religious debate thread

[Naryar]

JE N'AIME PAS D'EMPTY SPACE. =D

I already said it wasn't even true... Stupid stereotypes...

[Naryar]

Why does this stopped, and other fail threads still go on ?

[Urjak]

Well, I can say that I am atheist, simply because there is no scientific evidence that god exists, thus he does not exist until proven otherwise.

[Naryar]

Well, I can say that I am atheist, simply because there is no scientific evidence that god exists, thus he does not exist until proven otherwise.

Pretty much my opinion.

[Scorpion]

Well, I can say that I am atheist, simply because there is no scientific evidence that god exists, thus he does not exist until proven otherwise.

That, and the fact that there's no reason why we should worship him.
IMO, if there isn't a god fine, I was right, yay for me.
If there is a god, then i'll gladly spit in its face for the sake of humanity.

[Meganerdbomb]

I'm Norse. I worship Thor the god of thunder and Odin his father. I hope someday to die in battle so I can go to Valhalla where I will battle all day and  party all night until Ragnarok. **** yeah!

[GoldenFox93]

I'm Norse. I worship Thor the god of thunder and Odin his father. I hope someday to die in battle so I can go to Valhalla where I will battle all day and  party all night until Ragnarok. **** yeah!

And let me guess, when you die, you're going to be put on a burning ship with a sword in your hand so you can get to Valhalla, I take it?

[Meganerdbomb]

It's already in my will.

[GoldenFox93]

That sounds quite interesting. I've considered burial in an underground chamber, simularly to the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt.

[Meganerdbomb]

**** yeah, get like a pyramid and sh**.

Anyway since this is a debate thread, I have a challenge for you athiestfags. If Thor doesn't exist. who's going to fight Jormungand at Ragnarok?

[123savethewhales]

I don't get this whole emerging faith with all that scientific mumbo jumbo.

Let's face it, most of us don't know enough science to judge the validity and reliability of a given scientific research.  But we believe nevertheless.

[Enigm@]

YOU'RE ALL WRONG. SCIENTOLOGY IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY.

[Urjak]

I don't get this whole emerging faith with all that scientific mumbo jumbo.

Let's face it, most of us don't know enough science to judge the validity and reliability of a given scientific research.  But we believe nevertheless.

Perhaps, but as far as the gods are concerned there is absolutely no evidence beyond their respective religious texts and or stories.

[Meganerdbomb]

And lightning, since Thor makes it.

[123savethewhales]

Perhaps, but as far as the gods are concerned there is absolutely no evidence beyond their respective religious texts and or stories.

Not believing in invisible pink unicorn does not translate to the atom is made up of up quark, down quark, and electrons.

I don't know why there's still this Religion vs Science duality in the 21st century.  Actually I am very critical of how this duality somehow give people more blind faith in the science they picked up from a magazine.  Sciences isn't one thing and each finding needed to be consider separately.

[Urjak]

blind faith in the science they picked up from a magazine.  Sciences isn't one thing and each finding needed to be consider separately

Yes, we trust the conclusions made by people who know more than we do. That is absolutely unavoidable. Of course every scientific finding is looked at separately, but it is also looked at in the context of other theories to see what fits. Each finding is connected to other findings. So far science has gotten most things right (or at least quickly fixes things that are wrong), so I don't see the problem with trusting scientists.

[123savethewhales]

Yes, we trust the conclusions made by people who know more than we do. That is absolutely unavoidable. Of course every scientific finding is looked at separately, but it is also looked at in the context of other theories to see what fits. Each finding is connected to other findings. So far science has gotten most things right (or at least quickly fixes things that are wrong), so I don't see the problem with trusting scientists.

The track record of science have always come with lots of pseudo sciences and bad practices, especially in emerging sciences like psychology, social science, and economics.  Even in well established science like physics and biology, there are too many nonsense and misinterpretations by non scientist.  Worst is when people vastly misinterpreted certain scientific findings and think they got science behind their back, like the Social Darwinist.

I don't believe in anything I haven't looked at myself.  Knowing more is not a requirement to see the underline assumptions made in each conclusion, and to distinguish well practiced science from bullsh**.

[Ben Purse]

Im Christan Prodersent

[Urjak]

The track record of science have always come with lots of pseudo sciences and bad practices, especially in emerging sciences like psychology, social science, and economics.

Can't say I disagree, especially when certain sciences were first emerging. However, modern day science has very little pseudo-science principles.

Even in well established science like physics and biology, there are too many nonsense and misinterpretations by non scientist.

Keyword there is non-scientists. We should just listen to what the scientists say, not use our own "perceptions" of it when we know very little.

Worst is when people vastly misinterpreted certain scientific findings and think they got science behind their back, like the Social Darwinist.

Fully agree there.

I don't believe in anything I haven't looked at myself.

You have lost much of physics, you have lost microbiology, you have lost most of biology (you haven't seen all the living things science claims exist), you have lost astronomy. If you narrow what you believe to only what you have personally seen, then most of science does not exist for you.

Knowing more is not a requirement to see the underline assumptions made in each conclusion, and to distinguish well practiced science from bullsh**.

I suppose you are partially correct, but a person not well versed in the science can not always recognize the underlying assumption, and they do not always know whether it is false or not.

[123savethewhales]

Even   in well established science like physics and biology, there are too   many nonsense and misinterpretations by non scientist.

Keyword   there is non-scientists. We should just listen to what the scientists   say, not use our own "perceptions" of it when we know very little.

Problem being, distinguishing between the two is never easy.  Most of us don't get science news directly from the researchers.  We get them from journalist, friends, the media, etc.  Even among established scientist themselves there are many disputes over the interpretation of a certain finding.

One example of this would be global warming.  I can't distinguish which voice comes from established scientist and which isn't.

I don't believe in anything I haven't looked at myself.

You have lost much of physics, you have lost microbiology, you have lost most of biology (you haven't seen all the living things science claims exist), you have lost astronomy. If you narrow what you believe to only what you have personally seen, then most of science does not exist for you.

I don't mean physically observing an object.  I mean looking at the process of which the science is conducted.

So for Astronomy, I can look at the theory of red shifting and standard candles, and how those rationale leads to the conclusion that galaxies are moving away from each other at an accelerating rate.

And you are right about physics, general relativity kinna lost me already, and quantum mechanics makes so little sense to me that it doesn't matter rather I believe it or not.  I think I took 5 audio lectures and well over 100 hours on those 2 topics already.

Knowing more is not a requirement to see the underline assumptions made in each conclusion, and to distinguish well practiced science from bullsh**.

I suppose you are partially correct, but a person not well versed in the science can not always recognize the underlying assumption, and they do not always know whether it is false or not.

Which is why people need to learn about the science they cared about, if only the basics.  We can't claim to rationally believe otherwise.