Religions - Your Opinion

[Zargabaath]

What I find amusing is how seriously athiests will oppose religion, even though they themselves can't disprove religion. Or can they? Someone show me the proof and I won't post here again.

This is like the agnostics's view of something: I can't prove that it is true but you can't prove that it is false so the only proper conclusion is: no one knows and no one can know one way or the other. There are a few problems with that logic.

1.) The user allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition; they treat arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider, discuss, evaluate - then says "I don't know," instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand.

2.) The onus-of-proof issus: a person demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the postive. "It is up to you," they say, "to prove that a higher power or the 12th moon of Saturn did not cause "x" ".

3.) The person would say, "Mabye these things will one day be proved." In other words, they assert possibilities or hypotheses without a jot of evidential basis.

This logic treats the arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect; the arbitrary on par with the rational and evidentially supported. This is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: it equates the groundless and the proved.

Evolution is a "scientific theory"? Hahahahahahahahah.

Evolutionism (including "big bang"): Let's see ... cause? Check. Nature? Check. Purpose? Nope, not really, unless you count "continuing". Especially if the universe is considered as the creation of a superhuman agency? Well, let's see, both Evolutionism and the Big Bang would have had to break multiple laws of nature, so whatever made them happen had to have some supernatural abilities, so check. Moral code? Nah, not really. So yeah, Evolutionism fits the bill of a religion.

As Govinda said before, it is a theory not a scientific law which are different. Evolutionism is a hypothesis to how things happened; currently I would presume it is the most favored hyphotheis in the realm of science. They do not claim it to be factual but that there is proof, but not 100%, that it is factual - hence a theory.

Religion on the other hand, while a philosophical theory, tends to hold itself as 100% correct which is different from how a scientific theory is held - remember theory being the key word.

Those who believe Evolutionism are either ignorant or arrogant. Now, I'll give some a break -- a lot of people are ignorant, they don't really know the truth, only what public schools have forced down their throats their entire lives. But all too many others are just arrogant about it -- either they know better and refuse to believe it, or they don't know better and refuse to learn.

I found that first sentece ignorant and arrogant; you are dismissing a scientific theory for an arbitrary claim of a higher power or whatever substitue that cannot be proven. What is "the truth"? The school teaches them science. Evolutionsim is a scientific theory. Thus it is not unreasonable or irrational for schools to teach about evolutionsim. Religion or philosophy, as far as I know, tends not to be taught in lower level schooling.

Actually, if the two sides are "a higher power exists" and "no higher power exists", the burden would be on those who deny the existence of a higher power, seeing as a belief in a higher power has been held by more people since the beginning of time.

First off, just because more people have held that certain view since the beginning of time does not make the exempt from prooving their view. This is also a case where the negative nor the positive cannot be proven, yet you believe that an arbitrary claim - a belief - must be disproven. There is no evidence for the belief so how can your disprove that which does not have proof to begin with?

Actually, the "trend" would be Atheism.

I do find that atheism is becoming or is a trend. I think my biggest gripe is that those who follow this trend lack or really don't say what their moral code is; a moral code is not just limited to religion. If people, probably geared towards the younger atheists, would at the same time elaborate their moral code then I would not feel so discomforted.

And a note about athiests who try to shove their views down other people's throats: they are, in a word, hypocrites. They fall into the trap of believing in not believing in anything, which is a pile of shit. They follow pedagogues and ****wits like Richard Dawkins and always assume intellectual superiority. I don't like them.

A bit presumptuous don't you think. Since Richard Dawkins has been mentioned I have wanted to read his books, however, I don't look to him as an atheist leader if anything he gives atheists a bad name.

Because I'm already in a really bad mood, and don't have time to go through the last page of posts I'm gonna start with this little bit. There's many ways to interpret the Bible, or any other holy book, so why do you choose the most outlandish things possible? Do you not suppose that perhaps those stories could be meant to be taken as allegory? The same goes for the creation myth in Genesis, if taken as allegory, with the assumption that days could mean any amount of time (since this all occured before humans existed, and any god would exist on another plane of time/space, it's not all that far-fetched.

The bible is the word of God. God is infallible. The Word is God. The Word is infallible. I find it funny when christians try to change some of the teachings in the bible i.e., don't eat some seafood, pig (I forget which book listed what was considered vile or unclean), anyhuma what they are doing is going against God and saying that God is wrong. Good luck to those who do so.

I love it when Evolutionists get outraged at Creation because it doesn't explain exactly how something happened, but through supernatural powers of a supernatural being ... then sit back and relax in their belief in supernatural powers of nature.

Creationism is taken as factual to those who hold that view; Evolutionsim is taken as a theory - a hyphothesis. One claims "j" to be true while the other claims that "q" maybe true but that it is not definitive to say it is factual.

And if bad things are done because people turn away from God, that's God's fault? Is every bad person -- drug dealers, rapists, murderers, child molesters, etc. -- the fault of their parents? Surely, no parent would let their child grow up to be a child molester, right? So the bad guy had to, somewhere down the road, turn away from what his parents taught him. Whose fault is that?

I'm definitely for people taking responsibility in an era where people love to redirect blame or excuse blame (psychologizing), however, one thing that really grinds my gears is when christians say: when something bad happens it is the person's fault, but when something good happens it is due to God. The message that sends is that humanity can never do good without God's help but they sure can do evil - that humanity is inherintly evil (alla Original Sin which I have major problems with). If God is not blamed for when things go south so should he not be credited when things go well; though sometimes people say that God has a big plan as to why something bad happened to "you". All I have to say is from a non-personal stance: thanks God (who is an arbitrary figure) for having that one dude rape me, I appreciate it very much and the lesson I will learn will totally overshadow the pain and suffering I experienced during that horrendous experience and the time after.

Translation: Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace."

If only people of faith actually followed their faith's tennets and that all people followed those basic principles.






That's all for now. I probably forget some thought but that's ok, I'm sure I'll respond or add to this later. May peace favor your sword Mortals.

[Sasquatch]

As Govinda said before, it is a theory not a scientific law which are different. Evolutionism is a hypothesis to how things happened; currently I would presume it is the most favored hyphotheis in the realm of science. They do not claim it to be factual but that there is proof, but not 100%, that it is factual - hence a theory.

So is it a theory, or is it a scientific theory, or is it a hypothesis?

I believe it was Karl Popper who laid the groundwork for requirements of a scientific theory. Basically, it must be testable, observable, and falsifiable. Can we test Evolutionism? Of course not. Can we observe speciation? No we can't -- we can observe different species and make guesses as to how they are "related" or from a common ancestor, but speciation has never, ever been actually observed.

And last but not least, is Evolutionism in any way falsifiable? Could there be something found that could prove Evolutionism as false? Hell no.

Hence, it's not a scientific theory. It's pseudoscience and manipulations, concealment, and legal thuggery to provide "evidence" that supports a predetermined end idea -- not to mention the faith it requires in supernatural powers.

I found that first sentece ignorant and arrogant; you are dismissing a scientific theory for an arbitrary claim of a higher power or whatever substitue that cannot be proven.

I am dismissing one arbitrary claim of a higher power that cannot be proven for another -- which are you bitching about?

First off, just because more people have held that certain view since the beginning of time does not make the exempt from prooving their view.

Of course not. But when you look at any idea, if one has been established and one challenges it, burden of proof lies on the challenger.

I find it funny when christians try to change some of the teachings in the bible i.e., don't eat some seafood, pig (I forget which book listed what was considered vile or unclean), anyhuma what they are doing is going against God and saying that God is wrong. Good luck to those who do so.

The food laws are included in the Pentatuke, the first five books. And I find it funny when people try to use the Old Testament to reflect on Christians. I'll try to make this simple for you -- the Old Testament doesn't apply, for the most part. Not to Christians. Sure, of course it has good laws and rules and history. But much of the Old Testament (mainly, sacrifices) does not apply any longer, since the New Testament. The food laws are a perfect example -- in Acts 10, food laws are done away with. While the OT includes many laws and rules, quite a few were changed in the New Testament -- overruled, you could say -- and don't apply to Christians. (Jews, on the other hand, of course don't believe in the New Testament, and thus still follow the food laws.)

So no, it's not "Christians trying to change something".

Really, I'm disappointed -- thought you'd know better.

Creationism is taken as factual to those who hold that view; Evolutionsim is taken as a theory - a hyphothesis.

Really? You think Evolutionists don't really think Evolution happened, they just think it probably happened? Evolutionists don't claim that their belief is fact?

I'm definitely for people taking responsibility in an era where people love to redirect blame or excuse blame (psychologizing), however, one thing that really grinds my gears is when christians say: when something bad happens it is the person's fault, but when something good happens it is due to God.

Christians believe that God is good and that God does good things -- why is it far-fetched to believe that good things happen because God makes them happen and bad things happen because of people who aren't close to God?

Things that are close to a fire are warm. That's not because the things themselves are warm, that's because the fire warms them. Things that are away from a fire, however, are cold -- not because the things themselves are cold per se, but because they are not close enough to the fire to receive its warmth. It's not the fault of the fire that something isn't close enough to it to receive its warmth, especially when the things could move closer or farther if they chose to do so.

The message that sends is that humanity can never do good without God's help but they sure can do evil - that humanity is inherintly evil (alla Original Sin which I have major problems with).

What, you think humans are inherently good? Nonsense. People are bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.

If only people of faith actually followed their faith's tennets and that all people followed those basic principles.

Some do, some don't -- just because people suck doesn't mean you have to label anything they follow.

Yes.

... Wow.

Do I want some stranger knocking on my door and preaching "the word of God" at me on my doorstep, or having leaflets shoved in my hands if I'm in a busy shopping centre?

Does it matter? Don't open your door -- or open it and tell them to go away, then close it -- or contact the church they're from and tell them that you don't want their visitors. Vacuum salesmen go door-to-door too, where's the bitching about them? Hell, I can't stand telemarketers, but do I just sit back and bitch that some stranger has the audacity to do his job and call me while I happen to be eating dinner, or do I call their company and have them take me off of their call list?

And "leaflets shoved in your hands"? Are you actually trying to say that you have had tracks placed into your hands without your approval?

If I was even curious about Christianity, I'd go to ****ing church, and listen to them preach there.

And how are you going to gain any curiosity about Christianity if you have never been confronted with it or talked to anybody about it?

You obviously don't get them at your door once a month asking if we'd "changed out minds, and would like to open the doors of our heart for God", even though clearly telling them to bugger off multiple times in the past.

Oh no! Somebody came to your door wanting to talk about their religion! Sic the dogs on 'em! And even if you do somehow get them to leave, they'll be back in a MONTH! It's relentless!

It's the best way to harass someone without getting in trouble.

There are ways to get them in trouble for it, if you go through the proper channels. Or you could just bitch about having a knock on your door once a month and maintain your blatant hostility towards Christianity despite a lack of understanding.

[Furore]

This is like the agnostics's view of something: I can't prove that it is true but you can't prove that it is false so the only proper conclusion is: no one knows and no one can know one way or the other. There are a few problems with that logic.

1.) The user allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition; they treat arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider, discuss, evaluate - then says "I don't know," instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand.

2.) The onus-of-proof issus: a person demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the postive. "It is up to you," they say, "to prove that a higher power or the 12th moon of Saturn did not cause "x" ".

3.) The person would say, "Mabye these things will one day be proved." In other words, they assert possibilities or hypotheses without a jot of evidential basis.

This logic treats the arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect; the arbitrary on par with the rational and evidentially supported. This is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: it equates the groundless and the proved.

Except that I believe in the Christian God rather than that a God might exist?
I've been wording things carefully in an attempt to show the folly of vehemently opposing religion. Fact of the matter is, though religious folks can't prove scientifically that God exists, neither can science folks prove that religion doesn't exist.

And several scientifically unexplained miracles and no scientific answer for everything coming from nothingness is enough to sway my mind. Eucharistic miracles alone are enough to make me think Christianity has something going for it.

Evolutionism has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

[M16]

Evolutionism has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Would you care to cite any examples? I find that typically people are quick to paraphrase others, saying that evolutionism has no foundation, and yet they can't do anything to offer any rebuttal.

[Furore]

Would you care to cite any examples? I find that typically people are quick to paraphrase others, saying that evolutionism has no foundation, and yet they can't do anything to offer any rebuttal.

If you'd like, I could type up a larger post on it (might take me a while though as I've currently gotten a nice amount of work and the humidity is making my brain feel half dead), but two things coming into my mind are things like:

Fossil records: Most fossils found have bigger variations and the smaller steps between them if evolution was true just aren't well represented. Look up 'transitional forms' on google and there might be some interesting reads. I believe Darwin himself asked the question himself and concluded it was due to many species simply not being preserved due to their remains not ending up somewhere conveniant, but either way, a bit of reading led me to believe this can be said for pretty much all 'evolved' creatures including those in places where there likely should be preserved remains. Of course, Sequence homology and endogenous retroviruses coupled with fossil records can support evolution, but it's all sketchy at best and many scientists are quick to point that out.

Big Bang: What caused it? That I believe is the biggest hole, and not something anyone can explain (I don't think I've even heard any credible theories on it).

Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution

I found the page above to be an interesting source, as it goes into evidence against the Evolution theory and also conveniantly splits it's references into pro-creationism, pro-evolutionism and neutral for easy checking.