[FACEBOOK] Science and Religion Can Coexist? (LONG)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2013, 02:38 PM
[FACEBOOK] Science and Religion Can Coexist? (LONG)
Private messages I got from a "science major" on a FB page I help admin. This person is basically is trying to meld science and religion, claiming the concepts can coexist. I try to be nice, but the fucks and shits come out near the end, especially once Pascal's shows up (it's more reliable than the 3:45 bus). Separated by dashes per post, copied word for word, only edited out the user's name.

Onward =)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Science Major"

it was back and forth on science and God. because, being into science, but also religion, I apparently see things differently. And commented on a couple pictures. and then lots of converstaion followed. and then they said they'd write back later... but didn't =[

it's ok though. it was a while ago. i was just disapointed becuase it was thought provoking at times.

again, i did not mean that as a back handed compliment.
It's a page to "like"
getting an acutal reply to a message is pretty great.
(the conversations were all on picture comments, not messages)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loud Atheism
Yesterday
Loud Atheism

Well, I've always been into science as a kid, especially astronomy. I also grew up in a christian household, so I often tried to rationalize the two very different and opposing concepts. The mind tends to disagree with itself as what you see as far as evidence goes, clashes with what you believe, or want to believe based on what you perceive to be religious/spiritual/etc.

This phenomenon is called Cognitive Dissonance, and is fairly well understood, or at least there's a lot written about it. Here are some basics --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

You can see what might apply here between what you can see with science vs. what religion tells you to see, and what we often will fool ourselves with. I know first hand it's hard to rationalize the two, but really, if you keep it honest, the scientific view point will always win out with a rational mind, the secular explanation will simply be more consistent and make a lot more sense, and the religious view point will crumble under scrutiny. It's a rabbit hole that goes quite deep, I can assure you. But if you're one that cares whether your beliefs align with reality and truth or not, it's definitely something to look into for yourself and come to your own conclusion. Some people don't like what they find. They feel cheated, or tricked. I was one of those people, and well, here I am, not worse for wear as I approach one year as an atheist in a few short weeks. I'm quite comfortable in my new skin, although truth be told, I wasn't at first. Until the dying embers of any supernatural belief subsided that is. ~KMFDM_Kid2000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Science Major"

people have shown me this before. same link. but i disagree. i have never found something in any of the religous books i believe in, to not work with science, UNLESS you take it out of context. you see (i'll only use the bible since that seems to be the main one people talk about there), the bible is not a science book. It's a history book with some laws thrown in.
it gives rules and laws to people who never had there own government. or didn't know about desieses. It said the world was a sphere the hangs in the universe upon nothing. it talkes about processes and ideas.
it's not a science textbook and never was asked to be such.
but to say that sciecnce and God dont' match up doesn't wrok.
science is provable, tangable thigns. God is not.
there is no way to know from Science whether or not there is a God.
You cannot have science if you have no chance to fail (what we learned in the first day of biology).
and there is no way, to test or prove God.
but that does not make a God an unexisting thing.
Science is ever changing. God isn't.
Science has new theories, hypothesis, ideas, and "upgrades" everyday. Discovering something new.
but you can't do that with God.
Tehrefore, God isn't Science. But it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Nor does it discredit Science.
The bible goes hand in hand with science. and science is simply learning new thigns about the universe we live in, everyday.

The bible never discredits science. and when you keep it in context, it goes right along with.
Simply, scicne wants to continue to explain thigns.
discrediting a God, because of a new scientific principal is more of a laugh in teh face of science.
it means we haven't gotten far enough.
would you really think, IF there was an almighty being who created teh universe, that this being just.... did it?
or woud you think they would go full out and make it awesome?
why would this being stop at just a big bang?
wouldn't, being an almighty power, they pull from other thigns, and make a system, a set, one thing lead to another and make a huge, complex creation?
why stop there?

sceicne is simply discovering how the thigns work. why they work. what comes before and what comes after. we simply can't find the beginning.
so, since it only being the 21st century, and still discovering new things everyday... how is it even rational to discredit a God?
how it is rational, as a scientist, to rule it out as a possibility? we certainly haven't discovered what came first.

the big bang. who said creation couldn't have had that as one of the many processes? and what caused the big bang? and what put those things in place? who says logically, that there couldn't be... if you dig deep enough to the beginning, it couldn't have be some being who got bored and decided to set a universe in motino. and billionds and billions of years later, poof! here we are!

the bible, even just in creation, gives a list.
first there was light.
then planets.
process process process then plants, then animals, then people.
in the bible, it uses "days" to describe each thing. later it says a "day" can be a thousand years. in another place, a "day" can be a set of time. a day, could have been a literal day... but it never says they are consecutive days.
what was even the pupose of putting that in?
couldn't it have been just to give an idea, that all things in the universe come by in a process. nothing just magically pops up?
becuase, i garintee it... if you went up to someone in a 3rd world country with no indoor plumbing, and explained to them facebook... they would think you were crazy.
So why would this possible supernatural being, explain the process of creation to them in detail? woulnd't the only logical thing to be to put it in a way they understand? using days. they get that. using stories. they get that. using simple terms.

what is there, to say that there can't be?
the bible never says there can't be science.
sceince is a way to explain teh universe in terms we understand.
today.
the bible was given to people to understand the world yesterday. and give us an idea for how to live for tomorrow.



I was always into astronomy. biology. and chemistry. (biology focusing on animal life). i have never understood where the opposing concepts you are talkinga bout come from. i've never understood what there was to rationalize.

can you explain a little more?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Science Major"
Yesterday


i apologize for the length of this message. when i start typing.... sometimes it just keeps happening

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loud Atheism
20 hours ago
Loud Atheism

"religous books i believe in"

On what basis do you believe in them? What merits do they have that actual scientific fact does not? Wouldn't an omniscient god know how to communicate a little more clearly, as to not leave anything up to interpretation, or at least know how to do this?

"UNLESS you take it out of context"

In what context is a bat a bird, or the Earth flat (at the very least, have corners?) In what scientific context can light exist without a light source as claimed by Genesis? You do understand the nature of light being photons emitted from a source, this doesn't jive with biblical claims, as this is a physical impossibility, and not even remotely logical.

"It's a history book with some laws thrown in."

It makes claims that can be verified or debunked by science, therefore it is not immune from science's scrutiny or criticisms. The very notion that a god creates reality, makes the claim that he is capable of interacting with the natural world and universe, although strangely upon examination, no evidence of this can be shown, no traces of even a suggestion of this can be found to be true. So your notion that the bible is immune from the sort of rules that govern science? No, you don't get a free pass there. Not if you're claiming any part of the scriptures is infallible, non-fiction, or anything of the sort. So with that said, why should it be regarded with ANY reverence when its claims are provably false, its morals backwards, and its history questionable? Surely as a woman, I would think you'd have problems with the blatant misogyny peppered throughout. I'm a man and it bothers me that its law decrees a raped woman is to be forced to marry her attacker, as if she would be some sort of violated cattle.

"it gives rules and laws to people who never had there own government."

Laws and government predate the bible, your claim is factually false. See Hammurabi's code.

"or didn't know about desieses."

Why wouldn't it know about germ theory? After all, its claim is that all scripture is divinely inspired, See 2 Timothy 3:16. Why wouldn't a loving omniscient god know, or even clue in about disease?

"It said the world was a sphere"

No, it actually didn't. It mentions corners, which a sphere has none of. The Hebrew word for sphere, or rather "ball" did exist at this time, but it wasn't used. In no way, shape or form, did the bible ever state the Earth is a sphere/ball or even close.

"hangs in the universe upon nothing"

Not the universe, but the Earth, and this isn't the case. The Earth is a moving object, it isn't hanging anywhere. And "space" isn't actually nothing if you're talking REAL nothing. Ask any astronomer. Dark Matter and Dark Energy permeate nearly EVERYTHING, leaving nearly no real voids. Plenty of light outside of the unseen spectrum permeate everything. X-Rays, gamma rays, particulates, the list goes on and on. It's soooo far from nothing, it only goes to show the author's ignorance of how things actually work, and now we're getting to why this book is a farce, ignorant of reality, and clearly not written or inspired by anything remotely resembling omniscience.

"it's not a science textbook and never was asked to be such."

There are those who will certainly disagree with you, just ask the creationist lobbyists for the Texas State School Board. They seem to think it is. And if your notion is that it is factual, that falls under the realm of science, therefore it is testable, which it fails at. If you're claiming it to be metaphor, then you undermine your central belief system, as your god could very well be just a metaphor as well.

"but to say that sciecnce and God dont' match up doesn't wrok. "

Science, as the observable study of the universe around us and the forces that drive and govern it, and god, as the personification depicted in scripture, do NOT line up in any consistent and factual fashion. The very notion of omniscience and omnipotence are clearly logically inconsistent and self defeating. These are paradoxes, and any real examination of these concepts reveals that.

"science is provable, tangable thigns. God is not."

Provable and tangible is reality. There are other non-tangible things that are provable, such as logic, love, and mathematics. These things are not only internally consistent, but we can show how they affect the real universe in a demonstrable way. God is an inconsistent and contradictory mess of a hypothesis, a failed hypothesis that some people just have a hard time letting go of, despite their higher thinking trying to weigh in on it and somehow try to rationalize it, or discredit the actual provable science behind it.

I am no stranger to your methods and apologetics you're using here. They smack of the likes of William Lane Craig, and they constitute a very non-scientific and logically fallacious and inconsistent methodology, falling in line with an argument from incredulity, and flat out intellectual dishonesty WLC is so known for. We're not new at this, and we're very experienced in debunking logically weak or false claims. This page simply gives us a lot of opportunities to think these arguments through, and I can only speak for myself here, but I consume a LOT of media focused on apologetics, counter apologetics, and religious debate, so you aren't presenting a single new idea here. What you're doing is clearly trying to blur the lines so you can have your cake and eat it too. Sorry, that's not going to fly here. You've gotta bring your "A" game if you don't want your notions shot down and ripped to shreds.

"there is no way to know from Science whether or not there is a God."

Shifting the burden of proof. It's the job of the one making the assertion to prove there is one in the first place, this is a thinly veiled attempt at "You can't prove god doesn't exist" which is a nonsense argument. You can't prove unicorns don't exist, but belief without proof is foolishness.

"You cannot have science if you have no chance to fail (what we learned in the first day of biology)."

Correct, you need a degree of falsifiability if you're going to present any kind of scientific notion. This is the cornerstone of science, and why science cannot coexist with the idea of anything supernatural. The very idea of a god is not falsifiable. You have no example of a universe created by a god and a universe not created by a god, let alone a control sample. You can't make a claim that cannot be tested, then simply assert it so, and try to call that rational. That's pie in the sky. It's gullibility, and it's delusional.

"but that does not make a God an unexisting thing."

Let's clear something up, omniscience and omnipotence aren't EMPIRICALLY testable, but they are certainly LOGICALLY testable. Evidence need not be physical, as with the case with mathematical proofs. The logic behind omni-anything simply does not follow, and is inconsistent, so the god of the bible, although not EMPIRICALLY testable, fails the LOGICAL test, and therefore is a false assertion. What's to say there isn't some sort of god who does exist that we don't know of or have the current ability to understand? Certainly possible, as are many other fantastical ideas, but to believe with no good reason to do so is the very definition of being gullible, unscientific, wishful, and foolish. There's no nice way to say it, but there's also no good reason to think it.

"Science is ever changing. God isn't.
Science has new theories, hypothesis, ideas, and "upgrades" everyday. Discovering something new.
but you can't do that with God."

Science is self correcting as technology and understanding improve. Don't miscategorize and try to make a false dichotomy out of this notion. There are an infinite amount of possibilities that don't include a god, but you don't mention these. You pigeon hole your argument into a false yin and yang, which isn't very well thought through. With those infinite possibilities, none have presented themselves with any real reason for believing in them, they have zero evidence to support them. The idea of a god falls into this category of "what ifs that have nothing to support themselves". Now what makes this idea any more special than any of the other infinite possibilities? Tradition? Fear of death? Greed for reward? Fear of punishment? Maybe a little of all of the above.

"Tehrefore, God isn't Science. But it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Nor does it discredit Science."

Cognitive dissonance at work here, a classic example of the human mind trying to rationalize and compartmentalize the idea of a god, without realizing it's even doing so, or that these ideas conflict with each other.

"The bible goes hand in hand with science. and science is simply learning new thigns about the universe we live in, everyday."

This is a false statement made by someone who's never looked at scripture with anything remotely resembling criticism. Critical thinking is another cornerstone of scientific thought and methodology. Turn that inward to your beliefs and watch how fast they crumble. The bible isn't even conducive to human survival, as if it were followed to the letter, we'd be killing off most of the population for minor infractions. To say otherwise reveals your ignorance to what is actually printed on those pages. You may not have read it all, but we have, so don't come here making that sort of assertion and assume we won't quote scripture and verse that proves our point when we criticize. Don't forget, some of us were fervent believers at one point, we actually read the book, that's why we're atheists. And that's how a lot of people arrive at atheism. Simply reading the bible, scrutinizing it, rationalization, leading to a realization, that if we are honest with ourselves, the god claimed in that book simply does not exist.

"The bible never discredits science. and when you keep it in context, it goes right along with."

Where have you been for the past 200 years? This is ALL any religious zealot putting the words of their book and their faith ahead of what we keep digging up and discovering with Evolutionary science, has been trying to do. Put nonsense ahead of actual discoveries, such as "The devil buried those fossils to test our faith", now on to the pseudoscientific nonsense of trying to discredit evolution with creating a distinction between "Macroevolution" and "Microevolution", which no serious scientist even acknowledges. Evolution is simply change over time with living things, it's provable, as you will learn even with basic biology, but since it doesn't line up with silly ancient myths about talking snakes and rib women, it gets constant barrages of attempts to discredit it. I don't know what fantasy world you're living in, but your head is clearly buried in the sand on this issue.

"Simply, scicne wants to continue to explain thigns.
discrediting a God, because of a new scientific principal is more of a laugh in teh face of science."

Again, trying to shift the burden of proof. It's not science's job to discredit or validate god, it's the job of the claimant to prove such a thing exists in the first place, and it need not be physical, but it does need to match the magnitude of the claim. Otherwise, it gets tossed out with all of the other unsubstantiated and nonsensical claims. That's simply the reality of it. You're going through contortions to try and harmonize these things, and they simply aren't even remotely compatible. From my observation, I'm going to attribute this to a lack of knowledge in both science as well as what the bible actually has to say, as well as the CONTEXT in which it was written, its history, all of those factors. I see you STARTING to think about these things, but it's CLEAR you have not gotten very deep into either. I suggest you keep plowing through, learn some critical thinking skills, and ESPECIALLY focus on logical fallacies as a way to separate the chaff from the goods in the arena of ideas. You're doing right by pursuing education, but education without being able to make sense of it due to bad logical skills isn't going to be truly valuable, other than get you a passing grade on a test.

"would you really think, IF there was an almighty being who created teh universe, that this being just.... did it?"

I don't think any being created anything. Many of the processes involved are simply natural forces which can be replicated and demonstrated. No need for a god to intervene. Again, you're displaying a logical fallacy here, argument from incredulity. You're trying to fill in the blanks rather than acknowledging gaps in the data.

"or woud you think they would go full out and make it awesome?
why would this being stop at just a big bang?
wouldn't, being an almighty power, they pull from other thigns, and make a system, a set, one thing lead to another and make a huge, complex creation?
why stop there?"

Your biggest mistake here is again, assumptions where you should instead be saying "I don't know, let's find out".

"we simply can't find the beginning."

Then why are you trying to make one up? That's the height of dishonesty. Why such a problem with "I don't know"?

"how is it even rational to discredit a God?"

Because your logic is steeped in fallacy and you haven't lent credence to one to begin with.

"how it is rational, as a scientist, to rule it out as a possibility?"

Because, again, it hasn't been proven to begin with. Remove god and put in sentient pink flying toasters and see why your argument falls flat on its face. That's simply not how science or proof work. You don't give credence to an idea that has no basis in thinking so, was arrived at fallaciously, and is nonsensical, let alone flies in the face of the evidence that *IS* actually there. You either don't know what the bible claims, or don't know what science proves. In your happy fantasy, these things fit together, but as you learn more, that fantasy is going to crumble. If you value any sort of methodological method over a mythological method, and you're honest with yourself, your notion isn't going to stand up to scrutiny. If you keep fooling yourself and continue on in your psychological haze, ignorant of facts, trying to figure out how these things fit together, you're going to be vastly disappointed.

"we certainly haven't discovered what came first."

If you recognize this, then why are you even making an assertion? The only honest answer is "I don't know". Anything further than that is intellectual dishonesty.

"and what caused the big bang?"

This might be a nonsensical question as cause implies a timeline, which is dependent on spacetime, which if you've studied to any degree Einstein's notions of how spacetime works, and which models have tested to be accurate, you'd realize spacetime emerged as a result of the big bang. To assert "cause" prior to this even existing, is to misunderstand the very foundations of Einstein's work.

"and what put those things in place?"

Again, unfounded assumption that it required a who or what to begin with.

"who says logically, that there couldn't be... if you dig deep enough to the beginning, it couldn't have be some being who got bored and decided to set a universe in motino. and billionds and billions of years later, poof! here we are!"

Because logically, you're asserting something with incomplete data and no basis for doing so.

"first there was light"

Without a light source, which again, shows you have a flawed understanding of how these things work.

"process process process then plants, then animals, then people. "

Yet, it never occurs to you holes in this story, like why does an omnipotent being need to rest? Or how our entire solar system, one of QUNTILLIONS, and only 0.02% the mass of our ONE galaxy, took nearly a week to make, but he made the rest of every OTHER solar system, which might be larger, more complex systems, in a day? Even a basic analysis of the distribution of time here vs. mass a number show this to be laughable at best. Not to mention there's several flaws with other details in the 2 conflicting accounts of creation in genesis. I suggest you get your information from actual scientists rather than apologists, and apply some logic here.

"in the bible, it uses "days" to describe each thing. later it says a "day" can be a thousand years. in another place, a "day" can be a set of time. a day, could have been a literal day... but it never says they are consecutive days."

Why not be direct and succinct in describing a simple concept like time periods?

"what was even the pupose of putting that in?"

Such is the nature of mythology.

"nothing just magically pops up?"

Higgs-Boson would like a word with you.

"they would think you were crazy."

Your analogy fails because you can SHOW them Facebook. You can support your burden of proof, and provide evidence in proportion with the claim. You can't do this with god, so stop trying to shoehorn these ill-thought and dishonest notions.

"So why would this possible supernatural being, explain the process of creation to them in detail? woulnd't the only logical thing to be to put it in a way they understand? using days. they get that. using stories. they get that. using simple terms."

An omniscient god would know how to do so and remain factual and consistent. An omnipotent god would be able to simply beam the information in with no room for error, to the point where it would be indisputable and perfectly communicated. Even a god that wasn't a total dumb-ass would do so at a time like now, in which people COULD understand these natural processes, rather than revealing so in a time where people were barely literate, and writing on parchment. Funny how christians always say god does not reveal himself as not to spoil free will, but he had no problem doing this before the invention of the video camera. Not to mention the supposed fallen angels had full knowledge of his existence through direct means, and yet that didn't affect their free will in the least. Not to mention in all 66 books of the bible, the words "free will" aren't even mentioned.

"what is there, to say that there can't be?
the bible never says there can't be science.
sceince is a way to explain teh universe in terms we understand.
today.
the bible was given to people to understand the world yesterday. and give us an idea for how to live for tomorrow."

Or it could just be a book of collected myths and tales that were written at a time where man had next to no clue of how to explain things, so he made it up as he went along, and it's gotten way out of hand.

"I was always into astronomy. biology. and chemistry. (biology focusing on animal life). i have never understood where the opposing concepts you are talkinga bout come from. i've never understood what there was to rationalize."

All of those sciences show how things are, and are beginning to show how they came to be. Take for instance, abiogenesis, or how non-life turns into life. It's an early science, but in 200 years, perhaps we'll have the understanding we do regarding evolution. Evolution shows us that we share common ancestry with ALL life, even plants. Believers tend to have a problem with this, as they think they were somehow created "special" in the image of their god, but not special enough that he'd make his existence plain and unmistakable. The religious viewpoint is both harmful and inconsistent. I suggest you work on the things I've mentioned, logical, critical thought, learning what logical fallacies are, learning what things the bible ACTUALLY says, the history of the bible itself, and being honest rather than trying to rationalize these conflicting ideas with easily identifiable apologetics, that when put to scrutiny, also fall flat.

Again, a deeper understanding of the point of science is definitely advisable. How proof works, how falsifiability works. You at least have the curiosity down, which is good. Now you have to learn simply HOW to think logically and rationally, and you can put science to good work, rather than trying to rationalize your personal fantasies. ~KMFDM_Kid2000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loud Atheism
18 hours ago
Loud Atheism

I noticed on your profile you're listed as LDS. I'm assuming you've done your research into the background of Joseph Smith, his many fraudulent claims, his arrests, and are familiar with his absurd and fantastical claims, yes? That's all documented fact.

Now as far as my personal feelings and observations, as an apostate of the non-denominational christian faith (Born Again), I see most of what christianity teaches to be very unrealistic as far as expectations of ones self, out of touch with reality, and demonstrably false. LDS is a sub-cult of which crazy is redefined as the "Bat-shit" variety, founded by a blatantly obvious con man, exposed for its lies time and time again, with followers so staunchly indoctrinated that they've lost all touch with what reality even means anymore.

Smith was the L. Ron Hubbard of his time. Trying to get rich and get laid by creating his own religion. It's a shame so many people lack the critical thinking skills to see it for the scam that it truly is, even more so that standard vanilla christian fare. Now I'll admit I don't have a deep knowledge of the Book of Mormon like I do with the traditional bible, but I have more of a level of knowledge than a passing lay person. This simply wasn't what I grew up with, but I've been exposed to enough of it to know it's on a whole other level of insane notions than the standard bible even is, a feat only matched by Dianetics or the Koran. ~KMFDM_Kid2000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Science Major"
18 hours ago


(disclaimer: becuase this is facebook, i dont' worry about spelling or capatalizing everytime at the beginning of a sentance. if it bothers you, let me know. i just find it a waste becuase i'm not writing an essay. i'm speaking on facebook)

God gave everything we needed to know. Just a basic set of how to live life. Then he gave us the ability to figure stuff out for ourself.
Think about it. How lame would life be if we knew everything? There would be no reason for school. for science. no reason for vacations or anything. we would already know it.
I believe we are here to go through life, be tried, go through hardships, and test who it is we are and what we can become.
but tha't sjust me.
what do you mean on what basis do i believe in them?

The bible NEVER said the earth was flat. The bible says in 4 places that the earth is round, the earth is a sphere, and the earth floats in the universe on nothing.
People decided the earth was flat, and used the bible in places, and took things out of context to support that. anyone would have known they were wrong if they just picked up the bible. No where, does it say the earth is flat.
That was something that, i believe it was the catholic church? i could be wrong on it being them though, adopted and forced upon people. told them to believe that or they are no longer in the church.
in the context of a bat being a bird? i think i know what you were talking about. and it was simply comparing them as both flying creatures to demenstrate a point. but it really wouldn't have mattered because there was a good chance those people wouldn't have known the difference anyway.
but eiter way. Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean that it's from God. soemtimes, something happened and people were like "OP! WILL OH GOD!" and state that. when really... no... that just happened.

explain how genisis, claiming at first there was nothing, then there was light, isn't accuarte or logical at all.
when all genisis is saying. at first, there wasn't anything, then the first thing in a set of time was light. that light could have been a sun. it could have been a chemical spark. it could have been anything. but something with light. then later, there came other things.

Remember. I said it's a history book. Back then. If a women was raped. SHe was worthless. and then couldn't be given in marriage to anyone. and back then, the only options (even for widows) was to scavenge, prostitute, or just starve and die. Forcing the rapist to marry her, then gave her security. she wouldn't have to die. she would have some honor again because she wouldn't be just cast aside to die for something not her fault. the man would then, because he did this, have to provide for a women he never relaly wanted to for. etc.
in THIS culture. that was the best thing for her. Nowadays, aboslutly not. Was it wrong back then? yes. but what else would they do? we're talking about a set of people a few thousand years ago.
Look back, women only recently in the history of civilized life, even got the privilage to VOTE! it's not something new that women were inferior to men in most cultures until recently. And even now, there still are cultures that do that. With or without the bible. It was a way of life. Women were just not as valuable.
So the fact that the bible said "nope. you raped her. you marry her and provide for her now" is a major milestone in that cultre. that was unheard of in many places i think (i could be wrong there) and in other places, all the dishonor was on the women if she was raped. and it wasn't the mans fault. and now... in the bible... it says the mans gotta own up for what he did? hmmm....

give me some claims that science has debunked.
because, i still stand by, science hans't been able to debunk God, just falsities that were set down to just give AS an idea to a set of people to explain something, or something that people just started saying to explain something.
i never said that science can't criticize or put the bible under scrutiny. but that science can't disprove God was what i said.

Now bucky snap, WHEN did i say that the bible was infaliable, completely non fiction, and immune to science? I did not. Because i'm not ignorant. Do you have ANY IDEA how many times the bible has gone through translations? How many sections have been taken out and edited? how many of the pieces in the bible were originally just stories to explain something or a concept to someone?
the bible, is accurate only when translated correctly. that's why it's Truth, but not 100% accurate. The ideas, yeah. Those are in. Are they perfect? No. Eiether way, even if the bible was 0% true, it still doesn't give any proof that it is impossible for there to be a God.


I was talking about a set of people specificcally. The ten commandments and the laws in exodus, leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy, are the law books most people hang on now, when they are religous. When really, they were given to a group of people who never had there own government. It was a group of people who just got out of Slavery, and never had to run themselves. So it was a basis for there government. A set of rules to follow so they could get on there feet.
100% were there laws before. Look at the ejyptions! they had a Pharoah and all that jazz! they built huge things! it was amazing! of course they had a government. But this other people didn't. THAT is what i was talking about. I was not claiming that no one did. I will be more clear next time.

This group of people didn't know about certain desieses, nor know how to deal with them. some laws were there to help them with that. It's why they couldn't touch dead bodies, and if they did, they had to bathe and stay away from people for a little bit. Made sense. We understand that now. they didn't then. this was a set of people (the group that recieved THESE laws, the ones that some christians claim are so important today, (I disagree with them, but that's just me)) who didn't know squat about what they were getting into. They didn't learn things. or have school. they just did as they were told and worked. Then suddenly, they have complete freedom? They would have all died if they didn't have some set of rules of how to live. Especially where they were now.

Divinely inspired is different than Scientifically and Linguistically Accurate. What you are talking about in Timothy, is that books of God are divinly INSPIRED... not written. It is inspired by a divine God. NOT written by him. People wrote it. People were inspired. Doesn't mean they got it totally right. And besides, in Timothy, it was talking about the writings and acts of the apostles and recordings of Jesus Christ. It wasn't talking about everything.

"It said the world was a sphere"
Yes. It did. Even if you go back and read it in the aramaic - hebrew - or greek - it says the earth is a sphere.
It talks about corners of the earth when telling stories. Or giveing a concept. It says in the new testiment to preach to the 4 corners of the earth. it was saying to go and preach everywhere.
or do you, honestly, never speak in metaphores either? If you take everything literal... then you can't even read harry potter. cause they say things like that. you can hear things like that just walking down the street. It wasn't saying preach to the 4 corners, that are there, becuase the earth is flat. It is saying, preach to the whole world. If you read that in greek, it actually almost sounds poetic outloud. It's kinda nice.

Again, when it said: hangs in the universe upon nothing, it was saying that it isn't hanging there. It HANGS on NOTHING. that means, that it is in space, in the universe, by itself. Not realying on some string holding it up, nor a pedistal to sit on. It hangs on nothing. it's not some puppet like pinoccio where some master is pulling the strings.
this statement doesn't discound that it moves. doesn't discount that it rotates. doesn't discount anything. EXCEPT it does discount that the earth sits there on something, or from something. That leave it the opportunity to move and rotate.
And when this was written. the Author you speak of, were men that had NO IDEA how the universe worked. So the fact that they say nothing is holding the earth up in the universe, and that the universe is round, and in another place that the earth is a sphere, is pretty darn awesome.
The nothing i spoke of, is saying it hangs upon nothing, nor sits upon nothing.
and you know.... you ask anyone who hasn't had a scientific background, go to a non science kid, go to a 3rd world country, anything.... they would assume that there is nothing. because you can't see energy. so without learning about it, they woudln't know it was there.
and wait a second... that was what this entire people was!
it would be really really stupid of a God to realize that these people are still ignorant to these concepts and tell them anyways.
If you go to a fourth grader, and give them a calculus problem, they would probably break down and cry. they have no basis yet to be able to do the problem. Same thing.
What do you do for the 4th grader? you teach them. you give them smaller, simplier things they can understand. you'll tell them rules. Some of which, you say will NEVER be broken, but then, as soon as you get to geometry, you break them and teh prof tells you "yes, but if we told you that you break them in this case, you would just get confused. so we stayed by those rules until you were ready to learn about the special cases". and that is just what the bible did for those people.
The smartest, most scolorly person back then, woudln't have even a quarter of the knowledge of a scientific principal we do now. So why the heck would a supernatural being give them the answers for questions / discoveries we have now? that would be silly.

I never said God couldn't be a metaphor. but now that you say that. I will address it. Could God be a metaphor? Maybe. I peraonally don't beleive so. But I beleive we have a lot of metaphors about him to understand him.
But i'm staying out of my personal beleifs becasue i'm not a run of hte mill typical christian and don't put the same emphasis on the bible in my religon.
I'm discussing a case for the possibiblity of a God and the possibility that the bible does in fact, tell about one, without having to no longer believe in science to do so.

Also, almost any christian will tell you. Creationists are a branch of Christian. But creationists also don't think to much. It takes a special brand of human to be a creationist in the sense that you use it.
Most christians identify as creationists, but different than what non christians believe creatinism is. Creationism to us, means that God created the world. How? Go to science class. You'll learn.
Creationists that mainstream agnostics and athiests talk about, is that the earth was created in 6 days or 6000 years and there is no evolution and God made it all.
Which. very few believe that.
Just like all baptists are not westburrow baptist (which acually isn't baptist at all)
Creationists aren't all the way non religous people think they are.
or, in prettier words
creationists aren't all creationists.
(but that's hard since both words mean something different. it's like when you say "lead rhymes with read and lead rhymes with read")

explain why an omniscience and omnipotence are concepts that don't match up please. (not because I dsiagree, or agree. but i'm not sure what you were trying to say).
Because if anything, it makes more sense that an omnicience God would create something so extravegant that he wouldn't have to sit there and make it all run. hence, evolution, tetonic plates, natural wonders, etc.so i guess i'm confused at where you're going.


you make a good point. Love, mathematics, logic, etc, are not tangable things. But are not inconsistant (until you talk to beyonka and her man and how he really loves her and sarah is just stealing him away... ) Where is God inconsistant? Where is it a mess?

Boy, (or girl), you haven't ripped one idea of mine to shreds. I haven't even started to bring my A game. But alas, neitehr have you. I was simply asking some things. Because people like you interest me. Hence my questioning. Because I want to know WHY it is you think these things.
I'm not here to argue with you.
and like i said, sometimes this page is hilarious, spot on, or makes you think. hence why i'm even still here.
I'm not attempting to change your mind.
I am attempting to give you a bigger picgture when you obviously don't get something. But I'm asking you things, or responding to things, because i WANT to know what it is you think that could land you at this conclution. it just doens't make sense to me.

i was a sceince major (this term decided as much as I like it, i don't want to be a science teacher nor a resercher, so i'm going to do things i like as a career instead and just take classes and learn on my own time) and all it ever did was make certain religous books stand out (if you hane't already been able to tell, the bible is only 1 book my religion uses).

There is no way to prove there is a God with Science. I never said you could. Only that you cannot disprove God with science.

scientists believe without proof and are not foolish all the time! they then though, create experiments and hypothesis to test there belief. Soemtimes, it's a long way off. Sometimes it's spot on. But it's not foolish. One man believed, without proof, that if he injected himself with blood from someone with AIDS he would not get the virus. He was a respected scientist. thank goodness he didn't end up doing it! but he believed that, without proof, til the day he died.
Another one, in contrast, beleived the opposite.
Later, science was able to show that yes, you would get the virus if you injected yourself with blood.
in SOME respects, it's the same thing. SOME respects.
we simply haven't elarned enough, nor know enough to conduct the "right" expieriment to prove or disprove a God yet.

it's not gulliable nor delutional that you cannot test for a God. It simply is something that cannot be done, now, yet, or maybe ever. I don't know. I can't see the future.
Science still can't disprove a God.
God simply, isn't a scientific thing we can test.
like Love. Jelousy. Hate. Hope. Logic. Ego's. Etc.

No good reason to think that there could be a God?
Why is that?
There are no good reasons to do many many things. and yet people still do them. And this... is only a thought.
There is no good reason to think there is a God?
Take the atheists point of view then that said (i'm not quoting word for word, just the idea)
"it makes no sense not to believe in God. If you're right.... then you're dead and no one knows. If you're wrong, you're skrewed."
There's one reason.
BUT, that's just kinda funny. a pradox if you will. THat's no good reason to believe in anything ever.
But seriously, give me 3 good reasons to NOT believe there could possibly be a God, just because we have no way to test it.

Explain how there are infinant amouts of possibiblites. When really, in the end.... you keep saying 'what created that?" and "where did that come from" until you come to nothing. the very beginning. THEN WHAT? it's that very beginning that i'm interested in.

I have no tradition that I grew up in. I'm the odd one in the family. So no. Not tradition.
I have no fear of death. If it turns out i'm wrong and theres ntohing. Well, there you have it. No reason to fear. If i'm right, then death will not be a problem. Reward? I don't know what faith you grew up in... but it's not a reward system. and Punishment? ha. only if God was into that, and in that case.... well... i guess it will just have to suck for everyone.

I don't see how that satement, of science nor God being able to descredit each other, is cognitive disonance. it's a statement. Science is proving someting by tests. You can't do that with God. You can't do that with love. with fear. with hope. yet, we still believe in those.
Why is God such in such a different catagory?

I study religous texts. And am very critical. hence why i've figured stuff out for myself. why i know that divinly inspired and literal are not the same thing.
I've tried to be athiest. it didn't make sense. and the crumbling you speak of... didn't happen at all. My "cornerstone" that you mentioned, got a heck of a lot stronger. ANd all i did was try to stop believing. Stopped going to church. got into more and more science. And still. it didn't work. it didn't make sense.

You mention it's not constructed for survival? we'd kill off the majority of people.
that's contradictory right there.
The bible gives lots of things constructed for survival. EVEN if you follow it to a T. and it wouldn't envolve killing.
BUT... if we did. That would be WAY better for society. We have to many people. To many desieses. To many elderly hanging onto life. too many children, many of which are busying themselves with starving.
If we killed off the majority of hte human population, we would be stronger. Not weaker.
(not saying I support that. but that's a silly argument).

I never assumed you haven't read all the bible.
i've read all the bible. Along with every other religous text I can find. I've studies almost all of them (that i can get my hands on). i have for years. but so far, the verses you have thrown at me, You have taken out of context yourself. I read anythign I can get my ahdns on. New discoveries, new concepts, religous things, whatever. I read. Don't try to make it that I simply haven't read it all, or don't know what i'm takinga bout either.
I haven't thought that about you. Don't judge unless you want me to as well. Which I would rather not do, or rather, I won't do. So you'll just look ignorant. I never said you don't read.
It wouldn't be logical or acurate if you COULDN"T quote scripture if you don't believe.

the bible and people are 2 entirely seperate things. PEOPLE will go and fight against science because they don't want to think. that is there fault. not the bible. the bible never says squat about evolution. does that mean it doesnt exist? No.
the bible has dinosaurs for goodness sake! Twice! (not counting revelations, because those are metaphores and visitions and stuff... not facts at all).

We talked about micro evolution and macro evolution in second year biology and did a whole class on it. So I'll have some trouble believing that.
especially becuase mico happens and we can see the proof. and macro, doesn't make sense. Which is what creationists believe people are talking about usually when speaking of the evolution of humans. Which is why i brought that up.

talking snakes, and a rib, and all that stuff. who said that story was literal? and not figureative? explaining how things came into the world as we know it now, in a way people could understand?

"It's not science's job to discredit or validate god, it's the job of the claimant to prove such a thing exists in the first place, and it need not be physical, but it does need to match the magnitude of the claim."
still though, if you cannot test it, it doesn't prove it doesn't exist. simply that you can't test it. Yet.

No need to insult me personally. I haven't done that to you. and if i have, it wasn't intentional.

""would you really think, IF there was an almighty being who created teh universe, that this being just.... did it?"
I don't think any being created anything. Many of the processes involved are simply natural forces which can be replicated and demonstrated. No need for a god to intervene. Again, you're displaying a logical fallacy here, argument from incredulity. You're trying to fill in the blanks rather than acknowledging gaps in the data."
I was asking you a hypothetical question. hence my IF in caps.
gaps in data deosn't mean that no data is or was there originailly either.

"Your biggest mistake here is again, assumptions where you should instead be saying "I don't know, let's find out".
"we simply can't find the beginning."
Then why are you trying to make one up? That's the height of dishonesty. Why such a problem with "I don't know"?"
I would like to ask You, the same question.
and add another.
Why such a problem with "there could be a God... i don't know?"

If there was a super old book about the pink flying toaster in the sky, i'd at least read it before I judged that yes, could be, or no.

The more I learn, the strong my "fantasy" is. Even when I tried to get it to crumble. it didn't happen.

Why does an omnipotent being need to rest?
Now you're defining what rest was.
There are many uses for the word rest. Sit down. Nap. Cease activity. lots of things.
does it mean this being needed a breather?
Maybe. I certanly don't think so. netierh do almost all christians.

It never says that it only took a week.
a day does not mean 1 literal day. nor does it mean 1000 years. Nor does it mean consecutive pieces of time. Almost any christian will tell you (besides the literal ones which usually have problems because they won't think and they get super depressed and don't understand... it's kinda sad...) that that isn't the case.
You're taking a "day" and trying to make it literal.
a day... or a sect of time... could have been 40 hundred zillion milliondy seven and a half years. Then day 2 could have been 20 minutes.
They are just sects of time. No self respecting christian will tell you it was done in a week.

Why would it be necissary to disect it? That would leave no thinking on our part. Besides, it wasn't meant to be taken literaly. And maybe people bck then got that. Then after a while, pepole starting taking it literally, and that is where religous ignorance as a whole was born.

I used facebook just as an example. I didn't mean for it to be taken literly. You can't show them the internet. you can't show them the radio waves. You can't show them the string theory. they ahve to learn about things, before they can understand that.
i simply used facebook since we were on it as an example.

But now, you see, you are telling me what it is that an Omnipotent God would do. Omnipotent itself is "having unlimited power; able to do anything." And your telling me what this Omnipotent power would HAVE to do... which doesn't work. they can do anything. so why would it possibly even have to do what you think is best? that's just you. and last i checked, you never calimed omnipotent yourself. and just since this being ahd the ability to beam the info with no room for error... why would it?

Free will, or Agency, is the ability to choose for yourself.
And those are only some christians who say god doesn't reveal himself to spoil free will. and he never exposed himself before the video camera either. not personally that is. Angels and stuff reveled themselves on his behalf. but he never did himself.
you're putting all christians in your own definition of christians in a box. careful with that.




Again. that is only some christians.
Take our minds for example. And space.
Sceintists can go nuts when explaining the universe, becuase there is so much we know! (not literal crazy, just when people get excited) and they can go on and on. when a start will explode. predict what will happen. how old it is. how it came to be. etc. but we are only beginning to scratch the surfice of the human mind. its more complex than all that. there have been tons of articles and things on it. It says God created us in his image. that soudns pretty good. being that we are so complex. hmm.
it never says we didn't come from something earlier.
maybe adam and eve were one celled organisms. fission. (rib story) and then later continued. the bible doesn't say that didn't happen. it just gave a story. why get into detail like that if it's not necissary.


"Again, a deeper understanding of the point of science is definitely advisable. How proof works, how falsifiability works. You at least have the curiosity down, which is good. Now you have to learn simply HOW to think logically and rationally, and you can put science to good work, rather than trying to rationalize your personal fantasies. "
I could say the same to you.
lol. again. we have disagreeing points. but i'm not here to argue. i'm here asking you things, because i just don't understand how you could think this. so rather than assuming. I'm asking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Science Major"
18 hours ago


I've done 4 years of extensive reserach on the LDS belief.

Jospeh Smith was a man who was hated because he claimed that he had a prayer answered personally from God.
Joseph Smith was a guy who had many claims and arrests against him, and when tried for them, got off each time that they had him in court.
Jospeh Smith was a man who a mob came and shot him and his brother, and injured there friend, to stop him from continuting to tell people about his prayer that he claimed was answered.
Jospeh Smith was a regular farm boy like anyone else. Just with a claim. he had regular life struggles. made bad choices like anyone else. but overall was a better man than most.

Joseph Smith, IF he was a con artist... was the stupidst one there ever was. He made no money from this. His family was incredibly hurt by his claims. He was killed for it. He made no profit for it.

In psychology, we covered when people lie. and how far will one go for it. And psycologically, someone will not die for a lie that they have, unless they beleive there lie too.
and he died, when all he needed to say was "nope. i lied. God ddn't answer my prayer."
so either... he was legit... or he was fully functioning... but COMPLETLY crazy and brought death upon hundreds of men, women, and children.

The book of mormon goes into the bible. Gives missing pieces that don't make sense in teh bible until yo uread that.
it tells about all sorts of things.
in the D&C in 1833 said smoking and tabacco were bad for you.
that was BEFORE they even said they were good for you.

it goes into how there is intellegent life on other planets out there.
which as you know, scientists have been seraching for.
i dont' know of another religon that has it as doctrine.
it tells specifically why there is suffereing. and all that jazz.
etc.

so you know. i grew up in a VERY free thinking, critical thinking, church. And even then, after I became LDS, so many more scientific concepts fell into place and made sense.

So whether or not LDS is truely more "bat-shit" crazy... it makes me think more, helps me be a better person to others... and helps people out. I'd rather be a part of that anyways.


But my personal life, has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I never mentioned LDS things.

(also.... i started off as anti mormon... and knew pretty much all there was against it. so there is nothing you can proablay say to me that i havene't heard before, or used myself when arguing with LDS people)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loud Atheism
14 hours ago
Loud Atheism

I'll go through in depth tomorrow. For now, It's family time. ~KMFDM_Kid2000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Science Major"
14 hours ago
"Science Major"

Have a lovely time

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loud Atheism
2 minutes ago
Loud Atheism

"God gave everything we needed to know. Just a basic set of how to live life. Then he gave us the ability to figure stuff out for ourself."

This is not a valid assertion unless you can demonstrate said god exists in the first place. If you replaced "god" with "Santa Claus" or some equally pretend entity, it would make it no more true without some sort of basis in reality. We know what we know through observation, trial and error, a fact that is testable and observable. Do you see what I did there? I shot down your notion and replaced it with something I can demonstrate. That comes from a reality based worldview, without adding unnecessary complexity where it is not warranted. See Occam's Razor for a more in depth explanation of this philosophical tool --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

"How lame would life be if we knew everything?"

You're making an assumption based on speculation. The truth is, we don't know if it would or wouldn't be undesirable. One thing is for certain, the more we know, the more our lives improve.

"we would already know it."

Then why does your supposed omniscient god repeatedly test his subjects in the mythology? And why does your speculation for what it would be like to be omniscient not apply to your god whom supposedly is? What you're demonstrating here is yet another logical fallacy called "Special Pleading". You cannot assert rules or lay groundwork for something by making a blanket statement, then exclude something without giving and demonstrating specific cause for why said rules do not apply. Usually creationists do this as a means for escaping the obvious problems with an infinite regression (i.e. who created god, who created that god, ad infinitum). More about the Special Pleading fallacy --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

"what do you mean on what basis do i believe in them?"

For example, you believe in the bible, why not the Koran? Why not the teachings of Scientology? I can almost guarantee you reject the notions of those other faiths. Why the confirmation bias of your own? That goes against every scientific principle.

"The bible NEVER said the earth was flat."

Yes it does, you don't know your bible very well. Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, Luke 4:5, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 11:12, Revalation 7:1

It also states the Earth is immovable as stated in 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Isaiah 45:18. Through science and observation, we know the Earth travels at about 67,000 miles per hour. Yet another example of conflicting claims, one based on "take our word for it", the other based on measurable and demonstrable fact. Now the apologist response here is usually "You're taking it out of context" although the context is as clear as the black and white the page is printed on. It's wrong, don't be dishonest, just admit it, it's wrong. Move on, and try to align your thoughts with as many true things as possible, unless you desire to be dishonest with yourself and those around you.

"The bible says in 4 places that the earth is round, the earth is a sphere"

The references you're talking about use the word "chuwg", or two dimensional circle, not "duwr" for ball or sphere which was available at the time. Besides, the Earth isn't technically a sphere anyway, it's an oblate spheroid, a detail that wouldn't be out of reach for an omniscient god, who being omniscient would know how to communicate this clearly enough that we wouldn't have to discuss it now. The very fact that we are, reveals shortcomings with the ability for this fictional character to communicate, or more realistically, ancient Hebrew scribes that made this shit up just simply didn't have access to the scientific knowledge we do today.

"and the earth floats in the universe on nothing."

I already debunked this, you don't get to just reassert it without providing better evidence, or a better counter argument than what was presented. It's dishonest of you yet again, to try to weasel this in. Science proves space isn't "nothing" and until you can demonstrate otherwise, you're claiming a false notion.

"People decided the earth was flat"

The bible said it was, but using circle instead of sphere, and asserting the Earth has corners, of which couldn't be farther from the truth when describing a sphere or rather, oblate spheroid.

"and used the bible in places, and took things out of context to support that"

Now please validate this by telling us in what context is a circle a 3 dimensional sphere? It's sad when you can't admit you're wrong. You'll never go far in science if you can't do this one simple thing.

"anyone would have known they were wrong if they just picked up the bible. No where, does it say the earth is flat."

You mean no where does it say it's a sphere. You've been debunked above.

"told them to believe that or they are no longer in the church"

All churches use the "believe or else" tactic. It's what your entire system is based on. I'll take my chances with an imaginary "or else", just like you're doing by not being Islamic.

"in the context of a bat being a bird? i think i know what you were talking about."

Leviticus 11:13, 19. It puts bats on a list full of BIRDS, without making any distinction. There is no comparison, there is no distinction, it is lumped together with not just flying creatures, but specifically birds and goes so far to call them fowl. There's not one other creature on that list that's just bird-like in any sense. It's clear and concise and no "context" has been misrepresented here. To the biblical god, a bat is a bird. Science shows us, through observation and study, that bats aren't birds in the least. They are mammals.

"there was a good chance those people wouldn't have known the difference anyway"

Then why didn't your omniscient god see to it that they did?

"Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean that it's from God."

Again, another reason why I say you do NOT know the bible -->"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" --2 Timothy 3:16

You don't get to weasel your way out of that one. Your book claims every last drop is the word of your god. A god who had the foresight equivalent to that of an ancient bronze age sheep herder, with nary a clue about how the world actually works. And if we wanted to get REALLY technical, we could pull from apocryph

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2013, 02:46 PM
RE: [FACEBOOK] Science and Religion Can Coexist? (LONG)
As an aside I really like your facebook page. It is one of my favorite feeds I get.

[Image: Hitchhikersguide_zps7678fbae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
27-12-2013, 02:55 PM
RE: [FACEBOOK] Science and Religion Can Coexist? (LONG)
Thank you for the feels. And it seems the copypasta was too long for this site, so here's the rest of the convo so far.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Cont.)

You don't get to weasel your way out of that one. Your book claims every last drop is the word of your god. A god who had the foresight equivalent to that of an ancient bronze age sheep herder, with nary a clue about how the world actually works. And if we wanted to get REALLY technical, we could pull from apocryphal scriptures, which get even more bat-shit crazy. Technically, they ARE scripture, and up to the 1600's were just as sacred. Did your omniscient god change his mind on what the truth was?

"that light could have been a sun"

No sun was there, the scripture is clear that light came first and the sun was to be created on the 4th day. So 4 days that light existed without a light source, as no other stars were created prior to this, as clearly stated in Genesis 1:16. Again, you don't know your own bible.

"it could have been a chemical spark. it could have been anything. but something with light"

Now you're just making shit up. There is no mention of this, nor were there any chemicals to speak of that could even do so as stated in Genesis 1:3. Again, you don't know your bible. Again, you're being dishonest, which at this point, I have come to expect from you.

"I said it's a history book."

Then why does it get so many important facts and details completely wrong?

"Back then. If a women was raped. SHe was worthless. and then couldn't be given in marriage to anyone. "

Why would you condone this even if we're talking about back then? What is immoral is immoral no matter what time frame we're speaking of. Are you then saying that perhaps in 1,000 years or so, infant cannibalism would be acceptable? No, it's wrong now, it was wrong then, and it will be wrong 1,000 years from now. But your belief has made you too myopic to recognize this.

"she would have some honor again because she wouldn't be just cast aside to die for something not her fault.'"

But yet, your god, or rather, the authors who made this shit up, had zero consideration for the victim's feelings who got raped, her value as a person in society other than being so much property. Are you then asserting your god was powerless to change this sort of notion? Or is it more realistic to think we're dealing with a much more primitive man, who just made some shit up?

"but what else would they do?"

NOT TREAT WOMEN LIKE PROPERTY, THAT'S WHAT! WHY IS THAT NOT OBVIOUS TO YOU?!

"Women were just not as valuable"

As set up by the rules that your supposed god put forth, for example Leviticus 27:3-7 where he puts a lower price tag on slaves that happen to have a vagina. Remember, according to your book, every last word is divinely inspired, so according to your beliefs, women are worth less, both in society, as well as in shekels.

"is a major milestone in that cultre"

I can't express how ashamed for you I am of your twisted morality and the contortions you're willing to go through to justify this. I really, truly am embarrassed for you as a human being.

"give me some claims that science has debunked."

I have, let's add geocentricity to that list. Evolutionary science has debunked the biblical account of creation. Geology has debunked any notion of a global flood. Astronomy has debunked the genesis account of creation, the order in which bodies were created, the nature in how they come to be. Archaeology has debunked the authenticity of the bible by finding older variations of stories that the bible is clearly derivative of. Neurobiology shows us our emotions and memories are all chemical/electrical in nature, and once these go out, that's it for a living being. The notion of a soul is nonsensical. Our memories are stored patters of electrons which could not exist in their current configurations without the body (brain) which they are contained. A mind is an emergent property of the brain. You cannot have a mind without a brain. Brain dies, those neurons go away, along with the memories they had stored. So much for the spirit and soul concepts. I can go on and on for hours on that subject alone. Science and discovery has debunked nearly every claim about the natural world that wasn't already painfully obvious, and even some of THOSE details the bible got wrong. Either your scriptures aren't divinely inspired as they say they are, or your god is a bumbling idiot.

"i still stand by, science hans't been able to debunk God"

It's your job to prove such in the first place --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof

Otherwise I/we are completely justified in rejecting your unproven and unsubstantiated notion of a god existing. Do realize, rejection of your claim is NOT the assertion of the opposite.

"WHEN did i say that the bible was infaliable, completely non fiction, and immune to science?"

When you said "the religous books i believe in" meaning, you believe the words they say, like 2 Timothy 3:16. Otherwise, welcome to yet another fallacy you've based your beliefs on, the Cherry Picking Fallacy, a favorite of you christians. Take the parts you like, leave out those which are inconvenient. -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29

And you're singing a different tune now than you did yesterday regarding scrutiny --> "science is provable, tangable thigns. God is not.
there is no way to know from Science whether or not there is a God."

Again, why are you choosing to be so dishonest? Do you not think you'll be called out for lying and distorting the truth?

"How many sections have been taken out and edited?"

Perhaps your god isn't as omnipotent as he claims to be?

"the bible, is accurate only when translated correctly"

The only time the bible is 100% accurate is when it's thrown from a short distance.

"that's why it's Truth, but not 100% accurate."

Inaccurate is the opposite of truth, by definition.

"Eiether way, even if the bible was 0% true, it still doesn't give any proof that it is impossible for there to be a God."

This is about the only thing you've said that isn't complete nonsense. The bible is proof that the bible exists. Its claims have ZERO bearing on whether or not a god exists. One could exist, and be completely ignorant or disinterested. However, the bible's version of god, an omnipotent and omniscient being, definitively does NOT exist, and there is no good reason to accept the existence of any other god or kind of god, given the evidence we have now, which is none.

"I was talking about a set of people specificcally. The ten commandments and the laws in exodus, leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy, are the law books most people hang on now, when they are religous."

Which ten commandments? The first 10 in Exodus 20 or the completely different set in Exodus 34? Please explain how not boiling a goat in its mother's milk (Exodus 34:26) is part of any moral code, or how that has any bearing on ANY modern western society? Most of the 10 (both sets) commandments speak to your god's vanity and jealousy, which itself is a no-no 1 Corinthians 13:4 amongst MANY other verses condemning jealousy. So it's ok if your god does it? Again, that's the Special Pleading Fallacy at work.

"never had there own government"

They did indeed have a tribal society prior to the supposed events (of which there is no historical or archeological proof of) in Egypt. What IS there proof of? Judaism started out as a polytheistic faith, with Yahweh as it's divine patriarchical god of war. Much like the ancient greek and roman religions. However , as it began to become influenced by much older religions, such as Zoroastrianism, it evolved into a monotheistic religion based on a light/dark duality concept. This is evident by how heavily the biblical satan is a direct plagiarism of the Angra Mainyu, as well as left over bits in the language the bible uses that suggest polytheism (Let *US* create man in *OUR* own image). The trinity is a more modern concept, and isn't specifically even biblical. This is why you see inconsistencies with this (Father, why have you forsaken me? How does one forsake themselves? Why would one need to pray to themselves anyway? etc.)

As I alluded to before, this rabbit hole goes VERY deep, and the deeper you go, the more you realize this is utter made up bullshit with no real basis in reality.

"I will be more clear next time."

Please do, and while you're at it, you can reflect on how Egyptian society and their monarchial dynasties were in full swing during the time of your supposed global flood. The Egyptians were surprisingly good at record keeping, even back then.

"This group of people didn't know about certain desieses, nor know how to deal with them"

Which is a shortcoming of your god. When he was revealing his flat circle of an Earth, he could have mentioned something about germs, you know, microorganisms that he supposedly created that plague us as a species.

"They didn't learn things."

It is not out of the realm of supposed omnipotence to provide this information. No, wait, that's what science is for.

"Divinely inspired is different than Scientifically and Linguistically Accurate."

Hoooo boy, here come the mental gymnastics

"What you are talking about in Timothy, is that books of God are divinly INSPIRED... not written. It is inspired by a divine God. NOT written by him."

With how much they got wrong, he's a shitty inspirator. Either he's imaginary, or it's complete bullshit they made up, or he's feeding them misinformation. I don't see a logical 4th option here.

"It wasn't talking about everything."

What part of "ALL SCRIPTURE" is unclear? Especially when most of these NT writings referenced the OT and apocryphal writings directly? Is there no limit to your utter dishonesty?

"Yes. It did. Even if you go back and read it in the aramaic - hebrew - or greek - it says the earth is a sphere."

It was hebrew, I know, I researched it. I already debunked this, and you are either ill informed or lying at this point if you continue on without presenting any better evidence or argument.

"If you take everything literal"

Ok, now outline your methodology from separating the literal from the metaphorical, and detail as to why your god doesn't qualify as simple metaphor.

"It HANGS on NOTHING"

Again, I debunked this, and here's some actual science as to why both you and the bible are wrong --> http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGe...rry21.html

You see that? If you want to say *I'M* wrong, provide a better argument and the accompanying evidence. I'll understand the medium we're on. Don't just keep arguing the same point after you've been shot down over and over. That's why I keep calling you dishonest. You're not willing to admit when you're wrong. That's very immature of you.

"were men that had NO IDEA how the universe worked."

The book of Job is where you're citing this from, and the CONTEXT is "god" speaking directly to Job regarding just how it all works. So there you go revealing your biblical ignorance again, shooting your entire argument to shreds, inadvertently claiming your god does not know just how the universe works. People are going to have a field day with this when they read it.

"So the fact that they say nothing is holding the earth up in the universe"

Gravity isn't nothing.

"and that the universe is round"

The Earth isn't the universe.

"and in another place that the earth is a sphere, is pretty darn awesome."

It never says this, I already told you how you are a liar in regards to this.

"they would assume that there is nothing"

But we aren't talking about kids, we're talking about an omniscient god, whose knowledge we would hold at a higher standard. And even by 3rd grader standards, it still isn't nothing.

"that was what this entire people was!"

A bunch of 3rd grade dumb asses?

"it would be really really stupid of a God to realize that these people are still ignorant to these concepts and tell them anyways."

You fail to realize an omnipotent and omniscient god would know exactly how to make them know, while keeping it factual, if he cared about spreading the truth that is, that's a big assumption, but not as big as the assumption that such a being exists in the first place.

"If you go to a fourth grader, and give them a calculus problem, they would probably break down and cry."

My son is a 3rd grader and I explain complex binary math all the time to him. He's a normal, average kid, and he seems to get it. I don't expect him to solve equations, but he gets the basics. The point is, complexity is irrelevant if you have a teacher who knows how to convey understanding. Which is the point you've been missing all along.

"yes, but if we told you that you break them in this case, you would just get confused."

Special pleading and a lack of understanding of what omnipotence and omniscience means. This is starting to get annoying. Your indoctrination is showing.

"I peraonally don't beleive so."

Yet, you provide zero real basis for this.

"don't put the same emphasis on the bible in my religon. "

But you sure seem fine to cherry pick it when it suits you *sigh* This is getting old.

"I'm discussing a case for the possibiblity of a God and the possibility that the bible does in fact, tell about one, without having to no longer believe in science to do so."

Which is why I keep saying you're committing the Cherry Picking Fallacy as you do so. That's the only way you're getting both to fit, by bastardizing christianity, and bastardizing science and logic.

"Which. very few believe that."

Recent polls show 68% believe that. That's a chunky majority of dumbasses. I really wish you'd learn to fact check.

"explain why an omniscience and omnipotence are concepts that don't match up please."

I have been all this time, and admittingly, I'm starting to get more than annoyed at your dishonesty and by how much time this is taking up while going in circles without you even realizing it, so I'll let Wikipedia explain a little. This ties into the fallacy of Special Pleading for the most part --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience..._knowledge

"you make a good point. Love, mathematics, logic, etc, are not tangable things. But are not inconsistant"

Love is a subjective human emotion. Logic and mathematics are objective and very consistent.

"you haven't ripped one idea of mine to shreds"

I've debunked every one of your notions down to minute detail.

"I haven't even started to bring my A game."

I've noticed. I seriously doubt you have one to bring.

"But alas, neitehr have you. I was simply asking some things."

Aww, how cute, you think proven facts are just personal opinions.

"Because I want to know WHY it is you think these things."

Why don't I believe you when you say a god exists (which is what atheism even *IS*)? Because you haven't proven as such, and your reasons are shitty and full of holes. Not to mention what you believe is harmful. There, curiosity satisfied yet?

"I'm not here to argue with you."

Then why are you?

"I'm not attempting to change your mind."

Then again, why are you attempting?

"I am attempting to give you a bigger picgture when you obviously don't get something."

*Sigh* How old are you, like 20 something? Not that it matters, but my point is I was a believer for as long as, or nearly as long as you've been alive. I get where you're coming from, however, since then I've learned MORE, and I can't buy into that bullshit anymore knowing what I know now. You aren't giving me a bigger picture, newsflash, I USED TO THINK JUST LIKE YOU. But I realized, it was all based on shitty reasoning and ignorance, which there is no nice way to say so, but you're really shitty at reasoning, as well as ignorant to a lot of things both on the science topics as well as the religion side (at least what you've shown about what you know about the bible, which I can only assess is below average at best).

"i WANT to know what it is you think that could land you at this conclution"

Lack of evidence, shitty reasoning by people like you, and me back then, and broken logic. I can't break it down any simpler than that.

"it just doens't make sense to me. "

Because you're indoctrinated.

"i was a sceince major"

What you should've taken was a critical thinking class, and perhaps a history of religion class.

"There is no way to prove there is a God with Science."

Then stop claiming it interacts or created our world and universe and retire it to imaginary pretend land where it belongs.

"Only that you cannot disprove God with science."

Go read that burden of proof link again and realize YOU DON'T PROVE A NEGATIVE. That's not how science works, and I'm starting to wonder if you failed your major.

"scientists believe without proof and are not foolish all the time! they then though, create experiments and hypothesis to test there belief."

Now I'm 100% sure you failed your major. Science doesn't "believe", it "understands". Seriously, I mean SERIOUSLY, did you even pay attention in class? Where there isn't enough understanding, that's where experiment comes into play.

"but he believed that, without proof, til the day he died."

I never said there weren't shitty scientists out there.

"it's not gulliable nor delutional that you cannot test for a God"

It's gullible and delusional to believe so knowing this anyway.

"Science still can't disprove a God. "

I feel like I'm talking to a fucking brick wall.

"like Love. Jelousy. Hate. Hope. Logic. Ego's. Etc. "

You can test and demonstrate all of those things definitively. Bad analogy.

"No good reason to think that there could be a God?
Why is that?"

Lack of evidence, unfalsifiablity. We've gone over this.

"There is no good reason to think there is a God?"

Show the evidence and the minds will change. Until then, it's a failed hypothesis.

""it makes no sense not to believe in God. If you're right.... then you're dead and no one knows. If you're wrong, you're skrewed.""

Oh look, it's Pascal's Wager. AGAIN. Yet you fail to realize, if the Muslims are right, you're just as screwed as I am. I'm so fucking sick of hearing this lame ass fallacy and debunking it, here's why this sack of logical shit doesn't hold water --> http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...%27s_Wager

You may not realize this, but we hear that one ten times a fucking day, and that simple broken argument gets debunked, over and over, and OVER, to the point it makes us want to fucking vomit every time some ignorant believer tosses that up, without realizing the thousands of other gods they're potentially pissing off, as if their god is the only yes or no option. Please don't use this argument, it's tired, it's retarded, and it makes you look myopic and uninformed. It's a false dichotomy, and read the link as to why it fails logically.

"But seriously, give me 3 good reasons to NOT believe there could possibly be a God, just because we have no way to test it."

I didn't say there is no god, I said there is no bible god, and as far as any other notion of a god, I simply don't believe you.

1.) You haven't met your burden of proof
2.) God beliefs have proven to be harmful to society
3.) Not one god belief is rooted in demonstrable fact, and are illogical

And I'll throw this in --> http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...n_of_proof Because you keep doing it.

"it's that very beginning that i'm interested in."

So is every legitimate scientist researching it. But to say anything more than "I don't know" is intellectual dishonesty.

"only if God was into that, and in that case.... well... i guess it will just have to suck for everyone."

Seriously, don't use Pascal's Wager ever again. It makes you look like a fool.

"I don't see how that satement, of science nor God being able to descredit each other, is cognitive disonance."

Perhaps once you've bastardized christianity and science enough, it isn't, but then you're left with a poor understand of, and misinformed of both.

"And am very critical."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! Bullshit.

"I've tried to be athiest"

I don't think you tried very hard, because (now I've been very forgiving with the spelling, and YES it deters from your legitimacy, and YES it's annoying, and NO just being on Facebook isn't excuse enough to disregard command of the English language) if you can't even spell "ATHEIST" then how the fuck am I supposed to take you seriously in regards to knowing anything about it? Besides, atheism has no value, it has no meaning without the opposing factor. It means nothing in and of itself. It's the rational thought I put value in, not one silly question if a god exists or not. Through rational thinking, you'd conclude it's inconclusive anyway, and be an atheist by a side effect. Some of us also choose to address the harm and ignorance behind religion, so we're also anti-theists.

"ANd all i did was try to stop believing"

One doesn't "make" ones self believe or not. The mind evaluates legitimacy on its own, this is why you can't jump off a building and will yourself to believe you'll float.

"it didn't make sense"

You lack a rational methodology of thinking. Your head is pie in the sky. That's why it doesn't work and you cling on to your fantasies. That and lack of any real knowledge and research into these topics. I've been doing this long enough to tell those who know their shit and those who are faking it. And let me tell you, you aren't one who knows her shit.

"we'd kill off the majority of people."

Then why have societies got along just fine without it? China comes to mind with its thousands of years of history without a bible. Your point here is nonsensical.

"Don't judge unless you want me to as well."

Oh I judge, everyone does. I've judged that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about with many of these topics. And frankly, I don't care if you judge back. What is that supposed to scare or intimidate me? GO AHEAD, judge all you want, I couldn't give two flying fucks LOL

Honestly, I've stopped reading at this point. I'm tired of typing, and I've got other things to do. Frankly, I don't give a damn what you believe until it starts harming society in direct ways. But if you go spouting lies or half truths, bad logic or nonsense, I'm going to weigh in, but after a while of repeating the same arguments, debunking your claims that are claims we debunk DAILY here, it gets old and stale. It's the same ignorance dressed up in another Facebook name, but it's the same arguments, the same counter arguments, the same shit, different face. This is fun for a while, but it gets old. The only part that really makes it worth it all is when I screen cap this, post it to some atheist forums, and we all have a good laugh at the ignorance you've put on display. Yeah I know I'm a dick, but I like it like that. Maybe I'll address the rest later, right now, I simply have had enough for the time being. Feel like a dog chasing my own tail over and over. This is what indoctrination does to a person, takes away any real rational thought and replaces it with flowery god bullshit. ~KMFDM_Kid2000

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2013, 04:58 PM
RE: [FACEBOOK] Science and Religion Can Coexist? (LONG)
"There is nothing in the bible that conflicts with what we know in science."

Except half the stuff in the first few pages. Earth existing before the stars, etc. Oh.. And pretty much everything else in the book. Fuckin tard...

I dont know how you spoke with that idiot so long.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WeAreTheCosmos's post
28-12-2013, 02:58 AM
RE: [FACEBOOK] Science and Religion Can Coexist? (LONG)
TL;DR

But ofcourse science and religion can co-exist.
Science monday through saturday.
Religion sunday in church. In a philosofical role.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2013, 03:08 AM
RE: [FACEBOOK] Science and Religion Can Coexist? (LONG)
[Image: 3mTeiGa.gif]

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
28-12-2013, 05:11 AM
RE: [FACEBOOK] Science and Religion Can Coexist? (LONG)
They have not co-existed in my brain for over 50 years.No

Even if God and Jesus existed and I could live forever just by believing in them, I'm not so sure that eternal hellfire would be worse than having the omnipotent psychopath and his bastard kid looking over me for all eternity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2013, 05:20 AM
RE: [FACEBOOK] Science and Religion Can Coexist? (LONG)
(27-12-2013 02:55 PM)KMFDM_Kid2000 Wrote:  And it seems the copypasta was too long for this site, so here's the rest of the convo so far.

Fuck, there's even more. It's like two hobos arguing over an empty bag of crisps/chips.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
Rainbow Why a lack of religion is by nature more moral Shameless 11 302 17-06-2014 03:04 PM
Last Post: pablo628
  Post Nye/Ham debate Facebook debate Colourcraze 14 413 08-02-2014 05:49 PM
Last Post: Colourcraze
  Religion and culture WillHopp 15 402 07-02-2014 11:03 PM
Last Post: WillHopp
  Feel free to read this…Its quite long ;) Just Another Atheist 1 183 12-01-2014 01:35 PM
Last Post: Logisch
  Christian + Atheist: A two month long conversation of questions and clarifications. Adrianime 5 468 28-11-2013 03:32 AM
Last Post: SevenPatch
  A fun "religion" from another forum Cake 15 573 14-09-2013 08:26 PM
Last Post: Jeffasaurus
  "Religion gives you better morals" SpaceMonkey 14 553 03-09-2013 11:10 PM
Last Post: EvolutionKills
Forum Jump: