[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51123422]Ah yes, I'm sure that all of the religious scientists around are busy trying to work out new laws to obey the actions of God and disregarding all the evidence they have around them. When they examine tides, they of course have to take into account the parting of the Red Sea by God when observing anything. When looking at mass, they need to take into account the fact that God was able to feed the five thousand with only a tiny amount of bread and fish and put that right there in their equations. Sure, this may be correct on a very theoretical level, but in practice, on *most* (not all, of course!) issues this doesn't occur.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what your point here is.
You're making a point of historical events that may or may not have happened (i say may in the loosest of ways), which do not seemingly inform scientific decisions
i'm saying that if a miracle happened right here and now, it would not be a miracle because science perceives and attempts to explain phenomena - it would not be a miracle because it just happened
you're essentially saying "what if something that we think is impossible, becomes possible" - which is a pretty frequent occurrence in science
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51123422]Ah yes, I'm sure that all of the religious scientists around are busy trying to work out new laws to obey the actions of God and disregarding all the evidence they have around them. When they examine tides, they of course have to take into account the parting of the Red Sea by God when observing anything. When looking at mass, they need to take into account the fact that God was able to feed the five thousand with only a tiny amount of bread and fish and put that right there in their equations. Sure, this may be correct on a very theoretical level, but in practice, on *most* (not all, of course!) issues this doesn't occur.[/QUOTE]
So if the literature and rules of religion are allowed to be bent at will, and anyone of faith can freely chip away at the foundation of the religion, what purpose does it serve? Religion was what we used to explain things that we didn't understand.
The sky fell and made the crops grow, when the entity that did that was displeased, the sky would roar and flash, setting crops ablaze. The waters rose, crashed, and receded, thanks to a man with a trident in the ocean. Literally everything that has been explained with religion historically is proven otherwise with science.
Even the fact that other religions exist, that are not related to one other (those that are related are just rehashings), is proof enough that religions are simply fabrications of man. Elaborate folk tales used to unite communities in days where there was nothing else to do so. Nothing more.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51117021]presumably you think that either the government and religion should be more closely related then or are you going to backup a one-word argument[/QUOTE]
That's not an argument, its a disagreement
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;51123350]How so?
they wouldn't be victims if they weren't muslims?[/QUOTE]
They'd still have had oil. Anglo-persian would have still been set up with the local people making nothing from it. The great game still would have occurred with the countries having idiot puppet leaders put in. Populist strongmen would have still replaced those idiot puppet leaders, those strongmen would be removed a few decades later leading a power void for someone else to take power and the people sure as hell didn't want another west puppet as leader.
fun fact: by the end of the century nearly all of the western world + south of parallel 36°30′ will be mostly non-religious
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51125576]fun fact: by the end of the century nearly all of the western world + south of parallel 36°30′ will be mostly non-religious[/QUOTE]
And religious leaders will see it as a threat to their power and double down on their rhetoric
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51125589]And religious leaders will see it as a threat to their power and double down on their rhetoric[/QUOTE]
also there might be a chinese pope some day
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51123526]As if that explanation is less ridiculous
They're both absurd.[/QUOTE]
Your welcome to call it absurd, but to say that specifically non-scientific claims are contradictory to science is just silly.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51125680]Your welcome to call it absurd, but to say that specifically non-scientific claims are contradictory to science is just silly.[/QUOTE]
Claiming that God parted the red sea in contradiction with all known laws of science with no evidence to support such an event even happened is contradictory to science on virtue of it being unsubstantiated belief.
[editline]28th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51125620]also there might be a chinese pope some day[/QUOTE]
South Korean pope is more likely since South Korea is rapidly becoming one of the most Catholic countries in the world.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51126478]Lets get a black pope first[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/531756315266611333/C1D945DE3BB68DCBDB769482911D67A42B5952E0/[/IMG]
I want an antipope
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51126486][IMG]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/531756315266611333/C1D945DE3BB68DCBDB769482911D67A42B5952E0/[/IMG][/QUOTE]
0/10 not gay Mongolian pope
[QUOTE=KlaseR;51121253]This is a common misconception. Of course there are atheists who claim to know there is no god, as there are religious people who claim to know there is one. But those are a case on their own. Generally speaking, atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. The possibilities are 1) god exists 2) god doesn't exist 3) we don't know. Atheists find themselves on the default "I don't know" position, and reject the claims of the existence of God. It's pretty simple but many people can't grasp this tiny concept by the looks of it, and it's frustrating.
Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. Atheism and Theism are claims about belief, while agnostic and gnostic are claims about knowledge. Gnostic being "I know and I'm certain" and agnostic the opposite. You can be an agnostic atheist or theist or vice versa.
This has to be repeated in every single discussion about religion. That's how widespread this twisted conception of these terms is.[/QUOTE]
That's what I'm talking about though, "hard" atheists who refuse to admit that even if the chance of a god existing being somewhat small, it's still a chance of them being wrong.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51125689]Claiming that God parted the red sea in contradiction with all known laws of science with no evidence to support such an event even happened is contradictory to science on virtue of it being unsubstantiated belief.[/QUOTE]
Making an unsubstantiated belief is not "contradictory to science" unless it's been proven that the unsubstantiated belief is impossible (from what I remember of my science classes, they don't say much about what a god would be able to do). Making an unsubstantiated claim just means you may be wrong.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51130526]Science classes also don't cover what Leprechauns do[/QUOTE]
Right, so making a claim about a leprechaun doing something wouldn't be "contradictory to science" unless you were trying to claim that the leprechaun did something that science can prove wasn't done by a leprechaun.
If science hasn't done that, then you would just be wrong. To say that any claim that hasn't been proven by science is "contradictory to science" is to make the non-scientific claim that science is the only source of truth. It's self-defeating.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51130549]It means leprechauns are just as valid as your miracles.[/QUOTE]
Last I checked, leprechauns aren't part of a comprehensive worldview.
I'm also going to state right here that I'm not going to make a general defense of religion in this thread. I just wanted to point out the silliness in saying that miracle claims are inherently contradictory to science. It's a common believe I see among atheists, but it rests on circular and self-defeating arguments.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51130588]So Muhammad's miracles are as valid as Jesus's then? Islam is a comprehensive worldview.[/QUOTE]
No single claim stands on it's own within an entire comprehensive worldview. One would need to evaluate both religion's worldviews, in their entirety, to compare the validity of their miracle claims and how coherent those miracle claims are within it.
If the worldview isn't internally coherent, or is less coherent than the other, then it's miracle claims would inherently be less valid.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51130588]So Muhammad's miracles are as valid as Jesus's then? Islam is a comprehensive worldview.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what your point is, all religions are equally valid.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51130572]Last I checked, leprechauns aren't part of a comprehensive worldview.
[/QUOTE]
They might with the right prophet.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51130642]No single claim stands on it's own within an entire comprehensive worldview. One would need to evaluate both religion's worldviews, in their entirety, to compare the validity of their miracle claims and how coherent those miracle claims are within it.
If the worldview isn't internally coherent, or is less coherent than the other, then it's miracle claims would inherently be less valid.[/QUOTE]
Well neither the bible or quran are internally coherent so I guess that makes them both equally invalid.
[QUOTE=Xakoro;51116842]What about 1950s China?[/QUOTE]
hitler liked sugar
do you like sugar?
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51131906]I feel like this is getting silly and too technical
Science would never study leprechauns, they literally cannot since they are mythical[/QUOTE]
The key is that it's self-defeating to claim that science is the only source of truth because that is a non-scientific claim.
Because of that fact, any non-scientific claim is only contradictory to science IF there is evidence that it contradicts known science. Making a claim that is unproven by science is not contradictory to science, as previous posters have said.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51134392]The key is that it's self-defeating to claim that science is the only source of truth because that is a non-scientific claim.
Because of that fact, any non-scientific claim is only contradictory to science IF there is evidence that it contradicts known science. Making a claim that is unproven by science is not contradictory to science, as previous posters have said.[/QUOTE]
Making a claim, claiming it is absolute unquestionable truth without having any evidence to back it up and then saying people have to believe it without question is certainly unscientific though.
Who cares what people believes and practice?
There's nothing wrong with believing in a god until you try to forcefully impose it on other or to your children.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51134392]The key is that it's self-defeating to claim that science is the only source of truth because that is a non-scientific claim.
Because of that fact, any non-scientific claim is only contradictory to science IF there is evidence that it contradicts known science. Making a claim that is unproven by science is not contradictory to science, as previous posters have said.[/QUOTE]
I agree. I came from scientific background, and too many people confuses between the thing that are false/true, with things that are not proven yet. Don't be too swift to pass judgement.
Hell, I can still remember back when science believe that there are regions on our tongue that corresponds to different tastes. But only now that opinion changed. I sure felt stupid now.
[QUOTE=space1;51119920]It's the fact that they absolutely believe in one thing as certain when they don't have all the information. That's the fundamental flaw with the thinking of those who are atheists.[/QUOTE]
I do not believe there is a god. I am an atheist. My belief is founded upon the lack of evidence for the antithesis to my belief. It is not a declaration "God doesn't exist". It's "I don't believe God exists".
So, no, I don't believe it's a "Fundamental Flaw" nor is atheism by any means dogmatic
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51137548]I do not believe there is a god. I am an atheist. My belief is founded upon the lack of evidence for the antithesis to my belief. It is not a declaration "God doesn't exist". It's "I don't believe God exists".
So, no, I don't believe it's a "Fundamental Flaw" nor is atheism by any means dogmatic[/QUOTE]
This is such a ridiculously silly argument, but it keeps coming up.
You can say "I don't believe in ghosts" and "I don't believe in alien abductions" but the moment you say "I don't believe in god" suddenly you get a bunch of people coming back with this hogwash about how "well you can't know he doesn't exist so your position is faith based and irrational".
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51137659]This is such a ridiculously silly argument, but it keeps coming up.
You can say "I don't believe in ghosts" and "I don't believe in alien abductions" but the moment you say "I don't believe in god" suddenly you get a bunch of people coming back with this hogwash about how "well you can't know he doesn't exist so your position is faith based and irrational".[/QUOTE]
It's just a lack of understanding the perspective of someone following a rational reasoning that they do not. As HumanAbyss said it, the perspective that is founded upon the lack of evidence for the antithesis.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51116878]1950s China was fucked, but not because of becoming secular :v:[/QUOTE]
yes chinese secular =/= western secular
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
