Speaker Geeks! discussion
Religious Debates
>
Do religious people refuse to accept science?
The Phantom wrote: "And that is one of the reasons I cannot abide the Christian faith."<It is a simple request
Janelle wrote: "Somurai wrote: "The existence is all that matters and it's definition is bound by your knowledge, perception, experience; beyond that it's just another fantasy book! Science is in the vicinity of w..."The main point is that science:
a) Accepts when it is wrong, and
b) Changes its views to be correct
It is a request similar to me saying:
"I can fly! If you believe me you'll be rewarded after you're dead. But, of course, I refuse to show you me flying, instead referencing a time when I supposedly did, and had people write it down."
The Phantom wrote: "Janelle wrote: "Somurai wrote: "The existence is all that matters and it's definition is bound by your knowledge, perception, experience; beyond that it's just another fantasy book! Science is in t..."Science is wrong about evolution and does not accept it
Prove we're wrong and we'll accept it.Thus far, no-one can prove we're wrong, and we can arguably prove we are right.
It can not be proved right, that is why it is only called a theory. It can be just as seemingly true as false.
It cannot be proved right so much as it cannot be proved right that the battle of hastings occurred in 1066.
The Phantom wrote: "Prove we're wrong and we'll accept it.Thus far, no-one can prove we're wrong, and we can arguably prove we are right."
Same as Catholicism. No one can prove us wrong, thus we are right. If you do not believe in the faith, you don't need to. But that does not mean it is wrong.
Do you have evidence that we are wrong? Or evidence that you are right? yes, you have "proof". But so do we. The Bible WAS written, in the correct time; it is not something we made up in whenever and said it was 2000 years old. it's been here since many, many years ago. So who are you to say we are not right? Who are you to say we don't believe in science? Who are you to judge what is correct and what is not?
Also, faith is believing without seeing. If you must see to believe, it is not faith. I know many people cannot wrap their heads around the fact that we believe in a God whom we cannot see. but that is out faith.
We cannot PROVE everything in science. Have we seen it all with out own eyes? have we seen thermals? have we seen earth, 2 billion years ago? no. But yet people still believe in the theories. And I know there are multiple theories of how people came to North America. And I know people who believe in both sides of the argument. And only one can be right. However, they are not being discriminated. they are not being hated on.
Not only one can be right with science and religion. Who is to say we didn't evolve? Who is to say there were no dinosaurs? WE HAVE NOT SEEN WHAT HAS HAPPENED. In my opinion, God did not just POOF things in existence. He made them, created them, evolved them. And you might argue that the Bible states he made everything in 6 days, and so if I believe that, I cannot also believe in the Bible so i'm a hypocrite. But. The Bible did not say 1 day is 24 hours. 1 day couldn't been 64 billion years, for all we know, as time might not even pass at all in heaven. So evolution could've happened. Science and religion would both be correct.
And please don't be stupid and argue that we are dumb for thinking a day couldve be anything BUT 24 hours. Honestly, if you can't accept what other people's ideas with respect, just leave. I've heard that argument too many times.
"We cannot PROVE everything in science. Have we seen it all with out own eyes? have we seen thermals? have we seen earth, 2 billion years ago? no."Here we need to realise that literally seeing something unfold in front of us is not the only form of evidence, nor the best. Have we seen Earth 2 billion years ago? No. But we have much evidence on that time, and can make accurate and logical deductions based on that knowledge and our own knowledge.
"And please don't be stupid and argue that we are dumb for thinking a day could've be anything BUT 24 hours."
I must sound terribly obnoxious for saying this, but the Bible was written by humans who believed one day to be 24 hours. Thus it is unlikely, but not impossible, that your argument is the correct.
Someone once said, in support of your view:
"Scientists will finally ascend the tallest peak of greatest mountain of ignorance, and find theologians who have been sitting there for thousands of years."
Just because it's a nice quote.
For some of the books in the bible, it is believed that God told the humans what to write... thus it is not unlikely, but rather definitely possible. 2 Peter 3:8 says "But do not forget one thing, dear friends: with the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day."
Well if a thousand years = a day, and vice versa, you still don't get anyway. Furthermore, it can be mathematically proven that 1 = 2 , so...Furthermore, Corinthians gives the impression preaching is wholly pointless: "God has blinded the unbelievers so that they cannot see the light of the gospels."
What? Your argument is not making sense to me at all...
The verse meant that God is not restricted by time...
Yes, nonetheless, bible-writers quantified the time taken for creation. Why would God have them write 7 days if he did not intend us to take it as meaning 7 days?
The Corinthians thing was just a reference to what I heard in chapel earlier.
"The Hebrew word 'yum', that translates into English as a day, can mean a twelve hour day, a twenty four hour day, or an unspecified amount of time"
No one can prove you right doesn't mean you're right. Invalid debate because of the equal illogical values in polar perception.God's existence is open for beliefs; you can't be wrong if you think he/she/it doesn't exist. So all arguments and fights are invalid.
Science is not relative to religion (tangible vs intangible? mehh), hence doesn't belong in the comparison in the first place. So, invalid comparison.
Holy Book vs Science books (all open for interpretations, positive and negative; either make bombs, cure wounds those bombs caused; forgive sinners, castrate sinners ...woot?)...err Invalid!!
This, whole debate...an ego war...hence...Invalid...
(Chasing tail...Who won? Your precious time.. lol)
Som wrote: "No one can prove you right doesn't mean you're right. Invalid debate because of the equal illogical values in polar perception.God's existence is open for beliefs; you can't be wrong if you think..."
http://christianity.stackexchange.com...
Som wrote: "No one can prove you right doesn't mean you're right. Invalid debate because of the equal illogical values in polar perception.God's existence is open for beliefs; you can't be wrong if you think..."
Science and religion must be compared, for they are opposed.
Goodbye. Enjoy your life in all its lack of meaning.
The Phantom wrote: "Som wrote: "No one can prove you right doesn't mean you're right. Invalid debate because of the equal illogical values in polar perception.God's existence is open for beliefs; you can't be wrong ..."
Ditto
So if we can agree on one thing, it's that the other of us is irrevocably wrong?
OK, enjoy your meaningful life that's mostly about aberrant comparision between science and religion...lol
Som wrote: "OK have fun...bye lol"I don't get you... ????
I never said my life had meaning; though I see now it may have been implicit...Life in any form is ultimately meaningless.
Janelle wrote: "Som wrote: "OK have fun...bye lol"I don't get you... ????"
It wasn't meant for you.
And about that link, Christianity isn't the only religion in the world. ;)
The Phantom wrote: "I never said my life had meaning; though I see now it may have been implicit...Life in any form is ultimately meaningless."
Woah, no... that is soooooo not true
Som wrote: "OK, enjoy your meaningful life that's mostly about aberrant comparision between science and religion...lol"Geez
Janelle wrote: "The Phantom wrote: "I never said my life had meaning; though I see now it may have been implicit...Life in any form is ultimately meaningless."
Woah, no... that is soooooo not true"
Given the inevitability of death, destruction, and the definitive nature thereof, nothing can ever truly have any lasting significance.
Som wrote: "Janelle wrote: "Som wrote: "OK have fun...bye lol"I don't get you... ????"
It wasn't meant for you.
And about that link, Christianity isn't the only religion in the world. ;)"
Well, if you look at past comments, it is the only one really being discussed in this debate... so...
The Phantom wrote: "I never said my life had meaning; though I see now it may have been implicit...Life in any form is ultimately meaningless."
Not really. Many philosophers didn't die because of this. If it was 'ultimately meaningless' you'd not have 'morality' and 'ethics' in the first place. It'd all be chaos. Most religions claim they are guardians of morality, but they take it too far because of the misinterpretations by leading radicals.
Janelle wrote: "Som wrote: "Janelle wrote: "Som wrote: "OK have fun...bye lol"I don't get you... ????"
It wasn't meant for you.
And about that link, Christianity isn't the only religion in the world. ;)"
Well..."
Geez
"If it was 'ultimately meaningless' you'd not have 'morality' and 'ethics' in the first place. It'd all be chaos."Correction: If humans recognised this as the truth I hold it to be, there may be chaos.
However, since I am of this belief, and I am neither in or propagating chaos, that may serve to counter your hypothesis.
The Phantom wrote: "Janelle wrote: "The Phantom wrote: "I never said my life had meaning; though I see now it may have been implicit...Life in any form is ultimately meaningless."
Woah, no... that is soooooo not tru..."
Hmmmm, that is not true, life is meaningful. We don't just cease to exist once our bodies die btw
"We don't just cease to exist once our bodies die btw"You forget that that is simply fallacy.
Well, Christianity includes the belief in a heaven and hell...
Of course it does. Christianity itself is fallacy, though I cannot condemn your beliefs.
The Phantom wrote: ""If it was 'ultimately meaningless' you'd not have 'morality' and 'ethics' in the first place. It'd all be chaos."Correction: If humans recognised this as the truth I hold it to be, there may be c..."
Good counter but if I may ask...why holding on to the opinion that may bring chaos or just unnecessary arguments? (:
No, it is not... it is called faith... and I am not trying to tell you not to or anything, but if you are so adamantly against Christianity, then why did you say you go to chapel?
Janelle wrote: "Well, Christianity includes the belief in a heaven and hell..."I respect your beliefs as long as it's not imposed on others. (:
Som wrote: "The Phantom wrote: ""If it was 'ultimately meaningless' you'd not have 'morality' and 'ethics' in the first place. It'd all be chaos."Correction: If humans recognised this as the truth I hold it t..."
I so do not get you...
Som wrote: "The Phantom wrote: ""If it was 'ultimately meaningless' you'd not have 'morality' and 'ethics' in the first place. It'd all be chaos."Correction: If humans recognised this as the truth I hold it t..."
Because I believe it to be truth, yet, of course, cannot prove it.
Janelle wrote: "No, it is not... it is called faith... and I am not trying to tell you not to or anything, but if you are so adamantly against Christianity, then why did you say you go to chapel?"I go to boarding school. Trust me, if I had a choice, I would not go.
The Phantom wrote: "Janelle wrote: "No, it is not... it is called faith... and I am not trying to tell you not to or anything, but if you are so adamantly against Christianity, then why did you say you go to chapel?"..."
If you had a choice you wouldn't? But you just said you believe it.
Sorry. Misunderstanding with me taking to long to post and others posting first.
The Phantom wrote: "Because I believe it to be truth, yet, of course, cannot prove it."Knowing that it could possibly a lie without a substantial proof? Why not staying neutral then... Just saying..
Som wrote: "Janelle wrote: "Well, Christianity includes the belief in a heaven and hell..."I respect your beliefs as long as it's not imposed on others. (:"
I am not imposing it, just expressing that it is the truth and the meaning to life.
Because it was not something I was told, or taught, but a conclusion I came to of my own logic.And of course, your argument can just as easily be turned against religion...
Janelle wrote: "Som wrote: "Janelle wrote: "Well, Christianity includes the belief in a heaven and hell..."I respect your beliefs as long as it's not imposed on others. (:"
I am not imposing it, just expressing..."
I still haven't seen you give a meaning...
But sometimes science is wrong. Theories -if not accepted by some- can not be seen as science that someone is refusing to accept since they are not fully developed or fully composed of facts.