By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - This is why I don't like debating religion

timmah on 19 December 2012
Alara317 said:
timmah said:
Alara317 said:

Totally different than the bible you take as a collection of provable, undeniable facts?  

I'll go where the evidence points, not where silly ancient theories from a time when mercury was considered a miracle cure or washing was considered taboo.

When did I say this?

it was implied.  

and hey, if you're so critical of the accepted theory of the origin of life, come up with a better theory!  I mean, I've never seen someone argue with established scientific fact that either wasn't a brilliant scientist with a conflicting theory or a religious zealot, and given your criticisms and lack of willingness to accept the simplest of facts without substantial counter-arguments, I'm pretty sure you're not a brilliant scientist.  


I'm only arguing against you calling it a fact. It's a theory. You're free to draw your own conclusions on which theory you like best.



Around the Network
KungKras on 19 December 2012
Alara317 said:

it was implied.  

and hey, if you're so critical of the accepted theory of the origin of life, come up with a better theory!  I mean, I've never seen someone argue with established scientific fact that either wasn't a brilliant scientist with a conflicting theory or a religious zealot, and given your criticisms and lack of willingness to accept the simplest of facts without substantial counter-arguments, I'm pretty sure you're not a brilliant scientist.  

I wouldn't frame the question like that. It kinda looks like an argument from ignorance ("IF I'm wrong then come up with something better yourself!"). I'd much rather say, "here is my evidence, what is your evidence?"



I LOVE ICELAND!

GameOver22 on 19 December 2012
Alara317 said:
timmah said:
Alara317 said:

Totally different than the bible you take as a collection of provable, undeniable facts?  

I'll go where the evidence points, not where silly ancient theories from a time when mercury was considered a miracle cure or washing was considered taboo.

When did I say this?

it was implied.  

and hey, if you're so critical of the accepted theory of the origin of life, come up with a better theory!  I mean, I've never seen someone argue with established scientific fact that either wasn't a brilliant scientist with a conflicting theory or a religious zealot, and given your criticisms and lack of willingness to accept the simplest of facts without substantial counter-arguments, I'm pretty sure you're not a brilliant scientist.  

I have a feeling you haven't read much scientific work....its actually quite common to criticize existing theories, even if you don't have an alternative explanation.



Alara317 on 19 December 2012
timmah said:
Alara317 said:
timmah said:
Alara317 said:

Totally different than the bible you take as a collection of provable, undeniable facts?  

I'll go where the evidence points, not where silly ancient theories from a time when mercury was considered a miracle cure or washing was considered taboo.

When did I say this?

it was implied.  

and hey, if you're so critical of the accepted theory of the origin of life, come up with a better theory!  I mean, I've never seen someone argue with established scientific fact that either wasn't a brilliant scientist with a conflicting theory or a religious zealot, and given your criticisms and lack of willingness to accept the simplest of facts without substantial counter-arguments, I'm pretty sure you're not a brilliant scientist.  


I'm only arguing against you calling it a fact. It's a theory. You're free to draw your own conclusions on which theory you like best.

by your logic, there is no such thing as a fact.  If we can never truly know anything for absolute certainty, then I'll still go with the theory that has the most supporting evidence, in which case you're still being silly by disregarding scientific 'fact'.  



KungKras on 19 December 2012
timmah said:
Alara317 said:
timmah said:
Alara317 said:

Totally different than the bible you take as a collection of provable, undeniable facts?  

I'll go where the evidence points, not where silly ancient theories from a time when mercury was considered a miracle cure or washing was considered taboo.

When did I say this?

it was implied.  

and hey, if you're so critical of the accepted theory of the origin of life, come up with a better theory!  I mean, I've never seen someone argue with established scientific fact that either wasn't a brilliant scientist with a conflicting theory or a religious zealot, and given your criticisms and lack of willingness to accept the simplest of facts without substantial counter-arguments, I'm pretty sure you're not a brilliant scientist.  


I'm only arguing against you calling it a fact. It's a theory. You're free to draw your own conclusions on which theory you like best.

Keep in mind that "theory" has a different meaning in scientific terms than it does in daily life. Theory is what binds all the observable facts we have together in a framework that explains and predicts. Theory isn't AS much up for debate as say... a single hypothesis is, and even then, different theories and hypothesis have different likelyhoods of being true it's not an equal pick and choose between them.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network
timmah on 19 December 2012
KungKras said:
timmah said:
KungKras said:
 

Science doesn't yet have all the pieces of the puzzle if that's what you mean. But what we do have are some pretty good pointers towards where the answer might lie. Religion doesn't have those pointers in the same way because the bible (or any other holy book) doesn't prove or point to anything in the real world other than "this is what christians belive" (and some historical perspectives about the roman and east roman empires).

That's a fair enough argument. By the same token, my faith doesn't come from something I read in a book (Bible or otherwise), it comes from deeply personal experiences in my life that have changed who I am in a hugely positive way. Also, I see those pointers differently then you, and like I've said before, you can't argue somebody into faith, and you're certainly not going to argue me out of my faith.

Fair enough. But you also have to realize that people of every faith all over the world profess to these personal experiences, so while they may matter a lot to you, they are not credible if you use them to try and get others to join your position.


I'm not trying to get you to join my position at all. That's not possible by argument. I'm trying to make the point that one does not have to be stupid to believe in God. Also making the point that Science is not infallable, much of what is theorized is not proven (or provable) fact, and many of the conclusions reached are the result of the individual's own interpretation of the world around them. We're all trying to make sense of life, I just have a different view than you.



Alara317 on 19 December 2012
GameOver22 said:
Alara317 said:
timmah said:
Alara317 said:

Totally different than the bible you take as a collection of provable, undeniable facts?  

I'll go where the evidence points, not where silly ancient theories from a time when mercury was considered a miracle cure or washing was considered taboo.

When did I say this?

it was implied.  

and hey, if you're so critical of the accepted theory of the origin of life, come up with a better theory!  I mean, I've never seen someone argue with established scientific fact that either wasn't a brilliant scientist with a conflicting theory or a religious zealot, and given your criticisms and lack of willingness to accept the simplest of facts without substantial counter-arguments, I'm pretty sure you're not a brilliant scientist.  

I have a feeling you haven't read much scientific work....its actually quite common to criticize existing theories, even if you don't have an alternative explanation.


First of all, I'm not explaining every facet of my stance on religion vs science in every post.  I said in a previous post that scientific theories are revised and updated all the time, and sometimes flat out disproven.

Secondly, I said right there that "either wasn't a brilliant scientist with a conflicting theory".  I was making it clear that credible people who oppose established theories and facts are usually ones with counter-theories with enough evidence to support said theory.  Religious folk have a counter theory, but they do not have sufficient backing evidence to support their theories.  

This thread further establishes why arguing with the religious is futile.  I've seen over a dozen pages arguing semantics (the meaning of faith, the application of faith in science, what is a fact, what is a theory, etc), with very little in the way of palpable arguments supporting 'intelligent design'.  The only 'argument' that wasn't just "yeah, well science needs faith too!" was someone foolishly claiming that the bible said it, therefore it's true.  



timmah on 19 December 2012
Alara317 said:
timmah said:
Alara317 said:
timmah said:
Alara317 said:

Totally different than the bible you take as a collection of provable, undeniable facts?  

I'll go where the evidence points, not where silly ancient theories from a time when mercury was considered a miracle cure or washing was considered taboo.

When did I say this?

it was implied.  

and hey, if you're so critical of the accepted theory of the origin of life, come up with a better theory!  I mean, I've never seen someone argue with established scientific fact that either wasn't a brilliant scientist with a conflicting theory or a religious zealot, and given your criticisms and lack of willingness to accept the simplest of facts without substantial counter-arguments, I'm pretty sure you're not a brilliant scientist.  


I'm only arguing against you calling it a fact. It's a theory. You're free to draw your own conclusions on which theory you like best.

by your logic, there is no such thing as a fact.  If we can never truly know anything for absolute certainty, then I'll still go with the theory that has the most supporting evidence, in which case you're still being silly by disregarding scientific 'fact'.  

Let me add to it then. It's a theory to explain the fact that life is here, and was not always here. That is the fact, the 'how' and 'why' are not proven facts. This particular theory has multiple unprovable hypothesis to explain how life 'might' have started from non-life. I don't see how that leads to it being a fact.



Alara317 on 19 December 2012
timmah said:

Let me add to it then. It's a theory to explain the fact that life is here, and was not always here. That is the fact, the 'how' and 'why' are not proven facts. This particular theory has multiple unprovable hypothesis to explain how life 'might' have started from non-life. I don't see how that leads to it being a fact.

Fact or theory, it still has the most substance backing it up. given the lack of time machines, it can never be conclusively proven, but the albiogenesis theories and tests have proven that it is possible, so that's pretty damn substantial evidence.  Not sure why such a simple concept (go where the evidence takes you) is vexing you. 



GameOver22 on 19 December 2012
Alara317 said:


First of all, I'm not explaining every facet of my stance on religion vs science in every post.  I said in a previous post that scientific theories are revised and updated all the time, and sometimes flat out disproven.

Secondly, I said right there that "either wasn't a brilliant scientist with a conflicting theory".  I was making it clear that credible people who oppose established theories and facts are usually ones with counter-theories with enough evidence to support said theory.  Religious folk have a counter theory, but they do not have sufficient backing evidence to support their theories.  

This thread further establishes why arguing with the religious is futile.  I've seen over a dozen pages arguing semantics (the meaning of faith, the application of faith in science, what is a fact, what is a theory, etc), with very little in the way of palpable arguments supporting 'intelligent design'.  The only 'argument' that wasn't just "yeah, well science needs faith too!" was someone foolishly claiming that the bible said it, therefore it's true.  

Let's be honest here....its not like the debate parameter were set very well. You titled the topic "This is why I don't like debating religion" and then proceed to criticize a fundamentalist (straw-man) argument for homosexuality and religion in general. I mean.....what did you expect?

As for the bolded, maybe reread the thread.....