Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

ScienceInTheBible.Net - From Cal


MLD Woody

Recommended Posts

No one is trying to disprove god

 

Why is the debate pointless?

 

I think the issue arises when new scientific information becomes available that challenges religious points of view. It forces the religious to change their views (many of which have been set in stone for thousands of years) and adapt to the science. Darwin's theory, though it's scientific in nature, challenged the creation story of every single religion. No one takes kindly to being told their views are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 478
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No one is trying to disprove god

 

Why is the debate pointless?

What is your point then? You don't believe in God. Ok. But to point to evolution as definitive proof there is no god doesn't jibe. It's saying the ancient story of god creating the earth in six days is incorrect. Ok. The ancient practice of using leeches to bleed cancer patients is also incorrect. So what? People didn't know things in biblical times. Knowing more about the universe doesn't disprove religion. We don't know if there is a god and we will never know. That's really all there is to say about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your point then? You don't believe in God. Ok. But to point to evolution as definitive proof there is no god doesn't jibe. It's saying the ancient story of god creating the earth in six days is incorrect. Ok. The ancient practice of using leeches to bleed cancer patients is also incorrect. So what? People didn't know things in biblical times. Knowing more about the universe doesn't disprove religion. We don't know if there is a god and we will never know. That's really all there is to say about it.

Difference is, there are still people claiming that the earth is 6000 years old, using pointing to the bible as evidence. I have no problem if someone chooses to believe it, but when they start petitioning the government to teach it as fact in schools, that's when you have to draw the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I agree with Chris.

 

 

Also, I never said I did not believe I'm a god and I never said the point of "proving" evolution was to disprove god. I didn't say most of what you seem to think I did.

 

Knowing more about the universe doesn't disprove religion, sort of. It definitely doesn't do it any favors though. As we learn more about the world around us the less we need religion and the less plausible it becomes.

 

 

But again, the point is what Chris said. There is no actual scientific debate between evolution and creationism and creationism should not be taught in schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Difference is, there are still people claiming that the earth is 6000 years old, using pointing to the bible as evidence. I have no problem if someone chooses to believe it, but when they start petitioning the government to teach it as fact in schools, that's when you have to draw the line.

The British allow sharia law in their own country. Theres bigger religious Issues than creationism in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British allow sharia law in their own country. Theres bigger religious Issues than creationism in the UK.

Biggest religious issue from Christianity is homophobia, IMO, and that's about it. The whole creationism thing isn't even a discussion here.

 

I'm not going to pretend I'm happy about Sharia law being upheld, but let's be clear about it. It involves both sides of any debate willingly submitting themselves to Sharia law, which in turn is not allowed to break any UK/EU laws. In fact, it's remarkably similar to the way people can submit themselves to Beth Din law in both the UK and USA. It's not like people are going to have their hands cut off for stealing, or be stoned to death for being gay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggest religious issue from Christianity is homophobia, IMO, and that's about it. The whole creationism thing isn't even a discussion here.

 

I'm not going to pretend I'm happy about Sharia law being upheld, but let's be clear about it. It involves both sides of any debate willingly submitting themselves to Sharia law, which in turn is not allowed to break any UK/EU laws. In fact, it's remarkably similar to the way people can submit themselves to Beth Din law in both the UK and USA. It's not like people are going to have their hands cut off for stealing, or be stoned to death for being gay.

You will be growing a beard soon, count on that. Give an inch, they will take a mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I agree with Chris.

 

 

Also, I never said I did not believe I'm a god and I never said the point of "proving" evolution was to disprove god. I didn't say most of what you seem to think I did.

 

Knowing more about the universe doesn't disprove religion, sort of. It definitely doesn't do it any favors though. As we learn more about the world around us the less we need religion and the less plausible it becomes.

 

 

But again, the point is what Chris said. There is no actual scientific debate between evolution and creationism and creationism should not be taught in schools.

For what its worth I don't believe you're a god, so lets no longer use typos to measure someone's overall intelligence like you tried to do with Sunset lady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The teaching of creationism literally just surfaced right now in this thread. It seems to me that the main narrative has been science vs religion which exist on two different planes. You can't use one to disprove the other. It just doesn't work like that.

Actually you can use science to disprove religion. I can't prove my imaginary friends exist. Conclusion: they are not real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually you can use science to disprove religion. I can't prove my imaginary friends exist. Conclusion: they are not real.

Well, science was waiting for proof of the Higgs Boson for decades, but was still adamant it existed. Same with monopoles - theorised, but not observed. Until recently, that is, but the point is the same. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

 

HOWEVER! You're main point about being able to disprove religion generally holds credence, although I don't think you mean religion in the 'organised groups of people worshiping a deity' sense, you mean the claims made by the texts upon which the religions are based. Things like the young earth theory, for example, as preached by some religions, can be disproved. The great flood, could be real, but the idea of a 900 year old man and his family building a wooden boat big enough to fit two of every creature in existence, looks less likely.

 

Of course, the bible doesn't claim too much to be factual, it's more moral guidelines, so disproving it an illogical thing to try to do in the first place. Disproving the existence of any kind of deity is also illogical - until someone comes up with a test to prove it one way or another, you can't prove it exists or doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually you can use science to disprove religion. I can't prove my imaginary friends exist. Conclusion: they are not real.

How can anyone say with any assurance that your imaginary friends are imaginary? You don't believe in god. Good for you. As for disproving the existence of one, your snark is somewhat less than acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you could probably track and map different hormone and chemical releases in your body and brain based on certain interactions with ones you are very close to

 

 

 

 

But Cysko, I feel like you are taking this whole thing way off track. You seem to be in agreement that there is no place to teach creationism in schools and that there is no actual debate between creationism and evolution. Good. But then you start with this "But you can't disprove God though, so ha!"... idk who was actually trying to do that and I do not know who'd point you were try to rebut.

 

Answer to the how and not the why and blah blah blah. Yes that is all well and good but it wasn't what we were talking about.

 

 

Is there a god? Idk

Will we ever know? Probably not

Does there need to be a god for everything to be like it is now? Not really

So is there a god like Christians believe that interacts with us and is one on one? Most likely not.

Does our advancement of science disprove religion? Not necessarily. But it makes it less needed and it is making it seem more ridiculous

Can people still believe in the message of the Bible and this good dude that used to be alive named Jesus? Yeah sure

Does it make a great flood, or creatonism, or w/e seem more ridiculous and less likely? Absolutely

 

 

 

Now, the point was Cal seems to want to teach Evolution and Creationism side by side in schools. And that somehow not even mentioning a "debate" is an attack on Christianity. That is stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wood, go back and read this thread from the beginning all in one sitting like I did earlier today. I think you'll find that there was never much creationism vs evolution discussion and a lot of science vs god talk. I'm merely pointing out that the two things are not actually mutually exclusive. There's room for both and neither can actually banish the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not tried to disprove God

I never said Jesus didn't exist

I am not saying science disproved religion

 

 

....

 

I made most of the posts in this thread so I have a good idea about what the topic was.

 

The complaint was people equating religious ideas like creationism to the science behind evolution. That is a ridiculous thing to do.

 

If you still want to believe in geveral spiritual religious ideas and stories go ahead. But as we learn more about the universe around it becomes more and more apparent religion is not a necessity, false, a means of control, etc. That isy opinion though.b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a video in there called evolution vs God. Kind of speaks for itself. The conventionial argument always turns to trying to disprove a god using evolution as the basis, but it doesn't work and that's why this is still debated.

 

By the by, chum, this argument went off the rails about seven pages before I threw my two cents in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic has been evolving (buh dum tsss) since this thread was first posted. I am just saying I have never once tried to use evolution to disprove god or have I attempted to disprove god in anyway. That evolution vs god video wasn't posted by me. It was posted as an attempt to support the creationist side of the "debate" and it didn't really do that or bring up anything that wasn't mentioned before.

 

"The conventional argument ALWAYS turns to trying to disprove god with evolution as the basis"... really? When did that happen here?

 

 

Logic can say god doesn't exist, and if I had to bet I would side with him, but it is really nothing you can prove or disprove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...