Another religion thread!

[Fez Hammersticks]

It's a futile attempt to even try to convince me to believe a book written by men/humans as word of 'god.'

I need actual, physical proof and not mythology and theories.

 

[Eastoff]

It's a futile attempt to even try to convince me to believe a book written by men/humans as word of 'god.'

I need actual, physical proof and not mythology and theories.

Well someone else pointed out that most of science is based off theories that could be proven wrong in certain situations. Like for example classical mechanics in physics doesn't apply to things that are really really massive or extremely lack mass.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

I know, maybe that's why you can put me more in the agnostic camp rather than an all out atheist. Nobody knows for sure how everything came about, only theories and mythology.

 

[Eastoff]

I know, maybe that's why you can put me more in the agnostic camp rather than an all out atheist. Nobody knows for sure how everything came about, only theories and mythology.

this is true. One has to have a faith/belief to be an athiest that there is absolutely positively no god(s). But one can be unsure about a(n) god(s) and be an agnostic.

 

[BigVolcano]

It's a futile attempt to even try to convince me to believe a book written by men/humans as word of 'god.'

I need actual, physical proof and not mythology and theories.

I think the question that religion tries to address is the "why" rather than the "how." Science has proved (or brought about theories) regarding the how things happened (big bang, evolution, etc) but it doesn't really have an answer to why. That's why i feel people are drawn to religion as a means of explanation.

You also had a point about not believing the Bible. The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally (obviously the Earth was not made in 7 days), most it is metaphorical. Even Jesus uses parables to prove a point. The theories in the Bible can be viewed as parables that are open to interpretation which has led to a lot of horrible things but has also led to morality and ethics

 

[Eastoff]

I think the question that religion tries to address is the "why" rather than the "how." Science has proved (or brought about theories) regarding the how things happened (big bang, evolution, etc) but it doesn't really have an answer to why. That's why i feel people are drawn to religion as a means of explanation.

You also had a point about not believing the Bible. The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally (obviously the Earth was not made in 7 days), most it is metaphorical. Even Jesus uses parables to prove a point. The theories in the Bible can be viewed as parables that are open to interpretation which has led to a lot of horrible things but has also led to morality and ethics

That is a more contemporary, often modern Catholic, approach. But sadly many Christians take the Bible to be history and fact.

 

[Denny Crane]

aah that does sound familiar! Something about a comet they recently realized has water inside the rock and they are now having to re-think their definitions of comet versus meteor. So since the earth was mostly debris clumped together, why would earth-forming debris be any different than the comets that have water in it already.

The whole accretion theory is somewhat confusing. You have rocky inner planets and giant gas planets and then frozen gases (and water) really far out. Yet we find these exoplanets that are gas giants really close to their suns.

 

[Denny Crane]

That is a more contemporary, often modern Catholic, approach. But sadly many Christians take the Bible to be history and fact.

I never thought of the bible as literal. It's a bunch of stories, handed down for generations by word of mouth (and embellished) and eventually canonized by a bunch of men who decided what order and what stories got in and which were left out. Often two stories were merged together, like in Genesis there's two creation stories - 6 days, 7th he rested and garden of eden.

However, I do believe that some of it is based upon fact - like flood stories were about some actual flood that seemed to the people to be global, or that certain battles took place or resembled the kind of military action of the time. That sort of thing.

 

[crowTrobot]

If you ask me the strongest source of evolution is solar radiation that gets through our ionosphere and knocks chemicals loose. often known as cancer.

that makes no sense.

do you mean solar radiation is the most frequent cause of mutations in the genetic code of reproductive cells? i doubt many scientists would agree with that. last i heard there is more evidence most mutations are due to copying errors.

 

[crowTrobot]

No, from scratch would mean forcing pair production of electron/positrons and protons adn anti-protons. then somehow separating the anti-matter and getting the matter to group up into atoms, and THEN where you picked up.

we know how atoms and most molecules form. we know the history of elementary particles (inc electrons, quarks that make up protons) extending all the way back to a fraction of a second after the big bang.

if you want to truly make it "from scratch" (meaning beyond our understanding of how things come into existence) it would be - first you make a universe via a big bang.

 

[crowTrobot]

Very religious people tell me they see evidence of God's work everywhere - in a flower or a tree, for example. I don't find the beauty of mathematics any more compelling than religion

comparison makes no sense. people aren't compelled to atheism by the beauty of mathematics. string theory says zero about god. in fact some are actually compelled to theism by the beauty of mathematics.

maybe you worded that wrong?

 

[crowTrobot]

Uh huh. There's a funny word in your sentence. "Belief."

organic compounds have been found in meteorites.

 

[crowTrobot]

It's a futile attempt to even try to convince me to believe a book written by men/humans as word of 'god.'

I need actual, physical proof and not mythology and theories.

I know, maybe that's why you can put me more in the agnostic camp rather than an all out atheist. Nobody knows for sure how everything came about, only theories and mythology.

you're an atheist by any reasonable definition. most atheists are agnostic when it comes to deism.

 

[Denny Crane]

comparison makes no sense. people aren't compelled to atheism by the beauty of mathematics. string theory says zero about god. in fact some are actually compelled to theism by the order of mathematics.

maybe you worded that wrong?

No, I didn't word it wrong. I was speaking to "evidence" being required for belief - in either science or religion.

 

[Denny Crane]

organic compounds have been found in meteorites.

So stick one of those meteorites in a test tube with an atmosphere you think is like the early earth's and let's see life!

 

[Eastoff]

that makes no sense.

do you mean solar radiation is the most frequent cause of mutations in the genetic code of reproductive cells? i doubt many scientists would agree with that. last i heard there is more evidence most mutations are due to copying errors.

I think we're saying similar things. I"m saying solar radiation knocks off say guanine and adenine in a few places, then those loose compounds find new spots to bond at. What are you saying happens in the copying error?

 

[crowTrobot]

No, I didn't word it wrong. I was speaking to "evidence" being required for belief - in either science or religion.

ok i sort of see but it's still not a valid comparison. scientists don't have "belief" in anything in a sense you can compare to religion.

some suspect string theory might be true because there is an existing *proven pattern* of "beautiful" (symmetric, ordered, consistent) mathematical structures corresponding to what occurs in nature, but that is completely different than believing god must exist because you get emotional over a pretty sunset.

 

[Denny Crane]

ok i sort of see but it's still not a valid comparison. scientists don't have "belief" in anything in a sense you can compare to religion.

some suspect string theory might be true there is an existing proven pattern of "beautiful" mathematical structures corresponding to what occurs in nature, but that is completely different than believing god must exist because you get emotional over a pretty sunset.

The thing is, you're denying what someone else sees as evidence. It doesn't fit my belief system, but I understand how others could see it that way.

I also don't think of religious people as idiots. We have a fairly smart religious fellow here, BrianFromWA, who's a nuclear engineer/scientist type.

As for "belief," I think scientists believe (they say it outright, believe!) in things that are unseen and unprovable. It's not that different than religious belief.

 

[crowTrobot]

So stick one of those meteorites in a test tube with an atmosphere you think is like the early earth's and let's see life!

what if it took 100 million years and billions of steps? you expect scientists should be able to recreate that in a lab?

 

[Denny Crane]

what if it took 100 million years and billions of steps? you expect scientists should be able to recreate that in a lab?

For certain, it didn't take bottles of pre-mixed chemicals, super computers, and gene sequencers.

But yeah, I expect them to figure out the catalysts to make it happen way faster, or to skip some steps.

 

[Denny Crane]

^^^ To explain the last part better...

If they suspect there was some primordial soup containing certain ingredients, they should be able to recreate the exact conditions when life spontaneously appeared.

There had to be an instant where something less than life became life, let's see them fast forward to that very point and it should happen in the lab every time.

 

[crowTrobot]

The thing is, you're denying what someone else sees as evidence. It doesn't fit my belief system, but I understand how others could see it that way.

i understand how others can think inspired feelings, personal internal revelations etc. are evidence too. that doesn't mean they aren't obviously, objectively demonstratably wrong about what constitutes reliable evidence. that doesn't mean their beliefs should be respected.

I also don't think of religious people as idiots. We have a fairly smart religious fellow here, BrianFromWA, who's a nuclear engineer/scientist type.

i don't think of religious people as idiots either since i know they are delusional. an educated nuclear engineer who believes the earth is 6000 years old a good example of someone who is playing mind games with himself.

As for "belief," I think scientists believe (they say it outright, believe!) in things that are unseen and unprovable. It's not that different than religious belief.

name one.

 

[barfo]

For certain, it didn't take bottles of pre-mixed chemicals, super computers, and gene sequencers.

But yeah, I expect them to figure out the catalysts to make it happen way faster, or to skip some steps.

I expect them to too. But I don't necessarily expect them to today.

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

If they suspect there was some primordial soup containing certain ingredients, they should be able to recreate the exact conditions when life spontaneously appeared.

how would they do that without a time machine?

There had to be an instant where something less than life became life

no there doesn't. for example if it took billions or trillions of finely graduated steps over millions of years to get from a self-replicating non-living compound to a cell, where do you draw the line between what is life and what isn't? the instant where life began would be entirely subjective.

 

[crowTrobot]

OT does anyone else HATE the new forum software? it is so slow and buggy it's driving me batshit just trying to reply to posts.

 

[barfo]

I never thought of the bible as literal. It's a bunch of stories, handed down for generations by word of mouth (and embellished) and eventually canonized by a bunch of men who decided what order and what stories got in and which were left out.

The crazy part is that it stopped with that bunch of men, because that bunch of men wrote the stories down instead of passing them on by word of mouth. If the stories had gone on in a verbal tradition, they'd probably be a lot more relevant today. There would be stories of how God caused Bob's car to go off a cliff and into the river, or how God struck down Sally with a tremendous case of the clap.

However, I do believe that some of it is based upon fact - like flood stories were about some actual flood that seemed to the people to be global, or that certain battles took place or resembled the kind of military action of the time. That sort of thing.

Yeah, I have no doubt the stories are based on some facts. As well as some fables, some fantasies, and some intentional distortions, most likely.

barfo

 

[barfo]

no there doesn't. for example if it took billions or trillions of finely graduated steps over millions of years to get from a self-replicating non-living compound to a cell, where do you draw the line between what is life and what isn't? the instant where life began would be entirely subjective.

I've been told life begins at conception.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

name one.

Life exists elsewhere in the universe. Unproven, and such life is unseen if it does exist, eh?

 

[barfo]

OT does anyone else HATE the new forum software? it is so slow and buggy it's driving me batshit just trying to reply to posts.

I haven't had any real problems with it, except for this box I'm typing this reply into appears completely at the bottom of the screen with only enough room to type one line in without scrolling, and then to actually post the reply I have to scroll because the "post quick reply" button is below the bottom of the screen.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

how would they do that without a time machine?



no there doesn't. for example if it took billions or trillions of finely graduated steps over millions of years to get from a self-replicating non-living compound to a cell, where do you draw the line between what is life and what isn't? the instant where life began would be entirely subjective.

Hemeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stiumuli, reproduction.