Science vs Religion - Page 6

Vecha · 2011-09-30, 03:44 PM

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full...-go-god-go-xii

CutterJohn · 2011-09-30, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

The bottom line is this: anyone telling you that G'd is real is a liar, or is misrepresenting themselves, or is speculating. They *THINK* that G'd is real. Since nobody in living history has seen Him, sat down and had a beer with Him like He was Barack Obama in the White House garden, the skeptic in me is forced to err on the side of caution. Did G'd come over to Little Johnny's birthday party? No. Did He crash their bar mitzvah like Me First & The Gimme Gimmes? No. Did He show up as special guest on Conan O'brien? No. Is there a G'd? Maybe. You may BELIEVE. You may have FAITH. But you can't prove it one way or the other.

Conversely, anyone telling you that G'd is fake and never existed is also a liar, or is misrepresenting themselves, or speculating. Did they get in a magic fucking spaceship and fly to Heaven-land on the Highway to Heaven with Michael fucking Landon and Victor French? Did they get on the starship Enterprise with Captain Kirk and Spock's brother Sybok like in Star Trek 5 and warp-speed over to the centre of the universe? No. Did they drive by His house and sho'nuff, no lights were on at the Pearly Gates? No. Call His house and someone named Lupe answers and said "no dios aqui!"? No. Is there NOT a G'd? Maybe. You may BELIEVE. You may have DOUBT.

Those two positions are not equivalent. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is a pretty damned strong indication and can be used as an assumption until further evidence presents itself. The ones making fantastic claims hold the burden of proof to prove that the fantastic exists.

If a child insisted he had an invisible friend who watched over and protected him and granted him wishes, one would be rightfully skeptical. If a priest makes the same claim, he should be met with the same skepticism.

Traak · 2011-09-30, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Well if it was evidence, it would be fact based not perception based.

Really. So no one has ever been jailed for something based on one person's testimony? Or two?

Testimony of eyewitnesses is acceptable. Until it proves God is at work, then it isn't?

Quovatis · 2011-09-30, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Traak

Really. So no one has ever been jailed for something based on one person's testimony? Or two?

Testimony of eyewitnesses is acceptable. Until it proves God is at work, then it isn't?

Well, for god, there is conflicting testimonies really. Do you accept all the eyewitnesses that have see Thor, Zeus, Allah, Mohammad, and the god of the forest too? Pick any religion and you have believers proclaiming eyewitness accounts of their particular god/prophet, but oddly they never see the god/prophet of another religion. That isn't strange to you? All of them can't be right, but they all can be wrong.

Traak · 2011-09-30, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Those two positions are not equivalent. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is a pretty damned strong indication and can be used as an assumption until further evidence presents itself. The ones making fantastic claims hold the burden of proof to prove that the fantastic exists.

If a child insisted he had an invisible friend who watched over and protected him and granted him wishes, one would be rightfully skeptical. If a priest makes the same claim, he should be met with the same skepticism.

However, I have found that the average person who refuses to believe in God just refuses to believe something anyone tells him they experienced that proves God IS real. Then it's his turn to:

God isn't real!
But, he just healed me of a condition that was incurable.
LALALALA I'm not listeninnggggg!

Or the old standby: You were wrongly diagnosed.

Jesus himself said when telling of the rich man and Lazarus that people have the Word of God. If they don't believe that, they won't though one were raised from the dead.

I have seen a sinner who was healed so she no longer needed glasses. She still refused to make a commitment to Christ. How did I know she no longer needed her glasses? She told me so after she was ministered to for healing. She could read a newspaper right up by her face and see distant mountains clearly. Her eyes were healed, instantly, by God.

So I asked her about making a commitment to Christ, since he had obviously proven he was real and that he loved her.

Nope. Not interested. Everyone still has choices to make. She made hers. Even when God provides obvious evidence of his love and his very existence, the choice is still up to the individual. And usually, it is just easier to believe in aliens, or the big bang, or whatever than to say "Yes, God is real, but I'm too stupid and stubborn to bother making a commitment to that fact."

And people have a free will, and they can do that. It's their choice. Often it becomes all elaborate, with charts and graphs, and whatever, but the root thing is still a choice.

Crator · 2011-09-30, 09:50 PM

Cute story. Medical history of patient please.

Quovatis · 2011-09-30, 11:44 PM

Sight improving and cancer going away happens all the time naturally. It's not a miracle. It doesn't prove anything. When "god" can heal something that would truly be a miracle (like growing a new limb after it was amputated), then I'd be impressed. There have been many scientific studies showing praying for the sick doesn't improve the chances of healing compared to those who don't pray.

CutterJohn · 2011-09-30, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Traak

But, he just healed me of a condition that was incurable.

Who told you the condition was incurable? Our grasp of biology and medical science is incomplete at best. Freak recoveries happen, as do freak deaths.

And the eyes.. As Crator said, cute story. Do you perhaps have a link to a study reproducing the results of said faith healing? How about the girls prescription before and after?

Also.. You want me to believe god is willing to waste a miracle on some random broads eyes when lasik centers are all over the place, but couldn't get a few pounds of rice and beans to this kid?

Whatever. Disregarding the question of whether or not there is a god, there are mountains of evidence pointing to the conclusion that, if god exists, it's either really, really shitty at its job or just doesn't give a shit about us.

Quovatis · 2011-09-30, 11:54 PM

Heh, yeah, that's my position. Even if it ends up that god is real, he's a big jerk in my eyes, not to mention amoral and unethical if the bible is true. I want nothing of it. And the people who pray to him and ask for things are really selfish if you think about it. They are asking god to solve their problems when there are millions of people on earth suffering from starvation, disease, and war, far worse off than they will ever be.

Firefly · 2011-10-01, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

Testimony of eyewitnesses is acceptable. Until it proves God is at work, then it isn't?

In a court of law, yes eyewitness testimony is legally acceptable. However, public and legal opinion is that eyewitness testimony is incredibly flawed. Which is why a majority of eyewitness testimonies can be discounted or discredited by a decent lawyer. A great lawyer can get them completely turned around.

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Well, for god, there is conflicting testimonies really. Do you accept all the eyewitnesses that have see Thor, Zeus, Allah, Mohammad, and the god of the forest too? Pick any religion and you have believers proclaiming eyewitness accounts of their particular god/prophet, but oddly they never see the god/prophet of another religion. That isn't strange to you? All of them can't be right, but they all can be wrong.

G'd, God, Allah, Yahweh... they're all the same people. It's a different name for the same deity. Christians, **** and Muslims share the exact same G'd. Mohammed was a prophet, a mortal man, a historical figure whose existence was documented. Islam recognises the fact that Jesus existed and mentions him as the Messiah and as the Messenger of G'd. As a matter of fact, Islam actually requires you to believe in Jesus. In terms of Judaism, Jesus is viewed as as a teacher and many rabbis will go so far as to acknowledge that regardless of what Jesus really was, his existence and his story provides a strong sense of morality to the world.

Traak · 2011-10-01, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Who told you the condition was incurable? Our grasp of biology and medical science is incomplete at best. Freak recoveries happen, as do freak deaths.

And the eyes.. As Crator said, cute story. Do you perhaps have a link to a study reproducing the results of said faith healing? How about the girls prescription before and after?

Also.. You want me to believe god is willing to waste a miracle on some random broads eyes when lasik centers are all over the place, but couldn't get a few pounds of rice and beans to this kid?

Whatever. Disregarding the question of whether or not there is a god, there are mountains of evidence pointing to the conclusion that, if god exists, it's either really, really shitty at its job or just doesn't give a shit about us.

Right, your mind was made up far in advance. As is most people's. Which is what i have been saying. No evidence matters as much as it could when people's minds are already made up.

And, you say the evidence is that God is doing a bad job. Is it God forcing people to have sex outside marriage, have kids with absentee fathers, and thus provide the vast majority of criminals on the Earth, including terrorists?

You blame God for people's faults?

MadPenguin · 2011-10-01, 06:13 AM

Traak, you keep throwing around the word "evidence" but as others keep saying and you keep ignoring, you haven't given us any tangible or reliable evidence.

You also carry on calling people closed minded, but it appears you are fairly closed minded yourself, take the plank out of your own eye first or however that thing goes.

Consider people who lived 3000 years ago who understood little of the immune system. Whenever a person would seemingly be going to die soon, and then got better because of his immune system, people would have attributed this to God because they didnt know better. Its very similar to the whole God of the gaps thing. You cant insert God just because we dont yet have an explanation, people have been doing this for tens of thousands of years and guess what, they have ALWAYS been wrong.

Just quickly, if we cant explain how someone got better and you praise God for this, you have to stay consistent and say if we cant explain how someone died, it must also be God killing them.

On the topic of good and evil this debate seems to have evolved towards, it is true that God (if he exists) cannot be held accountable for the actions of people. But lets consider the case of tsunamis. Are they necessary? We could still have earthquakes hurricanes etc so people would still have natural disasters to be able to doubt Gods existence, hell, it could be argued no natural disasters are needed at all, that human evil would give people enough cause to disbelieve in God and for others to "prove" their love of God and get into heaven. But lets just take the case of tsunamis, they arent necessary, why would a perfect, all loving God put more misery in our world than is necessary. But i've become side-tracked.

So much more to say (especially on the whole evolution skepticism) but this post is already far too long. I may address that issue further down.

Baneblade · 2011-10-01, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

Really. So no one has ever been jailed for something based on one person's testimony? Or two?

Testimony of eyewitnesses is acceptable. Until it proves God is at work, then it isn't?

Eyewitness testimony alone hasn't been enough to convict in a long time without lots and lots of corroboration. In fact, there is a strong push to be rid of it entirely within the due process system.

Traak · 2011-10-01, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by MadPenguin

Traak, you keep throwing around the word "evidence" but as others keep saying and you keep ignoring, you haven't given us any tangible or reliable evidence.

You also carry on calling people closed minded, but it appears you are fairly closed minded yourself, take the plank out of your own eye first or however that thing goes.

Consider people who lived 3000 years ago who understood little of the immune system. Whenever a person would seemingly be going to die soon, and then got better because of his immune system, people would have attributed this to God because they didnt know better. Its very similar to the whole God of the gaps thing. You cant insert God just because we dont yet have an explanation, people have been doing this for tens of thousands of years and guess what, they have ALWAYS been wrong.

Just quickly, if we cant explain how someone got better and you praise God for this, you have to stay consistent and say if we cant explain how someone died, it must also be God killing them.

On the topic of good and evil this debate seems to have evolved towards, it is true that God (if he exists) cannot be held accountable for the actions of people. But lets consider the case of tsunamis. Are they necessary? We could still have earthquakes hurricanes etc so people would still have natural disasters to be able to doubt Gods existence, hell, it could be argued no natural disasters are needed at all, that human evil would give people enough cause to disbelieve in God and for others to "prove" their love of God and get into heaven. But lets just take the case of tsunamis, they arent necessary, why would a perfect, all loving God put more misery in our world than is necessary. But i've become side-tracked.

So much more to say (especially on the whole evolution skepticism) but this post is already far too long. I may address that issue further down.

What I think is funny is that, somehow, God gets the blame for Tsunamis killing people. If they listened to God, they would have heard him instruct them to move out of its way. He's always talking, but not many are listening. As I said, why does God get blamed for people not taking advantage of things he has provided in his Word?

Whole nations reject God, or try to fashion him in their own image, then turn around in shrieking spite any time anything happens, and blame him for it. God didn't put ANY misery in the world. Adam invited that in when he rebelled against God and obeyed Satan.

Man is 100 percent responsible for the suffering on Earth. Before man made the choice that led to Satan becoming the god of this world, the world and everything in it was perfect and harmonious.

The example I gave earlier: God says "No sex outside marriage." Man says "Ha! I know better! I will sling my seed everywhere I possibly can! There is much pleasure to be had sowing my wild oats." And the world is overrun with fatherless children. Where do you think the Taliban recruits its victims from? Universities with young people whose loving parents are putting them through medical school? Families with caring fathers who are there for their children? No, they prey on the fatherless. Just like criminals everywhere. Oh, but it's God's fault when people disobey that one principle, for an example, and raise kids in broken or nonexistent families?

Disease, war, famine, are all products of the sin of man. God gave man choice. Man chose evil, and does so to this day. It just gets repackaged over and over. With Adam, the package was "Oh, you will be like God, knowing good and evil!" For people like you, the package is different, but same product: sin, rejection of God, rebellion against the God who is far more able to tell you how to live than you are, and choices based on ignorance instead of on infinite knowledge.

Where you get the insane idea that God is responsible for the sins and failures of yourself and others, I do not know. It isn't based in fact. A coconut falls off a tree and hits you, and it's God's fault? AIDS being an epidemic spread by homosexuals that's God's fault too, the one who forbids homosexual thought and action? Yes, I know, they managed to infect straight people also. But you, like many, blame God for your faults and the faults of mankind in general.

But, oh, when it comes to Him healing or blessing someone who actually conducts themself in accordance with his Word, that's just a cosmic fluke. Would have happened anyway. It was aliens. They weren't really sick. etc.

God's way works. Failing to follow it doesn't. He gave us all choice. You can choose whatever you want. You can believe anything. But blaming God when you or others who believe as you do die, screw up, or fail? He made you do what you do? He doesn't mess with free will. Even Christians who are ignorant, whether willfully or due to deception, lack of knowledge, or whatever, can fail to receive all that God has for them. Because he does not violate their will. If he could MAKE everybody do what he wanted them to do, he would MAKE people quit being stupid and blaming him for everything bad, while finding what they regard as utterly cunning scientific reasons to NOT credit him when anything good happens.

Satan is the god of this world, in case you couldn't figure that out by looking, not God. God got invited OUT by Adam, and has been largely on the outside since. I marvel that people figure God is in control of this world when it is such a disaster zone. He isn't in control, or he would make people, who also don't believe in following God's ways, quit molesting children.

God isn't in control of this world, man is, as lorded over by Satan. God is not responsible for your choices, or anyone else's. You are. And it is people choosing to do things outside of the best way to do them that has given you the world you see now.

CutterJohn · 2011-10-01, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

Right, your mind was made up far in advance. As is most people's. Which is what i have been saying. No evidence matters as much as it could when people's minds are already made up.

Certainly not. You show me a reproduceable miracle that defies all known physical laws/modern medical science/etc and I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I want to see scientists visibly shaken at the impossibility of the results. I would also accept him appearing in the sky to all the peoples of the world at once and saying hi.

And, you say the evidence is that God is doing a bad job. Is it God forcing people to have sex outside marriage, have kids with absentee fathers, and thus provide the vast majority of criminals on the Earth, including terrorists?

No I said the evidence shows that if god exists, it is doing a shitty job. This is not evidence for or against its existence. It is evidence, for me, that its existence is irrelevant as it is not something I would wish to 'worship'. If it doesn't exist, great. If it exists, I am disappointed in it. Greatly disappointed.

You blame God for people's faults?

Your charming little anecdote? The one about the eyes? You say god can and does perform miracles to fix people. It meddles, and this meddling is evidence of its existence. Ok, let us, for the moment, assume that this is true.

Your contention is it is willing to perform these obscure little miraculous healings, but it is not willing to make some guy not rape or murder? It just does what any lasik center can do in a few minutes?

You can't have it both ways. If it meddles and performs miracles, then there is no excuse for not meddling further and stopping rape and murder and war and famine. If it doesn't meddle and leaves everything up to free will and chance, then your claim of evidence is invalid, since there is none. Why does it get a pass on letting a kiddy rapist live but gets the credit for fixing some broads eyes?

Originally Posted by Traak

He's always talking, but not many are listening.

Perhaps it should consult with the Japanese. They seem to have a far superior system for tsunami warning. 20s after the quake cell phones across the country were ringing with an automated warning with location and probable danger areas, and every tv and radio station was automatically preempted with the same info.