Something I find typically annoying with atheists.

[unadulteratedawesome]

And an atheist cannot label religion as false by scientific standards, so why do they?
Kind of makes my point_

Yes, the belief that there is a god can be disregarded by science. Claiming that a god exists is a non-falsifiable statement, which means the claim has no scientific weight. Here's an explanation from Wikipedia for you:

"Non-falsifiable theories can usually be reduced to a simple uncircumscribed existential statement, such as there exists a green swan. It is entirely possible to verify whether or not this statement is true, simply by producing the green swan. But since this statement does not specify when or where the green swan exists; it is simply not possible to show that the swan does not exist, and so it is impossible to falsify the statement."

If you still think that a non-falsifiable claim of the existence of a god is still sensical, then that means my claim that "There exists a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the earth and all life upon it" is just as valid.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Yes, the belief that there is a god can be disregarded by science. Claiming that a god exists is a non-falsifiable statement, which means the claim has no scientific weight. Here's an explanation from Wikipedia for you:

Most of science itself is unfalsifiable. You will find no proof of MANY things that science claims. The over-thought theories of evolution, the 1001 mysteries that still surround the 'atom', the lack of unification between any and all forms of energy, whats at the center of the Earth.
The list goes on and on, and most of these things are renowned as being proven because people overlook the lack of 'fact/proved' being written or mentioned in any book or classroom.

The aim of science is not to prove that God doesn't exist, nor has it ever threatened the concept. I think most atheists are atheists mainly to aim criticism to theists, and the irony is that they are going on a concept that is logically wrong.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Most of science itself is unfalsifiable. You will find no proof of MANY things that science claims. The over-thought theories of evolution, the 1001 mysteries that still surround the 'atom', the lack of unification between any and all forms of energy, whats at the center of the Earth.
The list goes on and on, and most of these things are renowned as being proven because people overlook the lack of 'fact/proved' being written or mentioned in any book or classroom.

By definition, something can't be part of scientific knowledge if it is non-falsifiable. If it is non-falsifiable it cannot be observed or tested, which means that it is irrelevant. You seem rather uninformed. If you'd like, I could send you a 7th grade science textbook. It would help a lot. You could send me the Bible or something, though I have a nice collection of free religious books already.

The aim of science is not to prove that God doesn't exist, nor has it ever threatened the concept. I think most atheists are atheists mainly to aim criticism to theists, and the irony is that they are going on a concept that is logically wrong.

Nobody has claimed that the aim of science is to disprove god. God is irrelevant to science as its existence is non-falsifiable. Believing in god is logically the same, in regards to scientific reasoning, as believing in invisible dragons and wizards. Whatever floats your boat, just don't argue the place of that belief in science or fact.

You seem quite sure that science as a whole, and specifically as it relates to god, is founded on illogical terrain. I'd enjoy it if you could make a single post that outlines this reasoning. It'd also be nice if you could post it in a valid logical form or otherwise point out how the logic underlying science is warped, but that may be asking too much.

 

[Æon Flux]

Religion is faith, science is fact.

Uhm No.
Science is only as factual as the time in wich it takes for a new discovery to be made.
Need I remind of the classic "The world is flat" thing?
Science cant realy be aknowledged as pure fact when later it most likely can be proven false as well.
~I dont realy have a pertenent comment otherwise in regards to the debate~

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Uhm No.
Science is only as factual as the time in wich it takes for a new discovery to be made.
Science cant realy be aknowledged as pure fact when later it most likely can be proven false as well.

Not everything in science is a fact, but everything is derived from facts. Facts are events that occurred. Theories, laws, and hypotheses are based on facts and are redeveloped with new evidence as we correct our reasoning with new information, but the facts themselves are immutable.

So Emyunoxious' statement should really be that "Science is based on fact, religion is based on faith." But his point remains the same.

 

[Dean Winchester]

Most atheist base their beliefs saying that the existence of any kind of "deity" can not be proven, but similarly, they can't prove that said deity does not exists as well. I actually don't blame them though, after all, look what years under the iron rule of religion (obscurantism.... a terrible age) has brought us in the past. Atheism exists because it must, because it is natural for someone to rise and say "that there is no God", just like it was natural for the one who raised and said "and there was a God who created heaven and earth". It sort of balances the equation.

I don't consider myself an atheist, but rather an sceptic, because I constantly question whether or not the path we've been taught is the right one instead of just being the path that has been "morally" accepted. It even pushes you even further when you start to realize that all religious myths, the Norse Gods, the Greek Gods, Christianity, among others, usually tale the same tale but with different names.

For example, Vili, Ve and Odin as the ones who overthrew Ymir and ended the age of giants can be compared to how Zeus, Poseidon and Hades defeated the Titans in the Greek Mythology. Or how the creation of the first human beings, Ask and Embla can be related to "Adam and Eve", much more if you take that Askr in Old Norse literally means "ash tree", and the Christianity we've been taught that Adam was created from the dust. Or perhaps that Santa Clause was loosely based on Odin and the story of Saint Nicholas.

When you realize that all the religions that spend so much time exposing their differences are not that different from one another, you begin to have doubts about whether or not any of this is real.

The same goes for science. The facts that were once admitted, verified and established as scientific facts in the past were later on discarded. The science constantly changes and it is as limited as the instruments we used to study it. In a matter of speaking, science is a type of religion, and the concept of it has become, in essence, some kind of pseudo-god.

Think about it, science has followers, like religion, it has textbooks as guides just like religious people have their Qu'ran (Koran), Bibles and other sacred texts. The science is proven by methods that humanity has established as the only means to prove whether or not something is real, limited by the paradigms of the scientific method.

Sometimes science begins with a little of faith too. Facts? Well the whole concept of geocentricism was a largely approved fact centuries ago only to be brought crashing down by men like Copernicus and Galileo (although some Pythagoreans believed that the Earth was one of the several celestial bodies circling around a central fire). So whether or not something is a fact depends on the time in which is established, with what methods it is proven, and by whom.

Those who defend science so vehemently with science books in hand without leaving at least one chance for doubt are no different than our every day preacher who passionately believes, supports and tries to prove with Bible in hand the existence of God.

Remember just like people have claimed that no one has seen "God" we could also say that no one has seen an "atom". Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it is not real. So let us leave each other with their respective fairy tales.

Just like Anthony Hopkins would say: "Sometimes I don't know whether I believe in God, Santa Clause or Tinker Bell" but I do feel something scratching my head...and that is doubt. Our every day problem is that we, sceptics, atheist, scientist and religious always spend our days debating what is real and what is not.

 

[Jquestionmark]

For example, Vili, Ve and Odin as the ones who overthrew Ymir and ended the age of giants can be compared to how Zeus, Poseidon and Hades defeated the Titans in the Greek Mythology. Or how the creation of the first human beings, Ask and Embla can be related to "Adam and Eve", much more if you take that Askr in Old Norse literally means "ash tree", and the Christianity we've been taught that Adam was created from the dust. Or perhaps that Santa Clause was loosely based on Odin and the story of Saint Nicholas.

Don't forget the parallels between the David and Goliath myth and the myth of Thor and the Jotun Giants. That's always been one of my favourites (also, it oddly parallels the situation of Cro-Magnon and Neandertals, the slim and weak versus the muscular and mighty).

Think about it, science has followers, like religion, it has textbooks as guides just like religious people have their Qu'ran (Koran), Bibles and other sacred texts. The science is proven by methods that humanity has established as the only means to prove whether or not something is real, limited by the paradigms of the scientific method.

I'm not sure what you're going for here. Are you being sarcastic about the proven and repeatable methods of science? The religious books make wild claims that must be taken on faith and often contradict historical evidence, but the science books make claims that anyone can test and reproduce (either the claim itself or the evidence for the claim, depending). I'm not sure how those are the same...

Sometimes science begins with a little of faith too. Facts? Well the whole concept of geocentricism was a largely approved fact centuries ago only to be brought crashing down by men like Copernicus and Galileo (although some Pythagoreans believed that the Earth was one of the several celestial bodies circling around a central fire). So whether or not something is a fact depends on the time in which is established, with what methods it is proven, and by whom.

Without getting too much into it, the geocentric model (as well as the heliocentric model) was by definition a theory (though people thought of it like a fact). Facts are things like "a spoon fell and hit the ground" (an event you saw) and not "a spoon released will drop towards the ground at 9.8m/s/s" (which is a theory describing what a spoon would do/how it would do it). But more directly relevant to what you said - one of the main reasons it was so difficult to change to the heliocentric model in light of new evidence was due to the Catholic Church. After all, since we are God's most important creation we are the center of reality.

Those who defend science so vehemently with science books in hand without leaving at least one chance for doubt are no different than our every day preacher who passionately believes, supports and tries to prove with Bible in hand the existence of God.

Perhaps because they can provide evidence for the efficacy of science? Preachers have a little more trouble producing evidence of God.

Remember just like people have claimed that no one has seen "God" we could also say that no one has seen an "atom". Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it is not real. So let us leave each other with their respective fairy tales.

While no one has seen an atom (with the naked eye), we can reliably measure and test the effects an atom has on its environment. When you look at any object, you do not see the object, only the light that has been reflected by the object. As we see objects by actually seeing light, we see atoms by observing their effects on their environment. Atoms are not fairy tales, but objects we can provide consistent evidence for.


Back on the original topic - I think that Atheists tend to make a pretty solid case for God not existing in many cases. Disproving the existence of all gods in all ways? No, they aren't very good at that. But God, as Christians generally define him, seems to be a self-contradictory and generally absurd claim. Atheists see too many holes in the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god. After all, "the problem of evil" seems to be quite the hurdle for Christian philosophers to jump.

As far as there being definitive evidence for God not existing? The Christian God, maybe. Gods in general, not so much. Ultimately, yeah, it's a little arrogant to claim that god does not exist because of X.

Sadly, like people of faith, too many atheists don't do their homework.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Think about it, science has followers, like religion, it has textbooks as guides just like religious people have their Qu'ran (Koran), Bibles and other sacred texts. The science is proven by methods that humanity has established as the only means to prove whether or not something is real, limited by the paradigms of the scientific method.

You will not pick up a proper science textbook and see within it moral advice and laws, unlike a religious text. Science does not have followers, it is a form of rigorous, peer reviewed knowledge and reasoning that people either understand or don't. If someone walked up to you and said that the sky above you currently was red, when you looked up and saw that it was clearly blue, you would disagree with their assertion. That is all a, what you call, 'follower' of science is doing. When people state things that simply aren't true, often times people like me will attempt to correct them. I cannot say that a god doesn't exist, simply that I don't believe it does and that nobody else can currently prove it does.

To attempt to refute science is to try and foil the cumulative research and logical progression of all of civilization. Granted, if you can develop a new form of logic that is somehow more correct, more power to you. But until you can point out the mistakes in current reasoning, your assertions are weightless.

Sometimes science begins with a little of faith too.

There is no faith in science because the views change with evidence. There is no assertion that our current knowledge will always be flawless or immutable, scientists know, and hope, that it changes with time as we understand more. Science is not static. Faith in something is static because faith is not based on evidence and fact and is thus not affected by it.

We once believed any amount of insane things that were supported by the science of the time, but when they were disproved (even if it took a while) we changed those views. Religion does not do this. Religion sometimes changes with the moral views of the time, but not with fact and evidence because that is not what it's based on.

Those who defend science so vehemently with science books in hand without leaving at least one chance for doubt are no different than our every day preacher who passionately believes, supports and tries to prove with Bible in hand the existence of God.

You're correct that people that defend science in that manner are much the same as radical preachers, but a proper scientist does not do that. What may be seen as denying all chance for doubt is often just a challenge for someone to present contrary evidence or disprove their claims. If you disagree, prove your points. Despite how firm I am in current (and properly devised) scientific conclusions, I would immediately change my view of the world if new evidence arose and those previous claims were refuted.

Remember just like people have claimed that no one has seen "God" we could also say that no one has seen an "atom". Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it is not real. So let us leave each other with their respective fairy tales.

Except that we can see atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope, so that analogy is DOA.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

By definition, something can't be part of scientific knowledge if it is non-falsifiable. If it is non-falsifiable it cannot be observed or tested, which means that it is irrelevant. You seem rather uninformed. If you'd like, I could send you a 7th grade science textbook. It would help a lot. You could send me the Bible or something, though I have a nice collection of free religious books already.

It's obvious you don't know the true face of science over the past few decades.
Forget the grade school conception on science, what you learn as an adolescent is pretty much the bulk of what has been proven. And even still, half of all that is yet to be proven.

In fact, there are so many asinine theories on evolution, physics, etc. that science in general has become more theoretical than practical. For example, we've hit a brick wall on quantum mechanics since the f*ckin 70's!
If you go to college, you will realize that science is a whole hellava lot philosophical and not enough fact.

And it shouldn't be that hard to believe either, seeing how the evidence of this is found everywhere.

 

[Emyunoxious]

It's obvious you don't know the true face of science over the past few decades.

The true face of science? Science is a method of gaining information, buddy, and a body of knowledge gained by it is much larger than you seem to understand.

Forget the grade school conception on science, what you learn as an adolescent is pretty much the bulk of what has been proven. And even still, half of all that is yet to be proven.

Proof only exists in mathematics, buddy.

In fact, there are so many asinine theories on evolution, physics, etc. that science in general has become more theoretical than practical.

There is nothing about the Theory of Evolution that is not practical, and there's only the Theory of Evolution, not a bunch of different theories about it. What are you even talking about?

Principle of charity says that maybe you're not wrong, you're just confused, so it's possible that you're referring to the split between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism that has been effectively settled, as the evidence really doesn't support gradualism. If you'd like to discuss that more, I'd be happy to.

If you're not referring to this, I have no idea what you're talking about with this "multiple theories of evolution" bullshit.

For example, we've hit a brick wall on quantum mechanics since the f*ckin 70's!

Well, that's simply not true.

The Quantum Hall effect was discovered in 1980 by Klaus von Klitzing. The quantized version of the Hall effect has allowed for the definition of a new practical standard for electrical resistance and for an extremely precise independent determination of the fine structure constant.

The experimental verification of quantum entanglement by Alain Aspect occured in 1982.

Unambiguous signals of W particles were seen in January 1983 during a series of experiments conducted by Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer at the Super Proton Synchrotron. The actual experiments were called UA1 (led by Rubbia) and UA2 (led by Peter Jenni), and were the collaborative effort of many people. Simon van der Meer was the driving force on the use of the accelerator. UA1 and UA2 found the Z particle a few months later, in May 1983.

In 1995, the top quark was finally observed by a team at Fermilab. It had a mass much greater than had been previously expected — almost as great as a gold atom.

The first "pure" Bose–Einstein condensate was created by Eric Cornell, Carl Wieman, and co-workers at JILA, also in 1995. They did this by cooling a dilute vapor consisting of approximately two thousand rubidium-87 atoms to below 170 nK using a combination of laser cooling and magnetic evaporative cooling. About four months later, an independent effort led by Wolfgang Ketterle at MIT created a condensate made of sodium-23. Ketterle's condensate had about a hundred times more atoms, allowing him to obtain several important results such as the observation of quantum mechanical interference between two different condensates.

In 2000, CERN scientists publish experimental results in which they claim to have observed indirect evidence of the existence of a quark-gluon plasma, which they call a "new state of matter."

I just pulled this off Wikipedia (for which I am terribly ashamed), so I can't imagine how you thought that was correct, nor do I really understand what you mean by "hit a brick wall". I hope I have answered this claim, but I don't know what you mean, so I can't be sure of that.

If you go to college, you will realize that science is a whole hellava lot philosophical and not enough fact.

This is incredibly condescending. Why do you assume that I'm not in college, or perhaps have already graduated?

And it shouldn't be that hard to believe either, seeing how the evidence of this is found everywhere.

Citation needed.

 

[CassinoChips]

Just a couple reminders:

1)This forum is for any debates of a religious nature. An obvious requirement --that all members remain respectful of another's religion or beliefs-- will be fully enforced ... .

2) When debating, it should be noted that this does not involve the need to belittle another person's opinion or, for that matter, the person in question. Regardless of whether or not you agree, this forum is for debating and should be addressed appropriately - by debating the points presented.

Food for thought. With that in mind, carry on.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

The Quantum Hall effect was discovered in 1980 by Klaus von Klitzing. The quantized version of the Hall effect has allowed for the definition of a new practical standard for electrical resistance and for an extremely precise independent determination of the fine structure constant.

The experimental verification of quantum entanglement by Alain Aspect occured in 1982.

Unambiguous signals of W particles were seen in January 1983 during a series of experiments conducted by Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer at the Super Proton Synchrotron. The actual experiments were called UA1 (led by Rubbia) and UA2 (led by Peter Jenni), and were the collaborative effort of many people. Simon van der Meer was the driving force on the use of the accelerator. UA1 and UA2 found the Z particle a few months later, in May 1983.

In 1995, the top quark was finally observed by a team at Fermilab. It had a mass much greater than had been previously expected — almost as great as a gold atom.

The first "pure" Bose–Einstein condensate was created by Eric Cornell, Carl Wieman, and co-workers at JILA, also in 1995. They did this by cooling a dilute vapor consisting of approximately two thousand rubidium-87 atoms to below 170 nK using a combination of laser cooling and magnetic evaporative cooling. About four months later, an independent effort led by Wolfgang Ketterle at MIT created a condensate made of sodium-23. Ketterle's condensate had about a hundred times more atoms, allowing him to obtain several important results such as the observation of quantum mechanical interference between two different condensates.

In 2000, CERN scientists publish experimental results in which they claim to have observed indirect evidence of the existence of a quark-gluon plasma, which they call a "new state of matter."

All these things were already thought to exist well before technology allowed for observation of them. As far as any actual new discovery, physics has hit a brick wall, as I said before. Theoretical intrigue has become the flavor of science. The Quantum Hall effect fails to explain quantum-leaps, it only provides a relevant measurement of electrons interacting in a given field. Admittingly, it's practical because it can help us to manipulate the balance of electromagnetic energy pass conventional standards, but it does not advance physics much at all.

This is why I find atheism very unintuitive, because if you really want to brass tax the concept, science has failed to come up with a likely and reasonable explanation for the phenomena in the Bible.
The plagues in Egypt, for example, is poorly explained in science with tremendous coincidence and lots of holes.
As far as evolution goes, the theories that establish it are highly irretrievable at this point in time. I personally believe in progressive evolution, but 100 million years? That's ridiculous. Science is commonly taken too far and certain subjects become obsolete in relevance to our current stage of advancement. Thus, science becomes more philosophical than practical.
This doesn't happen with religion, and in no way should science be accounted as being greater, especially in our particularly primitive state.

 

[Shaissa]

Science has THEORYS! scientist call it THEORYS for a reason, meaning they have times when the THEORYS are true, and if they can't disprove it, they remain it a theory cause they havn't found a way for it to be false. Now science has facts and laws too, and they can prove it.

Now I am athiest I believe there can be God out there, I'm just not sure if it's a God from any religion.

Now saying that, yes Athiest can be arrogant just like other people with there religion's. If you don't believe in anything and don't want to, you wont listen to anyone and their beliefs, its that simple, I believe when it comes to religion human's are very "arrogant" about it, to the point where they will ignore anything out there.

Reading some of the post that came with this thread I think my theory so far is right.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Science has THEORYS! scientist call it THEORYS for a reason, meaning they have times when the THEORYS are true, and if they can't disprove it, they remain it a theory cause they havn't found a way for it to be false. Now science has facts and laws too, and they can prove it.

Law- a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist

Laws in the science world are tricky things. They succeed in the properties of a given thing or scenario, but fail to explain why. By all technical means, they are facts, but they are also facts built on sand, ready to crumble as soon as a deeper understanding waves in.

Newton's laws of gravity, for example, take a heavy toll when it comes to quantum mechanics. It seems right now that our take on gravity doesn't even exist in the quantum world, even though atoms are the building blocks of all matter.
In other words, those laws fail to explain anything except what comes up must come down and things of that nature- which I do not find to be such a huge scientific achievement. All it states is a basic physical rationality that we grasped 1000's of years before it was established.

As far as theories go,, many of have been on the shelf for a long time now and to no avail. After Einstein and the few decades that followed him, there has been little advancement. Gravity is still very much a mystery as well as many other things people think we have figured out.

Anyways, I've always been fascinated with the Bible and other holy texts because they present a very complex conception of human condition. You don't have to believe in God to be impressed by the wisdom holy texts reach on. There doesn't need to be scientific evidence backing up the intuition within them.
The Bible touches on human condition like science interprets the physical world. If anyone took the time to analyze the constructs and reasoning within them, you'd know what I'm saying.

I grow wary of this non-existent gap between science and religion. Even Einstein believed in God you know// I really think pure atheism only exists to challenge the concept rather than avoid it, but that's just me.

 

[Jquestionmark]

This is why I find atheism very unintuitive, because if you really want to brass tax the concept, science has failed to come up with a likely and reasonable explanation for the phenomena in the Bible.
The plagues in Egypt, for example, is poorly explained in science with tremendous coincidence and lots of holes.

Science has never claimed to be able to provide explanations for fictional events. Historical research has shown that events within the Bible generally did not occur (with the exception of wild exaggeration), so why would science attempt to explain them? Science works to explain the natural world, not events within historical fiction. I do not look to science to explain the talking animals in the Redwall books, for example.

As far as evolution goes, the theories that establish it are highly irretrievable at this point in time. I personally believe in progressive evolution, but 100 million years? That's ridiculous. Science is commonly taken too far and certain subjects become obsolete in relevance to our current stage of advancement. Thus, science becomes more philosophical than practical.
This doesn't happen with religion, and in no way should science be accounted as being greater, especially in our particularly primitive state.

The specific part of the above quote that I'm looking at: "As far as evolution goes, the theories that establish it are highly irretrievable at this point in time." I don't honestly understand what you mean. If you could clarify what exactly is irretrievable, I would appreciate it.

Also, in what way is science taken too far? And what in science is obsolete? Could you please provide some examples? I'm not really understanding what the basis for those statements is.

As far as obsolescence, most religions currently in use set most of their ideas in stone 1000 or more years ago. The moral guidance they attempt to provide is for a world that has not existed for quite some time. That, to me, seems far less relevant and practical than, say, the scientific understanding of aerodynamics. Then again, that's comparing apples and oranges. Science does not claim a physical basis for morality of any sort: that is left up to the philosophers.

Laws in the science world are tricky things. They succeed in the properties of a given thing or scenario, but fail to explain why. By all technical means, they are facts, but they are also facts built on sand, ready to crumble as soon as a deeper understanding waves in.

As well they should. Unlike religion, science is willing to adapt to new information. This ability to re-evaluate itself and make itself as correct as possible to current information is a strength of science - not a weakness. Then again, I like my information up to date. Millennium old fiction doesn't really do it for me.

Newton's laws of gravity, for example, take a heavy toll when it comes to quantum mechanics. It seems right now that our take on gravity doesn't even exist in the quantum world, even though atoms are the building blocks of all matter.
In other words, those laws fail to explain anything except what comes up must come down and things of that nature- which I do not find to be such a huge scientific achievement. All it states is a basic physical rationality that we grasped 1000's of years before it was established.

Science has known for some time that gravity does not function on the sub-atomic scale. Personally, I feel like being able to calculate how atoms (known to not be the "building blocks," as there are much smaller particles that contribute to them) up to interplanetary bodies will behave in regards to one another over various distances is a pretty big achievement. Better than "do not commit sodomy," for example.

Anyways, I've always been fascinated with the Bible and other holy texts because they present a very complex conception of human condition. You don't have to believe in God to be impressed by the wisdom holy texts reach on. There doesn't need to be scientific evidence backing up the intuition within them.
The Bible touches on human condition like science interprets the physical world. If anyone took the time to analyze the constructs and reasoning within them, you'd know what I'm saying.

Personally, I find the "wisdom" of the Bible to be terrifying. Beat your children for disobedience? Stoning people to death? Banishing your son because you got drunk and he walked in on you naked? Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed? There is a tale in the new testament which involves a holy man killing a person for lying, lying to that person's wife, then killing her for lying (my apologies, I don't have the time to look it up at the moment, but just ask if you don't believe me and I'll gladly hunt it down). I don't see any wisdom in these statements. In fact, the only "wisdom" I have seen in the Bible has been things that are common sense, and I can't really give them credit for writing down what people were figuring out on their own long before and long after what they wrote. If you have any examples of wisdom from the Bible, I'd be curious to see them.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Science has never claimed to be able to provide explanations for fictional events. Historical research has shown that events within the Bible generally did not occur (with the exception of wild exaggeration), so why would science attempt to explain them?

There is no evidence that suggests the happenings in the Bible are fictional. The phenomena in the Bible is just penciled in with the 1000's of other things science cannot explain, like the perfectly hexagonal hole on the top of Saturn or why electrons miraculously disappear and pop up somewhere else.

The specific part of the above quote that I'm looking at: "As far as evolution goes, the theories that establish it are highly irretrievable at this point in time." I don't honestly understand what you mean. If you could clarify what exactly is irretrievable, I would appreciate it.

Also, in what way is science taken too far? And what in science is obsolete? Could you please provide some examples? I'm not really understanding what the basis for those statements is.

Theories of evolution do not fit in the status of our world today. As rapid as evolution is in relevance to how long life has been on this planet, it is hard to believe that 3 billion years only amounted to the current organisms today. It speaks for itself to be perfectly honest. It's very easy to see the flaws in these theories. The same thing can be seen with many others in physics, where a thousand ideas spark from a single fact and from there it all hits the fan. Eventually, the theories become obsolete and are patched up with new ideas to remain in the circle of science.

Unlike religion, science is willing to adapt to new information.

Religion doesn't have to adapt. Religions already have their ultimatums set in stone. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Science has known for some time that gravity does not function on the sub-atomic scale.

This is why we are trying to unify the four forces. Doing so would explain the nature of gravity, among many other things.
Nonetheless, this is an attribute among many things that science has yet to figure out. Physics is a good example because every genre of science works in the same way, as they are all more theory than fact. This of course threatens the constitution of science because even things we have practical use for, like general relativity, takes the hot seat.

If you have any examples of wisdom from the Bible, I'd be curious to see them.

Science has a name for biblical concept in it's more general form: the Chaos Theory.
This theory states that the smallest, seemingly insignificant thing will change the course of history forever.
The Bible just gives it a face.

General concept: A man in Japan sneezes inside a convenience store. Someone in America dies.

Biblical concept: A man sins. The balance of purity is corrupted. Eventually, war follows. Many people die.

 

[Emyunoxious]

Religion doesn't have to adapt. Religions already have their ultimatums set in stone. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Translation: Religion is wrong and stays wrong forever.

Science is wrong and changes to be correct.

We're comparing oranges and wax apples, buddy. One's eternal and pretty to look at, but not nourishing or useful, and one's an orange. I don't like explaining analogies as much as I expected.

Science has a name for biblical concept in it's more general form: the Chaos Theory.

WHAT.

Oh, I'm so excited to see this.

This theory states that the smallest, seemingly insignificant thing will change the course of history forever.

Not... really, no. At least, that's a misrepresentation of it. Chaos Theory is essentially just a field in mathematics dealing with very specific situations, called "chaotic". In chaotic systems, initial changes can affect the trajectory of the system and cause vastly different outcomes. The popular example of a butterfly flapping its wings causing a tornado in Texas.

"Well this really came from a paper that I gave called "Can the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil stir up a tornado in Texas?" (Actually the title was one that someone had given to me. I probably would have picked a seagull instead of a butterfly. It works the same way.) I pointed out at the beginning of the talk that this wasn't really supposed to be a facetious question. And that if it were true then certainly if a butterfly's wings could stir up a tornado, then a butterfly could be equally effective in preventing a tornado that otherwise would have happened…. So the real question was can very small influences lead in due time to very big changes? But it's apparently because of the title of this paper that it's become known as the butterfly effect."

Citations: http://hypertextbook.com/chaos/21.shtml

The important thing to note is that it's not randomly occurring. These small changes affect the larger system drastically; if they did not occur, the noticeable changes would not happen. But I'm sure you wouldn't assume that they happen rando-

General concept: A man in Japan sneezes inside a convenience store. Someone in America dies.

Welp.

Unless this man dies of a hurricane that would not have happened without the added force of that sneeze, no, that's not the idea at all.

Biblical concept: A man sins. The balance of purity is corrupted. Eventually, war follows. Many people die.

Okay, I'll try to be nice, because we're supposed to be here.

No, that's wrong. You could have gone with:

A man acts in a way that is considered sinful by religious groups.
The religious group decides to go on a purifying campaign, suffer not the xeno, the mutant, or the witch to live. All hail the God Emperor. sup jm
Many people die.

And that would be correct and more in line with what we were talking about.

Sin is not a physical concept. The "balance of purity" is some mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with physics, and therefore, has nothing to do with chaos theory.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Unless this man dies of a hurricane that would not have happened without the added force of that sneeze, no, that's not the idea at all.

I say this with all respect, but you definitely do not grasp the idea of chaos theory at all.
The 'butterfly effect' is a metaphor. A butterfly cannot cause a tornado. A man's sneeze cannot cause a hurricane.

I'll illustrate an example of how chaos theory works:

A man walks down a sidewalk and drops his phone. As he reaches to pick up his phone, he misses an old friend who passes by him. The entire chain of events in his life has changed.
If he had seen this old friend, they would have hung out. Lets say they have a party, he meets a girl and they start dating and they move into an apartment. Lets say if he hadn't he would've become a physics major. Or played the piano. Or died in a car crash.
All this over him dropping his phone.
By extension, the events in his friends life changed, as did anyone who interacted with him and so on and so on.
Butterfly Effect

This is the true aspect of Chaos Theory, a mathematical intrigue that would be a law if anyone could come up with an equation for it

The Bible paints this pretty well with the idea of sin. The crux of all sin is vanity, where all other sin is derived. Self-importance is the enemy, not God. Lucifer tempted Eve to disobey God, and look what became of it. There was nothing magical about the forbiddin fruit. Their knowledge was brought about by shame.
This is the original Chaos Theory all the way, God or no God.

Yall wanted an example of biblical wisdom, and I have delivered the coup de grace.

I don't know how religion is false. If there is absolutely anything that proves otherwise, please let me know.
This is why I feel most atheists are only atheists to string up religion. Agnosticism is the best way to go, as the truth of the matter is that nobody really has any idea.

 

[Jquestionmark]

There is no evidence that suggests the happenings in the Bible are fictional. The phenomena in the Bible is just penciled in with the 1000's of other things science cannot explain, like the perfectly hexagonal hole on the top of Saturn or why electrons miraculously disappear and pop up somewhere else.

Please provide some evidence for this claim. All of Genesis, and most of Exodus seem to be pretty questionable. Please provide evidence for the garden of eden, the flood, the plagues in Egypt. Any evidence for these events instead of against them would be fascinating to see.

Theories of evolution do not fit in the status of our world today. As rapid as evolution is in relevance to how long life has been on this planet, it is hard to believe that 3 billion years only amounted to the current organisms today. It speaks for itself to be perfectly honest. It's very easy to see the flaws in these theories.

Please, list the flaws. I am interested in seeing what you think they are.

To address the issue of the current number of species on the planet, are you familiar with how species as a whole change into new species (for example, there are no longer cro-magnon or neandertals walking around)? Or how some species go extinct. If possible, I would appreciate if you explain how you think evolution works, because I'm really not sure we're thinking of the same process.

Also, I'm still waiting to see how the theories are, to quote you, "highly irretrievable." Please explain.

Religion doesn't have to adapt. Religions already have their ultimatums set in stone. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I'm comparing two ways of looking at the world. They are not different things for purposes of that. To play with the analogy, one of the systems is a new apple when the old one is no longer good, the other one has been the same apple for far too long.

Setting ultimatums in stone isn't a good thing. We as a species/civilization are constantly learning and still have a long way to go. To quote you: "our particularly primitive state."

If we are primitive now, how primitive were we when we fabricated the ideas put into "holy" books? But, if you think civilization now is exactly the same as it was when the various parts of the Bible were fabricated, that's your right to think so.

Physics is a good example because every genre of science works in the same way, as they are all more theory than fact.

That is exactly correct. Science attempts to explain facts with theories. So yes, you're exactly right on science being theory, not fact.

This of course threatens the constitution of science because even things we have practical use for, like general relativity, takes the hot seat.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. What is threatening the constitution of science?

Science has a name for biblical concept in it's more general form: the Chaos Theory.
This theory states that the smallest, seemingly insignificant thing will change the course of history forever.
The Bible just gives it a face.

General concept: A man in Japan sneezes inside a convenience store. Someone in America dies.

Biblical concept: A man sins. The balance of purity is corrupted. Eventually, war follows. Many people die.

Firstly - where in the bible does it explain this? Second - Please define Chaos Theory as you are using it - like evolution, I'm worried we're talking about different things. Third - I, personally, would classify this sort of thing under common sense, so I'm not sure I can really give the Bible any sort of credit for figuring out that actions and their consequences can escalate.

The Bible paints this pretty well with the idea of sin. The crux of all sin is vanity, where all other sin is derived. Self-importance is the enemy, not God. Lucifer tempted Eve to disobey God, and look what became of it. There was nothing magical about the forbiddin fruit. Their knowledge was brought about by shame.
This is the original Chaos Theory all the way, God or no God.

Once again, I'd like to see where in the Bible vanity is defined as the original sin. Please reference it so that I can see it.

It looks like you're combining several ideas into one here. You're using the garden/fruit story, but directly denying that the fruit grants knowledge (which the story explicitly states, twice). If you're going to use the garden/fruit story as an example, you should use it entirely, not selecting only the parts that benefit your argument - it unfairly misrepresents your source.

Did not you yourself say sin is disobedience or misunderstanding? I'm not sure how vanity inspires misunderstanding. Quote: "But, it's also important to note that 'sin' doesn't necessarily mean 'an evil act', but simply to miss the point of, or disobey, an appropriation from God."

Also, Lucifer and his fall from grace is a separate non-biblical tale. There is no evidence within the Bible that supports the idea that he was the serpent which tempted Eve (on a side note, doesn't anyone think it's really messed up that the serpent used to have legs until the whole fruit incident? Seems like a strange punishment.).

You seem to be implying that this story is a factual and literal recounting of events. If it's just a metaphor or moral fable, I'm not sure how it relates to Chaos Theory - it's just a story. If you're saying this is a literal/factual occurence, as I mentioned earlier, I'd appreciate some evidence/cited reference for this idea. Your explantion resolving the two separate creation events in the Bible would also be appreciated (personally, I like the pre-Adamite idea, it always seemed like the most fun).

As to how this is a representation of Chaos Theory, I'll have to wait for you to explain by what you mean.

Yall wanted an example of biblical wisdom, and I have delivered the coup de grace.

As mentioned earlier, escalating events seems to be common sense to me. Also, the story you presented does not come from the Bible in its entirety (please direct me to the Chapters/Verses which show the vanity connection, Lucifer connection, and show that the fruit did not have knowledge-granting properties if I am mistaken), in fact, it directly contradicts the Bible at points. If you could make a case for this being wisdom and not common sense, or give a different example, I would much appreciate it.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Please provide some evidence for this claim. All of Genesis, and most of Exodus seem to be pretty questionable. Please provide evidence for the garden of eden, the flood, the plagues in Egypt. Any evidence for these events instead of against them would be fascinating to see.

Evidence of what? The ten plagues hold no evidence to examine. We're not going to find proof that locusts destroyed crops or that first born children died. Trying to figure it out with science is just plain stupid.

And there is evidence that there was a great flood. The Garden of Eden is allegedly underwater now and aquatic fossils are found on mountaintops. Sure this can all point toward the Earth being a multi-billion year legacy of crap, but it could also point toward something more probable, like a flood.