hourly. Best watch out!)


Such a long-time evolved (in this case, small "e"...) tried-and-tested and honest inquiry methodology goes a long ways to providing reproducible or potentially falsifiable results. Then, the "Conclusions" and "Results" sections allow an accredited professional Journal publication's managers the option to assess submitted research results as to their ultimate suitability and professional quality before publication.

The end result is that an article that does achieve Journal publication can pretty much be considered valid & credible, but it's always open to subsequent inquiry and re-test. In this way, many tests have had their results either reversed or confirmed. Or, as often happens, the results are more rigorously reviewed in light of improved techniques or a better research design, with the result that the results are even more compelling!

Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
Knowledge of Carl Jung's school of thought is not necessary for nonbelief in a god. I was an agnostic atheist before I learned anything about Jung.
Hmmm... I'm a rather militant and enthusiastic atheist (No! Really?) and I don't even know anything about Jung. Isn';t he Colonel Jung? Of Jung's-Food fame? and...doesn't he have a national string of Fried Chicken franchises that also assuage your feelings of guilty eating? Eleven Herbs and Couch Positions? Isn't that it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
Yes, but its findings can be tested for accuracy as it relates to the natural universe. Religious claims depend upon ancient writings, miracles, and personal revelations which cannot be verified. One simply must have faith and believe, which is a completely different matter from the scientific method.
As well, the SI is pretty much frowned on as a means of reviewing biblical claims, since the anticipated answers (like: Was there REALLY a Noah's Ark Flood? OK: let's examine the evid.....

...oh , I'm sorry...am I in your way here? And say.... why the heck are you black-hooded preists all gathered \here with those ropes and that torch? No! NOOOooooo!!!! Help! Lemme Go! I was only asking a simple quest....mmmphhh!") And so on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbs1507 View Post
Religion is man-made. God is NOT. It's that simple.

What do you want us to believe...that we evolved from monkeys?

I think it takes more faith to believe in science than God. Of course I am referring to the philosophical science that spawned theories like evolution and the big bang (that's not really science).
Well, wrong. It takes faith to insist that we should NEVER ask logical questions of any fabricated social cult-tool belief system, (of which there are thousands of variants, often at physical war with each other..) by using the SI with it's logical and highly disciplined & punishable rule-sets? Faith in science is that, over the now long time of it's implementation as a tool set, it's evolved a pretty excellent track record, and I'd like you to perhaps point out to us readers exactly where this methodology is faulty.

I think you perhaps are referring to the commonly held but errant perception that "Science" per se is some sort of entity, that it holds opinions, directs research results and makes concrete statements.

Nope. Only it's users can do that. After all, you don't hold your pliers or Crescent™ wrench responsible for the failed hose clamp in your car, the clamp that broke and thus left you stranded out on the road with no more coolant, now do you? Those wrenches are only the tools you chose to apply to the problem. if used correctly, they will do what is asked of them, repeatedly and reliably. Just like the SI.

But... to still persevere and blame the Evil™ "plier entity" is to deny that some other component, improperly spec'd or adjusted, is the actual villan! Even when correctly shown the error in your thinking, if you still cling to your original philosophical errors and growing hatred of "The Plier Faker", (Let's call them what they really are, OK? They are Darwinian pliers, I tell you!) , particularly in religious concepts, you are officially, by simple & logical definition, an IDTr. (Intransigent Dogmo-Theist; intransigent you hopefully understand, and Dogmo-Theist, and a vigorous denialist, meaning that your beliefs about religion and God, etc., are dogmatically pursuded despite any and all concrete evidence to the contrary.

Certianly not a category I'd ever want to be in, and yet, seemingly, many here and in the CHristian community just don't care! They obviously prefer to be in the company of many other IDTrs. Perhaps it gives them some sense of social clubbism and of "belonging"....)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbs1507 View Post
@nana053

I actually am aware that the evolution theory suggest that all life forms evolve from bacteria. I was being somewhat playful. Essentially if someone doesn't believe in God, the will likely believe in science. So that was my little insinuation.

At the end of the day, those are just theories and will change over time. God's word will not change and is forever. IMO it takes more faith to believe in something that will change in 10 years than something that has been around forever unscathed. JMO.
Oh. Uhmmm.... so....< yikes'a'Mighty!> if we do find God's word is in fact in error as to the "hows and whys" of many things claimed as absolute in the bible, then God's ultimate trustability will be questioned, finally, by devout Christians?

Interesting.

This would explain why they/you fight logical interpretation so vigorously, eh? Even if that Godly word is demonstrably wrong, they/you DO NOT WANT TO KNOW? Have I got it right?

A Polite Suggestion? please review the difference in, and definitions of, the terms "theory" and "hypothesis". In science, theories are pretty much confirmed and continue to be so, and to generally improve, since they are always open to ongoing "refinement".

Theories do not generally anticipate any type of major direction changes, but that's also not out of the question nor unapproachable. Theory is also not defined as an "unsupported bad guess", as is the common average Joe's hoi polloi definition, when he or she are not drinking heavily and pontificating or bloviating their vast knowledge of science and how it (supposedly) works!

An "hypothesis", is more like what you are calling a "theory", In the case of science's approach to a question, an "hypothesis" is the initial, unproven but at least potentially possible direction of rational thinking. As in the current research into The Big Bang hypothesis.

Also note that much of what an hypothesis states can also be very usefully "predictive", and if those predictions are met repeatedly in multiple testing, from many different angles of attack, or by multiple independent researchers (as in, "if your idea/hypothesis is correct, we should then expect to see green chickens emerge from that vat, right?"), and then, if indeed those chickens, once yellow, do emerge bright green, then you have to give even more credence to the original guess-hypothesis! Seem rational? This is exactly how hypotheses advance for sure!

An hypothesis must indeed carry it's key potential elements into the critical and necessary "look and see" research processes that will follow on to possibly & potentially create a valid and useful theory (the proper definition this time...).

That sounds reasonable, does it not? And.... it's now well on it's way to becoming an accepted "theory", more colloquially called by scientists a "fact" or alternately, "a damned biased lie!!" by our now quite drunk & mis-opinionated hoi polloi.

Got it now? Oh...you're welcome! Any time.

Last edited by rifleman; 02-22-2012 at 11:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2012, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Texas
1,303 posts, read 1,854,728 times
Reputation: 714
You know you've made God in your own image when he hates and likes all the same things/people you hate and like.

This seems to happen a lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2012, 12:22 PM
 
705 posts, read 943,750 times
Reputation: 320
The gods and religion were most certainly created by humans, only ignorant humans could possibly come up with something so ridiclous as this;

Iran Court Convicts Christian Pastor Convert To Death | Fox News

Their god certainy does love everyone doesn't he.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top