Science Doubter Question

deadnothingbetter · June 2007

Mookie Baylock wrote:

Hi all, I'm just wondering if anyone can answer this.

It seems like the science of evolution is always on the hot seat even though its a relitively simple concept. Why do people not doubt other hard to imagine sciences like plate tectonics or relativity. Why do people have such a hard time with evolution, other than that they are often spiritualy biased against it. Or is that just it?

But if you can accept the science behind one theory, why not another. The scientific method is the scientific method, is it not?

another question i ask myself is why do people deny the existence of a God? apart from fundamental religion and things of that sort, would it hurt anyone to find out if there really was in fact a god somewhere out there? i usually just think that because they believe in evolution and stuff that they are biased against it too, go figure.

why are some atheists fixed on the idea that there is absolutely in fact no such thing as a god whatsoever and anyone who believes so would be deemed a fool?

but apart from science and such and even evolution... i don't got a problem with it. i mean, it's almost irrelevant to me.

ForestBrain · June 2007

Mookie Baylock wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you don't have any understanding of how evolution works, you have no place disputing it. You're arguement just makes you look silly.

How ironic. I could say the same about you and the Bible.
I know this is going to sound completely ignorant of me (because that's the word people like to use), but I do not believe most of what scientists have to say. I don't. It's all mostly theories and educated guesses. I say people need to use their own common sense and draw their own conclusions.
I'm not saying I don't believe in scientific FACTS. But I don't have much respect for some scientists.
I'm not going to try to convince you to believe there is a God, so please don't try to convince me that evolution exists.
They're both based on faith and choosing what you want to believe.

deadnothingbetter · June 2007

ForestBrain wrote:

How ironic. I could say the same about you and the Bible.

that's true... i never thought of that. apart from that i completely understand what mookie blaylock is saying... don't get me wrong... i understand your point-of-view as well.

Collin · June 2007

deadnothingbetter wrote:

another question i ask myself is why do people deny the existence of a God?

I have a lack of belief in god. It just is what it is. You didn't choose to believe in guess, I didn't choose not to believe.

would it hurt anyone to find out if there really was in fact a god somewhere out there?

No, trust me if I see proof of god, I'll believe, I wouldn't deny god.

i usually just think that because they believe in evolution and stuff that they are biased against it too, go figure.

God and evolution do not exclude each other in my opinion, unless of course you believe the earth is 6000 years old, and teenage dinosaurs lived on Noah's arc or that god placed fossils to test our faith, the prankster!

why are some atheists fixed on the idea that there is absolutely in fact no such thing as a god whatsoever and anyone who believes so would be deemed a fool?

If you want to believe that's fine, I don't consider you a fool.

deadnothingbetter · June 2007

Collin wrote:

I have a lack of belief in god. It just is what it is. You didn't choose to believe in guess, I didn't choose not to believe.

would you consider yourself more of an agnostic?

No, trust me if I see proof of god, I'll believe, I wouldn't deny god.

well, that's too bad cause there's no proof... and i'm annoyed by those christians that say there is proof in god.

God and evolution do not exclude each other in my opinion, unless of course you believe the earth is 6000 years old, and teenage dinosaurs lived on Noah's arc or that god placed fossils to test our faith, the prankster!

you're absolutely right.

If you want to believe that's fine, I don't consider you a fool.

that's why i thank God for people like you.

angelica · June 2007

deadnothingbetter wrote:

well, that's too bad cause there's no proof... and i'm annoyed by those christians that say there is proof in god.

There is proof when you have personal spiritual experiences with God. Ten years ago, when I was grappling with my own spiritual experiences, I heard that in that specific year alone, 30 some percent of Americans had spiritual experiences. That's quite significant. If you see God, or have a spiritual experience, there is NO turning back.

Collin · June 2007

ForestBrain wrote:

How ironic. I could say the same about you and the Bible.

Many atheists have read the bible, many atheist were raised Catholics or whatever. I've read the bible. Have you read anything about evolution from a non-religious source?

I know this is going to sound completely ignorant of me (because that's the word people like to use), but I do not believe most of what scientists have to say. I don't. It's all mostly theories and educated guesses.

You were able to type this because of science, I was able to read what you wrote because of science and I'll half way across the world. Everywhere you look there's science; proof that science isn't all educated guesses and theories. How can you ignore or dismiss that?

I say people need to use their own common sense and draw their own conclusions.

I agree.

I'm not saying I don't believe in scientific FACTS. But I don't have much respect for some scientists.

Why not?

I'm not going to try to convince you to believe there is a God, so please don't try to convince me that evolution exists.

I'm not going to try and convince you to just accept evolution. Read up on it, educate yourself about evolution and use your common sense and draw your own conclusion then. Not before you even look into it. You say you believe in scientific facts so why shy away from evolution?

deadnothingbetter · June 2007

angelica wrote:

There is proof when you have personal spiritual experiences with God. Ten years ago, when I was grappling with my own spiritual experiences, I heard that in that specific year alone, 30 some percent of Americans had spiritual experiences. That's quite significant. If you see God, or have a spiritual experience, there is NO turning back.

not unless, yes of course. but try to explain that to someone who needs proof to believe. no one will ever see God and no one ever has. spiritual experiences are due to matters of believing without seeing... and what makes it even more intruiging, beautiful and meaningful is that you do not see it.

Collin · June 2007

deadnothingbetter wrote:

would you consider yourself more of an agnostic?

No. I think if there is a god it would be something that doesn't have emotions, that doesn't care about us, that's not aware of us... I wouldn't call it god either.
So no, either way to me god is not there or not something I should pray to or even pay attention to. It would be like worshipping gravity, sort of.

that's why i thank God for people like you.

Ahnimus · June 2007

"(13) The origin of superstition above given affords us a clear reason for
the fact, that it comes to all men naturally, though some refer its rise to
a dim notion of God, universal to mankind, and also tends to show, that it
is no less inconsistent and variable than other mental hallucinations and
emotional impulses, and further that it can only be maintained by hope,
hatred, anger, and deceit; since it springs, not from reason, but solely
from the more powerful phases of emotion. (14) Furthermore, we may readily
understand how difficult it is, to maintain in the same course men prone to
every form of credulity. (15) For, as the mass of mankind remains always at
about the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy, but
is always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive.

(16) This element of inconsistency has been the cause of many terrible wars
and revolutions; for, as Curtius well says (lib. iv. chap. 10): "The mob has
no ruler more potent than superstition," and is easily led, on the plea of
religion, at one moment to adore its kings as gods, and anon to execrate and
abjure them as humanity's common bane. (17) Immense pains have therefore
been taken to counteract this evil by investing religion, whether true or
false, with such pomp and ceremony, that it may, rise superior to every
shock, and be always observed with studious reverence by the whole people -
a system which has been brought to great perfection by the Turks, for they
consider even controversy impious, and so clog men's minds with dogmatic
formulas, that they leave no room for sound reason, not even enough to doubt
with.

(12) Imagination does not, in its own nature, involve any certainty of
truth, such as is implied in every clear and distinct idea, but requires
some extrinsic reason to assure us of its objective reality: hence prophecy
cannot afford certainty, and the prophets were assured of God's revelation
by some sign, and not by the fact of revelation, as we may see from Abraham,
who, when he had heard the promise of God, demanded a sign, not because he
did not believe in God, but because he wished to be sure that it was God Who
made the promise. (13) The fact is still more evident in the case of Gideon:
"Show me," he says to God, "show me a sign, that I may know that it is Thou
that talkest with me." (14) God also says to Moses: "And let this be a
sign that I have sent thee." (15) Hezekiah, though he had long known Isaiah
to be a prophet, none the less demanded a sign of the cure which he
predicted. (15) It is thus quite evident that the prophets always received
some sign to certify them of their prophetic imaginings; and for this reason
Moses bids the Jews (Deut. xviii.) ask of the prophets a sign, namely, the
prediction of some coming event. (16) In this respect, prophetic knowledge
is inferior to natural knowledge, which needs no sign, and in itself implies
certitude. (17) Moreover, Scripture warrants the statement that the
certitude of the prophets was not mathematical, but moral. (18) Moses lays
down the punishment of death for the prophet who preaches new gods, even
though he confirm his doctrine by signs and wonders (Deut. xiii.); "For," he
says, "the Lord also worketh signs and wonders to try His people." (19) And
Jesus Christ warns His disciples of the same thing (Matt. xxiv:24). (20)
Furthermore, Ezekiel (xiv:9) plainly states that God sometimes deceives
men with false revelations; and Micaiah bears like witness in the case of
the prophets of Ahab"
- Benedict de Spinoza (Theologico-Political Treatise)
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/1spnt10.txt

angelica · June 2007

deadnothingbetter wrote:

not unless, yes of course. but try to explain that to someone who needs proof to believe. no one will ever see God and no one ever has. spiritual experiences are due to matters of believing without seeing... and what makes it even more intruiging, beautiful and meaningful is that you do not see it.

I understand it's not the type of proof required for science. And still, I have seen God on numerous occasions. Naturally. And it has been more real than what is before me right now. If God had not presented itself to me, I would probably sound like many of the athiests on this board in these debates.

I also understand people who take science facts and weave those facts into a different theory than the going science theory. Just like people say that a view of life is flawed if you don't take the natural world into consideration via science, it is also flawed in terms of truly understanding reality if you don't take into consideration the spiritual levels of our existence. Just because science cannot study them is not reason to discard the totality of the universe on all levels.

deadnothingbetter · June 2007

angelica wrote:

I understand it's not the type of proof required for science. And still, I have seen God on numerous occasions. Naturally. And it has been more real than what is before me right now. If God had not presented itself to me, I would probably sound like many of the athiests on this board in these debates.

I also understand people who take science facts and weave those facts into a different theory than the going science theory. Just like people say that a view of life is flawed if you don't take the natural world into consideration via science, it is also flawed in terms of truly understanding reality if you don't take into consideration the spiritual levels of our existence. Just because science cannot study them is not reason to discard the totality of the universe on all levels.

whatever you saw... was not God... but a mere manifestation of God. i can say the same thing when i see my brothers in Christ... cause biblically I can connotate the same thing... nothing more... that I have seen God. but i am not speaking of facts here, or much less rather trying to sound like an atheist... not unless you believe in some other form of God... i don't know.

deadnothingbetter · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

"(13) The origin of superstition above given affords us a clear reason for
the fact, that it comes to all men naturally, though some refer its rise to
a dim notion of God, universal to mankind, and also tends to show, that it
is no less inconsistent and variable than other mental hallucinations and
emotional impulses, and further that it can only be maintained by hope,
hatred, anger, and deceit; since it springs, not from reason, but solely
from the more powerful phases of emotion. (14) Furthermore, we may readily
understand how difficult it is, to maintain in the same course men prone to
every form of credulity. (15) For, as the mass of mankind remains always at
about the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy, but
is always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive.

(16) This element of inconsistency has been the cause of many terrible wars
and revolutions; for, as Curtius well says (lib. iv. chap. 10): "The mob has
no ruler more potent than superstition," and is easily led, on the plea of
religion, at one moment to adore its kings as gods, and anon to execrate and
abjure them as humanity's common bane. (17) Immense pains have therefore
been taken to counteract this evil by investing religion, whether true or
false, with such pomp and ceremony, that it may, rise superior to every
shock, and be always observed with studious reverence by the whole people -
a system which has been brought to great perfection by the Turks, for they
consider even controversy impious, and so clog men's minds with dogmatic
formulas, that they leave no room for sound reason, not even enough to doubt
with.

(12) Imagination does not, in its own nature, involve any certainty of
truth, such as is implied in every clear and distinct idea, but requires
some extrinsic reason to assure us of its objective reality: hence prophecy
cannot afford certainty, and the prophets were assured of God's revelation
by some sign, and not by the fact of revelation, as we may see from Abraham,
who, when he had heard the promise of God, demanded a sign, not because he
did not believe in God, but because he wished to be sure that it was God Who
made the promise. (13) The fact is still more evident in the case of Gideon:
"Show me," he says to God, "show me a sign, that I may know that it is Thou
that talkest with me." (14) God also says to Moses: "And let this be a
sign that I have sent thee." (15) Hezekiah, though he had long known Isaiah
to be a prophet, none the less demanded a sign of the cure which he
predicted. (15) It is thus quite evident that the prophets always received
some sign to certify them of their prophetic imaginings; and for this reason
Moses bids the Jews (Deut. xviii.) ask of the prophets a sign, namely, the
prediction of some coming event. (16) In this respect, prophetic knowledge
is inferior to natural knowledge, which needs no sign, and in itself implies
certitude. (17) Moreover, Scripture warrants the statement that the
certitude of the prophets was not mathematical, but moral. (18) Moses lays
down the punishment of death for the prophet who preaches new gods, even
though he confirm his doctrine by signs and wonders (Deut. xiii.); "For," he
says, "the Lord also worketh signs and wonders to try His people." (19) And
Jesus Christ warns His disciples of the same thing (Matt. xxiv:24). (20)
Furthermore, Ezekiel (xiv:9) plainly states that God sometimes deceives
men with false revelations; and Micaiah bears like witness in the case of
the prophets of Ahab"
- Benedict de Spinoza (Theologico-Political Treatise)
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/1spnt10.txt

50) "I must at this juncture declare that those doctrines
which certain churches put forward concerning Christ, I neither affirm nor
deny, for I freely confess that I do not understand them."
- Benedict de Spinoza (Theologico-Political Treatise)

Ahnimus · June 2007

deadnothingbetter wrote:

50) "I must at this juncture declare that those doctrines
which certain churches put forward concerning Christ, I neither affirm nor
deny, for I freely confess that I do not understand them."
- Benedict de Spinoza (Theologico-Political Treatise)

Yea, he is interpreting the scripture, not the doctrines of the churches.

deadnothingbetter · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, he is interpreting the scripture, not the doctrines of the churches.

the doctrine of the churches is the scripture itself.

Ahnimus · June 2007

deadnothingbetter wrote:

the doctrine of the churches is the scripture itself.

It's an interpretation of scripture.

angelica · June 2007

deadnothingbetter wrote:

whatever you saw... was not God... but a mere manifestation of God. i can say the same thing when i see my brothers in Christ... cause biblically I can connotate the same thing... nothing more... that I have seen God. but i am not speaking of facts here, or much less rather trying to sound like an atheist... not unless you believe in some other form of God... i don't know.

With all due respect, you have no idea what I saw and therefore what you say regarding those experiences is about your imagination.

Ahnimus · June 2007

It is all imagination.

deadnothingbetter · June 2007

angelica wrote:

With all due respect, you have no idea what I saw and therefore what you say regarding those experiences is about your imagination.

and with all due respect, i respect what you saw and i mean no offense by it. but i am not convinced that you saw God... since i am an avid reader of the bible it mentions that no one has ever seen God at any time. and i said if you believe something entirely different as opposed to biblical beliefs... then i understand. God is to potent and too supernatural for our natural bodies to contain.

deadnothingbetter · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

It's an interpretation of scripture.

it's a jargon that unbelievers do not understand... that's why it's important to take the scriptures simply as it is.

Science Doubter Question

Comments

Categories