This is why Christianity is made fun of

Post by **Esrever** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:00 am

Wooduck51 wrote: And also to quickly cover evolution: If evolution worked so hard to produce us, why don't more monkeys give birth to humans? why would evolution just stop?

Human beings do not evolve from monkeys at all. Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor. Both strains (and many others) survived independently to this day because they had attributes that allowed them to thrive in their environment. Other strains that branched off did not thrive and disappeared.

Evolution did not "work hard" to produce us. Evolution is a series of random genetic mutations. More accurately, evolution is the small handful of these mutations that were beneficial and led to the increased survival and breeding of the animals that carry them.

Nothing drives me crazy like someone searching for the "magic" anti-evolution statement. Popular arguments against evolution always equate to someone looking for that one basic, seemingly-logical point that instantly proves it is all nonsense. "Why don't more monkeys turn into people?" "How did the bombardier beetle evolve without exploding?" "How do a couple of cells just instantly turn into a horse or an elephant?"

These arguments ALWAYS rely on a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works. But because the theory of evolution is very involved and the evidence that makes it plausible is complicated, it always takes ten paragraphs to "disprove" every idiotic misinformed anti-evolution soundbite. There's LOTS of room to legitimately debate the theory of evolution, but we never get to see those arguments, because they can't be distilled into 15 words or less.

masked_ferret · Post by **masked_ferret** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:35 am

No scientific argument is airtight and can explain everything, on the other hand the Bible's answer is real simple, God is all powerful and made everything. You can say blind faith but no amount of science can really 1oo% prove that that is not true.

Science never claims to be 100% accurate. In fact that's the idea behind science: discovery. You look for evidence in observations and consider all the possibilities, then cross off the ones that can not in any way fit. Or better still, science begins with a theory and then tries its best to prove it wrong. It is a constant cycle of improvement and closing in on answers.

There are many scientists who believe in a God, the two ideas aren't incompatible. As Locit has just proven.

"And no one has proven me wrong yet."

I don't care about proving you wrong. My point is that just because someone can't prove you wrong doesn't mean that you, and only you (or, as it may be, X million believers of X faith) are absolutely right. In science what may be a solid theory today could be disproven tomorrow and replaced with a better theory, and this is more than acceptable.

"How can the Big Bang have started from Nothing?" I don't know. Doesn't mean that it didn't happen, but it's one of the best theories we've got, and there is a lot of evidence to support it, hence we stick to it. It may well be that there was a God behind it.

I'm rambling. My main beef with this is saying The Bible/Qu'ran/Bhagavada Gita/L. Ron Hubbard Novel is the only way. One reference or document doesn't prove anything above all criticism.

Post by **Esrever** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:35 am

I can't disprove creationism , but I can disprove the notion that creationism MUST be right. Doing that is easy!

Statement: The account of Genesis is completely correct, word-for-word, because the bible says so.

Challenge: The bible also says that insects have four legs. (They don't.)

Conclusion: The bible is not a 100 percent reliable source. Additional evidence is required to "prove" anything it says, including the Genesis account.

As soon as you start looking at the evidence outside of the bible, you discover that Genesis is not the most plausible explanation. The only reason it gets considered is because people ALREADY think it is true. If they hadn't read it in the bible, no one would EVER assume the world was 6000 years old, because nothing else supports that assumption. Nothing except for a book that is known to have mistakes in it.

Wooduck51 · Post by **Wooduck51** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:59 am

Crazy Penguin wrote:
Wooduck51 wrote:Come back to this part of the conversation when you have even the slightest clue what the fuck you're talking about.

How many of you have read the Bible? Have you read the new testament? how much of the old? If you have not all of you can eat these words. And where the heck does the Bible say insects have four legs? you are making things up.

And also, scientific arguments need to be 100% true to hold up, if stuff is not fact the whole thing falls apart.

Dache · Post by **Dache** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:32 am

Wooduck51 wrote:And also, scientific arguments need to be 100% true to hold up, if stuff is not fact the whole thing falls apart.

Science is theory. For example, it's called the Big Bang theory. No one has ever said that it's 100% definitely true, only that it could have happened and there is some evidence to support it. This is how science works.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:56 am

"could have happened" and "has some evidence to support it" are understatements when used to describe a scientific theory.

Post by **Delphine** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:11 am

Wooduck51 wrote:How many of you have read the Bible?

I've read the entire thing cover to cover. My mother is a devout Christian and my father is a devout conservative; I know the thing inside and out.* It's a storybook, and a boring one at that.

And also, scientific arguments need to be 100% true to hold up, if stuff is not fact the whole thing falls apart.

Yeah, again, come back when you actually understand what you're discussing. At least pick up a Discover or Scientific American or something.

*or did several years ago. I haven't picked one up in ages and don't plan to.

Post by **Popcorn** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:59 am

Locit wrote:seeing as religion and science are so fundamentally different is it really necessary to hate one because you are supportive of the other?

I think it is. I think it is full-stop impossible, no exceptions, to believe in a religious interpretation of God and still correspond fully to rational, scientific thinking. Sure, you can be the world's best scientist, cure AIDs and prove that we evolved from ostriches if you want, but if you believe in, say, a Christian God at the same time, you're thinking inconsistently.

I am in fact a Christian, but that doesn't mean I hate science and want to burn the heretic unbelievers.

No, of course it doesn't. But what I'm arguing here is that, if you want to embrace rational thinking (as you should), I think the conclusion that God as imaginged by Christianity cannot exist is the only rational one. Believe me when I say that I have thought about this a lot, and I have never seen a good argument for religious belief; are you aware how unpopular the concept is with published philosophy? It simply defies rational expectation. Basically, I'm saying yes, of course scientists can be Christians and vice-versa, but I don't think they're right to be Christians.

However, I don't think if you are going to allow people to have their own beliefs of what is sacred that you should go right around in the next sentence and call God "some prick in the sky". It is not that you have to show their religion itself respect, but at least give the people themselves some consideration.

Well, I've been characteristically abrasive in this conversation, and I definitely believe in the basic act of being nice to people, but come on, this is has turned into a (quasi) intellectual debate. People are expected to be able to hear what other people are saying without bursting into tears. It is my opinion that the God envisioned by, for example, Christianity is a profoundly selfish, petty and injust one. I'm not about to start turning up at churches parading that on signposts, but if you don't like it when that opinion comes up in a debate about religion, suck it down.

Wooduck51 · Post by **Wooduck51** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:44 am

I would like to say I always enjoy a good debate, and this has been another excellent one. And no i am not some ass who now hates you all because we disagree.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:02 pm

I would like to say I always enjoy a good debate, and this has been another excellent one. And no i am not some ass who now hates you all because we disagree.

You haven't been debating at all. You're just squawking about the Bible and asking people to disprove it. You can't "disprove" a fairy tale. You couldn't, for instance, say conclusively that Little Red Riding Hood never existed because you can't prove a negative. You can, however, exclude unlikely arguments or happenstances based on what we logically know about the universe.

For instance: Wooduck, I created you using purple semen five minutes ago, and used my magical purple semen powers to falsify your past by implanting false memories and evidence throughout everyplace and everyone you've ever been.

Prove me wrong.

Wooduck51 · Post by **Wooduck51** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:47 pm

re-read the crap about the big bang and I can instantly disprove everything (unless proven wrong, your job) by saying that Since something cannot come from nothing, namely the matter needed for scientific theories about the beginning of the earth to work, therefore is no way that any of said theories work. Something had to create the matter from absolute void, and the logical answer is God.

And age insult aside, like hell am I going to stand by as you attack my faith for some misguided reasons that seem to stem from the fact that no one likes the Idea of having to submit to a higher authority, namely God, no matter how simple and no matter how big the reward.

Post by **Popcorn** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:59 pm

I am in great and severe pain.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:01 pm

Wooduck51 wrote:Allrighty let me try this:

Humans like the path of least resistance, we don't like being attacked constantly. So how does a religion that has no truth in it get started by some guys who were constantly criticized and killed for it? and then it continues to spread across the world like never before. Tell me.

How old are you, kid? I appreciate the intentions, but seriously. Just stop.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:08 pm

Allrighty let me try this:

Humans like the path of least resistance, we don't like being attacked constantly. So how does a religion that has no truth in it get started by some guys who were constantly criticized and killed for it? and then it continues to spread across the world like never before. Tell me.

1) Comfort. Religion is a comforting lie, allowing people to believe that they are significant, that there's a magical benign man in the sky looking out for them, and that everything's gonna be all right.

2) Power. As a religion grows and becomes popular, it becomes easy to gain power by endorsing or joining said religion.

3) Conditioning. Children raised to believe a religion is the truth by their parents and peers may never question it.

4) Insanity. Good ol' insanity.

5) Money. As L. Ron Hubbard discovered, religion is where the real cash is.

6) Social Need Humans are a social animals who often dislike being excluded. Thus, they often form groups or cliques of their own so they feel like they belong to a "tribe" of some sort.

Need I go on? A human would die, or at least risk their life, for any one of the reasons above.

Wooduck51 · Post by **Wooduck51** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:11 pm

re-read the crap about the big bang and I can instantly disprove everything (unless proven wrong, your job) by saying that Since something cannot come from nothing, namely the matter needed for scientific theories about the beginning of the earth to work, therefore is no way that any of said theories work. Something had to create the matter from absolute void, and the logical answer is God.

And age insult aside, like hell am I going to stand by as you attack my faith for some misguided reasons that seem to stem from the fact that no one likes the Idea of having to submit to a higher authority, namely God, no matter how simple and no matter how big the reward.

And the idea that you were created randomly and will eventually just fade away from existence is somehow right?

Dache · Post by **Dache** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:16 pm

Wooduck51 wrote:Something had to create the matter from absolute void, and the logical answer is God.

No, the logical answer is, "I don't know and I'm not about to go making stuff up to pretend I do know."

Wooduck51 · Post by **Wooduck51** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:24 pm

Is this over yet or will it continue?

Post by **Crazy Penguin** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:26 pm

Wooduck51 wrote:Something had to create the matter from absolute void, and the logical answer is God.

And who created God?

Wooduck51 · Post by **Wooduck51** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:31 pm

God is Spirit that has existed forever, he is not bound by our laws of science and logic.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:33 pm

Indeed. Why can you not accept that matter cannot originate by itself, but you think God can? It's the same thing, you're just adding an unnecessary middleman that doesn't explain anything anyways.

re-read the crap about the big bang and I can instantly disprove everything (unless proven wrong, your job) by saying that Since something cannot come from nothing, namely the matter needed for scientific theories about the beginning of the earth to work, therefore is no way that any of said theories work. Something had to create the matter from absolute void, and the logical answer is God.

You're falling into the "God in the Cracks" fallicy, which is popular amongst thiests lately. They keep on looking for anything science doesn't know yet, and says "Oh, well if you don't know how it happened, then God did it". This is a horrible tactic for theists, since as science continues to understand more and more, God has less of these "cracks" to fit into. For instance, God used to be the one who made it rain, but we now know this is the result of evaporation and cloud formation. God also used to be the one who created man, but we now know this is a result of genetic mutaiton.

If you try to validate the existance of God by saying that "anything science doesn't know for sure yet? God did that, which proves he exists", you're in for a sad surprise whenever the scientific community makes a new discovery.

Wooduck51 · Post by **Wooduck51** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:37 pm

Or you when we all see each other when Christ comes back.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:41 pm

God is Spirit that has existed forever, he is not bound by our laws of science and logic.

Just like my purple semen! Which is also beyond your laws! Which proves I created you by using it! I win!

And age insult aside, like hell am I going to stand by as you attack my faith for some misguided reasons that seem to stem from the fact that no one likes the Idea of having to submit to a higher authority, namely God, no matter how simple and no matter how big the reward.

Submit to my semen and it will reward you with its purpley goodness.

Wooduck51 · Post by **Wooduck51** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:43 pm

Oh no, It's gonna kill me! arrrggghhhhhhh...

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:46 pm

Or you when we all see each other when Christ comes back.

Ah, there's another motivation of the theist - to feel superior to non-believers, which is why you have all these nutty apocalypic visions ala Left Behind - they want the end of the world to come so that they can finally be vindicated as correct while they gleefully watch the sinners and everyone who doubted them burn in a lake of fire. So that they can see Jesus spank every body and go "Hahaha! We were right all along!"

Religion exists to exclude people.

What a noble and altruistic motivation.

Post by **Popcorn** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:48 pm

But look-- and I can't believe I'm bringing myself to argue with you here, because it's like kicking a child in the face-- let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that there is a God, he did create the universe, and he in fact accounts for all of the big mysteries of existence.

Now, with that in mind-- what makes you think it's a God like the one in the Bible? Why, for example, isn't it Allah? And how do you know it isn't another God altogether, one who is actually going to send us to hell for doing acts we mistakenly think are good-- like worshipping the God in the Christian Bible?