quote:

Do I come back & say anything mean spirited about your beliefs?

You also don't distinguish between a belief system and understanding. A belief is based on faith. Understanding is testable. Religion should be more vulnerable to criticism these days, not less. That we're even debating that still is ridiculous. Instead, America gets to be awash in New Age pseudoscience that makes false claims, skewed media coverage, and the fundamentalist regimes of religion. This is worrying for so many reasons. Anything not based on evidence is open to criticism.

quote:

The other, was because other threads started getting clogged with this theory (or is it a fact? Sorry, but I still see the two words being completely unrelated.) that really had nothing to do with the main topic. So, I decided to make this one & take the most drastic stance on the subject in order to get some quick feedback. I don't really care one way or the other, I just felt like stirrin' the Kool-Aid, man Wink. I just find it interesting at how personal (some) people seem to take it when you don't believe in it. (Some of) The Atheists here talk about God like no tomorrow with comments like these:

Oh, I see, so you're trying to "stir the Kool-Aid," that's all. So this is a revenge statement. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth kinda thing? You can sit back and get angry at everybody else for criticizing something that should be very open to criticism, and then you turn it around on them... I see.

The only problem: religion isn't criticized enough, but science seems to love criticism. The more criticism in science, the more kinks in the armor of proposed ideas. The more criticism of religion, the more syntactic acrobatics theologians perform.

Your grandest failing is in your reasoning. If you're going to call a theory a belief, then you've assumed it's a faith-based claim. It's not. It has been tested for a long time, over and over again. Yet only 20% of Americans buy into it. That's frightening. Seriously, it is.

Theories are facts; they're ways of explaining the "why" questions about the world and our universe. If you're resting on the notion that theories aren't facts, then you've thrown all your earnings into a mere colloquialism. I never like to use this word unless under the direst of circumstances, but it works for this: it's just feeble semantics.

quote:

I just find it interesting at how personal (some) people seem to take it when you don't believe in it.

And all the while, you're attempting to garner some empathy, when you can't find any in yourself. See how revenge doesn't work?

I just realized something. Not one of you has answered my question. You, for some reason, wanna give me a bunch of bullplop on why you can critisize & be skeptical of religion, but with words like: "That's not God, that's Santa Claus" or "God is hateful & vindictive" or "God is a chauvinist pig", that's not showing critisizm or skeptisizm. That's just plain mean & rude. Period. And there is no exscuse for it. This kinda talk would NOT be acceptable at any job in the U.S. It's like I said before, I've never attacked any of you like this, I haven't even gone back to the religious thread, & no matter what you say, I didn't bring up anything about God here. This thread wasn't revenge, it was an experiment. How long did the Christians in the Religious thread answer questions without being rude even when you were? How long did it take you guys UNTIL you got rude? Mike's very first post here was very rude towards me & so were quite a few of the others. Then comes Kendo's unsolicitited remark, that several people here, & in the religious thread, just HAD to put their 2 cents in about it being "SO TRUE" .

No matter what I say, my biblical ideals aren't correct to you guys, even though you don't even think the Bible is really God's Word. For some reason, you'd rather believe that Christians are ONLY these people, & you actually argue that what they're doing is biblical even though Jesus said nothing about acting like this towards anyone!!! You guys wanna blame religion for the world's problems, but it ain't religion that's the problem. It's the @ssholes who only claim they're religious who are dangerous. It's like you guys have pointed out, countless times, about terrorists having nothing to do with Muslims. How can you come to that conclusion when you lump EVERYONE who talks religion in one, fat, group? Why is it THOSE terrorists don't count toward their religion, but the so-called Christian terrorists here count among ours? Whatever . I give up. You guys wanna believe you have a right to talk smack on a person's beliefs & make every exscuse in the book to make it okay, fine. Just keep in mind just how mean I was when I talked crap about you & yours. Oh wait! I never did.

You guys love to speak of tolerance, but I think it's YOU that need to learn the definition of the word!

quote:

Theories are facts

This is not necessarily true. In fact, it may be the most contentious claim in the philosophy of science. It isn't totally clear what you mean by 'facts,' but at best, I think it is safe to say that theories consist of more than just facts. Theories are a set of statements, at least some of which are unobservable constructs which we posit to further explanatory power. If you believe in falsifiability in your scientific investigation, then you probably should not think that 'theories are facts'.

quote:

Originally posted by keylimetrev:

quote:

Theories are facts

This is not necessarily true.

I noticed this as well. Theories are often fact-based but are anything but fact alone. This is by definition. I have many theories that may be based on factual evidence but are definitely not fact. I also think that many people oppose religion for the wrong reasons. The way I see it, faithful, religious people who follow their beliefs are not harming anyone. It seems to be very chic these days to bash religion and the religious. In many ways, the religious have opened themselves up for said criticism. Either way, I feel that I can comfortably co-exist with the religious of this world without observing a single religious idea. I simply mind my own as do they. For every person who pushes their faith on you and rams their beliefs down your throat, you will find a person who will go out of their way to oppose religious beliefs and be very vocal against those beliefs for no apparent reason.

This is similar to the recent Michael Vick happenings. The PETA protesters, for the most part,have been more aggresive and vulgar than the seemingly mindless defenders of Vick and his "harmless hobby". A scientist attempting to disprove traditional religious belief for the purpose of understanding and truth is far different from an "enlightened" naysayer who expresses his or her objections to religion for the purpose of hearing themselves speak or to piss on the parade of a believer.

I respect your views Monkey and probably disagree with mosty of your beliefs. However, I don't feel the need to ram things down your throat in an attempt to glorify myself. You seem like a decent guy and I can't say for a FACT that you are even close to being wrong in any of your beliefs. I do have my THEORIES though, which I will keep to myself.

quote:

Originally posted by keylimetrev:

quote:

Theories are facts

This is not necessarily true. In fact, it may be the most contentious claim in the philosophy of science. It isn't totally clear what you mean by 'facts,' but at best, I think it is safe to say that theories consist of more than just facts. Theories are a set of statements, at least some of which are unobservable constructs which we posit to further explanatory power. If you believe in falsifiability in your scientific investigation, then you probably should not think that 'theories are facts'.

KLT's gettin' all smart on us.

I think what drbanality was getting at with his statement (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that the term "Theory" is used differently in science than it's used in common language.

A scientific theory is much more than just a guess or speculation. Research has been done, and experiments performed to draw that conclusion. I can't just say that the Moon is made of cheese and get my theory published in a scientific journal.

A scientific theory isn't absolute though, it can change as more data is gathered. So if you mean "fact" as in an absolute statement, no, theories aren't facts. However, facts are used to support theories.

quote:

This is not necessarily true. In fact, it may be the most contentious claim in the philosophy of science. It isn't totally clear what you mean by 'facts,' but at best, I think it is safe to say that theories consist of more than just facts. Theories are a set of statements, at least some of which are unobservable constructs which we posit to further explanatory power. If you believe in falsifiability in your scientific investigation, then you probably should not think that 'theories are facts'.

Theories are widely regarded facts. That they're subject to revision doesn't change it. The colloquialism that has surfaced over the last century has been confusing people. People latch onto the idea that a theory is subject to countless revisions for refinement, and then take the stance that a theory, after all, can't be a fact.

Evolution is a fact; it is also a theory. That simply means that evolution is subject to scrutiny for further refinement. Certainly, I'll grant you that a theory is a general explanation for recurring phenomena, but that's simply how it's explained. It doesn't change its actuality.

Mike, I just posted a reply to you in the religion thread since we're veering off the topic here.

quote:

This is not necessarily true. In fact, it may be the most contentious claim in the philosophy of science. It isn't totally clear what you mean by 'facts,' but at best, I think it is safe to say that theories consist of more than just facts. Theories are a set of statements, at least some of which are unobservable constructs which we posit to further explanatory power. If you believe in falsifiability in your scientific investigation, then you probably should not think that 'theories are facts'.

Theories (in the scientific sense of the word, mind you, NOT the colloquial term meaning a hunch) aren't facts by default, but that doesn't mean that they can't be. Evolution is a fact; it has happened and it is happening. It is also a theory; as more evidence accumulates, it could be fine-tuned. However, I'm going to get to the point. Obviously everyone can believe whatever they like. What I'm going to point out is that evolution isn't necessarily incompatible with religion. I'm not 100% positive that there is no god. A possibility, albeit unlikely in my mind. If there is any god, I would imagine him (or better said it - with god being impersonal) as being a prime mover. If you like to call the prime mover god, great. But if I were to believe in such a god, I would not disbelieve evolution or any other sciences.

I will return to science now (physical, not biological). With the advancement of physics under Einstein, we learn that time and space are linked. The universe is infinite, at least in the sense that it is inescapable - if you tried to navigate to the end of the universe, by the time you got there, it would have bent back into the universe. As time and space are the two axes of the universe, time is infinite - think of it as a donut, with time moving around and around. If time is infinite, there is no "creation" - and thus God must not be a creator (by definition) - and could only be a sort of personification of the universe, if it/he existed at all. This isn't a flawless science - far from it. But if you choose to believe the propositions and "theories" of theoretical physics, how do you reconcile god with these theories (note the recurrence of the scientific term for a widely regarded set of proven hypotheses that conglomerate to form a generally solid fact.

Returning to the point, I simply pose a question to the religiously inclined: if you cannot accept evolution, how can you (if you do) accept this branch of physics? I'm not saying that they're incompatible, but if you find evolution incompatible with your beliefs, how does the branch of theoretical physics strike you?

keylimetrev is coming to this from a philosophical perspective. He has a Ph.D. and is not religious, as far as I know. You don't have to dumb down your explanations to him, or, to tell you the truth, anybody else here. We have the smartest Board on the Web. However, you have to read what somebody else says and try to stay on topic. The Rubric grade for going off topic is a BIG FAT 0.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
However, you have to read what somebody else says and try to stay on topic. The Rubric grade for going off topic is a BIG FAT 0.

Double Post from me. Many of you probably believe I deserve ZEROS all the time, but I'm just trying to gauge how well y'all read, or at least, read between the lines! I'm a "teacher" for cripes sake!

quote:

Originally posted by Sinister:
Returning to the point, I simply pose a question to the religiously inclined: if you cannot accept evolution, how can you (if you do) accept this branch of physics? I'm not saying that they're incompatible, but if you find evolution incompatible with your beliefs, how does the branch of theoretical physics strike you?

The universe is infinite. Time is finite. There is an infinite realm of which time is a product. If there were no start to time, we could not logically reach the present.

The infinite size of the universe seems to pose a problem for the agnostic/atheist. You must accept the existence of the infinite. If you must accept that something infinite exists, the argument that a god requires a creator before it is pointless. You are simply arguing against the nature of that which is infinite. We call it God while you may just refer to it as the impersonal infinite.

You also have to explain how an infinite amount of matter necessary to create an infinite universe fit into that compacted cosmic ball that exploded those billions of years ago. How can you confine infinity? What was outside of that ball? Even blank space is something, right?

C'mon SDF.
You are arguing from a false premise.
Who say s the universe is infinite?
But, if you say it is, then you can argue your position to prove a fallacy.
Nice sophistry, but it doesn't hold up logically.

I'm not angry at you, but just annoyed that this kind of argument is still being used to 'prove' god.

I hope this doesn't come across as raging hostility, cos this thread needs cool heads ha ha.

quote:

You also have to explain how an infinite amount of matter necessary to create an infinite universe fit into that compacted cosmic ball that exploded those billions of years ago. How can you confine infinity? What was outside of that ball? Even blank space is something, right?

Except the difference between religion and science is that scientists are content to say "we're working on it."

I can ask you this: why is the Christian god the creator? Why, for that matter, is any god? Why not something else? Why an intelligent creator at all? I've heard the arguments before, and none of them hold up. They're just biblical acrobatics.

We can conceive of the law of conservation of matter and energy, and we should be content to say that it's necessarily true. Would God himself not be composed of matter? If not, what then? Does he exist outside of this logical realm? If that's the case, where's your evidence for him? I'm flabbergasted by the amount of religious proselytizers who call themselves humble. Good science--by which we should base our current teachings--is supposed to be humble, and a good scientist always is.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
However, you have to read what somebody else says and try to stay on topic. The Rubric grade for going off topic is a BIG FAT 0.

Double Post from me. Many of you probably believe I deserve ZEROS all the time, but I'm just trying to gauge how well y'all read, or at least, read between the lines! I'm a "teacher" for cripes sake!

Mark, you're hijacking the thread again. We're talking evolution here.


I give you yet another BIG FAT 0

I knew that was coming, sooner than later too.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaels coffin:
Who say s the universe is infinite?

In a weird way, even if the universe isn't infinite, it still is. Beyond the "limits" of a non infinite universe would still be infinity. This concept has always troubled me.

quote:

Originally posted by drbanality:
Except the difference between religion and science is that scientists are content to say "we're working on it."

...As has this statement. Working on it scares me just as much as a potentially false answer because I honestly believe that there will never be an answer. The thing about evolution and scientific explaination that never worked for me was, no matter how far back you take us, and how many Big-Bang theories you present, it still never gets us to the beginning. That concept actually terrifies me.

The no beginning and no end concept actually did keep me awake at night when I was a younger, regular, force fed, church attendee. It always seemed like religion said here is your answer: you'll find out when you get to heaven and God explains it. Science came along and said here is your answer: We're not really sure and you aren't capable of disproving most of it. Everything else that doesn't make sense, we're working on.

Our lives start at a specific point and end at a specific point. Everything within the framework of our lives begins and ends. There was always something before we got here and there will always be something after we leave though. I realize that sticking to that is blissful ignorance but, until anyone can PROVE where things really came from, what else is there to do? I can go on questioning that which can't be answered and church goers will go on accepting that which can't be proven.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I knew that was coming, sooner than later too.

Doh! Have I become that predictable?

I suppose I'm the one who's off topic now.

quote:

Originally posted by SDF:
The universe is infinite. Time is finite. There is an infinite realm of which time is a product. If there were no start to time, we could not logically reach the present.

I think that Sinister was talking more about the idea of relative time. The whole Einstein thing. I'm not a physicist, and it all sort of freaks me out (kind of like P-Bo, I've always wondered, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into), but I think that time and space are posited to be inseparable, and relative to the platform from whence they are being observed.

quote:

Theories are widely regarded facts. That they're subject to revision doesn't change it. The colloquialism that has surfaced over the last century has been confusing people. People latch onto the idea that a theory is subject to countless revisions for refinement, and then take the stance that a theory, after all, can't be a fact.

This is just not true. Theories are built based on available empirical evidence as a way to explain the way the world works. Theories are never really 'proved' in the sense that you seem to be discussing, they are merely (and I don't mean this to be deflationary) explanations of data which have not been disproved. It is really important to keep this in mind I think, because if you want to intelligently engage with religious believers from the standpoint of evolution, the fact that is a theory is crucial. I think one of the problems with religious belief is that it is not a theory-based belief system. As such it is not open to revision in light of our best current empirical evidence. when you start going down the road of evolution as fact, you risk sounding less like a scientifically minded believer and more like a religious believer.

quote:

keylimetrev is coming to this from a philosophical perspective. He has a Ph.D. and is not religious, as far as I know.

I don't have a PhD. One day, but not quite yet.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: keylimetrev,