I want someone to tear apart this website... (1 Viewer)

[Titburger]

Science and faith aren't mutually exclusive.

faith and evidence are

 

[jackydoll]

print a copy of the website and literally tear it up?

haaa

yes, however we know so much about the natural world and history to ascertain that the veracity of the bible is non-existent. The writers of both testaments are unaware of basic scientific realities, assert that the entirety of the human race was populated by two people in mesapotamia, that the jews escaped from egypt, which never happened, and all kinds of other bullshit.

You cannot disprove god, as a concept, however there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that he exists, so it is not illogical to assert he doesn't. If there is no evidence to suggest something exists, it is an entirely logical assertion to say that it probably doesn't.

However we can absolutely disprove the bible. To get to the point that the idea of god is not intellectually absurd and childish, you need to begin to deal with an entirely more vague and un-biblical conception of god.



No, the bible is extremely specific and not at all intended to be general. This is just an excuse made by modern christians when they realise that the biblical account doesn't hold a candle to the scientific understanding of the universe of a modern 13 year old.



Science shows this is directly and entirely wrong.

Genesis asserts that there was 'light' ("night and day") before the sun even came into existence. This is naturally impossible. The bible also asserts that plants began to grow before there was sunlight and that every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by god as good to eat.

It also asserts that a fucking snake can talk, for goodness sake.



Not at all. This was derived from counting down the generations and ages described in the bible of early humanity by historians and chronologists in the late dark ages.

+2

 

[Geoffo11]

The funniest part is the fact that even if it were just a theory, it is a theory that was conceived based on an impartial analysis of the factual evidence and is based and is being consistently revised based on our ever-growing analytical knowledge of the early universe based on the evidence and science, which makes it still infinitely more viable than his explanation to any rational human being.



Wow. What a totally childish way to avoid actually engaging my arguments. Please point out when I said something that wasn't factual.



Very vague, deistic faith yes; religious faith and science are entirely mutually exclusive. Religious faith begins with a several thousand year old claim of supreme and universal knowledge by superstitious peasants and splits one hair thousands of times in order to validate that preconception, whereas science reaches rational, revisable claims through impartial analysis of the evidence without preconceptions or with preconceptions that they are happy to change or discard entirely if the evidence supports a contrary point of analysis.

They are lightyears apart and entirely incompatible modes of thought.

There's nothing childish about telling someone when they sound like a rude asshole.

I'm telling you that you sound like a complete jackass with nothing better to do with his time than proving/ disproving absolutely nothing. If you don't care for religion then you shouldn't make it your life's work to argue about, you won't reach a conclusion to refute it, otherwise it would have happened several thousands of years ago. Did your mother ever tell you "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all"? If she didn't I question her parenting skills.

"religious faith and science are entirely mutually exclusive"

Besides scientists who are Christians… They can be both, and don't have to be one or the other.

 

[Scorch]

I'm telling you that you sound like a complete jackass with nothing better to do with his time than proving/ disproving absolutely nothing. If you don't care for religion then you shouldn't make it your life's work to argue about, you won't reach a conclusion to refute it, otherwise it would have happened several thousands of years ago. Did your mother ever tell you "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all"? If she didn't I question her parenting skills.

Don't be so naive and ridiculous. If people are going to claim as scientifically sound that which is nothing but a fairytale then they are well within their rights to do so, but they should, in every single way, expect to be called out on this.

Now, instead of naively lecturing me, please either lay down a factual or logical problem that you have with what I have said or stop attempting to state that people who twist and distort science and understanding to attempt to justify the existence of their violent, homophobic, jealous and petty deity should be treated with anything other than intellectual contempt.

 

[funkshen]

If you don't care for religion then you shouldn't make it your life's work to argue about, you won't reach a conclusion to refute it, otherwise it would have happened several thousands of years ago.

If you had a soul, he would be staring into it.

 

[shuttle_bus5]

The big bang is still a theory. We know a lot about the theory....but we don't know if it actually happened or not, so effectively we don't know much.

Im sorry, did you just say we don't know if the big bang actually happened?
Please provide greater evidence for something else then.

 

[shuttle_bus5]

P.S, Scorch can i marry your brain?

 

[SylviaB]

The big bang is still a theory. We know a lot about the theory....but we don't know if it actually happened or not, so effectively we don't know much.

You have no idea what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. You are a complete moron, fuck off.

lol

 

[nevery]

Wow, I'm surprised the level of unintelligence on this forum, especially considering it's essentially an education site. Education obviously used loosely at this point.

So when you are pissed off vaugley at someone who may have made a mistake (I apologise, I'm not exactly a scientist) you obviously have no more intelligent things to say than "Fuck off" or "Fuck you". Fuck is obviously the extent of your vocabulary, so I"m going to bow out of this thread.

I"m fine with my faith and the hope I have, thankyou.

 

[mirakon]

Did your mother ever tell you "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all"? If she didn't I question her parenting skills.

So your idea of maturity is to bring his mum into this?

 

[pman]

what nevery said on the first page about creationism and the big bang not being mutually exclusive is quite accurate....I also believe in both as do many of the christians I went to school with....It just seems logical, big bang makes sense but you need something to increase3 the odds of getting a functioning universe with life

 

[nevery]

what nevery said on the first page about creationism and the big bang not being mutually exclusive is quite accurate....I also believe in both as do many of the christians I went to school with....It just seems logical, big bang makes sense but you need something to increase3 the odds of getting a functioning universe with life

+1. Thankyou.

 

[Ritard_]

and obviously a sky god is the logical explanation

...

 

[runoutofsleep]

what nevery said on the first page about creationism and the big bang not being mutually exclusive is quite accurate....I also believe in both as do many of the christians I went to school with....It just seems logical, big bang makes sense but you need something to increase3 the odds of getting a functioning universe with life

do you know how odds work

 

[Ritard_]

increasing the odds of getting a functional universe

- start with a big bang
- inject sum GOD
-???
-profit

 

[Scorch]

what nevery said on the first page about creationism and the big bang not being mutually exclusive is quite accurate....I also believe in both as do many of the christians I went to school with....It just seems logical, big bang makes sense but you need something to increase3 the odds of getting a functioning universe with life

No, actually. What is logical is to include in scientific theory and thought what is quantifiable and provable. If you want to inject God into whatever science you please because you think it would be a nice idea or you don't actually understand it, then fine, but do not try and pass it off as scientifically valid because you won't get away with it.

 

[pman]

No, actually. What is logical is to include in scientific theory and thought what is quantifiable and provable. If you want to inject God into whatever science you please because you think it would be a nice idea or you don't actually understand it, then fine, but do not try and pass it off as scientifically valid because you won't get away with it.

Not saying its scientifically valid, I'm saying it makes sense (to me)

pls note I am actually studying physics and actually plenty of other people who support me in the odds business...it all comes down to the formation of protiens....something you prob don't understand at all given that your studying arts.....also to do with the relative strengths of the 4 fundamental forces as exerted by their corresponding gluons (assuming higgs boson actually exists)

 

[Ritard_]

lol you are first year physics

 

[runoutofsleep]

not saying it's scientifically valid, it's just that you wouldn't understand because you're not a physicist (it's the protiens)

 

[pman]

not saying it's scientifically valid, it's just that you wouldn't understand because you're not a physicist (it's the protiens)

no, he's not a scientist and its more than just the protiens, its the unified field theorem, its the strength of the fundamental forces......the fact I'm a physicist is just to point out that I am aware of the definitiuon of scientific validity (havignsaid this, there is no proof of the big bang and although it is the accepted theory, it is in all probablilty wrong...we are almost garanteed to be missing some vital piece of info)