The Faith & Religion mega Thread

he lives so deeply in truth that light literally surrounds him

Just because your cult doesn't have k☠☠laid doesn't mean you can't evolve with us?

I guess the AIDS virus didn't evolve before our eyes; what's it called when the sperm and egg meet and grow... but the kid has a 3rd nose?

...why go on just drink it!

fact = fact
theory = educated guesses built around facts trying to lead up to possible facts
blind faith in fairy tails = sitting around a campfire with a banjo and if she's wearing a gold cross around her neck she's likely easy and your getting some

None have experienced "god" DavidMcCann it's blind faith that gets there rocks off and may ease their wussy transition to rot‽

what's it called when the sperm and egg meet and grow... but the kid has a 3rd nose?

First off as if people have a second nose to begin with. lmao hahaha really? where is your second nose?

genetic deformities is not evolution. just like the ones that are born hermaphrodites. I suppose you chalk that up as evolution as well.

HMmm... black skin closer to the sun,,, who would want that at last if you ask whitey?

Originally Posted by BW-userx genetic deformities is not evolution. just like the ones that are born hermaphrodites. I suppose you chalk that up as evolution as well.

To me, what would qualify as "evolution" would be the appearance of a viable member of a new "phylum, family, or genus." (Let's start with just this never-yet-witnessed event, and go from there.) A solid, verifiable, sharp diversion from "each after their own kind." Whether or not the new organism survives, we want to perform DNA testing and observe exactly what took place ... and forever answer the question, "can this(!) really happen?"

So far as I know, we have never witnessed any such thing. (A human with two noses or six fingers is still homo sapiens.) We therefore do not actually know that such a thing is possible. We do not know that the biological processes postulated by the Theory of Evolution can, in fact, actually occur. (And neither did ... neither could ... Charles Darwin.)

(Incidentally, if you have not yet read "The Origin of Species" for yourself, I recommend it to you. "A little bit Victorian," yes of course, but he was a damned good scientific/philosophical writer, and an obviously-meticulous observer and researcher. His book on the voyages of the Beagle is also well-written and fascinating.)

So, here we all are, talking about "Evolution" as a "known scientific fact" when in fact we have never seen it. (We call it a "theory," and have mutually agreed to do so, when IMHO it should be no more than a "hypothesis" at this point.) It seems to call for a dramatic (and successful) diversion from "each after its own kind" when we have never seen it, and when there seem to be biological controls standing in the way. Although apes and monkeys do share many characteristics with humans, "if a woman got very kinky with a monkey" (yuck! ...), the product of their union would – for some reason – never fertilize her egg. (And even if it did, it would undoubtedly trigger a miscarriage.)

And yet, the "theory of Evolution™" seems to have no trouble with this. It simply waves its hands and mumbles something about "vast expanses of time." (Isn't that rather-suspiciously similar to "a million monkeys?" )

Personally, I think there's a piece missing. Perhaps there's something e-l-s-e out there, just waiting to be discovered when Nature decides to reveal yet another of her mysteries to us.

"'The Theory,' as we know it right now," to me, "does not quite 'ring true.'" Maybe we're asking too much of "evolution (of species)," the readily-observable "fast" phenomenon that we know so well. Perhaps this "evolution" mechanism is somehow "boxed in" so that it cannot stray out of narrow limits. (I can see why this might well be the case ...)

So, perhaps there is another(!) discovery waiting to happen. Perhaps there is something else out there ... another mechanism that we don't yet see ... a glorious discovery waiting to be made that will "blow our socks off" when we find it.

"Wouldn't that be cool?" Whether I see it with my own eyes or see it from a cloud, I'm looking forward to it.

- - - - -

To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of "life on Planet Earth" is that it is a never-ending, endlessly-layered, mystery. "Science" is laudable for shining its searchlight-beams into the darkness, but ...

... but ...

... but maybe religion(!) is not such an "ignorant" thing, after all!

"Science" clings to observation and reason. "Religion" does not. (If anything, it relies on intuition and 'feeling.') "Both of these things have co-existed in every scrap of human history that we have yet found. So, judge, tell me: which one of them is 'wrong?'"

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs And yet, the "theory of Evolution™" seems to have no trouble with this.

in everything you said in that post to me about it not that i read it all. Because that statement right there disproves whatever it was you said in vote for it..

If the theory of Evolution seems to have problems in proving anything about it then It would NOT be a theory. as it is still a theory then nothing about it is actually proven to be actually completely true. Because it is still a theory not fact! that you so say you love to fill your belief system with.

and he key words there are
seems
and
theory

seems is not a statement of actuality.

theory you should already know what that means.

it is late here so I'll leave it at that for now....?

"Science" clings to observation and reason. "Religion" does not. (If anything, it relies on intuition and 'feeling.') "Both of these things have co-existed in every scrap of human history that we have yet found. So, judge, tell me: which one of them is 'wrong?'"



you speak out of what knowledge of "Religion" to draw your conclusions?

there is actually only one true Religion. So do not go clumping them all together.

intuition: the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
where do you get this stuff?

Intuition and feelings are real fairy tales and righteousness are not, all of them are learned!

Let's not reinvent the wheel a cloud is just a server... hehehe.

Originally Posted by BW-userx again fails to proved evidence of what he is talking about. just says things and expects others to know and or believe everything that is coming out of his mount. The God effect.

No it isn't a "God effect" but instead a prediction based on past events that seem to be of a trend. If I say "I expect we will experience Sunrise tomorrow morning" that is based on that view of events occurring daily not only for my lifetime but all human lifetimes and such things as the fossil record show it likely for over 4 Billion years. That's not god like. It's just Human Reason.

Originally Posted by BW-userx you dislike what I believe in so much you deny basic truths about the human mind that throw off your logic and reasoning. The ability to even use your mind properly so it faults your ability to use your mind to its fullest potential to even come to a proper conclusion on anything, especially what you hate, dislike, distrust due to improperly using your mind. that statement above is proof of it, and it is you now showing your blatant (closet) bigotry about me. Judging me as a wolf in sheep clothing belonging to some National Socialist Party. again making accusations against me without proof whatsoever. that is the mind of a bigot.

WHAT? Is English not your native language or do you have trouble making proper connections when you read? I did not call you a wolf in sheep's clothing nor a nazi. That was one example of a recurring trend in history. Another such trend is that reliance on Faith increases during difficult times and that has often led to one religious organization or another becoming overly powerful and self-righteously vindictive. I'm not even saying that you have such intentions or desires, just that it is often a package deal, a recurring progression.

Originally Posted by BW-userx Bigots are closed minded people that harbor hatred in there hearts and souls. They are the real deceivers of themselves and others. Looks to me that the books you are reading are polluting your mind about me personally and others.

Pot. meet Kettle. You are so utterly convinced that you represent all that is good and true and conversely that I, as an atheist, represent all that is wrong and evil that you twist everything that comes your way to fit into that predetermined view. I, OTOH, have no need for hatred nor such certainty but it appears you will never understand that and so much more because you won't even consider anything in opposition to your static views. Those are rejected or twisted as soon as they appear "on your radar". I accept both order and chaos and expect and embrace change if and when the evidence reaches a tipping point.

Worse, you even imagine that my mind is shaped by books as if I were some puppet on strings with no reason whatsoever, apparently because you choose to Believe in something that views critical thinking as The Enemy. As a boy I read Astronomy books that told me the Milky Way WAS The Universe. Within a few years I read about Hubble and Red Shift and, in just a short time, realized that view of The Universe was incorrect and that it was vastly larger than anyone imagined in their wildest dreams. Like much of Science, the new view was subjected to intense scrutiny, all of which only added to the evidence it is so.

Similarly, as a boy, I read that The Big Bang was between 10 and 20 Billion years ago. Now I read the refining evidence that it is 13.7 Billion. If in the next few years evidence mounts that it is 13.2 Billion or 14.3 Billion, while I will be skeptical, if the evidence bears out, that's no big deal for me since I am not emotionally nor morally invested in the conclusion, only in the process of coming to conclusions.

You seem to literally NEED what you have always believed to remain True, but as I said, I don't hate nor even particularly dislike you for that. I am just wary of large numbers of people coming to static conclusions in that manner and what that can mean for the rest of us.

PS All I can say about your Creationist "disproof" of Evolution is ROTFLMAO. I could in fact write volumes but given your vested interest what would be the point?

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann I'm not dismissive: I accept the theory. The point I was making is that even in the natural sciences, there are degrees of certainty and that none approach that of pure mathematics. Thus the Big Bang theory depends on the axiom of Spatial Uniformity: that we can assume that phenomena observed in other galaxies will have the same causes that they would have in the solar system. That is an axiom or assumption, which you cannot prove, as you cannot go to another galaxy and check. It also depends on the axiom of Temporal Uniformity: the rules of physics do not change purely with with the passing of time. That too cannot be tested, although some physicists actually questioned it in the last century. Both assumptions could be wrong. Because it makes heavy use of such assumptions, cosmology has a lower level of certainty than chemistry, let alone pure maths. As I said, I suspect that the Big Bang theory is true, but I know that it might not be. What I find amusing is that the scientific atheists will jib at accepting gods whom they have not experienced, while accepting assumptions about things that nobody has experienced.

Just because we can't "go there" is not any reason for doubt when there are other means of experience. We have telescopes, spectroscopes, particle colliders, as well as physical probes gathering evidence beyond our current ability to "go there". Because Cause and Effect do exist once an event occurs, nothing can change that nor that it leaves an indelible "footprint". We have been able to plot the changes backward towards the Big Bang to within 100,000,000 after it occurred for over a century since that was 13.6 Billion years ago when we observe the first sources of light evolving. Once we developed technologies that could gather and analyze other forms of radiation that existed further back and cross reference that with particle phenomenon from colliders that produce the same levels of energy, that gets pushed back to mere fractions of a minute.

Once again, with the massive acceleration that has taken place in technology as well as man/hours in the 20th and first part of the 21st Centuries, any one of many new technologies had the possibility of totally wiping out what was thought before, just as DNA could easily have wiped out Evolution.... but they didn't. They only added to the firmness of those conclusions.

So what "atheist scientists" or at the very least this atheist scientist thinks is that "current best information" even at it's worst is still a binary condition - 0 or 1, Night or Day, from NO information.

Originally Posted by BW-userx If the theory of Evolution seems to have problems in proving anything about it then It would NOT be a theory. as it is still a theory then nothing about it is actually proven to be actually completely true. Because it is still a theory not fact!

Sheeesh! another round with Sisyphus. Not only do you not know what Evolution actually means, you don't know what Theory actually means in the scientific sense of the word that applies to much more than just Origin of Species.

Theories are not "proven to be fact". They are observed patterns with enough data to present a coherent and lasting concept that resists falsification. Some theories, those with little data or with little time to be falsified are considered volatile and even these are done so rigorously that they are rarely ever disproved, but instead refined and modified. Others, like Big Bang Theory and Evolution, have been around so long and subject to so much new testing not even dreamed of at the start, any one of w3hich could "upset the whole applecart" but instead only made it sturdier, that the likelihood they will be undergo any major, fundamental change is less than 1 in 1,000,000,000. Look up "5 Sigma" to see what is meant by scientific theory and the level of scrutiny required before you spout off about "just a theory" ever again or risk sounding entirely ignorant.

Sorry to blow my own trumpet, but I think I have set out the difference between a theory and a hypothesis fairly adequately here.. You might also want to read my ramble on faith, and the similarities and differences between religious and scientific beliefs,

@ Hazel - I agree that his ramblings on Theory vs/ Hypothesis are quite sound but as for his assertion that religious faith is based on evidence I have to ask, "What evidence?"

Originally Posted by enorbet @ Hazel - I agree that his ramblings on Theory vs/ Hypothesis are quite sound but as for his assertion that religious faith is based on evidence I have to ask, "What evidence?"

Personal experience mostly, mine and other people's. I grant that this is of no value to those who haven't experienced it; it is the very nature of personal experience not to be transferable. However, it is conclusive for the people concerned. Also I find that the existence of God makes far better sense of all I have learned about science, both at University and subsequently, than His non-existence does.