The problem I have with deism, or the idea of a god that doesn't interfere in any way, is that it is really just a non-confrontational front for atheism. If there is an undetectable being that does not influence the world in any way, it effectively does not exist.
Effectively does not exist and truly does not exist are somewhat different. For me, Micronesia effectively does not exist, as I have no dealings with it, its members, or its products. Yet it would be much harder for me to show that it does not exist than it would be to show that it has little effect on my daily life and therefor the question of its existence is unimportant for me.
Would it be fair to just say religion is complex because it has both real and imaginary components?
Quite fair.
Would you say then that one who goes through the motions has good character? If a person is charitable because it is a learned behavior reinforced with social pressure, would you consider it the same marker of good character as one who is charitable out of compassion for others?
People have compassion for others because it is a learned behavior reinforced with social pressure. I don't think any argument on this line will go anywhere.
An interesting statement. Can you elaborate?
jcc, I think we can be happy on our previous points if I make the concession that a poor criticism is better than no criticism at all.
Indeed.
I would say that given some kind of standard for judging moral behaviour, the only important thing to judge is the behaviour itself, not the reasons for following it.
Fair enough. However, this makes prediction of future actions that are not identical somewhat difficult, which sort of ruins the point of noting anything about a person's character.
Yeah, Sail. Would you get in trouble if you just smacked this kid and posted video of it on the forum? At the very least, you should get together with all the cool kids and ostracize him.
Wow, in a week we've moved from disrespect to encouraging youth to violence.
I commend the kid for writing that, and I find it sad that it's almost rebellious to write something like that in school. I would prefer (speaking on Christianity) people learn about God in church, in Sunday School, and at home. As long as evolution is presented as a theory it's fine, as long as they also define "theory".
It seems as if most here think the average Christian is devoid of thought and just blindly following a tradition not a religion. While there may be some Christians that do this, not all are thoughtless simpletons. Anyone that reads the Bible knows we are told to think, by God in the Old Testament, by Jesus and the disciples in the New Testament.
For example: "Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge; and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness; and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love." (2 Peter 1:5-7)
How many atheists believe their faith based on what someone told them was true, and not from reason: "The major barriers to belief in God are not rational but--in a general sense--can be called psychological.... I am quite convinced that for every person strongly swayed by rational argument, there are many, many more affected by non-rational psychological factors." Paul Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism
As long as evolution is presented as a theory it's fine, as long as they also define "theory".
You do realize that "theory" basically means "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," right? Every piece of evidence we've ever found points to it being true, and not a single counter-example or unresolved contradiction has ever been found.
You do realize that "theory" basically means "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," right? Every piece of evidence we've ever found points to it being true, and not a single counter-example or unresolved contradiction has ever been found.
Other theories which hold a similar validity as evolution:
Effectively does not exist and truly does not exist are somewhat different. For me, Micronesia effectively does not exist, as I have no dealings with it, its members, or its products. Yet it would be much harder for me to show that it does not exist than it would be to show that it has little effect on my daily life and therefor the question of its existence is unimportant for me.
Ah, I see you are bringing up the tree falling in the woods. That is what I expected to come up. However, my theoretical thinking seeing person who can not do anything is quite different from a tree falling in the woods. Here is why.
While a tree might fall, and nobody might hear it, it can be later demonstrated that the tree indeed fell. At one point someone may have seen the tree being up, and now it can be seen to be down. We can fell other trees and hear noises as they fall, every time. While the tree may not have an effect on you, as Micronesia does not, it can be demonstrated to you that Micronesia exists. We can take you there on a plane if we need to. While you might be correct that for you Micronesia effectively does not exist, that can be changed.
With a diest deity, who does nothing, it can not be shown. There is no fallen tree in the woods to go see after the fact. There is no Micronesia to fly to. No matter what anyone does, there is no way to show it existing. That is the key.
He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see He tries to tell me what I put inside of me Hes got the answers to ease my curiosity He dreamed up a God and called it christianity Your God is dead and no one cares If there is a hell I will see you there He flexed his muscles to keep his flock of sheep in line He made a virus that would kill off all the swine His perfect kingdom of killing, suffering and pain Demands devotion atrocities done in his name Your God is dead and no one cares Drowning in his own hypocrisy And if there is a hell I will see you there Burning with your God in humility Will you die for this?
No offense to believers. When Christians tell me I will burn in hell, I quote that song.
Wow, in a week we've moved from disrespect to encouraging youth to violence.
If you'll remember, I was defending you lot in another thread, but you make it really hard with all the stupid shit you say.
I commend the kid for writing that, and I find it sad that it's almost rebellious to write something like that in school.
Like this. This is just stupid. What is wrong with you? It's not rebellious to do this, it's stupid. What would you say if I went to your damn church and tried to teach an algebra class? You'd say it was stupid. We've been talking about this in America for 200+ years now. The church-y stuff stays in one basket and the state-y stuff stays in another.
As long as evolution is presented as a theory it's fine, as long as they also define "theory".
And this. This is stupid. Please don't take any offense, but this is a deeply stupid statement. In science, "theory" != "speculation". Please don't ever say stupid shit like this again. You're smarter than that.
In fact, there's a characteristic of scientific theories I'd like for you to think about. They make predictions. All the theories that Andrew has so helpfully enumerated make predictions that enable scientists to devise experiments to verify whether the theories are correct. Does ID do that?
It seems as if most here think the average Christian is devoid of thought and just blindly following a tradition not a religion.
The reason we think that is that you constantly say stupid shit like you just said.
It seems as if most here think the average Christian is devoid of thought and just blindly following a tradition not a religion. While there may be some Christians that do this, not all are thoughtless simpletons.
Could've fooled me.
As long as you keep your religion to yourself, it's defensible. When you start talking about bringing it into schools, you deserve any abuse you get.
As long as evolution is presented as a theory it's fine, as long as they also define "theory".
How doyoudefine theory in terms of evoltuion?
An explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reason.
Now let's apply that to the Bible, it exists, it is factually correct both scientifically, and archaeologically. Reason would dictate that the Bible is factual. Of the 12 men that followed Jesus all save one gave their life, (and that one was boiled in oil, but lived) without recanting their statements. Reason would also lead me to believe that if 12 men made up a lie, they would not maintain that lie in the face of their own death. I have observed the Bible is true. If the Bible is true then God exists.
Sorry Rym I looked in several dictionaries and could not find "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" as a definition for Theory in any of them. I did find things as loose as "Abstract reasoning; speculation." Perhaps you could point me to the source of your definition.
I can see how many people would come to believe that Theory == Fact. Scientists often base their work on theory. If you can't prove a theory to be law, that doesn't mean you have to wait for absolute proof to continue forward progress. We have entire fields based on theory (theoretical physics). A scientist could work his entire life only to find out that the theory their work was based on is flawed. The scientist has faith that the theoretical basis for their work will be proven true. How is that any different than a Christian?
Now let's apply that to the Bible, it exists, it is factually correct both scientifically, and archaeologically
Umm what? No it's not.
A scientist could work his entire life only to find out that the theory their work was based on is flawed. The scientist has faith that the theoretical basis for their work will be proven true. How is that any different than a Christian?
A scientist would change his point of view when presented with contradictory evidence. A Christian would not.
Sorry Rym I looked in several dictionaries and could not find "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" as a definition for Theory in any of them. I did find things as loose as "Abstract reasoning; speculation." Perhaps you could point me to the source of your definition.
A scientific theory and a regular theory are completely different! A theory in the normal world is the same thing as a hypothesis in the scientific world!
Reason would dictate that the Bible is factual. Of the 12 men that followed Jesus all save one gave their life, (and that one was boiled in oil, but lived) without recanting their statements. Reason would also lead me to believe that if 12 men made up a lie, they would not maintain that lie in the face of their own death.
Listen, just because twelve idiots believe something and get killed for it during a time when life was cheap doesn't mean it's true.
I have observed the Bible is true. If the Bible is true then God exists.
Then you need to be writing a serious journal article for Nature, not wasting your time here.
The scientist has faith that the theoretical basis for their work will be proven true. How is that any different than a Christian?
The scientist has evidence. If he's a good scientist, he will be willing to completely abandon his work if new evidence shows that it is false.
It's just like I said before: You whine and cry that we think "the average Christian is devoid of thought and just blindly following a tradition not a religion." Shit-talking statements like the one you just made here are what leads us to believe just what you're whining and crying about.
Now let's apply that to the Bible, it exists, it is factually correct both scientifically, and archaeologically. Reason would dictate that the Bible is factual.
The scientific and archaeological record seem to match in some ways, but not in all ways. Considering that the Bible is not a single document, but a collection of documents all by different authors, this is not necessarily a problem, although it certainly should be a concern. There are also some troubling internal inconsistencies, such as the way that the gospels can't seem to agree on whether the Ressurection took place on Passover or afterwards. This could of course be blamed on the length of time that passed between the events accounted and their recording, but you'd think that something as astonishing as the Ressurection would appear to be would burn itself into the memories of its witnesses. Additionally, there is the Jewish problem. As many Jewish scholars have noted (in particular I point to the fascinating podcast lecture series here, the criteria that Jesus would have needed to meet to be considered the Messiah were not all there. His geneology wasn't correct, and the things that the Messiah was supposed to accomplish were not all accomplished by him. Certain apostles also appeared to have the habit of occasionally fudging the Old Testament to fit in with whatever they were talking about. While this can be explained as the weakness of human nature, it is never a good sign when one has to fudge the source material in order to advance a successor.
Of the 12 men that followed Jesus all save one gave their life, (and that one was boiled in oil, but lived) without recanting their statements. Reason would also lead me to believe that if 12 men made up a lie, they would not maintain that lie in the face of their own death. I have observed the Bible is true. If the Bible is true then God exists.
The historical evidence is shaky over some of those deaths, which may have occured due to natural causes. However, I will grant that they obviously believed in what they were doing, otherwise they wouldn't have devoted so much of their time and energy to their church.
I can see how many people would come to believe that Theory == Fact. Scientists often base their work on theory. If you can't prove a theory to be law, that doesn't mean you have to wait for absolute proof to continue forward progress. We have entire fields based on theory (theoretical physics). A scientist could work his entire life only to find out that the theory their work was based on is flawed. The scientist has faith that the theoretical basis for their work will be proven true. How is that any different than a Christian?
In practice, there is little difference. People are people, with all the baggage that that entails. The ideal however is that a scientist confronted with a life's work wasted will not avoid new evidence, and will modify their behavior. This is sort of the same way how ideally a Christian who discovers that his practice of Biblical teaching is flawed and that he's actually lived the past however many well-meaning years in sin, will recant and change his ways, rather than clinging to the idea that there must be some mistake.
In practice, there is little difference. People are people. The ideal however is that a scientist confronted with a life's work wasted will not avoid new evidence, and will modify their behavior. This is sort of the same way how ideally a Christian who discovers that his practice of Biblical teaching is flawed and that he's actually lived the past however many well-meaning years in sin, will recant and change his ways, rather than clinging to the idea that there must be some mistake.
If miracles start happening, you will see pretty much every atheist go for it as soon as there has been an investigation. Meanwhile, a mountain of evidence appears that shows that miracles are not going to happen, and the faithful don't move. Imagine a world where miracles happen. Now imagine a world where miracles do not happen. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine that one.
Imagine a world where miracles happen. Now imagine a world where miracles do not happen. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine that one.
Oh oh! I love these!
Name how many natural occurrences were explained by religion but now are explained by science. Now name how many natural occurrences were explained by science but are now explained by religion.
I can see how many people would come to believe that Theory == Fact. Scientists often base their work on theory. If you can't prove a theory to be law, that doesn't mean you have to wait for absolute proof to continue forward progress.
Another thing you should get straight, a scientific law is not the concrete fact you believe it to be. A scientific law is defined as an action or process that always seems to give the same result. A theory is a collection of experiments designed to test a hypothesis, with new data being added from many different people preforming independent experiments. Newton's three laws of motion demonstrate this distinction quite nicely. I can test all of his kinematic principles quite nicely in any high school classroom, or by simply dropping an apple to the ground. I can do this as many times as I want, getting the same result and a bruised apple. Now lets say I replace the apple with something like a subatomic particle. If I try to apply Newtonian mechanics to this situation, I will get nowhere. Newton's laws do not apply to many types of motions, and atomic theory and strong/weak nuclear forces must be used to explain atomic motion. We can use the more complex theories and formulas to explain the same things as Newton's theories, but his three laws work just fine for the normal, everyday world. A scientific law is not as concrete as a theory, even though your post seems to indicate the opposite. I do hear this argument quite often from the creationist and intelligent design camps.
Now let's apply that to the Bible, it exists, it is factually correct both scientifically, and archaeologically
Umm what? No it's not.
What part isn't correct? The Bible mentions many things that were thought not to exist, but later archaeologists found that they did indeed exist. Way back in Isaiah 40:22 it states the world is round.
Shit-talking statements like the one you just made here are what leads us to believe just what you're whining and crying about.
Why, because you say so? There are volumes of proof for biblical events. If there was VIDEO of Christ hanging on the cross, and then walking around 3 days later, you would not believe "It's doctored, that's fake, special effects". You believe the Bible as false because you choose to, not out of any research into the matter. Who's blindly following now?
What part isn't correct? The Bible mentions many things that were thought not to exist, but later archaeologists found that they did indeed exist. Way back in Isaiah 40:22 it states the world is round.
Let's see...
World was created in seven days. Genesis 1:1-31
The moon gives off it's own light. Genesis 1:16 Ezekiel 32:7
An ark, which is to hold two every single animal in the world is only to be 450 feet long. Genesis 6:14-15
A flood filled in the entire earth to the very mountain top with fifteen cubits to spare. Where did all the water come from or go? Where is the evidence of such a flood? Genesis 7:20
List of people, all of who lived over at least 200 years, many of them living more than 400 years! Genesis 11:10-26
Bats are birds. Leviticus 11:13,19
The earth rests on pillars Job 9:6 Job 38:4
Sun revolves around the Earth Psalm 19:4-6 Ecclesiastes 1:5
Earth is flat Ezekiel 7:2 Daniel 4:10-11 Matthew 4:8 (How do you resolve this contradiction?)
Solar and Lunar eclipses were actually the sun going dark and the moon bleeding Joel 2:31
A man's sight is returned to him after washing in some water. John 9:7
I could do more, but do I really need to?
There are volumes of proof for biblical events.
Where are these volumes? I would be interested in reading non-biased, peer-reviewed papers on such proof. Perhaps it will change my mind. Does it clear up how a virgin birth is possible? What about resurrection? How about the splitting of the red sea? Perhaps how to feed 5000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish? Perhaps the existence of all the demons Jesus encountered which caused all those ailments?
On the topic of the scientific theory, Wikipedia has a very nice quote from the National Academy of Sciences,
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
How many atheists believe their faith based on what someone told them was true, and not from reason:
Also, only *strong* atheism consists of the belief that there is no god. However, atheism in the usual sense consists of the lack of any kind of belief related to gods.
Hence atheism doesn't need to even be a faith. Atheism should be the default position of any rationally thinking human until they see evidence of the existence of a god.
EDIT: Also, given my opinion on "faith" in the other thread, I'd have to say that even strong Atheism isn't a faith as long as there is doubt.
Hear that, Joe? It's your joke going over everyone's heads.
They don't have to acknowledge it to get it. It's not like it was a great joke.
You believe the Bible as false because you choose to, not out of any research into the matter. Who's blindly following now?
Dude, you keep shit-talking. Andrew helpfully posted lots of Biblical claims that should have left some trace of physical evidence. No such evidence exists. That's why people don't believe. You are the people who believe because someone tells you.
There are volumes of proof for biblical events.
Where are these volumes? I would be interested in reading non-biased, peer-reviewed papers on such proof. Perhaps it will change my mind. Does it clear up how a virgin birth is possible? What about resurrection? How about the splitting of the red sea? Perhaps how to feed 5000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish? Perhaps the existence of all the demons Jesus encountered which caused all those ailments?
Yes. Where are these volumes? You don't prove things by saying "there are volumes" of evidence for it and then not providing your volumes of evidence. Using that strategy, I could say, "There are volumes of evidence that Soviet Communism was a great system of government". Provide some of your volumes, or you are once again shit-talking.
Beautiful, such a wonderful world we live in. The good that has evolved in humanity shows it's true colors.
Earth is flat Ezekiel 7:2 Daniel 4:10-11 Matthew 4:8 (How do you resolve this contradiction?)
I just looked them up in the bible, which is what you should have done before ripping them from some site somewhere. The ends of the earth, and four corners of the earth are colloquialisms they mean far away, and don't really imply any shape. The bible says "Jesus is a door", does that mean he is flat wooden plank with hinges. The tall mountain could be equated with a number of ways language is used to express an elevated viewpoint, like my boss sitting in an ivory tower. Look at video footage from mount Everest, that doesn't seem like you can see "forever" or "to the ends of the earth"? You can understand the meaning of each of these passages without coming to a literal conclusion that the earth is flat, and none of them say "the earth is flat".
Where are these volumes? I would be interested in reading non-biased, peer-reviewed papers on such proof. Perhaps it will change my mind. Does it clear up how a virgin birth is possible? What about resurrection? How about the splitting of the red sea? Perhaps how to feed 5000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish? Perhaps the existence of all the demons Jesus encountered which caused all those ailments?
You are not going to find proof of the loaves and fishes in a document. Just like I said above if there was video of it would you believe? This article and its references should keep you busy for a while, and I'm sure those documents point to other related scientific study.
On the topic of the scientific theory, Wikipedia has a very nice quote from the National Academy of Sciences,
You forgot this part:
The term theory is occasionally stretched to refer to theoretical speculation which is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything.
Also, only *strong* atheism consists of the belief that there is no god. However, atheism in the usual sense consists of thelackof belief in any gods at all.
Hence atheism doesn't need to even be a faith. Atheism should be the default position of any rationally thinking human until they see evidence of the existence of a god.
WRONG. I think you better go check with Richard Dawkins on that, he claims to be agnostic, leaning towards atheism. He doesn't want to show any act of faith in this matter, so by stating he is agnostic he's made no real decision. He does however continue to speak against those that have.
On the topic of the scientific theory, Wikipedia has a very nice quote from the National Academy of Sciences,
You forgot this part:
The term theory is occasionally stretched to refer to theoretical speculation which is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything.
Since we're focusing on the Theory of Evolution, it most certainly conforms to the strict definition of "scientific theory" and not the latter you have suggested. In this specific case, then, your point is moot.
Also, only *strong* atheism consists of the belief that there is no god. However, atheism in the usual sense consists of thelackof belief in any gods at all.
Hence atheism doesn't need to even be a faith. Atheism should be the default position of any rationally thinking human until they see evidence of the existence of a god.
WRONG. I think you better go check with Richard Dawkins on that, he claims to be agnostic, leaning towards atheism. He doesn't want to show any act of faith in this matter, so by stating he is agnostic he's made no real decision. He does however continue to speak against those that have.
Actually, you're wrong here. Look up agnosticisim and atheism.
I'll quote Wikipedia for the two, I hope that's good enough for most
Agnosticism (from the Greek α-γνÉÃÄικιÃμÃŒÂ, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience perceived by that individual.
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach nontheism.
Where are these volumes? I would be interested in reading non-biased, peer-reviewed papers on such proof. Perhaps it will change my mind. Does it clear up how a virgin birth is possible? What about resurrection? How about the splitting of the red sea? Perhaps how to feed 5000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish? Perhaps the existence of all the demons Jesus encountered which caused all those ailments?
You are not going to find proof of the loaves and fishes in a document. Just like I said above if there was video of it would you believe?Thisarticle and its references should keep you busy for a while, and I'm sure those documents point to other related scientific study.
Dude, your source doesn't have any evidence for your argument at all. In fact, it says
[B]y the 1960s it had become clear that the archaeological record did not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period.
Since the discovery of a 9th century BCE inscription at Tel Dan apparently referring to the "house of David" as a monarchic dynasty, it is more common to assume David was a real historical figure, although this is still hotly disputed.However, a heated debate extends as to whether the united monarchy, the vast empire of King Solomon, and the rebellion of Jeroboam ever existed, or whether they are a late fabrication.
Thomas L. Thompson, a leading minimalist scholar for example has written
"There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."
I just looked them up in the bible, which is what you should have done before ripping them from some site somewhere. The ends of the earth, and four corners of the earth are colloquialisms they mean far away, and don't really imply any shape. The bible says "Jesus is a door", does that mean he is flat wooden plank with hinges. The tall mountain could be equated with a number of ways language is used to express an elevated viewpoint, like my boss sitting in an ivory tower. Look at video footage from mount Everest, that doesn't seem like you can see "forever" or "to the ends of the earth"? You can understand the meaning of each of these passages without coming to a literal conclusion that the earth is flat, and none of them say "the earth is flat".
Wait, so you are saying these are metaphors and not literal truths? What makes Isaiah 40:22 any more valid than my quotes? Your passage contains three analogies within the passage of the "circle of the earth." Why should I believe that the first line is not a metaphor? Also, you dodged every other claim. I'm calling you out again, where is the scientific proof for these events/claims? I want direct links to peer-reviewed articles, not wikipedia.
Besides, the earth is technically a sphere, not a circle.
Comments
I commend the kid for writing that, and I find it sad that it's almost rebellious to write something like that in school. I would prefer (speaking on Christianity) people learn about God in church, in Sunday School, and at home. As long as evolution is presented as a theory it's fine, as long as they also define "theory".
It seems as if most here think the average Christian is devoid of thought and just blindly following a tradition not a religion. While there may be some Christians that do this, not all are thoughtless simpletons. Anyone that reads the Bible knows we are told to think, by God in the Old Testament, by Jesus and the disciples in the New Testament.
For example:
"Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge; and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness; and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love." (2 Peter 1:5-7)
How many atheists believe their faith based on what someone told them was true, and not from reason:
"The major barriers to belief in God are not rational but--in a general sense--can be called psychological.... I am quite convinced that for every person strongly swayed by rational argument, there are many, many more affected by non-rational psychological factors." Paul Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism
While a tree might fall, and nobody might hear it, it can be later demonstrated that the tree indeed fell. At one point someone may have seen the tree being up, and now it can be seen to be down. We can fell other trees and hear noises as they fall, every time. While the tree may not have an effect on you, as Micronesia does not, it can be demonstrated to you that Micronesia exists. We can take you there on a plane if we need to. While you might be correct that for you Micronesia effectively does not exist, that can be changed.
With a diest deity, who does nothing, it can not be shown. There is no fallen tree in the woods to go see after the fact. There is no Micronesia to fly to. No matter what anyone does, there is no way to show it existing. That is the key.
In fact, there's a characteristic of scientific theories I'd like for you to think about. They make predictions. All the theories that Andrew has so helpfully enumerated make predictions that enable scientists to devise experiments to verify whether the theories are correct. Does ID do that? The reason we think that is that you constantly say stupid shit like you just said. Could've fooled me.
As long as you keep your religion to yourself, it's defensible. When you start talking about bringing it into schools, you deserve any abuse you get.
Now let's apply that to the Bible, it exists, it is factually correct both scientifically, and archaeologically. Reason would dictate that the Bible is factual. Of the 12 men that followed Jesus all save one gave their life, (and that one was boiled in oil, but lived) without recanting their statements. Reason would also lead me to believe that if 12 men made up a lie, they would not maintain that lie in the face of their own death. I have observed the Bible is true. If the Bible is true then God exists.
Sorry Rym I looked in several dictionaries and could not find "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" as a definition for Theory in any of them. I did find things as loose as "Abstract reasoning; speculation." Perhaps you could point me to the source of your definition.
I can see how many people would come to believe that Theory == Fact. Scientists often base their work on theory. If you can't prove a theory to be law, that doesn't mean you have to wait for absolute proof to continue forward progress. We have entire fields based on theory (theoretical physics). A scientist could work his entire life only to find out that the theory their work was based on is flawed. The scientist has faith that the theoretical basis for their work will be proven true. How is that any different than a Christian?
It's just like I said before: You whine and cry that we think "the average Christian is devoid of thought and just blindly following a tradition not a religion." Shit-talking statements like the one you just made here are what leads us to believe just what you're whining and crying about.
Imagine a world where miracles happen.
Now imagine a world where miracles do not happen. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine that one.
Name how many natural occurrences were explained by religion but now are explained by science.
Now name how many natural occurrences were explained by science but are now explained by religion.
Newton's three laws of motion demonstrate this distinction quite nicely. I can test all of his kinematic principles quite nicely in any high school classroom, or by simply dropping an apple to the ground. I can do this as many times as I want, getting the same result and a bruised apple. Now lets say I replace the apple with something like a subatomic particle. If I try to apply Newtonian mechanics to this situation, I will get nowhere. Newton's laws do not apply to many types of motions, and atomic theory and strong/weak nuclear forces must be used to explain atomic motion. We can use the more complex theories and formulas to explain the same things as Newton's theories, but his three laws work just fine for the normal, everyday world.
A scientific law is not as concrete as a theory, even though your post seems to indicate the opposite. I do hear this argument quite often from the creationist and intelligent design camps.
So please, use the proper definitions.
- World was created in seven days. Genesis 1:1-31
- The moon gives off it's own light. Genesis 1:16 Ezekiel 32:7
- An ark, which is to hold two every single animal in the world is only to be 450 feet long. Genesis 6:14-15
- A flood filled in the entire earth to the very mountain top with fifteen cubits to spare. Where did all the water come from or go? Where is the evidence of such a flood? Genesis 7:20
- List of people, all of who lived over at least 200 years, many of them living more than 400 years! Genesis 11:10-26
- Bats are birds. Leviticus 11:13,19
- The earth rests on pillars Job 9:6 Job 38:4
- Sun revolves around the Earth Psalm 19:4-6 Ecclesiastes 1:5
- Earth is flat Ezekiel 7:2 Daniel 4:10-11 Matthew 4:8 (How do you resolve this contradiction?)
- Solar and Lunar eclipses were actually the sun going dark and the moon bleeding Joel 2:31
- A man's sight is returned to him after washing in some water. John 9:7
I could do more, but do I really need to? Where are these volumes? I would be interested in reading non-biased, peer-reviewed papers on such proof. Perhaps it will change my mind. Does it clear up how a virgin birth is possible? What about resurrection? How about the splitting of the red sea? Perhaps how to feed 5000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish? Perhaps the existence of all the demons Jesus encountered which caused all those ailments?However, atheism in the usual sense consists of the lack of any kind of belief related to gods.
Hence atheism doesn't need to even be a faith. Atheism should be the default position of any rationally thinking human until they see evidence of the existence of a god.
EDIT:
Also, given my opinion on "faith" in the other thread, I'd have to say that even strong Atheism isn't a faith as long as there is doubt.
Look up agnosticisim and atheism.
I'll quote Wikipedia for the two, I hope that's good enough for most As for the views of Richard Dawkins, look here
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113
Besides, the earth is technically a sphere, not a circle.