Christian version of Darwin's Origin of Species

the burdern of proof as you put it must go as follows (this is not limited to religion):

1) in the event there is no proof to positively identify something's existence, it is up to the person who believes it to exist to prove it (i.e: God)
2) in the event there is proof positive that something exists, it is up to the non-believer to prove it does not. (i.e: gravity)

Since there is NO PROOF that God exists, it's up to the believers to prove it.

The only problem is, the theists feel that they do have proof (the "look around you" argument), and atheists disagree.

It's an endless argument.

We can say "have you seen God?". They can say "have you seen a molecule?". Blah blah blah.

There is no God TO ME until I see him/hear him/have a beer with him while we discuss the complexities of the plot of Lost.

cornnifer wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

Astronomy is like religion repellant...mind blowing shit

Horse shit. Astronomy buttresses faith rather well. The order of the universe is astounding. The absolute pinpoint, perfect calibration of gravity, for example, reduces one to speechlessness. Gravity is calibrated in such a precise manner that the slightest movement, in either direction, renders life on earth unsustainable. A gnat's cunthair, so to speak, of movement in one direction and we would be literally crushed. The same slight movement in the other direction and life cannot happen for other reasons i, admittedly, can't fully explain. That as well as many other astronomical truths serves as faith attractant much more than repellant.

wow

cornnifer wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

Astronomy is like religion repellant...mind blowing shit

Horse shit. Astronomy buttresses faith rather well. The order of the universe is astounding. The absolute pinpoint, perfect calibration of gravity, for example, reduces one to speechlessness. Gravity is calibrated in such a precise manner that the slightest movement, in either direction, renders life on earth unsustainable. A gnat's cunthair, so to speak, of movement in one direction and we would be literally crushed. The same slight movement in the other direction and life cannot happen for other reasons i, admittedly, can't fully explain. That as well as many other astronomical truths serves as faith attractant much more than repellant.

yeah, science sure is a wonder, isn't it?

he still stands wrote:

science is the new dogmatic religion!!!

Believe it or you are ignorant!!! :roll:

Any scientist will tell you he knows HOW something works, not WHY something works. What a futile and endless argument....

I think that's a bit far, but science has basis in fact. Last time I checked, faith has basis in nothing of the sort.

And I see no evidence that Mike Seaver is not an idiot.

I'm not knocking faith. I think it also has its merits, but are you actually saying that we shouldn't believe proven science? And I'm not talking in the context of this particular argument, as Evolution is still called "Theory" for a reason.

decides2dream wrote:

well alrighty then.


as to the science/religion debate, i only like to periferally commment b/c 1. it really isn't important to me tho i find the discusions usually interesting, thus why i read 2. i think both can be well argued. science is very much based in theories too. yes more can and is 'proven' in science, but even there.....it's still within the realm of what is known and within our understanding. that changes constantly, so what was proven yesterday may be unproven tomorrow. thus why scientists are so careful with their language. organized religion is the root of many, many horrible things....but it is also a huge part of human history and amazingly beautiful things in this world too. so yea, i try to simply respect religion AND science.

Extremely well put.

haffajappa wrote:

[

i should add, astronomy has played a huge role in many religions and civilization's beliefs, not just christianity... the amazing things that happen in the universe aren't adherent to one single religion's belief.

i didn't say it was adherent to particular faith group. i didn't even mention Christianity (though i am of Christian FAITH)
*emphasis on faith as Christianity is a faith and not a religion. The fact that some religify the faith doesn't change that.

when jesus returns for the 2nd coming are you gonna ask for proof or will you take him at his word???

haffajappa wrote:

catefrances wrote:

when jesus returns for the 2nd coming are you gonna ask for proof or will you take him at his word???

i expect a full page report cited properly APA style
and YES plagiarism will be punishable!!

i think im gonna need an extension. that bibles a bitch to quote.

catefrances wrote:

when jesus returns for the 2nd coming are you gonna ask for proof or will you take him at his word???

I personally will ask him if he can get rid of my belly and give me a 6 pack. If he can do that (no small miracle), I SHALL BELIEVE!

Johnny Sitar wrote:

[

I don't believe that puff the magic dragon exists, so you would call that a belief, or just a logical assumption? a disbelief is not a belief. I believe in science, I don't disbelieve in religion.

we can disagree that there is a difference.

i guess we'll have to.
There is a problem with your analogy, however. i'm not sure there is a single living person on Earth past the ripe old age of 2 that believes that somewhere exists a magical dragon named Puff. On the other hand, a vast majority of the world's population holds some theistic worldview. i am one of them. Now, because i personally feel that my theism is substantiated with evidence, couldn't we say i'm simply making a logical assumption as well, and, therefore, mine is not a belief either? Where is the line between "logical assumption" and "belief".
Again, how are "i don't believe in God" and "i believe there is no God" any different. They are equivalent statements. No?
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice..."