Agnostic, Religious or Atheist

[Soiherdyouliekme]

Theory.

If you keep on doing this you'll be exactly like those stubborn religion freaks trying to push their religion onto you.

Theory doesn't mean, just a wild guess. A scientific theory is a substantiated, supported explanation for a phenomena.

I don't think I was shoving anything down anybody's throats. I was just pointing out that you can't exactly point to something as unexplainable when there is an explanation, and that it's based on empirical data so it's not exactly a wild guess either.

EDIT: I'm a 15-year old sophomore in high school, too. I learned those exact two chemical equations last year in grade 9 science, and I attend a Catholic school.

 

[Noheart]

I'm a 15-year old sophomore in high school, too. I learned those exact two chemical equations last year in grade 9 science, and I attend a Catholic school.

Yeah, I learned about the subject too but didnt really go too in-depth into chemistry, we focused a little more on physics. Grade 9 was Physical Science and I take biology now.. Guess you must be a little brighter than me ahaha.

On topic, I think what Magnegross was trying to say was that people pass theories on creation and such as fact when they are built upon educated thinking but are never proven fact... It's a common argument and it normally starts a never-ending cycle of debating that never really gets anywhere, and unfortunately (especially on this forum) bashing occurs, that's when the debate becomes a childish argument and blah blah blah.

But I digress. I just can't really find solid ground on either side to stand on, I guess.

 

[AzukanAsimbu]

Mispelled "Atheist" by the way.

These threads are getting old.

All they do is end up with everyone bashing Christianity.

If we're going to debate, then lets do it logically.

 

[Soiherdyouliekme]

Theory.

If you keep on doing this you'll be exactly like those stubborn religion freaks trying to push their religion onto you. No matter how much "evidence" (quotes because we have never observed major evolution in nature) you can come up with, theories will never be facts.

Just read the edit.

Your condescension isn't necessary here. By that point I had made a post describing very introductory information about a "theory" (more on theories later) and I'm suddenly on my way to being a fundamentalist. I always thought of fundies as people who belch out unsubstantiated claims with no consideration of opposing viewpoints. A scientific theory is anything but unsubstantiated. The scientific community unfortunately made a tactical error by referring to their explanations as theories, because common parlance would lead us to believe that those would just be wild guesses. The rest of my sentiments can be summed up on this webpage. I won't try to change your mind on evolution, as that's your prerogative. But I do want to express that "it's just a theory" is an invalid argument.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

There is to much material to cover, so I hit the ones that had answers just pop in my head.No... but if the religious farsides had their way it would be. There are quite a few books that are banned that I question the logic of.

Thank you very much for answering that!

I have a "christian friend" who would only like me as a neighbor because 'My Wife is Christian', yet I practice what I preach more than she does. I'm atheist, and I am a better Christian than many Christians. To make my point. Those of you who have, 'I'm a Christian and I'm proud." as a sig... You posted up the fact you are a sinner! Pride is a cardinal/deadly sin. Yes, you can be forgiven of this sin, but do you leave your claim of pride on your sig? Have you really repented being prideful then? So now, you are not just prideful, but you are also a liar in the face of your god.

You brought this up a while back, and I answered it, and an interesting discussion ensued. I think you've read waaaay too much into the word "pride," ignoring the multiple meanings the word can have.

I hate doing this for fear of starting a flame war, but, Ok, we don't know what created the universe, but equally, you have no idea what made God. And if there is someone who made him, what made that thing? Etc...
And humans know what is right. You shouldn't need a spiritual deity telling you what to do. You should think for yourself about what you think is the correct way to behave.

People have suggested various causes for the event in which the universe began, the Big Bang (or something like it). One of the more popular theories involves other universes. Yet this remains untestable, and the idea blatantly ignores Occam's Razor.

And only if we know that God had a beginning do we need to say somebody made Him. Only things that begin (like our universe did) need to have that beginning explained.

My personal theory is that it's a paradox. We're going to invent time travel at some point and somebody is going to travel back in time to the start of the universe thus creating the Big Bang. Either that or the universe created itself (The universe is expanding at the moment, but no doubt it will start to shrink after a time.All that matter forcing itself together will create the Big Bang, starting it all over again. We're essentially going forwards and backwards in time at the same time.) A Little Farfeth'd, but still, it works in my brain.

Don't you just love the average opinion of science? To say that we're going to invent time travel? Priceless.

The Bible wasn't started until about 100+ years after the death of Jesus, written text back then is sketchy, as you have more than one version of the same story.

History is always written by the victor, not the victim.

No, most modern scholars believe the New Testament books were completed before A.D. 100. Most scholars, even very liberal ones, believe Mark's gospel was written around A.D. 70, a mere forty years after his death.

And the early Christians, who wrote the gospels, were certainly victims.

But then what caused God? In the case that God doesn't have a cause, that he is the exception to that rule, why not make the universe or the big bang (really, more like the big expansion) the exception?

Fail argument. Who made god?

I swear, this is one of the best evidences of a lack of critical thinking among atheists/agnostics. The universe began to exist. Without positive evidence that God began to exist, we need not assume anyone or anything made God. You can think this is special pleading all you want; that won't change the fact that the Big Bang is an event requiring an explanation.

 

[GhostAnime]

I'm agnostic, but the thing that makes me agnostic and not atheist is that I find the chances of a random burst of energy starting some chain that lasted billions and billions of years create the brilliance of life to be a lot less likely than an intelligent design with an intent to make life work.

Problem #1: This has nothing to do with agnosticism/atheism whatsoever.

Problem #2: If you do not believe a being made the universe, you don't have to believe it was a random burst of energy. It's not either-or.

Problem #3: The Big Bang is not a random burst of energy.

Look at the complexity of all living things. The water cycle. How plants give off oxygen, and breathe our exhaled carbon dioxide. The chance of all this happening randomly? The numbers seem to go on for eternity.

And how does one calculate numbers for an intelligent being? Are they any lower? Where's your data for that?

It doesn't really matter what the chances are.. it happened.

So many things fall into place in life.

Subjective argument.

Theory

I think the other guy handled this nicely.

On topic, I think what Magnegross was trying to say was that people pass theories on creation and such as fact when they are built upon educated thinking but are never proven fact

But we aren't talking about creation. We're talking about science.

What engineers science? What created plants, or matter at all?
I'm sorry, I'm only a sophomore in high school so excuse the ignorance I have towards scientific subjects. I am, however, aware how matter cannot be destroyed and therefore must be recycled somehow through some sort of processes. I know that much. But, if matter cannot be destroyed, how can it be created? How did the planet come to be? There's so many theories and religions out there, as a fifteen year old boy I don't even know what to believe or even begin to understand.

First, you have to understand that there really isn't any significance about matter in this. Matter always existed. The end. If you want to play the cycle game, you could do that endlessly with anything, but supposedly, matter has always existed (I think both sides can at least logically agree that something always existed..).

The Religious vs. Atheists debate will never end, as there is nothing from either side that disproves the other. Who knows, maybe some god created the big bang?

Most atheists don't try to prove anything, technically. It is more disproving the popular monotheistic religions. It's like saying 9/11 conspiracy detractors are trying to prove something when it's the 9/11 conspiracy theorists making the claims.

 

[Magnegross]

Most atheists don't try to prove anything, technically. It is more disproving the popular monotheistic religions.

Too bad you can't disprove them, as well as you can't prove them either. The end. And, why? Let people do what they want. If atheists are trying to "disprove" current religions, they're just as annoying as those Jehovah's Witnesses you just sent running from your doorstep.

 

[GhostAnime]

And, why? Let people do what they want. If atheists are trying to "disprove" current religions, they're just as annoying as those Jehovah's Witnesses you just sent running from your doorstep.

The point of debating against religion (and no TFP, I'm not going to respond to you if you reply to this post as this is PURELY describing a perspective and not making any kind of claim/argument) is to promote skepticism in thousands of year old thinking that has pretty much influence on politics and our social lives. "Let them do what they want" is also saying "let them discriminate and have views that are obviously contradictory to reality".

 

[GetOutOfBox]

This thread is already turning into a shitstorm. Since the topic of the thread is not "Is Christianity's beliefs correct or not?" let's just state the facts and end this.

1. None of the theories proposed by the Bible for things like the creation of the world/universe, humans, the power of important figures like Christ, and most importantly, the existance of God, are logically or scientifically provable. They have no real evidence supporting them, beyond the claims of an old book which has been edited and revised numerous times throughout history.

2. Science cannot prove God does not exist, as Science does not function around the concept of entirely and permanently proving something to be impossible. We can say it is unlikely God exists, or that there is no evidence to support his existance, however one cannot scientifically state that God DOES NOT exist. It's just extremely unlikely.
Please note that this fact does not mean "GOD EXISTS WE WIN WOOOOOOOO". it simply means that people shouldn't be claiming "God cannot exist and does not exist." until such a fact is validated, which is unlikely considering the nature of the matter.

3. Scientific Theories are not laws, however proper theories are backed up by large quantities of evidence based around practical and theoretical proofs. For example, The Big Bang Theory can not be called a law since it has not definetively been proven to have been responsible for the creation of the universe. However, based upon the large amounts of evidence supporting that theory, it is most likely true. More likely than "A BEARDED GUY IN THE SKY DECIDED A UNIVERSE WOULD BE COOL SO HE MADE ONE".

4. Infinity is a valid concept in mathematics and physics. You can rail on about "What started the Big Bang? What started the thing that started the Big Bang? Etc, Etc", doesn't change the fact that that quirk is equally applicable to religious beliefs ("Who created God? Who created the thing that created God?" Etc Etc).

5. The Bible is not a valid source. If you choose to believe it was really written by disciples of Jesus Christ and that the book you find in your church today is the same thing they wrote, that's great. The fact still remains that the Bible was written by an extremely biased group of individuals, in a time of great superstition and lack of knowledge amongst the common person.

6. Finally, religion revolves around the concept of faith. You can't prove the existence of such a thing. The whole point is that you simply believe in it. There's no point in cherrypicking random articles as fodder against things like carbon-dating, etc.

Can we please just let this ridiculous argument end here? Religous people: You're not going to be able to prove the existence of your religion using logic and scientific facts, since it rebels against both. Atheists/Agnostics: Religion is a personal choice that should be respected, just like one's sexuality, etc. Don't attack someones religion merely because it doesn't conform with Science.

 

[Skydra]

People have suggested various causes for the event in which the universe began, the Big Bang (or something like it). One of the more popular theories involves other universes. Yet this remains untestable, and the idea blatantly ignores Occam's Razor.

It may be untestable, but it is built upon observation. What facts are God built upon?

And the early Christians, who wrote the gospels, were certainly victims.

Victims because of other religions which were also ill-supported factually (IMO).

I swear, this is one of the best evidences of a lack of critical thinking among atheists/agnostics. The universe began to exist. Without positive evidence that God began to exist, we need not assume anyone or anything made God. You can think this is special pleading all you want; that won't change the fact that the Big Bang is an event requiring an explanation.

I agree that the making of God and the happening of the Big Bang is similarly inexplicable. However, we have facts and intelligence to eventually find out how the Big Bang happened, assuming the species has enough time. How are you going to find out how God was made (or whether he was just "there") or whether he exists? Evidence exists somewhere for the Big Bang. Evidence for God does not appear to.

 

[PokeJustice]

But we aren't talking about creation. We're talking about science.

There is nothing unscientific about the word "creation."

 

[GhostAnime]

I would hope he wasn't mentioning anything like that.. !

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

This thread is already turning into a shitstorm. Since the topic of the thread is not "Is Christianity's beliefs correct or not?" let's just state the facts and end this.

The idea that you needed to come here to "state the facts and end this" is an arrogant one.

1. None of the theories proposed by the Bible for things like the creation of the world/universe, humans, the power of important figures like Christ, and most importantly, the existance of God, are logically or scientifically provable. They have no real evidence supporting them, beyond the claims of an old book which has been edited and revised numerous times throughout history.

First of all, remember, since numerous scientists (and science aficionados on these forums) have stated that it is unfair to expect absolute proof of scientific theories, I just want to make sure you aren't expecting absolute proof of God before it is reasonable to believe He exists.

Second, yes, there is evidence even outside the Bible that Jesus performed supernatural deeds.

2. Science cannot prove God does not exist, as Science does not function around the concept of entirely and permanently proving something to be impossible. We can say it is unlikely God exists, or that there is no evidence to support his existance, however one cannot scientifically state that God DOES NOT exist. It's just extremely unlikely.

By what precise mathematical method do you show that the existence of God is "extremely unlikely"? Do you have figures, or did you just create that idea out of nothing?

3. Scientific Theories are not laws, however proper theories are backed up by large quantities of evidence based around practical and theoretical proofs. For example, The Big Bang Theory can not be called a law since it has not definetively been proven to have been responsible for the creation of the universe. However, based upon the large amounts of evidence supporting that theory, it is most likely true. More likely than "A BEARDED GUY IN THE SKY DECIDED A UNIVERSE WOULD BE COOL SO HE MADE ONE".

You do know Christians have never actually stated that God is actually a man in the sky, and that just because some paintings happen to give God a beard doesn't mean we believe He has one, right?

I'm not denying the Big Bang theory. I think God caused the "stuff" of the universe to "bang"!

4. Infinity is a valid concept in mathematics and physics. You can rail on about "What started the Big Bang? What started the thing that started the Big Bang? Etc, Etc", doesn't change the fact that that quirk is equally applicable to religious beliefs ("Who created God? Who created the thing that created God?" Etc Etc).

That sounds a lot like rambling, and you ignored what I said: No, "Who made God?" is not valid.

5. The Bible is not a valid source. If you choose to believe it was really written by disciples of Jesus Christ and that the book you find in your church today is the same thing they wrote, that's great. The fact still remains that the Bible was written by an extremely biased group of individuals, in a time of great superstition and lack of knowledge amongst the common person.

The biblical documents were written by humans. In the specific case of the gospels, the authors don't claim that they got their message from God. They can't be dismissed as though the authors claimed to go off in a cave somewhere and get a word from God. They claimed to be passing on information about Jesus, and they did. They undoubtedly are valid as a source. Even extremely liberal scholars know these four documents are the primary sources on he life of Jesus, even if they don't believe all of the things told about Him.

And he burden of proof is on you to prove that the Bible has been substantially and fundamentally altered. I have read books on textual criticism, and I know a few things about the differences between manuscripts. This means I know that many atheists/agnostics misrepresent the manuscript data.

Can we please just let this ridiculous argument end here? Religous people: You're not going to be able to prove the existence of your religion using logic and scientific facts, since it rebels against both. Atheists/Agnostics: Religion is a personal choice that should be respected, just like one's sexuality, etc. Don't attack someones religion merely because it doesn't conform with Science.

My religion does not rebel against logic or science. My beliefs are based on evidence.

It may be untestable, but it is built upon observation. What facts are God built upon?

The idea of multiple universes is not based on observation, but on interpretation of a few observations that may be explained much more easily.

I agree that the making of God and the happening of the Big Bang is similarly inexplicable. However, we have facts and intelligence to eventually find out how the Big Bang happened, assuming the species has enough time. How are you going to find out how God was made (or whether he was just "there") or whether he exists? Evidence exists somewhere for the Big Bang. Evidence for God does not appear to.

You entirely missed what I said. I'm not saying that we can't explain the beginning of the universe. I'm saying that the evidence for an entity outside our universe causing it to begin in a Big Bang is the most logical inference. Other ideas invoke many more entities (i.e., the multiverse), or use special pleading to claim the Big Bang can be uncaused.

Remember, if we have no observations of things outside the universe, I can't say that the multiverse theory could not be true. However, for this idea to be scientific, it must be observable in some way. The idea of a being setting off the mass-energy of our universe also doesn't ignore Occam's azor, while he multiverse theory does.

 

[Malanu]

Too bad you can't disprove them, as well as you can't prove them either. The end. And, why? Let people do what they want. If atheists are trying to "disprove" current religions, they're just as annoying as those Jehovah's Witnesses you just sent running from your doorstep.

As an Atheist I don't try to disprove anything unless I am provoked or asked to. I don't believe in gods. Any of them. If you do, I do not try to make you quit.

You brought this up a while back, and I answered it, and an interesting discussion ensued. I think you've read waaaay too much into the word "pride," ignoring the multiple meanings the word can have.

Maybe I did I use this definition

pride/prīd/
Noun: A feeling of pleasure from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired.
Verb: Be especially proud of a particular quality or skill.

Then there is this

Sin Of Pride - The Sin of Sins
The sin of pride is the sin of sins. It was this sin, we're told, which transformed Lucifer, an anointed cherub of God, the very "seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty,"1 into Satan, the devil, the father of lies, the one for whom Hell itself was created.2 We're warned to guard our hearts against pride lest we too "fall into the same condemnation as the devil."3

So yeah, I might be splitting hairs but how much pride is to proud! As a christian I would think they would shy away from making such a statement for fear of joining Lucifer.

 

[)WisP(]

Just so everyone knows, almost every thing we think we know is just a theory. Maths is the only true thing. Even gravity, which seems straightforward, we don't understand (it doesn't effect sub atomic particles, yet it effects larger objects). So those using science as a source, it's ALL just theories. Make what you will of the universe, it's all just our perception of it.

 

[TheGreatDragonite]

Fail argument. Who made god?

I am not religious nor atheist. In fact, I wonder every single day about the universe and its creations. To be honest, I don't believe in the Big Bang or most of evolution for that matter.

I'd rather not know how everything started honestly. Someday I'd like someone to figure it out.

God doesn't need to be created. He cannot not exist, as one of his main attributes is neccessity - he cannot not exist.

 

[Auraninja]

I am mainly a deist. Here is my mission statement of my belief:

God created the Universe with full intention of what would happen. The Big Bang was initiated by God, and then God left the world to natural pressures of Evolution. Human beings came very late in this world, and they were the flawed organisms. When man sinned, God put his son, Jesus, to die for the sins and the inherited flaws of man.

However, as a scientist, I believe this CANNOT be proven. I believe this as a faith, not as a science.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

So yeah, I might be splitting hairs but how much pride is to proud! As a christian I would think they would shy away from making such a statement for fear of joining Lucifer.

You bring up a very important point about the possibility of having too much pride. That is a danger. However, if every human is proud of being human, why...that would put us all on the same plane!

Just so everyone knows, almost every thing we think we know is just a theory. Maths is the only true thing. Even gravity, which seems straightforward, we don't understand (it doesn't effect sub atomic particles, yet it effects larger objects). So those using science as a source, it's ALL just theories. Make what you will of the universe, it's all just our perception of it.

Yet the idea that the earth exists need not be reduced to "perception." It exists, whether people perceive it or not. To say that mathematics is the only true thing would be an exaggeration. However, mathematics does have certainty, by using deductive proof, whereas science uses inductive support.

 

[Auraninja]

Yet the idea that the earth exists need not be reduced to "perception." It exists, whether people perceive it or not. To say that mathematics is the only true thing would be an exaggeration. However, mathematics does have certainty, by using deductive proof, whereas science uses inductive support.

Science uses inductive and deductive reasoning. Perception is important though, because it shows that we are not "lucky" to inherit the Earth, we are the ones that perceive life. You don't have organisms on lifeless planets saying that they weren't so lucky to not exist; that doesn't make sense.

I believe that philosophy is important for the purposes of wisdom. It doesn't necessarily need to be religious in nature, but it should exist. Maxims like "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom" prevail as wise philosophical pieces.

 

[GhostAnime]

God doesn't need to be created. He cannot not exist, as one of his main attributes is neccessity - he cannot not exist.

Basically, make up your own rules for your own claims to not have to abide by other claims you disagree with because you say so.