science vs religion

Chunkers1980

Yep... We're on page 13 now. I believe this is back luck.

JamesB5446

Chunkers1980 wrote:

If serial killers 'find God' whilst in prison come out and don't kill another thing is that evidence of faith helping?

It could be. At least it's a start. Very good example if you've not just made it up.

Lets see the figures for recidivism rates for believers vs non-believers then.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

maybe if you believed in god, it/she/he/I would have prevented you from having the accidents.

Cripes, I best go do some praying.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

You're still missing the key point here though, religion, faith, belief etc, is not an evidence based "thing". It requires no evidence, only belief. You're trying to measure it using another "thing's" methods.

No. I'm not missing that point at all.
You're missing the point that I keep making.
If it's about faith, not evidence, why don't they believe in the daft stories in the bible? Modern, educated, intelligent 'religious' people seem to want it both ways.

Daz555

St Mark wrote:

Consider gravity, in classical physics it does the job very well and there is evidence and laws to explain it. Look at it on the quantum level and it becomes very strange and at present there is no experimental tests for quantum gravity predictions, should I stop believing in gravity because our understanding is not complete.

Good point and one with other implications

Today our theory of gravity is weaker than our theory of evolution yet for some reason the creationist nutjobs are not jumping up and down all over gravity and demanding we teach religious alternatives in school science class.

Why? Simply because gravity does not directly contradict Genesis.

St Mark

There is no proof of a god, nor is there proof of no god. Therefore, each belief takes faith.

For that reason I'm out.

JamesB5446

As has been stated. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person disputing it.

St Mark

That arguement works both ways, if your claiming that all people with faith are wrong then it is up to you to prove it


There is no proof of a god, nor is there proof of no god. Therefore, each belief takes faith.

thekickingmule

JamesB5446 wrote:

If it's about faith, not evidence, ....

Dictionary wrote:

faith: noun belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

I think this explains a lot. You can't provide evidence for faith, it's just a belief in something, not necessarily religious.

And, there is plenty of evidence that religion has helped people with grieving. My Aunt relies on it, as my Uncle died in August, and she is only coping knowing that one day she will see him again, and that he's watching down on her. She's not the only person that has said that, and surley you know people like that!?

cooldad

St Mark wrote:

That arguement works both ways, if your claiming that all people with faith are wrong then it is up to you to prove it


There is no proof of a god, nor is there proof of no god. Therefore, each belief takes faith.

This argument has gone in some silly directions, but yours is just simple nonsense.
But I suppose you'd be happy to debate the existence of invisible flying pink unicorns in tutus?

Chinley Churner

equally there is no proof against the existence of a giant celestial chocolate teapot that controls our every action but that doesn't mean it exists... the "no proof against" argument is deeply philosophically flawed and truly is the last refuge of a failing point of view.... namely faith.

cooldad

thekickingmule wrote:

I think this explains a lot. You can't provide evidence for faith, it's just a belief in something, not necessarily religious.

And, there is plenty of evidence that religion has helped people with grieving. My Aunt relies on it, as my Uncle died in August, and she is only coping knowing that one day she will see him again, and that he's watching down on her. She's not the only person that has said that, and surley you know people like that!?

I feel for your aunt, but IMO that's not coping, that's avoiding. Similar to using drugs/alcohol or ripping the heads off small furry bears.

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

You're still missing the key point here though, religion, faith, belief etc, is not an evidence based "thing". It requires no evidence, only belief. You're trying to measure it using another "thing's" methods.

No. I'm not missing that point at all.
You're missing the point that I keep making.
If it's about faith, not evidence, why don't they believe in the daft stories in the bible? Modern, educated, intelligent 'religious' people seem to want it both ways.

Want it both ways? what?
What are you talking about? Religious people have their faith, you're the one who's demanding evidence.

JamesB5446

It's quite clear what I'm talking about. I've made the same point several times. You're either ignoring it for teh lulz or are a bit dim.

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

It's quite clear what I'm talking about. I've made the same point several times. You're either ignoring it for teh lulz or are a bit dim.

No, I really don't what the hell you're questioning.
Oh, and since you want to start being abusive, here, let me return the favour by calling you a bellend.

JamesB5446

Right, I'll try again.

Religion is about faith not proof? Yes.
They don't believe in the daft stories in the bible because of proof? Yes.
Why do they believe in the underlying concept and not the silly stories? Neither make any rational sense.

cat_with_no_tail

You keep trying to apply rationality to peoples decisions to "have faith". You've already been told that the very nature of having faith in something is believeing without proof.
I think yeehaa has already explained that it's possible for someone to have faith in heaven and all that, whilst still being able to see the bible stories as just that, stories.
You refuse to accept that as an answer because:
a. You think it makes you look clever.
b. You are trolling.
c. You are a bellend.

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

Religion is about faith not proof? Yes.

correct

JamesB5446 wrote:

They don't believe in the daft stories in the bible because of proof? Yes.

Incorrect.
The stories were not meant to be taken literally.

Why do they believe in the underlying concept and not the silly stories? Neither make any rational sense.

Generally, the religious folk I know believe in the concept of a grand creator, and the afterlife and whatnot, but believe that the stories in the bible are stories, but ones from which we can learn life lessons.

JamesB5446

But if the stories were not meant to be taken literally, why is the concept of god meant to be taken literally? This is the bit I'm having trouble with.

As for cunt with no tail, cheg on, you're not as clever as you think you are either sunshine.

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

But if the stories were not meant to be taken literally, why is the concept of god meant to be taken literally? This is the bit I'm having trouble with.

As for **** with no tail, cheg on, you're not as clever as you think you are either sunshine.

Who said that a god is meant to be taken literally? Even within a certain faith, each person can have a deeply personal understanding of god, or gods.
Who ever said that it's to be taken literally.
You can call CWNT whatever you want, I assure you that you're the one who's looking daft here.

St Mark

Cooldad wrote.
'This argument has gone in some silly directions, but yours is just simple nonsense.'

True but not the silliest one yet, how about the right to sit back and say prove it depends on what came first religion or the athiest.

Cooldad wrote
'But I suppose you'd be happy to debate the existence of invisible flying pink unicorns in tutus?'

No need I've got evidence

JamesB5446

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Who said that a god is meant to be taken literally? Even within a certain faith, each person can have a deeply personal understanding of god, or gods.
Who ever said that it's to be taken literally.

I'm pretty sure most religions insist that you literally believe in their particular deity. Unless I've missed something.

And even if that's not the case, no one has yet given me a better answer as to why they believe other than "they just do". That's all I'm asking.

We can keep being rude to each other if people want, I think we're all above that, but I do quite like swearing so I'm not that fussed.

JamesB5446

p.s. I'm the best cyclists ever. Prove otherwise.

Chunkers1980

That's easy. Can you do what Peat, Hoy, Wiggo and Danny Mac can do. No, that is fact.

cat_with_no_tail

JamesB5446 wrote:

p.s. I'm the best cyclists ever. Prove otherwise.

Good for you, it's wonderful that you have faith in yourself and I hope that faith leads you to be happy not noly in cucling, but whatever you do in life and become even more of an accomplished cyclist.

Even though you did make me cry by calling me a name.

cat_with_no_tail

Oh dear, it appears my retarded fingers are having trouble keeping up with the slightly less retarded rest of me.

cat_with_no_tail

Although your assertion that you are the best cyclists ever suggests to me that you may be bi-polar. Which would answer a lot.

JamesB5446

I'm sorry for making you cry. It was never my intention to upset you, sweetheart.

Chunkers1980 wrote:

That's easy. Can you do what Peat, Hoy, Wiggo and Danny Mac can do. No, that is fact.

Yes. I can.
Prove I can't go on.

(I think most people will get the point I'm making)

YeehaaMcgee

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Although your assertion that you are the best cyclists ever suggests to me that you may be bi-polar.

You mean,like an Eskimo that swings both ways?

cat_with_no_tail

Stop picking on me just because I'm special.

AND STOP FUCKKING TOUCHING MY EARS!!!!!!

cooldad

I am an earist and believe in ears, they have special powers. Touching yours make me feel warm and fuzzy.

cat_with_no_tail

cooldad wrote:

Touching yours make me feel warm and fuzzy.

Jimmy? That you?