Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Is science fact or faith


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 746 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 14:59:52 GMT
Spin says:
IN; I oppose "organised religion", not "religion" per se (unless it advocates a belief in alien prophets or a Judaic Messiah that crossed the Atlantic and settled outside New York... =)

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 15:05:33 GMT
G. Heron says:
glorify the LORD

In Euclid's Elements, Euclid starts with some definitions and some axioms, based on these he constructs many theorems and proves them to be true. The whole thing is logically consistent. The only problem is that in reality spacetime is curved when near any object with mass so Euclidean geometry is at best an approximation of reality.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 15:11:31 GMT
Spin says:
G; Indeed. Euclidean geometry is "outdated". As is Newtons laws.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 15:16:09 GMT
Ian says:
"the reason for my belief is the Bible and Koran. the overall logical trajectory of it. anything beyond this is exess. (am i not allowed this?)"

You're allowed to believe for any reason you like, however you keep trying to tell is there is a logical reason for your belief ("on 3 Mar 2013 20:59:09 GMT glorify the LORD says: ... at least there are logical arguments for belief. ") and then withholding these arguments.

What do you mean by "the overall logical trajectory of it"? Do you just mean that it seems to make sense to you, or do you mean there is some logic here?

If the latter could you explain the logic...

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 16:06:43 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Mar 2013 16:07:20 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 16:12:45 GMT
Ian says:
I've read parts of The Bible. There was no logic to it. I suppose it's possible the logic was revealed in the bits I missed out, but it seems unlikely; the thing is contradictory and implausible.

I considered reading the whole of The Bible as a young man, but having made a start decided there were more important things in life. So I read some George Orwell, William Golding and Ray Bradbury instead. I found more logic there than I did in The Bible but I never believed any of the stories to be true.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 16:15:34 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 16:18:08 GMT
Ian says:
OK.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 17:49:18 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 4 Mar 2013 19:35:17 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Mar 2013 23:04:14 GMT
Corby Ken,

Your proctologist just rang. He's found your head.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 19:46:59 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Mar 2013 19:47:21 GMT
Bellatori says:
I have read the bible end to end along with the apocrypha. I have to say that it makes an entertaining read if you miss out the bits in the NT down to Paul who is a boring prig. He clearly felt he had behaved badly, had a conversion of some sort and spent the rest of his life being nauseatingly 'holier than thou'. Miss out those bits and it is up there with Gaskill, Cooksen & Austen. Its not Shakespear but give it its due,it certainly has murder, mayhem and mystery...

I have a copy of the Koran on my desktop. I read it for interest. Like the bible there is much to enjoy. Frankly I have a lot of respect for Mohammed. Were there life after death I wonder what he thinks of his followers now. He would be crying with pain and confusion at what is being done in his name. A brilliant man betrayed.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 21:49:14 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Ryan- thanks for the laugh.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 21:51:32 GMT
Bellatori says:
Made me smile to...

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 22:01:14 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 22:16:30 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Mar 2013 22:17:40 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"You could just as easily say that you have not seen one fact that suggests that any God does 'not' exist."
Yes because that's what you get when things don't exist too. It does a hypothesis no good to wallow in how un-disproven it is.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 23:02:16 GMT
DB,

There is an easy way to resolve this - although I'm not holding my breath.

Why do you not just show the evidence you have that God exists. You must have some otherwise you have none! If you have no evidence that God exists but you still believe he does, then this is wishful thinking. If you have evidence but can't show it or won't then I'd assume you're lying. If you have evidence that only you can understand this is delusional.
You seem to think you can blow atheism away by demanding it has evidence of God not existing. So what you want is evidence to prove something. Turning that back on yourself - you need evidence to show God exists then. If you cannot provide evidence for God, you cannot demand evidence for God's non-existence as you are having your cake and eating it. Either show your evidence or stop asking others for their evidence (of which there can be none because it doesn't exist).

In any case, I cannot remember the number of times you have been told that something which does not exist cannot leave evidence. But a fact that god doesn't exist - needless child suffering, tsunamis that kill religious people and babies alike, bubonic plague/smallpox, wasps that live inside live spiders and eat their way out, evolution, the universe, genetic disability, lack of genuine miracles, physics, god killing everyone in a flood, the bible etc etc

Posted on 4 Mar 2013 23:07:32 GMT
Any particular favourites by Golding, I.N.?

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 23:15:50 GMT
Ian says:
"Darkness Visible" (and of course Lord of the Flies).

Posted on 4 Mar 2013 23:17:30 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Mar 2013 23:18:02 GMT
For interest, do you know what Lord of the Flies was originally called, when Golding was sending it out?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2013 08:45:07 GMT
Bellatori says:
Lord of the Zipper?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2013 08:54:26 GMT
Bellatori says:
Diane, your argument does not work. I can name any imaginary thing and then demand that you provide evidence that it does not exist.

How about ...

Leprechauns
Pink Unicorns
8-legged aliens
Superman
Dragons
Mermaids
The Mekon

You cannot 'prove' they do not exist BUT there is not one jot of evidence that they do.

Similarly my atheism is based on the one fact... no evidence for any 'God' has ever been brought forward that survived scrutiny.

"You say there is 'not one jot of evidence'. To state this as fact is illogical. What you really mean is that you are not aware of any evidence. It is not possible for you to know all the evidence in the world. It may be that there is evidence to be discovered. It may be that the evidence exists, that others believe it, but that you have dismissed it. It may be that you are unable to understand the evidence when you see it."
This is fair comment if you only allow myself to have had an opinion, however there are many atheists of varying degrees of intellect, skills and persuasions who have viewed and reviewed the 'evidence' and found it comes up short.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2013 09:20:16 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Hi Bellatori, I (and others) have posted similar things for a long time. She is just incapable of seeing anything apart from catholic dogma. If you wanted evidence of how corrosive religion is to a brain you need look no further than Diane.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2013 11:25:54 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2013 11:36:27 GMT
HotFXMan says:
Actually, Clive, I think it's very sad. I have little doubt that if we met Diane (sorry - Polly Puppymum) in real life, she would be a perfectly ordinary, pleasant person. My wife's parents were Roman Catholic and they were perfectly ordinary, really nice people. As were many of their friends that I got to know over the years. They all, to a greater or lesser extent, had the layman's knowledge of scientific discoveries and the nature of the Universe common to most reasonably well-educated, comfortably-off people in the UK in the late twentieth century.

However, without exception, when they went through the doors of their church, they became different people. I know this because I accompanied them many times to Sunday Mass. In order to understand it, you have to experience it and you can bet your last cent that if I could wave a wand and eliminate Roman Catholicism from the face of this planet, I would do it in an instant.

No doubt Polly will interpret this as me wishing to eliminate Roman Catholics from the face of the planet but you, at least, understand what I mean.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2013 11:38:30 GMT
Last edited by the author on 5 Mar 2013 11:39:56 GMT
G. Heron says:
DB

I came to this discussion late so I would like to take time to address your opening post.

"The history of science is of one theory replacing another."
True

"Each theory at the time is crusaded by those who believe it, and evidence is produced. It is presented as absolute truth."
Absolutely not. No scientist worth the name has ever claimed that any theory is the absolutely truth. Some theories now have so much supporting evidence that it would be a great surprise if they were ever over turned ( the atomic theory of matter is one such) but no theory has ever been presented as absolute truth.

"The scientist is absolutely certain of his theory."
No, a scientist may think his theory is beautify, brilliant and the greatest thing since sliced bread but
he will also know that if it is not supported by the evidence, if it does not agree with experiment then it is wrong and will end up in the bucket.

"The theory is then evidenced and presented as fact, which we are told to believe."
No the theory is tested and tested and then tested again. Einsteins two theories of relativity have dominated science for 100 years and scientist are still looking for new ways to test them.

"People and scientists of each age have believed these theories absolutely, until they have been disproved by the next age."

Some people may have believed particular theories to be absolutely true but this is an error on their part and not one I would expect from scientists.

"So
Science does make mistakes and sometimes contradicts itself"

Science is certainly not infallible and is subject to errors and even deliberate fraud in some cases, however the nature of the scientific method with its reliance on testing wil uncover these eventually.

"Be wary of sticking to the science of the age as the ultimate truth."
Don't be wary of it just never ever do it.

"The science that is held strongly today, could be the science that is on the junk pile in a hundred years or so."
True.

"If you are pinning your atheism solely to the science of today, you may just be acting on faith."
And acting on faith is an error.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  43
Total posts:  746
Initial post:  2 Mar 2013
Latest post:  13 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions