That's correct, but science can prove that many religious beliefs closely related to people's understanding of god are inaccurate. If half of the bible is shown to be outright false, the other remaining half starts to look a lot less convincing. Science has been a thorn in the side of nearly every popular organized religion that has ever existed.
You mean abiogenesis? Do you really believe that scientists are not trying or experimenting on how to create life from non life? Evolution HAS been proven. It is a scientific theory, and scientific theories are BASED ON FACT. It's not like some guy in the street giving his theory on why ducks quack rather than bark. Funny you mention dogs, a species that proves evolution right there. Dogs evolved from wolves and man has selectively bred them to bring out various traits. That wouldn't be possible if evolution was false. Evolution and the rate of genetic mutation can be measured in humans by mapping genomes and plenty of other creatures. The next "step" won't happen for millions of years, and just because you can't envision that, does not make it wrong. Every species on the planet is in constant transition. They all experience genetic mutations, and the more beneficial ones do better in their respective environments. All evolution is, is adaptation on a large time scale. Evolution has been proven already. Evolution is genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Genetic mutations have been proven to exist and can be measured. They can also be proven to effect morphology. Natural selection has been witnessed and observed countless times. Just because nobody has a million years to observe a major change, doesn't mean it's false. If we can observe the short term changes, there's no reason to assume that small changes don't add up over time. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Here's a start. Read that link and show me what parts are false. Here's an example because I'm feeling generous. Think of a field mouse. Let's say that 75% are born with brown fur and 25% are born with black fur. They live in a wheat field, so the brown ones have perfect cover and camouflage. Unfortunately for the black ones, they stand out and are often preyed upon. This leads to the brown mice dominating the area and the gene pool, hence the 75% birth rate. NOW, all of a sudden a near by volcano blows and the field burns down and is replaced by dark rock and volcanic debris. Now the roles get reversed and the black mice suddenly fit in the best, while the brown ones are easy victims of predators. The brown mice either have to relocate or die out. The black mice survive and continue to breed, and soon enough the birth rate becomes 75% black and 25% brown. Because the black ones pass down their genes while the browns mostly die. That's a perfect example of how evolution works. To claim evolution is just a theory and that science can't prove it is beyond absurd. It's obvious in the fossil record, genetics, and biology makes literally no sense at all without it. It's not just based on random guesses like religion. It's pretty much a slam dunk. Trust me, I studied this in college and know how it works. If you want to have faith in god, sure have at it, but don't pull this nonsense and try to crap all over 150+ years of scientific research just to satisfy your ego and stick with your world view. Evolution and god are perfectly compatible. I don't know why everyone has to pit one against the other. If you wish to make another thread to debate this, feel free. I'm very versed on this topic, so you probably won't stand a chance, but it's a fun way to kill time, so I'm down.
You're right. There is no evidence to suggest god exists, just like there is no evidence to suggest he doesn't exist. So neither view is backed by science. BUT, the mathematical default is non existence, however, so logic says you shouldn't believe something unless there is objective evidence. Atheism is not a belief, it's LACK of a belief. Big difference. Burden of proof is always on the ones making the claim, not the ones who call the claim bullshit. People who do not believe in god, do so because there is no objective evidence whatsoever to suggest it. It is taken on faith alone. There's nothing wrong with having faith, but just understand it's not a view based on logic. I have no problem with faith in god, but I do have a problem with people who try to claim god is a fact and attack science while having no knowledge about it like the anti-evolution guy above. Right on. In the old days people believed god was responsible for everything. Thunder, lightning, the seasons, rainbows, disease, day & night, etc, but the more science learns, the less and less god is needed. It used to be "god makes thunder when he's angry" and "pray to god for rain for the harvest!". Now we know exactly what causes all of that and the die hard religious folks just keep moving the goalposts. It's pretty much gotten to the point of "Well who started the big bang!" Most folks don't do that, however, it's usually just the extremists that take the bible or whatever holy text as absolute literal truth.
Exactly JB! You can prove tangible things, you can even surmise things you can't see based on real knowledge and not have the full knowledge base to prove them until future data is available. GOD is a creation of the mind that doesn't exist in the tangible world. No scientist worth his salt would attempt to scientifically disapprove a belief based on a lack of knowledge or an article of faith. It's simply not science. Faith and science isn’t the same thing and to disprove god scientifically is as ridiculous as trying to prove god exists scientifically. What held us down before Newton was gravity even though before that understanding many might think it GOD even though we now know it is part of our physical world. That doesn’t mean GOD didn’t create gravity or that gravity doesn’t exist. If you think GOD exists it did if you don’t it didn’t. It’s really that simply God exists for us or it doesn't having nothing to do with science. If you believe in a single father like being that created everything or created the seed for everything it’s certainly not based on science and if you don’t believe in it’s not based on science disproving it. The problem for me is while I don't fully understand the physical world and do see the beauty in our physical world and can't imagine that it was totally random, I don't see the point of attributing that belief as scientific reasoning.
How does scientific evidence pertaining to facts disprove a book that is largely based on allegories mixed with some facts as outright false? All science does is present a set of facts and theories. I don’t see how any of that has any bearing on those who have faith based on a particular interpretation of God or religion. While it might make some people re-think their faith or their interpretation it has no bearing on the stories which were based on a smaller knowledge base but still have meaning today. Theology, like science evolves based on our knowledge base who is to say that's not gods will?
A lot of the claims in the bible are flat out wrong. That's why there's reason to doubt it. We know talking snakes don't exist. We know that no ark in the world could hold 2 of every species on earth. We know that people can't be resurrected after being dead for 3 days. We know that the earth wasn't created in 6 days. We know the earth wasn't created before the sun and that animals weren't just poofed out of nothing, suddenly. We know that the human race was NEVER as low as 2 people (adam & eve) proven by mapping genomes. We know that woman cannot conceive without the sperm of a man. Science does indeed debunk THOSE claims, because the facts point in the opposite direction. That doesn't mean the entire thing is wrong, or god definitely doesn't exist, but a lot of it is flat out false, and that's why folks dismiss it. Claiming they are just metaphors would be a cop out, because there are definitely tons of parts that people do not perceive in that way. They pick and choose which parts to believe and which ones not to believe. People are wrongly claiming that atheists believe 100% absolutely that god does not exist. This couldn't be further from the truth. Atheists that extreme are VERY rare. 99% of atheists are actually agnostic atheists and could be convinced to believe in god, should objective evidence be discovered. They just reject the claims of your religion and god(and most others), because they aren't logical. Rejecting a belief, isn't the same as believing in a absolute statement like "god does not exist".
if there is a God, in whatever form it may be, my belief is that it would be something we'll never have the slightest comprehension of whatsoever. i was born catholic, and the thought of god looking down and taking inventory on over 6 billion human beings' every move for judgement later on just does not take with me. i think organized religion was a device to enslave mankind in order to profit. i'm not saying having something spiritual in your life is wrong, in fact, i think it's a good thing. i just don't trust mankind very much, or anything written by man, much less however many thousands of years ago these religions were drawn up. i'll never knock anyone for their beliefs, and if you get something out of religion, that's fantastic. what turns me off from the catholic church and christianity is the accept christ and god or burn in hell. that's real nice huh? who wants to be a god fearing person? not me. i'd rather be a god loving person, sounds alot more pleasant. but i do not need religion to know that you should be cool to your fellow man. one day man will change, but the gods have to change first, and the gods that have been in the driver's seat for the last couple thousand years truly don't work anymore, especially in these modern times. just my opinion, if i have offended anyone, not the intention. just excercising my thoughts.
the more we learn about physical reality the more we realize how much more there is to it that we don't know and is confusing even now despite how advanced our scientific knowledge appears to be. now imagine you are God and you have infant man thousands of years ago with zero scientific knowledge trying to explain to them dark matter and quantum physics -- which appear to be the building blocks of physical reality -- before they even have even slightest idea about much simpler concepts like atoms and gravity to make sense of those concepts. point being the bible not being literal is not such a silly rationalization for believers to try and hold onto its meaning in the face of literal scientific knowledge. it could be telling man in terms he understands; no different than telling your children about storks and birds and bees instead of the scientific details of conception and birth.
Disagree with your post, although I appreciate the honesty. What about the concept of gOD makes you think that he is incomprehensible to mankind? From "The Beginning", we are told that hE created mankind in his own image. There are many lapses in consistency within THE BOOK, but if you avoid parable and demand from tHE aLMIGHTY, you can read the behavior of this proposed deity pretty easily. I am constantly returned to 8 verses in Genesis that just don't make sense to me outside of human behavior. What does that remind you of? An undescribable entity that created everything? Or somebody that had an experiment going and fucked it up? And now compare that situation to other situations in history. The Nationalism movement in Europe during the second quarter of last century. And the incomprehensible advent of advanced technology today. One attempted to separate mankind by culture, the other is the exact description of "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them." We can sit here and watch technology advance without barrier. I can speak with someone in Communist China, or Islamic Iran. I can fly to any country I want. I can use a handheld device to access information anywhere in the world. What is the Tower of Babel if not the modern concept of technology? Those verses don't speak of a common goal, just a common language. What does God look like if hE created us in hIS image, then scattered us across the Earth? And then, after millenia of hIS absence, we've returned to the state of existence that he scattered? What will happen next?
perhaps the God's image isn't a literal question of physical appearance. how is God described? all knowing, all loving and all powerful. perhaps we are made in his image to know, love and wield power, which do appear to be traits that separate us from other creatures. and as we evolve, and we learn the secrets of the universe and its creation, the understanding of which has provided us great power, whether it is mastering fire and building civilizations or cloning life (God like creation powers), we grow more in his image. now if we can only master that love part.
Maybe "all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful" aren't as literal as they seem either? When you master a certain level of technology, genetic control and species-control, wouldn't those definitions change from, say, a human being living two millennia ago? Culture is a sort of broad definition. Scientific skepticism aside, the mind of mankind has evolved so much over recorded history that we cannot even relate to the minds of men during the time that the bible was originally scribed. And that is a tiny, tiny window in history.
I just don't understand why - when it comes to the bible or any ancient religion - more people don't accept the simplest explanation: it was the best explanation these people had for their tribes at the time for how things came to be this way, passed on in the oral tradition of the times. How did the world begin? God made it. Whoa... there are people to the north. They speak a different language. How did that happen? Tower of Babel story. Remember that big flood? Well, it was because god was angry with us. Fortunately, this one dude saved all the animals we know about. And all we know of the world is this little territory, so it must be that god flooded the whole world. Why are the farming tribes to the north attacking our herding tribe? Well, let me tell you the allegorical story about Cain the farmer and Abel the herder. The Bible makes plenty of sense when viewed through the lens of knowledge available at the time. Today? The messages are still nice enough. But their factual basis is... um... lacking. Which is fine. I just don't see anything divine about it. Any more than I would see something divine in the creation stories of the ancient Greeks or of the Navajo.
If you're willing to admit that the Bible is a collection of allegories, or "stories based on a smaller knowledge base", then you are already admitting that it is false in the sense that I meant. Believe it or not, some people still refuse to do that. If you want to look at the bible in the same light that you would view Aesop's Fables in, then sure, I believe it has plenty of value. But as time goes on, more and more of the content that was supposedly "real" is being diminished to allegory/story/fable status, and many devoutly religious people are left looking stupid and ridiculous because they refuse to admit it. We are pretty much at a point where the only thing left to believe in, besides symbolism and allegory, is the one thing that can never be proven or disproven... the existence of god. Everything else has been proven to be either a complete sham or a bunch of symbolic lessons that were somehow hidden under the guise of "accurate" history for thousands of years, so why would I choose to believe in the one thing left this religion has to offer, the Christian version of god? Why not believe in any of the other thousands of religions that might still have a hint of credibility left (if there are any), or better yet none of them? There is a reason that the only effective method of "teaching" religion is brainwashing children during the stage of life where they will believe in just about anything.
That's a pretty simplistic explanation for a history major. How do you explain the intricacies of religion shared by tribes that were separated by thousands of miles of ocean? Human nature?
This is the way I look at it too. If you aren't going off of what seems plausible when choosing a religion, then what are you basing your belief on? Faith? But which religion do you put your faith in? Do you go for the one that makes the most sense? Or because your parents told you? Or at random, like whatever religion the next fellow who comes to your door is pushing? That is what I have never understood. If you aren't using science/logic then what is the criteria used when deciding what religion to follow?
I'm no history major. But simplistic explanations aren't bad by default. It certainly makes more sense than Human nature could sum up a bit of it. Human are pattern seeking creatures and similar patterns pop up all the time. But more than that, I'd say that most of those shared intricacies weren't 100% accurate... I'd be skeptical that the isolation was complete or that these intricacies were created completely independently. Plenty of room for cultural contamination in most of those stories.
Than what? Not an English major either? I'm sure you told me your major at some point. :wink: Maybe a beer will jog my memory. That sort of sounds like a prepared answer. Are we dancing already? I'll first use the ritual of pyramid-building as an example. Does that mean we are similar to ants?
I'm a molecular biologist. That was supposed to read "more sense than some supernatural explanation." As for pyramid building, it's a natural shape and relatively easily built solid structure. Wide base. Smaller top. It doesn't mean we are similar to ants. But it does show you that it's a shape that even ants can build... and most tend to build similarly shaped ant hills (with some exceptions), so it doesn't seem necessary to go calling this some crazy coincidence.
W00t. Wasn't what I was talking about, but I'm sure a lot of molecular biologists start out questioning gOD. Many people have a different understanding of the term "supernatural". Plus perfect symmetry and relation to bodies not located on this planet. Many built tens of thousands of years ago. And we know the toil they undertook to build them. Isn't it odd that we stopped building them so instinctively? I mean, they were such an efficient structure. When was the last time that you built a pyramid in relation to star constellations? Or anyone you know? Or anyone you have ever met? We are talking about biological instinct. Mainly, ours is to fornicate, hunt and gather. We can also build shelter. We can also make tools. Where did the genetic code abandon the pyramid?
