We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Science Haters
| 161 | 17233 |
Hey, after reading a few posts, I was appalled by how many people on AG shut out science for the mere fact that they don't like it. I'm not talking just about the super-religious people, I've also seen a few people who said no to science just because they could.
They didn't listen or pay attention to any evidence or sources brought forward, and they did not use vocabulary correctly. They claimed something wasn't true at all and that it's impossible to figure out what happened, "B cuz i wusn't there lololololololol" They were flaming, flaming, trolling, trolling, knowledge haters. Just flat out haters. I'm tired of these people, you know?
Please, share your thoughts on this.
- 161 Replies
Hmmm...according to my calculations, I should have gotten at least 2 posts between my two previous posts...
Understanding the universe is science, yes. Believing that a god created the universe is religion.The point I was trying to get to was that my religion REQUIRES that I work to understand the universe. That allows me to be both scientific and religious, right?
Just wondering, but what if someone came up with "scientific proof" that a Creator made the universe?
but what if someone came up with "scientific proof" that a Creator made the universe?
A curious prepostition. I'd be inclined to accept it; part of being a skeptic or a scientist is accepting new information when it's accurate - so personally, I'd be more then willing to accept it if it was proven.
On the other side though - is it still religion, or is it now just purely science? A big part of religions world-round is faith; and faith is really all about something you don't *know*. So if we *know* there's a creator, there's not really faith anymore, is there? I mean, people can still worship.. I kind of doubt I would be inclined to worship.
*sigh* seems I couldn't change the subject, but I'll respond to Hidden anywho
Every time I've seen legitimate scientists and photographic experts take a crack on claims of the paranormal they get debunked as natural phenomena or fakes.
Obviously they are not all explained, otherwise people wouldn't waste time with them. No doubt there are plenty of explainable photos, but blaming everything on a trick-of-the-light or double exposure doesn't cut it. That is why there are photos that carry on over the years.
It's like you see in all of those shows they walk around with EM meters and then get all freaked out when it goes off - they're not even paying attention to the electrical sockets sitting on the wall 2 feet from the meter.
No doubt plenty of that stuff is faked. Ever seen the tossed clothes hanger on Ghost Hunters? I'm just saying that not everything is explained so easily.
And on to other stuff...
Guys, can you please watch yourselves? I've seen some slight flaming going on, and I don't want any of you to get banned.
This whole argument is getting ridiculous. I want this thread locked.
I only see regular debating, no need to lock the thread.
On the other side though - is it still religion, or is it now just purely science? A big part of religions world-round is faith; and faith is really all about something you don't *know*. So if we *know* there's a creator, there's not really faith anymore, is there? I mean, people can still worship.. I kind of doubt I would be inclined to worship.
Hmm, that is curious. I don't know. Personally, I believe when God ultimately proves himself to the world, it will be the end.
Definition of religion:
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faiththere are others...
If it doesn't take faith to believe in God, God is understandable and is then...not God anymore. Sorta like understanding the square root of one. If you do, it isn't imaginary anymore because you can express it in a way people can understand (by this, I mean in numbers. Like writing pi or something similar.)
Personally, I believe when God ultimately proves himself to the world, it will be the end.totally agree
*sigh* seems I couldn't change the subject, but I'll respond to Hidden anywho
I'm ready to jump on board =)
Obviously they are not all explained, otherwise people wouldn't waste time with them. No doubt there are plenty of explainable photos, but blaming everything on a trick-of-the-light or double exposure doesn't cut it. That is why there are photos that carry on over the years.
true - blaming everything on camera screw ups isn't the only answer. But here's a rational question for you - why, when people see weird things in photographs *jump* to the assumption that it must be something supernatural, instead of something weird going on with the lighting or camera? Beyond that, very few people would even be inclined to pass over the photographs to a real expert to get it checked... it's as if people are more in love with the... almost 'romance' or excitement of ghosts walking among us. It's not the most plausible explanation, and without proper evidence either way, I don't see the value in claiming it as paranormal.
Ever seen the tossed clothes hanger on Ghost Hunters? I'm just saying that not everything is explained so easily.
I just watched it. Umm... chances are, the dude lying on the bed threw it. It comes from his direction. I mean.. it's not as though a group of people who get paid to do a popular TV show would ever do anything to prolong their broadcast life. =P
Sorry my repsonses are taking so long, all of the search engines seem to be infected by something and they are redirecting my searches.
why, when people see weird things in photographs *jump* to the assumption that it must be something supernatural, instead of something weird going on with the lighting or camera?
I think you answered it. Many people just want to believe in something 'after'.
I just watched it. Umm... chances are, the dude lying on the bed threw it. It comes from his direction. I mean.. it's not as though a group of people who get paid to do a popular TV show would ever do anything to prolong their broadcast life. =P
Lol, and sadly that was when I was still giving the show the benefit of the doubt. I facepalmed the fist time it aired.
Also, as far as the pictures being reviewed by an expert, I have a great book called Ghosts Caught on Film. If you are ever near a Books a Million head on in and go to the New Age section. Linky
Go away for a few hours and this thread doubles. Hope I got everyone.
SilentQ
And we certainly don't have any evidence that refutes God's existence.
It's up to the person making the claim to provide evidence. If you can't provide evidence it's reasonable to assume it doesn't exist.
I can claim an invisible flying elephant exists, but without evidence to back up that claim there's no reason to believe me.
On the other hand, macroevolution (what everyone thinks of when "evolution" is mentioned) is an enormous assumption based on microevolution. We have absolutely no evidence for it, only hypotheses. Feel free to object, I'm quite ready for it. Remember, I'm not saying macroevolution is false (though I'm highly confident it is), I'm saying we have no evidence for it (see first quote+argument).
Micro and macro evolution is the same process.
Here's some evidence for macroevolution.
29+ Cases for Macroevolution
Look at the snowflakes! They're so small, but complex, you wonder if Someone made the laws of the universe and just decided to make some that governed how each snowflake is created, but still different from every other one. How could random chance suddenly make a universe so complex and beautiful as the one we live in?
Complexity can arise from simplicity. This doesn't provide evidence for a creator.
I believe that God created the first matter. Who knows what he did with it, but I think that he messed up or got tired of it or something, and compressed it all down and then proceeded to explode it (AKA Big Bang), making an effective 'reset' button. While doing stuff with his new universe, he got to the point where the undeveloped Earth is. Then it pretty much follows Genesis. He could've very well used evolution as a means for life, but I'm don't really want to say that was definitely he used. Currently, I'm meditating on the bible and stuff, seeing as how they aren't my firsthand accounts. I'm also not entirely sure of God's current interaction with our planet (something like a deist approach). Right now, my beliefs are still changing and stuff, as I'm getting older and considering new things and such.
Okay you now have your hypothesis. Now the next step is to set out to provide evidence that supports your hypothesis that god created the first matter. However to do this you must first provide evidence that god exists in the first place.
sonicheroes95
let me guess, you think i'm insane.
I think your ignorant and lack critical thinking skills.
heres something for you, if you can't prove magic, you can't disprove it. so shut up.
Again like god if your the one making the claim your the one that has to provide the evidence.
balerion07
Pastafarianism is a religon, this is not.
Pastafarianism is a mock religion to illustrate how ridiculous religious beliefs are, not an actual religion.
whimsyboy
This whole argument is getting ridiculous. I want this thread locked.
Oh come on don't lock it. I still haven't gotten an answer to my question. Whats so hard to understand about the scientific process that makes it so unbelievable?
Welcome to the world of Farenheit 451, were knowledge sucks and stupidity rules... OH SH1T! It's for real! minus the burning of the books...
Whats so hard to understand about the scientific process that makes it so unbelievable?where? I have not seen the scientific process carried out properly to turn into evidence for anything that goes against the Bible (no, the Law of Conservation of mass and energy does not go against the One who made it). By this, I mean that, if the scientific process was properly used, we would have none of what you call "roof" for macroevolution.
Religion.
Sometimes it's better to take a hunch seriously than go into despair fearing the worse. Why stay awake worrying what it must be like after death, when you can sleep well knowing (or thinking) there's a place for you forever, may it be heaven or hell.
People who worship God should question their religion, but for them to go back to their old beliefs does not make them stupid. They remain hopeful, and generally better, more understanding, people. By questioning your religion, you may find that it makes no sense, or you might go back to your faith. No matter the outcome, by questioning your religion, you have gained something, may it be a broader understanding of other people's points of view, a better understanding of what is good and evil, or something much more deep.
To those who believe in a god, there is no proof of his existence. God should never be spoken matter of factly when it comes to solving problems. God or no God, it's the person who makes the decision to do. How much God interferes is not understood, and therefore it should not be acted as if it is.
To those who do not believe in god. The believe in God hurts nobody. What people do as a result of that belief can be good or bad. If somebody believes in God, let them believe. If somebody is doing something stupid because of that belief, don't change their belief, but how they believe. If someone thinks praying will solve all their problems, don't tell them that there is no God, but that God will only help those who help themselves. You don't always have to speak what you believe.
There is no proof that God exists. However, believing in him is believing in a power, or force, that is beyond the world. It is believing in something that couldn't be proven, because if it could be proven, then it would only trace back to man anyway. God influences how the world works, he does not leave fingerprints. From where we stand, he doesn't exist. There is no reason to turn his existence into a fact (though there could be reason to believe, that's up to the person). If there's a God, we can't see it because we aren't standing in the right place.
It is not foolish to believe in things we can't prove, it is human.
PS:
You can't disprove something that has no proof in the first place.
Thread is locked!