Before you comment on this, keep in mind that: 1. Prepare to read a loooong wall of text. No summaries are availible, and I would consider this post worth reading. 2. Please put some thought into your posts. No one-line responses. 3. In this topic I will not be using facts, but instead philosophy. I'm giving science and statistics a break, for now.
Lately, Ive been seeing a lot of arguments that go like this: Christian: God exists Atheist: Oh yeah? Creationism is the stupidist idea I've heard of. Christian: I believe god made the Big Bang. Atheist: The Big Bang had no cause. YouTube says so. Christian: But I know a story where someone was protected by God! Search it on google! *cue flamewar*
Those kinds of topics usually go on and on, but to no avail. Both sides never give up, and keep arguing. Has anyone actually switched religions after reading those topics? Since I've decided it's useless debating over Gods existence, in this topic I will try to shed light on Christianity from an atheists point of view.
First off, I would like to point out some misconceptions about Christians. We do not all believe in creationism. I agree that creationism is flawed. But you athists take the Bible too literally. The first part of Genesis is basically trying to say that God created everything. Also, not all Christians believe you have to be Christian to go to heaven. I do not, I believe it all depends on having good morals. However, it is harder for atheists to go to heaven because they have no one to ask for forgiveness. Along with that, keep in mind that not every Christian is like GodsHolyKnight. He was more like your typical 15th century Christian, taking every passage in the bible literally.
But is Christianity really that bad? Yes, it has started many a war, but every religion occaisionally goes awry. And while it is easy to find the death toll of a war, it is hard to find how many lives something has saved. Religions have spurred the inspiration behind civilizations, which not only kept people together, but lead to progress and inventions. After all, the Rennesaince (sorry for the bad spelling) was caused in part by a boost in Christian faith. In comparison, wars have only been a small setback. And even if Christianity has had a rough history, keep in mind that 99% of Christians did not support Adolf Hitler or control troops in the Crusades or chop the heads of non-believers, keep in mind that some of the least talked about Christians had the best morals and had a good heart. And those who tried to convert may have killed, but they converted people from more barbaric and less moral-based beliefs. The philosophy and lessons of Jesus are good, and that's what really matters. Admit it, some of your morals are derived from the Bible.
And why do I believe in God, with science stacked up against me? Truth be told, I admit science is on your side. And the universe is made up of science, so in theory God doesn't exist, right? Wrong. God created the universe, thus He is outside of it. So, universal laws do not apply to Him (He is, after all, GOD). And while there is no proof of God, I am somehow still sure He exists. I respect the fact that you are atheist (if you are), but I think you focus too much on science.
Finally, I have seen that most atheists think religious people are gullible. While most people do not think their religion over enough, I have of late. After reading all of the arguments in this forum, I have dug deeper for reasons to believe, and come out an even stronger Catholic. Ironically, some of my worst enimies on this site have helped me the most. However, I have gotten more tense in my arguments, which is why I will be taking a break from this forum.
In conclusion, most of you are too focused on science, and need to learn how Christianity is good, whether you are Christian or not.
Discuss your opinon on my post and Christianity in general.Â
But without providing evidence, why should we believe in it.
So why should we believe the mass-energy equivalence? There's no proof behind that. Or wormholes, which have never been seen or used, yet they are generally believed. So does that mean science is also a matter of faith, making science religion too?
So why should we believe the mass-energy equivalence? There's no proof behind that.
This is how our Sun and every star in the universe works. By undergoing fusion, the atoms inside the sun lose mass. The equivalent energy that's produced is massive, based on the famous equivalency e=mc^2 This is also how nuclear reactors and weapons work. So yeah, there's plenty of proof behind this.
Or wormholes, which have never been seen or used, yet they are generally believed.
There are only a small number of physicists who believe in even the possibility of wormholes. So it's not a general belief nor is it even a belief that they exist, just a question of can they exist.
So does that mean science is also a matter of faith, making science religion too?
Nope. That's a complete mischaracterization of the project of science. There are suppositions made, like that the world is how we experience it and matter really does exist. But these just don't seem as extreme as the suppositions in a religion.
So why should we believe the mass-energy equivalence? There's no proof behind that.
This is how our Sun and every star in the universe works. By undergoing fusion, the atoms inside the sun lose mass. The equivalent energy that's produced is massive, based on the famous equivalency e=mc^2 This is also how nuclear reactors and weapons work. So yeah, there's plenty of proof behind this.
Or wormholes, which have never been seen or used, yet they are generally believed.
There are only a small number of physicists who believe in even the possibility of wormholes. So it's not a general belief nor is it even a belief that they exist, just a question of can they exist.
So does that mean science is also a matter of faith, making science religion too?
Nope. That's a complete mischaracterization of the project of science. There are suppositions made, like that the world is how we experience it and matter really does exist. But these just don't seem as extreme as the suppositions in a religion.
So why should we believe the mass-energy equivalence? There's no proof behind that. Or wormholes, which have never been seen or used, yet they are generally believed. So does that mean science is also a matter of faith, making science religion too?
Science:
Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work.
Religion:
Religion is something you make up, to explain the things that go on in our surroundings, and to explain the things Humanity have yet to understand.
So in summary, Religion you make up, Science you use facts to make an explanation.
That's not even an argument, so I'm not going to address it directly, but simply point out again: If you call yourself a Catholic but don't accept the most basic doctrines of that faith, then that's pretty inconsistent.
how can i be inconsistent without knowing about the actual doctrine, that'd be like asking me to know every single law in America, i can't know every doctrine
If religion loses, why are there billions of religious in the world?
Religion is dying out slowly. In medieval times, almost EVERYONE was religious. Now, with science, there are much more non-believers in proportion. Eventually, I think science will get to the point where it can disprove almost every religious argument.
You can't get morals and stuff from genetics
You get morals from your parents. If your parents told you while you were growing up that it's okay to kill people just because you can, you wouldn't think anything of it unless you heard someone argue against it that wasn't of the same thought.
God and to show how we could've been made in His image.
This is always something I have found funny. We are supposedly created in his image. Isn't that rather vain of the person who created the religion to assume? That the most powerful thing in the universe created US to look like him?
And while there is no proof of God, I am somehow still sure He exists.
You should take a trip to my is religion justified thread...
So why should we believe the mass-energy equivalence?
Well considering we use the theory and it WORKS over and over, I would say that it is justified.
Or wormholes, which have never been seen or used, yet they are generally believed. So does that mean science is also a matter of faith, making science religion too?
No, because people know that wormholes might NOT exist, they are just an idea based off of what we know and an idea as to how something could have happend, along with things like blackholes which might lead us to it. Science can be disproven, changed, rearranged, as long as you can prove it, and have others do the same. Religion, however, is stuck, if you believe otherwise, you are wrong no matter what and a heathen. That's the difference between science and religion.
By undergoing fusion, the atoms inside the sun lose mass. The equivalent energy that's produced is massive, based on the famous equivalency e=mc^2. This is also how nuclear reactors and weapons work.
We've haven't been able to make mass go at the speed of light squared. Also, nuclear reactions work by colliding nuclei. We only use E=mc^2 to determine how much energy can be created, as it seemingly disappears, so it must be transferred into energy.
just a question of can they exist.
So isn't this just a case on whether God can exist?
Nope.
Alright then, if you say so.
Oh, and on a side note, I don't remember nuclear reactions all too well. The last course I took on it was a year or two ago, and, like I said before, I don't remember it fully. So if some of the things I said about nuclear reactions were wrong, sorry and correction, please?
You get morals from your parents. If your parents told you while you were growing up that it's okay to kill people just because you can, you wouldn't think anything of it unless you heard someone argue against it that wasn't of the same thought.
That's not true genetics then. Another person said I was confusing human nature with DNA. What your referring too is how you were brought up. And my original argument was that people who never used the Bible or anything else for their morals got plenty of the same things, such as killing is bad.
This is always something I have found funny. We are supposedly created in his image. Isn't that rather vain of the person who created the religion to assume? That the most powerful thing in the universe created US to look like him?
Yeah, it is pretty vain. But I've never seen God and neither has anybody else, so we don't really know the validity of that statement. The writer could've misinterpreted something, or had bad eyesight. *shrugs* I don't know.
Well considering we use the theory and it WORKS over and over, I would say that it is justified.
Please name a time when you, or anybody else for that matter, has sent mass at the speed of light squared and it became energy. So no, we haven't really used it over and over. We've used it in determining how much maximum energy you can create from mass, and so on.
Religion, however, is stuck, if you believe otherwise, you are wrong no matter what and a heathen. That's the difference between science and religion.
If religion is truly stuck, how are there so many denominations of Christianity?
I did not read the last...what, 4 pages of posts. I'm going to let you know that now.
Why?
Because I know it is just going to be the same arguments as in the original post.
So here's my run down:
You come to a forums for a website based off of the playing and creation of Flash games. Which is awesome, who does not love Flash games?
You know who mostly play Flash games? People from the ages of 9-18. Roughly of course. But that us the majority.
People in this ages range have -no- idea about anything. Honestly. Beyond waking up, eating, school and other trivial bull they are a blank slate devoid of actual ideas and conceptualized notions. Barren of the fruitful thoughts of Life and how it is lived. Which is nothing against them, nor is it their fault. That's just how it is. They are coddled and protected and raised by their parents until the first quarter of their life.
And therein lies the problem.
They have nothing to base their own ideas off of. Mum loves Jesus, Pops likes the Right, Mommy thinks taxes are bad, Daddy says the Seahawks rock.
They have not gone out into the world, had to live on their on. Provide for themselves, pay taxes, pay bills, decide what is best for them. Contemplate the existence of some all-knowing being or the lack thereof.
Their grasp and scope and view on the world is limited to their Pee $ Em, the electronic teet they sit in front of and the Internet held within. They hold the views presented to them on a silver platter, found strewn across the cosmos of ones and zeroes which form the high tech intermingled web of information call the Internet.
And even when they form their own views and opinions and scope and breadth of what they "see to be true", religion is not one of those things that can be coherently discussed. It's a vicious honeypot full of half truths and gnashing ideals. Who can prove either way beyond any reasonable doubt? The man who holds the cross to their heart and feels His presence in day-to-day life? The man who praises no idol yet lives life all the same?
The point is that, when given the topic of religion, even the most wizened of men will be reduced to grasping at 'facts' tossed their way. Reduced to mud slinging and name calling and finger pointing. The quagmire never ceases, never recedes, never vanishes yet always grows.
And that is the way it is going to be until the end of time, the end of humanity.
But you don't have to get them from religion, either.
We've haven't been able to make mass go at the speed of light squared. Also, nuclear reactions work by colliding nuclei. We only use E=mc^2 to determine how much energy can be created, as it seemingly disappears, so it must be transferred into energy.
Your original statement about this being generally believed but without proof was flawed and irrelevant. He was talking about EVIDENCE, not PROOF, and there is evidence for mass/energy equivalence but not evidence for creationism. You had a major equivocation problem there. He mentioned a lack of evidence, you called out a lack of PROOF.
Proof: any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Meh, looks the same to me.
But you don't have to get them from religion, either.
So where did morals come from? If you say your parents, where did the very first morals come from? As a theist, I believe they came from God, but if think of it from an atheists view point, the best I can come up with is that a random person randomly decided what is right and wrong one day.
So where did morals come from? If you say your parents, where did the very first morals come from? As a theist, I believe they came from God, but if think of it from an atheists view point, the best I can come up with is that a random person randomly decided what is right and wrong one day.
I believe its part of human nature, the disire to keep the species going. Its in your brain to wan't to repreduce, get food, survive, help others survive ect, but they can be avoided through pycology, thus proving there not god-put into us.
