my faith doesn't disprove science

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

We are all biased in some ways. One's definition of proof can be full of holes to another. It's basically another way of saying, "Another man's trash is another man's treasure" when it comes to things like these. I can say the same thing towards evolution and Creation, one will look at one theory as having so many holes that he/she will laugh at people who believe it, another will see the same theory as perfect in every way.

That's the problem with religion topics. It's basically the two people trying to either expose the holes that he/she sees, or show there's no holes.

verparanoidpers

IMO, God is just made up by people as well.SunofVich

[QUOTE="verparanoidpers"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

We are all biased in some ways. One's definition of proof can be full of holes to another. It's basically another way of saying, "Another man's trash is another man's treasure" when it comes to things like these. I can say the same thing towards evolution and Creation, one will look at one theory as having so many holes that he/she will laugh at people who believe it, another will see the same theory as perfect in every way.

That's the problem with religion topics. It's basically the two people trying to either expose the holes that he/she sees, or show there's no holes.

hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="verparanoidpers"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

Wow, I found it.

It claimed that if evolution was true, the bigger the organism was, the more chorosomes it would have. Yet, they had a thing of data showing a horse witb 64 chorosomes, and a crayfish with 200 chorosomes.

CptJSparrow

This is me wondering what the response will be...Fireball2500

IMO, God is just made up by people as well.SunofVich

My idea as well. People are unsure of where they go after life, so they created something to ease everyone's suffering. It's much easier to think that little jimmy is really in heaven, as opposed to being in the ground; rotting. :|

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"]This is me wondering what the response will be...hamstergeddon

what does this House Cat have to do with the central debate anyways...hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]what does this House Cat have to do with the central debate anyways...CptJSparrow

Since when did faith disprove anything? Faith can't even prove itself.

Hell, I posit the existence of a floating purple dinosaur that's always behind you but turns invisible when you look at it. Look at it this way, the dinosaur doesn't exist.

you have no more proof of god than the dinosaur.

TongHua

[QUOTE="huladog123"]Charles Darwin, the creator of the evolution theory, renounced his claim that evolution was real when he got older.gameguy6700

I stopped reading here, just like I do every time I see that line in a post.

But it's true

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="huladog123"]Charles Darwin, the creator of the evolution theory, renounced his claim that evolution was real when he got older.Sparticus247

I stopped reading here, just like I do every time I see that line in a post.

But it's true

No, its a well recorded fact that Darwin died an atheist. Hence the reason I stop reading whenever I see someone write that he renounced his atheism since at that point its obvious they're getting all of their information from the extremely biased (to the point of fabricating info) anti-evolution videos and sermons making their rounds over the internet and in fundamentalist Christian subculture.

edit: sorry, misread the first quoted post. For some reason I thought this was about his religious views at death (I was thinking of the sentence that came after it in the OP). That said, the answer is still an overwhelming no to that as well. Darwin stood by his theory to his death.

[QUOTE="Sparticus247"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="huladog123"]Charles Darwin, the creator of the evolution theory, renounced his claim that evolution was real when he got older.gameguy6700

I stopped reading here, just like I do every time I see that line in a post.

But it's true

No, its a well recorded fact that Darwin died an atheist. Hence the reason I stop reading whenever I see someone write that he renounced his atheism since at that point its obvious they're getting all of their information from the extremely biased (to the point of fabricating info) anti-evolution videos and sermons making their rounds over the internet and in fundamentalist Christian subculture.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="Sparticus247"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="huladog123"]Charles Darwin, the creator of the evolution theory, renounced his claim that evolution was real when he got older.Ezgam3r

I stopped reading here, just like I do every time I see that line in a post.

But it's true

No, its a well recorded fact that Darwin died an atheist. Hence the reason I stop reading whenever I see someone write that he renounced his atheism since at that point its obvious they're getting all of their information from the extremely biased (to the point of fabricating info) anti-evolution videos and sermons making their rounds over the internet and in fundamentalist Christian subculture.

Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Either way, the distinction doesn't matter here. The fact remains that Darwin never reaffirmed his belief in God nor did he ever renounce his theory of evolution.

[QUOTE="huladog123"]Charles Darwin, the creator of the evolution theory, renounced his claim that evolution was real when he got older.gameguy6700

I stopped reading here, just like I do every time I see that line in a post.

Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Either way, the distinction doesn't matter here. The fact remains that Darwin never reaffirmed his belief in God nor did he ever renounce his theory of evolution.

gameguy6700

Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Either way, the distinction doesn't matter here. The fact remains that Darwin never reaffirmed his belief in God nor did he ever renounce his theory of evolution. gameguy6700

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Either way, the distinction doesn't matter here. The fact remains that Darwin never reaffirmed his belief in God nor did he ever renounce his theory of evolution.

Ezgam3r

I would be more willing to label those people as "psuedotheists" than actual agnostics. You know, they're the people who only claim to be religious because they don't want to go to hell ("I'm not religious but I'm spiritual"). A true agnostic is one who doesn't make a claim one way or the other but follows the philosophy that since we can never be certain of the existence or lack thereof of deities that no one is ever justified in (not) believing in a deity. And that type of philosophy would fall under soft atheism.

hi im riku and i believe in evolution! Rikusaki

i am also an athiest

I would be more willing to label those people as "psuedotheists" than actual agnostics. gameguy6700

You know, they're the people who only claim to be religious because they don't want to go to hell ("I'm not religious but I'm spiritual"). gameguy6700

A true agnostic is one who doesn't make a claim one way or the other but follows the philosophy that since we can never be certain of the existence or lack thereof of deities that no one is ever justified in (not) believing in a deity. gameguy6700

And that type of philosophy would fall under soft atheism.

gameguy6700

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Either way, the distinction doesn't matter here. The fact remains that Darwin never reaffirmed his belief in God nor did he ever renounce his theory of evolution. foxhound_fox

Agnostics don't believe in a deity (or anything really) thus allowing them to be broadly catorgorized as atheist (more specifically as "weak atheists"). The only difference between agnosticism and atheism is the degree to which each expresses its doubt in theism. Strong atheism = total/strong doubt, weak atheism = partial/selective doubt.

And while I could see an arguement for holding the same gradiant with theism (especially from those "agnostic-theists" which is the dumbest term I've ever heard in my life) the fact that theism is dogmatic in nature precludes one from being able to have varying levels of belief. You either fully believe or you don't.

Agnostics don't believe in a deity (or anything really) thus allowing them to be broadly catorgorized as atheist (more specifically as "weak atheists"). The only difference between agnosticism and atheism is the degree to which each expresses its doubt in theism. Strong atheism = total/strong doubt, weak atheism = partial/selective doubt.

And while I could see an arguement for holding the same gradiant with theism (especially from those "agnostic-theists" which is the dumbest term I've ever heard in my life) the fact that theism is dogmatic in nature precludes one from being able to have varying levels of belief. You either fully believe or you don't.

gameguy6700

Agnostics don't believe in a deity (or anything really) thus allowing them to be broadly catorgorized as atheist (more specifically as "weak atheists"). gameguy6700

The only difference between agnosticism and atheism is the degree to which each expresses its doubt in theism. Strong atheism = total/strong doubt, weak atheism = partial/selective doubt.gameguy6700

And while I could see an arguement for holding the same gradiant with theism (especially from those "agnostic-theists" which is the dumbest term I've ever heard in my life)gameguy6700

the fact that theism is dogmatic in nature precludes one from being able to have varying levels of belief. You either fully believe or you don't.

gameguy6700

And to the bolded: That can't be true. If people have doubt about the existence of deities but still believe in them, where do they lay?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I would be more willing to label those people as "psuedotheists" than actual agnostics. Ezgam3r

You know, they're the people who only claim to be religious because they don't want to go to hell ("I'm not religious but I'm spiritual"). gameguy6700

A true agnostic is one who doesn't make a claim one way or the other but follows the philosophy that since we can never be certain of the existence or lack thereof of deities that no one is ever justified in (not) believing in a deity. gameguy6700

And that type of philosophy would fall under soft atheism.

gameguy6700

To answer in order because I find it a PIA to do the whole broken quotes thing:

1. Religion is dogmatic in nature. You can't reject part of it and still truly be a theist. While the defintions may not directly contradict each other, the implications do. You can't say "I believe in God, but I'm not sure if he exists" since its a direct contradiction. To say "I can't be sure, but I believe anyway" is theism since that's the ****ing definition of belief. Both theists and atheists will say that despite certainity being impossible they believe what they believe anyway. If we take your defintion then everyone is an agnostic.

2. That's exactly the point I was making

3. I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. Assuming you're saying what I think you're saying: if you believe that there's no evidence for either then you're saying no one can be justified in believing in either.

4. See #1. Agnosticism can be considered a subset of atheism because atheism does not require total conviction; theism does.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Agnostics don't believe in a deity (or anything really) thus allowing them to be broadly catorgorized as atheist (more specifically as "weak atheists"). The only difference between agnosticism and atheism is the degree to which each expresses its doubt in theism. Strong atheism = total/strong doubt, weak atheism = partial/selective doubt.

And while I could see an arguement for holding the same gradiant with theism (especially from those "agnostic-theists" which is the dumbest term I've ever heard in my life) the fact that theism is dogmatic in nature precludes one from being able to have varying levels of belief. You either fully believe or you don't.

foxhound_fox

Let me make this more clear as to why dogma and agnosticism are incompatible:

Christianity is a very dogmatic religion. The religion makes it very clear that you do not get into heaven if you do not completely and truly belief that God exists. The only Christians who will tell you otherwise are the ones who are "agnostic-theists" (and why children? Because although they know their religion is bs they're too afraid to admit it just in case they're wrong).

Anyway, the distinction does exist between weak and strong atheism. That isn't some personal viewpoint I invented. Atheism is a disbelief in deities. Agnosticism is also the disbelief in deities albeit suspended. Theism is the belief in deities. Again, you can't say that you believe in a deity and at the same time say that you doubt its existence.

And I'm fully aware of what agnosticism entails since I'm also agnostic. Though I guess with all these stupid defintions flying around I should actually call myself an "atheist-agnostic" (which is redundant, but apparantly not to you guys. Should we just start going by percentages now? How about, I'm 90% atheist leaning. To make things easier we'll do away with all words save for "agnostic" and replace "atheist" with the "-" sign before the percentage, and the "+" sign for theism. So I suppose I would be -90% agnostic).

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Agnostics don't believe in a deity (or anything really) thus allowing them to be broadly catorgorized as atheist (more specifically as "weak atheists"). Ezgam3r

The only difference between agnosticism and atheism is the degree to which each expresses its doubt in theism. Strong atheism = total/strong doubt, weak atheism = partial/selective doubt.gameguy6700

And while I could see an arguement for holding the same gradiant with theism (especially from those "agnostic-theists" which is the dumbest term I've ever heard in my life)gameguy6700

the fact that theism is dogmatic in nature precludes one from being able to have varying levels of belief. You either fully believe or you don't.

gameguy6700

And to the bolded: That can't be true. If people have doubt about the existence of deities but still believe in them, where do they lay?

I already explained why agnostic-theism is a dumb term, the two are practically mutually exclusive. Theism is dogmatic by its very nature. And with dogma you only have absolutes. Either something is or isn't, there is no inbetween. For example, Christian dogma states that murder is a sin. There's no inbetween with that. Its either a sin or it isn't. And if you disagree with the dogma then you aren't following the religion. And if you aren't following the religion then... (fill in the blank).

Anyway, sorry if I'm starting to ramble here. Its getting late. Since we're starting to just go around in circles now with our arguements unless there's something new you'd guys like to add I'm off since I need to get some stats work down before I go to sleep.

To answer in order because I find it a PIA to do the whole broken quotes thing:

1. Religion is dogmatic in nature. You can't reject part of it and still truly be a theist. gameguy6700

While the defintions may not directly contradict each other, the implications do. You can't say "I believe in God, but I'm not sure if he exists" since its a direct contradiction.gameguy6700

To say "I can't be sure, but I believe anyway" is theism since that's the ****ing definition of belief. Both theists and atheists will say that despite certainity being impossible they believe what they believe anyway. If we take your defintion then everyone is an agnostic. gameguy6700

To be an Agnostic, you have to admit that you do not know weather or not deities exist. Not everyone does this, and therefor, not everyone is an Agnostic.

2. That's exactly the point I was making

gameguy6700

3. I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. Assuming you're saying what I think you're saying: if you believe that there's no evidence for either then you're saying no one can be justified in believing in either. gameguy6700

If there is no proof either way, then you aren'tjustified to believe in deities or not. So if your not justified to believe in deities (theism) and not believe in them (atheism), how is agnosticism a subset of either?

Agnosticism is its own set and intersects both Theism and Atheism, making the subsets Agnostic Theism and Agnostic Atheism.

4. See #1. Agnosticism can be considered a subset of atheism because atheism does not require total conviction; theism does.

gameguy6700

[QUOTE="wemhim"]Nobody knows... And your arrogance isn't very Christian.huladog123

name it, Im waiting /thread

I already explained why agnostic-theism is a dumb term, the two are practically mutually exclusive. gameguy6700

Theism is dogmatic by its very nature. And with dogma you only have absolutes. Either something is or isn't, there is no inbetween.gameguy6700

Theism dogma: God exists/I believe God exists

Atheism dogma: God doesn't exist/I believe God doesn't exist

For example, Christian dogma states that murder is a sin. There's no inbetween with that. Its either a sin or it isn't. gameguy6700

And if you disagree with the dogma then you aren't following the religion. And if you aren't following the religion then... (fill in the blank).

gameguy6700

Agnosticism isn't about belief in deities but about knowledge, which is why its compatible with both Theism and Atheism.

People say a lot of things on their death bed. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Atheists and Agnostics made a reversal in the face of death.helium_flash

Then they weren't truely either of those then. Only time I will believe in a god if he/she/it shows up in front of me and tells me he created me and can prove he did. Else, I'll die knowing that nothing will happen to me and ill just become part of the earth again.

[QUOTE="SunofVich"]IMO, God is just made up by people as well.verparanoidpers

Then you are forgetting that there have been and are many religions out there and each one claims they are right.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]People say a lot of things on their death bed. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Atheists and Agnostics made a reversal in the face of death.MindFreeze

Then they weren't truely either of those then. Only time I will believe in a god if he/she/it shows up in front of me and tells me he created me and can prove he did. Else, I'll die knowing that nothing will happen to me and ill just become part of the earth again.

helium, youre dumb if you think were afraid of death, because we dont believe in some mumbo-jumbo about living in clouds happy for eternity with God. I dont need to rely on superstitions to know how the universe was created, I dont know why I would need them to know what awaits us when were dead. Thats what separate us, FEAR. Believers fear the unknown, thats why they make up stories, we, atheists, dont fear the unknown, so we dont need to rely on santa claus, the tooth fairy and God.

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]People say a lot of things on their death bed. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Atheists and Agnostics made a reversal in the face of death.kalossimitar

Then they weren't truely either of those then. Only time I will believe in a god if he/she/it shows up in front of me and tells me he created me and can prove he did. Else, I'll die knowing that nothing will happen to me and ill just become part of the earth again.

helium, youre dumb if you think were afraid of death, because we dont believe in some mumbo-jumbo about living in clouds happy for eternity with God. I dont need to rely on superstitions to know how the universe was created, I dont know why I would need them to know what awaits us when were dead. Thats what separate us, FEAR. Believers fear the unknown, thats why they make up stories, we, atheists, dont fear the unknown, so we dont need to rely on santa claus, the tooth fairy and God.

While ofcourse not every theist has this fear, ex. parents were Christian, kid brought up Christian, etc. I have no doubt that this was why religion was created.

Especially in times where the people might have felt there was no reason to live, they wanted to have something nice to go to after they died. Also could have been a way to control the population...

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

To answer in order because I find it a PIA to do the whole broken quotes thing:

1. Religion is dogmatic in nature. You can't reject part of it and still truly be a theist. Ezgam3r

While the defintions may not directly contradict each other, the implications do. You can't say "I believe in God, but I'm not sure if he exists" since its a direct contradiction.gameguy6700

To say "I can't be sure, but I believe anyway" is theism since that's the ****ing definition of belief. Both theists and atheists will say that despite certainity being impossible they believe what they believe anyway. If we take your defintion then everyone is an agnostic. gameguy6700

To be an Agnostic, you have to admit that you do not know weather or not deities exist. Not everyone does this, and therefor, not everyone is an Agnostic.

2. That's exactly the point I was making

gameguy6700

3. I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. Assuming you're saying what I think you're saying: if you believe that there's no evidence for either then you're saying no one can be justified in believing in either. gameguy6700

If there is no proof either way, then you aren'tjustified to believe in deities or not. So if your not justified to believe in deities (theism) and not believe in them (atheism), how is agnosticism a subset of either?

Agnosticism is its own set and intersects both Theism and Atheism, making the subsets Agnostic Theism and Agnostic Atheism.

4. See #1. Agnosticism can be considered a subset of atheism because atheism does not require total conviction; theism does.

gameguy6700

damnit, stop chopping up quotes like that! :P

1. My bad. I meant to say "theism" in place of "religious" in the original quote.

2. Just so we're clear, I doubt your existence but I still think you exist.

3. I've yet to see any theist/atheist, when backed into a corner not admit that they can't be certain of their God's existence. They don't say, however, that they're doubtful of their position because of it. Merely that the lack of objective certainity is not an obstacle. According to your defintion, however, this would still count as agnostic.

4. There may have been a misunderstanding. I have not been arguing that atheism and agnosticism are one and the same. Merely that you have two broad categories of religious belief: Theism (belief in deities) and Atheism (disbelief in deities). Atheism can be further broken down into implicit atheism (having never considered the existence of a god) and explicit atheism (rejecting the existence of a god). Explicit atheism can then be broken down into strong atheism (what you think of when you hear the word "atheism") and weak atheism (which would include, but not be limited to, agnosticism). I did concede a few posts back when starting out that the same distinction of weak and strong could be made with theism, but that because theism is dogmatic (and thus requires absolutes due to the definition of dogma) it is impossible for one to be truly theistic and agnostic at the same time. When I said that atheism does not require absolutes I meant that it is possible to divy it up since it doesn't have the "all or nothing" mentality that dogma does (you can't have weak and strong dogma and by proxy theism). Again, I'm making a distinction between atheism (which I said was the disbelief in deities) and strong atheism (the absolute disbelief in deities).

Anyway, its really late here so I'm going to go sleep. Its been fun.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Either way, the distinction doesn't matter here. The fact remains that Darwin never reaffirmed his belief in God nor did he ever renounce his theory of evolution. foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Either way, the distinction doesn't matter here. The fact remains that Darwin never reaffirmed his belief in God nor did he ever renounce his theory of evolution. CptJSparrow

Agnogsticism is it's impossible to know if God exists, right? So thats true. If God comes before us, if his existance is absolutely 100% proven, then it's not religion anymore, it's science.

when I say, "God created the universe, and the the big bang theory is a load of garbage," i'm not disproving science. I love science, but some of science is just simple philosophes made up by men and women who didn't want to believe in God, such as the big bang theory, and evolution.huladog123

I would have read further but your perception of faith is backwards.

Science describes through numbers, patterns, and observation, that which IS. Faith describes through philosophy and imigination that which can't be described.

God changed my life for the better.

Wrong. You changed your life for the better because you were under the impression that you were receiving help from above. If God truly helped you then you are worshipping an evil god that chooses to ignore the problems of the world and help only a select few.

The major institutions in the modern world do a fantastic job of making you feel insignificant. You always have the power to improve your life. You don't need help from anyone.

How many times do i have to say.We do NOT know if god exists or not.

End of discussion.

Im Christian and i also believe in science. i just dont believe in theories b/c they are theories and dont have any factual evidenceMichaeltheCM

You are wrong to say theories in science have no factual basis. Per the scientific method, theories are derived from observation and experimental evidence. They are not pulled from the air like a random guess.

SCIENCE!!!

hi im riku and i believe in evolution! Rikusaki

That was a random entrance.

Im Christian and i also believe in science. i just dont believe in theories b/c they are theories and dont have any factual evidenceMichaeltheCM

wow, you just owned yourself. From what you just said, you shouldnt believe in God

when I say, "God created the universe, and the the big bang theory is a load of garbage," i'm not disproving science. I love science, but some of science is just simple philosophes made up by men and women who didn't want to believe in God, such as the big bang theory, and evolution. Charles Darwin, the creator of the evolution theory, renounced his claim that evolution was real when he got older. Some people say that he even asked God for forgiveness. Think about it this way. Which is easier to believe? That nothing exploded into everything, or that an amazing omniscient God beyond time and the tiny bit of knowledge that we know created it all, for us to use and live in and explore? God created man to rule over every beast of the earth. God also gave the first two humans a choice. Obey God, or disobey God. Guess what? They disobeyed them willfully, so God set a "curse" on the universe, that humans would have short lives, but that they'd have enough time to call of God for the forgiveness of their sins. Because if you have sin in your life, then how could you been in the presence of God when you die? God came down to earth in human form and suffered crucifixion on the cross FOR YOU, PERSONALLY. He did it because he wants all of us to choose to make Him your Savior. If you choose not to, then when you die, you suffer your own crucifixion in hell, because you didn't want God to do it for you. That's all I'm saying. You guys can believe me or not believe me, but I am extremely grateful that my parents became Christians and raised me up in this truth, because it is so great and amazing what God did for me, and for anyone who asks him for forgiveness. God changed my life for the better. Even when I'm going through a hard time, I just trust God that he'll help me through it, and suddenly, all of it's behind me, and yesterday is gone. Do you want to go to heaven or hell? Think about it. Heaven is everlasting peace, and it's so easy to get there! Hell is eternal punishment and torture. Use common sense! What would you choose!huladog123

First things first, Darwin never, ever denounced his theory of evolution, he never ever asked for forgivness on his death bed. It is a well known and accepted fact that Darwin was agnostic all the way through his death. He actually despised the Abraham religions.

I would also like to point out that many of the founding fathers of America were diests. They believed that there was a non-interfering god and also despised the Christian Religion.

Next which is easier to believe that something came of nothing or that a God created it all. Well considering the fact that the Big Bang theory does not state that everything came from nothing this argument is mute. But do consider this, time, and I am not talking about man made time, I am talking about foward progression in events is infinite. Also considering the Mass-Energy Conservation law, and anti-matter, it is a lot easier to believe that everything has in fact always been in the universe, perhaps condensed into a ball.

And do consider that a scientific theory is a well thought out idea that is proven through the use of facts over and over, and then is presented to the scientific community to be challenged, and only when it has failed to be proven not true, is it accepted as a theory.

Also the idea that God, if and only if God exsists, gave free will to people is impossible if said God is omniscient. As if someone already knows what is going to happen in every situation then said choice is mearly an illusion. Also consider that God may interfere with human activities, this also provides more of the illusion of choice. So considering this, one can only come to the conclusion that if God did exsist, he is personally responsible for damning the majority of the human population to hell.

Also, there is no proof that Jesus Christ, the son of god ever actually walked on earth. The writings in the Bible were not written by anyone who lived along side Jesus, and were in fact all written after Jesus died. In fact there is not one single writing that is from a first hand eyewitness to the life and death of Jesus. Considering the extrodanry things that Jesus did, there should be historical references that rival Ceaser, Alexander, and Cleopatra, but there aren't.

Also consider this, since Jesus could perform miracles, why did he not do something worthy with said powers. He had the ability to cure famine, disease, poverty, hatred, and in fact sin itself, instead he curded a fig tree.

Christians have been the cause of wars, famine, prejudice, witch hunts, heritic hunts, destruction of knowledge and stiffling scientific advancement. This is also true of many major religions, I pick on Christianity because I was brought up to be Christian and so it is what I have the most knowledge on.

[QUOTE="huladog123"]when I say, "God created the universe, and the the big bang theory is a load of garbage," i'm not disproving science. I love science, but some of science is just simple philosophes made up by men and women who didn't want to believe in God, such as the big bang theory, and evolution. Charles Darwin, the creator of the evolution theory, renounced his claim that evolution was real when he got older. Some people say that he even asked God for forgiveness. Think about it this way. Which is easier to believe? That nothing exploded into everything, or that an amazing omniscient God beyond time and the tiny bit of knowledge that we know created it all, for us to use and live in and explore? God created man to rule over every beast of the earth. God also gave the first two humans a choice. Obey God, or disobey God. Guess what? They disobeyed them willfully, so God set a "curse" on the universe, that humans would have short lives, but that they'd have enough time to call of God for the forgiveness of their sins. Because if you have sin in your life, then how could you been in the presence of God when you die? God came down to earth in human form and suffered crucifixion on the cross FOR YOU, PERSONALLY. He did it because he wants all of us to choose to make Him your Savior. If you choose not to, then when you die, you suffer your own crucifixion in hell, because you didn't want God to do it for you. That's all I'm saying. You guys can believe me or not believe me, but I am extremely grateful that my parents became Christians and raised me up in this truth, because it is so great and amazing what God did for me, and for anyone who asks him for forgiveness. God changed my life for the better. Even when I'm going through a hard time, I just trust God that he'll help me through it, and suddenly, all of it's behind me, and yesterday is gone. Do you want to go to heaven or hell? Think about it. Heaven is everlasting peace, and it's so easy to get there! Hell is eternal punishment and torture. Use common sense! What would you choose!dlp21

First things first, Darwin never, ever denounced his theory of evolution, he never ever asked for forgivness on his death bed. It is a well known and accepted fact that Darwin was agnostic all the way through his death. He actually despised the Abraham religions.

I would also like to point out that many of the founding fathers of America were diests. They believed that there was a non-interfering god and also despised the Christian Religion.

Next which is easier to believe that something came of nothing or that a God created it all. Well considering the fact that the Big Bang theory does not state that everything came from nothing this argument is mute. But do consider this, time, and I am not talking about man made time, I am talking about foward progression in events is infinite. Also considering the Mass-Energy Conservation law, and anti-matter, it is a lot easier to believe that everything has in fact always been in the universe, perhaps condensed into a ball.

And do consider that a scientific theory is a well thought out idea that is proven through the use of facts over and over, and then is presented to the scientific community to be challenged, and only when it has failed to be proven not true, is it accepted as a theory.

Also the idea that God, if and only if God exsists, gave free will to people is impossible if said God is omniscient. As if someone already knows what is going to happen in every situation then said choice is mearly an illusion. Also consider that God may interfere with human activities, this also provides more of the illusion of choice. So considering this, one can only come to the conclusion that if God did exsist, he is personally responsible for damning the majority of the human population to hell.

Also, there is no proof that Jesus Christ, the son of god ever actually walked on earth. The writings in the Bible were not written by anyone who lived along side Jesus, and were in fact all written after Jesus died. In fact there is not one single writing that is from a first hand eyewitness to the life and death of Jesus. Considering the extrodanry things that Jesus did, there should be historical references that rival Ceaser, Alexander, and Cleopatra, but there aren't.

Also consider this, since Jesus could perform miracles, why did he not do something worthy with said powers. He had the ability to cure famine, disease, poverty, hatred, and in fact sin itself, instead he curded a fig tree.

Christians have been the cause of wars, famine, prejudice, witch hunts, heritic hunts, destruction of knowledge and stiffling scientific advancement. This is also true of many major religions, I pick on Christianity because I was brought up to be Christian and so it is what I have the most knowledge on.

*Slow Clap*

damnit, stop chopping up quotes like that! :Pgameguy6700

1. My bad. I meant to say "theism" in place of "religious" in the original quote.gameguy6700

So do you, by your own logic, admit that atheism is also dogmatic as in "You either don't believe, or you do"?

Being Agnostic dosn't mean that you have to have doubt. Its just admitting that we don't have the answers.

2. Just so we're clear, I doubt your existence but I still think you exist.gameguy6700

Just like I said before, you can be an Agnostic by admitting that you don't have the answer. You don't need to have doubt.

3. I've yet to see any theist/atheist, when backed into a corner not admit that they can't be certain of their God's existence. They don't say, however, that they're doubtful of their position because of it. Merely that the lack of objective certainty is not an obstacle. According to your definition, however, this would still count as agnostic.

gameguy6700

4. There may have been a misunderstanding. I have not been arguing that atheism and agnosticism are one and the same. Merely that you have two broad categories of religious belief: Theism (belief in deities) and Atheism (disbelief in deities). Atheism can be further broken down into implicit atheism (having never considered the existence of a god) and explicit atheism (rejecting the existence of a god). Explicit atheism can then be broken down into strong atheism (what you think of when you hear the word "atheism") gameguy6700

and weak atheism (which would include, but not be limited to, agnosticism). gameguy6700

I did concede a few posts back when starting out that the same distinction of weak and strong could be made with theism,gameguy6700

but that because theism is dogmatic (and thus requires absolutes due to the definition of dogma) it is impossible for one to be truly theistic and agnostic at the same time. When I said that atheism does not require absolutes I meant that it is possible to divy it up since it doesn't have the "all or nothing" mentality that dogma does (you can't have weak and strong dogma and by proxy theism). Again, I'm making a distinction between atheism (which I said was the disbelief in deities) and strong atheism (the absolute disbelief in deities).gameguy6700

By your own logic, you also can't be an truly Atheist and Agnostic at the same time since Atheism also has dogma (not believing in deities), as you yourself admitted. Atheism then also has the "all or nothing" mentality Theism does (either you don't have belief, or you do). Therefor, by your own logic, Atheism can't be compatible with Agnosticism because it has dogma and an "all or nothing" mentality.

But we all know this isn't true because Agnosticism doesn't need to deal with your beliefs, but rather your knowledge.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="nuclear_cookout"]

Christianity FTW. All that is required is faith.

Here's some logic on why God's existence is indeed logical:


"If something exists now, something must always have existed, for something cannot come from nothing. Something does now exist; thus, something has existed always.

The "something" that has existed always must either be matter or mind. But the eternally existing "something" is not matter, for matter is conceded to be temporal, not eternal (as evidenced by the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Thus, the eternal "something," by default, must be "mind."

If the universe is characterized by order (kosmos) or "design," then the cause that produced it must be intelligent. Intelligence implies personality. Hence there must be a personal cause responsible for the universe."

nuclear_cookout

The universe has laws. It doesn't necessarily have a design. Your logic is self-assuming. Furthermore using that logic then what created God? You can't win with that "arguement". You can try to weasle by using the "god is beyond time and space" bullcrap excuse that theists always resort to, but that can be applied to the universe as well since time didn't start until it came into existence (which, btw, there are a few hypotheses on how the universe came into existence from nothing).

and you'll never here a scientist claiming that the big bang came from nothing.