Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is science evil from a Christian point of vie

Stupidape
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Is science evil from a Christian point of view? I grew up in a world where science, knowledge, logic, creativity, reason, and intelligence seem to be the enemy. With the looming threat of global climate change bearing down on us more than ever, I'm starting to wonder.

Is it evil of me to learn more about climate change? This is science after-all. Science and religion are enemies. Evil science tells us the world is round and evolution, which contradicts many religious doctrines. I have an inner struggle and moral dilemma.

Do I put religion first and in that case climate change is caused by sin and God? Should I read through religious doctrines endlessly and promote the ways of the Lord by telling gays that homosexuality is an abomination, donating all my money to the church, missionary work, and so forth.

After-all, the family I was raised in told me to always put God first. Clearly, this is the way to put God first.

Or do I try to learn about climate change and spread evil science and knowledge to people around me?

Slogans were thrown around like

"the only honest work is with hard work with your hands"
"the more intelligent you be, the more fit to serve Satan you be"

On top of the religious references like Eve eating the apples, the snake being intelligent and so forth. In the end it comes down to:

piety vs science, knowledge, logic, creativity, and reason.

Particular reason seems evil from a religious perspective. Many religious promote insanity. Think of primitive tribes and initiation rites.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Is science evil from a Christian point of view? I grew up in a world where science, knowledge, logic, creativity, reason, and intelligence seem to be the enemy. With the looming threat of global climate change bearing down on us more than ever, I'm starting to wonder.


Is it evil of me to learn more about climate change? This is science after-all. Science and religion are enemies. Evil science tells us the world is round and evolution, which contradicts many religious doctrines. I have an inner struggle and moral dilemma.


Do I put religion first and in that case climate change is caused by sin and God? Should I read through religious doctrines endlessly and promote the ways of the Lord by telling gays that homosexuality is an abomination, donating all my money to the church, missionary work, and so forth.


After-all, the family I was raised in told me to always put God first. Clearly, this is the way to put God first.

Or do I try to learn about climate change and spread evil science and knowledge to people around me?


Slogans were thrown around like

"the only honest work is with hard work with your hands"
"the more intelligent you be, the more fit to serve Satan you be"

On top of the religious references like Eve eating the apples, the snake being intelligent and so forth. In the end it comes down to:

piety vs science, knowledge, logic, creativity, and reason.

Particular reason seems evil from a religious perspective. Many religious promote insanity. Think of primitive tribes and initiation rites.

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 5:55:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Is science evil from a Christian point of view? I grew up in a world where science, knowledge, logic, creativity, reason, and intelligence seem to be the enemy. With the looming threat of global climate change bearing down on us more than ever, I'm starting to wonder.


Is it evil of me to learn more about climate change? This is science after-all. Science and religion are enemies. Evil science tells us the world is round and evolution, which contradicts many religious doctrines. I have an inner struggle and moral dilemma.


Do I put religion first and in that case climate change is caused by sin and God? Should I read through religious doctrines endlessly and promote the ways of the Lord by telling gays that homosexuality is an abomination, donating all my money to the church, missionary work, and so forth.


After-all, the family I was raised in told me to always put God first. Clearly, this is the way to put God first.

Or do I try to learn about climate change and spread evil science and knowledge to people around me?


Slogans were thrown around like

"the only honest work is with hard work with your hands"
"the more intelligent you be, the more fit to serve Satan you be"

On top of the religious references like Eve eating the apples, the snake being intelligent and so forth. In the end it comes down to:

piety vs science, knowledge, logic, creativity, and reason.

Particular reason seems evil from a religious perspective. Many religious promote insanity. Think of primitive tribes and initiation rites.

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

What facts prove life was uncreated?
As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 6:11:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Is science evil from a Christian point of view? I grew up in a world where science, knowledge, logic, creativity, reason, and intelligence seem to be the enemy. With the looming threat of global climate change bearing down on us more than ever, I'm starting to wonder.


Is it evil of me to learn more about climate change? This is science after-all. Science and religion are enemies. Evil science tells us the world is round and evolution, which contradicts many religious doctrines. I have an inner struggle and moral dilemma.


Do I put religion first and in that case climate change is caused by sin and God? Should I read through religious doctrines endlessly and promote the ways of the Lord by telling gays that homosexuality is an abomination, donating all my money to the church, missionary work, and so forth.


After-all, the family I was raised in told me to always put God first. Clearly, this is the way to put God first.

Or do I try to learn about climate change and spread evil science and knowledge to people around me?


Slogans were thrown around like

"the only honest work is with hard work with your hands"
"the more intelligent you be, the more fit to serve Satan you be"

On top of the religious references like Eve eating the apples, the snake being intelligent and so forth. In the end it comes down to:

piety vs science, knowledge, logic, creativity, and reason.

Particular reason seems evil from a religious perspective. Many religious promote insanity. Think of primitive tribes and initiation rites.

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.

1. When, how, and why was religion concocted?

2. How has science overturned the belief that life was created?

3. How has it been confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable? Is there a particular percentage of chance involved?

You're references to 2 and 3 appear contradictory.
VirBinarus
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 9:45:10 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Is science evil from a Christian point of view?
Nope
I grew up in a world where science, knowledge, logic, creativity, reason, and intelligence seem to be the enemy. With the looming threat of global climate change bearing down on us more than ever, I'm starting to wonder.
Climate change is definitely a massive issue. Sin is a bigger issue, bigger than any issue imaginable, but climate change is still a huge issue.
Is it evil of me to learn more about climate change?
Not one bit, I'm not in favour of destroying the planet.
This is science after-all. Science and religion are enemies.
No they're not.
Evil science tells us the world is round and evolution,
It's not evil, it's just trying to work out how the world works.
which contradicts many religious doctrines.
The world is round, no issue "four corners" is just a metaphor.
Evolution, God made animals and humans through evolution, again no issue.
I have an inner struggle and moral dilemma.


Do I put religion first and in that case climate change is caused by sin and God?
Well, yes climate change is caused by sin and God, but that doesn't mean you should leave the light switch on.
Should I read through religious doctrines endlessly and promote the ways of the Lord by telling gays that homosexuality is an abomination,
It's not the best introduction is it: "Hey, we hate you and everything you do! Why not join our club?"
While I do hold that gay marriage is wrong, it is often so badly said, at the wrong times, using the wrong words, and the wrong tone, and I myself am certainty guilty of that.
The best promotion focuses on Jesus. He is the centre of Christianity, without him literally none of it makes sense.
donating all my money to the church, missionary work, and so forth.
If you believe that you know the solution to all life's problems, you would probably want to help people find it out.

After-all, the family I was raised in told me to always put God first. Clearly, this is the way to put God first.
God should always be first, and be an underlying factor in everything you do. It doesn't however mean that you have to become a person shouting hate a gay people on the street.
Or do I try to learn about climate change and spread evil science and knowledge to people around me?
You can do both. Science isn't evil, you can learn about climate change, while still believing God is in control.

Slogans were thrown around like

"the only honest work is with hard work with your hands"
"the more intelligent you be, the more fit to serve Satan you be"
Absolute rubbish.

On top of the religious references like Eve eating the apples, the snake being intelligent and so forth. In the end it comes down to:
The fact that the snake was intelligent doesn't mean intelligence is a bad thing. The devil is certainty intelligence, and his intelligence is often played down (in fact I almost ended up writing that the devil is absolutely stupid, before I Bible-checked this).

Intelligence however is a good thing. There are many Bible verses that say you should use knowledge and wisdom to build up your faith.

Proverbs 1:7
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction."

2 Peter 1:5
"For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge,"

piety vs science, knowledge, logic, creativity, and reason.
I would go for both. But just remember knowing Jesus doesn't come from piety, piety comes from knowing Jesus.

Particular reason science seems evil from a religious perspective: Many religious promote insanity. Think of primitive tribes and initiation rites.
I filled in a word, hopefully it was the right one

I, speaking on behalf of Christians, would rather you didn't go insane :p

Sorry if this response was a bit hard to read, I don't think I paid enough attention to the formatting.
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
1 thessalonians, 5:11
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 10:56:53 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Is science evil from a Christian point of view? I grew up in a world where science, knowledge, logic, creativity, reason, and intelligence seem to be the enemy. With the looming threat of global climate change bearing down on us more than ever, I'm starting to wonder.


Is it evil of me to learn more about climate change? This is science after-all. Science and religion are enemies. Evil science tells us the world is round and evolution, which contradicts many religious doctrines. I have an inner struggle and moral dilemma.


Do I put religion first and in that case climate change is caused by sin and God? Should I read through religious doctrines endlessly and promote the ways of the Lord by telling gays that homosexuality is an abomination, donating all my money to the church, missionary work, and so forth.


After-all, the family I was raised in told me to always put God first. Clearly, this is the way to put God first.

Or do I try to learn about climate change and spread evil science and knowledge to people around me?


Slogans were thrown around like

"the only honest work is with hard work with your hands"
"the more intelligent you be, the more fit to serve Satan you be"

On top of the religious references like Eve eating the apples, the snake being intelligent and so forth. In the end it comes down to:

piety vs science, knowledge, logic, creativity, and reason.

Particular reason seems evil from a religious perspective. Many religious promote insanity. Think of primitive tribes and initiation rites.

The short answer is "No." Science is not considered evil by Christianity.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Stupidape
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2016 12:37:13 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
"The short answer is "No." Science is not considered evil by Christianity."

Then, where do all these slogans come from?

"The more intelligent you be the more fit you are to serve Satan you will be." John, the Puritan

Note quote may not be exact. I know my best friend and his father strongly believed the only honest work was from intense physical work with your hands.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2016 5:50:35 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 6:11:01 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.

1. When, how, and why was religion concocted?
There are many religions. May I presume that you do not like the use of the word "concocted"?

2. How has science overturned the belief that life was created?
Overwhelming evidence has confirmed that life evolved through natural selection thus ruling out any assertion that life was created.

3. How has it been confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable? Is there a particular percentage of chance involved?

You're references to 2 and 3 appear contradictory.
Only to someone who wants to view them as contradictory, especially to those, if given an inch will take a mile. For example, if there would be a 99.9% improbability, some may seize upon the 0.1 possibility and turn it into a fact.
But these people would be very stupid and ignorant, wouldn't they?
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2016 5:54:24 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 5:55:43 PM, janesix wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Is science evil from a Christian point of view? I grew up in a world where science, knowledge, logic, creativity, reason, and intelligence seem to be the enemy. With the looming threat of global climate change bearing down on us more than ever, I'm starting to wonder.


Is it evil of me to learn more about climate change? This is science after-all. Science and religion are enemies. Evil science tells us the world is round and evolution, which contradicts many religious doctrines. I have an inner struggle and moral dilemma.


Do I put religion first and in that case climate change is caused by sin and God? Should I read through religious doctrines endlessly and promote the ways of the Lord by telling gays that homosexuality is an abomination, donating all my money to the church, missionary work, and so forth.


After-all, the family I was raised in told me to always put God first. Clearly, this is the way to put God first.

Or do I try to learn about climate change and spread evil science and knowledge to people around me?


Slogans were thrown around like

"the only honest work is with hard work with your hands"
"the more intelligent you be, the more fit to serve Satan you be"

On top of the religious references like Eve eating the apples, the snake being intelligent and so forth. In the end it comes down to:

piety vs science, knowledge, logic, creativity, and reason.

Particular reason seems evil from a religious perspective. Many religious promote insanity. Think of primitive tribes and initiation rites.

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

What facts prove life was uncreated?
As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.
Could it be that you mean "not created"?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 6:40:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/20/2016 5:50:35 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 6:11:01 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.

1. When, how, and why was religion concocted?
There are many religions. May I presume that you do not like the use of the word "concocted"?

I was basing my question from this response.

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

I have no problem with the word concocted. I'm just wondering how you think religion in general began (God, god, gods, deities spirits, etc.)

2. How has science overturned the belief that life was created?
Overwhelming evidence has confirmed that life evolved through natural selection thus ruling out any assertion that life was created.

Science, natural selection, and evolution have nothing to do with a creator. Science as a whole is neutral on the subject.
3. How has it been confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable? Is there a particular percentage of chance involved?

You're references to 2 and 3 appear contradictory.
Only to someone who wants to view them as contradictory, especially to those, if given an inch will take a mile. For example, if there would be a 99.9% improbability, some may seize upon the 0.1 possibility and turn it into a fact.
But these people would be very stupid and ignorant, wouldn't they?
If there would be a 99.9% improbability, and someone seized upon the 0.1% to turn it into fact, yes I suppose they would. But again, science is completely neutral on the subject of a creator, so I don't see those stats as authentic if that's what you're implying.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 10:24:03 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 6:40:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/20/2016 5:50:35 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 6:11:01 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.

1. When, how, and why was religion concocted?
There are many religions. May I presume that you do not like the use of the word "concocted"?

I was basing my question from this response.

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

I have no problem with the word concocted. I'm just wondering how you think religion in general began (God, god, gods, deities spirits, etc.)

2. How has science overturned the belief that life was created?
Overwhelming evidence has confirmed that life evolved through natural selection thus ruling out any assertion that life was created.

Science, natural selection, and evolution have nothing to do with a creator. Science as a whole is neutral on the subject.
3. How has it been confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable? Is there a particular percentage of chance involved?

You're references to 2 and 3 appear contradictory.
Only to someone who wants to view them as contradictory, especially to those, if given an inch will take a mile. For example, if there would be a 99.9% improbability, some may seize upon the 0.1 possibility and turn it into a fact.
But these people would be very stupid and ignorant, wouldn't they?
If there would be a 99.9% improbability, and someone seized upon the 0.1% to turn it into fact, yes I suppose they would. But again, science is completely neutral on the subject of a creator, so I don't see those stats as authentic if that's what you're implying.

You are trying introduce a completely contrived and irrelevant argument, "science being completely neutral on the subject of a creator".
Where on earth did you get that from?
Judging from your terminologies it is apparent you belong to a particular ideology. What would that be?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 2:35:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 10:24:03 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/21/2016 6:40:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/20/2016 5:50:35 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 6:11:01 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.

1. When, how, and why was religion concocted?
There are many religions. May I presume that you do not like the use of the word "concocted"?

I was basing my question from this response.

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

I have no problem with the word concocted. I'm just wondering how you think religion in general began (God, god, gods, deities spirits, etc.)

2. How has science overturned the belief that life was created?
Overwhelming evidence has confirmed that life evolved through natural selection thus ruling out any assertion that life was created.

Science, natural selection, and evolution have nothing to do with a creator. Science as a whole is neutral on the subject.
3. How has it been confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable? Is there a particular percentage of chance involved?

You're references to 2 and 3 appear contradictory.
Only to someone who wants to view them as contradictory, especially to those, if given an inch will take a mile. For example, if there would be a 99.9% improbability, some may seize upon the 0.1 possibility and turn it into a fact.
But these people would be very stupid and ignorant, wouldn't they?
If there would be a 99.9% improbability, and someone seized upon the 0.1% to turn it into fact, yes I suppose they would. But again, science is completely neutral on the subject of a creator, so I don't see those stats as authentic if that's what you're implying.

You are trying introduce a completely contrived and irrelevant argument, "science being completely neutral on the subject of a creator".
Where on earth did you get that from?
Science doesn't explain life origin. Where life initially came from. There are various theories, but that's all they are. Scientifically speaking, it's a mystery. For instance, if we were to consider the Big Bang Theory (assuming you don't believe science has proven an eternal universe), science doesn't explain what happened prior to the BB that initially brought it about.

And to partial quote from Thomas Paine, a deist.

"The only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things."

He of course believed in a creator, but same principle. What exactly happened before we all appeared is not answered by science. From Stephen Hawking:

"One can't prove that God doesn't exist," professor Stephen Hawking told ABC News. "But science makes God unnecessary.


A lot of this is of course about wording, which can be used in tactful ways including giving false impressions of what one is saying. And no doubt some will misinterpret Hawking to suggest he's claiming God (creator) is unlikely.

Judging from your terminologies it is apparent you belong to a particular ideology. What would that be?
I do believe the Bible is the Word of God, if that's what you're wondering.

By the way, am I to assume that your statement

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

is just your opinion? Just speculation? You don't have any evidence you can throw my way?
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 3:06:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 2:35:41 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:24:03 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/21/2016 6:40:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/20/2016 5:50:35 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 6:11:01 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.

1. When, how, and why was religion concocted?
There are many religions. May I presume that you do not like the use of the word "concocted"?

I was basing my question from this response.

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

I have no problem with the word concocted. I'm just wondering how you think religion in general began (God, god, gods, deities spirits, etc.)

2. How has science overturned the belief that life was created?
Overwhelming evidence has confirmed that life evolved through natural selection thus ruling out any assertion that life was created.

Science, natural selection, and evolution have nothing to do with a creator. Science as a whole is neutral on the subject.
3. How has it been confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable? Is there a particular percentage of chance involved?

You're references to 2 and 3 appear contradictory.
Only to someone who wants to view them as contradictory, especially to those, if given an inch will take a mile. For example, if there would be a 99.9% improbability, some may seize upon the 0.1 possibility and turn it into a fact.
But these people would be very stupid and ignorant, wouldn't they?
If there would be a 99.9% improbability, and someone seized upon the 0.1% to turn it into fact, yes I suppose they would. But again, science is completely neutral on the subject of a creator, so I don't see those stats as authentic if that's what you're implying.

You are trying introduce a completely contrived and irrelevant argument, "science being completely neutral on the subject of a creator".
Where on earth did you get that from?
Science doesn't explain life origin. Where life initially came from. There are various theories, but that's all they are. Scientifically speaking, it's a mystery. For instance, if we were to consider the Big Bang Theory (assuming you don't believe science has proven an eternal universe), science doesn't explain what happened prior to the BB that initially brought it about.

And to partial quote from Thomas Paine, a deist.

"The only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things."

He of course believed in a creator, but same principle. What exactly happened before we all appeared is not answered by science. From Stephen Hawking:

"One can't prove that God doesn't exist," professor Stephen Hawking told ABC News. "But science makes God unnecessary.


A lot of this is of course about wording, which can be used in tactful ways including giving false impressions of what one is saying. And no doubt some will misinterpret Hawking to suggest he's claiming God (creator) is unlikely.


Judging from your terminologies it is apparent you belong to a particular ideology. What would that be?
I do believe the Bible is the Word of God, if that's what you're wondering.

By the way, am I to assume that your statement

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

is just your opinion? Just speculation? You don't have any evidence you can throw my way?

Science does not (yet) have an answer as to how matter came to exist, however that doesn't mean you can make up an answer and assert it, which is exactly what religion does.
Life as we know it is a result of evolution by natural selection, this has been proven through irrefutable abundant evidence and completely debunks accounts of creation contained in the bible. The existence of a creator or God is therefore improbable and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion of such a superior being.

So once again, owing to the absence of any evidence whatsoever the assertion of the existence of God can be dismissed with no evidence. There is no such thing as God or any other spiritual being.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 3:18:52 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Is science evil from a Christian point of view?
No. Science (the scientific method) and faith function perfectly side by side.

What is anathema to faith, however, is the semi-autistic/Asperger stance known as scientism -- the belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method, particularly of natural science, as well as the outright precedence of empirical evidence to rational thought.

Scientism is, of course, also an assault on matters of philosophy, economics, and social sciences.
Willows
Posts: 2,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 3:34:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 3:18:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Is science evil from a Christian point of view?
No. Science (the scientific method) and faith function perfectly side by side.

What is anathema to faith, however, is the semi-autistic/Asperger stance known as scientism -- the belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method, particularly of natural science, as well as the outright precedence of empirical evidence to rational thought.

Scientism is, of course, also an assault on matters of philosophy, economics, and social sciences.

Absolute nonsense. Science has nothing to do with faith and any scientist worth his salt would be offended by the ridiculous assertion that faith and science function together.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:08:20 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 3:34:09 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:18:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Is science evil from a Christian point of view?
No. Science (the scientific method) and faith function perfectly side by side.

What is anathema to faith, however, is the semi-autistic/Asperger stance known as scientism -- the belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method, particularly of natural science, as well as the outright precedence of empirical evidence to rational thought.

Scientism is, of course, also an assault on matters of philosophy, economics, and social sciences.

Absolute nonsense. Science has nothing to do with faith and any scientist worth his salt would be offended by the ridiculous assertion that faith and science function together.
O....kay?
I gather that you are either:
1. illiterate, misreading "side by side" (milk and cookies) as "joined together" (cookies in the milk);
2. acting out whatever disorder in the autism-Asperger spectrum with which you're diagnosed; or
3. simply beyond reason, unable to understand what is implied by categories.

I'm hoping for option 1, as disorder and unreason would put you beyond help.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:13:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 3:06:59 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/22/2016 2:35:41 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:24:03 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/21/2016 6:40:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/20/2016 5:50:35 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 6:11:01 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.

1. When, how, and why was religion concocted?
There are many religions. May I presume that you do not like the use of the word "concocted"?

I was basing my question from this response.

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

I have no problem with the word concocted. I'm just wondering how you think religion in general began (God, god, gods, deities spirits, etc.)

2. How has science overturned the belief that life was created?
Overwhelming evidence has confirmed that life evolved through natural selection thus ruling out any assertion that life was created.

Science, natural selection, and evolution have nothing to do with a creator. Science as a whole is neutral on the subject.
3. How has it been confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable? Is there a particular percentage of chance involved?

You're references to 2 and 3 appear contradictory.
Only to someone who wants to view them as contradictory, especially to those, if given an inch will take a mile. For example, if there would be a 99.9% improbability, some may seize upon the 0.1 possibility and turn it into a fact.
But these people would be very stupid and ignorant, wouldn't they?
If there would be a 99.9% improbability, and someone seized upon the 0.1% to turn it into fact, yes I suppose they would. But again, science is completely neutral on the subject of a creator, so I don't see those stats as authentic if that's what you're implying.

You are trying introduce a completely contrived and irrelevant argument, "science being completely neutral on the subject of a creator".
Where on earth did you get that from?
Science doesn't explain life origin. Where life initially came from. There are various theories, but that's all they are. Scientifically speaking, it's a mystery. For instance, if we were to consider the Big Bang Theory (assuming you don't believe science has proven an eternal universe), science doesn't explain what happened prior to the BB that initially brought it about.

And to partial quote from Thomas Paine, a deist.

"The only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things."

He of course believed in a creator, but same principle. What exactly happened before we all appeared is not answered by science. From Stephen Hawking:

"One can't prove that God doesn't exist," professor Stephen Hawking told ABC News. "But science makes God unnecessary.


A lot of this is of course about wording, which can be used in tactful ways including giving false impressions of what one is saying. And no doubt some will misinterpret Hawking to suggest he's claiming God (creator) is unlikely.


Judging from your terminologies it is apparent you belong to a particular ideology. What would that be?
I do believe the Bible is the Word of God, if that's what you're wondering.

By the way, am I to assume that your statement

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

is just your opinion? Just speculation? You don't have any evidence you can throw my way?

Science does not (yet) have an answer as to how matter came to exist, however that doesn't mean you can make up an answer and assert it, which is exactly what religion does.
Life as we know it is a result of evolution by natural selection, this has been proven through irrefutable abundant evidence and completely debunks accounts of creation contained in the bible. The existence of a creator or God is therefore improbable and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion of such a superior being.

So once again, owing to the absence of any evidence whatsoever the assertion of the existence of God can be dismissed with no evidence. There is no such thing as God or any other spiritual being.
I don't know of any reputable scientist that makes the claim you're trying make. Making up religion has nothing to do with the existence of a creator. Give me proof that there is no creator.

And if there's no creator due to lack of evidence, then am I to assume you hold to the same view that there is no intelligent life on other planets?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:18:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:13:47 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:06:59 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/22/2016 2:35:41 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:24:03 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/21/2016 6:40:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/20/2016 5:50:35 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 6:11:01 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.

1. When, how, and why was religion concocted?
There are many religions. May I presume that you do not like the use of the word "concocted"?

I was basing my question from this response.

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

I have no problem with the word concocted. I'm just wondering how you think religion in general began (God, god, gods, deities spirits, etc.)

2. How has science overturned the belief that life was created?
Overwhelming evidence has confirmed that life evolved through natural selection thus ruling out any assertion that life was created.

Science, natural selection, and evolution have nothing to do with a creator. Science as a whole is neutral on the subject.
3. How has it been confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable? Is there a particular percentage of chance involved?

You're references to 2 and 3 appear contradictory.
Only to someone who wants to view them as contradictory, especially to those, if given an inch will take a mile. For example, if there would be a 99.9% improbability, some may seize upon the 0.1 possibility and turn it into a fact.
But these people would be very stupid and ignorant, wouldn't they?
If there would be a 99.9% improbability, and someone seized upon the 0.1% to turn it into fact, yes I suppose they would. But again, science is completely neutral on the subject of a creator, so I don't see those stats as authentic if that's what you're implying.

You are trying introduce a completely contrived and irrelevant argument, "science being completely neutral on the subject of a creator".
Where on earth did you get that from?
Science doesn't explain life origin. Where life initially came from. There are various theories, but that's all they are. Scientifically speaking, it's a mystery. For instance, if we were to consider the Big Bang Theory (assuming you don't believe science has proven an eternal universe), science doesn't explain what happened prior to the BB that initially brought it about.

And to partial quote from Thomas Paine, a deist.

"The only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things."

He of course believed in a creator, but same principle. What exactly happened before we all appeared is not answered by science. From Stephen Hawking:

"One can't prove that God doesn't exist," professor Stephen Hawking told ABC News. "But science makes God unnecessary.


A lot of this is of course about wording, which can be used in tactful ways including giving false impressions of what one is saying. And no doubt some will misinterpret Hawking to suggest he's claiming God (creator) is unlikely.


Judging from your terminologies it is apparent you belong to a particular ideology. What would that be?
I do believe the Bible is the Word of God, if that's what you're wondering.

By the way, am I to assume that your statement

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

is just your opinion? Just speculation? You don't have any evidence you can throw my way?

Science does not (yet) have an answer as to how matter came to exist, however that doesn't mean you can make up an answer and assert it, which is exactly what religion does.
Life as we know it is a result of evolution by natural selection, this has been proven through irrefutable abundant evidence and completely debunks accounts of creation contained in the bible. The existence of a creator or God is therefore improbable and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion of such a superior being.

So once again, owing to the absence of any evidence whatsoever the assertion of the existence of God can be dismissed with no evidence. There is no such thing as God or any other spiritual being.
I don't know of any reputable scientist that makes the claim you're trying make. Making up religion has nothing to do with the existence of a creator. Give me proof that there is no creator.

And if there's no creator due to lack of evidence, then am I to assume you hold to the same view that there is no intelligent life on other planets?

There is indeed plenty of evidence for life on other planets. Earth.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
graceofgod
Posts: 5,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:22:08 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Is science evil from a Christian point of view? I grew up in a world where science, knowledge, logic, creativity, reason, and intelligence seem to be the enemy. With the looming threat of global climate change bearing down on us more than ever, I'm starting to wonder.


Is it evil of me to learn more about climate change? This is science after-all. Science and religion are enemies. Evil science tells us the world is round and evolution, which contradicts many religious doctrines. I have an inner struggle and moral dilemma.


Do I put religion first and in that case climate change is caused by sin and God? Should I read through religious doctrines endlessly and promote the ways of the Lord by telling gays that homosexuality is an abomination, donating all my money to the church, missionary work, and so forth.


After-all, the family I was raised in told me to always put God first. Clearly, this is the way to put God first.

Or do I try to learn about climate change and spread evil science and knowledge to people around me?


Slogans were thrown around like

"the only honest work is with hard work with your hands"
"the more intelligent you be, the more fit to serve Satan you be"

On top of the religious references like Eve eating the apples, the snake being intelligent and so forth. In the end it comes down to:

piety vs science, knowledge, logic, creativity, and reason.

Particular reason seems evil from a religious perspective. Many religious promote insanity. Think of primitive tribes and initiation rites.

I have never felt science is evil, it is just man's best guess about how we happened upon this planet....
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:30:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:18:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:13:47 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:06:59 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/22/2016 2:35:41 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:24:03 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/21/2016 6:40:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/20/2016 5:50:35 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 6:11:01 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.

1. When, how, and why was religion concocted?
There are many religions. May I presume that you do not like the use of the word "concocted"?

I was basing my question from this response.

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

I have no problem with the word concocted. I'm just wondering how you think religion in general began (God, god, gods, deities spirits, etc.)

2. How has science overturned the belief that life was created?
Overwhelming evidence has confirmed that life evolved through natural selection thus ruling out any assertion that life was created.

Science, natural selection, and evolution have nothing to do with a creator. Science as a whole is neutral on the subject.
3. How has it been confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable? Is there a particular percentage of chance involved?

You're references to 2 and 3 appear contradictory.
Only to someone who wants to view them as contradictory, especially to those, if given an inch will take a mile. For example, if there would be a 99.9% improbability, some may seize upon the 0.1 possibility and turn it into a fact.
But these people would be very stupid and ignorant, wouldn't they?
If there would be a 99.9% improbability, and someone seized upon the 0.1% to turn it into fact, yes I suppose they would. But again, science is completely neutral on the subject of a creator, so I don't see those stats as authentic if that's what you're implying.

You are trying introduce a completely contrived and irrelevant argument, "science being completely neutral on the subject of a creator".
Where on earth did you get that from?
Science doesn't explain life origin. Where life initially came from. There are various theories, but that's all they are. Scientifically speaking, it's a mystery. For instance, if we were to consider the Big Bang Theory (assuming you don't believe science has proven an eternal universe), science doesn't explain what happened prior to the BB that initially brought it about.

And to partial quote from Thomas Paine, a deist.

"The only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things."

He of course believed in a creator, but same principle. What exactly happened before we all appeared is not answered by science. From Stephen Hawking:

"One can't prove that God doesn't exist," professor Stephen Hawking told ABC News. "But science makes God unnecessary.


A lot of this is of course about wording, which can be used in tactful ways including giving false impressions of what one is saying. And no doubt some will misinterpret Hawking to suggest he's claiming God (creator) is unlikely.


Judging from your terminologies it is apparent you belong to a particular ideology. What would that be?
I do believe the Bible is the Word of God, if that's what you're wondering.

By the way, am I to assume that your statement

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

is just your opinion? Just speculation? You don't have any evidence you can throw my way?

Science does not (yet) have an answer as to how matter came to exist, however that doesn't mean you can make up an answer and assert it, which is exactly what religion does.
Life as we know it is a result of evolution by natural selection, this has been proven through irrefutable abundant evidence and completely debunks accounts of creation contained in the bible. The existence of a creator or God is therefore improbable and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion of such a superior being.

So once again, owing to the absence of any evidence whatsoever the assertion of the existence of God can be dismissed with no evidence. There is no such thing as God or any other spiritual being.
I don't know of any reputable scientist that makes the claim you're trying make. Making up religion has nothing to do with the existence of a creator. Give me proof that there is no creator.

And if there's no creator due to lack of evidence, then am I to assume you hold to the same view that there is no intelligent life on other planets?

There is indeed plenty of evidence for life on other planets. Earth.
That's like me telling you there's evidence of creation. Earth.

You'll have to do a lot better than that. All you're doing is making an assumption that if life exists on earth, it must exist elsewhere.....even though there's no evidence.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:34:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:30:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:18:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:13:47 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:06:59 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/22/2016 2:35:41 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:24:03 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/21/2016 6:40:28 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/20/2016 5:50:35 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 6:11:01 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:44:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

Science is merely a description of behaviour, not a belief. As sure as 2 plus 2 equals 4, science is definitive, black and white. It is therefore our reference point for measuring, verifying and confirming facts. There is no better nor more accurate standard.

It is not surprising that those who want to hold onto or espouse religious beliefs find science to be threatening. Through proper and thorough scientific research we now have confirmed facts that have completely overturned the belief that life was created.

As a direct result it has very well confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable. By ignoring the science or making futile attempts at dismissing it, theists are only denying themselves the reality that what they have been told or assumed is utter nonsense.

1. When, how, and why was religion concocted?
There are many religions. May I presume that you do not like the use of the word "concocted"?

I was basing my question from this response.

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

I have no problem with the word concocted. I'm just wondering how you think religion in general began (God, god, gods, deities spirits, etc.)

2. How has science overturned the belief that life was created?
Overwhelming evidence has confirmed that life evolved through natural selection thus ruling out any assertion that life was created.

Science, natural selection, and evolution have nothing to do with a creator. Science as a whole is neutral on the subject.
3. How has it been confirmed that the existence of a creator is improbable? Is there a particular percentage of chance involved?

You're references to 2 and 3 appear contradictory.
Only to someone who wants to view them as contradictory, especially to those, if given an inch will take a mile. For example, if there would be a 99.9% improbability, some may seize upon the 0.1 possibility and turn it into a fact.
But these people would be very stupid and ignorant, wouldn't they?
If there would be a 99.9% improbability, and someone seized upon the 0.1% to turn it into fact, yes I suppose they would. But again, science is completely neutral on the subject of a creator, so I don't see those stats as authentic if that's what you're implying.

You are trying introduce a completely contrived and irrelevant argument, "science being completely neutral on the subject of a creator".
Where on earth did you get that from?
Science doesn't explain life origin. Where life initially came from. There are various theories, but that's all they are. Scientifically speaking, it's a mystery. For instance, if we were to consider the Big Bang Theory (assuming you don't believe science has proven an eternal universe), science doesn't explain what happened prior to the BB that initially brought it about.

And to partial quote from Thomas Paine, a deist.

"The only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things."

He of course believed in a creator, but same principle. What exactly happened before we all appeared is not answered by science. From Stephen Hawking:

"One can't prove that God doesn't exist," professor Stephen Hawking told ABC News. "But science makes God unnecessary.


A lot of this is of course about wording, which can be used in tactful ways including giving false impressions of what one is saying. And no doubt some will misinterpret Hawking to suggest he's claiming God (creator) is unlikely.


Judging from your terminologies it is apparent you belong to a particular ideology. What would that be?
I do believe the Bible is the Word of God, if that's what you're wondering.

By the way, am I to assume that your statement

It is a human trait to fear or doubt things that we don't understand, how do you think we concocted religion in the first place?

is just your opinion? Just speculation? You don't have any evidence you can throw my way?

Science does not (yet) have an answer as to how matter came to exist, however that doesn't mean you can make up an answer and assert it, which is exactly what religion does.
Life as we know it is a result of evolution by natural selection, this has been proven through irrefutable abundant evidence and completely debunks accounts of creation contained in the bible. The existence of a creator or God is therefore improbable and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion of such a superior being.

So once again, owing to the absence of any evidence whatsoever the assertion of the existence of God can be dismissed with no evidence. There is no such thing as God or any other spiritual being.
I don't know of any reputable scientist that makes the claim you're trying make. Making up religion has nothing to do with the existence of a creator. Give me proof that there is no creator.

And if there's no creator due to lack of evidence, then am I to assume you hold to the same view that there is no intelligent life on other planets?

There is indeed plenty of evidence for life on other planets. Earth.
That's like me telling you there's evidence of creation. Earth.

No it isn't, whether creation or abiogenesis, evidence of "LIFE" on Earth is evidence of life on other planets.

You'll have to do a lot better than that. All you're doing is making an assumption that if life exists on earth, it must exist elsewhere....

Wrong again, there is no claim that life MUST exist on other planets, only that life can exist on other planets.

.even though there's no evidence.

Life on Earth IS evidence of life on other planets.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:43:55 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:34:17 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:30:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


And if there's no creator due to lack of evidence, then am I to assume you hold to the same view that there is no intelligent life on other planets?

There is indeed plenty of evidence for life on other planets. Earth.
That's like me telling you there's evidence of creation. Earth.

No it isn't, whether creation or abiogenesis, evidence of "LIFE" on Earth is evidence of life on other planets.

And if there's creation, then it stands for put pretty good reason that there's evidence of creationism.
You'll have to do a lot better than that. All you're doing is making an assumption that if life exists on earth, it must exist elsewhere....

Wrong again, there is no claim that life MUST exist on other planets, only that life can exist on other planets.

That's my point. If life CAN exist on other planets because life exists on earth, then there could also be CAN be a creator. You've even confessed that in your prior statement.
.even though there's no evidence.

Life on Earth IS evidence of life on other planets.
And life, and all that we see, is evidence of a creator.
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:50:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:08:20 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:34:09 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:18:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/19/2016 8:12:37 AM, Stupidape wrote:
Is science evil from a Christian point of view?
No. Science (the scientific method) and faith function perfectly side by side.

What is anathema to faith, however, is the semi-autistic/Asperger stance known as scientism -- the belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method, particularly of natural science, as well as the outright precedence of empirical evidence to rational thought.

Scientism is, of course, also an assault on matters of philosophy, economics, and social sciences.

Absolute nonsense. Science has nothing to do with faith and any scientist worth his salt would be offended by the ridiculous assertion that faith and science function together.
O....kay?
I gather that you are either:
1. illiterate, misreading "side by side" (milk and cookies) as "joined together" (cookies in the milk);
2. acting out whatever disorder in the autism-Asperger spectrum with which you're diagnosed; or
3. simply beyond reason, unable to understand what is implied by categories.

I'm hoping for option 1, as disorder and unreason would put you beyond help.
Someone who claims scientism is claiming someone else needs help.
Go you good thing. bwuahahahahahahahaha
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:52:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:13:47 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Give me proof that there is no creator.
Are you claiming that a "creator" exists?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:57:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:50:02 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:08:20 PM, NHN wrote:
O....kay?
I gather that you are either:
1. illiterate, misreading "side by side" (milk and cookies) as "joined together" (cookies in the milk);
2. acting out whatever disorder in the autism-Asperger spectrum with which you're diagnosed; or
3. simply beyond reason, unable to understand what is implied by categories.

I'm hoping for option 1, as disorder and unreason would put you beyond help.
Someone who claims scientism is claiming someone else needs help.
Go you good thing. bwuahahahahahahahaha
Hip, hip hooray!
The dunces are confederating, writing incomprehensible sentences.

But you're hardly the savant type. Paranoid schizophrenia? (That confederacy must maintain a big-tent policy.)
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 5:00:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:57:13 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:50:02 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:08:20 PM, NHN wrote:
O....kay?
I gather that you are either:
1. illiterate, misreading "side by side" (milk and cookies) as "joined together" (cookies in the milk);
2. acting out whatever disorder in the autism-Asperger spectrum with which you're diagnosed; or
3. simply beyond reason, unable to understand what is implied by categories.

I'm hoping for option 1, as disorder and unreason would put you beyond help.
Someone who claims scientism is claiming someone else needs help.
Go you good thing. bwuahahahahahahahaha
Hip, hip hooray!
The dunces are confederating, writing incomprehensible sentences.

But you're hardly the savant type. Paranoid schizophrenia? (That confederacy must maintain a big-tent policy.)
My bad, I didn't realise you couldn't comprehend English.
Would you like me to translate it into stupidese for you?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 5:05:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:43:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:34:17 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:30:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:



And if there's no creator due to lack of evidence, then am I to assume you hold to the same view that there is no intelligent life on other planets?

There is indeed plenty of evidence for life on other planets. Earth.
That's like me telling you there's evidence of creation. Earth.

No it isn't, whether creation or abiogenesis, evidence of "LIFE" on Earth is evidence of life on other planets.

And if there's creation, then it stands for put pretty good reason that there's evidence of creationism.

So what? That is entirely another topic altogether, which does not detract from the fact that life on Earth is evidence for life on other planets.

You'll have to do a lot better than that. All you're doing is making an assumption that if life exists on earth, it must exist elsewhere....

Wrong again, there is no claim that life MUST exist on other planets, only that life can exist on other planets.

That's my point. If life CAN exist on other planets because life exists on earth, then there could also be CAN be a creator. You've even confessed that in your prior statement.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence for a Creator on Earth. None.

.even though there's no evidence.

Life on Earth IS evidence of life on other planets.
And life, and all that we see, is evidence of a creator.

No, it isn't, that is fallacy.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 5:24:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 5:05:48 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:43:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:34:17 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:30:11 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:



And if there's no creator due to lack of evidence, then am I to assume you hold to the same view that there is no intelligent life on other planets?

There is indeed plenty of evidence for life on other planets. Earth.
That's like me telling you there's evidence of creation. Earth.

No it isn't, whether creation or abiogenesis, evidence of "LIFE" on Earth is evidence of life on other planets.

And if there's creation, then it stands for put pretty good reason that there's evidence of creationism.

So what? That is entirely another topic altogether, which does not detract from the fact that life on Earth is evidence for life on other planets.

No it's not another topic because the discussion you've just jumped into involves another person that says a creator does not exist due to lack of evidence. Which would be like me claiming that life on other planets do not exist due to lack of evidence.
You'll have to do a lot better than that. All you're doing is making an assumption that if life exists on earth, it must exist elsewhere....

Wrong again, there is no claim that life MUST exist on other planets, only that life can exist on other planets.

That's my point. If life CAN exist on other planets because life exists on earth, then there could also be CAN be a creator. You've even confessed that in your prior statement.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence for a Creator on Earth. None.


Like you said, it's evidence CAN exist on other planets. You have no evidence of life actually existing on other planets. None.

Do you think a creator cannot exist?

.even though there's no evidence.

Life on Earth IS evidence of life on other planets.
And life, and all that we see, is evidence of a creator.

No, it isn't, that is fallacy.
Why?
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 5:33:03 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 5:00:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
Would you like me to translate it into stupidese for you?
If stupidese is what gets you through the day, and the Confederacy is there to help out, then I'm not complaining. Life is harsh as it is for the intellectually challenged.

One day, however, through hard work and dumb luck, you may actually learn to distinguish between "side by side" (milk and cookies) and "joined together" (cookies in the milk). But don't get your hopes up on the distinction between scientific method and scientism.