The Faith Poll

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Great. Wonderful.

It would even have relevance if i was Catholic.

Im not.

you said...

Well let's take that a step further. There must not be a God because humans get ill, and dont live forever...right? That would be just as assumable as anything he is pointing too.

Vulcan said...

There you go, making up your own ideas of what heaven is and when you don't find it, you claim it don't exist.

Im simply pointing out that Heaven is not my creation and is something freely taught to millions of people on this planet. Children are taught that if they are "perfect" GOD will take them here....if not God has another little surprise in store for you.
Doesnt have to be your version of God tranny.

[troutman]

I said I hold out hope there is a God.

Interesting. Why is that? What do you mean by "a God"? I think I have the same longings too. I think more than hoping that there is a "God", we hope that there is an after-life. We are all afraid of dying.

[transplant99]

Cheese...when I wrote...

Well let's take that a step further. There must not be a God because humans get ill, and dont live forever...right? That would be just as assumable as anything he is pointing too.

I was talking about Franks claims that there is NO GOD.

What does that have to do with heaven?

I am confused.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

See above Vulcan...i dont make stuff up.

Gee you know what...you sound just like me with the here and now stuff.

Yeah. I was raised in an atheist family and have found it is a clean way to approach god. Not many preconceived ideas. As far as the here and now stuff goes, I believe in focusing my mind. There are ways to do this without religious or irreligious mumbo jumbo. It doesn't require faith, forgiveness, belief in Jesus etc., only my commitment.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Cheese...when I wrote...



I was talking about Franks claims that there is NO GOD.

What does that have to do with heaven?

I am confused.

because Christians equate living forever with no illnesses as Heaven. Therefore IF they lived life the way they are supposed to they would have no fear of death because thats where they would go.

Its allegorical period.

[transplant99]

because Christians equate living forever with no illnesses as Heaven.

Im not christian fer the 100th time.

So why do you continue to bring it up?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Fly for Paul Martin's sake...take a pill and relax. Please show me ONE post where ive said that religion is a crock of ****. All I have said is that theres no proof....you have a BIG problem with that.

You've said repeatedly that it's lies. Perhaps you didn't use the phrase 'crock of ****' but it's implicit in pretty much everything you write in a thread like this.

Originally Posted by Cheese

So what if science cant prove everything. I have not once in this thread or any other, espoused that you should believe everything I do. I do teach my children that science has many answers to lifes problems, and that as time goes on it will have many more answers. I also tell them that if anyone tells them that they need to follow a God, or if anyone tells them they will go to Hell, or any other negative place because of a mistake, to look that person firmly in the eye and say...PROVE IT! I condemn false teachings period.

So it's okay for science not to be able to prove everything, but it's not okay for religion? What's that I smell? Hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Science is not a religion and scientists, unless they are on the take, will not publish falsehoods. Science is also able to adapt to change.

Science won't publish falsehoods, eh? It wasn't too long ago the Earth was flat and the Sun circled us....

Originally Posted by Cheese

Dont talk to me about hypocrisy Fly...I think you can look around your church or place of worship and find enough of those around you.
Feel free to worship whatever you want.

I don't worship in a church, nice try though. I also don't think that someone sinning makes them a hypocrite. It makes them human. 'Judge not lest yee be judged' and 'let he who has no sin cast the first stone' and all that jazz. (Excerpts taken from somewhere in the Bible.) Judging someone while commiting the same sin would be hypocrisy, however since I don't pretend to be perfect, nor do most if not all of the Christians I know pretend to be perfect, they wouldn't be hypocrites. Heck, the pastor of the Luthern church in Sundre where my family lives smokes like a chimney. It's his own personal battle and none of my business, especially since I do too.

I don't want to psychoanalyze you or anything, but it seems to me that some religious figurehead somewhere along the way must have abused you pretty badly for you to have such hate for the Church. I'm sorry for that. We all take what life gives us and turn it into whatever we can. Some of us turn to God, some of us turn away.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by troutman

I said I hold out hope there is a God.

Interesting. Why is that? What do you mean by "a God"? I think I have the same longings too. I think more than hoping that there is a "God", we hope that there is an after-life. We are all afraid of dying.

Some people are afraid of dying. Some people are not afraid. In fact, some people welcome the end. There are all kinds.

I see many people in their 70's and 80's and they talk frankly about having five or ten years to live.

That's really a remarkable mindset if you think about it, really try and put your head into it. No future anymore. No hope. Just the ticking of the clock.

You can see how, at such a moment in their lives, people might look for things that would explain there isn't an absolute end.

I understand that. It will probably be me someday. It would be tempting for a lifelong agnostic or even atheist.

Cowperson

[Rory Tate]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Science won't publish falsehoods, eh? It wasn't too long ago the Earth was flat and the Sun circled us....

This is actually a very interesting bit of science history that I was always enjoy relating. Humans had actually come to the conclusion that the Earth was round way back in the times of Ancient Greece (they even made a very good measurement of the circumference of the Earth). However, this was "forgotten", and the view that the Earth was flat came into being in the Dark Ages. This is somewhat understandable, since it certainly does look flat most of the times that I observe it (I live in Saskatchewan after all). However, then I would have to ignore that strange round shadow that seems to creep across the moon every so often, now wouldn't I? Hmm...

Copernicus was actually the first major figure to break away from the "flat Earth at the center of the solar system" answer, although his reasons for doing so turn out to have more to do with his secret involvement in a heretic religion that worshipped the Sun, who wanted to place the Sun at the center of all existence. Since much of the accepted religion at the time was based on the Earth being the center of all things, the reason for Copernicus being sentenced to death may not have truly been a clash of science vs religion...it may have had more to do with religious politicing, and the eternal battle for people's minds and souls.

Galileo, however, was the first to base his conclusions on objective observations, which may have also been the reason that he was not put to death as a result (an interesting note on this: Galileo's book was finally removed from the Vatican's list of banned books...in 1986).

The important point is that each of these stories contain conclusions about the real, observable world, but only Galileo's is as a result of good science and application of the scientific method, and that is where the distinction between reason and faith becomes clear. Scientific discoveries are rightfully termed "reasonable beliefs", because they are support by evidence, and are open to change/modification should new evidence be presented. And just as there are people that are unreasonable (which is why such a word exists in our language), so are there ideas that are unreasonable (i.e. based on faith).

No idea that deserves the description of "scientific" can ever be termed unreasonable. It can be wrong, or it can be right, but it will be based upon objective, rigorous, reproducible observations if it is to be called science.

[Rory Tate]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You can see how, at such a moment in their lives, people might look for things that would explain there isn't an absolute end.

I understand that. It will probably be me someday. It would be tempting for a lifelong agnostic or even atheist.

Ah yes... "There are no atheists in foxholes." I've never known whether I, as an atheist, should be more offended by that quote than a theist. I'd say the latter.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Some people are afraid of dying. Some people are not afraid. In fact, some people welcome the end. There are all kinds.

I see many people in their 70's and 80's and they talk frankly about having five or ten years to live.

That's really a remarkable mindset if you think about it, really try and put your head into it. No future anymore. No hope. Just the ticking of the clock.

You can see how, at such a moment in their lives, people might look for things that would explain there isn't an absolute end.

I understand that. It will probably be me someday. It would be tempting for a lifelong agnostic or even atheist.

Cowperson

I wouldn't make the situation you tell of these elderly people that depressing. Think of it as a time to enjoy life for the present as really their are no guaranties for any of us that our next exhalation may be our last.
I'm not excempt from out of fear, trying to bargain with god but I don't feel it is the best way to approach this life, but whatever works to bring us peace.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

You've said repeatedly that it's lies. Perhaps you didn't use the phrase 'crock of ****' but it's implicit in pretty much everything you write in a thread like this.



So it's okay for science not to be able to prove everything, but it's not okay for religion? What's that I smell? Hypocrisy.



Science won't publish falsehoods, eh? It wasn't too long ago the Earth was flat and the Sun circled us....



I don't worship in a church, nice try though. I also don't think that someone sinning makes them a hypocrite. It makes them human. 'Judge not lest yee be judged' and 'let he who has no sin cast the first stone' and all that jazz. (Excerpts taken from somewhere in the Bible.) Judging someone while commiting the same sin would be hypocrisy, however since I don't pretend to be perfect, nor do most if not all of the Christians I know pretend to be perfect, they wouldn't be hypocrites. Heck, the pastor of the Luthern church in Sundre where my family lives smokes like a chimney. It's his own personal battle and none of my business, especially since I do too.

I don't want to psychoanalyze you or anything, but it seems to me that some religious figurehead somewhere along the way must have abused you pretty badly for you to have such hate for the Church. I'm sorry for that. We all take what life gives us and turn it into whatever we can. Some of us turn to God, some of us turn away.

OK Firefly...I purposefully went back through every post Ive made looking for anywhere I have said that its a crock of **** or lies.
Other than this ONE part where I was talking about people I knew in church...

I did believe at one point Fly...before i knew the lies, inconsistencies and the hypocrisy of it all

I have never suggested anything more than prove it. It is obvious that because I take the opposite side to you in this you end up reading things into my posts. Im sorry you feel that way.
The rest of your quotes are soooooooooo far out in left field, and obviously written with such hatred in your eyes I feel almost no commitment to responding...but I will.

So it's okay for science not to be able to prove everything, but it's not okay for religion? What's that I smell? Hypocrisy.

You really cant be serious asking this question can you? Religion and Science are polar opposites. Since when have you seen scientists putting Modern Science magazines in hotel room drawers? Since when have you seen a holy revival on Modern science? Science doesnt attempt to draw the minions over to its side with promises of anything. I could go on and on...but im sure you are already seething and not really reading what Im saying.

Science won't publish falsehoods, eh? It wasn't too long ago the Earth was flat and the Sun circled us....

Keep on stretching....hey at least Science changed right? Thats the key here, science has evolved with proof. That is the whole point.
I wonder who continued to help keep the theory of a flat earth alive? You dont suppose theres any religious conotations there do you?

the rest of YOUR babble Cow has called you out on at least 5 times now. You prefer not to read or listen. You seem to take the parts of religion and the bible that suits YOU the best and quite frankly I dont think that was the original intention.
The last dig about some religious figurehead Ill ignore becase its so full of <fill in the blank hatred> I wont bother to respond. Im fine Fly...I have had no injurious issues with the religious establishment, other than they opened my eyes to reality..unfortunately it wasnt their reality.

[FlamesFanInEdm]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

All of this points to a common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.

Regarding what you say here, I would say that this is more evidence of a supreme Creator with a plan in mind. The evidence indicates that an intelligent Creator designed a plan for design, He developed a flexible general plan which could be adapted for the lifestyle of each animal. The result is a series of homologies from the work of a common Designer who created all of these animals in an organized fashion. I believe that God exists, I believe in creation, and I am quite interested in this debate.

I would like to know your response to Michael Behe, who in his book, Darwin's Black Box, uses biochemical evidence, particularily irreducible complexity, as proof against evolution.

Here is a brief intro to irreducible complexity.

A mousetrap has a clear function (crushing mice) and is made of several parts (a platform, a spring, a bar that does the crushing). If any of these parts is removed, the trap doesn?t work. Hence it?s irreducibly complex.

Obviously, living organisms are much more complex than a mousetrap. Here is an interesting read about the human knee. http://www.trueorigin.org/knee.asp

I'd be interested in hearing your respnse to this and to the concept of irreducible complexity in biochemistry which you point to as your strongest point for evolution.

(Sorry if this has been brought up in the next pages, I've only made it thru reading page 2, will read rest later)
________
PISSING TEEN

[Buff]

There is no end to this argument. Unless something earth shattering happens to alter their lives, the only proof that the athiests are looking for will be found after death.

[FireFly]

Hahahaha. I'm one of the least hateful people you'd ever meet. I live my life full of love for others. I'm concerned about your 'disgust' of religious establishments or whatever you'd like to call it. (Pardon me for reading more into it than you wrote.) It concerns me whenever anyone is not accepting of other's beliefs. You don't have to believe in them, but you should at least allow other too.

Not all religious people are hypocrites, and you're right, I have interpreted the Bible to 'suit' my own needs. However, since it's been altered before to suit different churches needs, I am comfortable with my own 'form' of Christianity. It's part of my own 'personal' journey with God. Whether or not I change 'His Word' to suit my own needs is between Him and I and no concern of yours.

Both you and Cow keep asking for proof. I keep admitting there is none. I don't see how that's avoidance. What I do see as avoidance is that you don't really answer the fact that there is no proof either way, but you refuse to believe there may be a God. Science cannot disprove God.

Religion, (at least Christianity/Judaism) HAS changed. But the underlying premise has stayed the same... if there is a God, (which the Bible and other Holy Books all say a person needs to have faith in,) we have to believe in Him.

I keep asking you for proof He doesn't exist, and you avoid that too....

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanInEdm

I would like to know your response to Michael Behe, who in his book, Darwin's Black Box, uses biochemical evidence, particularily irreducible complexity, as proof against evolution.

Here is a brief intro to irreducible complexity.

A mousetrap has a clear function (crushing mice) and is made of several parts (a platform, a spring, a bar that does the crushing). If any of these parts is removed, the trap doesn’t work. Hence it’s irreducibly complex.

Here is one response shamelessly stolen from wikipedia...

Perhaps most importantly, potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the immune system[3] and the flagellum,[4] which were the three examples Behe used. Even his example of a mousetrap was shown to be reducible by John H. McDonald.[5] If irreducible complexity is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways—Behe has remarked that such plausible pathways would defeat his argument.
Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin have shown that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes.[6]evolved biochemical process. They claim that Behe overestimated the significance of irreducible complexity because his simple, linear view of biochemical reactions results in his taking snapshots of selective features of biological systems, structures and processes, while ignoring the redundant complexity of the context in which those features are naturally embedded and an overreliance of overly simplistic metaphors such as his mousetrap. In addition, it has been claimed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally. They also assert that what evolved biochemical and molecular systems actually exhibit is redundant complexity—a kind of complexity that is the product of an [7]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity


Later it goes on to shoot down the mousetrap thing by comparing it to a cat that also kills mice. The cat can keep killing mice even if you crop it's tail, removes it's claws, it loses an eye, et cetera. In other words, you can remove parts of the system and it can continue to function, so it's not irreducibly complex.


I'm no science-talking guy, but it seems that this "irreducible complexity" stuff has been fairly convincingly shot down.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanInEdm

I would like to know your response to Michael Behe, who in his book, Darwin's Black Box, uses biochemical evidence, particularily irreducible complexity, as proof against evolution.

I'd be interested in hearing your respnse to this and to the concept of irreducible complexity in biochemistry which you point to as your strongest point for evolution.

My response, is the Behe book is garbage.

http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.html

Is there something special about biochemistry that prevents evolution from doing exactly the same thing to a microscopic system composed of proteins? Absolutely not. But evolution does make a testable prediction with respect to such systems. That prediction is that the degree of similarity in DNA sequences of organisms should correspond to their evolutionary histories. And, as the author is all too well aware, that prediction has been borne out a thousand times over.

As the book draws to a conclusion, Behe attempts to develop the idea of intelligent design into a testable, scientific hypothesis. This is a lofty goal, but this is also where his argument collapses. Scientific ideas must be formulated in terms that make them testable. Indeed, Darwin himself proposed several ways in which his theory might be tested and disproved. And one of these ways - the contention that organisms contain biochemical parts that could not have been produced by Darwinian means - is the basis of Behe's criticisms of evolution. Being a trained experimental scientist, one would have expected that Behe would have seen the need to do likewise. Unfortunately, he did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Black_Box

Four of the book's five reviewers — Michael Atchison, Robert Shapiro, K. John Morrow, and Russell Doolittle — have made statements that do not support Behe's claim of having passed a rigorous peer review process.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

a general problem with "irreducible complexity" -- it is a "God of the Gaps" explanation. Each time we show that a supposedly "irreducibly complex" system is not, by removing one part, a supporter can claim that our new system is now "irreducibly complex".

Behe is apparently completely ignorant of the enormous amount of literature

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

the mousetrap that Behe uses as an analogy CAN be reduced in complexity and still function as a mousetrap


http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

There are many places where, when the arguments presented can be put to the test, they fail miserably. For example, his insistence of the absence of literature about molecular evolution. This is easy to test, and see that what he is claiming is clearly wrong. This greatly reduces his integrity, in my opinion When reading the book, I get the feeling that Behe is implying some sort of "conspiracy" amongst scientists. I am convinced that what motivates many very good and talented scientists is the desire to be RIGHT and to be the first one who got there.
The appeal to ignorance of the reader. Many things are said to support his arguments which are simply not true, but the intended reader would likely have no idea of this.

http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...?fulltext=true


I emphasize six fallacies inherent in Behe's claim, although there are many others where these came from.

I trust you are not studying science at U of A.

[troutman]

double post

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Hahahaha. I'm one of the least hateful people you'd ever meet. I live my life full of love for others. I'm concerned about your 'disgust' of religious establishments or whatever you'd like to call it. (Pardon me for reading more into it than you wrote.) It concerns me whenever anyone is not accepting of other's beliefs. You don't have to believe in them, but you should at least allow other too.

Not all religious people are hypocrites, and you're right, I have interpreted the Bible to 'suit' my own needs. However, since it's been altered before to suit different churches needs, I am comfortable with my own 'form' of Christianity. It's part of my own 'personal' journey with God. Whether or not I change 'His Word' to suit my own needs is between Him and I and no concern of yours.

Both you and Cow keep asking for proof. I keep admitting there is none. I don't see how that's avoidance. What I do see as avoidance is that you don't really answer the fact that there is no proof either way, but you refuse to believe there may be a God. Science cannot disprove God.

Religion, (at least Christianity/Judaism) HAS changed. But the underlying premise has stayed the same... if there is a God, (which the Bible and other Holy Books all say a person needs to have faith in,) we have to believe in Him.

I keep asking you for proof He doesn't exist, and you avoid that too....

Well now that weve got that over with Im sure youd find me to be the exact same type of person you are...loving and open and smiling all the time.
Oh and I never said ALL religious people are hypocrites...but I did say youll find a good bunch of them there.
I and all the others on the non theist side have said on multiple occasions that Gods existence or non existence cannot be proven by science. We do however suggest that there is no proof whatsoever of the existence of Jesus Christ. If thats the same to you then we can agree never to agree.
We arent out to attack your "choice" in life, or for that matter how you decide to live it, Religious choice is yours as non Theism is ours.
The Post was created to determine choices and view the religious demographic here at CP. Obviously with polar opposite viewpoints on this topic things will get heated...thats ok because like Cow, myself ,trout and others we would love nothing more than to be proven wrong. Can we honestly say that about Christians though?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Both you and Cow keep asking for proof. I keep admitting there is none. I don't see how that's avoidance. What I do see as avoidance is that you don't really answer the fact that there is no proof either way, but you refuse to believe there may be a God. Science cannot disprove God.

I've never asked you either in this thread or any other to prove that God existed.

I have said in this thread and many others that it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

It's quite possible, however, to have a discussion of "proof" for the basic foundation of Christianity - such as the nebulous fact of Jesus - without getting into a discussion on the existence of God.

Cowperson