Runa216 said: timmah said: With or without God existing, those arguments are at least worth discussing. They certainly do not 'hinge' on that.  My point on you asking for 'proof' of God was not hinging on any undeniable existence, but was simply arguing that your request is for something that cannot by its own definition exist... your request for natural proof of something outside natural laws is a fundamentally flawed request. You wouldn't ask me to prove something in the field of genetics using the properties of light as my basis. I'm saying the type of proof you request is the problem. My discussion of logic was purely naturalistic and did not hinge on a diety in any way... it's also an interesting thing to consider regardless of your particular point of view. What's said is, if a non-Christian said the same thing, you wouldn't have been so dismissive My point on your crusade against religion vs. similar behavior by some fundamentalist Christians was a simple comparison of behaviors, not a religious argument. It would really be a shame if science and logic eliminated open discussions of philosophy and spirituality. I think all of these discussions (scientific and philosophical) are very valuable and worthwhile. PRecisely.  If you can't prove something or at least offer supporting evidence, then your beliefs need to be treated as the mythologies they are. There is no argument beyond this.  Believing something really hard doesn't make it more real, and 'Well we can't prove it, it's impossible" does not excuse you from the burden of proof.

You're very good at picking out only the points that fit your mold and ignoring the rest. You would not accept the supporting evidence I would offer, because it is very deeply personal, as anything spiritual would be. I don't jut believe it real hard, I've personally seen visible, physical miracles on two separate medical missions trips to Honduras for one, but you'd probably just dismiss that and call me a liar. I've experienced changes in my life after my recommitement to God that went far beyond what I was able to do on my own before that, but you'll call that anecdotal. There are a myriad of personal proofs that have led me to where I am, but they are mine and not yours. They are not scientific, they are personal and spiritual. As you automatically reject anything that is spiritual, there's not much else to say on that. It would be the same as you trying to have a scientific argument about the funciton of DNA with somebody who outright rejects anything scientific (and no, I don't reject science or see it as a bad thing).

timmah said: Runa216 said: timmah said: With or without God existing, those arguments are at least worth discussing. They certainly do not 'hinge' on that.  My point on you asking for 'proof' of God was not hinging on any undeniable existence, but was simply arguing that your request is for something that cannot by its own definition exist... your request for natural proof of something outside natural laws is a fundamentally flawed request. You wouldn't ask me to prove something in the field of genetics using the properties of light as my basis. I'm saying the type of proof you request is the problem. My discussion of logic was purely naturalistic and did not hinge on a diety in any way... it's also an interesting thing to consider regardless of your particular point of view. What's said is, if a non-Christian said the same thing, you wouldn't have been so dismissive My point on your crusade against religion vs. similar behavior by some fundamentalist Christians was a simple comparison of behaviors, not a religious argument. It would really be a shame if science and logic eliminated open discussions of philosophy and spirituality. I think all of these discussions (scientific and philosophical) are very valuable and worthwhile. PRecisely.  If you can't prove something or at least offer supporting evidence, then your beliefs need to be treated as the mythologies they are. There is no argument beyond this.  Believing something really hard doesn't make it more real, and 'Well we can't prove it, it's impossible" does not excuse you from the burden of proof.  You're very good at picking out only the points that fit your mold and ignoring the rest. You would not accept the supporting evidence I would offer, because it is very deeply personal, as anything spiritual would be. I don't jut believe it real hard, I've personally seen visible, physical miracles on two separate medical missions trips to Honduras for one, but you'd probably just dismiss that and call me a liar. I've experienced changes in my life after my recommitement to God that went far beyond what I was able to do on my own before that, but you'll call that anecdotal. There are a myriad of personal proofs that have led me to where I am, but they are mine and not yours. They are not scientific, they are personal and spiritual. As you automatically reject anything that is spiritual, there's not much else to say on that. It would be the same as you trying to have a scientific argument about the funciton of DNA with somebody who outright rejects anything scientific (and no, I don't reject science or see it as a bad thing).

So Self Hypnosis and Confirmation Bias equals reason enough for belief in Yahweh a God the Hebrews made up and based on far earlier Gods?  Hey, what about the millions more that believed just as devoutly and prayed just as fervently and didn't get their prayers answered?

Runa216 said: dahuman said: you can't disprove theories, therefore you can't disprove religious beliefs. I don't have any problems when it comes to religions that tell people to not be dicks to other people though, but that won't happen since people always have this superiority or inferiority complex on a genetic level. yes you can.  all it takes is one well-established fact to disprove a theory.

You can't disprove some of the things that happened so long ago that sound like fairy tales unless we invent a time machine :P

EdHieron said: timmah said: Runa216 said: timmah said: With or without God existing, those arguments are at least worth discussing. They certainly do not 'hinge' on that.  My point on you asking for 'proof' of God was not hinging on any undeniable existence, but was simply arguing that your request is for something that cannot by its own definition exist... your request for natural proof of something outside natural laws is a fundamentally flawed request. You wouldn't ask me to prove something in the field of genetics using the properties of light as my basis. I'm saying the type of proof you request is the problem. My discussion of logic was purely naturalistic and did not hinge on a diety in any way... it's also an interesting thing to consider regardless of your particular point of view. What's said is, if a non-Christian said the same thing, you wouldn't have been so dismissive My point on your crusade against religion vs. similar behavior by some fundamentalist Christians was a simple comparison of behaviors, not a religious argument. It would really be a shame if science and logic eliminated open discussions of philosophy and spirituality. I think all of these discussions (scientific and philosophical) are very valuable and worthwhile. PRecisely.  If you can't prove something or at least offer supporting evidence, then your beliefs need to be treated as the mythologies they are. There is no argument beyond this.  Believing something really hard doesn't make it more real, and 'Well we can't prove it, it's impossible" does not excuse you from the burden of proof.  You're very good at picking out only the points that fit your mold and ignoring the rest. You would not accept the supporting evidence I would offer, because it is very deeply personal, as anything spiritual would be. I don't jut believe it real hard, I've personally seen visible, physical miracles on two separate medical missions trips to Honduras for one, but you'd probably just dismiss that and call me a liar. I've experienced changes in my life after my recommitement to God that went far beyond what I was able to do on my own before that, but you'll call that anecdotal. There are a myriad of personal proofs that have led me to where I am, but they are mine and not yours. They are not scientific, they are personal and spiritual. As you automatically reject anything that is spiritual, there's not much else to say on that. It would be the same as you trying to have a scientific argument about the funciton of DNA with somebody who outright rejects anything scientific (and no, I don't reject science or see it as a bad thing). So Self Hypnosis and Confirmation Bias equals reason enough for belief in Yahweh a God the Hebrews made up and based on far earlier Gods?  Hey, what about the millions more that believed just as devoutly and prayed just as fervently and didn't get their prayers answered?

You say they made him up, I say He revealed himself to specific individuals Hknew had a good heart. Self hypnosis? Really? C'mon, that's not even close to what I'm talking about. Why do some atheists have to be so blatently militant about their beliefs?

If I knew everything about how and why God works, I would write a book about it and become rich.

timmah said: You say they made him up, I say He revealed himself to specific individuals Hknew had a good heart. Self hypnosis? Really? C'mon, that's not even close to what I'm talking about. Why do some atheists have to be so blatently militant about their beliefs? If I knew everything about how and why God works, I would write a book about it and become rich.

Yep and the mental ward patients didn't make up their imaginary friend, the friend revealed him/herself to them. I hope you know how ridiculous you sound right now.

There is no need to disprove religion.

People like Richard Dawkins do more to hold back scientific progress than advance it.  It becomes "us vs. them."  There is no need for this.  This antagonistic aproach to science and religion is harmful.  The two can coexist, but it will take effort from both sides.  When scientists set out to disprove religion it only makes people dig in further and refuse to budge from their views.  It reinforces the view that science is "evil."

I believe in God.  I believe in science.  I don't believe creationism or intelligent design (a truly all-powerful god wouldn't need "intelligent design" anyways) should be taught in schools.  Nobody (and I mean nobody) interperets the Bible literally.  It is a highly contextual book, and without understanding the context, it can be difficult to understand the meaning.  Unfortunately some people pick and choose which sections to apply literally, and which to try to understand the actual, contextual meaning.

Case in point: One segment of the Bible specifically forbids women to wear make-up and earrings.  But do you see people protesting the prevalence of such things in society?  No! In fact, the vast majority of Christian females wear these things!  Why? Because that passage was written to a specific group of people at a specific point in time.  It's not saying "these are evil things," what it says is "don't dress like a prostitute."  Because those were the tell-tale signs of prostitution at that place and time.  But, just like today, some women decided it was a good idea to dress like them to get the attention of men.

I believe there's much to be learned from the good book, but you must apply your intelligence to your faith.

I consider myself lucky.  I grew up with open-minded people in a religiously liberal church environment.  People told me that it was okay to question my faith, because if I never questioned it, how could I know what I really believe?  Some see that as a sign of weakness(ridiculous), but for me, such thinking allowed me to discover who I am, and not just what I believe, but why I believe it.  It strengthened my faith, and my belief in science as well. Blind faith isn't real faith, in my mind.

Science vs. the Bible.  Athiesm vs. Religion.  Faith vs. Reason.  These conflicts, and all who participate in them, only serve to limit the growth of humanity.  I embrace science, logic, faith, and religion.  There is no conflict except that which we choose to create.  Whichever side you may, at times, find yourself on, don't try to discredit the other side, try to understand them, and to let them understand you.

timmah said: You're very good at picking out only the points that fit your mold and ignoring the rest. You would not accept the supporting evidence I would offer, because it is very deeply personal, as anything spiritual would be. I don't jut believe it real hard, I've personally seen visible, physical miracles on two separate medical missions trips to Honduras for one, but you'd probably just dismiss that and call me a liar. I've experienced changes in my life after my recommitement to God that went far beyond what I was able to do on my own before that, but you'll call that anecdotal. There are a myriad of personal proofs that have led me to where I am, but they are mine and not yours. They are not scientific, they are personal and spiritual. As you automatically reject anything that is spiritual, there's not much else to say on that. It would be the same as you trying to have a scientific argument about the funciton of DNA with somebody who outright rejects anything scientific (and no, I don't reject science or see it as a bad thing).

If it's personal and spiritual, then  it's not evidence, it's hear-say.  I don't know if you're experiencing hallucinations, I don't know if you're flat out lying, or if it's a placebo effect.  That's not proof, and if you think it is, then I have nothing more to say on the matter.  

And there's no such thing as a miracle.  Overcoming long odds?  YEah, that happens.  Unexplained occurences that we can't understand?  yeah of course, that's why we dig to find truths.  Applying 'god' to everything that seems unlikely is a form of confirmation bias and is one of the simplest and most prevalent logical fallacies.  

I've said it in the past and I'll say it again:  Using God as a metaphor for the unknown is fine, as long as you understand that it's a metaphor and not meant to be taken literally.  And that's why I argue with the religious:  They're just allowed to believe this nonsense and subscribe to logical fallacies as though they were truths, and it's considered bad form to call you on it becuase you'll just ignore real logic and rationality while hiding under "I have a right to believe in whatever God I want", and most people would agree that if I continue to criticize, I'm the bad guy.  

Fayceless said: There is no need to disprove religion. People like Richard Dawkins do more to hold back scientific progress than advance it.  It becomes "us vs. them."  There is no need for this.  This antagonistic aproach to science and religion is harmful.  The two can coexist, but it will take effort from both sides.  When scientists set out to disprove religion it only makes people dig in further and refuse to budge from their views.  It reinforces the view that science is "evil." ...

Aaaha!  Are you serious?  

And of course science and religion can coexist, as long as they're not deemed peers.  They are not in the same leagues as one another, they should not be treated with equal respect as far as their positions on the origin of the world and for explaining the world around  us, and they should not have to fight over who decides what's right, wrong, and ethical.  

Religion is a philosophy combining history and mythology. 

Science is truth as best we can explain it.  

They are not the same.  It's apples and oranges.  Simple as that. 

dsgrue3 said: timmah said: dsgrue3 said: No, he's saying it is 100% nurture if anything which is unequivocally false. Shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the research and the debate. I'll concede he did not say choice, but a misunderstanding nonetheless.    Even so, it still leads to the same conclusion, gays should not be discriminated against. There's still not 100% proof for either side, no specific gene or genetic trait has been identified to support your claim 100% either. I know both a straight man who turned gay because his wife was an evil person who divorced him and took all his money (he's a very masculine guy who still votes republican), as well as a very effeminate man who seemed stereotypically gay in every way, but has a wife of 15+ years that he is obviously very attracted to and 3 kids with her. There are far to many factors to call it one way or the other, especially when looking at individual cases. Just because the evidence suggests something today doesn't mean later research will not change the consensus down the road. Did you even read over my sources? 100% doesn't exist in science, it is simply the best possible explanation and that certainly is epigenetics. Damn, if you aren't going to read over the research, don't comment. Then you cite anecdotal evidence? Laughably ignorant. "Turn gay" - yep, done here. Jay520 said: No, he didn't insinuate that being Gay was a choice. You do realize that being born gay and choice aren't the only two theories on homosexuality? There's a very controversial nature vs nurture debate which I'm sure you're aware of. Just admit that you were wrong and apologize. Also, even if he believes people aren't born gay, that doesn't mean he also believes genetics play no role. He could believe that genetics play a role, but not a big enough role for anyone to be guaranteed gay immediately after gay. Your genetic information does not change after birth, dude. Wow. Can't believe you even made that argument. But yes, I've already conceded he didn't claim choice. I'm sorry, I was wrong on that matter.

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying genetics will change. I'm saying they could play a role, but not a big enough role to be the ultimate decider of someone's sexual orientation, especially not at birth.

For example, imagine genetics decide 30% of someone's sexual orientation. The other 70% are subconscious development, environmental factors, other biological factors, etc. At birth, a person's genetics could lend towards him being gay, but only for 30%. This person would have gay inclinations at birth, but he could turn out gay or straight after years of other factors. That being said it would theoretically be impossible to guarantee anyone's sexual orientation even if you know their genetic makeup. If this was true, then people wouldn't be born gay; instead they would have slight inclinations either way which don't necessarily decide a person's future sexual orientation.

Runa216 said: Fayceless said: There is no need to disprove religion. People like Richard Dawkins do more to hold back scientific progress than advance it.  It becomes "us vs. them."  There is no need for this.  This antagonistic aproach to science and religion is harmful.  The two can coexist, but it will take effort from both sides.  When scientists set out to disprove religion it only makes people dig in further and refuse to budge from their views.  It reinforces the view that science is "evil." ... Aaaha!  Are you serious?   And of course science and religion can coexist, as long as they're not deemed peers.  They are not in the same leagues as one another, they should not be treated with equal respect as far as their positions on the origin of the world and for explaining the world around  us, and they should not have to fight over who decides what's right, wrong, and ethical.   Religion is a philosophy combining history and mythology.  Science is truth as best we can explain it.   They are not the same.  It's apples and oranges.  Simple as that.

You didn't read what I had to say.  I never once compared science to religion, or tried to say that they are "equal."  Two things that are fundamentally differen't can't be equal.  A stick of gum can't be equal to a pencil.  Because they're completely different things!

Religion is a system of belief in why we exist and how we should behave, both as individuals and as a species.

Science is our effort to understand the world around us through observations and experimentation.

I see no conflict.

You, not me, are trying to compare science and religion, as if one can be "superior" to the other, even though they, in fact, should not conflict with one another.  Just as that stick of gum won't prevent you from writing a a paper.  (what, that last sentence sounds absurd? You're right! It does! *wink*)