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.
That's because science is a religion when it comes to the origins of man. There are only two religions on this planet; theism and atheism. One worships a God without question, the other worships "peer reviewed" people without question.
And that is where you are 100% wrong, for science questions itself, it invites question, it demands questions, for peer review is what hones science to the true answer.
Atheists exhibit the same questioning, and that is primarily the reason we are atheists. Following, without questioning, someone that is holding a book of ancient superstitions, without any evidence is so counter to reason and thought, and takes a great deal of willful stupidity to accomplish.
And that is where you are 100% wrong, for science questions itself, it invites question, it demands questions, for peer review is what hones science to the true answer.
Atheists exhibit the same questioning, and that is primarily the reason we are atheists. Following, without questioning, someone that is holding a book of ancient superstitions, without any evidence is so counter to reason and thought, and takes a great deal of willful stupidity to accomplish.
Science and Religion are both wrong...
That's because science is a religion when it comes to the origins of man. There are only two religions on this planet; theism and atheism. One worships a God without question, the other worships "peer reviewed" people without question. The common denominator is that no one questions what they are fed (and YES, science and religion BOTH are fed to us). There have been NUMEROUS documentaries done on how science tends to lie when a discovery goes too far outside of the accepted "norm". Keep in mind that such documentaries are not fed to us, we have to search for them. Don't get me wrong though. Science is perfect in theory, but how perfect can it be when most of the folks in the business are theists with an agenda?
The clear evidence that many of our ancient sites are actually thousands of years older than we claim is just one example. Keeping them "younger" helps with the evolution story that claims humans were still hunter-gatherers 10,000 plus years ago. Science can't just admit that homo-sapien-sapiens were here and advanced for that long because we supposedly evolved directly from the Neanderthals. The bottomline is that there would not have been sufficient time for a Neanderthal to us transition to have occured if we were advanced 10,000 plus years ago (not to mention that it would also conflict with the biblical timeline). So now, science is telling us that Neanderthals were humans just like us with only "minor" differences. Eventually, the goal is to clone a Neanderthal to prove it, but wait; there's a problem. We currently aren't allowed to clone "humans". Well, isn't that just convenient. Science gets a pass (from their theistic friends) out of cloning a Neanderthal. Shocking (NOT!!!!!!)
My point here is that "ethics" (aka, religion) is the ultimate governing body over life science. This is my biggest issue with science. Other than that, science ROCKS!!!
Do athiest /christians ever think about what was before our beginning. What made big bang and what made the big bang before the big bang and so on. Christians do you think God had a creator?
Actually, yes, I have thought of this and I have asked the question many, many times in my life: If God created everything, what created God?
The answer: We cannot understand the concept of "no time"; that something has always been there.
Prove he did, either than or now...It cannot be done.
That's not how debate works. If you make a claim, such as God showed up when man invented him, you need to prove that statement. Lack of debating skills is to deflect and tell the other person to prove an assumption you have made about their statement in response to your initial claim.
If you make a statement, you need to be able to back it up.
I belittled your God (science) then instead of asking for clarification of that which went over your head; you called me a name. Thanks for proving my point.
from the poster that links to every loons ufo video or blog
That's not how debate works. If you make a claim, such as God showed up when man invented him, you need to prove that statement. Lack of debating skills is to deflect and tell the other person to prove an assumption you have made about their statement in response to your initial claim.
If you make a statement, you need to be able to back it up.
The way debating works is according to the rules of logic.
The rules of logic say that the person making a claim has to provide the substantiations (the burden of proof or as you somewhat incorrectly put it 'you need to prove that statement')
The person making the claim is the theist. They are claiming there is a god.
The burden of proof is on the theist.
One of those 'proofs' is the claim that man believes in a god (of various kinds).
That is proof of nothing since (as there is no sound evidence that any god is real) they are very likely man's invention.
Back to the theists to produce proof.
It is clever debating skills but a logically unlegitimate attempt to shift the burden of proof to the unbeliever
We do NOT have to 'prove' there is no god - the theist has to 'prove' that there is.
Seems we are at an impasse. So now that all things are even, can you just leave us the %$#@ alone.
I don't know which side you are debating, but I have to say the 'all things are even' and 'leave us alone' doesn't really suit the atheist book. It is too much like handing a draw to the theists and to the theists, a draw is a win as it enables all sorts of claims that God is an equally probability or that god claims are just as substantiated or at least valid as science.
That is just not the case. Science works on experimentally verified data and theism works, essentially, on speculation; Faith.
We cannot agree to differ, we cannot be silent and we do not want to be left alone.
Science cannot be told there are no areas where it cannot go, nothing and nobody is beyond question.
Blasphemy laws and its subterfuge 'the Respect' card should never be allowed to silence the debate.
I respect science can prove many things, but after all the brain of man/his scientific theories are imperfect just as mans writings are (bible)....
.
Thats why they are called theories and not fact, theories can be changed as new data comes along.
Religion on the other hand is dogma, unchanging, always the same, must be believed even if it makes no sense,having faith that what is written is true is its major demand.
In this day and age the science makes more sense, the religion seems to be written to the uneducated masses of a bygone era..
That said religion does give some very good moral concepts on ways to live a good life, the 10 commandments for example,
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.
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.
The edited full version of my post with examples
