# My Wife is Afraid of God-fearing Americans



## possumkiller (Jun 6, 2013)

Ok so....

My wife is Polish. She is Polish Catholic. She thinks Poland is a pretty religious/churchy kind of place. She had never been to America until she moved here to Florida with me. We now live in a very small town with a population of about 7,000 that contains about twenty different churches. Like some serious southern redneck yelling and screaming hitting people on the forehead talking in jibberish jumping around hand waving type churches. She was surprised that people here are so closed-minded toward everything else in the world and that they simply refuse to acknowledge anything apart from a literal reading of the Bible as being truth. 

Last night we watched this NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
and now she is worried about our son growing up in America and going through the American school system.

I grew up here in this town so I was not really surprised. However, I guess it is a pretty sad fact that the majority of Americans still will not be convinced that evolution is real.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 6, 2013)

It's all sensationalism. Most people in the US don't think evolution is false. You can find dozens upon dozens of polls, some from "respectable" polling sources, but numbers like this are bullshit. Unless you literally ask everyone, you're going to have a problem with the sample. Even if they poll 100,000 people it's still ~.03% of people in this nation. 

If the greater majority thought evolution was false we'd have MUCH bigger issues at hand then we currently do. 

Don't fall for the media game.


----------



## possumkiller (Jun 6, 2013)

Yeah, I told her that location can play a large role and that she would probably feel a lot more comfortable living in a more progressive area.

EDIT: I grew up being taught evolution in school. My family are Christians and my father's side are pretty hard-core. They were always trying to "de-program" me after school. So basically when I was growing up, my idea was that the devil had somehow taken control of the government and took Christianity out of the school system. So it was ok if I didn't listen to what they had to say because they were going to burn in Hell for all eternity and I was going to heaven. The general belief in my area is that people who do not follow the same faith need to be deported, imprisoned, or killed. 

I also showed my wife some of the "Church Gone Wild" videos on youtube because she was wondering what going to church in my home town consisted of. She didn't believe me when I told her so I had to show her. After that, she said that she could never see someone participating in something like that and then see them later on the street or in a professional setting and be able to take them seriously. 

Because I grew up with it, I guess I am desensitized to it. However, after being away from it for so long and then seeing it again I can definitely say that southern Christian "rituals" are no less bizarre than any other religion or cult I have heard of.

DOUBLE EDIT: This was our anthem when I was in middle school LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VS_EiI3srM


----------



## Ginsu (Jun 6, 2013)

This is a subject that's always intrigued me, as I'm in a sort of constant search to develop myself mentally, and acquire as much knowledge as possible...you could call it a constant search for absolute truth. So here's my seven cents. (most of the time, people putting in their two cents seems to be a little shorter...then again, it might be about the same value, overall, so maybe I should leave it at two, maybe one, maybe it's even free. I suppose that depends on the individual reading it, and how much value they choose to place on my words. I think a penny's a good amount. *laugh*)

I've also kind of wanted to make a statement on this for quite some time.

I don't think it's particularly fair to immediately say Evolution is true and anything that's not Evolution with regard to the world coming to be is ridiculous. Although I do agree that some churches are completely insane, the sort you are describing in particular, and mistreating anyone because of any belief in anything or anyone is objectively wrong. Simply because someone believes something differently than you doesn't mean you can't learn from them, and vice-versa.

I believe that science is as fallible as anything else, as if we abstract it, it is merely a way of observing the world around us, no? Even if it is observed by people who are trained in observing particular fields, there is still a possibility for error (albeit a much smaller one than just a random person pulled off the street). I am not saying Evolution is wrong, mind you. 

I believe that the Bible is true, and I also believe that a lot of people like the people in the churches you're describing are misinterpreting a lot of it, or ignoring parts they don't like. Yes, it is indeed sensationalism, and it's sad, because a lot of those same people are missing out on deeper truths that I think would make them better people and help them to live happier lives. If you're going to believe something, you may as well do it right, hmm? *laugh*

I believe that scoffing or turning down ANY source of learning is also wrong, although that's not objective, simply a personal stance. I would be just as happy to learn from Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, or Richard Dawkins as I would from Billy Graham, Charles Stanley, or A.W Tozer, assuming they would respect my beliefs (though unfortunately, I've no guarantee on either front). I will glean as much from a science textbook, or Darwin's "the Origin of Species" as I will from the Bible, or as I would from any other religious text, though I've yet to find time to read any others (Bibles are quite a bit more readily available thus far, having grown up in a church, with a father who's both a devout Christian and a doctor, who takes a similar stance to my own), as much as I'd like to. Really, simply because you don't believe something is no reason to shut it out. You just need to use discernment, and apply the knowledge and wisdom to things throughout life, regardless of your source of learning.

Ironically, these same people are not following their holy book particularly well, as there is a verse in the book of Proverbs that likens telling people things they don't want to hear or believe to throwing pearls before swine...this really applies to both parties, actually. It is not calling those who don't believe in something (or anything) swine, but rather pointing out the fallacy in giving someone knowledge they will only refuse....a pig is not going to be able to appreciate being given a pearl. I think a more modern (and humorous) analogy is that of a lapdog whose owner has put clothes upon it. Does the dog find that comfortable in any way? It's doubtful. The dog does not appreciate it. Seems rather pointless, no? It makes the owner feel better, though, because they think they're improving the dog's life. It's the same principle. The owner is the person speaking of their beliefs, the dog is the listener. No matter whether the &#8220;owner&#8221; in the equation is an Atheist, a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist...telling people they ought to believe a certain thing is ridiculous, and while you may think you're improving their life (or the world, as if somehow by disparaging foolishness we are making the world a better, more &#8220;learned&#8221; place, which is foolishness itself), unless they're willing to listen, it's utterly pointless. It is best to share one's knowledge with those who are willing to listen (and the people on here seem to be somewhat reasonable most of the time, as opposed to most forums I have visited in the past).

I believe that even if one doesn't believe in religion at all (which I respect, if I've not made that clear), that the Bible (and by extension, all religious texts) are a valuable source of wisdom (with the above as an example, particularly the book of Proverbs...I've known hardcore atheists who would subscribe to wisdom from it, in fact.) 

In short, I believe in micro-evolution, small-e evolution, if you will. However, I'd rather not get into a debate, personally, and I fully respect what you believe. 

-The two cents of an intelligent Christian (yes, it's possible).


----------



## possumkiller (Jun 6, 2013)

If only there were more of you lol. 

That is all you can really ask of a person. I know I often poke fun at religion but honestly I really don't care what people believe in as long is it is no harm to others. I love to learn about all religions and cultures. I find other views and beliefs interesting. When I was in Iraq, I got a Quran from the local Iraqi Police commander. I have no idea what it says because it is not in English but I respect the religion and the symbolism of the text. However, when people become closed-minded and hostile I lose respect for them and their beliefs; not their religion but their own personal view.


----------



## Ginsu (Jun 6, 2013)

possumkiller said:


> If only there were more of you lol.
> 
> That is all you can really ask of a person. I know I often poke fun at religion but honestly I really don't care what people believe in as long is it is no harm to others. I love to learn about all religions and cultures. I find other views and beliefs interesting. When I was in Iraq, I got a Quran from the local Iraqi Police commander. I have no idea what it says because it is not in English but I respect the religion and the symbolism of the text. However, when people become closed-minded and hostile I lose respect for them and their beliefs; not their religion but their own personal view.



I certainly don't blame you for that. *laugh* I do the same. We all do, nobody wants somebody else to tell us "you're wrong", and we put up natural defenses and all that, especially when it's something that holds a lot of value to us.

Really, the problem arises when people start telling other people what they should believe, which the church seems to get wrong pretty often (I've known both Christians and Atheists who were very accepting of others, and plenty who were not so much). There's a big difference between "Hey, this is something really cool I found and I want to see what you think" and "Hey, you better believe this, or you're an idiot and you'll suffer for it". *laugh* The people you live near seem to lean towards the second of those, unfortunately, and I sympathize, because I can't stand them either.


----------



## Hollowway (Jun 6, 2013)

So she's a God fearing American fearing Polish-American?


----------



## Jakke (Jun 6, 2013)

Ginsu said:


> I don't think it's particularly fair to immediately say Evolution is true *and anything that's not Evolution with regard to the world coming to be is ridiculous*. Although I do agree that some churches are completely insane, the sort you are describing in particular, and mistreating anyone because of any belief in anything or anyone is objectively wrong. Simply because someone believes something differently than you doesn't mean you can't learn from them, and vice-versa.
> 
> I believe that science is as fallible as anything else, as if we abstract it, it is merely a way of observing the world around us, no? Even if it is observed by people who are trained in observing particular fields, there is still a possibility for error (albeit a much smaller one than just a random person pulled off the street). I am not saying Evolution is wrong, mind you.



First of all; yes it would be ridiculous to make such a claim, as evolution do not deal with the birth of this planet, nor with the start of life itself, only with the diverification of species. It's a common creationist strawman to shout:
"AND WHAT DOES EVILUTION SAY ABOUT THE START OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM??!?!? RIGHT!!! NOTHING!!! SO MUCH FOR THAT "THEORY"!!!


Yes, it wouldn't have been fair to say that "evolution is true" directly after Darwin had written "On The Origin of Species". That was quite a while ago though, and the evidence has kept pilling up, both for micro, and macro evolution (even though I dislike those terms, as they have been hijacked by creationists).


We have studied evolution for 150 years by now, while science cannot be 100% proven, it can be indirectly proven by the massive amounts of evidence available. If something is going to change in how we view evolution, it is going to be in how it works, not wheather it exists or not. This has for example happened in the discussion of in what way evolution works; if it is by gradualism, or by punctuated equilibrium (which yours truly has his money on). 


This discussion can get really infected between biologists, because which one is more likely has not been decided yet. Gradualism was proposed by Darwin himself, and poses that species evolve at a slow and steady rate, while punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Dr. Stephen Jay Gould (one of the more brilliant scientists we've had), and it proposes that species can spend many, many years barely evolving at all, until there is an open niche and they evolve quite rapidly (in evolutionary terms of course, we are still talking about thousands and thousands of years). 

There is also massive amounts of indirect evidence for evolution, such as that almost nothing of the proven science in biology would work without evolution, or that we can make very complex computer programs by using evolutionary mechanisms.

So no, even if you probably are comforted by that those scientists with fancy letters behind their names might be wrong, they are not wrong about the existence of evolution. We have studied the subject far too long, and we've seen it connect to too many other subjects and fields of study to be wrong. Yes, science is the study of the world around us, but isn't the study of this world very applicable on this world in particular? I don't even get how this is an argument...




Ginsu said:


> and mistreating anyone because of any belief in anything or anyone is objectively wrong.



I have to challenge this, as all beliefs and opinions are not equal.




Ginsu said:


> Simply because someone believes something differently than you doesn't mean you can't learn from them, and vice-versa.



If only how to not do something, like how a creationist tries to understand evolution.


----------



## mniel8195 (Jun 6, 2013)

glad i live in seattle...


----------



## Jakke (Jun 6, 2013)

mniel8195 said:


> glad i live in seattle...



You mean where the air is made of rain and the streets are paved with heroin?


----------



## Ginsu (Jun 6, 2013)

Jakke said:


> :evolution stuff:



My goodness. I never said it was outright wrong, I simply said it's not what I believed, and that it wasn't objectively right. Excuse my lapse in terminology, I frequently misuse the term "evolution" as a catch-all for the "scientific equivalent", so-to-speak, of the creation theory. You seem to think macroevolution is fact, and that's fine with me. However, you're starting an argument that I already said I will not partake in. I would appreciate you respecting my beliefs, as well as that statement, since I have nothing to say against you. Thank you.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 6, 2013)

Ginsu said:


> My goodness. I never said it was outright wrong, I simply said it's not what I believed, and that it wasn't objectively right. Excuse my lapse in terminology, I frequently misuse the term "evolution" as a catch-all for the opposite of the creation theory. You seem to think evolution is fact, and that's fine with me. However, you're starting an argument that I already said I will not partake in. I would appreciate you respecting my beliefs, as well as that statement, since I have nothing to say against you. Thank you.



Well, that's the great thing about facts; they're there, even if you don't believe in them. You can disbelieve gravity all you want, but if you jump out of a tall building, you're still getting crushed by it.
I do not "think" that evolution happened, all the available evidence we have points to it having happened, and that is my stance. Now, you aim to believe true things, correct? Thus by implication, you saying "I don't believe in evolution" is the same thing as saying "evolution does not exist", as evolution cannot exist for one person, and exist for someone else.

As for "respecting" your beliefs; respect for them is to let you have them, not letting them stand unchallenged, as they relate to objectively testable science, and therefore is not only down to a person's opinion. If you do not want them challenged, or having your statements corrected, then you should not state them in an open forum such as this. Prefacing it with: "Guys, I really don't want to discuss this" is kind of strange when participating in a discussion forum.

Creation is not a theory, a theory is a framwork of scientific observations that explain a phenomenon. Creation (by any religion) is at best a hypothesis.


So, you're free to not respond, but if you do not want anyone to challenge your beliefs:
1. Learn the science, so that people won't have to correct you. This is, again, not something that is subjective, such as "I think this colour looks better than the other one" or "I think bagels taste like crap". Evolution either is, or is not, and the science seems to back me on this one. 
or
2. Don't voice your opinions in a place where people are freely allowed to respond. If you want a soap-box, get a blog instead and moderate it.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 6, 2013)

i love the evolution debate in America because the word "evolution" here is a coded statement. 

its used by media because they know the debate has been poorly framed (media's fault really) so that you get the "they too our jobs!" crowd to go nuts, and create a contrast. 

if the only two choices presented are rational and irrational which do you chose? you chose the rational every time because nobody wants to be shaved ape. but those aren't the only two choices. there are tons of religious people who believe in evolution and science but still like having church in their lives. but that isn't interesting television is it? of course not! why would anyone want to see stories about well adjusted people? 

when it comes down to it, it's about control. the sensationalism is a control tactic, because if you want to be seen as the shaved apes who cry foul when the E-word is mentioned, then you better ....ing agree with the messengers (media). 

sounds conspiracy theory-ish i know, but this is actually how most of Comm theory reads


----------



## ElRay (Jun 6, 2013)

Ginsu said:


> ... I don't think it's particularly fair to immediately say Evolution is true and anything that's not Evolution with regard to the world coming to be is ridiculous. ...



Actually, it is very fair. Not 100% of the questions have been answered; however, there is a tremendous body of evidence that supports Evolution and there are no competing theories that fit the data any better. There is *ZERO* evidence that supports Creationism. There is *ZERO* evidence that supports Intelligent Design. In addition, Intelligent Design is internally flawed because any creator had to have a creator, back to the first creator(s), who either "evolved" on their own (conflicting the initial premise) or is the omnipotent invisible buddy from Creationism.

You can believe what you want, that doesn't change the data, facts, conclusions, etc. You can't claim to be an "Intelligent Christian" and spew nonsense like "it's not what I believed, and that it wasn't objectively right" and "misuse the term "evolution" as a catch-all". You also can't be an "Intelligent Christian" and confound, muddle, discombobulate, confuse:
The initial state and expansion of the universe
Formation of stars, planets, galaxies, etc.
Abiogenesis
Evolution
You have contradicted your claim by clearly proving that you do not know what you're talking about and your "beliefs" hold as much weight as:
Tooth-Fairy Mitagated Dental Migration
Saturnaila Gift Distribution via Caribou Powered Winter Vehicles
Pigeon-blood cures for Leprosy (Lev 14-1:32)
Infidelity Detection via Dirt & Holy Water Consumption (Numbers 5:11-28)
etc.
The simple fact that you state, "I will glean as much from a science textbook, or Darwin's "the Origin of Species" as I will from the Bible, or as I would from any other religious text" is proof that you are too scientifically illiterate to debate Evolution and your claim to be an "Intelligent Christian" is pure arrogance of ignorance.

Finally freedom of religion is not equivalent to "Let me spew my unsupported, reality defying, nonsense in a public forum and you can't refute my statements with facts and logic." If your "beliefs" can't stand-up to a little rational skepticism, then they're not too strong to begin with.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Jun 6, 2013)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's all sensationalism. ...



Actually Max, I'll chalk this up to you not quite understanding statistics, sampling errors, and succumbing to observational biases. Sure the studies do not sample a tremendous fraction of the U.S. population, but they sample enough to be an adequate cross-section of the population

I will say that I very likely have a much better feel for what the U.S. is as a population than you do: I'm older, I've lived in more locations, I've traveled more, etc. and from what I've seen, the surveys are pretty spot-on.

Ray


----------



## Ginsu (Jun 6, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Don't voice your opinions in a place where people are freely allowed to respond. If you want a soap-box, get a blog instead and moderate it.


Ah. I apologize, and will keep this in mind in the future. Sometimes I forget the obvious things.


----------



## tommychains (Jun 6, 2013)

I'm actually an atheist, but was raised roman catholic. My grandmother was REALLY into it, and my sister was too. As I got older, I formed my own beliefs. They just happened to be be the complete opposite. The thing that really pisses me off is that everyone thinks I'm some hate spewing jackoff who hates anyone who's not sharing my beliefs. Like many religons, there's always people who will be the stereotype.

My bigger beefs are with the religous nuts. I respect your right to have them, but I do not respect the beliefs. You do not need to shove them down peoples throats and lash out against anyone who disagrees with you.

I'll stop there, I don't feel like taking up half the page with my ideology.


----------



## groverj3 (Jun 7, 2013)

Oh boy.

I was raised catholic, but in a more liberal area of the country. My parents had no problem with science and evoloution, etc. That being said, in my 20s after studying molecular biology and biochemistry, and having a passing interest in most other things scientific as well. I have decided that religion has no place in my life. Other people can believe what they want, but I think it's all a bunch of nonsense and I'm fine with telling them so. However, I don't go around berating people for whatever they think, I just quietly think to myself that they're wrong 

Honestly, I do think that the excessive religious nature of some parts of the US is holding us back in many ways. However, schools can't dabble in religious teachings, and can't openly try to contradict science (unless private and run by churches). This shouldn't be something to worry about. If you were to ever find out that they were doing this, there are channels to go through to raise hell  (metaphorically speaking). Since, school is for learning facts, if you choose to believe in something metaphysical then you can do that... at a church.

I'll say that, in my experience, the public school system here is in need of serious reform. However, one of the few things they do well is teach kids to think for themselves. That being said, I grew up quite a ways away from Florida. I'm with you in thinking you guys should be fine though.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 7, 2013)

I used to be a God-fearing American who feared eating Polish sausage.

That felt like a relevant thing to say.




Full disclosure: I now fear no God and think Polish sausage is delish, especially with some kraut. Mmmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## hairychris (Jun 7, 2013)

ElRay said:


> Actually, it is very fair. Not 100% of the questions have been answered; however, there is a tremendous body of evidence that supports Evolution and there are no competing theories that fit the data any better. There is *ZERO* evidence that supports Creationism. There is *ZERO* evidence that supports Intelligent Design. In addition, Intelligent Design is internally flawed because any creator had to have a creator, back to the first creator(s), who either "evolved" on their own (conflicting the initial premise) or is the omnipotent invisible buddy from Creationism.



I can't remember who it was that said something along the lines of "you're entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own evidence"...


----------



## ShadowAMD (Jun 7, 2013)

I work in R&D for technology, whilst I mainly spend time programming I get heavily involved in Physics. This slightly slant's my opinion on the whole subject although I'd place myself in the agnostic camp. 

I may be looking for something on a grander scale, but what we know now is from studying the environment. Signalling, electricity, gravity, evolutionary aspects etc. although we are far from a place where we can dictate what's right and wrong in the multi-verse. For every piece of evidence someone present's on grander matters I can write it off with a slew of questions nobody can answer. 

So where does that leave matters? There are scientific components which can't be denied.. Highly combustible liquids ignite and expel energy, gravity exists, we are a genetic mutation of our ancestors etc. all from researching the environment around us. When it all falls flat on it's ass is, how did it all happen? Then it's down to the least dumbest theory (2)..

Issues arise out of ignorance on either side, the inability to look past one avenue.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 7, 2013)




----------



## Eric Christian (Jun 7, 2013)

possumkiller said:


> Ok so....
> 
> My wife is Polish. She is Polish Catholic. She thinks Poland is a pretty religious/churchy kind of place. She had never been to America until she moved here to Florida with me. We now live in a very small town with a population of about 7,000 that contains about twenty different churches. Like some serious southern redneck yelling and screaming hitting people on the forehead talking in jibberish jumping around hand waving type churches. She was surprised that people here are so closed-minded toward everything else in the world and that they simply refuse to acknowledge anything apart from a literal reading of the Bible as being truth.
> 
> ...


 
Well first off Catholics are the main folks you really need to fear because all the priests like to bugger little boys. Bottom line the entire hierarchy of the Catholic "Church" starting from the Pope down is basically under Lucifer's control. There is a special place in Hell reserved for these idol worshiping pedophiles.

Secondly, the "Holy Rollers" are probably Pentecostals. Stay away from them as well with their speaking in "tongues" and their snake handling. Creepy stuff. So yeah, my purpose isn't to convert you or tell you what to do but your best course of action if you are interested is to find a chilled out Lutheran or Baptist church that uses the KJV.


----------



## ElRay (Jun 7, 2013)

ShadowAMD said:


> Issues arise out of ignorance on either side, the inability to look past one avenue.



True, but one side is self-correcting and has tons and tons and tons of supporting data and rational conclusions. The other has nothing but unsupported and often conflicting beliefs. What's worse, is that the theists are not only pathetically ignorant of reality and history, but woefully ignorant of their own doctrine and history and continue to arrogantly argue from their position of ignorance.

Ray


----------



## Jakke (Jun 7, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Well first off Catholics are the main folks you really need to fear because all the priests like to bugger little boys.



By the same logic, so does boy-scout leaders and protestant ministers. The truth is however that even if there are these things going on, it does still not speak for the organization as a whole.



Eric Christian said:


> Bottom line the entire hierarchy of the Catholic "Church" starting from the Pope down is basically under Lucifer's control. There is a special place in Hell reserved for these idol worshiping pedophiles.



If we assume 100% of the bible is true, the catholic church is divinely appointed by Jesus himself, as Peter got tasked by Jesus to build his church.

I were of course about to ask where you got this information (and most of all the proof of this) that the catholic church is ruled by the devil, but then I thought: "Don't be silly"



Eric Christian said:


> Secondly, the "Holy Rollers" are probably Pentecostals. Stay away from them as well with their speaking in "tongues" and their snake handling. Creepy stuff. So yeah, my purpose isn't to convert you or tell you what to do but your best course of action if you are interested is to find a chilled out Lutheran or Baptist church that uses the KJV.



While the pentecostals certainly are an odd bunch, their teachings are also based in the bible, as the disciples started to speak in tongues during the pentecost. We do however know that the bible is a smorgasbord for the believer, so I don't expect you to agree with this, as only "your" parts of the bible are _really_ parts of the bible.


----------



## possumkiller (Jun 7, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Well first off Catholics are the main folks you really need to fear because all the priests like to bugger little boys. Bottom line the entire hierarchy of the Catholic "Church" starting from the Pope down is basically under Lucifer's control. There is a special place in Hell reserved for these idol worshiping pedophiles.
> 
> Secondly, the "Holy Rollers" are probably Pentecostals. Stay away from them as well with their speaking in "tongues" and their snake handling. Creepy stuff. So yeah, my purpose isn't to convert you or tell you what to do but your best course of action if you are interested is to find a chilled out Lutheran or Baptist church that uses the KJV.


 
Yeah, I forgot that the King James Bible is the only one allowed down here. Any other translations are demonic treachery.


----------



## ShadowAMD (Jun 7, 2013)

ElRay said:


> True, but one side is self-correcting and has tons and tons and tons of supporting data and rational conclusions. The other has nothing but unsupported and often conflicting beliefs. What's worse, is that the theists are not only pathetically ignorant of reality and history, but woefully ignorant of their own doctrine and history and continue to arrogantly argue from their position of ignorance.
> 
> Ray



I get the point although we can't just generalise like that. Not everyone fit's that mould, I know someone who is a devout Christian and an Astrophysicist. Whilst I know what your getting at and in many cases irrational, unfounded, contradictive belief's never helps anyone. 

We can't just write off all religion because we have a small portion of fact's pertaining to how the world works.

I've seen cases of people dieing because they rejected modern medicine and the science that goes behind it. But I'll leave it at that, it's a can of worms..


----------



## trianglebutt (Jun 7, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Well first off Catholics are the main folks you really need to fear because all the priests like to bugger little boys. Bottom line the entire hierarchy of the Catholic "Church" starting from the Pope down is basically under Lucifer's control. There is a special place in Hell reserved for these idol worshiping pedophiles.
> 
> Secondly, the "Holy Rollers" are probably Pentecostals. Stay away from them as well with their speaking in "tongues" and their snake handling. Creepy stuff. So yeah, my purpose isn't to convert you or tell you what to do but your best course of action if you are interested is to find a chilled out Lutheran or Baptist church that uses the KJV.



That's a lot of hate in one post, especially considering Jesus was all about loving everyone. I was raised Catholic (now agnostic) and I know a lot of Catholics. Some happen to be very good friends of mine, some happen to be complete assholes. Just like people in general.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 7, 2013)

ShadowAMD said:


> I know someone who is a devout Christian and an Astrophysicist.



That's actually not surprising. Science reveals truths that were once assumptions made by religion. There are still unknowns that science hasn't addressed yet, so naturally many still turn to religion for answers.

And that's fine. My beef starts when the religious strive to remove scientific results.


----------



## will_shred (Jun 7, 2013)

> We can't just write off all religion because we have a small portion of fact's pertaining to how the world works.




Don't forget that on a daily basis we're gathering hundreds of gigabytes of information that further support standing scientific theories such as the big bang theory.

So while you can say we can't write off religion, every day the information we gather is making it look worse, and worse. 

I'm largely speaking about the studies being done at the LHC, some really amazing stuff going on over there.


----------



## Chuck (Jun 7, 2013)

ElRay said:


> Actually Max, I'll chalk this up to you not quite understanding statistics, sampling errors, and succumbing to observational biases. Sure the studies do not sample a tremendous fraction of the U.S. population, but they sample enough to be an adequate cross-section of the population
> 
> I will say that I very likely have a much better feel for what the U.S. is as a population than you do: I'm older, I've lived in more locations, I've traveled more, etc. and from what I've seen, the surveys are pretty spot-on.
> 
> Ray



Yeah this is all true.  I would know, I took Stats last semester


----------



## Necris (Jun 7, 2013)

I can't take any claim Eric Christian makes about being a Christian seriously after seeing this.




For reference:


----------



## possumkiller (Jun 7, 2013)

wow


----------



## Jakke (Jun 7, 2013)

Necris said:


> :stuff:



Is he not, he will have my applause for a very convincing performance


----------



## wat (Jun 7, 2013)

Pretty sad thst people still believe in satan/Hell in 2013.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 7, 2013)

ElRay said:


> Actually Max, I'll chalk this up to you not quite understanding statistics, sampling errors, and succumbing to observational biases. Sure the studies do not sample a tremendous fraction of the U.S. population, but they sample enough to be an adequate cross-section of the population
> 
> I will say that I very likely have a much better feel for what the U.S. is as a population than you do: I'm older, I've lived in more locations, I've traveled more, etc. and from what I've seen, the surveys are pretty spot-on.
> 
> Ray




I took statistics as well and while that is very true polls have the potential for tons of error based on how the question is phrased, if multiple choice what choices are available, if a truly varied group actually bother taking the questionnaire, etc.

For businesses, engineering, production, etc. (hard fact data) statistics is extremely useful and very accurate for the most part. For opinions, ideologies, and social related polls I find statistics to be subject to far more error and therefore next to useless.

Things are definitely regionally dependent as well. You go to California and do a poll then go to Alabama or Mississippi you are going to get VERY different results. Hell even in Texas go from the rural areas to the cities or say San Antonio to Austin and you will also get VERY different results. Even if they cast the net far and wide and asked a fair number of people given the fact that opinions aren't necessarily regionally defined (so 1 does not necessarily reflect an entire area) makes statics based on such a small number of people to just further my opinion that polling statistics are highly inaccurate.

For example, my family is for AFAIK completely unaware that I'm 100% not religious and as it turns out my mom thinks dinosaurs weren't real (I nearly died laughing when the topic came up ). That is from the same household and neither of us will have taken a poll about this. She would have also been the one to fill out the Census since I move around a lot making my opinion nonexistent and I believe they ask you what your faith is. 



pink freud said:


> That's actually not surprising. Science reveals truths that were once assumptions made by religion. There are still unknowns that science hasn't addressed yet, so naturally many still turn to religion for answers.
> 
> And that's fine. My beef starts when the religious strive to remove scientific results.



That does seem to be the case for some. I do wonder how many scientists are religious many days. My Aunt, a network engineer, seems to be under the impression that A LOT of scientists are religious (I think she quoted like ~97%). I think that is bullshit.


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Jun 7, 2013)

I dislike this idea of writing off Christians and anyone who is religious as closed minded individuals who can't seem to grasp the world as it's constantly moving forward. 



> We can't just write off all religion because we have a small portion of fact's pertaining to how the world works.



This is an excellent quote, and I couldn't have put it better myself. I'm not going to claim to be some man of science who understands everything about something that no one has solid enough information to confirm at all. 

Jakke, I'm going to make a comment on this just because I feel the need to.



> while science cannot be 100% proven, it can be indirectly proven by the massive amounts of evidence available.



Yeah, it's not proven (therefore not fact) and no I don't see how something can indirectly prove another thing when even you clearly say that Science itself cannot even explain itself yet. What I meant by therefore not fact, is that Scientists make discoveries constantly. New things come to light everyday that surprise and blindside me, granted something could occur tomorrow that would explain something else completely about how everything came to be, and how we grew as a species into what we are today. 

Shit, gravity could be caused by something else, and guess what? What if something was discovered to be actually causing gravity to occur other than the pull from the center of a mass. Scientists would have to discredit Newton's Law, simply because now it is wrong and inaccurate in comparison to this new "proven" law.

You can't deny that, because there's been multiple laws and "facts" that have changed. Some even due to the majority of a community believing it so, oh the irony. You mean something as solid and absolute as SCIENCE can be proven simply from a majority vote? Say it ain't so! Guess they're all wrong when something new comes along am I right?

Like I said, I am not one to keep up with Scientific Advancements as much as some of you may. But that doesn't change what I just said. Evolution is still a theory like it or not, and it'll be even moreso if something comes along that not only is more plausible but contradicts Evolution itself. 

Don't take these words and forge something else, Science is a marvel and one of the most vast things to look into since most of it is based on discoveries and what is unknown. I took quite a few of interesting classes in my first years of college, some of which became my favorites because of how much things like Space and Philosophies were new to me. I appreciate Science for what it is, but I find people who have this quite religious following of it to be as pathetic as most religious folk who blindly follow their faith.

Why do I think that? Let's just draw out of a hat, and *humor* me for a second. WHAT IF, hypothetically Buddhism were in fact absolutely and without a doubt true? And all the questions and things were explained in a way we probably would never have reached in a thousand generations' lifetimes? Both Science and other World Religions would in fact be wrong since their beliefs directly contradict what is correct, true, and real.

Going back to what you said, "While science cannot be 100% proven" neither can world religions and most belief systems out there. It's a mixed bag, and while you view religions as some form of inferior system to explain questions the almighty Science can explain, for NOW .

I am a Christian, my father is a preacher and I grew up in the church for the first 15 years of my life. I saw nothing wrong with it, and I learned quite a bit from it, however after witnessing some of the absolute worst abuse of a belief/power, me and my family chose to separate our beliefs from religion. (If you want to hear about that abuse of power feel free to PM me, it'd take up way too much space here) 

At this point in my life, yes it is 2013 and I believe in the existence of God/Heaven, a higher being who created the earth and us. I also believe in the existence of a Hell and Satan, who punishes those who do wrong on the earth. What does that make me? Ignorant and blind? Absolutely not, that is in a nutshell that I have learned from an early age the basic concept of doing good and leading a proper life, and the punishment for crimes and "sins". That's a pretty basic concept, one most people like I'm sure yourself carry on a day to day basis, and it's most certainly a great belief. Not everyone has a basis of morale from birth, if Christianity and other religions serve that purpose then I have no qualms with it. That's what I take from my belief in God, that one should not do wrong to another person and serve a good life, not for the reward, but for the purpose of leading a good life. (Notice how I don't go into detail over certain topics and things like sin that ultimately people would ask me then you must think that beating an adulterer with stones/damnation of the homosexuals if you're a Christian, YOU MUST BE RIGHT?)

I believe everyone is entitled to their rights, if anyone was wondering. There should be no issue with a person's ANYTHING, and yet people will still find reason to look at me saying this and say I'm not really a religious person then.

So yes, I am a Christian, not religious. I find Science absolutely amazing and breathtaking, I adore learning about things that blow my mind, and I don't disrespect Scientists for pursing knowledge that they will never find and complete. But to discredit and disrespect someone else's belief because you view Science as absolute is pompous and extremely ignorant thing of anyone to say.

See what I did there? How about we all agree that anyone who is so extreme as to push their beliefs onto anyone else is annoying? I think that's reasonable  I'm pretty sure folks won't be too happy with what I just wrote, but that's my opinion. Feel free to "challenge" it, but I don't feel the need to challenge anyone's personal beliefs because we may all be wrong in the end. So what's the point? Discussion on the other hand is healthy and a way to reach an understanding. 

Sorry, but agreeing to


> "and anything that's not Evolution with regard to the world coming to be is ridiculous."


Makes you sound beyond closed minded.


----------



## erotophonophilia (Jun 7, 2013)

wat said:


> Pretty sad thst people still believe in satan/Hell in 2013.



It's psychotic. None of the miraculous bullshit, in any religious text, has ever been proved trud, or even possible. But people are so goddamn crazy, they pick up the parts that suit them, and ignore the rest.


----------



## Curt (Jun 7, 2013)

wat said:


> Pretty sad thst people still believe in satan/Hell in 2013.


I don't get this...

You find it surprising that people continue to hold firm to beliefs that have been commonplace for ages? Beliefs which are drilled into the minds(Figuratively speaking, of course.) of pretty much every child born to religious parents since the beginning of these religions, are bound to stick to the vast majority. 

Are you honestly convinced that they would change their mind any more than we will change ours? Without tangible evidence on either end?

There is way more I could go on about... But the bottom line is that we are no better than anyone, and insinuating you are, is equally as ignorant as the ones pushing the religion.


----------



## Curt (Jun 7, 2013)

erotophonophilia said:


> they pick up the parts that suit them, and ignore the rest.


Every human does to an extent.
Edit: Why do you suppose people end up in jail, or on a lighter note... banned from SSO?

Applying only the rules to your behavior as you see fit. Or a blatant disregard for the suggested application, period.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 7, 2013)

Jakke said:


> You mean where the air is made of rain and the streets are paved with heroin?



Heroin? What is this, the 90s? Try overpriced coffee


----------



## asher (Jun 8, 2013)

Kenji20022 said:


> Shit, gravity could be caused by something else, and guess what? What if something was discovered to be actually causing gravity to occur other than the pull from the center of a mass. Scientists would have to discredit Newton's Law, simply because now it is wrong and inaccurate in comparison to this new "proven" law.



Um, yes. That's entirely the point and this has happened many times over in the course of scientific study - when new information comes out, can be replicated and verified, and disproves an old model, the models are updated, overhauled, or replaced.


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Jun 8, 2013)

asher said:


> Um, yes. That's entirely the point and this has happened many times over in the course of scientific study - when new information comes out, can be replicated and verified, and disproves an old model, the models are updated, overhauled, or replaced.



Yeah, that's what I meant. I was just saying that it's not concrete if it can be disproved by something new. Since Science will never really end it's venture to find the truth, it's got no clear advantage above Religion since for all I know neither could be correct. My whole point is that this attitude of disrespecting anyone's beliefs is barbaric and pathetic. 

I guess that's my TL;DR from my large post.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 8, 2013)

Kenji20022 said:


> Yeah, it's not proven (therefore not fact) and no I don't see how something can indirectly prove another thing when even you clearly say that Science itself cannot even explain itself yet. What I meant by therefore not fact, is that Scientists make discoveries constantly. New things come to light everyday that surprise and blindside me, granted something could occur tomorrow that would explain something else completely about how everything came to be, and how we grew as a species into what we are today.



Theories are in fact proven, that is how they go from hypothesis to theories. They are proven constantly in fact. The only thing supporting your argument is the fact that the door is always left open because it is 'pausible' for something to be disproven. Usually it either isn't or is only modified upon. Theories are rarely (dare I say never) completely contradicted as you put it. Typically speaking it is merely the method that changes if a theory is altered not the fact that something happened in general.



Kenji20022 said:


> Shit, gravity could be caused by something else, and guess what? What if something was discovered to be actually causing gravity to occur other than the pull from the center of a mass. Scientists would have to discredit Newton's Law, simply because now it is wrong and inaccurate in comparison to this new "proven" law.
> 
> You can't deny that, because there's been multiple laws and "facts" that have changed. Some even due to the majority of a community believing it so, oh the irony. You mean something as solid and absolute as SCIENCE can be proven simply from a majority vote? Say it ain't so! Guess they're all wrong when something new comes along am I right?



Newtons laws actually would not be discredited if something were discovered that caused gravity. They would still very much apply. Again you are talking about the method changing not the fact that gravity is present and therefore the math supporting it. If we discovered that marshmellow's were the source of gravity y=1/2at^2+Vot+Yo would still be the formula we calculate for projectiles and 9.8m/s^2 would still be the acceleration caused by gravity.



Kenji20022 said:


> Like I said, I am not one to keep up with Scientific Advancements as much as some of you may. But that doesn't change what I just said. *Evolution is still a theory like it or not, and it'll be even moreso if something comes along that not only is more plausible but contradicts Evolution itself. *



Nice setup for this point you did in the previous quote, but that is still incorrect. It would not be contradicted as it is proven everyday and if anything in the theory were to change it would only be modified upon or the method itself would be changed/debated. The fact that is happening would not change. 



Kenji20022 said:


> I appreciate Science for what it is, but I find people who have this quite religious following of it to be as pathetic as most religious folk who blindly follow their faith.



You can't really have a religious following for science, but I hear this a lot from religious people. People like evidence and science allows for that. The fact that it allows room for adjustment is what makes science strong and allows for it to grow on a daily basis. If we stuck with old theories like the geocentric model we would not be where we are today. Mind you those theories were heavily influenced by religion ironically enough.



Kenji20022 said:


> Why do I think that? Let's just draw out of a hat, and *humor* me for a second. WHAT IF, hypothetically Buddhism were in fact absolutely and without a doubt true? And all the questions and things were explained in a way we probably would never have reached in a thousand generations' lifetimes? Both Science and other World Religions would in fact be wrong since their beliefs directly contradict what is correct, true, and real.



Science would not be wrong because science has neither proven or disproven reincarnation and other such things. Some people have a firm belief that is is unlikely or impossible, but in general science has not straight up said "All religion is false and all things metaphysical are impossible." We have proven that certain things are unlikely and we have proof that religion (and a god) are not necessary for the worlds origination and progress, but that is it. Science does not disprove things it cannot prove. It is just an open ended question.



Kenji20022 said:


> Going back to what you said, "While science cannot be 100% proven" neither can world religions and most belief systems out there. It's a mixed bag, and while you view religions as some form of inferior system to explain questions the almighty Science can explain, for NOW .



There is little to no proof of religions being accurate or true. There is evidence and facts that support many scientific notions so again not wrong. Just to play along even if a religion were proven to exist all it would mean is that the world would coexist with scientific principles and a god(s). In fact this is what most scientist who choose to maintain being religious subscribe to.



Kenji20022 said:


> Not everyone has a basis of morale from birth, if Christianity and other religions serve that purpose then I have no qualms with it.



Have you ever seen children at an early age? They play together, talk with each other, they don't hate anyone, they are not racist, etc. Society breeds these bad behaviors into children merely because we all carry some of these traits. They simply rub off on them. I didn't need faith to tell me I like helping people and I don't want to kill anyone.



Kenji20022 said:


> But to discredit and disrespect someone else's belief because you view Science as absolute is pompous and extremely ignorant thing of anyone to say.



He discredited the likely hood of faith. Science is absolute by the mere fact that it is self correcting unlike religion. It is hardly pompous or ignorant. If you take religion from an outsiders perspective even if you chose to be agnostic and open to the idea of one or more god which religion or god do you assume to be the correct one? I don't discredit the idea that there could be a god, but which faith is right because the rest would all be wrong. I personally don't think there is a god, but if I found evidence that proved otherwise I wouldn't deny it.


----------



## djyngwie (Jun 8, 2013)

Kenji20022 said:


> Yeah, it's not proven (therefore not fact) and no I don't see how something can indirectly prove another thing when even you clearly say that Science itself cannot even explain itself yet.


Just because science is ultimately inductive in nature, and therefore unprovable in a strict logical sense doesn't mean it holds no claim to truth. If you insist on such strict evidence for everything, you'll never get anywhere - it's like arguing with first year philosophy students: novel, but ultimately useless most of the time. Science acknowledges that it will never be 100% certain of anything, but due to the tools of statistics we have exact bonds on the chances of being wrong. If you're 99.9999999995% certain of something, most people will acknowledge it as a practical truth.



Kenji20022 said:


> What I meant by therefore not fact, is that Scientists make discoveries constantly. New things come to light everyday that surprise and blindside me, granted something could occur tomorrow that would explain something else completely about how everything came to be, and how we grew as a species into what we are today.
> 
> Shit, gravity could be caused by something else, and guess what? What if something was discovered to be actually causing gravity to occur other than the pull from the center of a mass. Scientists would have to discredit Newton's Law, simply because now it is wrong and inaccurate in comparison to this new "proven" law.


Nonsense: gravity is a fact in any practical sense of the word (just like evolution). Newton made no assumptions on the inner workings of gravitation, merely its effects. If somebody finds an actual explanation, great, but it won't discredit the idea itself - if there was a basic contradiction the universe would look completely different. In fact, Newton's laws have already proven, not exactly wrong, but merely approximations of other, deeper laws. That didn't mean gravity (or inertia, action, and reaction) disappeared all of a sudden. Nor did it mean that Newton's laws became useless from one day to the other.



Kenji20022 said:


> You can't deny that, because there's been multiple laws and "facts" that have changed. Some even due to the majority of a community believing it so, oh the irony. You mean something as solid and absolute as SCIENCE can be proven simply from a majority vote? Say it ain't so! Guess they're all wrong when something new comes along am I right?


You're confusing the scientific method for scientific theories/hypotheses. There is such a thing as scientific paradigms, but look what I wrote above: gravity as a basic concept is not going away. Electricity as a basic concept is not going away. And (surprise) evolution as a basic concept will not be going away either. There will certainly be new discoveries made about the inner workings of these things, but they're here to stay!

No science isn't about majority votes, but about evidence. Results are peer reviewed by professionals. No man is infallible but by having people check and reproduce other scientist's results we are as sure as we can be. This is certainly not a majority vote; it's hard evidence scrutinized by the best minds humanity can muster.

Also, realize it's a fiercely competitive business. Scientists would love to disprove any widely accepted theory/hypthesis. That would be a surefire ticket to fame/grants. So it's not because people aren't critical, quite the opposite.



Kenji20022 said:


> Evolution is still a theory like it or not, and it'll be even moreso if something comes along that not only is more plausible but contradicts Evolution itself.


A theory is a body of scientific knowledge througly supported by evidence, which adequately describes evolution. But it is certainly not simply a random hypothesis (which was probably the word you were looking for). Look above: it's soundly in the "not going away category", even if there's some finer points that still needs to be shed light on (see Jakke's first (I think it was) post in this thread).



Kenji20022 said:


> Going back to what you said, "While science cannot be 100% proven" neither can world religions and most belief systems out there. It's a mixed bag, and while you view religions as some form of inferior system to explain questions the almighty Science can explain, for NOW .


Not only does religion not prove anything, it has no evidence in favor for it whatsoever. You might say that it's not the point of religion to prove itself (which might be a fair point), but don't blame science for only getting 99.99% certainty, then!

Science will never be 100% right, but it can change to accomodate evidence. Unlike religious dogma, which is static.

I'm not saying you're stupid, here. Not by a long shot. Some of the smartest people I know are religious. Some of them accept evolution as fact, but some has a clear tendency of doublethink when it comes to evidence (much like you seem to do, I'm sorry to say): Science is great and wonderful... unless it conflicts with dogma/personal conviction. At which point eyes and ears are shut and facts vigorously denied  A damn shame, IMO!

(Sorry if I've only responded to half you post - my answer is getting long enough as is, and I'm tired. Maybe I'll adress other parts later)

Edit: seem like Flint adressed some of the same points as me. I hope you don't feel like we're ganging up on you, too much. That wasn't the intention.


----------



## asher (Jun 8, 2013)

Kenji20022 said:


> Yeah, that's what I meant. I was just saying that it's not concrete if it can be disproved by something new. Since Science will never really end it's venture to find the truth, it's got no clear advantage above Religion since for all I know neither could be correct. My whole point is that this attitude of disrespecting anyone's beliefs is barbaric and pathetic.
> 
> I guess that's my TL;DR from my large post.



The two gents above have responded much better than I will be able to, but: even in theory, yes, things could be disproven, but not only is it not likely in the slightest to have to totally discard something like that, the entire point is that it's the best and fullest explanation _based on what we know at the time_ and that _it is modified to fit new information, which is being actively pursued_.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Jun 8, 2013)

ElRay said:


> Actually, it is very fair. Not 100% of the questions have been answered; however, there is a tremendous body of evidence that supports Evolution and there are no competing theories that fit the data any better. There is *ZERO* evidence that supports Creationism. There is *ZERO* evidence that supports Intelligent Design. In addition, Intelligent Design is internally flawed because any creator had to have a creator, back to the first creator(s), who either "evolved" on their own (conflicting the initial premise) or is the omnipotent invisible buddy from Creationism.
> 
> You can believe what you want, that doesn't change the data, facts, conclusions, etc. You can't claim to be an "Intelligent Christian" and spew nonsense like "it's not what I believed, and that it wasn't objectively right" and "misuse the term "evolution" as a catch-all". You also can't be an "Intelligent Christian" and confound, muddle, discombobulate, confuse:
> The initial state and expansion of the universe
> ...




When someone brings dot points into a thread, you know shit is getting real


----------



## wat (Jun 8, 2013)

My best friend who is a christian dragged me into a debate with him (while we were drinking) and the point he tried to assert was that if eolution takes the path of least resistance, wouldn't it make more sense for life to have not evolved at all or never evolved past single cells.

At the end I let him believe we had reached a stalemate when he played the "science doesn't know everything either" card, as if that's even a good point at all, lol. Sucks when you have to refrain from playing your best cards in that kind of discussion because of your relationship with the person, lol. I think he believes in natural selection and evolution to some extent but reconciles it with the creation story somehow

Another good friend of mine, who has given me a great oppurtunity doing sales in his marketing business that makes me great money, often brings up his ill informed arguments about the big bang and evolution but I don't think he even knows I'm not a believer. I try to just avoid the subject completely with him. i honestly think he might sever our business relationship over it if he knew. That would suck because I'm kind of his right hand man and in ten years the business is probably onna be huge and we're all gonna be rich or close to it


----------



## wat (Jun 8, 2013)

Here's the thing. Ask someone if they believe that the millions of landfaring species on this planet all fit on Noah's ark 2 by 2? I mean in order to believe that you have to basically deny the validity of carbon dating and the fossils that look like slightly different versions of the same animals that live in those regions today.


A lot of people will say, "no that's an allegory". Fine.

Do you believe that those who don't believe what you do are doomed to a fiery inferno for all eternity after they die? And that you, having been a good person and accepting Jesus in your heart will be rewarded eternal bliss? Why or why not? 

Why would you acknowledge even one small story in the Bible as not quite literal and then not be open to the idea that all of it is not literal, or even true?

How can one be positive enough to teach _*CHILDREN*_ that they are born on the fast-track to hell by default unless they form their belief system a certain way, yet in the same breath acknowedge that maybe all those species didn't fit on a ....ing wooden boat afterall?


----------



## flint757 (Jun 8, 2013)

djyngwie said:


> Edit: seem like Flint adressed some of the same points as me. I hope you don't feel like we're ganging up on you, too much. That wasn't the intention.





Indeed not my intention.



Yo_Wattup said:


> When someone brings dot points into a thread, you know shit is getting real


----------



## wat (Jun 8, 2013)

Lulz, whoever negged me and said "thanks for the neg" uhh, wasn't me bro. Lol


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 8, 2013)

Anyone searching for absolute truth who can't even for a moment venture into the waters that exist beyond the inherent cognitive dissonance is not really searching for truth. They're entertaining themselves with science, enjoying it in the way other people enjoy reading Good Housekeeping or ghostwritten James Patterson mysteries. 

If you haven't even done enough reading to know that searching for 'absolute truth' is a fool's quest, then you are again showing how little you actually know. I'd suggest redefining your search into terms like 'the most consistent truth' or perhaps 'the most stable truth.' You'll end up in philosophical circles and semantic cockfights, otherwise. 

On a personal level, respecting the beliefs of another is fine. But when you're having rational conversations, you have to realize that belief is not the same as knowledge. One (in our context) is a set of ideas held closely, without evidence. One is observed fact. You can't swing into the joint talking about Santa Claus and expect people to take you seriously if you can't produce a hoofprint or beard hair. I hate to be petty, but there is more evidence pointing to Bigfoot's existence then of God's. 

People approaching heavy concepts wearing the blinders of bias confuse me. You can't step outside your mental comfort zone and approach a question with as little subjectivity as possible? You have to investigate with as open a mind as possible, or else you'll fall into the same confirmation bias that your brain has lived in comfortably your whole life. You have to consider that your stance is wrong, your society's stance is wrong, and look at what the evidence points to before drawing your conclusion.

Basically, just practice the scientific method and you'll be a better person.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 8, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> belief is not the same as knowledge.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 8, 2013)

Imma dip my toes in the water too, mainly because it was adressed at me, even though Flint and djyngwie already has done a great job.



Kenji20022 said:


> Yeah, it's not proven (therefore not fact)



Facts are there no matter if we know about them or not.



Kenji20022 said:


> and no I don't see how something can indirectly prove another thing when even you clearly say that Science itself cannot even explain itself yet.



Science is not a "thing". Science is a process, and science is as simple as following the steps of the scientific method. As far as "explaining itself yet", I'm not sure what you mean, and to me; it looks like just text-filling.



Kenji20022 said:


> What I meant by therefore not fact, is that Scientists make discoveries constantly. New things come to light everyday that surprise and blindside me, granted something could occur tomorrow that would explain something else completely about how everything came to be, and how we grew as a species into what we are today.



The massive amounts of evidence for evolution means that, even though it has to be spoken about as "not proven" for intellectual honesty, it's not going away. There is more real scientific evidence for evolution than for many other things that christians accept without a problem.



Kenji20022 said:


> Shit, gravity could be caused by something else, and guess what? What if something was discovered to be actually causing gravity to occur other than the pull from the center of a mass. Scientists would have to discredit Newton's Law, simply because now it is wrong and inaccurate in comparison to this new "proven" law.



As previously said by some well-read members, Newton's law of universal gravitation is not at odds with general relativity. It is just that general relativity explains more, while universal gravitation is very good for specific circumstances. When I did physics in highschool, do you think we busted out relativity calculations for when we calculated gravity? No, of course not. We used universal gravitation.



Kenji20022 said:


> You can't deny that, because there's been multiple laws and "facts" that have changed. Some even due to the majority of a community believing it so, oh the irony. You mean something as solid and absolute as SCIENCE can be proven simply from a majority vote? Say it ain't so! Guess they're all wrong when something new comes along am I right?



Facts do not change, it is in their nature to be constant, that is why they are facts. It is only our understanding of facts that change, ergo my qualifier that "if something new is discovered about evolution, it's about how it works, not wheather it exists"

If one wants to be stupid about it, sure, science is about popular vote. 

However, this is not entirely accurate, but we have to introduce a concept called "scientific consensus". This means that scientists are, due to their long education and specialization within a field, able to grasp subjects more intimately than the average person. The agreement of scientists within a field about a scientific issue is therefore very powerful, and that is what we say when we mean scientific consensus. The thing is however that if the science is not there, scientific consensus can not be, and this is why scientific consensus still is different from "popular vote".
Project Steve is a good example of how massive the scientific consensus is for evolution.

But as djyngwie pointed out, it takes a lot of scrutiny for something to even be considered "good science", this is why a scientific consensus is considered so powerful



Kenji20022 said:


> Like I said, I am not one to keep up with Scientific Advancements as much as some of you may. But that doesn't change what I just said. Evolution is still a theory like it or not, and it'll be even moreso if something comes along that not only is more plausible but contradicts Evolution itself.



A theory is a well-tested and well-supported theoretical framework that explains an observation. So yes, evolution is a theory, but:








Kenji20022 said:


> Don't take these words and forge something else, Science is a marvel and one of the most vast things to look into since most of it is based on discoveries and what is unknown. I took quite a few of interesting classes in my first years of college, some of which became my favorites because of how much things like Space and Philosophies were new to me. I appreciate Science for what it is, but I find people who have this quite religious following of it to be as pathetic as most religious folk who blindly follow their faith.



Yeah! These people with their reasoned evidence and careful adherence to the pursuit of truth! They're just as bad as those who believe things without any evidence to support them whatsoever!

This is something you have developed to be able to feel superior to both atheists and very religious people. 



Kenji20022 said:


> Why do I think that? Let's just draw out of a hat, and *humor* me for a second. WHAT IF, hypothetically Buddhism were in fact absolutely and without a doubt true? And all the questions and things were explained in a way we probably would never have reached in a thousand generations' lifetimes? Both Science and other World Religions would in fact be wrong since their beliefs directly contradict what is correct, true, and real.



There is no indication that either buddhism, nor christianity is correct. But if that was the case, we'd have to work from there (possibly to find a way to develop a karma-based weapon, or precision reincarnation).



Kenji20022 said:


> Going back to what you said, "While science cannot be 100% proven" neither can world religions and most belief systems out there. It's a mixed bag, and while you view religions as some form of inferior system to explain questions the almighty Science can explain, for NOW .



For a different reason... While science can be indirectly proven, but not officially, religions are unfalsifiable hypotheses. As they are unfalsifiable, that also means that they are unprovable.

Yes, religion is inferior to science when it comes to explaining the universe as religion, as it makes zero predictions, is unfalsifiable, and has no consensus.



Kenji20022 said:


> At this point in my life, yes it is 2013 and I believe in the existence of God/Heaven, a higher being who created the earth and us.



And you're free to do so, but when you take a god to science fight, you're going to have a bad time.



Kenji20022 said:


> I also believe in the existence of a Hell and Satan, who punishes those who do wrong on the earth. What does that make me? Ignorant and blind?



Well, stubborn certainly.



Kenji20022 said:


> that is in a nutshell that I have learned from an early age the basic concept of doing good and leading a proper life, and the punishment for crimes and "sins". That's a pretty basic concept, one most people like I'm sure yourself carry on a day to day basis, and it's most certainly a great belief. Not everyone has a basis of morale from birth, if Christianity and other religions serve that purpose then I have no qualms with it.



Yes, we have also concluded this from the latest toddler murder-spree, which never happened. 

The thing is that empathy (which seems to be one of the bases of morals) and theory of mind (which seems to be the basis for empathy) are brain-parts that we are born with, and no amount of religion can make you grow them if you lack them.

There are people who don't have them, psychopathy is a cronic lack of empathy, and some autistic people lack a theory of mind. But these are brain-based deficiencies, and not mental ones, and therefore not ones that can be "thought away".

Religion hasn't got exclusive rights on morals, and you going: "I see you like those morals over there... Know who made them? We did. We made those" is dishonest, and factually wrong.



Kenji20022 said:


> That's what I take from my belief in God, that one should not do wrong to another person and serve a good life, not for the reward, but for the purpose of leading a good life.



These are human values, not religious ones. The reason your religion included them is probably because those who wrote the book were neurotypical individuals who saw the benefit of a society where we got along.



Kenji20022 said:


> So yes, I am a Christian, not religious. I find Science absolutely amazing and breathtaking, I adore learning about things that blow my mind, and I don't disrespect Scientists for pursing knowledge that they will never find and complete. But to discredit and disrespect someone else's belief because you view Science as absolute is pompous and extremely ignorant thing of anyone to say.



Christianity is a religion, ergo; you are religious. But if christians are not religious all of a sudden, tell that to the IRS and start paying taxes


If religions make claims about the physical world, then you will have to deal with scientists speaking up against it. You can make up any post-hoc justification that "they are just as bad as any fundamentalist", but that doesn't make it more true. If someone claims something about the real world, and we can prove that it is not the case, that person is wrong, and has no right to moral outrage when called on said bullshit.



Kenji20022 said:


> See what I did there? How about we all agree that anyone who is so extreme as to push their beliefs onto anyone else is annoying?



Setting up your own point is never a good idea, especially if your conclusion is wrong. A scientist telling us about research is not "extreme", they are doing their job. 

The thing is that evolution exists, and you are free to put your fingers in your ears and pretend it doesn't, but that you even dare call scientific information "extreme" makes me weep on the inside for you (and makes me doubt the repeated claims of how "amazing" you find science).



Kenji20022 said:


> I think that's reasonable



No it isn't. It's a stupid position.



Kenji20022 said:


> I'm pretty sure folks won't be too happy with what I just wrote, but that's my opinion. Feel free to "challenge" it, but I don't feel the need to challenge anyone's personal beliefs because we may all be wrong in the end. So what's the point? Discussion on the other hand is healthy and a way to reach an understanding.



This is not just your opinion, you've made actual claims, and then we've left the realm of "opinions".

If you want to get all post-modern and fuzzy with "hey, my "facts" are just as valid as your "facts"", then sure, we all might be wrong in the end. The probability for the scientific thinking to be wrong however, is approaching zero at the speed of every scientific discovery made.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 8, 2013)

flint757 said:


> That does seem to be the case for some. I do wonder how many scientists are religious many days. My Aunt, a network engineer, seems to be under the impression that A LOT of scientists are religious (I think she quoted like ~97%). I think that is bullshit.



It's the opposite, about 97-98% of members of the national academy of sciences are non-religious.


----------



## JayFraser (Jun 8, 2013)

This thread is now one of my favourite things on this site. I came on here out of curiosity for the topic, and what I found was a multitude of people reasoning against superstitious claims and advocating the scientific method. What a pleasant surprise.

Man, I love this site sometimes.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Jun 8, 2013)

Jakke said:


> You mean where the air is made of rain and the streets are paved with heroin?



We prefer our heroin in our coffee, sir.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 8, 2013)

Jakke said:


> It's the opposite, about 97-98% of members of the national academy of sciences are non-religious.



I figured as much.


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Jun 8, 2013)

wat said:


> Lulz, whoever negged me and said "thanks for the neg" uhh, wasn't me bro. Lol



Just for the record that wasn't me in case anyone was wondering, I'm sure a mod could chime in on that 



The Reverend said:


> They're entertaining themselves with science, enjoying it in the way other people enjoy reading Good Housekeeping or ghostwritten James Patterson mysteries.
> 
> If you haven't even done enough reading to know that searching for 'absolute truth' is a fool's quest, then you are again showing how little you actually know. I'd suggest redefining your search into terms like 'the most consistent truth' or perhaps 'the most stable truth.' You'll end up in philosophical circles and semantic cockfights, otherwise.
> 
> On a personal level, respecting the beliefs of another is fine. But when you're having rational conversations, you have to realize that belief is not the same as knowledge.



I most certainly might, I can't say I put most of Science into practice outside of my education. I guess I am just being entertained by Science but unless I become a Scientist and begin pursuing what they do, then I can't do much else besides watch and appreciate what comes up. And I'll look into those, I'm not trying to come off as closed minded and religious or aggressive in my previous post. I guess I got a bit worked up because of the small bashing that occurred on Page 1, but we're all level headed so sorry if that's what it came across as.



> Edit: seem like Flint adressed some of the same points as me. I hope you don't feel like we're ganging up on you, too much. That wasn't the intention.



No! Certainly not, I made some extreme and most likely not completely correct claims in my first post. So I definitely expected you guys and others to chime in and correct me, I don't deny the amount of proof that helps Evolution stand up and against Creationism. And it's extremely likely that Evolution is in fact 100% true, I'm having a hard time putting it into words so I'll just put it how Jakke put it. I am being a bit stubborn  I'm not against absolute truth, and I'll never be even if it goes against what I believe and grew up with.



> Newtons laws actually would not be discredited if something were discovered that caused gravity. They would still very much apply. Again you are talking about the method changing not the fact that gravity is present and therefore the math supporting it. If we discovered that marshmellow's were the source of gravity y=1/2at^2+Vot+Yo would still be the formula we calculate for projectiles and 9.8m/s^2 would still be the acceleration caused by gravity.



That's pretty interesting, so you're saying that if something came into light and is the new cause of gravity it would keep all existing formulas and just replace it's cause? That does make sense, but is it not possible that something could cancel out Newton's laws and these equations?



> There is little to no proof of religions being accurate or true. There is evidence and facts that support many scientific notions so again not wrong. Just to play along even if a religion were proven to exist all it would mean is that the world would coexist with scientific principles and a god(s). In fact this is what most scientist who choose to maintain being religious subscribe to.



I wouldn't say religions have little to no proof to support accuracy. Taking something like the Bible for what it is, a historically accurate book telling stories of the past and not fairy tales. There's countless historical and archeological digs that have matched the stories told in the old testament, Sodom and Gormorrah found and being burned, on top of tons of recent discoveries found in places like Old Jerusalem. I'm not going to bring predictions of the future into this because that's a whole other debate 



> Have you ever seen children at an early age? They play together, talk with each other, they don't hate anyone, they are not racist, etc. Society breeds these bad behaviors into children merely because we all carry some of these traits. They simply rub off on them. I didn't need faith to tell me I like helping people and I don't want to kill anyone.



And yes, but even so kids don't maintain that over their lifetime. Or else everyone would turn out perfect, since parenting isn't the greatest from family to family sometimes the bible can teach those values. Definitely not the case for everyone, but I appreciated having both parents here, and I don't feel like I would have needed the bible since they did a great job parenting, at least I think so.

And Jakke, I don't get what you were saying about paying your taxes, because I do and every one of my paystubs can account for that. But that's not really relevant.

The reason I separate my beliefs from religion, is because I hold the value and beliefs I learned from Christianity very dear. I don't however obsess about going to church, I go whenever I have free time to study the word. But I relate Religion to the institution of a church and what it does to people, my family's been subjected to and taken advantage of by an extreme abuse of power which caused us to do that. Because a church driven by men who turn to greed to fulfill themselves isn't what we follow Christianity to pursue.

Sorry if I didn't reply to all of your points, I either understand them now or just didn't get to them. Like I said, I try to keep an open mind and I don't mind being proven wrong, I'd just like it to proven so before I do. I'll be back on later tonight.


----------



## Eric Christian (Jun 8, 2013)

Necris said:


> I can't take any claim Eric Christian makes about being a Christian seriously after seeing this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




LOL


----------



## Jakke (Jun 8, 2013)

Take all the time you need to go through my post, but I'll clarify:



Kenji20022 said:


> And Jakke, I don't get what you were saying about paying your taxes, because I do and every one of my paystubs can account for that. But that's not really relevant.



Religions are tax-exempt in the United States, so if christianity (or just your church even) isn't a religion, then it is liable to pay taxes.

It wasn't a dig specifically at your tax-paying


----------



## flint757 (Jun 8, 2013)

Kenji20022 said:


> That's pretty interesting, so you're saying that if something came into light and is the new cause of gravity it would keep all existing formulas and just replace it's cause? That does make sense, but is it not possible that something could cancel out Newton's laws and these equations?



You'd have noticed if this were the case as planes, cars, missiles, satellites, etc. would not work properly. Moving objects on Earth would have no effect. And so on and so on. Mind you Newtons theories are ground zero for a lot of physics, but they are pretty basic. Finding out all of a sudden that the cause is something we never suspected would not all of a sudden make the math wrong. If it was wrong it would have been wrong all along. That's not to say there can't be a gradual shift and at some point the numbers be off, but Newtons laws themselves would still apply within the Inertial Frame.



Kenji20022 said:


> I wouldn't say religions have little to no proof to support accuracy. Taking something like the Bible for what it is, a historically accurate book telling stories of the past and not fairy tales. There's countless historical and archeological digs that have matched the stories told in the old testament, Sodom and Gormorrah found and being burned, on top of tons of recent discoveries found in places like Old Jerusalem. I'm not going to bring predictions of the future into this because that's a whole other debate



That's the thing it isn't all that accurate. Some of it is true, I'm sure, and some of the instance can be properly dated, but there is plenty that cannot or is completely contrary with reality. Many religious people jump over this hurdle by claiming parts of it are metaphorical and parts of it are literal, but that is highly unlikely. Based on your position it is literal to you and in such case there are many contradictory elements. Some stories are more or less just exaggerated since the entire thing is written by humans after all. As an example, Noah's ark (if that is indeed a true event) more than likely was just a local flood and they most likely only put local livestock on the ship. Then we get exaggerated first hand accounts and the telephone game ending up with a very different story. Tower of Babel wasn't a very tall building (we have skyscrapers that dwarf the estimated size) yet God saw it 'fit' to make it where no one could communicate with each other. Have you ever noticed that none of the events in the bible hold up to scrutiny or testing as they are never repeated/repeatable. 

Now onto morality, why would anyone follow a God who kills a bunch of innocent children because of something their parents did/doing (happens a decent amount in the bible, but I'm referencing the story of Moses)? There's many more instance of WTF than I can't be bothered posting. Even if I found out that Christianity was the one true religion I still wouldn't follow. 

Then there is my previous point, what makes your religion more right than any other? Honestly there are more things we today would deem immoral being taught/done in the bible that I would argue it is a terrible place for someone to discover their morals (without a healthy bit of cherry picking).



Kenji20022 said:


> And yes, but even so kids don't maintain that over their lifetime. Or else everyone would turn out perfect, since parenting isn't the greatest from family to family sometimes the bible can teach those values. Definitely not the case for everyone, but I appreciated having both parents here, and I don't feel like I would have needed the bible since they did a great job parenting, at least I think so.



Except religion starts with the parents. I believe Jakke summed up this point best however. I have a sister who is an alcoholic, a sister who was a stripper, a sisters who was a drug addict and my mother was abused as a child (by an extremely religious father). My mother, one of my four sisters and myself are the only sane, healthy ones. My parents are also divorced. What's my point in sharing this highly personal information? That I'm ground zero for worst place to 'grow' moralities in your scenario. 

As I said before, I did not need religion to tell me I like helping others, find stealing wrong, and would never want to hurt/kill someone. As an adult I subscribe to the Social Contract Theory which help explains why it is to our benefit to behave amongst each other. That being said, as a child I was a sweet kid without faith and I have never met a kid, who was healthy and well adjusted, that was hateful, racist, rude, murderous, etc. I have seen kids sculpted into these things by peers, society and in some cases their parents, but not from the get go. We start out fairly pure and naive.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 8, 2013)

Kenji20022 said:


> Yeah, that's what I meant. I was just saying that it's not concrete if it can be disproved by something new. Since Science will never really end it's venture to find the truth, it's got no clear advantage above Religion since for all I know neither could be correct. My whole point is that this attitude of disrespecting anyone's beliefs is barbaric and pathetic.
> 
> I guess that's my TL;DR from my large post.



Science has an irrefutable advantage over Religion. Science becomes more accurate over time. Religion is a static statement.


----------



## -42- (Jun 8, 2013)




----------



## vilk (Jun 9, 2013)

What I don't get is that people in North America feel like they have to identify with Christianity of all things if they aren't agnostic or atheist. Like, we all certainly realize that Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ was a living person who was the son of the Abrahamic God who was born of a virgin and that he died to save us all from accidentally not believing in him and thusly being left behind when he comes back and destroys the earth?

So as to not get off point, what I'm trying to say that in this modern era of information we KNOW already that most of the stories from the bible, including Jesus' story was taken from other older religions. (You didn't know that? Look it up it's basically a fact nowdays.) So like, at this point, why not just throw the whole pile of Jesus bullshit out the window? Yeah, Jesus, as a fictional character, was a good guy, he was nice to people, did good stuff, is a good role model, but why are people still trying to say that he is REAL and that he is looking down on us and all this other nonsense? 

DERRR BUT DERS PROOF DAT DER WAS DA REEEEEL JESUS WE FOUNDED IT!! IN DA DESERT!!! 
Yeahhhh yeah so some guy 2000 years ago was named Jesus so what. I'm sure they didn't just make the whole damn name up for the bible. There were probably loads of jesuses just like there are in the south side of chicago today.

So, I'm atheist, I don't really know why anyone wouldn't be, but ok so you want to believe in god that's maybe understandable _I guess_. But why the hell are people still going on about Jesus or Mohammud or any of that garbage about promises that dudeman made with the one true god or any of that bogus crap? It seems pretty irrelevant now that we are culturally and historically aware enough to know that these religious principles, traditions, stories, predated any of these religions that people cling to so closely today.


----------



## ShadowAMD (Jun 9, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Theories are in fact proven, that is how they go from hypothesis to theories. They are proven constantly in fact. The only thing supporting your argument is the fact that the door is always left open because it is 'pausible' for something to be disproven. Usually it either isn't or is only modified upon. Theories are rarely (dare I say never) completely contradicted as you put it. Typically speaking it is merely the method that changes if a theory is altered not the fact that something happened in general.



Theories like the world is flat and where all going to fall off? Expanding Earth? Static Universe? Progressions of atomic theory? We have been wrong a fair few times. Not to say there might not be weight in some "sloppy" sciences like cold fusion. 

Sciences have been contradicted and that's what theories are there for. Contradicting sciences isn't a failure, it's how we get closer to the truth.



> Newtons laws actually would not be discredited if something were discovered that caused gravity. They would still very much apply. Again you are talking about the method changing not the fact that gravity is present and therefore the math supporting it. If we discovered that marshmellow's were the source of gravity y=1/2at^2+Vot+Yo would still be the formula we calculate for projectiles and 9.8m/s^2 would still be the acceleration caused by gravity.



That's a literal point to prove a purpose, any theorem can be discredited and as a scientist it's what is and all ways will be.



> Nice setup for this point you did in the previous quote, but that is still incorrect. It would not be contradicted as it is proven everyday and if anything in the theory were to change it would only be modified upon or the method itself would be changed/debated. The fact that is happening would not change.



Still where at the basic foundries of dissecting and observing surrounding environments, reverse engineering the various fundamentals of what we see. With a calculated guess, at current progression where unlikely to see TOE any time soon.



> You can't really have a religious following for science, but I hear this a lot from religious people. People like evidence and science allows for that. The fact that it allows room for adjustment is what makes science strong and allows for it to grow on a daily basis. If we stuck with old theories like the geocentric model we would not be where we are today. Mind you those theories were heavily influenced by religion ironically enough.



Why exactly can't you? If the "Engineer" in the sky designed the cosmo's to be what it is and we are just reverse engineering it. It falls into one and the same.



> Science would not be wrong because science has neither proven or disproven reincarnation and other such things. Some people have a firm belief that is is unlikely or impossible, but in general science has not straight up said "All religion is false and all things metaphysical are impossible." We have proven that certain things are unlikely and we have proof that religion (and a god) are not necessary for the worlds origination and progress, but that is it. Science does not disprove things it cannot prove. It is just an open ended question.



An open ended question isn't fact, it either is or it isn't. If it's open ended it's therefore still a theory.. I couldn't publish an applied scientific paper on a maybe, a theoretical one yes of course. It's not good for one's career mixing up the two..



> There is little to no proof of religions being accurate or true. There is evidence and facts that support many scientific notions so again not wrong. Just to play along even if a religion were proven to exist all it would mean is that the world would coexist with scientific principles and a god(s). In fact this is what most scientist who choose to maintain being religious subscribe to.



This is where we are beginning to make a lot of sense, many issues stem not from religion itself. But the religion humans have created, if religion was self expanding, ever updating based on a current environment with a purpose to find out how / what / why the splendour in what we have been given came to be. It would be a hell of a lot like science, no? 



> Have you ever seen children at an early age? They play together, talk with each other, they don't hate anyone, they are not racist, etc. Society breeds these bad behaviors into children merely because we all carry some of these traits. They simply rub off on them. I didn't need faith to tell me I like helping people and I don't want to kill anyone.



That's humans in a nutshell, no matter the religion it doesn't compensate for the self destructive nature of man. Thou shalt not kill, but it appears a holy war is ok right?



> He discredited the likely hood of faith. Science is absolute by the mere fact that it is self correcting unlike religion. It is hardly pompous or ignorant. If you take religion from an outsiders perspective even if you chose to be agnostic and open to the idea of one or more god which religion or god do you assume to be the correct one? I don't discredit the idea that there could be a god, but which faith is right because the rest would all be wrong. I personally don't think there is a god, but if I found evidence that proved otherwise I wouldn't deny it.



That's the whole point, being open minded. Whether you believe a higher power doesn't exist, one does, science is leading down the wrong path, we are in the matrix, what we see is a mirror dimension. Whatever it is, it pays to keep an open mind.. 

Also sometimes ignorance is bliss, based on current understanding you die and become food for bacteria unless cremated obviously. Wouldn't it be nice to believe that you don't become another blank statement being left to decompose? Have you never felt true mortality and wished there was someone out there? TBBT and / or Singularity / CMB theory could explain how we came to be, but it would never explain why.

For all we know where a droplet in the sand of a much bigger all round multi-verse. Humans could even be a virus, lol that's the beauty of everything we don't know..


----------



## Jakke (Jun 9, 2013)

ShadowAMD said:


> Theories like the world is flat and where all going to fall off? Expanding Earth? Static Universe? Progressions of atomic theory? We have been wrong a fair few times. Not to say there might not be weight in some "sloppy" sciences like cold fusion.



Neither if these are scientific theories, apart from atomic theory.

Cold fusion is not a science either, but instead the reasearch of cold fusion comes under the umbrella of physics, which is a science.




ShadowAMD said:


> Sciences have been contradicted and that's what theories are there for. Contradicting sciences isn't a failure, it's how we get closer to the truth.



You still don't know what theory in a scientific context means.



ShadowAMD said:


> That's a literal point to prove a purpose, any theorem can be discredited and as a scientist it's what is and all ways will be.



As soon as something is promoted to theory, it will be very hard to discredit completely (as a theory requires both a solid theoretical frame-work, and empirical observations that support it). What might happen is that we discover that a theory is a smaller part of a greater theory, such as with universal gravitation, but that doesn't mean that the earlier observations are wrong.



ShadowAMD said:


> Still where at the basic foundries of dissecting and observing surrounding environments, reverse engineering the various fundamentals of what we see. With a calculated guess, at current progression where unlikely to see TOE any time soon.



I'm not sure what you mean here, but I do agree that we know too little about quantum mechanics to find the TOE very soon at least.




ShadowAMD said:


> Why exactly can't you? If the "Engineer" in the sky designed the cosmo's to be what it is and we are just reverse engineering it. It falls into one and the same.





How does this apply to the original comment?



ShadowAMD said:


> An open ended question isn't fact, it either is or it isn't. If it's open ended it's therefore still a theory.. I couldn't publish an applied scientific paper on a maybe, a theoretical one yes of course. It's not good for one's career mixing up the two..



Theory does still not mean what you think it means, you mean hypothesis.




ShadowAMD said:


> This is where we are beginning to make a lot of sense, many issues stem not from religion itself. But the religion humans have created, if religion was self expanding, ever updating based on a current environment with a purpose to find out how / what / why the splendour in what we have been given came to be. It would be a hell of a lot like science, no?



Yes, but then it wouldn't be a religion. What you are saying is that if oranges where green, didn't have as much juice in them, had black seeds, and tasted like apples, then they would be a lot more like apples (no?). 




ShadowAMD said:


> That's the whole point, being open minded. Whether you believe a higher power doesn't exist, one does, science is leading down the wrong path, we are in the matrix, what we see is a mirror dimension. Whatever it is, it pays to keep an open mind..



I as a member of the skeptical movement hear this a lot, we in fact hear it so much that we have deviced a retort:
"You must keep an open mind man!"
"Well, there's a difference between having an open mind, and having it so opened that your brain falls out".




ShadowAMD said:


> Also sometimes ignorance is bliss, based on current understanding you die and become food for bacteria unless cremated obviously. Wouldn't it be nice to believe that you don't become another blank statement being left to decompose? Have you never felt true mortality and wished there was someone out there? TBBT and / or Singularity / CMB theory could explain how we came to be, but it would never explain why.



You are free to believe whatever you want out of fear, but many people care about what's true.



ShadowAMD said:


> For all we know where a droplet in the sand of a much bigger all round multi-verse. Humans could even be a virus, lol that's the beauty of everything we don't know..



So?


----------



## ShadowAMD (Jun 9, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Neither if these are scientific theories, apart from atomic theory.
> 
> Cold fusion is not a science either, but instead the reasearch of cold fusion comes under the umbrella of physics, which is a science.



Do some study, I'm not quite sure you understand what science is. Let me google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+meaning+of+science Your contradicting yourself with the cold fusion bit.

Update: You really need to google before you post, read books or something: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

Also your saying Einstein's Static universe wasn't a theory which is an epic blunder.. Good show.

If your going to argue, at least arm yourself.



> You still don't know what theory in a scientific context means.



It's my day job, I hope to hell I do. Out of interest, what part of the sciences do you work in?

But R&D for artificial intelligence and electronics is not part of technological sciences and physics right? I think you may find it is..! 



> As soon as something is promoted to theory, it will be very hard to discredit completely (as a theory requires both a solid theoretical frame-work, and empirical observations that support it). What might happen is that we discover that a theory is a smaller part of a greater theory, such as with universal gravitation, but that doesn't mean that the earlier observations are wrong.



Not always, sometimes they are.



> I'm not sure what you mean here, but I do agree that we know too little about quantum mechanics to find the TOE very soon at least.



Point is, we don't know enough to dictate what is right and wrong.



> Theory does still not mean what you think it means, you mean hypothesis.



I know exactly what theory means thanks.



> Yes, but then it wouldn't be a religion. What you are saying is that if oranges where green, didn't have as much juice in them, had black seeds, and tasted like apples, then they would be a lot more like apples (no?).



Pretty much yeah.



> I as a member of the skeptical movement hear this a lot, we in fact hear it so much that we have deviced a retort:
> "You must keep an open mind man!"
> "Well, there's a difference between having an open mind, and having it so opened that your brain falls out".



That's quite apparent.



> You are free to believe whatever you want out of fear, but many people care about what's true.
> 
> So?



Are you automatically a mind reader that knows what I am / am not afraid of? 

Ignorant statements put's you in the same camp as god fearing Christianity and proves my point from the first post I made, it's on either side..!


----------



## Jakke (Jun 9, 2013)

ShadowAMD said:


> Do some study, I'm not quite sure you understand what science is.



Read up on what a scientific theory is:
Scientific theory

-Static Universe is a discredited model by Einstein that was never considered a theory, but instead a hypothesis. It was retired due to the discovery of redshift, and Einstein himself later considered this a blunder of his.
-Flat earth has never been a theory.
-Expanding earth is a hypothesis without much consensus at all, and it's often combined online with a conspiratorial belief that "someone" is keeping the truth from the everybody.



ShadowAMD said:


> It's my day job, I hope to hell I do. Out of interest, what part of the sciences do you work in?



Appeal to authority

I don't (I'm a student), but that is not relevant here, as we are not discussing your particular speciality, which is the only place where your authority would hold any weight. If not of course your speciality happens to be philosophy of science. Just out of curiosity, what is your field?

The thing is that a theory shouldn't contradict another theory, since that is not how nature works. If two theories contradict, it might be an indication that there is something wrong in one of them.



ShadowAMD said:


> Not always, sometimes they are.



Quite a lot more often than not. It would help your case to give an example of what was a scientific theory, but later was easily toppled.

Actually, M-Theory seems to be a bit sketchy, but it holds up thus far..



ShadowAMD said:


> I know exactly what theory means thanks.



I do apologize for my answer to that point, I had misread it. I do agree with that an open-ended question can't be proven, just for intellectual honesty. However, we can see that the probability that many theories would be wrong is getting closer to zero, but without ever going there.



ShadowAMD said:


> Point is, we don't know enough to dictate what is right and wrong.



Right and wrong about what? If you mean evolution, sure we do, but evolution has little to do with the TOE, so I don't really see how you make the jump from evolution>TOE.




ShadowAMD said:


> That's quite apparent.



Ooo, the old "I know you are, but what am I", classic.




ShadowAMD said:


> Are you automatically a mind reader that knows what I am / am not afraid of?



You implied people believe because they do not want to end as a rotting corpse in the ground (=fear of death), and I interpreted that as that being about you too, if not, I apologize.



ShadowAMD said:


> Ignorant statements put's you in the same camp as god fearing Christianity and proves my point from the first post I made, it's on either side..!



Saying things like "And that proves my point from the beginning!" never ends well, especially since you started out with a grand declaration that "hollow earth" is a theory.


----------



## ShadowAMD (Jun 9, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Read up on what a scientific theory is:
> Scientific theory
> 
> -Static Universe is a discredited model by Einstein that was never considered a theory, but instead a hypothesis. It was retired due to the discovery of redshift, and Einstein himself later considered this a blunder of his.
> ...



That's more like it, looks like where on a more social debating term. Which I do with the guy's at work and friends all the time.. Which I thoroughly enjoy.

Einstein introduced it as part of the theory of relativity in 1917 and published it en mass, he admit's it was his greatest blunder and proceeded to discredit and re-submit. Which in the field we do more often than you think... Were human where not infallible. Was it Friedman who discredited it? It's been a while since I did my degree.. Either that or the university of Manchester have been lieing to hundred's of students .

Appeal to authority



> I don't (I'm a student), but that is not relevant here, as we are not discussing your particular speciality, which is the only place where your authority would hold any weight. If not of course your speciality happens to be philosophy of science. Just out of curiosity, what is your field?



It's not really, but you get to the grip of how all the paperwork runs when your in an office working to a deadline with private funding, including pushing applied sciences to the IEEE and submitting online papers. I work in AI / Physic's and telecom's weird I know but it all fit's in like a glove. Some electronics involved for new designs etc.

Some published theories get discredited, or upgraded. Rarely contradicted, but it's a convoluted how it all works.



> The thing is that a theory shouldn't contradict another theory, since that is not how nature works. If two theories contradict, it might be an indication that there is something wrong in one of them.



It shouldn't but, I have seen two separate scientist's from PHD programs release two papers that completely contradict each other. It may never get published, but it does happen.



> Quite a lot more often than not. It would help your case to give an example of what was a scientific theory, but later was easily toppled.
> 
> Actually, M-Theory seems to be a bit sketchy, but it holds up thus far..



Now this is personal opinion even though the math adds up, trying to prove M-Theory with 11 dimensions makes it a hypothesis to me. It doesn't really add up...



> I do apologize for my answer to that point, I had misread it. I do agree with that an open-ended question can't be proven, just for intellectual honesty. However, we can see that the probability that many theories would be wrong is getting closer to zero, but without ever going there.



I'll apologize too, I get a real stick in my ass when people try to make out I don't know what I'm talking about. Especially after being in a pitch black lab with lasers for 18 hours.. It create's the worst headache 



> Right and wrong about what? If you mean evolution, sure we do, but evolution has little to do with the TOE, so I don't really see how you make the jump from evolution>TOE.



I don't mean evolution, it's quite apparent we share genes with prime-apes, I'd argue TOE (Theory of everything) would encompass everything though. Or it's not the theory of everything is it?



> > Ooo, the old "I know you are, but what am I", classic.
> >
> > You implied people believe because they do not want to end as a rotting corpse in the ground (=fear of death), and I interpreted that as that being about you too, if not, I apologize.
> >
> ...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 9, 2013)

Ugh. It makes me sad when people who flaunt their intelligence online brutalize the English language in their posts.

To keep things on topic:


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 9, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


>



As someone who's also afraid of polish sausage, I'm reporting you for this.


----------



## ShadowAMD (Jun 9, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Ugh. It makes me sad when people who flaunt their intelligence online brutalize the English language in their posts.
> 
> To keep things on topic:



Well you have done a good job of brutalizing it yourself.

But at least it's readable, unlike youtube "WTF YOOUZ ZO DUPID, I ATE's U!."


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 9, 2013)

ShadowAMD said:


> Well you have done a good job of brutalizing it yourself.



Explain.


----------



## ShadowAMD (Jun 9, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Explain.



Well, I'm unsure as to who you're referring to? But it's not a crime to be slightly misspell and make grammatical errors on an internet forum. Whilst I could be reading between the lines, it appears that statement is direct and slightly aggressive. 

It's not like where writing a manifesto, article or publishing a book now is it?

I'm sure people can understand the message we portrayed holistically.


----------



## Varcolac (Jun 9, 2013)

If we're going to start beating each other about the head with the "my grammar is superior" stick, then I'd like to remind people that apostrophes are for abbreviations and possessives, never for plurals. We don't share "gene's" with anything. We share _genes_. 

Gene's genes are similar to Jean's genes, but this gene's special. It's going to give Jean cervical cancer. Fortunately, we can cure her. With science!


----------



## ShadowAMD (Jun 9, 2013)

Varcolac said:


> If we're going to start beating each other about the head with the "my grammar is superior" stick, then I'd like to remind people that apostrophes are for abbreviations and possessives, never for plurals. We don't share "gene's" with anything. We share _genes_.
> 
> Gene's genes are similar to Jean's genes, but this gene's special. It's going to give Jean cervical cancer. Fortunately, we can cure her. With science!



Well as you're picking on my post, in which I was debating it's not that important. I modified it for your viewing pleasure.


----------



## Murmel (Jun 9, 2013)

-42- said:


>



I do believe this should be quoted at least once a page.

Carry on.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 9, 2013)

ShadowAMD said:


> Theories like the world is flat and where all going to fall off? Expanding Earth? Static Universe? Progressions of atomic theory? We have been wrong a fair few times. Not to say there might not be weight in some "sloppy" sciences like cold fusion.



I&#8217;ve never said theories or hypothesis haven&#8217;t been wrong in the past. It just isn&#8217;t that common anymore. Most theories even when proven false are not far off to be completely contradicted however. Jakke countered this more eloquently as I&#8217;m not well read enough on these subjects to add much, but I can say that &#8216;flat Earth&#8217; was never a theory. It was a layman observation taken as fact at the time.



ShadowAMD said:


> *Sciences have been contradicted* and that's what theories are there for. Contradicting sciences isn't a failure, it's how we get closer to the truth.





ShadowAMD said:


> Some published theories get discredited, or upgraded. *Rarely contradicted*, but it's a convoluted how it all works.





Most of what we know today that is applicable to our day-to-day lives may change, but is not going to be completely contradicted. Obviously through history we have contradicted ourselves and yes that would be a sign of growth, but that makes no difference on the stability of theories we have today given the sheer amount of data at our fingertips.



ShadowAMD said:


> That's a literal point to prove a purpose, any theorem can be discredited and as a scientist it's what is and all ways will be.





Jakke said:


> Quite a lot more often than not. It would help your case to give an example of what was a scientific theory, but later was easily toppled.



Then he should have used an applicable point. Making shit up to prove a point is not a strong foundation to fight from.



ShadowAMD said:


> Why exactly can't you? If the "Engineer" in the sky designed the cosmo's to be what it is and we are just reverse engineering it. It falls into one and the same.



That is a description of someone&#8217;s faith. If science were to uncover that a God exists then scientists would change their outlook/opinion and either not give a shit or form a religion. Science in itself is just steps to make observations and discovery, nothing more. That is why it cannot be treated like a religion.



ShadowAMD said:


> An open ended question isn't fact, it either is or it isn't. If it's open ended it's therefore still a theory.. I couldn't publish an applied scientific paper on a maybe, a theoretical one yes of course. It's not good for one's career mixing up the two..



I never said an open ended question was fact. My point was since we cannot prove it we can neither disprove it entirely so any ideas brought to the table on the subject would be stuck as merely opinions and hypothesis (not theories). A theory isn&#8217;t as open ended as the point I was referring to which is there is no evidence one way or the other for religion/afterlife. A theory is firmly based in fact. It may be wrong, off or a smaller part of the big picture, but it is based upon fact either way.



ShadowAMD said:


> *This is where we are beginning to make a lot of sense*, many issues stem not from religion itself. But the religion humans have created, if religion was self expanding, ever updating based on a current environment with a purpose to find out how / what / why the splendour in what we have been given came to be. It would be a hell of a lot like science, no?



That&#8217;s a bit of a douche way of saying you disagree with everything else. Did you read what I was responding to? He wasn&#8217;t exactly making good use of facts or history to support his points.

There is nothing for religion to expand from as most things religious go completely unexplained or are not repeatable events (because they didn&#8217;t happen?). So no it would not be like science at all actually. In any case that is a load of gibberish honestly.



ShadowAMD said:


> That's the whole point, being open minded. Whether you believe a higher power doesn't exist, one does, science is leading down the wrong path, we are in the matrix, what we see is a mirror dimension. Whatever it is, it pays to keep an open mind..



 



ShadowAMD said:


> Also sometimes ignorance is bliss, based on current understanding you die and become food for bacteria unless cremated obviously. Wouldn't it be nice to believe that you don't become another blank statement being left to decompose? Have you never felt true mortality and wished there was someone out there? TBBT and / or Singularity / CMB theory could explain how we came to be, but it would never explain why.



Point? I never said the idea of religion was bad at all. It does help people cope with whatever may be going on in their lives. That has no bearing on what I was talking about. I was responding to a point he had made and nothing more.



ShadowAMD said:


> For all we know where a droplet in the sand of a much bigger all round multi-verse. Humans could even be a virus, lol that's the beauty of everything we don't know..



Sure we could be, but it makes little difference. I could also spout any random piece of gibberish to make me sound smart and &#8216;open minded&#8217; as well; it doesn&#8217;t make it fact. Following that philosophy I could make claim that anything is true or possible and therefore never be wrong. 



ShadowAMD said:


> It's my day job, I hope to hell I do. Out of interest, what part of the sciences do you work in?
> 
> But R&D for artificial intelligence and electronics is not part of technological sciences and physics right? I think you may find it is..!





ShadowAMD said:


> It's been a while since I did my degree.. Either that or the university of Manchester have been lieing to hundred's of students .
> It's not really, but you get to the grip of how all the paperwork runs when your in an office working to a deadline with private funding, including pushing applied sciences to the IEEE and submitting online papers. I work in AI / Physic's and telecom's weird I know but it all fit's in like a glove. Some electronics involved for new designs etc.





ShadowAMD said:


> Especially after being in a pitch black lab with lasers for 18 hours.. It create's the worst headache





Jakke said:


> Appeal to authority
> 
> we are not discussing your particular speciality, which is the only place where your authority would hold any weight.



If that isn't an appeal to authority I don't know what is.  I suppose it could be a bit more of gloating instead. In any case, as Jakke said, unless the fields we are discussing are in your job/degree your position holds little weight in this discussion.



Jakke said:


> I do apologize for my answer to that point, I had misread it. I do agree with that an open-ended question can't be proven, just for intellectual honesty. However, we can see that the probability that many theories would be wrong is getting closer to zero, but without ever going there.







ShadowAMD said:


> It shouldn't but, I have seen two separate scientist's from PHD programs release two papers that completely contradict each other. It may never get published, but it does happen.



And at that point it would not be a theory, but a hypothesis (officially). 



ShadowAMD said:


> Now this is personal opinion even though the math adds up, trying to prove M-Theory with 11 dimensions makes it a hypothesis to me. It doesn't really add up...



The math adding up is exactly why it is a theory and NOT a hypothesis. Your personal opinion has no bearing on the definition and classification.



ShadowAMD said:


> I don't mean evolution, it's quite apparent we share genes with prime-apes, I'd argue TOE (Theory of everything) would encompass everything though. Or it's not the theory of everything is it?



So you agree that Evolution is a fairly accurate theory then? Because that is precisely how any of this came up in the first place as someone felt it was BS basically. Frankly, most of your points are more off topic than the already off topic discussion taking place. 



ShadowAMD said:


> All in all, science can't prove an afterlife. To do so at the moment would leave you in the hands of God.. So what to believe is far few and between, it's a more comforting feeling to know that's not all folks.



Comfort does not fact make. 

Hence why I said it was open ended.

[EDIT]

Spelling, grammar and sentence structure are rather important to fortify ones argument, especially if you are going to use your education/job as evidence to support your point. If you come off like you don't even understand English it dilutes your argument. Yes, you are not submitting a paper to Yale, but it makes a difference in an intelligent discussion either way.


----------



## ShadowAMD (Jun 9, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I&#8217;ve never said theories or hypothesis haven&#8217;t been wrong in the past. It just isn&#8217;t that common anymore. Most theories even when proven false are not far off to be completely contradicted however. Jakke countered this more eloquently as I&#8217;m not well read enough on these subjects to add much, but I can say that &#8216;flat Earth&#8217; was never a theory. It was a layman observation taken as fact at the time.



Flat Earth was a theory by a person, it was wrong. That's all there is too it really.





> Most of what we know today that is applicable to our day-to-day lives may change, but is not going to be completely contradicted. Obviously through history we have contradicted ourselves and yes that would be a sign of growth, but that makes no difference on the stability of theories we have today given the sheer amount of data at our fingertips.



It's relative, it depends on what where talking about? Evolution passed the fence a couple of pages back. 



> Then he should have used an applicable point. Making shit up to prove a point is not a strong foundation to fight from.
> 
> 
> That is a description of someone&#8217;s faith. If science were to uncover that a God exists then scientists would change their outlook/opinion and either not give a shit or form a religion. Science in itself is just steps to make observations and discovery, nothing more. That is why it cannot be treated like a religion.



Making shit up? Not likely, are we really spitting the dummy out the cot because somebody doesn't full-heartedly agree with you? What am I making up exactly? Well known theories? 




> I never said an open ended question was fact. My point was since we cannot prove it we can neither disprove it entirely so any ideas brought to the table on the subject would be stuck as merely opinions and hypothesis (not theories). A theory isn&#8217;t as open ended as the point I was referring to which is there is no evidence one way or the other for religion/afterlife. A theory is firmly based in fact. It may be wrong, off or a smaller part of the big picture, but it is based upon fact either way.
> 
> That&#8217;s a bit of a douche way of saying you disagree with everything else. Did you read what I was responding to? He wasn&#8217;t exactly making good use of facts or history to support his points.
> 
> There is nothing for religion to expand from as most things religious go completely unexplained or are not repeatable events (because they didn&#8217;t happen?). So no it would not be like science at all actually. In any case that is a load of gibberish honestly.



Out of context and completely misread, metaphorically speaking science and religion could be one and the same. I'm pointing towards the question, why is religion so set in stone? It wasn't an attack, or anything of the sort. 



> Point? I never said the idea of religion was bad at all. It does help people cope with whatever may be going on in their lives. That has no bearing on what I was talking about. I was responding to a point he had made and nothing more.



Because this thread is starting to become a reverse witch hunt, you believe in religion you say? Well you must be stupid!!. (Sarcasm obviously)

Although I could be reading it wrong, it seems there is little room for debate. It's my way or the highway, why not ask him questions like I'm interested to hear why you believe that? Not, NO YOU'RE WRONG.



> Sure we could be, but it makes little difference. I could also spout any random piece of gibberish to make me sound smart and &#8216;open minded&#8217; as well; it doesn&#8217;t make it fact. Following that philosophy I could make claim that anything is true or possible and therefore never be wrong.
> 
> If that isn't an appeal to authority I don't know what is.  I suppose it could be a bit more of gloating instead. In any case, as Jakke said, unless the fields we are discussing are in your job/degree your position holds little weight in this discussion.



Physic's has some relation to this discussion and none at all to actual thread, apologies for veering off so far. I'm not gloating, I'm just trying to have a healthy debate on science and religion. It's also handy to see many new theories evolve when they come across your desk, just offering some personal experience. Nothing more, nothing less.




> And at that point it would not be a theory, but a hypothesis (officially).
> 
> The math adding up is exactly why it is a theory and NOT a hypothesis. Your personal opinion has no bearing on the definition and classification.



So what? We were only talking about it.



> So you agree that Evolution is a fairly accurate theory then? Because that is precisely how any of this came up in the first place as someone felt it was BS basically. Frankly, most of your points are more off topic than the already off topic discussion taking place.
> 
> Comfort does not fact make.
> 
> Hence why I said it was open ended.



Of course I do and yes we are way off topic. Although conversations do lead to different avenue's, hence we have spun into a different topic. 



> [EDIT]
> 
> Spelling, grammar and sentence structure are rather important to fortify ones argument, especially if you are going to use your education/job as evidence to support your point. If you come off like you don't even understand English it dilutes your argument. Yes, you are not submitting a paper to Yale, but it makes a difference in an intelligent discussion either way.



Fact of the matter is you were able to understand and reply, it seems like an attempt to add weight to an argument. Also I'm proud that I managed to keep this coherent after the amount of alcohol I consumed on this fine summers day. 

There's no point in going on the defensive, I like a good debate and we need to keep it lighthearted.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 9, 2013)

ShadowAMD said:


> Flat Earth was a theory by a person, it was wrong. That's all there is too it really.



This is turning into a semantics argument clearly.



ShadowAMD said:


> Making shit up? Not likely, are we really spitting the dummy out the cot because somebody doesn't full-heartedly agree with you? What am I making up exactly? Well known theories?



I was actually referring to the person who brought up Newtons laws being contradicted and gravity being caused by something else. He was making shit up to support his point which is why I tackled it the way I did. In no way was I referring to you here, but I understand why you misunderstood given the flow of conversation.




ShadowAMD said:


> Out of context and completely misread, metaphorically speaking science and religion could be one and the same. I'm pointing towards the question, why is religion so set in stone? It wasn't an attack, or anything of the sort.



What you mean to say is that God(s) could be the hand that makes things work, move, grow, evolve, etc. which is hypothetically possible, sure. That being said, religion and science are not one in the same in their current contexts which is all we have to go off of. As it stands most of the world religions in their current written form in some way or another contradict what science has discovered.



ShadowAMD said:


> Because this thread is starting to become a reverse witch hunt, you believe in religion you say? Well you must be stupid!!. (Sarcasm obviously)



Not from me. The person I responded to, who was religious, made some very poor arguments (religion aside). 



ShadowAMD said:


> Although I could be reading it wrong, it seems there is little room for debate. It's my way or the highway, why not ask him questions like I'm interested to hear why you believe that? Not, NO YOU'RE WRONG.



Valid critique for sure. That being said, I personally don't care who, how or why someone is religious. I never flat out said he was wrong for believing in a God anyhow. I pointed out that his critique of science was way off and that's about it.




ShadowAMD said:


> So what? We were only talking about it.



That could be the attitude of this entire discussion.  It needs to be grounded in some relevancy. I pointed it out because you seem to believe a hypothesis and theory are interchangeable and they aren't. It's a semantics argument I suppose, but at the same time you aren't only misusing the terms. You are also placing what is officially deemed a hypothesis and what is officially deemed a theory to be equal and they DEFINITELY are not.



ShadowAMD said:


> Fact of the matter is you were able to understand and reply, it seems like an attempt to add weight to an argument. Also I'm proud that I managed to keep this coherent after the amount of alcohol I consumed on this fine summers day.
> 
> There's no point in going on the defensive, I like a good debate and we need to keep it lighthearted.



Well it does add weight to an argument. It's kind of like hearing accurate, factual scientific info from a hobo vs. a guy in an office, wearing a suit. You are probably going to take the second guy more seriously even if they both know exactly what they are talking about based on presentation alone. Shallow for sure, but that is just how we as humans operate.

I agree though, I was able to understand you completely and was only pointing out why others had pointed it out in the first place. I'm a skimmer so I don't typically pay much mind to peoples spelling or grammar usage, but someone pointed it out and then it stuck out like a sore thumb. 

Lighthearted indeed and kudos for managing to type/sort all that while drinking.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 9, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I'm a skimmer so I don't typically pay much mind to peoples spelling or grammar usage, but someone pointed it out and then it stuck out like a sore thumb.



I'm an English teacher by trade. If poor arguments about science stand out to you science-y types, imagine how sore thumb-like bad grammar is to me .

I personally don't understand how people can be smart and devoted enough to have been able to learn the ins and outs of physics or other high-falootin' math and/or science gobbledygook (which are wrapped in mysteries I've never been able to unravel ), but _not_ have been able to pick up on how to properly use a goddamned apostrophe somewhere along the way.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 9, 2013)

For engineering, after you take Intro English, I only had to take one technical writing class and then no more writing courses from then on out. In this technical writing class they expect short and to the point sentences which means even less use of more complex sentence structures. The focus gets shifted to math and physics entirely after that, which no writing is involved with whatsoever. So we get very little practice or training for writing. Honestly, SSO has improved my writing abilities far more than school has (I still have a lot of work though).


----------



## asher (Jun 9, 2013)

flint757 said:


> For engineering, after you take Intro English, I only had to take one technical writing class and then no more writing courses from then on out. In this technical writing class they expect short and to the point sentences which means even less use of more complex sentence structures. The focus gets shifted to math and physics entirely after that, which no writing is involved with whatsoever. So we get very little practice or training for writing. Honestly, SSO has improved my writing abilities far more than school has (I still have a lot of work though).



I'm kind of amazed people don't know how to do it going into college in the first place (hell, highschool, even).


----------



## flint757 (Jun 10, 2013)

I totally agree, but not everyone takes an interest or cares. I'd like to think most people have the basics down at least.


----------



## ShadowAMD (Jun 10, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm an English teacher by trade. If poor arguments about science stand out to you science-y types, imagine how sore thumb-like bad grammar is to me .
> 
> I personally don't understand how people can be smart and devoted enough to have been able to learn the ins and outs of physics or other high-falootin' math and/or science gobbledygook (which are wrapped in mysteries I've never been able to unravel ), but _not_ have been able to pick up on how to properly use a goddamned apostrophe somewhere along the way.



As Flint say's, it's rare that I ever use languages bar writing papers. I'm far better at writing code and it's been a long time since I went to high school, that's the last time I did English. I don't proof read on forums, waste of time generally. Also I'm sure MS Word add's severely to complacency.


----------



## djyngwie (Jun 11, 2013)

It's one of those thinks that irk me to no end (and something I've seen on all levels of education):

1. People who excel at science, but knows no grammar and/or can't spell.
2. People who excel at humanities, but can't do basic math and/or know nothing about elementary science.

It's one think to be dyslexic or have dyscalculia, but for everybody else, it's just plain lazy, IMO. The worst part is, that some of these people even seem to take some pride in their ignorace.


----------



## vilk (Jun 11, 2013)

djyngwie said:


> It's one of those things that irk me to no end (and something I've seen on all levels of education):
> 
> 1. People who excel at science, but knows no grammar and/or can't spell.
> 2. People who excel at humanities, but can't do basic math and/or know nothing about elementary science.
> ...


 Well, I guess the real question is, which one do you excel at and what's your excuse for writing the word 'think' in place of the word 'thing'? And how lazy are YOU?


I think the real mistake people make is thinking: doesn't care enough to be careful with his grammar when typing bs into an internet forum = doesn't know the rules of grammar.
or that: lazy = not bothering with menial grammatical errors when he's browsing the internet and enjoying himself.

I graduated university. I've written long ass papers and gotten good marks. Why didn't I capitalize that shit? Why did I use an apostrophe when I shouldn't have? 
1. I type hella fast
2. Why the .... should I care it's the ....ing internet.


----------



## djyngwie (Jun 11, 2013)

baron samedi said:


> Well, I guess the real question is, which one do you excel at and what's your excuse for writing the word 'think' in place of the word 'thing'? And how lazy are YOU?
> 
> 
> I think the real mistake people make is thinking: doesn't care enough to be careful with his grammar when typing bs into an internet forum = doesn't know the rules of grammar.
> ...


Busted  Of course the time you critizise other people's spelling is the time you make a mistake yourself (never fails)!

Also, I could probably have made that clearer, but I wasn't really thinking about this thread in particular (and certainly not any specific posters). It's perfectly understandable if you don't want to waste your time going over every line of text you post on the internet. Also, some people (like me) don't have English as their first language. It's more of a general observation.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 11, 2013)

baron samedi said:


> I think the real mistake people make is thinking: doesn't care enough to be careful with his grammar when typing bs into an internet forum = doesn't know the rules of grammar.
> or that: lazy = not bothering with menial grammatical errors when he's browsing the internet and enjoying himself.



Let's not pretend that it isn't perfectly obvious when something is a typo and when it's someone who just has terrible grammar. Typing "thinks" instead of "things:" Typo. Regularly using apostrophes to form plurals (and to conjugate third person singular verbs, bafflingly) in every single post made over the course of several pages: Terrible grammar.

Believe it or not, most grammar nazis do turn a blind eye to 99.99% of the mistakes they see on the internet, because we _know_ that for the most part it's just casual communication and doesn't have to be perfect. It's the same as correcting every imperfection somebody makes using spoken English while having a conversation in person: Unless the mistake is glaringly obvious and made repeatedly, I'm fine leaving well enough alone.

And then sometimes, on the intarwebz, I just feel like being an ass . Make a bunch of dumbass English mistakes while otherwise trying to come off as a smartypants, and Grand Ass Tim _will_ make a crack about it.


Apparently.








To keep things on topic:


----------



## vilk (Jun 11, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> dumbass English mitakes


 lol was this on purpose?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 11, 2013)

baron samedi said:


> lol was this on purpose?



I wish .


----------



## Curt (Jun 11, 2013)

So...
Let's recap, shall we? 
ITT: OP shares an interesting enough story, the thread quickly derails into oblivion with constant multi-qoutes about the beliefs of the others. Polish sausage is mentioned a few times; though it is interrupted by more science debates, mixed with shit slinging about grammatical errors that relate nothing to the topic at hand.



Well, what have we learned? Upon reading this thread I have found discussing religion on the internet never comes to terms of let's agree to disagree, rather snowballing into a near movie-like form of entertainment. Quite reminiscent of a drunken bar brawl.

I, for one have decided this thread needs more polish sausage. What say you?


----------



## djyngwie (Jun 11, 2013)

Bring the sauerkraut!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 11, 2013)

This thread is now about all things sausage. Bring on the sausagefest!


----------



## hairychris (Jun 11, 2013)

flint757 said:


> This is turning into a semantics argument clearly.



Only in the fact that anyone who conflates the scientific definition of theory (well tested, best explanation for observations, has predictive power) with the colloquial definition of theory (something *might* be the case) needs to either a) butt out of any conversation regarding science until they understand or b) be laughed at and not have their points taken seriously because they don't know what they're talking about.

Evolution is a fact. It is also a theory. Gravity is a fact. It's also a theory. Scientific "laws" are simple things, rules of thumb, that tell us that if you do x to y, z happens. Scientific theories explain _why_ this happens.

Sorry for going over old ground. It may be a semantic issue but it is so fundamental to these discussions that it cannot be ignored.

tl;dr - Anyone who says that something in science is "just a theory" is ignorant, dictionary definition thereof.

Edit: saucisson sec, omnomnom. Not Polish but tickles my cured-porky-goodness buttons just right.


----------



## EcoliUVA (Jun 11, 2013)

baron samedi said:


> So, I'm atheist, I don't really know why anyone wouldn't be, but ok so you want to believe in god that's maybe understandable _I guess_.



Fear. Fear of death, indoctrinated fear of "hell," fear of rejection (by other "Christians"), fear of change, and fear of delicious sausages - forbidden by the Old Testament.

Sausages are TERRIFYING(ly tasty).


----------



## BuckarooBanzai (Jun 11, 2013)

I was born in New York but I've lived in Maryland for 16 years. I would definitely say that I grew up around a fairly-homogenized cross section of society (my high school was about as WASPy as one could get without going to a private school) that I do not empathize with when it comes to politics, religion, and general life philosophy, but I turned out alright. I attribute this to the internet, my parents, and my family. It's far from the end of the world, and it might even be a good thing for your kid. Learning to deal with people you don't get along with is a VERY critical life skill; I struggle with it every day, but I see many people who don't try either because they don't want to or don't have to because they stay in the same kind of environment for their entire lives.

TL;DR: I wouldn't be terribly concerned.


----------



## 7Heavyness (Jun 11, 2013)

We(americans) are afraid of ourselves


----------



## Nile (Jun 11, 2013)




----------



## ShadowAMD (Jun 11, 2013)

hairychris said:


> Only in the fact that anyone who conflates the scientific definition of theory (well tested, best explanation for observations, has predictive power) with the colloquial definition of theory (something *might* be the case) needs to either a) butt out of any conversation regarding science until they understand or b) be laughed at and not have their points taken seriously because they don't know what they're talking about.
> 
> Evolution is a fact. It is also a theory. Gravity is a fact. It's also a theory. Scientific "laws" are simple things, rules of thumb, that tell us that if you do x to y, z happens. Scientific theories explain _why_ this happens.
> 
> ...



Scientific theory has predefined criterion that must be met, the rules and application has changed of the span of hundred's of years. Falsifiable predictions, evidence and research consistent with pre-existing theories whether to define, update or replace.

It doesn't mean that a theory can't come to a dead end and / or be replaced. If I'm to release a theoretical paper to IEEE for application, I'd better be sure it's 100% on the ball and have the evidence. 

Then again, I'm not sure who you're aiming that at?


----------



## possumkiller (Jun 13, 2013)

Didn't expect all of that lol.


----------



## FooBAR (Jun 15, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> Anyone searching for absolute truth who can't even for a moment venture into the waters that exist beyond the inherent cognitive dissonance is not really searching for truth. They're entertaining themselves with science, enjoying it in the way other people enjoy reading Good Housekeeping or ghostwritten James Patterson mysteries.
> 
> If you haven't even done enough reading to know that searching for 'absolute truth' is a fool's quest, then you are again showing how little you actually know. I'd suggest redefining your search into terms like 'the most consistent truth' or perhaps 'the most stable truth.' You'll end up in philosophical circles and semantic cockfights, otherwise.
> 
> ...



This...is quite possibly the most eloquently-put post I've ever read on the internet.


----------



## bluediamond (Jun 30, 2013)

possumkiller said:


> Ok so....
> 
> My wife is Polish. She is Polish Catholic. She thinks Poland is a pretty religious/churchy kind of place. She had never been to America until she moved here to Florida with me. We now live in a very small town with a population of about 7,000 that contains about twenty different churches. Like some serious southern redneck yelling and screaming hitting people on the forehead talking in jibberish jumping around hand waving type churches. She was surprised that people here are so closed-minded toward everything else in the world and that they simply refuse to acknowledge anything apart from a literal reading of the Bible as being truth.
> 
> ...



Sounds familiar to me, where I live.


----------

