God created science, so how can the creation be greater than the Creator? God created all of us, again I ask the same question: how can the creation be greater than the Creator?
Man created god, so how can the creation be greater than the creator? Evolution has created all of us. The evidence comes from every branch of science. Where is your evidence of a "Creator".
You don't even have any evidence for god! It's preposterous, actually, given how many versions of god have been proposed -- a fact that speaks loudly against his very existence.
Making such a blind claim is just ludicrous without evidence. I could claim a 1000 MPG car that runs on water but you would rightfully require very specific evidence. How much more should we expect evidence for claims of a super being that created the universe.
Religion got its use centuries ago. Now that it has become and obsolete science, modern science can take over. Sad to see so many ignorant people worldwide believing in a bearded guy looking us from above and judging us.
christianity didnt come from the catholic church IDIOT it came from the orthodox church !!! the oldest faith and the first !!! if you cant get the first 5 seconds of your video right !!! what else is flawed in your statements !!!
Well, there are about a billion catholics that will disagree with you. And several thousand biblical scholars. An interesting aspect of religion, though, is that it does not rest on evidence so people can, pretty much, make whatever claims they'd like.
People generalize the words "science" and "religion" to mix their definitions to what suits them. The meanings of these 2 words are purely personal and subjective. Mixing definitions is where differences and argument happen. These words only have emotions attached to them. The purpose is only to evoke emotions not for rational debate
No, everything is not just emotional. The word science has a very definite meaning of doing things in a methodical, logical way using empirical evidence. Religion includes (most significantly) the belief in supernatural elements. Few people would confuse these meanings. And they are, in fact, quite incompatible.
heres all the proof i need to no there isnt an afterlife... we r in bodys right now.. meaning conciousness needs physical matter to keep it concious.. if we didnt why r we in bodys..
well Christiantiy got really powerful because of the Romans, if the Greeks were the one to coquer Rome than mostly everyone will believe in Zues and Posiden. And we all know that will be true
As Christian as I am. Science is deffinatley more plausible. Its true as fuck that if we never questioned religion that none of the modern day technology Wouldve been invented. But on the flip side, god did warn that such disobedience and things to distract you from him would end society and eternally damn all of civilization. And all the technology which lead to global warming, and many other things wrong with today's society, are showing that gods words were true in that we are basically en
@celebrationofreason but then again, where is the evidence that the univers was not created a few years ago and all of this shit is not just a simulation?
We look for evidence for things that we have reason to suspect are true. We don't have evidence against Russel's teapot, either. There are a billion things that could be true, including that we are a simulation, but we have no reason to think it's true. We have great evidence that the earth is 4.7 billion years old and the we evolved through common ancestors.
You are asking for evidence to prove a negative. That's not how critical thinking works. You need evidence to support your position. The burden of proof is on you not me.
@zod1111 the engilish renditioned bible isnt the word of god... a religion that says when somthing is disproving our religion was said by god to be a trick to hide the truth. is common sence for anybody wants to keep their followers dilusional..
@zod1111 your absolutely right! this world does suck, i mean i wish i could go back to the days when we didnt have all the technology that god so desperately does not want us to have. all the medical advancements and everything that helps us live a good life really does suck. im glad to see that your not a hypocrite using any technology like the internet or youtube....
Morals evolved, they didnt come from religon. Morals are just values by how we live, its easy to see if a society kills each other they wont survive so values, morals whatever you call them, rules.....evolved to benefit the society. Religon says god made these rules so follow my religon. Religon is old and past its use by date.
as much as i agree with this knowledgable video, religion did serve some importance. don't get me wrong i am an atheist but the morals and standards we go by come from religion.
as much as i agree with this knowledgable video, religion did serve some importance. don't get me wrong i am an atheist but the morals and standards we go by come from religion.
in my opinion, you cannot compare something that was written from teachings they claim years before BC.
Science explores ideas, research, logic and measurements with physics and mathmatics to stand out what really happend and how things work through hypothesis (experiments).
they also work how the dynamics and how life works: therefore, creating theory (big bang etc).
whereabouts as religion stands in, its more based on faith and intuition from passed teachings.
I really don't like how people often present things in a black or white manner, when in reality, there are many other options. Just because you are a theist does not automatically mean that you believe the the earth is 7,000 years old. It just means that you believe an all powerful being had a hand in however you believe a person believes.
Science is tangible, it produces results and it corrects itself if it's wrong. The reason we know it works is because we have electricity, internet, television and transportation beyond anything religion could ever provide. Religion doesn't heat your house, science does
I studied the bible, and many churches have gotten there religion all wrong. The bible doesn't teach what they promote. It's sad they represent the name of my religion. My church teaches what the bible teaches, and seems to be in harmony wit what science brings forth. While other churches stand as mythology or simple faith they JUST gotta believe to matter what :/
It's so utterly untrue that religion is required for morality. All the higher animals have varying amounts of morality, in some cases, better than humans. Most mammals won't kill each other over resources. THAT doesn't happen until you get to the great apes. Chimps and a few other species WILL fight over territory and resources. They're also have altruistic attributes, too.
I don't see the bible and science as incompatible. Its like comparing apples and oranges. There is only conflict if you believe the bible is to be viewed as a literal translation of historical record and read as scientific fact. Just like science is not a religion. People have faith their TV will come on when they hit the remote button. But knowledge and science do not have inherent morality and do not answer the personal questions of living one's life.
I would have agreed with you in years past but there are others with a different view such as Sam Harris. His new book The Moral Landscape address just that. Here is a link to his Ted Talk recently about this subject: goto Ted "dot" com and search for "Sam Harris Moral" and Q & A about science and morality: google "The Moral Landscape: Q & A with Sam Harris.
@celebrationofreason My meaning was really in terms of science as a process or practice as oppossed to religion. Not the morality found in nature. In that science and our understanding of world changes based on observation and discovery, morality is a non issue in that process. (except of course by laws imposed on scientists by society)
@celebrationofreason That depends if he goes across why such biblical events could've been real through science. With these to consider within your way, it's still unusual to conclude whether or not this is true despite how the "obvious" odds goes to show. Tough I'm not taking obvious for an answer :-), still doin' keeping up with my research on BOTH terms fairly
Actually religion makes claims of interference with reality and many others. NONE of which have any evidence. In fact, when put to any reasonable test, religion has always come up with nothing.
Morality *IS* inherent in biological creatures and science continues to show why. Consider the Piranha. Even in a feeding frenzy they don't kill other Piranha's. WAY more morality is evidence in the apes.
No it's NOT - It's rather like comparing apple trees and chocolate chip cookie trees(or whatever your desire); in which the latter don't exist. You probably wish it existed, and in doing so you might do the mistake of exchanging that desire for belief. Voila! - you have now become religious.
At the end though, if there was sufficiently demand for chocolate chip cookie trees(although a stupid wish), science would comply and supply it. ;-)
@GenuineViking People are whacky, trust me while most of us just wish there were chocolate chip cookie trees, my bet there are people out there who actually believe they exist. And there is government conspiracy to keep them from the general public.
Well... I am 100% sure that at one point in time Population Growth will stop. - if not controlled, then the earth will smoothly shake us off. This is inevitable, due to the fact that infinite entity increasing - in a very(!) finite area. When, or how this will happen I don't know - and actually I don't care. The important thin is that when it DOES happen, every person will only take responsibility for himself. Yes, every kid or loved one you might share a responsibility with too.
You know, you're right. And anyway.... I think the overpopulation argument on my behalf was almost completely, but not exactly dead on center, - the Anti-overstaed myself. hehe. Just wanted to comment something, because I haven't said so much lately, other than the usual noise. ;-) People should really concentrate on the climate change first, to later take on the secondary task But if you get any data on that as well, please advice me before a decade pass will you? Thanx!
@sabin97 My sources say the government is hoarding them. Using them as trade with Aliens. They want our cookie trees and they give us the technology for Ipads, phones, and the synthetic pop star knows as "Justin Bieber".
If not as a historical record of events, or as a book of scientific knowledge (I agree that both of these it isn't!), how would you advise us to see it if not as a book of primitive mythology?
I hope you wouldn't say anything in the sense of it being a moral guidance, because it is an incredibly bad moral guide!
What's the entire point of "I don't see the bible and science as incompatible"??
Oh, and you need to clarify for yourself what "faith" is.
can someone tell me what i am? Im not an atheist. i have great respect for atheists however, for they have made the great majority of all mankinds progress. i am what i think is an agnostic. i believe in nothing other than the presence of something along the lines of a spiritual being. nothing specific. i also believe everything science has revealed to me. soimeone please tell me what i would be called!!! thank you!
As far as religion or faith in God vs. science is concerned, there will always be the "believers" and the "non-believers", there is so much that we still don't know about this earth that science has yet to uncover, but science and religion is like comparing apples to oranges. Medicen and technology wouldn't have come as far as it has without science, and many people's living lives filled with meaning, and a sense of purpose, guidance, or direction wouldn't have that without religion.
@celebrationofreason you failed to mention that copernicus, kepler and galileo were 'religious' men themselves, and that it was because of their accomplishments that the course of history was dramatically changed, and europe moved out of the dark ages and into the age of enlightenment, then into the industrial revolution? it was these bold and critical thinkers which helped bring about a revolution in society's thinking. religious men did that. you don't want to give them any credit, huh?
Wow, a really well done video... It makes a lot of good points, and it is simple enough that even a creationist can understand it... Now the trick is getting them to watch it... lol !!!
Science is religion? This tired old rusty nail is a ridiculous assertion by religious people who are ashamed of their nonsensical belief.
Science doesn't require any supernatural friends and doesn't worship anyone. It observes, hypothesizes, tests, develops theories and builds real, verifiable knowledge of the world around us.
Theories change as evidence necessitates the need to change, and so become more accurate, either by limiting in scope, or becoming more accurate.
We have found out so much about ourselves, the world and indeed the universe. such a vast amount of knowledge gained over hundreds of years, and yet no sign of any god existing in reality, only in the minds of people who are incapapable of seeing the truth - because they have been brainwashed at birth by the religion that prevents them from seeing the truth.
Too bad more of the religious folks don't see it. But thankfully there's quite a bit on youtube and elsewhere for anyone who seriously is looking for truth. It's just hard to feret out among all the ridiculous nonsense.
Science deals with certainties. It's been wrong before but admits the mistakes and moves on, getting more accurate as time and new data go by. We build on what we've learned which is why science accomplishes so much.
Whereas religion is stuck in its ancient text, science learns from its errors and moves on. Planes get faster, safer. Electronics get smaller and better, cars get lighter, medicine gets better, etc. etc.
Science has been an incredible success story for ferreting out useful truth!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Science is a man-made religion of faith in today's knowledge.
No mater how you slice and dice it, theory and evidence alone is never proven fact. Science even admits this. Hard science has even proven prior hard science wrong in many cases.
Science can Not be always fact without challenges via new knowledge, that would not be scientific otherwise!
Science is not religion at all. It's "faith" comes from evidence. Experiments must work and be repeatable.
Science is based on logic and measuring our surroundings. It is quite the opposite of religion's type of faith. Science fact deals in certainties, for sure, but is a useful means of knowledge that results in essentially every advancement humankind has made.
Religion does nothing for knowledge--no predicting, no designing.
@celebrationofreason Haha i like the way you end with "it seems". I have to disagree with it being a wasted endeaver, it may not offer as much materialistic insight as science, but spiritually it is very useful. I mean discussing and understanding what it means to be good, vices and virtues ect. Im sure many misuse it but it is very important in teaching and understanding values that science does not teach
Spirituality, if it's meant as feelings and emotions, is fine. But when people are told that there are spirits and supernatural forces, they are being lied to. We have no evidence for them so to couch in anything more than speculation is dishonest at best.
OK, that's fine, but most people use the term spirituality to mean some kind of supernatural entity. These are nonsense. If they exist, they leave no sound evidence.
That isn't true at all. Science is not a matter of faith but of proofs obtained through carefully designed experimentation, observation, and rigorous peer review. Science doesn't pretend to be right all the time...unlike religion which perpetually claims to be infallible and isn't. The difference is...Science works, while religion=fail.
@formless777 Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. Just like religion, it takes faith to believe in those missing links. So that in its self is why atheism is a religion. What you call "missing links"is your faith. I trust in God...
You are clearly not in possession of all the facts. Biologists have observed evolution in progress amongst fruit flies (they have short lives). The fossil record carries another body of evidence that is indisputable. Finally DNA carries the unmistakable evidence of evolution taking place. This takes no faith to accept, merely a close reading of the evidence and how it has helped our understanding of the natural world so immensely. There are no missing links btw.
@formless777 Evolution is nothing more than a popular idea of how life got to where it is now. Why ever did people believe that we came from monkeys? They have slightly similar skeletons, but completely different. Evolution is mathematically impossible no matter how long or short a life span is.There is "evolution" (adaption) between species,but never between kinds. I guess it all boils down to what you call a fact and how willing you are to test what you believe against what can be observed.
No, religion is nothing more than a popular idea of how life got where it is. Humans evolved from a species of ape, not a species of monkey. Evolution is far from mathematically impossible, as I have said before and I repeat, Evolution has been observed at work in labs. Fruitflies due to their short lifespans evolve for trait dependent on their environment and have been observed doing so. We have enormous bodies of transitional fossils, including fossil germs !
@formless777 Until Evolutionists find the evidence they've sought since the beginning of the modern Evolutionary movement about 150 years ago, there is actually no debate at all.Some scientists say yes, some scientists say no. If they all can not agree, niether can I. Go ahead and collect the evidence, and then we can start a debate. Right after you prove me incorrect, you can go ahead and pick up your Nobel Price Award. Like I said before and I repeat, evolution is mathematically impossible...
The term used is not "evolutionists" it's "biologists". There are a few fundamentalist baboons hooting at the periphery of the discipline but Evolution has proven too valuable to far too many disciplines (Paleontology, Genetics, Medicine etc) as an explanation to be ignored. The RC Church accept evolution. As to the Nobel Prizes for confirming Evolution, too late, they're already handed out last century. P.S. you must be really bad at maths.
@formless777 Mathematics? Stretch out a timeline with 1,000,000 divisions representing years. Evolutionists tell us that humans have evolved very little over this timeline because evolution progresses very slowly. Based on the Theory of Evolution we should easily find massive signs of civilization going back a few hundreds of thousands of years, but the signs of civilization are not there. Humans have existed for the last six divisions. The previous 994,000 divisions are completely empty...
The Bible records the beginning of mankind at about 4,000 B.C., and secular history is eerily silent before 4,000 B.C. for those who claim to believe in evolution. If I were an evolutionist, I would be extremely disturbed by this FACT. How can evolutionists be so naive and foolish as to totally ignore this incredibly obvious fact? Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. There just hasn't been enough time. Evolution at best is a theory.
@dubmywub Carbon dating can not date none organic substances my friend. Therefore it is useless to date the rock strata that the dinosaurs are found in. A dinasour's age is often determined by a presupposition or belief system based on a world view that leaves God and the biblical account of creation out of the equation.Therefore the theory of evolution and the ages it assigns extinct animals is often based not on scientific evidence but rather on a personal belief system.
Radiometric dating is used, you take a reading with a mass spectrometer and that determines how many daughter particles there are left in the sample you have. the ratio of the parent to daughters gives a pretty good example of how old things are.
Also its been proven, you get two different looking animals and when you take their DNA is exactly the same. evolution proved.
@dubmywub No matter what method of dating we use, the only scientific statement we can make about these creatures is that they are animals that gone extinct. When this extinction took place depends on one’s perspective.The age and role of dinosaurs is based then on which presupposition you approach them from. If you believe in evolution, they are millions of years old but if you believe in biblical creation, then they are animals who have gone extinct sometime in the last 6000 years...
@ismaelillo3 well no, this process dates everything within 50 years. so if you have an object that is known to have been 1000years old. this type of dating will show is that it is from 950-1050 it died. Nothing to do with perspective, its logical and has been proved to work. There is no way that bones in 6000 years could have fossilised like this.
@dubmywub It has everything to do with perspective. For a long time science used circular reasoning to date these fossils. They determined that the rocks that they were found in were 400+million years old therefore the dinosaurs were 400+ million years old because of the rock layers they were found in.What killed and rapidly buried the dinosaurs and other living animals was a global flood. In fact a global flood is the only explanation that can explain the rapid burial of so many creatures...
Lol, for a given value of "very little". The biologists mean that in a genetic sense. 1,000,000 years ago there was one species of the genus homo, being Homo Heidelbergensis, which subsequently evolved and split into Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The differences would be pronounced to a layman, but to a geneticist they are miniscule amounts of DNA different. As to technical civilization, humans don't have that knowledge genetically coded, we must learn it.
@formless777 Heidelbergens and Neanderthals are often portrayed as very primitive and apish looking. As any forensic practitioner knows, it is IMPOSSIBLE,from a skeleton,to identify; extent of hair covering, hair color, nose shape, lip shape, skin color and race. Often is not even possible to properly identify the sex of the individual.Consider that most anthropologists only have fragments of bones to work with. It is very easy to see that their presuppositions can influence their findings...
Not altogether true. In some cases remains like hair have been preserved, but the conditions must be very unusual, it is more usual to find trace residue of hair. Bone structure for the heads reveal faces that would seem extremely abnormal and primitive even at a church. Also, anthropologists DON'T look at these remains, it is archaeologists and palaontologists who do that, only occasionally referring to anthropologists. Bone form does reveal facial features btw.
@formless777 To me Heidelbergens and Neanderthals were just as human as us and a product of their environment,not a product of evolution. I can find many holes in the theory of evolution with the naked eye,throw in all the frauds that have occurred in the last century.Like in 99 when Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.I was never a fish that crawled out of water, idk about you.
You may not have been a fish that crawled out of the water, but the fact you can even say that and expect me or anybody else to take you seriously merely indicates how feebly ignorant you are. That is not what the Theory of Evolution says. I think you better go and read about it and get back to me when you actually know dick about the subject as opposed to fuck nothing.
@formless777 While Nemo could net millions in tourist dollars for Sydney yearly and where you live you love Resident Evil movies. I live in a place where our dollar bills say "In God we trust" and were we have universities where we can study and research for our selves. Instead of getting fed lies via Brainwashing. Maybe Nemo cant crawl out of water today "but maybe a billion years after the big bang".Perhaps its you that know fuck nothing ".Go collect the evidence "aussie". Take care crocky...
So when you have no real argument, you turn to ad hominem. Well, given that you are called Ishmael, is it any wonder that every man's had turns against you ? You are, after all, merely a troll. In God We Trust ? The USA has always served Mammon. I have the evidence, all you have is crappy old scriptures written in a language you can't read, by bronze age savage Jews you would detest the smell of if you could walk amongst them.
Wow, Top Comment for a creationist believing the dinosaurs and mankind were killed by a global flood 4000 years ago. Only Noah's family, three sons and their wives, surviving. The amount of inbreeding it must have taken them to repopulate the earth, one can only imagine.
Yes, I guess that does indeed deserve a big thumbs up. Thank you Noah!!!
@formless777 Actually I dont consider my self a catholic nor do I attend a Church. I read THE HOLY BIBLE King James Version, without the need of a translator. I do not trust in any man to read the bible for me. That being said evolutionists buried most of Darwin's theory over 20 years ago, they still cling to a few parts like "time". Lots of time.Modern evolutionists still have faith that given long enough periods of time, frogs would evolve into handsome princes. They just can't explain how....
@WILLTHEWGMAN Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
But there's no evidence that we weren't put here by scientology's aliens, either. Yet I doubt you believe that?
The onus is you to prove your magical being and his great powers and the history, especially since existing evidence provides such a slam dunk case for evolution to all but the most fundy of fundies.
It's been right enough to come up with modern medicine, GPS, cell phones, computers, YouTUBE, etc. All the modern advancement have come through the application of science, NOT religion.
I like to ask: "if a meteor is found to be heading for earth, threatening to end it in a fiery collision three years from now. Are you going to pray, get ready for the end as expressed in revelations, or pay your extra tax to fund the international effort to deflect it?"
And which one do you think will REALLY stand a good chance of woking?
Yes, that's a huge problem with the idiocy that is religion. How could a supposedly almighty power just sit idly by while his followers suffer EXACTLY the same amount as his detractors. It just makes no sense.
Why be so coy? Why not make your presence more easily known? Why allow so MANY religions to sprout? It just doesn't make sense.
Eventually we conclude that it's all myth, some myths just have better marketing.
When I was a christian I gave money to the church. Now I'm far happier to support those who promote evidence-based knowledge and preservation of our constitution's establishment clause. NCSE, FFRF, CFI and others now get my dollars and it's oh soooo much more satisfying!
@Nederdien You're absolutely right. Except for scientific laws which are considered to be irrefutable. And radiocarbon dating shows that it's impossible for the earth to have been created 200 or even 200 million years ago. So however I agree with you point on scientific contradiction I disagree about the rest of your comment.
Asking "Why" regarding the universe or big bang or whatever, except for natural causes, is like asking what color is the number 5. It's an irrelevant question.
Use the reply button Jeffy or your post floats in air. Again you dismiss my question out of hand - not asking "why was the universe made and what am I doing here" is like avoiding the nose on your face and with certain premises provides a reasonable framework for moral behavior.
Again, asking "why" to our existence, beyond its physical reality, is like asking what color is the number 5. It just is. Kind of like asking why a star goes super nova.
Evolution provides an exquisite framework framework for morality. Much of which can be explained by "do (or don't do) to others what you want them to do (or not do) to you". And that, if you cooperate, your species will do better. In general, humanity has done a remarkable job of cooperating.
That works fine until you are a concentration camp warden. Then self preservation and preservation of your close relatives requires that you scream "march!" into the ovens. Without a frame of reference, following orders is the fall back.
It's not a matter of what "works," it's a matter of what is. Our morality has evolved like the rest of us. Extreme cases that twist our morality will always be there. In fact religion has been among the most powerful twisters of our basic morality since its inception, grantiting its followers justification for all manner of horrific acts in the name of their god(s).
Let's look at Neanderthals. Neanderthals were a different species of human that appeared roughly 130K years ago and went extinct 50K years ago. They lived a horrible, torturous existence, fighting daily to stay alive and then they went extinct. Why? Why did they exist? Same reason as the Dodo and Carrier Pigeon - species simply emerge and die out. No agency, no gods, no 'why'. If there was design, either Neanderthals would never have existed or would not have gone extinct.
Oh Christ almighty 'WHY" another false dichotomy? Can't you use one wiggle word when you are ladling out these absolutes? In any case, Neanderthal burial rituals suggest that they considered more deeply than you the meaning of their existence. Perhaps. (Note use of wiggle word).
Dude STOP using the term "False Dichotomy" unless you can actually identify a "False Dichotomy".
Neanderthals lived for 80K-100K years and then died out. The world would be no different had they never existed. No purpose. No 'why'. Now I'm going to guess that you'll just pull some BS 'Neanderthal purpose' out of the air that neither matches Christianity or science - just something made up wholecloth to prove your point. Or just say "False Dichotomy" again.. that's better than debate.
You writing my responses now? Perhaps Neanderthals existed to inspire you to consider that if even they would search for a meaning of their existence, you should as well. There's a reasonable purpose that matches neither Xianity/science and negates false choice #99 that you fell into (in this case, that the world would be no different if they (1) had OR (2) had not existed, for you keeping score)
I guess I did because that was a seriously silly explanation.
"neither Xianity/science"
NOT a false dichotomy . Those are the only answers relevant to a Christian - or you could just make **** up like you did - so it was 3 options and you chose #3.
"(1) had OR (2) had not existed"
Really? This is a False Dichotomy? What are the other options.. Partially existed? Existed but not really? Not every 'dichotomy' is a 'false dichotomy'.
the other option is that the world has become different in a manner that you are not aware of. Sufficient study of the Neanderthal culture can yet bring it to light. So just back off on your sweeping assertions and you should be fine.
"the other option is that the world has become different..."
Not a False Dichotomy since that wasn't another option in a dichotomy. I just don't understand how anyone can say that a species that died out in a failed competition with a superior species has a reason for existence. NO, they had a reason NOT to exist and that's why they no longer exist. If they were meant to exist - they'd exist.
There is no evidence of any kind of purpose in the universe and plenty of evidence against it.
Input/output error, expected rational reply from irrational being. Would you like to close templarart?
yes no cancel
:P Stick to "This is the evidence, this is what it shows and where's your evidence to the contrary? Oh wait, please wipe thoroughly after you've finished speaking that crap... Bye." That's the best response - teach a chicken to play the guitar if you want to but you'll have your work cut out.
The whole video is sideways. It's not science vs. religion, it's honest search vs. dogmaticism, corruption and whatever else stops the searcher.
If the search is in the empirical realm, this is science. If not - this is a metaphysical search. Both are legitimate.
Scientists too have a long story of dogmatic nonsense. The discovery of planet Neptuine was blocked by older scientists. Alchemical books were burned. Nineveh was supposed to be just a Byblical myth.
That's just a few things that I know, teachers of science hide most of them out of embarasement. Unlike the all-popularized things done by religious dogmatics and hypocrites.
To repeat: it's not science vs. religion, it's honest search vs. old dogmas.
Let's be clear about one thing: I do not believe in "god of the gaps." That is a very small god indeed, and he gets smaller with every discovery, as he should.
I was hoping for subtle expose and comparison of religious and scientific philosophies.
I found a cartoon. All subtlety and a huge load of facts removed, everything cleaned up for the most simplistic presentation possible
Disgusting
Catholicism is not all religion
Copernicus and Bruno were monks. Science grew out of the Church. Foundations of science were laid by St. Thomas Aquinas and other theologians. Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Descartes, Linneus were fervent believers. Deal with it
Pythagoras school was both religious and sceitific, He and his students wouldn't even understand this video and find it ridiculous. Greek preoccupation with numbers, which gave us so many mathematical discoveries, was due to religion.
"I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feeling of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion."
"A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "the has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms, capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the actions of His laws." - Charles Darwin. 2nd edition of the Origin of Species
Science was embraced by religion until science found out that its discoveries contradicted various religious beliefs. Then religion gave science the big boot.
Superstition is all that's left. No proof whatsoever for any gods, no more than there was for zeus or any others.
You have faith in religion because you are told to. That, to me, is an incredibly weak reason to believe something.
If a friend promises to meet me at 6pm for dinner and doesn't show up, I might try to meet him again. But after a few times my "faith" will be appropriately excised.
Isn't it interesting that, if you were born in Iran, you would believe in a different god than if you were born in the U.S.?
@jeffgoin, please don't be quick to jump to conclusions. You know nothing about me.
I was brought up an atheist in an atheist country. I studied various religions for decades. I have come to the views I have through my own efforts.
I am not in the "enemy" camp. I am not in the fight between religious and atheists. I find the whole figh ridiculous. To put it short, I am secular. But not exactly atheist.
"The atheist staring from his attic window is often nearer to God than the believer caught up in his own false image of God." - Martin Buber
I agree with Buber. But I think this applies only to a humble atheist. When ego gets into it, it stops applying.
Would I really believe in a different god? What is a different god? How do you tell if it's different or the same? We are on metaphisical ground now, science is powerless here. Logic is powerless.
I say no. Not just in Iran, but in India and Africa, it's the same god. If God is one, how could there be others?
There is an Indian story about a man who went all over the country, gathering names of all the gods. He filled a thick notebook with all the names. But when he summed them up, he came up with ONE.
I know, mathematically it makes no sense. But this is not math, this is allegory.
About Santa Clause. Here is something written by a Buddhist:
"When I was 8 or 9, living in Saigon, I had an incident that marked me for life. I was playing tag with a few cousins at a great uncle's villa. With one misstep, I crashed against a rosewood cabinet and caused a Buddha statue on top to fall and shatter into pieces at my feet. Hurt and horrified, I began to weep uncontrollably. The great uncle, bless his compassionate heart, just laughed.
"He rubbed my shoulder and said, 'Don't worry, it's just a statue. If you know Buddha, everywhere you look you'll find Buddha.' At that moment something flowered within me. As a boy, I had prayed to Buddha as to God, like millions of others. We asked him for protection and fortune. But from then on, I became fascinated with Buddhism as a direct human experience."
@jeffgoin, any description of God is questionable to begin with.
The smaller gods can be described, but the one is beyond all description. This is why in Judaism even the name is not to be pronounced, but he is referred to as HaShem - literally "The Name."
Of course, when I say "he," I am forced to by the language.
"He" is not allmighty, not merciful. God is not even God.
"He" doesn't exist. "He" allows humanity to wallow in suffering and ignorance, killing each other over "Him" and "His" commandments. People believe in 'Him" because of childhood indoctrination. Getting stoned on spirituality and giving in to fraud and BS that makes you tingle is not a substitute for logic and reason. "Faith" is truly contemptible, it is the conartist's best weapon to control and cash in on the gullible. Nothing true requires faith, only fraud.
Nearly everybody was a fervent believer at that time. No doubt they believed in many things, common at the time, that have since been shown to be false.
jeffgoin, I am sorry, but no one has shown religion to be false.
I don't even know how one shows that.
I had an excellent teacher, a professor of genetics. Once he held a pencil with its tip up and said, "There is a hypothesis that there are angels dancing on the tip of this pencil. Now, what are angels? They are creatures that cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or detected with any instruments.
Fair enough. I should have narrowed that to say that most current religions, especially the monotheistic ones, can easily be shown to be false because they make falsifiable claims.
Anytime religion claims it can affect supernatural outcomes in reality it has been shown to be false. The best example is prayer which has been soundly falsified.
Human influence is due to the fact that humans are so easily influenced emotionally.
Not a tautology at all. A claim can be falsifiable and not be falsified. Evolution makes many falsifiable claims that have not been falsified. That is what makes a subject science.
If a religion makes no falsifiable claims then I have less beef with it. My primary objection then would be when people want to impose their conjured beliefs and invisible friends on others.
About prayer. Many religions say that prayer can affect the physical world--healings and moving mountains and such. Yet it's been shown not to be the case.
An amputated human limb won't ever grow back because of prayer. Even religious adherents accept that. Nor will a glass eye suddenly see.
That's what I mean about prayer. People will only pray for things that can happen with some natural possibility.
@jeffgoin, science is great for getting at empirical truth. But outside of that, it's powerless.
Take a statement like "Before casting a speck from someone else's eye, take the beam out of yours." Science can do nothing with this. Yet, there is truth in it.
Sure, there are many such sayings from many writings that have nothing to do with science. It's only when people say their god(s) affect physical reality that its objectionable.
Zeus doesn't affect a season's rainfall no matter how hard anyone prays to him. Nor does anyone else's magical friend.
Kurtlane: First, when you use the term 'God' as a formal name as in "proved God doesn't exist", you are specifically speaking about the only god named God, God the god of the Jews and Christians. No one else has named their god, God.
Using a variety of evidences, I'm sure I can falsify Yahweh to the following levels of proof: "Preponderance of the Evidence" and "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". Since it is impossible to prove anything "Beyond ALL Doubt", it is a less than useful gauge of truth.
templarart, God is also an English word, and therefore, using your logic, I am speaking only about the god of English-speakers. Sorry, I think this is ridiculous.
I know of no religion that doesn't at some point believe in one at the foundation of it all. No matter how many gods it believes in.
No, "god" is an English word, "God" is a formal name. If you say "No god can be disproven." that refers to any god. Saying "God can't be disproven." only refers to God the god of the Hebrews and Christians.
These gods are all very different being(s) invented by imaginative primitives to explain a universe they didn't understand. You live in the 21st century - you should no more believe in gods than you'd believe that hurricanes are caused by Poseidon.
This has been flagged as spam show
God created science, so how can the creation be greater than the Creator? God created all of us, again I ask the same question: how can the creation be greater than the Creator?
KingdomSeeker2012 2 weeks ago
@KingdomSeeker2012
Man created god, so how can the creation be greater than the creator? Evolution has created all of us. The evidence comes from every branch of science. Where is your evidence of a "Creator".
celebrationofreason 2 weeks ago
@KingdomSeeker2012
You don't even have any evidence for god! It's preposterous, actually, given how many versions of god have been proposed -- a fact that speaks loudly against his very existence.
Making such a blind claim is just ludicrous without evidence. I could claim a 1000 MPG car that runs on water but you would rightfully require very specific evidence. How much more should we expect evidence for claims of a super being that created the universe.
AdoptReality 2 weeks ago
Religion got its use centuries ago. Now that it has become and obsolete science, modern science can take over. Sad to see so many ignorant people worldwide believing in a bearded guy looking us from above and judging us.
Mursilia 1 month ago
christianity didnt come from the catholic church IDIOT it came from the orthodox church !!! the oldest faith and the first !!! if you cant get the first 5 seconds of your video right !!! what else is flawed in your statements !!!
RedBeretXXX 1 month ago
@RedBeretXXX
Well, there are about a billion catholics that will disagree with you. And several thousand biblical scholars. An interesting aspect of religion, though, is that it does not rest on evidence so people can, pretty much, make whatever claims they'd like.
jeffgoin 1 month ago
People generalize the words "science" and "religion" to mix their definitions to what suits them. The meanings of these 2 words are purely personal and subjective. Mixing definitions is where differences and argument happen. These words only have emotions attached to them. The purpose is only to evoke emotions not for rational debate
mustaffa1611 4 months ago
@mustaffa1611
No, everything is not just emotional. The word science has a very definite meaning of doing things in a methodical, logical way using empirical evidence. Religion includes (most significantly) the belief in supernatural elements. Few people would confuse these meanings. And they are, in fact, quite incompatible.
AdoptReality 4 months ago
heres all the proof i need to no there isnt an afterlife... we r in bodys right now.. meaning conciousness needs physical matter to keep it concious.. if we didnt why r we in bodys..
lithium2370 7 months ago
Theists videos are never popular lol
rex786 8 months ago
well Christiantiy got really powerful because of the Romans, if the Greeks were the one to coquer Rome than mostly everyone will believe in Zues and Posiden. And we all know that will be true
gato123452 9 months ago
As Christian as I am. Science is deffinatley more plausible. Its true as fuck that if we never questioned religion that none of the modern day technology Wouldve been invented. But on the flip side, god did warn that such disobedience and things to distract you from him would end society and eternally damn all of civilization. And all the technology which lead to global warming, and many other things wrong with today's society, are showing that gods words were true in that we are basically en
zod1111 10 months ago
@zod1111 I'm glad to see that part of your mind is rational. But what is with "god did warn...", where is the evidence for that?
celebrationofreason 10 months ago 7
@celebrationofreason but then again, where is the evidence that the univers was not created a few years ago and all of this shit is not just a simulation?
andreyNTSX 2 weeks ago
@andreyNTSX
We look for evidence for things that we have reason to suspect are true. We don't have evidence against Russel's teapot, either. There are a billion things that could be true, including that we are a simulation, but we have no reason to think it's true. We have great evidence that the earth is 4.7 billion years old and the we evolved through common ancestors.
AdoptReality 2 weeks ago
@andreyNTSX
You are asking for evidence to prove a negative. That's not how critical thinking works. You need evidence to support your position. The burden of proof is on you not me.
celebrationofreason 2 weeks ago
@zod1111 the engilish renditioned bible isnt the word of god... a religion that says when somthing is disproving our religion was said by god to be a trick to hide the truth. is common sence for anybody wants to keep their followers dilusional..
lithium2370 7 months ago
@zod1111 your absolutely right! this world does suck, i mean i wish i could go back to the days when we didnt have all the technology that god so desperately does not want us to have. all the medical advancements and everything that helps us live a good life really does suck. im glad to see that your not a hypocrite using any technology like the internet or youtube....
barnettb901 7 months ago
Morals evolved, they didnt come from religon. Morals are just values by how we live, its easy to see if a society kills each other they wont survive so values, morals whatever you call them, rules.....evolved to benefit the society. Religon says god made these rules so follow my religon. Religon is old and past its use by date.
benaberry 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
as much as i agree with this knowledgable video, religion did serve some importance. don't get me wrong i am an atheist but the morals and standards we go by come from religion.
MENDEDSTREAM1 10 months ago
as much as i agree with this knowledgable video, religion did serve some importance. don't get me wrong i am an atheist but the morals and standards we go by come from religion.
MENDEDSTREAM1 10 months ago
I reccomend everyone to read this:
zootle.net/afda/religion-vs-science.shtml
gogolplex74 10 months ago
@gogolplex74 if it doeesn't work, just search "religion vs science" on the site
gogolplex74 10 months ago
in my opinion, you cannot compare something that was written from teachings they claim years before BC.
Science explores ideas, research, logic and measurements with physics and mathmatics to stand out what really happend and how things work through hypothesis (experiments).
they also work how the dynamics and how life works: therefore, creating theory (big bang etc).
whereabouts as religion stands in, its more based on faith and intuition from passed teachings.
they are different.
Emblemz 1 year ago
I really don't like how people often present things in a black or white manner, when in reality, there are many other options. Just because you are a theist does not automatically mean that you believe the the earth is 7,000 years old. It just means that you believe an all powerful being had a hand in however you believe a person believes.
mcdiddles123 1 year ago
fuck the bible and its nonsence
timmykill 1 year ago
Science is tangible, it produces results and it corrects itself if it's wrong. The reason we know it works is because we have electricity, internet, television and transportation beyond anything religion could ever provide. Religion doesn't heat your house, science does
southparkloverful 1 year ago
I studied the bible, and many churches have gotten there religion all wrong. The bible doesn't teach what they promote. It's sad they represent the name of my religion. My church teaches what the bible teaches, and seems to be in harmony wit what science brings forth. While other churches stand as mythology or simple faith they JUST gotta believe to matter what :/
RendezvousEntity 1 year ago
What a great video. Thanks for posting it and congratulations on exposing religion for what it is.... outdated and incorrect.
warren52nz 1 year ago
It's so utterly untrue that religion is required for morality. All the higher animals have varying amounts of morality, in some cases, better than humans. Most mammals won't kill each other over resources. THAT doesn't happen until you get to the great apes. Chimps and a few other species WILL fight over territory and resources. They're also have altruistic attributes, too.
AdoptReality 1 year ago
I don't see the bible and science as incompatible. Its like comparing apples and oranges. There is only conflict if you believe the bible is to be viewed as a literal translation of historical record and read as scientific fact. Just like science is not a religion. People have faith their TV will come on when they hit the remote button. But knowledge and science do not have inherent morality and do not answer the personal questions of living one's life.
jdbohdan 1 year ago
@jdbohdan
I would have agreed with you in years past but there are others with a different view such as Sam Harris. His new book The Moral Landscape address just that. Here is a link to his Ted Talk recently about this subject: goto Ted "dot" com and search for "Sam Harris Moral" and Q & A about science and morality: google "The Moral Landscape: Q & A with Sam Harris.
celebrationofreason 1 year ago
@celebrationofreason My meaning was really in terms of science as a process or practice as oppossed to religion. Not the morality found in nature. In that science and our understanding of world changes based on observation and discovery, morality is a non issue in that process. (except of course by laws imposed on scientists by society)
jdbohdan 1 year ago
@celebrationofreason That depends if he goes across why such biblical events could've been real through science. With these to consider within your way, it's still unusual to conclude whether or not this is true despite how the "obvious" odds goes to show. Tough I'm not taking obvious for an answer :-), still doin' keeping up with my research on BOTH terms fairly
RendezvousEntity 1 year ago
@jdbohdan
Actually religion makes claims of interference with reality and many others. NONE of which have any evidence. In fact, when put to any reasonable test, religion has always come up with nothing.
Morality *IS* inherent in biological creatures and science continues to show why. Consider the Piranha. Even in a feeding frenzy they don't kill other Piranha's. WAY more morality is evidence in the apes.
AdoptReality 1 year ago
@jdbohdan *Looks at oranges*
RendezvousEntity 1 year ago
@RendezvousEntity That's my Indian name.
jdbohdan 1 year ago
@jdbohdan Cool :-)
RendezvousEntity 1 year ago
@jdbohdan (...like comparing apples and oranges.)
No it's NOT - It's rather like comparing apple trees and chocolate chip cookie trees(or whatever your desire); in which the latter don't exist. You probably wish it existed, and in doing so you might do the mistake of exchanging that desire for belief. Voila! - you have now become religious.
At the end though, if there was sufficiently demand for chocolate chip cookie trees(although a stupid wish), science would comply and supply it. ;-)
GV
GenuineViking 1 year ago
@GenuineViking People are whacky, trust me while most of us just wish there were chocolate chip cookie trees, my bet there are people out there who actually believe they exist. And there is government conspiracy to keep them from the general public.
jdbohdan 1 year ago
@jdbohdan
Well... I am 100% sure that at one point in time Population Growth will stop. - if not controlled, then the earth will smoothly shake us off. This is inevitable, due to the fact that infinite entity increasing - in a very(!) finite area. When, or how this will happen I don't know - and actually I don't care. The important thin is that when it DOES happen, every person will only take responsibility for himself. Yes, every kid or loved one you might share a responsibility with too.
GenuineViking 1 year ago
@GenuineViking To be beneficial that would need people to have a morality in their actions that doesn't always exist in individuals.
jdbohdan 1 year ago
@jdbohdan
You know, you're right. And anyway.... I think the overpopulation argument on my behalf was almost completely, but not exactly dead on center, - the Anti-overstaed myself. hehe. Just wanted to comment something, because I haven't said so much lately, other than the usual noise. ;-) People should really concentrate on the climate change first, to later take on the secondary task But if you get any data on that as well, please advice me before a decade pass will you? Thanx!
See ya.
GV
GenuineViking 1 year ago
@jdbohdan
damn government, i want my chocolate chip cookie tree!
where is it?
sabin97 1 year ago
@sabin97 My sources say the government is hoarding them. Using them as trade with Aliens. They want our cookie trees and they give us the technology for Ipads, phones, and the synthetic pop star knows as "Justin Bieber".
jdbohdan 1 year ago
@jdbohdan
How should be the Bible viewed?
If not as a historical record of events, or as a book of scientific knowledge (I agree that both of these it isn't!), how would you advise us to see it if not as a book of primitive mythology?
I hope you wouldn't say anything in the sense of it being a moral guidance, because it is an incredibly bad moral guide!
What's the entire point of "I don't see the bible and science as incompatible"??
Oh, and you need to clarify for yourself what "faith" is.
grozde 1 year ago
@grozde In brief, ...As a story of humanity.
jdbohdan 1 year ago
@jdbohdan What does this mean?
grozde 1 year ago
@jdbohdan The Good, the bad, the ugly. Relationship of man and the divine. (also called God).
jdbohdan 1 year ago
@jdbohdan It's more like comparing sanity to insanity. Logical to illogical.
ozzfest72 7 months ago
Comment removed
ismaelillo3 1 year ago
can someone tell me what i am? Im not an atheist. i have great respect for atheists however, for they have made the great majority of all mankinds progress. i am what i think is an agnostic. i believe in nothing other than the presence of something along the lines of a spiritual being. nothing specific. i also believe everything science has revealed to me. soimeone please tell me what i would be called!!! thank you!
ChocolateStroodle 1 year ago
As far as religion or faith in God vs. science is concerned, there will always be the "believers" and the "non-believers", there is so much that we still don't know about this earth that science has yet to uncover, but science and religion is like comparing apples to oranges. Medicen and technology wouldn't have come as far as it has without science, and many people's living lives filled with meaning, and a sense of purpose, guidance, or direction wouldn't have that without religion.
supermark98 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who came up with the big bang theory?
glitchyt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But science still cant answer how life happened
BewareThaWing 1 year ago
@celebrationofreason you failed to mention that copernicus, kepler and galileo were 'religious' men themselves, and that it was because of their accomplishments that the course of history was dramatically changed, and europe moved out of the dark ages and into the age of enlightenment, then into the industrial revolution? it was these bold and critical thinkers which helped bring about a revolution in society's thinking. religious men did that. you don't want to give them any credit, huh?
revlooshin 1 year ago
Islam proves science and I can tell
kuwaiti922 1 year ago
thank you!
music4ever550 1 year ago
very interesting and informative video. Great Job.
squirrelworldx 1 year ago
Wow, a really well done video... It makes a lot of good points, and it is simple enough that even a creationist can understand it... Now the trick is getting them to watch it... lol !!!
^..^
TheWildAssCopyCat 1 year ago 3
Science is religion? This tired old rusty nail is a ridiculous assertion by religious people who are ashamed of their nonsensical belief.
Science doesn't require any supernatural friends and doesn't worship anyone. It observes, hypothesizes, tests, develops theories and builds real, verifiable knowledge of the world around us.
Theories change as evidence necessitates the need to change, and so become more accurate, either by limiting in scope, or becoming more accurate.
Not so with religion.
AdoptReality 1 year ago
Strange isn't it,
We have found out so much about ourselves, the world and indeed the universe. such a vast amount of knowledge gained over hundreds of years, and yet no sign of any god existing in reality, only in the minds of people who are incapapable of seeing the truth - because they have been brainwashed at birth by the religion that prevents them from seeing the truth.
NIXIMvideo 1 year ago
Only 2700 views .. that's a damn shame! Great video!
coopersnoop 1 year ago
@coopersnoop
Too bad more of the religious folks don't see it. But thankfully there's quite a bit on youtube and elsewhere for anyone who seriously is looking for truth. It's just hard to feret out among all the ridiculous nonsense.
AdoptReality 1 year ago
@AdoptReality AMEN!!
coopersnoop 1 year ago
hiahldgfs
TheCAGUY99 1 year ago
Science deals with certainties. It's been wrong before but admits the mistakes and moves on, getting more accurate as time and new data go by. We build on what we've learned which is why science accomplishes so much.
Whereas religion is stuck in its ancient text, science learns from its errors and moves on. Planes get faster, safer. Electronics get smaller and better, cars get lighter, medicine gets better, etc. etc.
Science has been an incredible success story for ferreting out useful truth!
AdoptReality 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Science is a man-made religion of faith in today's knowledge.
No mater how you slice and dice it, theory and evidence alone is never proven fact. Science even admits this. Hard science has even proven prior hard science wrong in many cases.
Science can Not be always fact without challenges via new knowledge, that would not be scientific otherwise!
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
Science is not religion at all. It's "faith" comes from evidence. Experiments must work and be repeatable.
Science is based on logic and measuring our surroundings. It is quite the opposite of religion's type of faith. Science fact deals in certainties, for sure, but is a useful means of knowledge that results in essentially every advancement humankind has made.
Religion does nothing for knowledge--no predicting, no designing.
Such a wasted endeavor, it seems.
celebrationofreason 1 year ago 12
@celebrationofreason Haha i like the way you end with "it seems". I have to disagree with it being a wasted endeaver, it may not offer as much materialistic insight as science, but spiritually it is very useful. I mean discussing and understanding what it means to be good, vices and virtues ect. Im sure many misuse it but it is very important in teaching and understanding values that science does not teach
jikkh2x 6 months ago
@jikkh2x
Spirituality, if it's meant as feelings and emotions, is fine. But when people are told that there are spirits and supernatural forces, they are being lied to. We have no evidence for them so to couch in anything more than speculation is dishonest at best.
AdoptReality 6 months ago
@AdoptReality Spiritually i mean bettering yourself as a person through its teachings on morality
jikkh2x 6 months ago
@jikkh2x
OK, that's fine, but most people use the term spirituality to mean some kind of supernatural entity. These are nonsense. If they exist, they leave no sound evidence.
AdoptReality 6 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
That isn't true at all. Science is not a matter of faith but of proofs obtained through carefully designed experimentation, observation, and rigorous peer review. Science doesn't pretend to be right all the time...unlike religion which perpetually claims to be infallible and isn't. The difference is...Science works, while religion=fail.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. Just like religion, it takes faith to believe in those missing links. So that in its self is why atheism is a religion. What you call "missing links"is your faith. I trust in God...
ismaelillo3 1 year ago
@ismaelillo3
You are clearly not in possession of all the facts. Biologists have observed evolution in progress amongst fruit flies (they have short lives). The fossil record carries another body of evidence that is indisputable. Finally DNA carries the unmistakable evidence of evolution taking place. This takes no faith to accept, merely a close reading of the evidence and how it has helped our understanding of the natural world so immensely. There are no missing links btw.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Evolution is nothing more than a popular idea of how life got to where it is now. Why ever did people believe that we came from monkeys? They have slightly similar skeletons, but completely different. Evolution is mathematically impossible no matter how long or short a life span is.There is "evolution" (adaption) between species,but never between kinds. I guess it all boils down to what you call a fact and how willing you are to test what you believe against what can be observed.
ismaelillo3 1 year ago
@ismaelillo3
No, religion is nothing more than a popular idea of how life got where it is. Humans evolved from a species of ape, not a species of monkey. Evolution is far from mathematically impossible, as I have said before and I repeat, Evolution has been observed at work in labs. Fruitflies due to their short lifespans evolve for trait dependent on their environment and have been observed doing so. We have enormous bodies of transitional fossils, including fossil germs !
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Until Evolutionists find the evidence they've sought since the beginning of the modern Evolutionary movement about 150 years ago, there is actually no debate at all.Some scientists say yes, some scientists say no. If they all can not agree, niether can I. Go ahead and collect the evidence, and then we can start a debate. Right after you prove me incorrect, you can go ahead and pick up your Nobel Price Award. Like I said before and I repeat, evolution is mathematically impossible...
ismaelillo3 1 year ago
@ismaelillo3
The term used is not "evolutionists" it's "biologists". There are a few fundamentalist baboons hooting at the periphery of the discipline but Evolution has proven too valuable to far too many disciplines (Paleontology, Genetics, Medicine etc) as an explanation to be ignored. The RC Church accept evolution. As to the Nobel Prizes for confirming Evolution, too late, they're already handed out last century. P.S. you must be really bad at maths.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Mathematics? Stretch out a timeline with 1,000,000 divisions representing years. Evolutionists tell us that humans have evolved very little over this timeline because evolution progresses very slowly. Based on the Theory of Evolution we should easily find massive signs of civilization going back a few hundreds of thousands of years, but the signs of civilization are not there. Humans have existed for the last six divisions. The previous 994,000 divisions are completely empty...
ismaelillo3 1 year ago
The Bible records the beginning of mankind at about 4,000 B.C., and secular history is eerily silent before 4,000 B.C. for those who claim to believe in evolution. If I were an evolutionist, I would be extremely disturbed by this FACT. How can evolutionists be so naive and foolish as to totally ignore this incredibly obvious fact? Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. There just hasn't been enough time. Evolution at best is a theory.
ismaelillo3 1 year ago
@ismaelillo3 carbon dating my friend .
dinosaur bones out-date 400bc
dubmywub 1 year ago
@dubmywub Carbon dating can not date none organic substances my friend. Therefore it is useless to date the rock strata that the dinosaurs are found in. A dinasour's age is often determined by a presupposition or belief system based on a world view that leaves God and the biblical account of creation out of the equation.Therefore the theory of evolution and the ages it assigns extinct animals is often based not on scientific evidence but rather on a personal belief system.
ismaelillo3 1 year ago
@ismaelillo3 wIts based the same principle.
Radiometric dating is used, you take a reading with a mass spectrometer and that determines how many daughter particles there are left in the sample you have. the ratio of the parent to daughters gives a pretty good example of how old things are.
Also its been proven, you get two different looking animals and when you take their DNA is exactly the same. evolution proved.
dubmywub 1 year ago
@dubmywub No matter what method of dating we use, the only scientific statement we can make about these creatures is that they are animals that gone extinct. When this extinction took place depends on one’s perspective.The age and role of dinosaurs is based then on which presupposition you approach them from. If you believe in evolution, they are millions of years old but if you believe in biblical creation, then they are animals who have gone extinct sometime in the last 6000 years...
ismaelillo3 1 year ago
@ismaelillo3 well no, this process dates everything within 50 years. so if you have an object that is known to have been 1000years old. this type of dating will show is that it is from 950-1050 it died. Nothing to do with perspective, its logical and has been proved to work. There is no way that bones in 6000 years could have fossilised like this.
dubmywub 1 year ago
@dubmywub It has everything to do with perspective. For a long time science used circular reasoning to date these fossils. They determined that the rocks that they were found in were 400+million years old therefore the dinosaurs were 400+ million years old because of the rock layers they were found in.What killed and rapidly buried the dinosaurs and other living animals was a global flood. In fact a global flood is the only explanation that can explain the rapid burial of so many creatures...
ismaelillo3 1 year ago
@ismaelillo3 good for you
dubmywub 1 year ago
@ismaelillo3
Lol, for a given value of "very little". The biologists mean that in a genetic sense. 1,000,000 years ago there was one species of the genus homo, being Homo Heidelbergensis, which subsequently evolved and split into Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The differences would be pronounced to a layman, but to a geneticist they are miniscule amounts of DNA different. As to technical civilization, humans don't have that knowledge genetically coded, we must learn it.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 Heidelbergens and Neanderthals are often portrayed as very primitive and apish looking. As any forensic practitioner knows, it is IMPOSSIBLE,from a skeleton,to identify; extent of hair covering, hair color, nose shape, lip shape, skin color and race. Often is not even possible to properly identify the sex of the individual.Consider that most anthropologists only have fragments of bones to work with. It is very easy to see that their presuppositions can influence their findings...
ismaelillo3 1 year ago
@ismaelillo3
Not altogether true. In some cases remains like hair have been preserved, but the conditions must be very unusual, it is more usual to find trace residue of hair. Bone structure for the heads reveal faces that would seem extremely abnormal and primitive even at a church. Also, anthropologists DON'T look at these remains, it is archaeologists and palaontologists who do that, only occasionally referring to anthropologists. Bone form does reveal facial features btw.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 To me Heidelbergens and Neanderthals were just as human as us and a product of their environment,not a product of evolution. I can find many holes in the theory of evolution with the naked eye,throw in all the frauds that have occurred in the last century.Like in 99 when Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.I was never a fish that crawled out of water, idk about you.
ismaelillo3 1 year ago
@ismaelillo3
You may not have been a fish that crawled out of the water, but the fact you can even say that and expect me or anybody else to take you seriously merely indicates how feebly ignorant you are. That is not what the Theory of Evolution says. I think you better go and read about it and get back to me when you actually know dick about the subject as opposed to fuck nothing.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 While Nemo could net millions in tourist dollars for Sydney yearly and where you live you love Resident Evil movies. I live in a place where our dollar bills say "In God we trust" and were we have universities where we can study and research for our selves. Instead of getting fed lies via Brainwashing. Maybe Nemo cant crawl out of water today "but maybe a billion years after the big bang".Perhaps its you that know fuck nothing ".Go collect the evidence "aussie". Take care crocky...
ismaelillo3 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@ismaelillo3
So when you have no real argument, you turn to ad hominem. Well, given that you are called Ishmael, is it any wonder that every man's had turns against you ? You are, after all, merely a troll. In God We Trust ? The USA has always served Mammon. I have the evidence, all you have is crappy old scriptures written in a language you can't read, by bronze age savage Jews you would detest the smell of if you could walk amongst them.
formless777 1 year ago
@ismaelillo3
Wow, Top Comment for a creationist believing the dinosaurs and mankind were killed by a global flood 4000 years ago. Only Noah's family, three sons and their wives, surviving. The amount of inbreeding it must have taken them to repopulate the earth, one can only imagine.
Yes, I guess that does indeed deserve a big thumbs up. Thank you Noah!!!
Belgianmeth 6 months ago
@formless777 Actually I dont consider my self a catholic nor do I attend a Church. I read THE HOLY BIBLE King James Version, without the need of a translator. I do not trust in any man to read the bible for me. That being said evolutionists buried most of Darwin's theory over 20 years ago, they still cling to a few parts like "time". Lots of time.Modern evolutionists still have faith that given long enough periods of time, frogs would evolve into handsome princes. They just can't explain how....
ismaelillo3 1 year ago
Comment removed
Belgianmeth 6 months ago
Comment removed
GenuineViking 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WILLTHEWGMAN Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
EsotericOccultist 1 year ago
But there's no evidence that we weren't put here by scientology's aliens, either. Yet I doubt you believe that?
The onus is you to prove your magical being and his great powers and the history, especially since existing evidence provides such a slam dunk case for evolution to all but the most fundy of fundies.
AdoptReality 1 year ago 6
Comment removed
Nederdien 1 year ago
@Nederdien
Science not know to be right?
It's been right enough to come up with modern medicine, GPS, cell phones, computers, YouTUBE, etc. All the modern advancement have come through the application of science, NOT religion.
celebrationofreason 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
Nederdien 1 year ago
@Nederdien
OK, the "how the world works" is far, FAR more interesting than "how many angels on a pinhead."
One accomplishes nothing in real life, the other gives us cars, airplanes, medicine, clean city water, etc.
AdoptReality 1 year ago
Comment removed
Nederdien 1 year ago
@Nederdien
Right on!
I like to ask: "if a meteor is found to be heading for earth, threatening to end it in a fiery collision three years from now. Are you going to pray, get ready for the end as expressed in revelations, or pay your extra tax to fund the international effort to deflect it?"
And which one do you think will REALLY stand a good chance of woking?
You hit the nail on it's head.
AdoptReality 1 year ago
Comment removed
Nederdien 1 year ago
@Nederdien
Yes, that's a huge problem with the idiocy that is religion. How could a supposedly almighty power just sit idly by while his followers suffer EXACTLY the same amount as his detractors. It just makes no sense.
Why be so coy? Why not make your presence more easily known? Why allow so MANY religions to sprout? It just doesn't make sense.
Eventually we conclude that it's all myth, some myths just have better marketing.
AdoptReality 1 year ago
@AdoptReality I would most deffnately give all my money to deflecting it.
rockinw401 1 year ago
@rockinw401
Good point.
When I was a christian I gave money to the church. Now I'm far happier to support those who promote evidence-based knowledge and preservation of our constitution's establishment clause. NCSE, FFRF, CFI and others now get my dollars and it's oh soooo much more satisfying!
AdoptReality 1 year ago
Comment removed
Nederdien 1 year ago
@Nederdien You're absolutely right. Except for scientific laws which are considered to be irrefutable. And radiocarbon dating shows that it's impossible for the earth to have been created 200 or even 200 million years ago. So however I agree with you point on scientific contradiction I disagree about the rest of your comment.
rockinw401 1 year ago
Comment removed
drfozmd 1 year ago
@drfozmd
Well, that is good to begin with ..
Nederdien 1 year ago
For humanity to have hope it must eventually cast off superstitious beliefs and get on with the business of discovering reality.
AdoptReality 2 years ago 2
Asking "Why" regarding the universe or big bang or whatever, except for natural causes, is like asking what color is the number 5. It's an irrelevant question.
jeffgoin 2 years ago
Use the reply button Jeffy or your post floats in air. Again you dismiss my question out of hand - not asking "why was the universe made and what am I doing here" is like avoiding the nose on your face and with certain premises provides a reasonable framework for moral behavior.
flyguy359 2 years ago
Again, asking "why" to our existence, beyond its physical reality, is like asking what color is the number 5. It just is. Kind of like asking why a star goes super nova.
Evolution provides an exquisite framework framework for morality. Much of which can be explained by "do (or don't do) to others what you want them to do (or not do) to you". And that, if you cooperate, your species will do better. In general, humanity has done a remarkable job of cooperating.
jeffgoin 2 years ago
That works fine until you are a concentration camp warden. Then self preservation and preservation of your close relatives requires that you scream "march!" into the ovens. Without a frame of reference, following orders is the fall back.
flyguy359 2 years ago
@flyguy359
It's not a matter of what "works," it's a matter of what is. Our morality has evolved like the rest of us. Extreme cases that twist our morality will always be there. In fact religion has been among the most powerful twisters of our basic morality since its inception, grantiting its followers justification for all manner of horrific acts in the name of their god(s).
jeffgoin 2 years ago
Let's look at Neanderthals. Neanderthals were a different species of human that appeared roughly 130K years ago and went extinct 50K years ago. They lived a horrible, torturous existence, fighting daily to stay alive and then they went extinct. Why? Why did they exist? Same reason as the Dodo and Carrier Pigeon - species simply emerge and die out. No agency, no gods, no 'why'. If there was design, either Neanderthals would never have existed or would not have gone extinct.
templarart 2 years ago
Oh Christ almighty 'WHY" another false dichotomy? Can't you use one wiggle word when you are ladling out these absolutes? In any case, Neanderthal burial rituals suggest that they considered more deeply than you the meaning of their existence. Perhaps. (Note use of wiggle word).
flyguy359 2 years ago
Dude STOP using the term "False Dichotomy" unless you can actually identify a "False Dichotomy".
Neanderthals lived for 80K-100K years and then died out. The world would be no different had they never existed. No purpose. No 'why'. Now I'm going to guess that you'll just pull some BS 'Neanderthal purpose' out of the air that neither matches Christianity or science - just something made up wholecloth to prove your point. Or just say "False Dichotomy" again.. that's better than debate.
templarart 2 years ago
You writing my responses now? Perhaps Neanderthals existed to inspire you to consider that if even they would search for a meaning of their existence, you should as well. There's a reasonable purpose that matches neither Xianity/science and negates false choice #99 that you fell into (in this case, that the world would be no different if they (1) had OR (2) had not existed, for you keeping score)
flyguy359 2 years ago
"You writing my responses now? "
I guess I did because that was a seriously silly explanation.
"neither Xianity/science"
NOT a false dichotomy . Those are the only answers relevant to a Christian - or you could just make **** up like you did - so it was 3 options and you chose #3.
"(1) had OR (2) had not existed"
Really? This is a False Dichotomy? What are the other options.. Partially existed? Existed but not really? Not every 'dichotomy' is a 'false dichotomy'.
templarart 2 years ago
the other option is that the world has become different in a manner that you are not aware of. Sufficient study of the Neanderthal culture can yet bring it to light. So just back off on your sweeping assertions and you should be fine.
flyguy359 2 years ago
"the other option is that the world has become different..."
Not a False Dichotomy since that wasn't another option in a dichotomy. I just don't understand how anyone can say that a species that died out in a failed competition with a superior species has a reason for existence. NO, they had a reason NOT to exist and that's why they no longer exist. If they were meant to exist - they'd exist.
There is no evidence of any kind of purpose in the universe and plenty of evidence against it.
templarart 2 years ago
Input/output error, expected rational reply from irrational being. Would you like to close templarart?
yes no cancel
:P Stick to "This is the evidence, this is what it shows and where's your evidence to the contrary? Oh wait, please wipe thoroughly after you've finished speaking that crap... Bye." That's the best response - teach a chicken to play the guitar if you want to but you'll have your work cut out.
ninjatoothpaste 1 year ago
The whole video is sideways. It's not science vs. religion, it's honest search vs. dogmaticism, corruption and whatever else stops the searcher.
If the search is in the empirical realm, this is science. If not - this is a metaphysical search. Both are legitimate.
Scientists too have a long story of dogmatic nonsense. The discovery of planet Neptuine was blocked by older scientists. Alchemical books were burned. Nineveh was supposed to be just a Byblical myth.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
That's just a few things that I know, teachers of science hide most of them out of embarasement. Unlike the all-popularized things done by religious dogmatics and hypocrites.
To repeat: it's not science vs. religion, it's honest search vs. old dogmas.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
Let's be clear about one thing: I do not believe in "god of the gaps." That is a very small god indeed, and he gets smaller with every discovery, as he should.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
I was hoping for subtle expose and comparison of religious and scientific philosophies.
I found a cartoon. All subtlety and a huge load of facts removed, everything cleaned up for the most simplistic presentation possible
Disgusting
Catholicism is not all religion
Copernicus and Bruno were monks. Science grew out of the Church. Foundations of science were laid by St. Thomas Aquinas and other theologians. Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Descartes, Linneus were fervent believers. Deal with it
Kurtlane 2 years ago
Pythagoras school was both religious and sceitific, He and his students wouldn't even understand this video and find it ridiculous. Greek preoccupation with numbers, which gave us so many mathematical discoveries, was due to religion.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
Here is Darwin:
"I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feeling of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion."
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
(cont. quote from Darwin)
"A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "the has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms, capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the actions of His laws." - Charles Darwin. 2nd edition of the Origin of Species
Kurtlane 2 years ago
Science was embraced by religion until science found out that its discoveries contradicted various religious beliefs. Then religion gave science the big boot.
Superstition is all that's left. No proof whatsoever for any gods, no more than there was for zeus or any others.
jeffgoin 2 years ago
jeffgoin, a god that's dependent on proof is a small god.
Haven't you heard of the word "faith?" Why do you think it's so emphasized in religion?
Kurtlane 2 years ago
@Kurtlane
Children have faith in Santa Clause.
You have faith in religion because you are told to. That, to me, is an incredibly weak reason to believe something.
If a friend promises to meet me at 6pm for dinner and doesn't show up, I might try to meet him again. But after a few times my "faith" will be appropriately excised.
Isn't it interesting that, if you were born in Iran, you would believe in a different god than if you were born in the U.S.?
jeffgoin 2 years ago
@jeffgoin, please don't be quick to jump to conclusions. You know nothing about me.
I was brought up an atheist in an atheist country. I studied various religions for decades. I have come to the views I have through my own efforts.
I am not in the "enemy" camp. I am not in the fight between religious and atheists. I find the whole figh ridiculous. To put it short, I am secular. But not exactly atheist.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
"The atheist staring from his attic window is often nearer to God than the believer caught up in his own false image of God." - Martin Buber
I agree with Buber. But I think this applies only to a humble atheist. When ego gets into it, it stops applying.
Would I really believe in a different god? What is a different god? How do you tell if it's different or the same? We are on metaphisical ground now, science is powerless here. Logic is powerless.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
I say no. Not just in Iran, but in India and Africa, it's the same god. If God is one, how could there be others?
There is an Indian story about a man who went all over the country, gathering names of all the gods. He filled a thick notebook with all the names. But when he summed them up, he came up with ONE.
I know, mathematically it makes no sense. But this is not math, this is allegory.
About Santa Clause. Here is something written by a Buddhist:
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
"When I was 8 or 9, living in Saigon, I had an incident that marked me for life. I was playing tag with a few cousins at a great uncle's villa. With one misstep, I crashed against a rosewood cabinet and caused a Buddha statue on top to fall and shatter into pieces at my feet. Hurt and horrified, I began to weep uncontrollably. The great uncle, bless his compassionate heart, just laughed.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
(cont. quote)
"He rubbed my shoulder and said, 'Don't worry, it's just a statue. If you know Buddha, everywhere you look you'll find Buddha.' At that moment something flowered within me. As a boy, I had prayed to Buddha as to God, like millions of others. We asked him for protection and fortune. But from then on, I became fascinated with Buddhism as a direct human experience."
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
Think about this. But also think that if there weren't a Buddha statue he had prayed to, his uncle's phrase wouldn't resonate with him.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
Of course we could speculate any god we want and you're welcome to do that. There's no proving it, of course, any more than the teapot god.
Of all the religions at least most of the eastern ones don't make preposterous claims about their god's magical acts while on earth.
jeffgoin 2 years ago
Certainly you'd believe in a different description of god if you popped out in Iran vs America.
That's all I'm interested in. I have no reason to believe in any imaginary beings with magical until one of them chooses to makes itself obvious.
jeffgoin 2 years ago
@jeffgoin, any description of God is questionable to begin with.
The smaller gods can be described, but the one is beyond all description. This is why in Judaism even the name is not to be pronounced, but he is referred to as HaShem - literally "The Name."
Of course, when I say "he," I am forced to by the language.
"He" is not allmighty, not merciful. God is not even God.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
"He" is beyond all description. Beyond male or female, animate or inanimate, transcendent or immanent, one or many, or even existing and non-existing.
Descriptions, definitions, attributes - all this comes from human limitations.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
"He" is beyond all description."
"He" doesn't exist. "He" allows humanity to wallow in suffering and ignorance, killing each other over "Him" and "His" commandments. People believe in 'Him" because of childhood indoctrination. Getting stoned on spirituality and giving in to fraud and BS that makes you tingle is not a substitute for logic and reason. "Faith" is truly contemptible, it is the conartist's best weapon to control and cash in on the gullible. Nothing true requires faith, only fraud.
templarart 2 years ago
@templarart, how can he not exist and yet allow humanity to wallow? Is this logical? Does it make sense?
My problem with you is not that you are atheist, it's that you are so dumb and narrow-minded. And preachy and self-righteous too.
Like I said, it's not science vs. religion, it's honest search for truth vs. dogmaticism and narrow-mindedness. One can see which side you are on.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
@Kurtlane
I would also posit that a god without proof is likely a myth.
jeffgoin 2 years ago
Nearly everybody was a fervent believer at that time. No doubt they believed in many things, common at the time, that have since been shown to be false.
Religion is one of those things.
jeffgoin 2 years ago
jeffgoin, I am sorry, but no one has shown religion to be false.
I don't even know how one shows that.
I had an excellent teacher, a professor of genetics. Once he held a pencil with its tip up and said, "There is a hypothesis that there are angels dancing on the tip of this pencil. Now, what are angels? They are creatures that cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or detected with any instruments.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
@Kurtlane
Fair enough. I should have narrowed that to say that most current religions, especially the monotheistic ones, can easily be shown to be false because they make falsifiable claims.
Anytime religion claims it can affect supernatural outcomes in reality it has been shown to be false. The best example is prayer which has been soundly falsified.
Human influence is due to the fact that humans are so easily influenced emotionally.
jeffgoin 2 years ago
@jeffgoin, this is still not so.
If you say that falsifiable claims of religions can be shown to be falsifiable, you are definitely right. But this is a tautology.
But there is so much more to religions than falsifiable claims. Actually, I don't see these as part of religion at all.
I didn't get your point about prayer.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
@Kurtlane
Not a tautology at all. A claim can be falsifiable and not be falsified. Evolution makes many falsifiable claims that have not been falsified. That is what makes a subject science.
If a religion makes no falsifiable claims then I have less beef with it. My primary objection then would be when people want to impose their conjured beliefs and invisible friends on others.
jeffgoin 2 years ago
@Kurtlane
About prayer. Many religions say that prayer can affect the physical world--healings and moving mountains and such. Yet it's been shown not to be the case.
An amputated human limb won't ever grow back because of prayer. Even religious adherents accept that. Nor will a glass eye suddenly see.
That's what I mean about prayer. People will only pray for things that can happen with some natural possibility.
jeffgoin 2 years ago
@jeffgoin, I agree with everything you said in the last 3 posts.
I also don't like imposing beliefs (religious or not) on others. "Don't like" is putting it mildly.
I think those who claim rainfall depends on prayer are charlatans. True, there have always been tons of charlatans around religion.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
"If this is so, science is powerless here. Science deals only with emperical matters."
Notice that he didn't say, "Angels don't exist."
Some atheists claim science has proved God doesn't exist. But science has done no such thing. This is something beyond the capacity of science.
I'm not putting down science. It's great. But it's not all-powerful. It has its limits. My genetics professor recognized them.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
@Kurtlane
One beauty of Science is that it recognizes its limits, changing theories to match reality and therefore improving the theories.
Science never claims to be "all powerful" but it rightly claims to be the best tool for ferreting out truth.
jeffgoin 2 years ago
@jeffgoin, science is great for getting at empirical truth. But outside of that, it's powerless.
Take a statement like "Before casting a speck from someone else's eye, take the beam out of yours." Science can do nothing with this. Yet, there is truth in it.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
@Kurtlane
Sure, there are many such sayings from many writings that have nothing to do with science. It's only when people say their god(s) affect physical reality that its objectionable.
Zeus doesn't affect a season's rainfall no matter how hard anyone prays to him. Nor does anyone else's magical friend.
jeffgoin 2 years ago
Kurtlane: First, when you use the term 'God' as a formal name as in "proved God doesn't exist", you are specifically speaking about the only god named God, God the god of the Jews and Christians. No one else has named their god, God.
Using a variety of evidences, I'm sure I can falsify Yahweh to the following levels of proof: "Preponderance of the Evidence" and "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". Since it is impossible to prove anything "Beyond ALL Doubt", it is a less than useful gauge of truth.
templarart 2 years ago
templarart, God is also an English word, and therefore, using your logic, I am speaking only about the god of English-speakers. Sorry, I think this is ridiculous.
I know of no religion that doesn't at some point believe in one at the foundation of it all. No matter how many gods it believes in.
The second part I don't get.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
"God is also an English word"
No, "god" is an English word, "God" is a formal name. If you say "No god can be disproven." that refers to any god. Saying "God can't be disproven." only refers to God the god of the Hebrews and Christians.
These gods are all very different being(s) invented by imaginative primitives to explain a universe they didn't understand. You live in the 21st century - you should no more believe in gods than you'd believe that hurricanes are caused by Poseidon.
templarart 2 years ago
@templarart, you might think me primitive, but I think you are. In too many ways to mention.
Talk about imposing beliefs. Who are you to preach to me what I should and shouldn't believe?
This is exactly what I don't like - preachy bastards. Whether atheist or religious makes no difference.
Take your sermons somewhere else. Better yet, try opening your mind.
Kurtlane 2 years ago