I'll put this here too, something people should watch:
I'll put this here too, something people should watch:
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, what I said. Science can't prove god, therefore the belief of god is based on faith and therefore an opinion.
Even an athiest scientist will tell you that science is an unreliable method to 'prove' existence of God. This is a good read: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/#b70e6af5adaeBy
By the way, there are some revelations in Quran that people (arabs in particular) would be clueless about 1400+ years ago. People still find some verses incredibly difficult to understand/decode. So there's that.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Scientific theories are hardly written in stone either; they can be invalidated at any point in time. Yet, a large number of people take them at face value.
A lot of people misunderstand and misrepresent how science works. The goal is ultimately to build a common ground in which we can clearly communicate discoveries with each other.
For example, if we wanted to fully establish the best flow of communication in the conversation you held with Robtard just now you'd need to start by "You are right Robtard" or "We agree". That way we focus in facts instead of polemics and we all win and encourage each other to build a positive discussion.
Originally posted by Bentley
A lot of people misunderstand and misrepresent how science works. The goal is ultimately to build a common ground in which we can clearly communicate discoveries with each other.For example, if we wanted to fully establish the best flow of communication in the conversation you held with Robtard just now you'd need to start by "You are right Robtard" or "We agree". That way we focus in facts instead of polemics and we all win and encourage each other to build a positive discussion.
My argument is that people who are seeking a scientific 'proof' for existence of God, appear to have misunderstood the purpose of science or have mistakenly assumed that scientific theories are infallible.
Conversely, a vast number of individuals in history challenged the cultural status-quo of belief in multiple Gods in different civilizations. We call them prophets. The pattern is too vast to be dismissed as mere coincidence.
My point is that some people seem to challenge the historical notion of existence of God on the basis of scientific theories at hand due to lack of evidence in them. They need to keep in mind that scientific theories are not infallible. Not wise to dismiss the notion of God due to lack of scientific evidence at present.
For any individual, faith and science can go hand in hand...
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
My point is that some people seem to challenge the historical notion of existence of God on the basis of scientific theories at hand due to lack of evidence in them. They need to keep in mind that scientific theories are not infallible. Not wise to dismiss the notion of God due to lack of scientific evidence at present.
Science is open to new information that would change theories. In fact it is rigorous in preventing incorrect conclusions. Religion (or "Faith"😉 is not. Faith is certain something is true despite a complete lack of any evidence. That's the major problem with "faith."
Example: Science has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt the fact of the natural processes of evolution, yet many religious folks refuse to accept it because it goes against their "beliefs." According to religion: The facts can't possibly be true because it goes against deeply held beliefs that don't have any evidence. That's a major intellectual problem.
Religion is therefore poisonous for the mind.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
For any individual, faith and science can go hand in hand...
See the above ^ for why this is wrong.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Scientific theories are hardly written in stone either; they can be invalidated at any point in time. Yet, a large number of people take them at face value.Even an athiest scientist will tell you that science is an unreliable method to 'prove' existence of God. This is a good read: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/#b70e6af5adaeBy
By the way, there are some revelations in Quran that people (arabs in particular) would be clueless about 1400+ years ago. People still find some verses incredibly difficult to understand/decode. So there's that.
I feel like we might be arguing two different things. Science is composed of facts, hypotheses, laws and theories. Yes, as new knowledge comes forward through research and repeated testing, things can change while some others will likely remain a constant.
Religion is largely faith based; not science. More specifically to the point here, the belief in God or a god is based solely on faith, as god cannot be proven or disproven by scientific method, therefore, belief in god(s) is the equivalent of an opinion, while belief in say gravity is based on facts. We can repeatedly test that gravity is true.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Science is open to new information that would change theories. In fact it is rigorous in preventing incorrect conclusions. Religion (or "Faith"😉 is not. Faith is certain something is true despite a complete lack of any evidence. That's the major problem with "faith."
People have witnessed and documented EVENTS that seem to defy logic and/or challenge conventional wisdom of the time; they coined the label miracle as a common reference theme for such occurrences. Unfortunately, cameras were not present back then to record such phenomenon.
You - my friend - refuse to accept such reports. 🙂
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Example: Science has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt the fact of the natural processes of evolution, yet many religious folks refuse to accept it because it goes against their "beliefs." According to religion: The facts can't possibly be true because it goes against deeply held beliefs that don't have any evidence. That's a major intellectual problem.Religion is therefore poisonous for the mind.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
See the above ^ for why this is wrong.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Unfortunately, cameras were not present back then to record such phenomenon.
How convenient! Funny how these things don't happen now so that they could be proven so deeply true! 🙄
Also funny how we don't see species popping into existence like Creatio--sorry, Intelligent Design people claim.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
How convenient! Funny how these things don't happen now so that they could be proven so deeply true! 🙄Also funny how we don't see species popping into existence like Creatio--sorry, Intelligent Design people claim.
But we do see new species EVOLVING into existence all the time.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]But we do see new species EVOLVING into existence all the time. [/B]
Certain lizards actually have demonstrated significant changes in as little as 30 years or so just from being moved from one environment to another.
But science doesn't have to see it because there is a wealth of evidence from multiple disciplines that corroborates it.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
How convenient! Funny how these things don't happen now so that they could be proven so deeply true! 🙄
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Also funny how we don't see species popping into existence like Creatio--sorry, Intelligent Design people claim.
We do not see a species transforming into a different kind of beast over time either; we witness signs of adaptations to different conditions at most.
Details in this link: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php
Anyhow, we need to revisit the traditional notion of CREATION.
Life emerged from water. To some, this sounds like a process of creation.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Anyhow, we need to revisit the traditional notion of CREATION.
Jebus made it, I believe it. Nuff said. 😎
Yes, it's off topic, but here is a very good little video on the evidence for evolution for anyone who would like to come out of the 7th century and join the 21st century...
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Jebus made it, I believe it. Nuff said. 😎Yes, it's off topic, but here is a very good little video on the evidence for evolution for anyone who would like to come out of the 7th century and join the 21st century...
You are willing to take ideas put-forth by scientists about developments in the past (in connection with a scientific theory) at face value but not the accounts of miracles (in connection with the notion of existence of God). Your perception of credibility shapes your belief in these matters accordingly. 👆
Anyhow, I wanted to highlight following points:-
1.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.
From: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1
Emphasis mine. THEORY of evolution does not addresses the pressing argument about origin of life itself from inanimate conditions. However, Charles Darwin entertained the notion that water may have a role in origin of life in 1871. Alexander Oparin converted this notion into a hypothesis in 1924, setting the stage for empirical research on this theme in the future and the hypothesis was found to be valid. Here is a comprehensive article: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
Sutherland imagines small rivers and streams trickling down the slopes of an impact crater, leaching cyanide-based chemicals from the rocks while ultraviolet radiation pours down from above. Each stream would have a slightly different mix of chemicals, so different reactions would happen and a whole host of organic chemicals would be produced.
Finally the streams would flow into a volcanic pond at the bottom of the crater. It could have been in a pond like this that all the pieces came together and the first protocells formed.
Scientific studies refuted the traditional account of Vitalism (as highlighted in the aforementioned article) but I came across this verse in Quran: https://quran.com/21/30
REMINDER
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
By the way, there are some revelations in Quran that people (arabs in particular) would be clueless about 1400+ years ago. People still find some verses incredibly difficult to understand/decode. So there's that.
Origin of life is the stage where the traditional notion of CREATION comes into play. This comes down to our perception of developments and scientists might choose a different terminology to describe this process.
IMO, it is not wise to dismiss the traditional notion of CREATION due to THEORY of evolution; it would be better to revisit it in the light of scientific knowledge at hand.
----
2.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.
CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.
Emphasis mine. Evolutionary processes are not strictly random.
Here is a thought-provoking reading: https://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/whats_the_mecha/
---
3.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution and religion are incompatible.
CORRECTION: Because of some individuals and groups stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science (which includes evolution) and religion are at war; however, the idea that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. People of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.
Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days does conflict with evolutionary theory); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE website. To learn more about the relationship between science and religion, visit the Understanding Science website.
From: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1
REMINDER
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
For any individual, faith and science can go hand in hand...
Although it's true that theory of evolution makes no particular comment on biogenesis, and that natural selection isn't random, why are you intelligent design proponents always emphasizing the word "theory" like it means something? You seem to have this weird misconception that the theory of evolution is the theory that evolution happens. It's not; that much is plainly obvious. It's the theory of how evolution happens through natural selection.
And no, trusting professional inferences based on scientific data shouldn't be confused with trusting ancient records of desert people performing magic. Very, very different things.
Originally posted by Surturuh, well that's one way of looking at it
It is true Christianity does have a lot of messed up stuff, but think about Jesus for a second. More or less..dude was a hippy. I feel like the worst he did is get pissed at some rich douches and break some shit, right?Muhammad is like the Jesus of Islam. Except if Jesus was a warlord and child rapist. He has tortured Jews to death in order to locate treasure, he has beheaded jews, he has had poets who wrote poems talking shit about him..killed. Again, compare that to Jesus, who didn't even try to have friggin Judas killed. Who more or less accepted his shitty fate. Muhammad is revered, you can't even draw a picture of the guy without earning their ire. Yep, it's insulting to them to draw a picture of a child raping warlord.
Look at the keys to heaven for a second. If you are a bad person and break all the laws of Christianity..how do you get into heaven? Ask for forgiveness, repent, etc. If you are a muslim..how do you get into heaven if you have flaunted the laws? You kill some non-believers lol. Boom, you get to heaven. Boom, you get virgins(they do not say if the virgins have had their genitals mutilated).
another is that jesus had zero wives, where as muhammad had 4. clear point to muhammad there, imo. jesus sounds like a bit of a fruitcake.
another thing: being a warlord. he basically started an empire out of sheer chaos. that's an admirable trait to me. **** the haters.
so to recap: muhammad was a powerful man with multiple wives. jesus was an impoverished closet case that got executed before he ever attained any power. yet both men maintain a more lasting legacy than all of us and our ancestors combined. if anything you have to take your hat off to that.