Don't ever talk to a catholic about religion

Red Lemon · May 2007

She'll never go for it. I'm not sure she even has MSN.

dogtanian · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bobmcstuff

There is still room for a God in modern creation theory, i.e., the Big Bang and evolution. The Big Bang theory has even been ratified as compatible with Catholicism. After all, what happened before the Big Bang is inherently unknowable, so there may well be a God who started it all.

Also I heard an interesting theory about fate, in I think 'Short History of Nearly Everything' by Bill Bryson. Basically Heisenberg's Uncertainty Priciple states that you can never know the exact velocity and the exact location of a particle, which means basically that nothing is completely predictable to us. But if God is omniscient then he would be able to know this, so the whole evolution of the Universe would have been know by God. I probably haven't explained it that well but I thought it was interesting.

<hr noshade size="1">DISCLAIMER: The contents of this post are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. I (bobmcstuff) am henceforth absolved of any responsibility for misinformation caused.

Any persons taking offence at my post can shove it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I expect the reply would be along the lines of: "Yes - exactly like god"

<center>

Left London - jumped the next plane -half a world away -pwning some trails

<s>dale</s>, <s>spesh</s>, marin

When Pandas Fight!!!
Milked the marin and managed to get a whole pint.
OMG PONIES!!!

</center>

Big Red S · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Red Lemon

She'll never go for it. I'm not sure she even has MSN.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Godda[url][/url]mn cathoics...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dogtanian
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Also I heard an interesting ... thought it was interesting.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I expect the reply would be along the lines of: "Yes - exactly like god"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Nah, much better to just point out that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a point made based on current observation, and is therefore subject to change given new findings.
Much like an awful lot of previous scientific models, really. Nothing based entirely on observation can ever claim to be entirely accurate, especially when it's observing something as complex as the universe.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

hazzahulme · May 2007

The argument I always like is the one that goes "if god only created the universe 4000 years ago (or whatever it actually is), how come it's been measured to be 13.7 billion years ago?"

Completely throwing aside the idea that there is a higher being, yet accepting measurements made using the cosmic microwave background and doppler shift.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Oldmacdonald

hazzahulme - Official second best font-of-all-knowledge 2007.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Big Red S · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by hazzahulme

The argument I always like is the one that goes "if god only created the universe 4000 years ago (or whatever it actually is), how come it's been measured to be 13.7 billion years ago?"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You've got to bear in mind that your basing your belief that it's been measured to be 13.7 billion years ago on the same process that's lead them to believe it was created 4000 years ago, though.

Sure, you believe yours is more credible. But they reckon theirs is.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

hazzahulme · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Big Red S

You've got to bear in mind that your basing your belief that it's been measured to be 13.7 billion years ago on the same process that's lead them to believe it was created 4000 years ago, though.

Sure, you believe yours is more credible. But they reckon theirs is.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I didn't say I believed it to be 13.7 bn years ago, or that I believe it to be 4000 years ago. I was, in fact, disputing the manner in which users of that particular argument disregard the fact that their believed measurements consist of something just as 'bizarre' as the belief they are opposing, as indicated by the 2nd part of my original posting.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Oldmacdonald

hazzahulme - Official second best font-of-all-knowledge 2007.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Big Red S · May 2007

I did wonder what you were on about in the second bit, to be honest.

Your point is essentially the same as the one I made in contention, then?

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

hazzahulme · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Big Red S

Your point is essentially the same as the one I made in contention, then?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Oldmacdonald

hazzahulme - Official second best font-of-all-knowledge 2007.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Big Red S · May 2007

Yeah, now i re-read it it's blindingly obvious.

Sorry about that, I forget that these days nearly everyone else on here has also been through these topics countless times. But they keep coming back...

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

Fantastic Mr Fox · May 2007

I dunno, i think it takes a large degree of arrogance and denial to believe in religion or be an atheist. There is no proof as to whether there is higher being, or whether there isn't a higher being. Why believe in something created by another man, and all religion *is* created by man. They have no better idea than you do.

<hr noshade size="1"><center>I'd rather not.</center>

bobmcstuff · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by hazzahulme

The argument I always like is the one that goes "if god only created the universe 4000 years ago (or whatever it actually is), how come it's been measured to be 13.7 billion years ago?"

Completely throwing aside the idea that there is a higher being, yet accepting measurements made using the cosmic microwave background and doppler shift.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Oldmacdonald

hazzahulme - Official second best font-of-all-knowledge 2007.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But why would God make it appear that the Earth and Universe are very ancient? The reason Creationists say the Earth is 6000 years old is because they believe that the Bible is the exact word of God in the literal sense. God cannot lie, so by tracking Adam and Eve's family tree from 6 days after creation gives the exact age of the Earth.

But the vast majority of the evidence we can see points to a very old Earth and Universe, which contradicts this idea. Things like fossil dinosaur bones don't make sense, because it implies that something was created before us and became extinct, which doesn't fit in with Biblical Creationism. And then there's other things such as the ones you mentioned.

Most Christians don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old though. And this is nothing to do with the topic title. But never mind.

<hr noshade size="1">DISCLAIMER: The contents of this post are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. I (bobmcstuff) am henceforth absolved of any responsibility for misinformation caused.

Any persons taking offence at my post can shove it.

Big Red S · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Fantastic Mr Fox

Why believe in something created by another man, and all religion *is* created by man. They have no better idea than you do.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because a belief in a religion usually comes with a belief in prophets, miracles and (occasionally) the idea the messiah has come.

So if you believe in a religion, you generally don't see it as a creation of man.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

John · May 2007

Surely if we go by the Adam and Eve thing we were all inbread at some point?

I dunno, I dont understand religeon properly and its scary, I just hope theres something better than this.

havent fallen off,
im just having a rest

Updated [:D] Glory Jackal

Safe as Fu<s></s>ck Pushbike Bullsh<s></s>it and Wideopen Mag.

hazzahulme · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Fantastic Mr Fox

I dunno, i think it takes a large degree of arrogance and denial to believe in religion or be an atheist. There is no proof as to whether there is higher being, or whether there isn't a higher being. Why believe in something created by another man, and all religion *is* created by man. They have no better idea than you do.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It also takes a lot of arrogance and denial to believe concretely in science and to completely dismiss religion.Most religions have people who have been in contact with these higher beings such as Moses and Mohammed etc. So I suppose the idea is that they do have a better idea than you do because they have talked to God, Allah etc themselves.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Oldmacdonald

hazzahulme - Official second best font-of-all-knowledge 2007.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Fantastic Mr Fox · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Big Red S

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Fantastic Mr Fox

Why believe in something created by another man, and all religion *is* created by man. They have no better idea than you do.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because a belief in a religion usually comes with a belief in prophets, miracles and (occasionally) the idea the messiah has come.

So if you believe in a religion, you generally don't see it as a creation of man.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And yet, it still is.

<hr noshade size="1"><center>I'd rather not.</center>

Big Red S · May 2007

No. You believe it is.

It is entirely likely that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. At least as likely, I'd say, as the evolution of intelligent life on Earth.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

hazzahulme · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bobmcstuff

But why would God make it appear that the Earth and Universe are very ancient? The reason Creationists say the Earth is 6000 years old is because they believe that the Bible is the exact word of God in the literal sense. God cannot lie, so by tracking Adam and Eve's family tree from 6 days after creation gives the exact age of the Earth.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But you're saying that the universe is, without question, as old as current scientifical methods dictate it to be. You're believing in a method that involves something you cannot see, feel, taste, smell or touch (the cosmic microwave background), in the same way that creationists believe in God. Faith is all you have for both, really.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Oldmacdonald

hazzahulme - Official second best font-of-all-knowledge 2007.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Fantastic Mr Fox · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by hazzahulme

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Fantastic Mr Fox

I dunno, i think it takes a large degree of arrogance and denial to believe in religion or be an atheist. There is no proof as to whether there is higher being, or whether there isn't a higher being. Why believe in something created by another man, and all religion *is* created by man. They have no better idea than you do.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It also takes a lot of arrogance and denial to believe concretely in science and to completely dismiss religion.Most religions have people who have been in contact with these higher beings such as Moses and Mohammed etc. So I suppose the idea is that they do have a better idea than you do because they have talked to God, Allah etc themselves.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Oldmacdonald

hazzahulme - Official second best font-of-all-knowledge 2007.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If someone told me that they had talked to god, or were a messenger from god. I'd assume that they were either mentally ill, or lying. Write a book about them, and suddenly they are hero's to be worshiped.

I never said anything about solely believing in science. I believe that there could have been/be a higher being. I believe in science a hell of a lot more than i believe in religion though. If i hurt myself, I'll go to hospital and trust science to help me. I wouldn't go to church and ask god.

<hr noshade size="1"><center>I'd rather not.</center>

hazzahulme · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Fantastic Mr Fox

If someone told me that they had talked to god, or were a messenger from god. I'd assume that they were either mentally ill, or lying. Write a book about them, and suddenly they are hero's to be worshiped.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Do you not think that could be because of the culture in which many of us have grown up in? That everyone is so cynical with regards to religion.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I never said anything about solely believing in science. I believe that there could have been/be a higher being. I believe in science a hell of a lot more than i believe in religion though. If i hurt myself, I'll go to hospital and trust science to help me. I wouldn't go to church and ask god.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You could go to church and thank God for giving us medicine [;)]

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Oldmacdonald

hazzahulme - Official second best font-of-all-knowledge 2007.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

bobmcstuff · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by hazzahulme

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bobmcstuff

But why would God make it appear that the Earth and Universe are very ancient? The reason Creationists say the Earth is 6000 years old is because they believe that the Bible is the exact word of God in the literal sense. God cannot lie, so by tracking Adam and Eve's family tree from 6 days after creation gives the exact age of the Earth.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But you're saying that the universe is, without question, as old as current scientifical methods dictate it to be. You're believing in a method that involves something you cannot see, feel, taste, smell or touch (the cosmic microwave background), in the same way that creationists believe in God. Faith is all you have for both, really.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Oldmacdonald

hazzahulme - Official second best font-of-all-knowledge 2007.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'd disagree. I'm not saying that the Universe is definitely as old as most (not all) scientists currently say at all. Definitely definitely not without question. I'm saying that I've seen far more evidence that the Earth/Universe is old than I have that the Earth/Universe is young.

I'm saying that I think, from the evidence I've seen before me and that I understand the theory behind (not all of it obviously), that the Earth/Universe are likely to be very old, at least in the same region as most scientists tell us.

<hr noshade size="1">DISCLAIMER: The contents of this post are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. I (bobmcstuff) am henceforth absolved of any responsibility for misinformation caused.

Any persons taking offence at my post can shove it.

Big Red S · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bobmcstuff

I'm saying that I've seen far more evidence that the Earth/Universe is old than I have that the Earth/Universe is young.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What was it?

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

Fantastic Mr Fox · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Do you not think that could be because of the culture in which many of us have grown up in? That everyone is so cynical with regards to religion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think that it is right to be cynical. People shouldn't just believe in something because of 'faith'. Faith is simply a denial of reality. Its a good way for people with little or no credible evidence to get idiots to believe in something. People are cynical of people, and people should be cynical about other people.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You could go to church and thank God for giving us medicine [;)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I could, or I thank the scientists that worked tirelessly to gain the knowledge about the human body and develop ways to cure it. Maybe they deserve my praise more than a fictitious man made god.

<hr noshade size="1"><center>I'd rather not.</center>

Big Red S · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Fantastic Mr Fox

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Do you not think that could be because of the culture in which many of us have grown up in? That everyone is so cynical with regards to religion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think that it is right to be cynical. People shouldn't just believe in something because of 'faith'. Faith is simply a denial of reality. Its a good way for people with little or no credible evidence to get idiots to believe in something. People are cynical of people, and people should be cynical about other people.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But for the vast majority of people, a belief in much that's scientific is based entirely on faith.
The general public will believe almost anything a scientist tells them, much like they used to a priest's words. And the process of diseminating information is similar, too. There are people who society decides are knowledgable on the subject, and so their word is taken as truth.

But at school science is taught as fact and religion as fiction.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

Fantastic Mr Fox · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Big Red S

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Fantastic Mr Fox

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Do you not think that could be because of the culture in which many of us have grown up in? That everyone is so cynical with regards to religion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think that it is right to be cynical. People shouldn't just believe in something because of 'faith'. Faith is simply a denial of reality. Its a good way for people with little or no credible evidence to get idiots to believe in something. People are cynical of people, and people should be cynical about other people.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But for the vast majority of people, a belief in much that's scientific is based entirely on faith.
The general public will believe almost anything a scientist tells them, much like they used to a priest's words. And the process of diseminating information is similar, too. There are people who society decides are knowledgable on the subject, and so their word is taken as truth.

But at school science is taught as fact and religion as fiction.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I went to a C of E primary school, and i was taught religion as fact. I used to go to church on Sundays, and I used to believe in god. I then, after giving it some thought, decided that atheism was the way forward. Shortly after that, I became an agnostic. I was never taught the 'Big Bang' theory, even in secondary school, but i was taught creationism.

Most people probably would take the word of a scientist over the word of a priest. I guess its down to an assumption that the scientist is the more intelligent and the better educated. I still think that people should remain cynical, be it about science or religion. But at the end of the day, we rely on science for pretty much everything. Yet i think society could survive without religion.

<hr noshade size="1"><center>I'd rather not.</center>

bobmcstuff · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Big Red S

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bobmcstuff

I'm saying that I've seen far more evidence that the Earth/Universe is old than I have that the Earth/Universe is young.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What was it?

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Where shall I start?

Current rates of rock deposition and the principle of uniformitarianism, fossils and relative dating, radiocarbon dating (obv. not to age of earth, but suggests >6000 at least), Uranium/Lead isotope dating(and other forms of radiometric dating), doppler shift, molecular clock (not very accurate, but makes sense). Other things like the model for formation of the solar system and stars from nebulae, the existence of comets and so forth collaborate with these ideas.
I think that all of these are fairly accurate, in that they aren't fatally flawed. In general fundamental things like sedimentary rocks in mountain ranges and the fact that we share most of our DNA with bananas are hard to explain fully with young earth.

The only real evidence that the Earth is young is the family tree thing from the Bible. Even this implies that humans must have been breeding like rabbits for the past 6000 years. Any scientific evidence tends to fall on its head very quickly.

Unfortunately you do kinda have to accept that scientists aren't lying about the measurements they've taken, but then there's no reason why they should. And there's every reason to believe that the Bible isn't necessarily literally true about Creation, most Christians do.

<hr noshade size="1">DISCLAIMER: The contents of this post are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. I (bobmcstuff) am henceforth absolved of any responsibility for misinformation caused.

Any persons taking offence at my post can shove it.

360 · May 2007

Most people would believe a scientist because they assume that if they investigate what he's got to say they'd reach a series of inductive steps from which a conclusion was drawn.

If I looked into where my local vicars dialogue comes from I'd find one badly translated book, leading me to another book that of indeterminate origins.

"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."

P.s Im not doing that again.

Big Red S · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bobmcstuff

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Big Red S

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bobmcstuff

I'm saying that I've seen far more evidence that the Earth/Universe is old than I have that the Earth/Universe is young.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What was it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Where shall I start?

Current rates of rock deposition and the principle of uniformitarianism, fossils and relative dating, radiocarbon dating (obv. not to age of earth, but suggests >6000 at least), Uranium/Lead isotope dating(and other forms of radiometric dating), doppler shift, molecular clock (not very accurate, but makes sense). Other things like the model for formation of the solar system and stars from nebulae, the existence of comets and so forth collaborate with these ideas.
I think that all of these are fairly accurate, in that they aren't fatally flawed. In general fundamental things like sedimentary rocks in mountain ranges and the fact that we share most of our DNA with bananas are hard to explain fully with young earth.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You did all that?

See, my problem with most people's belief in science is that all their evidence comes from textbooks and teachers, and the underlying notion that these two are accurate and correct.
Which is, of course, exactly the attitude that tends to be derided in religious people.

Why would one falsify the Bible, say? I can see far more reason to falsify science (and documents explaining how it's been done in the past).

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

bobmcstuff · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Big Red S

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Fantastic Mr Fox

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Do you not think that could be because of the culture in which many of us have grown up in? That everyone is so cynical with regards to religion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think that it is right to be cynical. People shouldn't just believe in something because of 'faith'. Faith is simply a denial of reality. Its a good way for people with little or no credible evidence to get idiots to believe in something. People are cynical of people, and people should be cynical about other people.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But for the vast majority of people, a belief in much that's scientific is based entirely on faith.
The general public will believe almost anything a scientist tells them, much like they used to a priest's words. And the process of diseminating information is similar, too. There are people who society decides are knowledgable on the subject, and so their word is taken as truth.

But at school science is taught as fact and religion as fiction.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I was taught religion as fact, but I don't think I ever really believed it, except maybe when I was very small.
Religion isn't incompatible with science in any case; I'm inclined to believe that there is probably a God, but I still agree with a lot of science. I don't like saying 'believe' in a religious sense about science, because I don't.

<hr noshade size="1">DISCLAIMER: The contents of this post are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. I (bobmcstuff) am henceforth absolved of any responsibility for misinformation caused.

Any persons taking offence at my post can shove it.

Big Red S · May 2007

But it's the same form of faith, is it not? It's an irrational belief in something because for whatever reason you believe it to be true without seeing evidence.

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)

bobmcstuff · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Big Red S

You did all that?

See, my problem with most people's belief in science is that all their evidence comes from textbooks and teachers, and the underlying notion that these two are accurate and correct.
Which is, of course, exactly the attitude that tends to be derided in religious people.

Why would one falsify the Bible, say? I can see far more reason to falsify science (and documents explaining how it's been done in the past).

<hr noshade size="1">

README
[url=mailto:avisforwardedemails@gmail.com?subject=MBUK Moderation]E-mail me if you think i've moderated something wrong[/url] (but don't change the subject or I won't get it)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I did do all that, as a matter of fact. I'd like to partially disagree with you, I don't assume that textbooks and teachers/lecturers are accurate and correct. I assume that thousands of scientists aren't deliberately lying to me, which isn't quite the same. You can prove to yourself the principles of radioactive decay and doppler shift using physical examples, and then you just have to assume that everyone taking measurements in those fields aren't lying.

This implies some sort of global conspiracy, whereas age of earth from the Bible requires only a change in how you interpret it. As I have said, you can be religious and scientific at the same time.

<hr noshade size="1">DISCLAIMER: The contents of this post are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. I (bobmcstuff) am henceforth absolved of any responsibility for misinformation caused.

Any persons taking offence at my post can shove it.

Don't ever talk to a catholic about religion

Comments

Categories