Proof of God: "The banana fits in your ..." - Atheist Nightmare - General

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;25706494]Go on with your absolutes, idiot. For you people either have to be close minded religious freaks or anti-religious scientists. Please explain that to me, I really want to know: why can't one believe in a deity and accept science?[/QUOTE] Religions contradict the foundation of science - the scientific method. If you're religious and ignore some aspects of science it doesn't count as believing in science to begin with. People can have a certain level of disbelief in science (which often opens the door to religion and superstition), but that one is irrational and should be diminished. If you believe in science you can not be religious, unless you have some abnormal thinking patterns. [editline]28th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=verynicelady;25706497]I am inclined to be an atheist rather than a believer, but really these words just describe ways in which we try to understand what's around us. Supposedly watertight scientific beliefs have been overturned by subsequent theories and discoveries, showing that even what scientists believe in is not constant or the ultimate truth. In my opinion none of us can know anything for certain and it's entirely possible that there is a spriritual dimension to life which we cannot understand at present. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."[/QUOTE] Science provides the most probable explanations based on human knowledge. As the human knowledge grows, these explanations can change. Chances of a 'spiritual dimension' existing are about those of the Invisible Pink Unicorn - they're absolutely minimal, almost non-existent.

[QUOTE=Glorious leader;25706615]Religions contradict the foundation of science - the scientific method. If you're religious and ignore some aspects of science it doesn't count as believing in science to begin with. People can have a certain level of disbelief in science (which often opens the door to religion and superstition), but that one is irrational and should be diminished. If you believe in science you can not be religious, unless you have some abnormal thinking patterns.[/QUOTE] What if someone accept science and thinks that there is a deity, and that science describes either means or things that were made by god (evolution as god's tool to create variety of species and humans), and that science helps us understand the world that the god has made? (this is more or less what a priest I know believes in) In my opinion, religious people are free to speculate and believe in what they want in areas where science has no access to (before big bang, afterlife, purely spiritual experiences etc). You can't really disprove these things. Sure they might not be following the scientific method but they don't harm anyone. [QUOTE=Glorious leader;25706615]Science provides the most probable explanations based on human knowledge. As the human knowledge grows, these explanations can change. Chances of a 'spiritual dimension' existing are about those of the Invisible Pink Unicorn - they're absolutely minimal, almost non-existent.[/QUOTE] Stupid argument. It's like telling people about "world of atoms" before they discovered them. "lol ya right everything is made of tiny dots"

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;25706952]What if someone accept science and thinks that there is a deity, and that science describes either means or things that were made by god (evolution as god's tool to create variety of species and humans), and that science helps us understand the world that the god has made? (this is more or less what a priest I know believes in) In my opinion, religious people are free to speculate and believe in what they want in areas where science has no access to (before big bang, afterlife, purely spiritual experiences etc). You can't really disprove these things. Sure they might not be following the scientific method but they don't harm anyone.[/QUOTE] Hey dude [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1013719-LMAO-pictures-thread-V.67?p=25699514&viewfull=1#post25699514[/url] You can not accept science and believe in a deity. This wouldn't be called speculation, this would be called dreaming. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - verynicelady))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Glorious leader;25706978]Hey dude [URL]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1013719-LMAO-pictures-thread-V.67?p=25699514&viewfull=1#post25699514[/URL] You can not accept science and believe in a deity. This wouldn't be called speculation, this would be called dreaming. [/QUOTE] When you're out of argument call your friends to back you up even if they don't know what the discussion is about. What are you 12? And you still didn't explain why you can't. You just pull it out your ass. [editline]28th October 2010[/editline] Oh he's banned. Let's see how many funnies it's gonna get in the lmao pics thread.

[QUOTE=Glorious leader;25699258]matrix_1995 _1995 1995 [/QUOTE] Right, because everyone knows, that every single person at age 14 is a stupid, ignorant kid who can't control his feelings, let alone have an intelligent conversation. [editline]28th October 2010[/editline] Oh, and you rated your own post "agree". 'Nuff said...

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;25706105]I demand a video of someone performing an experiment on the big bang, or at least evidence of what was there before the big bang. Ooooh right you didn't actually read what I said, you just took something out of context and made a wise ass, irrelevant reply.[/QUOTE] It wasn't irrelevant so just calm down. You were claiming that religious and scientific speculation are the same, which they clearly aren't. Science doesn't claim to know what there was before the big bang. There's been ideas thrown around but they cannot be proven yet. The big bang is a theory. And it's commonly accepted because most people agree that at the moment it's the best theory to explain how our universe got into the state that it's now. Religion (usually) does claim to know what there was and has been. Like Christianity, "God has always been and will always be" and so on. The burden of proof is on the Christians to prove that there is and has been one always. I see little of that proof. People used to believe in gods like Thor. Thor the god of thunder. And when there was lightning, it was his doing. Then, people got smarter and if you'd bump into someone believing that lightning is Thor's doing, you'd think he's nuts. Now, just because we cannot explain exactly where big bang came from yet (or if it even happened but since it's the best explanation for now, we just assume it did. That's how science works) it doesn't mean we should be like people from old days and make up stuff like Thor or other gods or supernatural to explain anything. I wasn't especially trying to be a wise-ass, I just really like the picture because it really boils it down to the core problem between science and religion. I was hoping you'd maybe get my point from that alone, instead of a wall of text and lots of explaining that's most likely coming in the near future. EDIT Oh I forgot the part about the big bang experiment. Why does it have to be a video? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd8uqB5woXc[/media]

Just because there are gaps in science doesn't mean that religion can fill those gaps, it just means that science has more work to do. As a very liberal voter, I am all for understanding and tolerance. But the so called "extremists" are at the top of these religions, they're the ones who are actively opposing evolution. And therefore the belief can and will trickle down. Do you think every person who voted for the Nazi party agreed with every point on their manifesto? Doesn't make them any less dangerous as the people at the top believed every word, and they were the ones in power.

[QUOTE=Block;25707646]It wasn't irrelevant so just calm down. You were claiming that religious and scientific speculation are the same, which they clearly aren't. Science doesn't claim to know what there was before the big bang. There's been ideas thrown around but they cannot be proven yet. The big bang is a theory. And it's commonly accepted because most people agree that at the moment it's the best theory to explain how our universe got into the state that it's now. Religion (usually) does claim to know what there was and has been. Like Christianity, "God has always been and will always be" and so on. The burden of proof is on the Christians to prove that there is and has been one always. I see little of that proof. People used to believe in gods like Thor. Thor the god of thunder. And when there was lightning, it was his doing. Then, people got smarter and if you'd bump into someone believing that lightning is Thor's doing, you'd think he's nuts. Now, just because we cannot explain exactly where big bang came from yet (or if it even happened but since it's the best explanation for now, we just assume it did. That's how science works) it doesn't mean we should be like people from old days and make up stuff like Thor or other gods or supernatural to explain anything. I wasn't especially trying to be a wise-ass, I just really like the picture because it really boils it down to the core problem between science and religion. I was hoping you'd maybe get my point from that alone, instead of a wall of text and lots of explaining that's most likely coming in the near future.[/QUOTE] I was saying that in areas to which science has no access, religious and scientific speculations carry the same weight. And yes everything else you're saying is true. All I'm saying is that in my opinion people can believe what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or make them disregard science (which leaves little space for these speculations btw). [QUOTE=JethroTheCunt;25707671]Just because there are gaps in science doesn't mean that religion can fill those gaps, it just means that science has more work to do. As a very liberal voter, I am all for understanding and tolerance. But the so called "extremists" are at the top of these religions, they're the ones who are actively opposing evolution. And therefore the belief can and will trickle down. Do you think every person who voted for the Nazi party agreed with every point on their manifesto? Doesn't make them any less dangerous as the people at the top believed every word, and they were the ones in power.[/QUOTE]Well actually gaps in science are the places where religious people can speculate and create beliefs without disregarding scientific facts. And I'm pretty sure these people who I was talking about distance themselves from fanatics and their irrational behavior.

I don't see how can the majority here rate Silly Sil dumb and agree with Glorious Leader. You CAN be both a scientific person, or accept everything science accepts, yet still believe in god. EINSTEIN BELIEVED IN GOD. People who believe in god, but still accept science, just say that whatever is still unexplained by science, can be explained by god. Most of them aren't ignorant, they don't want to stop science, on the contrary, they want to further scientific development so that we'll know more and more about our universe because they (at least some) believe that one day we will be able to prove god exists this way. People like Glorious Leader are basically what you call "militant atheists", they don't accept the fact that they might be wrong, they say all forms of faiths are mistaken and false, they think without religion "the world will be a better place" and that this is a good enough excuse to rid the world of religion. The fact is that until we can prove everything, religion will continue to exist, and as long as it doesn't get in the way of things, like religious fanatics, creationists, and so on, religion is completely harmless, it's like a hobby - Does football help people? not physically, it makes them happy or helps them pass the time. Do people get hurt by football? Yes, there are several deaths per year in America in football injuries, does this mean we should stop playing football altogether? No, it means that we should do whatever we can to remove those deaths and serious injuries, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy football at all. As long as people don't take things like football or religion too seriously and put them in the center of their lives or try to enforce what they like or believe in upon others, these things can only do good.

Thanks, this thread felt like ice-skating uphill.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;25707846]I was saying that in areas to which science has no access, religious and scientific speculations carry the same weight. [/QUOTE] Now you see, the problem here is that people then claim to know for certain exactly what happened, instead of saying that "This is probably what happened" or "this may have happened" they say that this IS what happened and then become rooted in those beliefs. They must have an answer, and when they get one will refuse to budge from it even when scientific fact debunks it for several different excuses such as "but science has been wrong before and could be with this" even though their belief has even less evidence to back it up.

Except the Banana was a mutation on a french guy's plantation, and seeing as the Banana didn't need any added sugar or anything, just started planting Bananas instead of plantains, and thus, we have Bananas now

Also here's my rebuttle: [IMG]http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2581/090858fruitpineappleweb.jpg[/IMG] -Spikey as fuck, -Cuts your hand, -Awkward to hold, -Hard to get into, -Really fucking hard to grow And yet it tastes like licking the floors of heaven. What god would make such delicious flesh be put in such a prison?

[QUOTE=doomkiwi;25708827]Now you see, the problem here is that people then claim to know for certain exactly what happened, instead of saying that "This is probably what happened" or "this may have happened" they say that this IS what happened and then become rooted in those beliefs. They must have an answer, and when they get one will refuse to budge from it even when scientific fact debunks it for several different excuses such as "but science has been wrong before and could be with this" even though their belief has even less evidence to back it up.[/QUOTE] All that is fanatic behavior and deserves to be criticized. I only advocate middlegrounders.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;25708525]I don't see how can the majority here rate Silly Sil dumb and agree with Glorious Leader. You CAN be both a scientific person, or accept everything science accepts, yet still believe in god. EINSTEIN BELIEVED IN GOD. People who believe in god, but still accept science, just say that whatever is still unexplained by science, can be explained by god. Most of them aren't ignorant, they don't want to stop science, on the contrary, they want to further scientific development so that we'll know more and more about our universe because they (at least some) believe that one day we will be able to prove god exists this way. People like Glorious Leader are basically what you call "militant atheists", they don't accept the fact that they might be wrong, they say all forms of faiths are mistaken and false, they think without religion "the world will be a better place" and that this is a good enough excuse to rid the world of religion. The fact is that until we can prove everything, religion will continue to exist, and as long as it doesn't get in the way of things, like religious fanatics, creationists, and so on, religion is completely harmless, it's like a hobby - Does football help people? not physically, it makes them happy or helps them pass the time. Do people get hurt by football? Yes, there are several deaths per year in America in football injuries, does this mean we should stop playing football altogether? No, it means that we should do whatever we can to remove those deaths and serious injuries, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy football at all. As long as people don't take things like football or religion too seriously and put them in the center of their lives or try to enforce what they like or believe in upon others, these things can only do good.[/QUOTE] Einstein didn't believe in a supernatural deity. Einstein used "god" as a metaphor for all that was unexplainable at the time. He wasn't religious.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;25708930]Einstein didn't believe in a supernatural deity. Einstein used "god" as a metaphor for all that was unexplainable at the time. He wasn't religious.[/QUOTE] Disprove one fallacy in a wall of text. Disregard the rest.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;25708908]All that is fanatic behavior and deserves to be criticized. I only advocate middlegrounders.[/QUOTE] Well the problem here is that for any "believer" they either have faith or don't. If they don't there's no real reason to keep performing religious practices and if they do then the post you quoted applies. It's not really fanatic behavior, it's just how it is. Now it's true that the much less fanatical people won't go around protesting and shit but they will still retain that "knowledge" they have and not show support for the facts, and since these "middle grounders" make such a large percent of the population they end up undermining any support that the scientists may have.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;25708930]Einstein didn't believe in a supernatural deity. Einstein used "god" as a metaphor for all that was unexplainable at the time. He wasn't religious.[/QUOTE] No, he believed in god. He wasn't religious, but believing in god doesn't automatically make you religious.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;25708985]Disprove one fallacy in a wall of text. Disregard the rest.[/QUOTE] Not everyone is invested as much in their arguments as you are. They may touch on a few points because, as you know, this is a forum that is just a time killer. They probably just don't care as much. Mind you that doesn't make either of you any more or less correct in the points you made.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;25709082]No, he believed in god. He wasn't religious, but believing in god doesn't automatically make you religious.[/QUOTE] No, he really didn't believe in god. [quote]In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."[/quote] [quote]"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."[/quote]

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;25707846]I was saying that in areas to which science has no access, religious and scientific speculations carry the same weight. And yes everything else you're saying is true. All I'm saying is that in my opinion people can believe what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or make them disregard science (which leaves little space for these speculations btw). Well actually gaps in science are the places where religious people can speculate and create beliefs without disregarding scientific facts.[/QUOTE] The funny thing about science is that gaps in science are still science. You were arguing earlier in the thread that religious speculation (using "what was before big bang" as an example) carries the same weight as scientific speculation...but it doesn't. At all. There's a difference between real proper "scientific speculation" and scifi blabber that just sounds cool. Now, I'm using the example [B]you[/B] gave, so I assume that's something you regard as a topic that science has "no assess to". There's been ideas thrown around that the universe is a cyclic thing. It expands with a big bang, then would contract from gravity into a singularity that would then expand again. Now, you could ask "why does that make any more sense than "God created big bang?" ". It's because we've observed in nature that (depending on the amount of dark energy and matter) the universe might collapse on itself. And if it does, it would become an ultra dense point, like it was in the beginning (before big bang. That conclusion comes from the fact that all galaxies are travelling away from each other so if we rewind, all of the universe was packed in a really dense area). Now, it would be logic to assume that if it all came from an ultra dense point once and might collapse to one like that again, it might just repeat itself. Religion just fills the gaps with "God did it", "God wants it" etc. They've got no proof. They've got nothing to back it up with, besides the illogical notion of "faith". Religion comes up with something, then it sticks with it as long as possible. Science isn't just facts. Actually little of it is. According to some principles the whole notion of "fact" could be irrelevant and it's just about what we perceive and what we approximate that is the closest to the real truth. Science is the scientific method to studying, observing and experimenting. IF there's a gap in current knowledge, science strives to fill it with ideas based on reality as we currently know it. Not wild guesses that make no sense.

[QUOTE=doomkiwi;25709048]Well the problem here is that for any "believer" they either have faith or don't. If they don't there's no real reason to keep performing religious practices and if they do then the post you quoted applies. It's not really fanatic behavior, it's just how it is.[/QUOTE] Meh, debatable. The religious people I know represent the group of middlegrounders I talk about, when asked about for example the big bang, they say "I think God did it" or "I believe God started big bang". Everyone who'd say "God made the universe and that's a fact" is acting like a fanatic. Even the priests say when asked that they "believe" in this or that. [QUOTE=doomkiwi;25709048]Now it's true that the much less fanatical people won't go around protesting and shit but they will still retain that "knowledge" they have and not show support for the facts, and since these "middle grounders" make such a large percent of the population they end up undermining any support that the scientists may have.[/QUOTE] Meeeehh, I'd say debatable. Depends on the person really. Like I said above, they "believe" that God is real etc. Everyone who says that religious things, beings and events are undisprovable facts is going in the fanatic direction. @ block, I'm not gonna quote and stretch this page like that, but yeah, you're right, some explanations will make more sense and be more probable than others. But then again, the real point stands. We know that there was this super dense point and it exploded, but we only speculate why. In other words, we know how it happened, but we aren't sure what could have caused it. And since we don't know what was there before the big bang, it leaves some space for supernatural speculation without ignoring any scientific facts, and if religious people do that I can accept it.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;25709157]No, he really didn't believe in god.[/QUOTE] Well, you're right about that, I basically only knew about the first part of this page: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_religious_views[/url] Which is where you quoted from, I was unaware of the rest, but that's still just a minor point. Einstein was already a scientist and has already contributed quite a lot to science in 1929, when he claimed to a Rabbi that he believes in Sphinoza's god, which is basically quite similar to being a deist, believing in a supernatural god but not believing in any specific religion.

[QUOTE=nos217;25699439]What you fail to understand is that most Theists are raised in an environment which teaches them that Theism is the only logical explanation for the existence of the universe. It is extremely difficult, or even impossible for them to change their minds since they have been taught it from such a young age. There's not point in criticizing the [b]person[/b] for that, since in reality, it isn't their fault. Argue against a religion, yes, but there's not point in criticizing a person for their beliefs.[/QUOTE] I was born and raised Catholic, and attended a private Catholic school from pre-kindergarten to 5th grade. As of now, I'm educated on and believe in scientific facts that contradict Christian teachings/beliefs, and as well am part of a pro-homosexual group (not being homosexual myself, though). I think it's possible to change those minds.

Hey religious people, could you please prove me the existence of your god? If you prove it I'll be religious.

[QUOTE=koekje4life V2;25709896]Hey religious people, could you please prove me the existence of your god? If you prove it I'll be religious.[/QUOTE] The fact that you've escaped natural selection is a proof of divine intervention.

Oh man, this shit belongs in LMAO pics.

You're welcome.

[QUOTE=verynicelady;25706497]Supposedly watertight scientific beliefs have been overturned by subsequent theories and discoveries, showing that even what scientists believe in is not constant or the ultimate truth. In my opinion none of us can know anything for certain and it's entirely possible that there is a spriritual dimension to life which we cannot understand at present.[/quote] You're confusing improving your knowledge with merely changing your beliefs.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;25698989]You missed the point. We don't know what happened before the big bang, any explanation of it you make carries the same weight which is 0. Therefore religious speculation is as legitimate as scientific speculation. (Don't start that we know how thermodynamics work and so on, you don't know how thermodynamics worked during big bang) There is no "point" in being religious. It's not a product you choose to buy in the supermarket. Some people believe that God did create everything and it wasn't any magic but that it has happened as science describes it : big bang, cosmology, abiogenesis, evolution, and that old testament isn't literal (e.g.: creation of the universe taking 7 days). Also why do you keep insisting that if you believe in a deity you have to believe in everything ever connected to it? If someone believes in afterlife he doesn't have to automatically believe that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. Stop with the absolutes. Only you and other fanatics like you care about being "true" to a religion. You are too, talking about fanatics (while being a fanatic yourself).[/QUOTE] the existence of god would break so many universal laws that saying it was created by cupcakes would be more scientific