The age old argument...

[GeneralKarim]

To me, as long as you are not hurting anyone you are good in my book. I would be considered an atheist my people if they knew I didnt believe in god.

Now if you are hurting people, verbally and physically because of religion, then we have a problem. I don't need to start giving examples because there are plenty in history and in the recent history. Just as a quick example I remember there was a story of a girl ( i think ) not wanting people to have religion forcefully taught in schools ( or her school at least ) and she was immediately, IMMEDIATELY, blasted with death threats and all that crap.

That doesnt mean religious people are evil or smth but there are a LOT of examples, too much maybe.

Now as to the supernatural. Well I like to see something before I believe, I'm stupid like that. Science is constantly trying to improve and constantly finds out stuff. Sometime they get it wrong and then they improve and get more information. That's what science is. Science doesnt claim to have all the answers.

That's the real difference to me that pisses me off. Science wants to discover things and wants to make SENSE OF THIS WORLD AND GO TO SPACE AND SHIT. And what does religion want you to do? Come to their gold plated church and give them money and pray and sing songs to an invisible creature that watches you while you jerk off to your favorite porn star. Religion wants to you keep your head down, read the bible and believe everything it says, BLINDLY.

Science prokoves discussion, discussion leads to making decisions that might take you to advancement when it comes to a certain theory. What does religion provoke? Nothing. Same shitty made up "holydays" every damn year and nothing EVER changes. No advancement, no nothing. Keep your head down and enjoy the yearly calendar filled with stupid, nonsensical crap.

Also, think about this. You are born without knowing "god", presumably, exists. YOU ARE TAUGHT that he exists. You are being brainwashed as a little kid to believe in this higher power. If people wouldnt talk about it ( mostly your parents ) you wouldnt grow up to be an atheist or a "believer" ( funny word.. ). You grow up TO BE YOU, YOURSELF not a LABEL.

Also, atheism is frowned upon. What does that tell you about religion? If you dont believe ( there's that word again ) you aren't good enough. You're scum, you worship SATAN ( cause you know...why the hell not? ).

I became an atheist when I was like 10 years old. Here's the story. This is all I needed. Note, that before this I was saying my prayers and all that crap every damn night because mom/grandma told us to and then I got used to it.

Was in the car with my mom. And she told me ( while we were very briefly talking about god ofc ): "You see, your uncle was in his car some time ago and before that he said that he didn't really believe in God, so he almost had an accident, you see honey?" ( obviously im paraphrasing since it wasnt in english ).

And right then and there, what she told me, touched me deeply, in my fkn gut. And at that point at 10yo ( in my mind ofc )"Bitch please".

I will also adore my dad for what he did in my childhood and even now. He's a muslim and my mom is a christian. He never, ever once, in his whole life, tried to "turn" me or smth. Such a cool guy. He very rarely even mentioned his side of the story.

Also, at the country side, you wouldnt believe shit that is happening there. Oh my fkn god. Old women there be freaking crazy about god.

This was mostly a rant since I really hate how religion and religious people around you try and make you do shit that dont make sense just because. ( Like kissing a fucking cross because screw logic ) and always try and make you feel like you are lower than them because they believe they will be saved by a fary and all their "sins" will be forgiven and blalblalblalba. The Bible is nothing but a bestseller.

I never argue about religion with people in real life but when my mom says "We are not washing clothes today because it's friday and friday is BALBALBALBALBALBLABLABLABLABA( smth related to god)". A litlte of my faith in humanity dies.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

It's all down to opinions really. One can provide facts on both sides of the argument while one can also try to disprove them. So several religious scientists may still go against the theory of evolution and TBBT while evolutionists can also try and disprove the miracles of various religions.

All are entitled to their opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts, so no, it really doesn’t come down to this. Two plus two equals four, whether you “believe” it or not.

And so we’re clear, an opinion can be wrong. Like when you say “It’s my opinion that two plus two is five”. Great. You’re entitled to that level of unintelligence, certainly, but you are wrong, and so is your opinion.

I can provide you with this link: http://space.io9.com/have-physicists-detected-gravitational-waves-yes-1545591865

Or I can provide you with this one: http://www.islamreligion.com/category/33/

One can ask how the elements that started TBBT were formed or placed there.

One can also ask where God came from.

It depends on your outlook and how you interpret the various evidences given to you.

Difference being, there is actual research being done in answering questions like the one you proposed about the elements that started the BBT. There is no research being done, and no answers being provided with the second because God is still not proven to exist.

This is the fundamental flaw with trying to place God into the discussion. In order to demonstrate anything, it first has to be demonstrated to exist. Once existence is confirmed, tests can then be done to determine how it reacts to other things in existence.

Personally, I'll stick with the religious side. As a Muslim, I feel like I have purposes in life. If I rejected religion I'd feel very empty with no real purpose in this world. I think that when we die, there's a hereafter and we shall all be accountable for our actions. Even if Islam is false, I'll know that when I die, I'd had lived a good life of principles and avoiding all bad I've been instructed to keep away from.

You actually don’t know this. I’d argue you think it now because you were taught to think that way and never questioned that teaching from the onset (likely because you were taught it as a child, when your mind is still quite impressionable). I was raised Christian, for example. Roman Catholic, to be precise. I know many others raised religious who rejected their faith later in life, just like I did, who live very fulfilling lives and don’t feel as though they lack “purpose” in life.

In fact, there are entirely secular communes popping up all over the U.S. that look to recreate a lot of the community lost by now atheists who’ve walked away from their faith. They get together every Sunday, just as they used to, only this time to celebrate life, or other happy aspects of their community. They sing songs, they eat meals together, etc. The entire thing is designed to replicate the sense of community and pride a lot of religious folks feel by attending church services, except without the need for church services.

Sure, there have been several conflicts as a result of religion, but is that the religion's fault or just extremists and racists?

Depends who you ask, and on which conflicts we’re talking about, exactly. Though I’d argue that without religion in the first place — without the commandments to kill and destroy as taught by those Holy Books — you wouldn’t have these conflicts. I don’t necessarily blame religion for that (at least not entirely), but I do blame religious people for continuing to teach and believe it when it’s so inherently flawed and immoral.

If science can't explain something and people say because it can't, religion must be the only other reason, what's wrong with that? What other alternative is there? Vise versa. Again, all opinion.

What’s wrong with that is that it’s the championship of ignorance. You presume, falsely, that because science doesn’t have an answer yet, that it never will, and that simply is not an inherent truth. In 1951, science had no answer to curing Polio. By 1952, it did. So did that mean that there “is no cure for Polio” in 1951? Absolutely not. What it meant is that there was no cure yet. Science didn’t have the answer at the moment you asked, but it found it just a year later and saved countless lives because they didn’t just quit and say “well, God must have done it”.

I'm not a religious person, in meaning I don't go to church every Sunday. But you don't have to go to church to believe in God.

The way I see it is there are two forces, one good and one evil, and they sort of counter balance each other. The church has given them names, no one else did. They tell you to worship the good force and cast out of the evil. Which is all fine with me.

Except you haven’t demonstrated that these “forces” exist. This is still a claim without evidence.

Good and evil exist, but are defined by human principles and morality. Any appeals to a supernatural force require evidence that the supernatural realm exists in the first place.

And I never argue religion or politics with anyone. Everyone has their own opinions and they are entitled to them. And opinion isn't fact, it's just that an opinion, usually based on life experience. Some who have had problems will turn to the church, just to make themselves feel better about what they've been going through, and you can't fault them for that. Whatever makes you feel better as a person, no one can say that's a bad thing.

Sure they can. They’re entitled to their opinions too. What if what makes you feel better as a person is drowning kittens? No one can say it’s a bad thing because it makes you feel better as a person? Bad ideas and beliefs are just as subject to scrutiny and skepticism as anything else, and that shouldn’t change simply because some of them are based in religion.

The paranormal is another thing entirely. I've never had an experience, at least I don't think I've had, but I know others that have. I've been in a house that a friend of mine lived in, and the lights turned on by themselves and doors opened and closed on their own. Never while I was there, but I can tell you the place gave me the creeps, and I was never comfortable when we went to visit. I also have other friends and a couple of family members who have experienced weird shit and i wouldn't call them liars.

No, you know others that claim to have. Claims that are likely without evidence. Lights turning on/off by themselves can be attributed to bad wiring. Doors closing/opening by themselves can be attributed to wind drafts and faulty door mechanics.

Not everyone who makes a claim about something supernatural is a “liar”. Being a liar implies intent to deceive. Sometimes people just have delusions they hold onto for any variety of reasons.

I think most who do have things happen to them don't say anything in fear of being asked to prove it or being called crazy. So a lot of what happens goes unsaid. You have to have an open mind about things, and there are just somethings that happen that neither religion or science can't answer. They are unexplained phenomena and are meant to be left that way.

Nothing is “meant” to be left alone and unexplored or explained. This is the championship of ignorance.

 

[Cereal Killer]

All are entitled to their opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts, so no, it really doesn’t come down to this. Two plus two equals four, whether you “believe” it or not.

True.

And so we’re clear, an opinion can be wrong. Like when you say “It’s my opinion that two plus two is five”. Great. You’re entitled to that level of unintelligence, certainly, but you are wrong, and so is your opinion.

I understand this concept. In my opinion, Islam is the truth, my opinion can also be wrong, I know.

Difference being, there is actual research being done in answering questions like the one you proposed about the elements that started the BBT. There is no research being done, and no answers being provided with the second because God is still not proven to exist.

There have also been proven miracles of Islam. A lot of people try to debunk them, similar to how religious people try and prove TBBT wrong. Again, it's down to the path you go down.

This is the fundamental flaw with trying to place God into the discussion. In order to demonstrate anything, it first has to be demonstrated to exist. Once existence is confirmed, tests can then be done to determine how it reacts to other things in existence.

Yeah, only in Christianity and Islam (and probably others), you're not supposed to see God. Bear in mind I understand why you'd question that but again, it's all about your outlook on life.

You actually don’t know this. I’d argue you think it now because you were taught to think that way and never questioned that teaching from the onset (likely because you were taught it as a child, when your mind is still quite impressionable). I was raised Christian, for example. Roman Catholic, to be precise. I know many others raised religious who rejected their faith later in life, just like I did, who live very fulfilling lives and don’t feel as though they lack “purpose” in life.

I actually do. I decided to reject religion 2 years ago. Reason being because of the point I raised above. People try and disprove other beliefs continuously, meaning no belief is a solid fact, so I thought, "what do I believe?" I think about 8 months afterwards I realised that it just depends on what you think is right and wrong, alongside the evidence provided. During those 8 months I felt really empty and knew that something was missing. There was nothing really telling me to avoid doing certain things which I'm generally not for, such as drinking. Deep down I also couldn't believe that we're JUST here with no purpose and that when we die, that's all that happens.

In fact, there are entirely secular communes popping up all over the U.S. that look to recreate a lot of the community lost by now atheists who’ve walked away from their faith. They get together every Sunday, just as they used to, only this time to celebrate life, or other happy aspects of their community. They sing songs, they eat meals together, etc. The entire thing is designed to replicate the sense of community and pride a lot of religious folks feel by attending church services, except without the need for church services.

I actually like that idea. But I would still say (not to be stubborn or anything) that religion would be more beneficial for one, or me at least. You see, those groups have only just started "popping up", religion has been around for years teaching right from wrong and that if you do something you shouldn't, there's a consequence. If I weren't religious, not much would be stopping me from binge drinking. Sure, I'd be aware that I could fall and suffer a concussion but I'm taught that in the afterlife, there's a huge consequence. So basically, I feel that in religion there's more that's stopping you from doing things you shouldn't and that there's more things keeping one disciplined. Now you may disagree, but that goes back to the whole opinion thing.

Depends who you ask, and on which conflicts we’re talking about, exactly. Though I’d argue that without religion in the first place — without the commandments to kill and destroy as taught by those Holy Books — you wouldn’t have these conflicts. I don’t necessarily blame religion for that (at least not entirely), but I do blame religious people for continuing to teach and believe it when it’s so inherently flawed and immoral.

I'm not too sure about the Bible but there are such verses in the Qur'an which have either been taken for face value, read incorrectly or not in the full context, therefore misinterpreted as violent.

http://www.whyislam.org/faqs/islam-...to-kill-non-believers-wherever-you-find-them/

What’s wrong with that is that it’s the championship of ignorance. You presume, falsely, that because science doesn’t have an answer yet, that it never will, and that simply is not an inherent truth. In 1951, science had no answer to curing Polio. By 1952, it did. So did that mean that there “is no cure for Polio” in 1951? Absolutely not. What it meant is that there was no cure yet. Science didn’t have the answer at the moment you asked, but it found it just a year later and saved countless lives because they didn’t just quit and say “well, God must have done it”.

Just few of the reasons I chose religion: http://www.discoveringislam.org/miracles_of_Islam.htm

 

[Alastor]

I get where you're coming from, I really do. Leap of faith, as you state it, is involved in science as well. However, the difference really lies in reasoning of a set theory or belief. Science allows that. Scientific communities are more open or tolerant to different ideas. Religion, while it should be, isn't open to that.

I am not saying that any person or community who has certain beliefs can't be open to other beliefs or ideas. The key word is reason. While religious text should be subject to scrutiny, people often put no rational thought in how or why something is stated the way it is. On the other hand, science's very base is reasoning. Curiosity makes you seek answer. It lies upon you how you seek it. People seek it in different ways. I've stated this many times before as well. Having belief or faith is not wrong. But shouldn't there be logical thinking behind that faith? Let me give you an example.

Existence of god has been told to us. From ancient scriptures to modern interpretations, all are based on hypotheticals like vision, word of God, etc. Charismatic leaders over time led people to believe in their beliefs. That led to creation of Deity in corporal form. When you challenge that belief in Deity, conflict arises. It is because whoever led the creation of Deity didn't leave much room for reasoning.

Now let's take a scientific theory. You don't believe in a theory? You have all the rights to gather your tools and conduct experiments to find a counter theory. The whole process is, however, set in reasoning and rational thinking.

Again, I am not saying believing or following a religion is bad. It just doesn't sound rationale to me but that is how I see it. As you say, disproving something is far more difficult than proving something. In science though, you need cold hard facts and data to disprove something. Religion, well as history suggests, we know how it goes.

I am more a non-believer and actually more with the reasoning camp. But to me science is still a leap of faith. Even if all data, and hypothesis proves something is not viable, sometimes science need that leap of faith to prove something is possible. Or just do the experiment and see what the hell happens.

If we are talking about communities, there are overlaps there. Those in the extremes in either camp are not usually who I would associate with being rational and reasonable at least in the normal social norms.

 

[Alastor]

Of course, but we’re talking about two very different types of interpretation. The interpretation of allegory (like the Bible, or other holy texts) is not at all the same as the interpretation of mathematical data using proven theories and laws of science, so the level of “faith” required for both is not at all the same.

When crafting new hypothesis and theories, there is just as much 'proven' and 'unproven' stuff.

Two plus two will always be four.

One plus one isn't always two.

What God actually meant or intended by commanding Abraham to kill Isaac, and what the value of telling such a story is will not always be the same answer, because it is inherently subjective. So how do you determine the veracity of anyone’s claim to its meaning? Whose meaning is true, whose meaning is false, and why?

I am no expert in religion to answer this question for you. Maybe you should ask someone who has a degree in religion studies.

An expert in what, though? Interpretation? I wouldn’t go that far. I’d say they are an expert in religious studies, and would be very reliable as a source on religious history, but only so far as to tie it to culture, not meaning. There are certain aspects of meaning you might be able to derive from a religious historian, like the cultural/time period definition of a specific term, for example, but Person A being a religious historian doesn’t give them any more power over Person B, the plumber, in determining the subjective “value” or “meaning” of passages. Allegory is designed to not have meaning in this way. This is why religion is such a conflict within its own walls, and why so many sects of the same “faith” can exist. They all determined that their interpretation is the right one, and yet they can all be right or they can all be wrong, or some can be right and some can be wrong because we have no way of verifying the existence of God in the first place, who is the only actual authority on any claims made in a holy text.

If they understand the content more, I feel they are more reliable in their interpretation than the general populace. Just like how scientists are more reliable in making sense of raw data than the average lay person like me.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Could you clarify?

Reject all things that I disagree with. Embrace everything that I agree with. It isn't blind faith even though I can neither prove nor disprove it. I just need to agree with the person/people who has better knowledge of the subject matter.

OK, but anything can be hijacked to push an agenda. The issue isn’t over potential, but precedent. Is there any actual precedent to the type of danger you are referencing here? What I mean by that is, can you show me even one case where the scientific community maliciously pushed an agenda to benefit themselves, and/or those like them, by intentionally lying about findings, for example? If not, why are we bringing it up?

Global warming issues hijacked by big oil. What is healthy to eat or not hijacked by big food companies. Anti genetically modified food/pro genetically modified food agendas.

Name one. You’re doing the same thing you just did above by assigning a qualifier like “many” without citing even a single example.

I am not as personally invested in this fight as you but sure. The uncertainty principle.

What Theory starts from a belief that’s footed in a lack of evidence? I think what we’re bordering on here is a lack of understanding as to what a Theory is again.

The existence of Higgs bosson particle until recently.

The BBT is a theory, which means it began as a hypothesis, was tested upon using demonstrable mathematic calculations, and became Theory once a significant peer review was unable to debunk it’s original proposal. It’s widely accepted as the most plausible/reasonable answer as to the beginning of our existence. That does not make it a universal truth (no such things exist). It makes it an accepted Theory.

No disagreement about the big bang theory being widely accepted.

I think the problem we are having here your unrelenting insistence on using the term “faith”, which I consider a loaded word that’s too often associated with religion for it to have an unbiased effect in a discussion like this. The same way “agnostic” has preexisting connotations that would make it seem contradictory to religion, even though it’s not. It’s actually possible that someone is an Agnostic Christian, though you will see almost no one admit this, because the way the term has been used makes the two together seem contradictory (even though they aren’t).

I already said before, yes, if you are absolutely insisting on using that term, of course we have faith in the laws of physics, but it’s in the WHY that matters. Because the why behind why someone believes in a religion is almost certainly not the why behind why someone else believes in the Theory of Gravity. There’s reason and logic behind the Theory of Gravity that have come over countless studies and cases where it’s proven to exist and work and function in exactly the manner you think it will. You don’t go putting your neck on guillotines or jumping off buildings to test it because you know (or have “faith” ) that you’d die in doing so. The reason you know this is because the law has been tested to exhaustion, and no other answer is more feasible. Everyone who has put their neck on a guillotine has almost certainly died as a result. Everyone who has jumped off the building has suffered a similar fate. Neither is beneficial or has a positive effect on your well being. The same does not hold true for religious faith (like having faith God exists), because there is no measure of demonstrability to work from. You having faith is your way of rejecting all the evidence presented that would suggest otherwise, because you don’t want your own illusions shattered.

You see this often when a believer makes their case for God, is presented with a rejection of those claims based on a lack of demonstrability, for example, and then rebutting with “well, I have faith”. Of course you do, because you’re still a believer, but it’s in the why that matters, and it’s in the why that causes you to continue to believe despite the utter lack of evidence to support you doing so in the first place. This is simply not the case with widely accepted scientific Theories (gravity, evolution, special relativity, plate tectonics, statistical mechanics, general relativity, heliocentrism, etc).

Yes that is the problem. You considering it a loaded word. I don't know you personally but from this thread I feel like you are someone who was jaded by religion. Can someone be a religious scientist to you? Or better yet, Christian scientist since religion seem to only mean Christianity or any of the Abraham religion to you.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

When crafting new hypothesis and theories, there is just as much 'proven' and 'unproven' stuff.

I’m really not sure what you are trying to prove? Are you trying to insinuate that scientific hypothesis’ are believed without evidence? Because if so, you’re wrong. A hypothesis, by definition, isn’t a belief. It’s a potential solution to a question that is subject to rigorous testing before it can be considered a theory (once it has subsequently been subject to peer review among the brightest minds and experts in nearly every scientific field it affects). It's "believed" en masse once the scientific community have confirmed the original hypothesis to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

One plus one isn't always two.

Oh? In what realm, that you can demonstrate, is this not true?

I am no expert in religion to answer this question for you. Maybe you should ask someone who has a degree in religion studies.

You’re missing the point. The question was rhetorical. It was designed to illustrate that no ones’ opinion on allegorical text or is “right” or “wrong” except the author, who in this case hasn’t even been demonstrated to exist in the first place.

Global warming issues hijacked by big oil. What is healthy to eat or not hijacked by big food companies. Anti genetically modified food/pro genetically modified food agendas.

Big Oil are not science, or the scientific community. They are a private conglomerate of billionaires who have been proven to hire their own “scientists” (and I use the quotes with disdain) to “disprove” actual scientific studies conducted on the negative impact of their work. The same holds true of “Big Food”, and the GMO thing is largely the same (though it doesn’t belong in the same group). You are confusing the intentional blocking of and/or distortion of fact with malicious intent from the scientific community. It’s not science intentionally sabotaging these things. It’s the private owners, and those who stand to benefit financially from the distortion of those facts.

I am not as personally invested in this fight as you but sure. The uncertainty principle.

I don’t know enough about it to speak to it. I’d have to get back to you on this point.

The existence of Higgs bosson particle until recently.

The Higgs Boson Particle is a particle that has a mathematical and theoretical foundation. Similar to the manner in which Black Holes are believed to exist, despite not being visible. It isn’t without evidence. Yes, it had to be imagined before it could be a reality, sure, but there’s a fundamental difference between the discovery of the HBP and the positive claim of a deity. Each is claimed, and then one continues the path to providing evidence for the claim. The other closes the book.

Yes that is the problem. You considering it a loaded word. I don't know you personally but from this thread I feel like you are someone who was jaded by religion. Can someone be a religious scientist to you? Or better yet, Christian scientist since religion seem to only mean Christianity or any of the Abraham religion to you.

Of course it’s a loaded word — ask 100 people (especially in the U.S.) what the first thing they think of when they hear the term is, and I’m willing to bet the majority will return a religious notion of some type.

The point I was trying to illustrate is that the “faith” you are prescribing to science isn’t the same type of “faith” used in science, because the “faith” needed to believe theories, laws and even hypothesis are still grounded in evidence, reason and logic. The “faith” required by religion is in spite of the lack of evidence, reason and logic. They literally travel in opposing directions.

And yes, religious scientists exist. In fact, one of the most respected on the planet, Francis Collins, was the overseer for mapping the Human Genome Project. He is now the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). I also highly respect his opinions on matters of science. I just don’t share the same set of beliefs he has regarding a deity. This also doesn’t change the fact that science and religion are, at least right now, today, in the U.S. more enemies than allies.