darwin fish - it's not just for cars anymore!

[Thinkmeats]

Allielyn: I beleive in the scientific process, and I also have a religion. I have no contradiction between the two.

Science deals with the real world (edit: All of it, for clarification. No exceptions.). You claim to believe because of a real world experience, but claim science is seperate from it. There's your contradiction.

Again, how amusing. Can you prove he has not communicated with me, or that he doesn't continue to do so? Oh that's right! Since you cannot observe such with the limited tools available to scientific research as the state of the art stands, it must not be happening. (sarcasm here of course, in case you didn't get it)

The burden of proof is on you. It certainly isn't my job to run around proving that your pretty outlandish claims are inaccurate--in fact, god told me the burden of proof is on you. Just now, as I was typing. Do you see what I mean? "God told me so" has no place in a serious conversation.

Again, wrong. Science only covers that which can be observed and quantified through the tools currently developed. And don't tell me that "since God does a thing it must be observable" is an option here. I terms of evolution, you can observe how it works and why and when, but it doesn't mean it wasn't guided. We have no way of observing such, because there's no "world without God" that can work as a frame of reference. Without a frame of reference, nothing can be shown to be one way or the other.

Your objection is foolish. The definition of science doesn't change over time. I dare you to mention me one way in which god can change the world without it being measurable. And in case you're wondering, "god changed it in such a way that you can't notice the differnece" is not, in fact, a change. I mean, what would you posit a world without god to be like? No rainbows or puppies, only sadness and fire? If there's no difference, god is irrelevant; if there is, tell me what it is and stop trying to define the question away.

Science is a methodology. It doesn't have the mental faculties to "approve" or "disapprove" of anything. Further, your blanket assumption that if people beleive, they must therefore not "think" is about as generalized and egotistaical as it can get. While I expect egotistical from you as a matter of course, generalized isn't going to work here.

I like how you give me lip for my figure of speech and in the very next sentence use one of your own. Bonus points for calling me egotistical in a post where you typed "how amusing" with, apparently, a straight face. Let's keep this civil and not call names prz i dont want the thread locked :911:

Now your'e getting in the details of individual denominations as well as individualized beliefs.

Incorrect, with the possible exception of the hell one. If you don't believe in hell, say so, and I'll leave those alone--there are plenty more where they came from. However, as long as your god is all-knowing and all-powerful, the rest stand. And I'm pretty sure you do indeed believe in hell.

Edit: I'd really like to hear your answer to the UFO one because there's no way to dodge that based on "well what if i was a zeus-worshipper".

 

[Allielyn]

No, adalus. My entire point in this thread, the one that I am really trying to get through to you, is that Religion and Science are not mutually exclusive.

That is all.

This is what I beleive; I have a religion, and I truly beleive that the methods of science help us understand our natural world. You keep telling me that it is impossible for that to be true. You want to keep telling me what I beleive? Go ahead, but I hope you can see how silly it is.

I only claim science is separate from religion in that it does not have the tools to prove or disprove it; therefore they exist in separate realms. Let me make this clearer. Science deals with things in the realm of the concrete, observable, and measurable. Religion is not in that realm. Therefore, Science has little to say about religion (where religion is defined solely as the belief in the existence of deity). Where religions make claims regarding things that are concrete, observable, and measureable, science can prove or disprove those claims as it may. (This of course, doesn't necessarily mean the entire religion is false)

The burden of proof as to the existence of deity is not on me: because it is not my object to prove anything about the actual existence of deity to anybody, nor would it ever be. As I've said before, my only object is to show that I personally have no problem with science and my religion being at odds. And I see no reason that I even have to prove that, given that it's based on my beleifs and I'm the expert there!

In addition, I never said the definition of science changes over time. Not sure how you got that.

I refuse to derail my point by discussing specific details about different denominations, or my denomination, and their relevance to whether or not science "backs them up". It truly would add unnecessary clutter, and any meaningful discussion would require loads of background research or information on your part just to put it in context. If you truly do wish to discuss such, you can pm me. Or talk in IRC.

 

[Thinkmeats]

Are you skipping parts of my post? If there is no evidence for a thing, it is irrational to believe in that thing. And science covers all which exists, no matter how much you try to rewrite it: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena" leaves no room for dispute. As for PMing you? Look at your posts in this thread. God told me so, science is this or that, i have experience, you are egotistical, how amusing, and so on. It's clear I won't be taking your religion away no matter how many times I lay the crystal-clear logic in front of you. As for what it's your objective to show, you also posted many times that god is real. You can't make such a claim without support, regardless of whether or not your overall objective is to pedal backwards until it's yesterday or whatever.

My point is that your faith is ill-founded, indefinsible, logically unsound, and furthermore that I want to very clearly demonstrate that. Like I said, you never argue a religious person to convince them, you do it to convince others. You can't listen to me attack your religion because your god told you not to. Who am I to argue with god?



Edit: As an aside, the only reason I have to focus specifically on your faith personally is you tried to play the "well other people believe flabbitybloo" card, despite it being pretty obvious we were talking about vanilla christianity.

 

[Allielyn]

Ahh, I stated several times here that God exists as part of the background for my assertions. When I say "my religion and science are not at odds" It helps to know what my religion actually says. For the basic purposes of this thread, I am only considering that part of religion, since it's the fundamental one. Specific tenets may come and go, but the fact that God exists is what makes religion.

Also, consider that not all my posts have been replying to you.

It's not that I can't listen to you attack my religion "because my God told me not to." It's that I can listen for days to philosophical natterings and it doesn't really change the fact that I have a real relationship, and I cannot deny it.

And science covers all which exists,

No:

Science is a method through which:

"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena"

takes place. (as you said!)

It employs methods which are verifiable and repeatable. However you can see, that if the phenomena are not observable given the tools we currently have, science cannot identify, describe, investigate, or test it.

You're saying that if it isnt' observable given the tools we currently have in the scientific community, then it cannot exist. I disagree.

It's clear I won't be taking your religion

You've said this several times. So in other words, I am merely trying to convince you my faith and science are not mutually exclusive, and you've been trying to convince me that my faith is completely wrong and ill founded. It seems as though we're talking past each other. I will not participate in a debate that argues whether or not religion is true.

 

[Thinkmeats]

I'd thought the conversation was over with our last two posts. You say god is real because god tells you god is real--that's pretty much all she wrote. When I said you don't listen, I meant exactly that--you read what I say, but no matter what I'm saying you think "well god is real so Thinkmeats is wrong", which is a terrible way to think. I haven't been trying to convince you of anything because you actually posted that god tells you stuff. Nothing in the world could ever convince you, which ironically is what makes you so very wrong. Otherwise, you're just running in circles: I already explained that science means the same thing no matter what tools exist, and you didn't even bother to address that, you just kept rollin right on past with the "well there are some things science can't prove so therefore god is fine". It's like you're not even bothering to think that god used to cover lightning until since pushed him off that, and surely god didn't give it up, so therefore the "we dont have tools for some shit yet" defense is goofy.

But yeah, my replies are shrinking because it's been a few posts since you raised a new point, so I think this discussion has run its course. Here's an interesting thought exercise: I know you're not even considering what I've said (why would you? God is smarter than me, after all), so think of it in terms of a neutral observer. If you're finding it hard to imagine someone read this debate and came out having their faith in god re-affirmed, your points could probably stand some polish, and you should perhaps devote some time to rethinking what exactly god means to you and whether or not those meanings are even possible.

And if you're wondering why I never ever back down from an argument about religion, just think to yourself "what if god isn't real?", and while you're in that hypothetical, think "I wonder what it would be like to live in a country where everyone is christian and the seperation of church and state is eroding?". Helluva motivation to stop avoiding debate, isn't it?

 

[zodium]

And this is why I locked the Iraq thread. Discussion of politics and religion never lead to anything good unless you agree.