A religion? AND before you say that I'm flaming, I don't mean all of science. I mean mostly things about the Big Bang, evolution, etc. It's all theoretical right? And theoretical things haven't been proven. Please post thoughts, and remember that I'M NOT FLAMING.
And here's my comparisons: Science: Made because people wanted truth. Explains life and beginning of the universe and everything.
Note this: Atheists on this board claim that religious people "don't really think about their religion and thats why they believe it", but note that NOT ONE scientist has EVER challenged evolution, the Big Bang, or ANY of that? To my knowledge, explosions don't create matter.
Other areas of science are completely exempt from the above hypothesis.
It's all theoretical right? And theoretical things haven't been proven.
In science a theory is a summary of facts and laws regarding a particular area of study. If something is a scientific theory then we can also say that it is a scientific fact. As Avorne pointed out, familiarize yourself with the terms before you use them incorrectly.
Religion: (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance - Mirriam-Webster Dictionary
So, as you see, science is not, and cannot be a religion.
but note that NOT ONE scientist has EVER challenged evolution, the Big Bang, or ANY of that?
Actually that's not true. The wonderful thing about science is that it is a self correcting process. It changes because we are constantly learning more, gathering more evidence, performing more advanced and comprehensive studies. The theories of evolution and the big bang cosmological model have both been altered in minute ways ever since their introduction.
Other areas of science are completely exempt from the above hypothesis.
And why would any other area of science be exempt? After all, there are a great many "theories" out there, let's address them all. We have germ theory, gravitational theory, nuclear theory, theory of relativity, electrical theory, etc. Since they are all just hypothetical let's just lump them in with superstition. After all, gravity isn't proven, it's just a theory. However this altering has been a process of adding more evidence in support of them, more facts which fit the theories, and observations and studies which increase our understanding of the relationship these facts and laws have within the theories. And yes, many scientists have challenged both of these theories. They have all been proven wrong as well.
Just to save those of you who don't fully understand scientific theories, I'll make it very simple for you to read discussions like this. Any time you see the word "theory" used in scientific discourse, like the theory of evolution, gravitational theory, etc. just replace the word "theory" with "facts". It will save you the trouble of looking ignorant.
Ouch... Well, can't exactly see what the link even means. Since you claim that I'm stupid, then why would showing me a link to a pagefull of complicated terms, that is on, might I add, a site called "WikiLogic". This is most likely an atheist-supporting site; therefore all facts it states will be affected by the opinions of those who wrote them. Also, after further reviewing the meaning of a theory, I now understand that it is when a scientist says "Hey. If (fact) is true, then that means that (insert thing here) should also be true!" And then he gets together with people who are subject experts on that and if they agree that it would work, then it must be true. That's my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong, and correct me with why I am wrong so that I can understand.
Ouch... Well, can't exactly see what the link even means. Since you claim that I'm stupid, then why would showing me a link to a pagefull of complicated terms, that is on, might I add, a site called "WikiLogic". This is most likely an atheist-supporting site; therefore all facts it states will be affected by the opinions of those who wrote them. Also, after further reviewing the meaning of a theory, I now understand that it is when a scientist says "Hey. If (fact) is true, then that means that (insert thing here) should also be true!" And then he gets together with people who are subject experts on that and if they agree that it would work, then it must be true. That's my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong, and correct me with why I am wrong so that I can understand.
*Facepalm* *Facepalm* *Facepalm*
You've got a lot of things wrong there, but i'll address two of them. One, Atheism isn't a religion, it cannot influence ANYTHING, that's like saying that river is biased because it follows the path of least resistance. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief, it teaches nothing.
Two, Science is ALWAYS questioning itself. There are many rigorous studies done on every subject, by more than one person, in a way that can have repetitive results. "Theories" are simply the most commonly accepted explanation, or one of the most common ones. "Theories" like evolution ARE proven. There's a thing we have called "Peer Review" which was made to eliminate bias.
Firstly.... I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE FOR THINKING THAT THEORIES WERE UNTESTED. I was definitely wrong about that. In response to this:
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Borrowing Walker's tactics (minus the witty sarcasm): fact
nounâ/fakt/ facts, plural
A thing that is indisputably the case
If I can still argue against evolution using the irreducible complexity found in nature, despite the fact that now atheists say that the parts had a different purpose and then made an organ, then how is evolution a fact? It's called the theory of evolution. And that's as far as it will go (metaphorically speaking, I know that there's no hierarchy of "hypothesis, theory, law".
You've got a lot of things wrong there, but i'll address two of them. One, Atheism isn't a religion, it cannot influence ANYTHING, that's like saying that river is biased because it follows the path of least resistance. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief, it teaches nothing.
No. Atheism teaches cynicism. That much is true. And your river metaphor makes no sense. Atheism is the belief that there is no god; therefore, with nothing to create the universe, they must believe evolution. And due to the psychological nature of people, it is our subconscious desire to spread our opinions wherever we go.
If I can still argue against evolution using the irreducible complexity found in nature, despite the fact that now atheists say that the parts had a different purpose and then made an organ, then how is evolution a fact? It's called the theory of evolution. And that's as far as it will go (metaphorically speaking, I know that there's no hierarchy of "hypothesis, theory, law".
So you are saying that only atheists say that the parts had a different purpose? It's not like some people who believe in God don't also believe that organs have different purposes. Also, while Evolution is still sorta disputed, it's pretty much mainly proven. :/ I would say more, but you guys already covered everything...
Apparently you have some misconception that Atheists get together as a group to talk about religious things, what we should teach, etc. Wrong. There are no gatherings. The only time Atheists get together to talk is as often as friends get together to talk, and often not about religion.
And your river metaphor makes no sense.
You should understand it, but the point i'm trying to make is, it's ridiculous to say that Atheists would bias toward anything anymore so than a normal person, even less so because we have no "Goal" that we are trying to prove, and thus have nothing to hide and everything to learn.
@Waffle It's a fact in that it's a verified observation. It's a theory in that it's an explanation for observations. So it's both.
If I can still argue against evolution using the irreducible complexity found in nature
We ahve yet to find things that are irreducibly complex. We have always found when we break down the parts they can have other uses outside of the whole. So no you can't argue against it using irreducible complexity.
with nothing to create the universe, they must believe evolution.
If your going to argue against something try to at least understand what your arguing against. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.
Science has very few things in common with religion, it makes even less sense thatn to say politics is a religion. Well except for all those monks and priests who did scientific research (most prominent probably being Mendel)
It's all theoretical right?
Nope. There are facts. Not everything is covered by facts, but most things are.
Made because people wanted truth. Explains life and beginning of the universe and everything.
Not bad. I would rather say: Made because people sought for answers. Tries to explain life and beginning of the universe and everything.
Atheists on this board claim that religious people "don't really think about their religion and thats why they believe it"
That is not entirely true, I sure would say that many people don't look too much into the details of their religions, but I will admit that a lot of people won't turn away from religion after doing so, and there are also very intelligent and inquiring believers.
but note that NOT ONE scientist has EVER challenged evolution, the Big Bang, or ANY of that?
WHAT? It is constantly being challenged. Ignorant fool, no theory is safe from the hordes of criticism, which is good because else we wouldn't find possible errors.
If I can still argue against evolution using the irreducible complexity found in nature, despite the fact that now atheists say that the parts had a different purpose and then made an organ, then how is evolution a fact?
You can argue against evolution using irreducible complexity all you want. You would be wrong, but you can argue. Evolution fully explains exactly how things became complex, where they came from, what preceded them, and gives us extremely accurate tools to predict what will come next. There is not one single thing which has been argued as 'irreducably complex' and not been shown otherwise in light of the evidence of evolution.
It's called the theory of evolution. And that's as far as it will go (metaphorically speaking, I know that there's no hierarchy of "hypothesis, theory, law"
Again, you are wrong. A scientific theory is made up of facts and laws. I don't know how to make this any more clear to you. If something is a scientific theory then it IS fact. It is so well documented and proven that it would just blow your mind. Just to give you an idea, we have more proof that the theory of evolution is accurate than we do for the theory of gravity, however I don't see anyone concerned about floating away, the earth careening out of orbit, or airplanes not functioning.
No. Atheism teaches cynicism.
When are you people going to realize that atheism doesn't teach anything. It isn't a belief system, there aren't any rules, and that it is nothing more than refraining from asserting a belief in a deity. You, as a Christian, are an atheist as well. You don't believe in Zeus, Hermes, Ammon-Ra, Thor, or Loki. We feel the exact same way about your diety. That's all. Does your atheism regarding Zeus teach you to be cynical? Of course not, you simply don't believe.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god;
No, atheism is a lack of belief. Some atheists assert that there is no god, some simply say "I don't know so I'm not saying one way or the other", and any variation of these. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you deny that there are Gods, or claim that Gods cannot exist, it just means that you answer something other than "yes" if someone asked you "do you believe in any deities?".
with nothing to create the universe, they must believe evolution.
No, again, you show your lack of understanding. Evolution deals ONLY with how life changes over time. That's it. The origins of the universe are dealt with by the 'big bang' cosmological model, and the origins of life are dealt with by abiogenesis. Please stop attributing claims to theories which they do not address, it's fallacious and irrelevant.
