Creation of the universe: Darwin or Bible

[FLOOTENKERP]

It is true, hope means nothing to them. But scientists can't play the role of God. They are not helping anyone by trying to solve everything in the world. Their theories are preposterous and have no fact to support them. They say things such as "The Big Bang" theory, and by telling us what they think is truth, they cause controversy. The truth is scientists do not know everything. God could or could not exist, and just because a scientist says God does not, does not mean God does not exist. Scientists pass themselves off as heroes saving the world with there discovery, when all it has lead to was controversy and violence. There are arguments constantly about religion and faith, murder because of a disagreement, all because of scientists. Truth and Hope are two different things. Truth about such big things like the meaning of life cause controversy and violence, while hope brings us all together. Is truth really worth war?

[Okami]

You're into psychology, do you find yourself constantly examining people's minds?

Obviously. It's kind of part of the job description!! :]

[Zafur]

Maybe just by believing in God, he exists.

Isn't that another theory in itself?

They are not helping anyone by trying to solve everything in the world. Their theories are preposterous and have no fact to support them. They say things such as "The Big Bang" theory, and by telling us what they think is truth, they cause controversy.

Even if they aren't helping anyone by trying to solve everything, why stop them?

Most theories are based around fact, and theories that aren't supported enough are generally not shown as truth, but as what they are, theories. Science is based on fact. Saying all of science's theories lack fact is practically an oxymoron.

I don't think the textbooks actually teach The Big Bang as truth, from what I've seen, just as a popular possible explanation, and there's no harm is giving possible explanations and labeling them as such.

People shouldn't get upset about "possible explanations" anyways. If they're worried about the kids, parents just need to remind their kids the theory isn't 100% proven. It doesn't need to be so complicated.

Scientists pass themselves off as heroes saving the world with there discovery, when all it has lead to was controversy and violence. There are arguments constantly about religion and faith, murder because of a disagreement, all because of scientists. Truth and Hope are two different things. Truth about such big things like the meaning of life cause controversy and violence, while hope brings us all together. Is truth really worth war?

Scientists DO save the world, at least with medicine. I haven't seen any cockiness with them.

All because of scientists? I need to see examples of this. I have constantly seen so much war and death caused by conflicts in religious differences that sometimes I think the world would be better without it; especially if people aren't capable of being civilized about differences.

There will always be people disagreeing with anything. I honestly don't see why scientists discovering Truths should be enough to cause a war. If they prove the Big Bang theory, even if I was an orthodox in some religion, I doubt I'd be offended enough to want war. Since I believe God is behind science, I see no contradictions, and plus, most religions are out there to try and help people and to be used as moral guidelines... People seem to ignore that though, when they cause so much wars because of it.

Obviously. It's kind of part of the job description!! :]

I like doing that, but I find people get too annoyed when I do. xP And I get particularly frustrated when people just "don't make sense", if you know what I mean.

[Okami]

Again stating, the theories in here are circular, like a ring in its symbolism: foreverandeverandever. There's no point. =/ </pessimism> *goes to the emo corner*

It's called psychoanalysis. It's a crazy little thing, but helps when you see someone's who is troubled...I've helped numerous friends out with little things that were bothering them with it. The fact is, since I'm just a "Wannabe" at the moment, I don't have very good ability to actually help anyone, it's all by the power of words and persuasion. I guess that means I have a way with words...even if it is only in reality and fantasy, somehow not translating well to the 'net.

[FLOOTENKERP]

Isn't that another theory in itself?

Even if they aren't helping anyone by trying to solve everything, why stop them?

Most theories are based around fact, and theories that aren't supported enough are generally not shown as truth, but as what they are, theories. Science is based on fact. Saying all of science's theories lack fact is practically an oxymoron.

I don't think the textbooks actually teach The Big Bang as truth, from what I've seen, just as a popular possible explanation, and there's no harm is giving possible explanations and labeling them as such.

People shouldn't get upset about "possible explanations" anyways. If they're worried about the kids, parents just need to remind their kids the theory isn't 100% proven. It doesn't need to be so complicated.

Scientists DO save the world, at least with medicine. I haven't seen any cockiness with them.

All because of scientists? I need to see examples of this. I have constantly seen so much war and death caused by conflicts in religious differences that sometimes I think the world would be better without it; especially if people aren't capable of being civilized about differences.

There will always be people disagreeing with anything. I honestly don't see why scientists discovering Truths should be enough to cause a war. If they prove the Big Bang theory, even if I was an orthodox in some religion, I doubt I'd be offended enough to want war. Since I believe God is behind science, I see no contradictions, and plus, most religions are out there to try and help people and to be used as moral guidelines... People seem to ignore that though, when they cause so much wars because of it.

I like doing that, but I find people get too annoyed when I do. xP And I get particularly frustrated when people just "don't make sense", if you know what I mean.

First of all, scientists do not save the world. Medically speaking, religious people refuse treatment because it is not natural. Thus another controversy started. Is medicine approved by God? Did God give us the knowledge to make medicine so we may have a cure? You see? Where's the heroism in that?

And another controversy you just stated. Can science prove God's existence? Most religious people stated that they would not believe scientists, even if they said they have discovered God's existence. Apparently scientists are not trustworthy. War is caused by a disagreement. Disagreements happen all the time, for the smallest things. We're in a war with Iraq, killing millions of people with families, for oil... just oil... Sure it's a fuel source, but are you seriously telling me its worth risking the lives of many innocent people believing they are defending their country by dying? Ahh what have we here? Another controversy. Is defending your country good in God's eyes? Most people say killing for peace is bad, because you still took a person's life in the process, most people wave the flag and the air and chant "God Bless USA". Ahh another controversy! Does God love the USA? Many people even doubt if God loves Earth because Satan owns Earth in a deal between God and Satan, stating that God would see how Satan would take control of the Earth, and once the time comes God will kill Satan. Some people think God made the Earth and loves it. I can go on and on.

[Jiggy-Ninja]

It is true, hope means nothing to them.

Hope probably means something to scientists as people, but it has no place in the scientific method.

But scientists can't play the role of God.

Of course not. No human can. Scientists are only able to do what it is possible for people to do.

They are not helping anyone by trying to solve everything in the world.

Where have you been in the last...forever. Science separates us from the animals. Agriculture, animal domestication, and tools are all products of science, and allowed early humans to cease being hunter-gatherers and settle down to form civilization.

Their theories are preposterous and have no fact to support them. They say things such as "The Big Bang" theory, and by telling us what they think is truth, they cause controversy.

This statement is just blatantly ignorant. Most scientific theories are backed up by observation, and the best ones make predictions that can be used to test the theory. If the predictions are false, the theory needs to be discarded or reworked.

You do have a point though about the Big Bang. Cosmologists have a pretty good idea of how the universe was a fraction of a second after what is currently know as "The Big Bang", but before that current scientific formulas don't work as well. The Big Bang is our best guess, though currently some theorists are trying to come up with alternate explanations since the Big Bang Theory has needed to be patch-worked and fine-tuned so much it's no longer as elegant as it was.

The truth is scientists do not know everything.

Of course not. That's the whole point of science, to discover what we don't know and to answer the questions we have in as objective a way as possible.

God could or could not exist, and just because a scientist says God does not, does not mean God does not exist.

Correct, just because a scientist says it, that doesn't make it true. There needs to be justification behind the assertion that God does not exist.

Likewise, people who assert that God exists need to prove it as well, not just point out "Well, there's no proof that he doesn't exist, so it's possible." Possible goes both ways.

Scientists pass themselves off as heroes saving the world with there discovery, when all it has lead to was controversy and violence. There are arguments constantly about religion and faith, murder because of a disagreement, all because of scientists.

You are arguing from morality and emotion. This is a fallacy, and has NO place in this discussion.

On top of that, you are utterly wrong. Controversy and violence is not the only thing that science has lead to, especially in biology. Germs were one of the greatest discoveries in medical science ever, because it allowed people to actually treat the causes of disease with confidence rather than guesswork. This has lead to radical extensions in the human life span.

Secondly, science is not the only thing that causes controversy and violence. I would argue that religion is even worse in this regard. How else could you explain basically the entire Middle East? Or the Crusades and Inquisition from our own Christian Church?

Science, like religion or anything else in this world, can be used for good or bad.

Truth and Hope are two different things. Truth about such big things like the meaning of life cause controversy and violence, while hope brings us all together. Is truth really worth war?

How would truth lead to war? Disagreements are what lead to war. Truth removes disagreements.

Religious wars are particularly bad, and are usually fought over what should be just petty differences.

By pitting truth and hope against each other, you are attempting to enforce a false choice, another argumentative fallacy.

[FLOOTENKERP]

The truth will not be accepted by everyone Jiggy. There will be disagreements based on what was already proven. God is not even acceptable. If we discover God, atheists will still doubt it. There is no way to stop a debate as big as faith. Truth can also lead to disagreement. Scientists have helped us with agriculture and all that, but like I said, religious people think it is not natural. Using chemicals to help fruit grow faster, pesticides to get rid of bugs, none of it is natural. That's why being Amish is a belief that you will be extra faithful to God by not using technology. They use the Earth to make things. Science uses other methods. The discovery of germs was also unnatural. We were able to see thing that were not visible to the human eye. And by using the discovery to help treatments was not natural. Religious people will always debate on Scientific breakthroughs, and it will always lead to some sort of hatred of one another. Truth and Hope will never be accepted. There is always somebody that's not going to believe the truth, and there is always somebody that's not going to put their faith in hope. Science and Religion are one of the worst rivals ever. Religion will always dislike scientific fact, and Science will always hate religion altogether. Truth leads to war.

[Okami]

First of all, scientists do not save the world. Medically speaking, religious people refuse treatment because it is not natural. Thus another controversy started. Is medicine approved by God? Did God give us the knowledge to make medicine so we may have a cure? You see? Where's the heroism in that?

It's true. That's absolutely true. I have a certain family member that follows a more cult-like version of Christianity in view of not treating illnesses. For her children, it's merely abuse, suffering flu and headaches alike without medication. It's sad to say that this is the world we live in.

As for me, as a Christian, I couldn't live without my medication. Two days without my meds and I'm on the verge of suicidal. Some Christians have burnt me for this, because if I were really a strong Christian I wouldn't need medication. Really? They obviously have not seen me hit bottom.

I do know that God works through science, such through medical advances, medications, and psychological treatment (know that 30-50 years ago psychology was 'of the devil' because it was dealing with inside a person's mind)

There is no heroism at all, because it's just plain stupid. You don't deny what is available to you. But I suppose, as one of my favorite comedians said: "Eat a twinkie for Jesus!" Let's see how you all disect that little phrase, see if you crack it right :] ...although I just realized it doesn't quite fit what I was talking about. Ah well, it's still great.

[Jiggy-Ninja]

First of all, scientists do not save the world. Medically speaking, religious people refuse treatment because it is not natural. Thus another controversy started. Is medicine approved by God? Did God give us the knowledge to make medicine so we may have a cure? You see? Where's the heroism in that?

That's a problem with religion, not science. Science has found something, and people refuse to use it for religious reasons. Religion is causing the controversy there, not science.

I can't even figure out how people think this is a dilemma. Ultimately, medicine is natural, since everything about it is derived from from things and processes that are possible in nature. Ultimately, it's no different from banging to rocks together is a special way to make a sharp edge to cut things with.

And another controversy you just stated. Can science prove God's existence? Most religious people stated that they would not believe scientists, even if they said they have discovered God's existence. Apparently scientists are not trustworthy.

So, from a statement made by people that would refuse to acknowledge physical evidence, you conclude that the scientists are untrustworthy? I conclude that the religious people are ignorant fools.

War is caused by a disagreement. Disagreements happen all the time, for the smallest things. We're in a war with Iraq, killing millions of people with families, for oil... just oil... Sure it's a fuel source, but are you seriously telling me its worth risking the lives of many innocent people believing they are defending their country by dying? Ahh what have we here? Another controversy. Is defending your country good in God's eyes? Most people say killing for peace is bad, because you still took a person's life in the process, most people wave the flag and the air and chant "God Bless USA". Ahh another controversy! Does God love the USA? Many people even doubt if God loves Earth because Satan owns Earth in a deal between God and Satan, stating that God would see how Satan would take control of the Earth, and once the time comes God will kill Satan. Some people think God made the Earth and loves it. I can go on and on.

Officially, we started the Iraq war because we suspected that they had WMDs, which it turns out we were lied to about that. Why we're still in it is something probably God can't even understand.

I do not like the concept of country. Or state, or county, or anything like that. I wish they would disappear. They reinforce the "in group/out group" mentality that encourages hostility towards the "out group". It's this mentality that drives most of the bigotry, racism, and xenophobia in the world.

So no, I don't believe that fighting to defend your country is a good thing. Defending the people of your country is another matter.

The country mentality makes it easy to justify hostility and war by saying something like "We're fighting Iraq". Well, what is Iraq? Being asked that question, most people would point to a political map. However, a political map is just arbitrary lines drawn on paper. You can't see Iraq from space, since all of Asia and Europe looks like one gigantic piece of undivided land.

Wars are fought by people, against people. Until that's realized, wars will continue. And that won't be fully realized until we stop treating groups as an entity in and of themselves, and not as the collection people that they are.

Also, I think all politicians should have to personally fight in the wars they start. I guarantee there'd be a lot less war if that happened.

[FLOOTENKERP]

It's true. That's absolutely true. I have a certain family member that follows a more cult-like version of Christianity in view of not treating illnesses. For her children, it's merely abuse, suffering flu and headaches alike without medication. It's sad to say that this is the world we live in.

As for me, as a Christian, I couldn't live without my medication. Two days without my meds and I'm on the verge of suicidal. Some Christians have burnt me for this, because if I were really a strong Christian I wouldn't need medication. Really? They obviously have not seen me hit bottom.

I do know that God works through science, such through medical advances, medications, and psychological treatment (know that 30-50 years ago psychology was 'of the devil' because it was dealing with inside a person's mind)

There is no heroism at all, because it's just plain stupid. You don't deny what is available to you. But I suppose, as one of my favorite comedians said: "Eat a twinkie for Jesus!" Let's see how you all disect that little phrase, see if you crack it right :] ...although I just realized it doesn't quite fit what I was talking about. Ah well, it's still great.

Its sad really. Some people actually die of that. Its too depressing to see a 3 year old girl or new born baby die of a curable illness. This is a sick world we live in. Different faith and religions is just disgusting. As a Jehovah witness, I accept anyone for who they are. I'm entitled to have a card in my wallet that says that if I happen to get into an accident where I would need blood, not to give me another person's blood. Personally, I think thats absurd, but blood is sacred to a person, and giving it away is giving away a part of you. Its the most stupidest thing I've heard, but I need to stay faithful to it.

[Okami]

Ah, but then remember that while not all Christians are ignorant fools, so also are not all scientists untrustworthy--it comes down to a matter of opinion, although we could agree that it could be true for both.

As for me...I'm going into the field of social science and I'm a Christian. There's still much controversy in the church regarding even things such as this. Age old questions come up and so forth. The fact is, as long as we're alive, there will always be disputes between religion and science, and hardly can we find a middle ground: But it IS out there!

Yes, I agree to that too, Floot. The fact is, we have a certain right to help others. Whether it be medically or otherwise, you know? Blood is seen as sacred because of its ties to sacrifice, I get that, but really...if I can give a pint of my blood to save someone who really needs it, I will give away that pint.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Okami
My typos today are horrendous.

[FLOOTENKERP]

I'm not allowed to. Even if somebody really needs it. Which brings me to something else. Some people thing they're doing God's will by donating blood. Once again, that is controversial against other religions. So many things can be turned into arguments. There is never going to be peace in the world.

[Jiggy-Ninja]

The truth will not be accepted by everyone Jiggy. There will be disagreements based on what was already proven. God is not even acceptable. If we discover God, atheists will still doubt it. There is no way to stop a debate as big as faith. Truth can also lead to disagreement. Scientists have helped us with agriculture and all that, but like I said, religious people think it is not natural. Using chemicals to help fruit grow faster, pesticides to get rid of bugs, none of it is natural. That's why being Amish is a belief that you will be extra faithful to God by not using technology. They use the Earth to make things. Science uses other methods. The discovery of germs was also unnatural. We were able to see thing that were not visible to the human eye. And by using the discovery to help treatments was not natural. Religious people will always debate on Scientific breakthroughs, and it will always lead to some sort of hatred of one another. Truth and Hope will never be accepted. There is always somebody that's not going to believe the truth, and there is always somebody that's not going to put their faith in hope. Science and Religion are one of the worst rivals ever. Religion will always dislike scientific fact, and Science will always hate religion altogether. Truth leads to war.

I know the truth won't be accepted by everyone. That's a problem with people though.

How is it not natural? Simply because it doesn't happen without human intervention? If they argue that, the logical conclusion is that humans themselves are unnatural, and should not exist in the world.

And the Amish do use technology. They just place arbitrary limits on the technology they deem acceptable to use. Wheels, clothing, levers, even something as simple as a stone used to crush things with are all examples of technology.

Scientists use the Earth to make things too. What are the other methods you think scientists use, paranormal seances? The only thing that is possible for any human to do is manipulate the Earth around us. Scientists just pursue ever more advanced and powerful means of manipulation.

Plastics are formed by chemically modifying crude oil, which comes from the ground and was formed by decaying plant matter. Computers are made with metals and semiconductors mined from the ground put in very intricate formations. Electricity is made using magnetic fields or chemical reactions, and carried over copper or aluminum wire, both of which are metals mined from the Earth.

The discovery of germs as not unnatural either. It was done by human's manipulating the Earth around them to be able to observe things normally unseen. Microscopes use glass, which is just melted sand, in special shapes and configurations to manipulate light in a way that allows our eye to see things extremely small.

People, irrational and superstitious people, are causing the problems. Religion is just the excuse they use.

It's true. That's absolutely true. I have a certain family member that follows a more cult-like version of Christianity in view of not treating illnesses. For her children, it's merely abuse, suffering flu and headaches alike without medication. It's sad to say that this is the world we live in.

As for me, as a Christian, I couldn't live without my medication. Two days without my meds and I'm on the verge of suicidal. Some Christians have burnt me for this, because if I were really a strong Christian I wouldn't need medication. Really? They obviously have not seen me hit bottom.

I do know that God works through science, such through medical advances, medications, and psychological treatment (know that 30-50 years ago psychology was 'of the devil' because it was dealing with inside a person's mind)

There is no heroism at all, because it's just plain stupid. You don't deny what is available to you. But I suppose, as one of my favorite comedians said: "Eat a twinkie for Jesus!" Let's see how you all disect that little phrase, see if you crack it right :] ...although I just realized it doesn't quite fit what I was talking about. Ah well, it's still great.

I know how you feel. "Toughing it out" isn't always viable, since the unconscious influence our brain has on our behavior can be VERY powerful.

I'm almost ashamed to say that I used to be of a similar kind of mind as the people that looked down on you for using meds, until about halfway through senior year when I realized first hand just how powerful the brain can be in thwarting your conscious mind.

Without going into too many details, my brain completely and utterly rejected Literature class. No matter what I tried, I could not get around it. I ended up dropping out and graduating 6 months late with literally just enough credits to pass.

It wasn't because I was stupid. Far from it, I was easily one of the smartest people in my school. My brain just totally rejected the class, and it didn't help that A) it was a required class that I had to pass and B) I had failed one semester the year before, so I had to take two during senior year. The seeds of a crash had been sown several years before, probably in middle school, but with a double load of Literature and impending graduation, I nose dived.

If people were to call me weak for that, I would respond, "Of course I am. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have a problem."

[FLOOTENKERP]

I can simply respond to that huge summary with this, people can be stupid.

[Enkidu]

Jiggy has addressed a large majority of what I was going to say, and was incredibly on point about it.

Its sad really. Some people actually die of that. Its too depressing to see a 3 year old girl or new born baby die of a curable illness. This is a sick world we live in. Different faith and religions is just disgusting. As a Jehovah witness, I accept anyone for who they are. I'm entitled to have a card in my wallet that says that if I happen to get into an accident where I would need blood, not to give me another person's blood. Personally, I think thats absurd, but blood is sacred to a person, and giving it away is giving away a part of you. Its the most stupidest thing I've heard, but I need to stay faithful to it.

How are different faiths and religions "disgusting" and yet at the same time you accept anyone for who they are?

I really do have to agree with Jiggy on this though, science and Religion are not two mutually exclusive beings, clashing heads over specific parts of each one does not make one or the other invalidated as many people in this thread seem to think.

And I really need to stress that it is not an "All out war" between the two, and should not be an all out war.

[FLOOTENKERP]

Jiggy has addressed a large majority of what I was going to say, and was incredibly on point about it.

How are different faiths and religions "disgusting" and yet at the same time you accept anyone for who they are?

I really do have to agree with Jiggy on this though, science and Religion are not two mutually exclusive beings, clashing heads over specific parts of each one does not make one or the other invalidated as many people in this thread seem to think.

And I really need to stress that it is not an "All out war" between the two, and should not be an all out war.

I have to accept them for who they are, I don't have to like there religion altogether. If I liked there religion, I would be a part of it. Being a Satanist is a religion, and I personally think its the most disgusting thing in the world, but I have to accept them for the way they are. Accepting and liking are two very different thing. And I see what you are trying to say. No one is the bad guy here because everyone thinks they are doing good to themselves or others. Scientists try to find the truth for the good of mankind and religious people try to convert others into believing what they do because they believe the person will be punished for disobeying God's rules. What I'm trying to say is that by one group thinking they can help the world, and another coming in and saying that the other is wrong and that they can help the world instead causes controversy, which is the fault of both if the first group retaliates in the first place. People should be able to decide what they want to be, and by confusing them with two very different things, you are thus ruining their free will of choice by not letting them decide on their own. By this I mean if a child is born from a religious family, the parents force religion onto the child. Same with scientists, who teach their kids not to believe in religion.

[Jiggy-Ninja]

Jiggy has addressed a large majority of what I was going to say, and was incredibly on point about it.

How are different faiths and religions "disgusting" and yet at the same time you accept anyone for who they are?

I really do have to agree with Jiggy on this though, science and Religion are not two mutually exclusive beings, clashing heads over specific parts of each one does not make one or the other invalidated as many people in this thread seem to think.

And I really need to stress that it is not an "All out war" between the two, and should not be an all out war.

I think you misinterpreted what I'm saying.

Religion and science, in my view, are mutually exclusive at their fundamental level. The battle isn't between religion and science exactly, but between superstitious faith and skepticism.

Science requires people to always be skeptical, to always seek a better, more accurate answer. Nothing is to be trusted except direct, repeated observation, and even then people are skeptical about whether or not their senses are fooling them. This attitude weeds out bad ideas, and constantly drives us to seek a better and better understanding of the universe.

Religion usually requires some degree of the exact opposite, unquestioning faith in the decree of an authority. What the Bible says is true simply because it's The Holy Book, and no evidence that can be gathered by mortal man can hope to disprove it. Even if it can be shown to be logically inconsistent, it's still true. Do not question it, just abide by it.

The two attitudes cannot exist peacefully together, as they will inevitably clash. It might not be an all-out war, but there is a lot of tension. The subject of this topic is one of the areas where the tension is the worst, but there's inevitably others that I can't think of.

[Okami]

I know the truth won't be accepted by everyone. That's a problem with people though.

How is it not natural? Simply because it doesn't happen without human intervention? If they argue that, the logical conclusion is that humans themselves are unnatural, and should not exist in the world.

And the Amish do use technology. They just place arbitrary limits on the technology they deem acceptable to use. Wheels, clothing, levers, even something as simple as a stone used to crush things with are all examples of technology.

Scientists use the Earth to make things too. What are the other methods you think scientists use, paranormal seances? The only thing that is possible for any human to do is manipulate the Earth around us. Scientists just pursue ever more advanced and powerful means of manipulation.

Plastics are formed by chemically modifying crude oil, which comes from the ground and was formed by decaying plant matter. Computers are made with metals and semiconductors mined from the ground put in very intricate formations. Electricity is made using magnetic fields or chemical reactions, and carried over copper or aluminum wire, both of which are metals mined from the Earth.

The discovery of germs as not unnatural either. It was done by human's manipulating the Earth around them to be able to observe things normally unseen. Microscopes use glass, which is just melted sand, in special shapes and configurations to manipulate light in a way that allows our eye to see things extremely small.

People, irrational and superstitious people, are causing the problems. Religion is just the excuse they use.

I know how you feel. "Toughing it out" isn't always viable, since the unconscious influence our brain has on our behavior can be VERY powerful.

I'm almost ashamed to say that I used to be of a similar kind of mind as the people that looked down on you for using meds, until about halfway through senior year when I realized first hand just how powerful the brain can be in thwarting your conscious mind.

Without going into too many details, my brain completely and utterly rejected Literature class. No matter what I tried, I could not get around it. I ended up dropping out and graduating 6 months late with literally just enough credits to pass.

It wasn't because I was stupid. Far from it, I was easily one of the smartest people in my school. My brain just totally rejected the class, and it didn't help that A) it was a required class that I had to pass and B) I had failed one semester the year before, so I had to take two during senior year. The seeds of a crash had been sown several years before, probably in middle school, but with a double load of Literature and impending graduation, I nose dived.

If people were to call me weak for that, I would respond, "Of course I am. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have a problem."

Exactly. As for me, I have a chemical imbalance and low serotonin levels, contributing to what is known as 'major depression,' more commonly known as 'clinical depression.'

I used to be one of those people that thought people could just 'snap out of it,' whether it be beliefs, moods, etc. (I used to be, as a new Christian, one of the types to 'shove my beliefs down your throat' I learned the hard way that that is absolutely NOT what you want to do) When I began seeing difficulties in my Junior year of HS, I realized school was overwhelming and I was anxious all the time...which eventually led to my personal downfall and my seeking of psychological treatment, which later led to medication.

Medication is truly a wonderful thing. Without it, I'd still be self-destructive and apathetic...all. the. time. It's the only thing that keeps me balanced in my unipolarness.

That's why I love psychology, though. I love the distinct differences between un/sub/conscious. I love Freud's theory of the Super/Ego and the ID. Those are things that intrigue me, unlike hard science which I find hard to grasp and mathematics.

[Jiggy-Ninja]

Those are things that intrigue me, unlike hard science which I find hard to grasp and mathematics.

I find mathematics quite easy, to a degree. I'm a very visual person. It's hard for me to understand something without a visual. With a visual, it's really easy.

Because of that, I can understand calculus really well, at least until there gets to be more than 4 dimensions (3 spatial + time). Beyond that, and I'm lost.

[Illithian]

Whats hardest for me to understand is how hypocritical Floot seems to be.

Humans didn't use some sort of sadist magic to create medication. Everything that a human could create could also be created by nature and used for the exact same purpose.

Scientists don't cause disputes. They publish information. People take that information, apply it to their beliefs. If they don't like it (or the person who published it...), they will start a religious dispute about it. Otherwise, they'll accept it and move on.

I really cannot understand the idea of refusing to take medication, yet using so many different human created tools around you. Are computers and antibiotics different? Yes. But computers are thousands of times more complex then penicillin, one of the most influential and used antibiotics that just so happens to be a random discovery of nature, totally "unedited" by humans.

Now, once we get into the human genome and editing DNA, I can fully understand religious controversy against that, but not against technologies that even those who argue against them use and accept.

And scientists most certainly do NOT force their kids not to be religious. You're extending an absolutely minuscule stereotype of scientists onto all scientists (and if you're doing that, I could easily say all religious people are extremists who cause huge wars and don't accept any other beliefs under any conditions at all), which is simply ridiculous.

[Enkidu]

I think you misinterpreted what I'm saying.

Religion and science, in my view, are mutually exclusive at their fundamental level. The battle isn't between religion and science exactly, but between superstitious faith and skepticism.

Science requires people to always be skeptical, to always seek a better, more accurate answer. Nothing is to be trusted except direct, repeated observation, and even then people are skeptical about whether or not their senses are fooling them. This attitude weeds out bad ideas, and constantly drives us to seek a better and better understanding of the universe.

Religion usually requires some degree of the exact opposite, unquestioning faith in the decree of an authority. What the Bible says is true simply because it's The Holy Book, and no evidence that can be gathered by mortal man can hope to disprove it. Even if it can be shown to be logically inconsistent, it's still true. Do not question it, just abide by it.

The two attitudes cannot exist peacefully together, as they will inevitably clash. It might not be an all-out war, but there is a lot of tension. The subject of this topic is one of the areas where the tension is the worst, but there's inevitably others that I can't think of.

I meant "Agree with Zarfur " I'm sorry. And to clarify, I'm not saying that there will be no clashing, no tension and whatever other disputes may arise from it. I was just stating that each particular belief does not invalidate the other to the extent that people say it does, and arguments can be toned down. Saying " I believe in science" is not saying " Religion is worthless and has no place in the world. " and Vice versa. Saying "I believe in religion" is not saying " Science is a blasphemy, the greatest of all sins, it needs o be halted and replaced with gods worship " Which is how people seem to respond to debates like this one.

The battle isn't between religion and science exactly, but between superstitious faith and skepticism.

Science supports skepticism , but just as much relies on assumptions as Religion, the main difference is that unless those assumptions are corroborated, have a real world basis for that specific claim/proposition and can then be backed up and applied to ( or in some cases rewrite ) current theories/truths they are discarded because there is no evidence for them, whereas religion puts emphasis that it is faith that is required ( over sciences evidence in this case ) in the face of doubt and evidence to continue to believe ( without proof ) in those beliefs.

Most people are also attracted to religion because of the sense of community and comfort it provides. Even more so in times of sickness, death, emotional problems and social dilemma's. They no longer have to think for themselves, God created the world, If I'm good I go to heaven, the corrupt will be punished in the next life et ctera.

[evandixon]

The way scientists found that the earth is billions of years old is through the Radio-Carbon dating method, which is the most accurate up to 5000 years. 4.5 billion is just a number, with no real meaning. The LORD created the world himself.

[Turtlekid2]

Whoo. Nice long thread we've got here, fellas.

Now, at the risk of being labeled a religious fanatic on yet another message board:

I'm a Christian. A reformed, five points of Calvinism, sovereignty of God Christian to be precise. As such, I believe he created the universe himself, ex nihilo. I believe that he put in every species certain genes that would allow them to develop into several different types, but I find the idea that through a series of accidents, one species can evolve into another species, quite ludicrous.

The most common response I get from Darwinists is "what proof is there that your god exists?" My answer, for the record, would be "about as much proof as there is for Darwinism." That is, none. Christianity and Darwinism are both faiths, people. Their respective followers will both swear that their respective beliefs are the right ones.

I'm no exception.

The world has seen too many events in the history of the world that were first predicted in the Bible to doubt its accuracy (the fall of Rome, anyone?); too many observations about human nature that have been proven correct time and again (namely, the human tendency to deny God and put man in His place). There are also scientific principles in the Bible that some didn't accept until years later (roundness of the earth, anyone?)

Furthermore (and I know this has been brought up before now): I truly believe that if Darwinism is right, nothing can be wrong. If we are all the result of an accident, there is no basis for law or morality. Seriously, guys, if I'm an accident, what right does anyone in power have to govern me? If I'm an accident, I might as well do whatever the heck I want and enjoy myself, no? I think I'll go rob some guy because I want that flat-screen TV of his, and he has no more right to it than I do because he's an accident, too. Right?

Darwinism, if followed through consistently, leads to anarchy and chaos. And make no mistake, some Darwinists want anarchy; the whole religion of Darwinism was started to dodge God, after all.

[Enkidu]

I'm a Christian. A reformed, five points of Calvinism, sovereignty of God Christian to be precise. As such, I believe he created the universe himself, ex nihilo. I believe that he put in every species certain genes that would allow them to develop into several different types, but I find the idea that through a series of accidents, one species can evolve into another species, quite ludicrous.

If you really think that you can sum up Evolution as "a series of accidents" whereupon " Species evolve into other species" you'd best go do some research and please try and understand what the theory actually stands for, not what to me seems like you ripping off of another Pro-God missionary statement, that simply try's to attack evolution instead of providing points or resources for their own side. I'm really not going to continue explaining the theory of evolution to people who seem to not care what it actually means, I'm sorry.

The most common response I get from Darwinists is "what proof is there that your god exists?" My answer, for the record, would be "about as much proof as there is for Darwinism." That is, none. Christianity and Darwinism are both faiths, people. Their respective followers will both swear that their respective beliefs are the right ones.

I'm no exception.

Actually I don't believe a single intelligent evolutionist would ever say "what proof is there that your god exists?" as that isn't trying to prove their own point, just attack the opposition. And in fact, it is not Evolutionists that say god does not exist, but they try to explain things without the use of god. It is you religious folk who seem to take the theory out of context and attack it from the position "god exists" whereupon it is simply a theory that attempts to explain the natural order of the world through evidence we have gained to the best of our knowledge.

For some reason this automatically means that we are all out attacking religion, which is not true. After which point we are met with incredible hostility under a variety of circumstances, and you expect us to not get angry when Atheists are actually discriminated against more ( % wise ) than a slew of minorities in racist america?

But yes, your right. The theory doesn't use God as a means to explain how everything came to be.

The world has seen too many events in the history of the world that were first predicted in the Bible to doubt its accuracy (the fall of Rome, anyone?); too many observations about human nature that have been proven correct time and again (namely, the human tendency to deny God and put man in His place). There are also scientific principles in the Bible that some didn't accept until years later (roundness of the earth, anyone?)

Great, evidence! And the same can be said about Evolution, where humanity has made an enormous amount of advancements due to the application of the theory of Evolution in Biology ( where without it, many working and tested methods don't even make sense ) but the fact that they work in lieu of evolution, means that the theory has at least some credibility.

Furthermore (and I know this has been brought up before now): I truly believe that if Darwinism is right, nothing can be wrong. If we are all the result of an accident, there is no basis for law or morality. Seriously, guys, if I'm an accident, what right does anyone in power have to govern me? If I'm an accident, I might as well do whatever the heck I want and enjoy myself, no? I think I'll go rob some guy because I want that flat-screen TV of his, and he has no more right to it than I do because he's an accident, too. Right?

Your kidding right? This kind of argument has no place in a debate, again I'm sorry.

Hypothetically, if God were disproven right now, would you lose your sense of morals and runa round doing whatever you want?

Hell, actually since I don't believe in god does that mean I believe in nothing and have no morals?

The way scientists found that the earth is billions of years old is through the Radio-Carbon dating method, which is the most accurate up to 5000 years. 4.5 billion is just a number, with no real meaning. The LORD created the world himself.

Actually we can accurately date the world back roughly 100,000 years give or take a few years. Billions of years is our estimation using methods that work, but provide a slightly inaccurate answer, hence why it's always stated "approximately" as we know that out answer is not 100% correct in that regard.

Darwinism, if followed through consistently, leads to anarchy and chaos. And make no mistake, some Darwinists want anarchy; the whole religion of Darwinism was started to dodge God, after all.

First off if you have read the first post you would understand that it is not Darwinism vs Religion that is being debated here. The OP doesn't have a clear grasp of what it is exactly he's arguing against and is using an incorrect term for what he attempts to refute.

Darwinism is a term used for various movements or concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin. Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term.[

And finally

A pejorative (also term of abuse or term of disparagement), as a noun, means a word or phrase that implies disapproval or contempt and is meant to be insulting, impolite, or unkind: "A belittling or disparaging word or expression." When used as an adjective, pejorative is synonymous with derogatory, derisive, dyslogistic, and contemptuous. Standards of politeness limit the use of pejoratives.

[Turtlekid2]

For some reason this automatically means that we are all out attacking religion, which is not true. After which point we are met with incredible hostility under a variety of circumstances, and you expect us to not get angry when Atheists are actually discriminated against more ( % wise ) than a slew of minorities in racist america?

Well, of course. Ethnicity just isn't a factor for most people anymore. Discriminating against religion is the new racism.

Great, evidence! And the same can be said about Evolution, where humanity has made an enormous amount of advancements due to the application of the theory of Evolution in Biology ( where without it, many working and tested methods don't even make sense ) but the fact that they work in lieu of evolution, means that the theory has at least some credibility.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Could you expound, if it's not too much trouble?

Your kidding right? This kind of argument has no place in a debate, again I'm sorry.

Hypothetically, if God were disproven right now, would you lose your sense of morals and runa round doing whatever you want?

Well, I would hardly have a reason to hold on to my morals if there's no gain to be had from following them.

Hell, actually since I don't believe in god does that mean I believe in nothing and have no morals?

If you were a consistent atheist, that's exactly what it would mean. I thank God every day for such inconsistencies.

Thank you for your civility in your answers. It seems to be rarer and rarer in these types of debates. :smile: