To Believe or Not To Believe? (SHOW RESPECT, OR RISK A BAN) - Part 2

[ShadowBoxer]

ShadowBoxer, when you say you believe science and religion can co-exist, I think you're only referring to the science that doesn't contradict your beliefs. You've bluntly stated in the past that you not only not believe in evolution, but that those who don't take the Adam & Eve story literally aren't true Christians. If you choose to cherry pick scientific facts whenever they're convenient and ignore them when they're not, then you're not really that open to scientific views no matter how much you claim you are. I mean, we're not talking quantum mechanics here; just basic scientific stuff when it comes to topics like evolution and the origin of man.

Also, that article speaks no truth. It lost credibility in my eyes the second it resorted to the common unfounded religious conspiracy that there's "anti-God bias" in intellectual circles. Extremists and propagandists label facts and critical thinking as "bias" all the time (see Fox News). It's nothing new.

I never outright said I don't believe in evolution ( I do). What I said was that the evolution theory has flaws and I don't claim it to be 100% factual, unlike atheist who do consider it to to be 100% factual. But there is some truth to it. Also, I did not say people that didn't take the Adam& Eve story literally weren't true Christians. I said that the people who claim to be "Christians" but don't believe God had ANY influence whatsoever on the creation of mankind shouldn't really consider themselves Christians. Also, I think there definitely is anti God bias in the higher up intellectual circles. Many won't even consider the slightest idea or theories from a religious perspective. They will automatically disregard it. Bias is everywhere whether you acknowledge it or not. CNN is said to be bias to democratic's and Fox News is bias toward republicans. Non religious people are often bias towards views that fall in line with their own, and religious often times do the same. Nobody is really immune to bias.

 

[Greens]

After all it is a theory.

Scientific theory =/= colloquial definition of the word

 

[MrsKent26]

I'm just curious: For people who are bothered by intellectual groups disregarding religious ideas, what would you prefer they do instead? How should they "consider" religion as a legitimate theory? There's no way to prove anything Godly, so how are these intellectual circles supposed to debate religious ideas? Could a group that talks about scientific theories that have arisen out of genuine research really support an idea that comes with no proof or little (if any) hope of ever finding proof?

It seems that the very nature of religion as something that comes only from within the mind of believer, excludes it from these circles because there is no where to go with it.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

I'm just curious: For people who are bothered by intellectual groups disregarding religious ideas, what would you prefer they do instead? How should they "consider" religion as a legitimate theory? There's no way to prove anything Godly, so how are these intellectual circles supposed to debate religious ideas? Could a group that talks about scientific theories that have arisen out of genuine research really support an idea that comes with no proof or little (if any) hope of ever finding proof?

It seems that the very nature of religion as something that comes only from within the mind of believer, excludes it from these circles because there is no where to go with it.

Personally I don't really care if intellectual disregard religious ideas their entitled to their opinions like everyone else is.

 

[MrsKent26]

Personally I don't really care if intellectual disregard religious ideas their entitled to their opinions like everyone else is.

I see. I thought you were saying there was an anti-god bias amongst intellectual circles.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

I see. I thought you were saying there was an anti-god bias amongst intellectual circles.

I speaking in a general sense. Like if someone did present a religious view on a subject with evidence to support their claims. I am positive that there would be folks in the intellectual circles who would still discard it, simply because some already have it set in their minds that religion/ God is hocus pocus. Like it or not everyone has their own bias.

 

[MrsKent26]

I speaking in a general sense. Like if someone did present a regkious view on a subject with evidence to support their claims. I am positive that there would be folks in the intellectual circles who would still disgard it, simply because some already have it set in their minds that religion/ God is hocus pocus. Like it or not everyone has their own bias.

I agree that everyone has biases, but I'm not really sure how this scenario could ever come to pass. What evidence could a religious person present in the first place?

 

[PacificBoy]

It's simply because the non-religious don't find the evidence compelling enough. Most are agnostic at heart and adopt a wait-and-see attitude rather than say it could be a higher, intelligent being at work. It isn't necessary for them to fill the epistemological gaps with 'God', so they don't.

 

[KevanG]

What PB said, what with his big ten dollar words.

For non religious people it's not enough for 'God is mysterious and the universe is vast', for us it's 'Why does this happen? What could make it do it?'. The usual mysterious ways stuff just bugs us, we'd rather have something we can trace back to certain origins or at least a cause and effect idea than just 'Don't think about it',

If that's arrogant then so be it. Besides, what's wrong with learning things? Even if you learn more than expected or you regret knowing something it's still better to have learned it than to remain ignorant of certain things.

If it turned out tomorrow that there is a god and he revealed himself to the world, my first thought would probably be 'Holy **** I was wrong' and my second one would be 'Where did he come from?'. There's just so many questions that no one can answer besides 'take it on faith' that I just can't start to believe in a god.

Do I believe in things? Yes. I believe in cause and effect, that things happen due to other things in an unending chain that started when the universe and time itself did. Do I believe that something with consciousness started it? No. Are there many theories out there that state something could have started the universe without a hand of god? Yes and while we can't verify any of them due to not being able to see outside of time/our universe, it is something.

 

[Kelly]

"Having" the opinion and asking the questions Why? What?, etc...is not what is arrogant, I think some feel that "How" they come across when discussing these things with Christians, sometimes comes off as arrogant.

I think the same can be said for religious people...believing in God, etc...in itself is not overbearing, but some come off as "overbearing" when they, for lack of a better phrase, "beat people over the head with the Bible".

Both groups turn me off....

 

[PacificBoy]

You give them too much credit -- my words are just a buck apiece. t:

But yeah, I think most intellectuals (people for that matter) will admit at a push, would allow for the possibility of a higher being. Just that, in the words of Dawkins, they "think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low".

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

I agree that everyone has biases, but I'm not really sure how this scenario could ever come to pass. What evidence could a religious person present in the first place?

The problem is- all their evidence ever ends up being is "the word of God" as told by men in the Bible.

 

[MrsKent26]

I think that if any real evidence to support the existence of deities was brought forth, most non-believers would evaluate it and accept it if it was sound. I don't think anyone who believes in science and learning would dismiss something like that just to perpetuate a belief system or save face. Science changes its mind as new things are learned. It's just never been given a reason to say that gods are likely to exist.

 

[PacificBoy]

Fair enough. But generally speaking,people either fall on the evolutionist side or the creationism side of the argument. Some except a higher power's involvement, while others don't. There really isn't a need for getting hard core into religion.But present both sides equally.

Religiosity aside, you'd have to contend with public school teachers not being equipped to field questions on the subject and chair any kind of meaningful debate. What you're left with a throwaway bullet-point social studies type lesson. It's simply not practical to be taught in public schools. If you want in-depth discussions on creationism you'd be better off sending your child to a parochial or faith school.

 

[KevanG]

I think that if any real evidence to support the existence of deities was brought forth, most non-believers would evaluate it and accept it if it was sound. I don't think anyone who believes in science and learning would dismiss something like that just to perpetuate a belief system or save face. Science changes its mind as new things are learned. It's just never been given a reason to say that gods are likely to exist.

Considering how science evolves over time using what we learn to change things from the unknown Supernatural to the known Natural, it's just the process things go through when examined by people. If people want to know why something is or does and they only get the answer 'because' with no reasoning then that gets them annoyed. Especially when the people who state the answer to be 'because' refuse to allow any examination or explanation to be attempted.

 

[MrsKent26]

Considering how science evolves over time using what we learn to change things from the unknown Supernatural to the known Natural, it's just the process things go through when examined by people. If people want to know why something is or does and they only get the answer 'because' with no reasoning then that gets them annoyed. Especially when the people who state the answer to be 'because' refuse to allow any examination or explanation to be attempted.

Indeed. That is essential why I'm not religious. I just can't get answers from anyone, even my religious (and intelligent) family members. And it's not like I demand all the answers to all the universe's secrets either. I just want something. If believing in something that provides no answers is comforting to some people, so be it. But it's not comforting to me. Science doesn't explain everything, but it does explain a lot and encourages me to ask and learn.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Indeed. That is essential why I'm not religious. I just can't get answers from anyone, even my religious (and intelligent) family members. And it's not like I demand all the answers to all the universe's secrets either. I just want something. If believing in something that provides no answers is comforting to some people, so be it. But it's not comforting to me. Science doesn't explain everything, but it does explain a lot and encourages me to ask and learn.

If not believing in God promised an after life of eternity, and believing in God specifically stated there is no after life... rest assured many of the religious folks would be "practicing" agnostics

 

[ShadowBoxer]

I have no problem with people having an inquisitive mind, there isn't anything wrong with that. My issue is with those people that think they are wiser than a higher being if one exists so to speak. Then assume that anyone who is religious or has a view different what science, society say are unintelligent or blind sheep that still think the earth is flat. There are plenty of intelligent religious people out there believe it or not. Personally, I haven't had the best experiences with atheists. This mostly occurred during my college years. The atheist I encountered were the really arrogant ones that that they knew everything there is to know. They would often make *****ebag comments to religious and call them the R word ( the derogatory word for people with mental disability). A physical science professor I liked got FIRED for a joke she made because a non religious student got offended. She just joked if anyone would like to pray before taking the final exam since it was tough. This student got her fired for that.... REALLY????? Not saying all atheist are like this. I have met some that are nice people, they don't assume I am dumb as rocks or hateful person because I am a Christian. We just have a difference of opinion on an area. I just believe in respect regardless of what you believe or don't believe in.

 

[Shikamaru]

I never outright said I don't believe in evolution ( I do). What I said was that the evolution theory has flaws and I don't claim it to be 100% factual, unlike atheist who do consider it to to be 100% factual. But there is some truth to it. Also, I did not say people that didn't take the Adam& Eve story literally weren't true Christians. I said that the people who claim to be "Christians" but don't believe God had ANY influence whatsoever on the creation of mankind shouldn't really consider themselves Christians.

If that's the case, perhaps you should clarify what you meant by this.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=30886231&postcount=302

Greens told you most Christians view Adam&Eve as a symbolic story. Your response was that those Christians are more atheist than actual Christians.

Also, I think there definitely is anti God bias in the higher up intellectual circles. Many won't even consider the slightest idea or theories from a religious perspective. They will automatically disregard it. Bias is everywhere whether you acknowledge it or not. CNN is said to be bias to democratic's and Fox News is bias toward republicans. Non religious people are often bias towards views that fall in line with their own, and religious often times do the same. Nobody is really immune to bias.

What makes you think they haven't considered them? Because they haven't publicly announced them or went out of their way to debate them (and lot of them actually do)? Any intellectual that's atheist presumably got there by considering those arguments and concluding pretty fast there's not much weight to them. It sounds more like you're upset their conclusion is different from yours.

You're also showing a lack of understanding for how the burden of proof works. To what extent do you want them to "consider" the religious perspective? The burden of proof lies entirely on the person making the positive claim, which is you and the other religious. It's up to you to provide evidence and convince people otherwise, not the other way around. If my friend got to my house and claimed he flied on an invisible magic carpet, I don't have to spend hours "debating" him or the thought in the my head about it. I don't have to prove that he didn't fly on an invisible magic carpet because the default logical position is that such thing doesn't exist. It's up to him to provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I'm curious, can everyone that participates in this thread define the word theory in a scientific context? It seems some folks don't understand that it is not the same thing people commonly refer to which would more accurately be called a hypothesis. They are 2 completely different things

 

[KevanG]

I think most of us can but the ones that refuse to use it appropriately are just being condescending.

 

[Tanin]

I'm curious, can everyone that participates in this thread define the word theory in a scientific context? It seems some folks don't understand that it is not the same thing people commonly refer to which would more accurately be called a hypothesis. They are 2 completely different things

That's easy.... it's a hypothesis that hasn't been disproven through experimentation. Usually so well tested that it is considered fact unless something changes in how we perceive science on a fundamental level.

 

[jerkhero]

The use of the word 'theory' really bothers me sometimes in these debates. Years, possibly decades of research, studying and testing...but no, "it's just a theory". I think earlier in this thread something like "just scientists spewing out random theories" was said. Yep.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

If that's the case, perhaps you should clarify what you meant by this.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=30886231&postcount=302

Greens told you most Christians view Adam&Eve as a symbolic story. Your response was that those Christians are more atheist than actual Christians.



What makes you think they haven't considered them? Because they haven't publicly announced them or went out of their way to debate them (and lot of them actually do)? Any intellectual that's atheist presumably got there by considering those arguments and concluding pretty fast there's not much weight to them. It sounds more like you're upset their conclusion is different from yours.

You're also showing a lack of understanding for how the burden of proof works. To what extent do you want them to "consider" the religious perspective? The burden of proof lies entirely on the person making the positive claim, which is you and the other religious. It's up to you to provide evidence and convince people otherwise, not the other way around. If my friend got to my house and claimed he flied on an invisible magic carpet, I don't have to spend hours "debating" him or the thought in the my head about it. I don't have to prove that he didn't fly on an invisible magic carpet because the default logical position is that such thing doesn't exist. It's up to him to provide evidence to the contrary.

It's fine if a Christian doesn't take all the events in Genesis literally. But if your a "Christian" that believes God had no influence on the creation of humans/ the universe what so ever and that it was solely Big Bang/ Evolution then yea, you probably shouldn't call yourself a Christian. For example, I am a Christian and firmly stand by what I believe. BUT I do accept the scientific theories out there ( Big Bang/ Evolution) however, I believe that God had a hand in those events and it wasn't just random chance they happened. Since I believe in God and believe he is a powerful being capable of doing anything, even things that are impossible to us. I don't rule out the possibility that scientist could be mistaken and things could have played out differently.

Second, as I told Mrs.Kent. I was speaking in general terms. Like if one day someone who was religious presented their view to intellectuals with real evidence ( not just feelings) that they could study, some should still reject and ignore it due to their own bias. That's all I meant by that. Whether or not someone religious could come up with physical evidence is currently unknown. Also I am not mad that people don't share my opinions. I really don't care. Everyone is entitled to what they believe or don't believe. Others opinions/ beliefs don't have any bearing on my own.

 

[Human Torch]

The problem is- all their evidence ever ends up being is "the word of God" as told by men in the Bible.

And that simply isn't true. As I have shown a few times already in this thread alone. The problem is skeptics summarily dismiss anything that doesn't jibe with the atheistic "default mode" they have built around "science".