It hasn't been proven yet, you are completely skipping my point that believing in full scale evolution from primordial soup means that you are believing that at one point, a living cell formed from non living compounds. it is that singular part of evolution that makes it something you have to believe. Perhaps one day there will be proof for that, perhaps there will never be proof for that. In my opinion, the idea that life came from non-life is quite ridiculous, as most scientists believe that the idea of a God is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by WinglessFairy

In my opinion, the idea that life came from non-life is quite ridiculous

Yet presumably you believe that a magical Jewish zombie lich created a man from dust and then created a woman from his dust-rib. The mental gymnastics required to pull that off is astounding.

but the idea of that falls into believing in a God that can do anything. I'm not sure where the lich part is coming from;

Just like the idea of one cell forming all other creatures is perfectly reasonable, if that one cell already existed. Arguing further down this line is rather pointless when the origin of both lines covers all other arguments under it.

Like, many argue over the whole man-coming-from-monkey thing. I think it's moot to argue that, since the bigger problem lies closer to the beginning of the chain.

Reality is what reality is, it's irrational, we know this, quantum has proved this, human behavior has proved this. Which irrationality is the truth, or in this case, the cause of the creation of life, is the only point we're arguing about.

And, as I said, both seem highly illogical. Therefore both I feel require some amount of faith, to believe in something irrational.

Of course, I believe that a God is not irrational, and others believe that the origin of this first cell is not irrational. And that's perfectly fine.

Based on that post, I can see that you don't really understand what you're trying to talk about. So you're right; arguing with you further is pointless.

darling, insulting someone because they have a different view point than yourself is pointless.

And I'm actually taking a Quantum Mechanics 3000 level course in college right now, and let me tell you, some crazier stuff happens than things mentioned above.

As for the rest of what I said... well, it was all about not wanting the conversation to turn into this right here. It always starts with people hurling petty phrases like "magical Jewish zombie lich created a man from dust and then created a woman from his dust-rib," which show their blatant disregard for how unbelievably derogatory and insulting that is for people who do believe the in the faith they're "just joking about".

Likewise, phrases like "darling," "sweetie," and "bless your heart" can be just as much of an insult - I think we all know how those words are used.

So there's my case for continuing to post here defended in full by the very people who continue to "rationalize" with each other not by defending their own points of view, but by bringing down everyone else's.

Wingless, I think you might be confusing the terms "believe" and "faith". They don't have to mean the same thing. See, the thing is that science has explained (or attempted to explain as much as possible) about evolution, hence why it's believable. Religion has no proof of itself whatsoever, nor does god, and that's exactly what faith is. It's different. Faith requires no proof, whilst believing in something does. Like so, you might have believed Santa existed, but I'm sure you didn't have "faith" in him. You believed he existed when you were a kid because he left you toys. Proof. But believing in Santa without said "proof" would require faith, because presents under the tree are the only proof of his existence and without the presents you would hold on to nothing; believing without any proof = faith. Or in other terms, having faith requires believing in something, but believing in something doesn't require faith. Hopefully that made some kind of sense.

Um, Wingless, I believe you're also confusing the terms "evolution" and "abiogenesis". That whole "a living cell formed from nonliving compounds" thing is abiogenesis, and has absolutely nada to do with evolution.

i didnt say that what you said was directed at me. i was simply agreeing with that statement. i just consider your way of wording things a bit harsh and yet you tell me to be more careful. im simply stating that i think you should do the same as i.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Um, Wingless, I believe you're also confusing the terms "evolution" and "abiogenesis". That whole "a living cell formed from nonliving compounds" thing is abiogenesis, and has absolutely nada to do with evolution.

I was just about to say that. Also, keep in mind that in the story of Noah bringing two of every animal, for example two of one type of dog was brought on board. Think about that for a second. In the creation story, evolution as in change due to breeding and to handle an environment did still happen. Just animals evolving into completely different animals did not happen.

Also I'm Agnostic, but most stuff outside of that has already been said by other people. XD

Originally Posted by WinglessFairy

It hasn't been proven yet, you are completely skipping my point that believing in full scale evolution from primordial soup means that you are believing that at one point, a living cell formed from non living compounds. it is that singular part of evolution that makes it something you have to believe. Perhaps one day there will be proof for that, perhaps there will never be proof for that. In my opinion, the idea that life came from non-life is quite ridiculous, as most scientists believe that the idea of a God is ridiculous.

I agree with NeukaKC regarding the definition and difference between 'faith' and 'believe'. i do not believe that the entire living population of the earth came from one cell - rather i think that there were multiple cells created at the same time. not only humans but all living creatures and organisms are in fact made of nonliving compounds and elements such as water and carbon. cells undergo mitosis to create more cells, organisms reproduce to create more organisms. this has been scientifically proven, thus i find it easy to believe it. and until a better explanation is found, it is what i will continue to believe. ...if the human race started from a single man and woman, how did they prevent inbreeding? honest to goodness question - not trying to offend anybody. inbreeding causes all sorts of birth defects (like this one genetic defect that makes it harder for blood to clot due to the low level of platelets in the bloodstream (platelets aid in blood clotting) - it was seriously possible to die from a paper cut on your finger...). anyway... (got a little sidetracked...) living things can in fact come from nonliving elements and compounds. kind of, in a way, like robots and computers. technicians and robotics/computer experts are extremely close to creating an artificial life form - a unit that can think and learn by itself. isn't that kind of scary? reminds me of movies like the Terminator movies or The Matrix. ...crap. got sidetracked again. oh well.

and to add on to what Projectwolfie said, animals adapt to different environments. they don't change into completely different creatures. they and their ancestors have somewhat similar characteristics. survival of the fittest - form fits function.

----------

ok smellerbee i made the same mistake you just did a little while ago. try to justify your position instead of tearing another's down and try to word what you say so that it's least likely to offend anybody. it is difficult sometimes but please attempt to keep this discussion a discussion and not a full out argument.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Um, Wingless, I believe you're also confusing the terms "evolution" and "abiogenesis". That whole "a living cell formed from nonliving compounds" thing is abiogenesis, and has absolutely nada to do with evolution.

I had said earlier I meant the whole single cell evolving into many species thing, and I got tired of saying the whole phrase, and mis-said it once, hoping my meaning would be understood via previous context, and I hadn't known the word abiogenesis, I will use that instead, and I apologize.

Originally Posted by NeuzaKC

Wingless, I think you might be confusing the terms "believe" and "faith". They don't have to mean the same thing. See, the thing is that science has explained (or attempted to explain as much as possible) about evolution, hence why it's believable. Religion has no proof of itself whatsoever, nor does god, and that's exactly what faith is. It's different. Faith requires no proof, whilst believing in something does. Like so, you might have believed Santa existed, but I'm sure you didn't have "faith" in him. You believed he existed when you were a kid because he left you toys. Proof. But believing in Santa without said "proof" would require faith, because presents under the tree are the only proof of his existence and without the presents you would hold on to nothing; believing without any proof = faith. Or in other terms, having faith requires believing in something, but believing in something doesn't require faith. Hopefully that made some kind of sense.

This is highly debatable; I will agree there is a difference in the words, however some have faith in the same subject while others believe it.
I believe in God because of various personal experiences as well as experiences of those close to me. These things have added up to a personal proof. Of course, many instead on follow along because someone told them to do so.

This is true for abiogenesis as well. I have met many a person who simply followed along because popular science said it was so, without looking into the facts and information for themselves.

Originally Posted by Anaxilea

As for the rest of what I said... well, it was all about not wanting the conversation to turn into this right here. It always starts with people hurling petty phrases like "magical Jewish zombie lich created a man from dust and then created a woman from his dust-rib," which show their blatant disregard for how unbelievably derogatory and insulting that is for people who do believe the in the faith they're "just joking about".

Likewise, phrases like "darling," "sweetie," and "bless your heart" can be just as much of an insult - I think we all know how those words are used.

So there's my case for continuing to post here defended in full by the very people who continue to "rationalize" with each other not by defending their own points of view, but by bringing down everyone else's.

I apologize if my word use was offending, I tend to use the words darling and hun in normal speech irregardless of topic, and it was not intended in an offending way.

Originally Posted by fade_to_grey

I agree with NeukaKC regarding the definition and difference between 'faith' and 'believe'. i do not believe that the entire living population of the earth came from one cell - rather i think that there were multiple cells created at the same time. not only humans but all living creatures and organisms are in fact made of nonliving compounds and elements such as water and carbon. cells undergo mitosis to create more cells, organisms reproduce to create more organisms. this has been scientifically proven, thus i find it easy to believe it. and until a better explanation is found, it is what i will continue to believe. ...if the human race started from a single man and woman, how did they prevent inbreeding? honest to goodness question - not trying to offend anybody. inbreeding causes all sorts of birth defects (like this one genetic defect that makes it harder for blood to clot due to the low level of platelets in the bloodstream (platelets aid in blood clotting) - it was seriously possible to die from a paper cut on your finger...). anyway... (got a little sidetracked...) living things can in fact come from nonliving elements and compounds. kind of, in a way, like robots and computers. technicians and robotics/computer experts are extremely close to creating an artificial life form - a unit that can think and learn by itself. isn't that kind of scary? reminds me of movies like the Terminator movies or The Matrix. ...crap. got sidetracked again. oh well.

and to add on to what Projectwolfie said, animals adapt to different environments. they don't change into completely different creatures. they and their ancestors have somewhat similar characteristics. survival of the fittest - form fits function.

----------

ok smellerbee i made the same mistake you just did a little while ago. try to justify your position instead of tearing another's down and try to word what you say so that it's least likely to offend anybody. it is difficult sometimes but please attempt to keep this discussion a discussion and not a full out argument.

that's fairly getting into details and/or very specific forms of Creationism and abiogenesis; I was more arguing that believing in a creationist theory isn't something ridiculously different than believing in abiogenesis.

My point being I'm rather sick of being called an idiot because I believe in a God by my fellow scientists, when I have seriously looked into my religion, and sat down, evaluated my beliefs, brought up reasons and experiences I had had as various proofs, and then decided that I did believe in a God, I did also believe in a Creation theory, and believe while Christianity was what I believed to be true, I did not believe or had no opinion on many things that have been deemed 'cannon' by Christ (mainly various things that the Bible hardly mentions over-examined, or the over-literalization of many bits of text, etc etc).

Frankly, no, I don't have it all figured out. I don't expect to have it all figured out. Scientists don't have it all figured out! So why do we keep trying to say we need to have every little detail in order? Things will work themselves out in the end if we keep an open mind and are willing to look at all evidence evenly, even if it's something we can't quite comprehend yet.

I bring up the example of Quantum physics again. Why the crap is everything quantized and not a gradient of all values in between? Why does time dilate when nearing the speed of light? Why are there discreet energy levels in orbitals?
I can go more detailed, but I risk both making a mispeech/confusing those who aren't knowledgeable in this stuff/confusing myself XD.

Originally Posted by WinglessFairy

I had said earlier I meant the whole single cell evolving into many species thing, and I got tired of saying the whole phrase, and mis-said it once, hoping my meaning would be understood via previous context, and I hadn't known the word abiogenesis, I will use that instead, and I apologize.



This is highly debatable; I will agree there is a difference in the words, however some have faith in the same subject while others believe it.
I believe in God because of various personal experiences as well as experiences of those close to me. These things have added up to a personal proof. Of course, many instead on follow along because someone told them to do so.

This is true for abiogenesis as well. I have met many a person who simply followed along because popular science said it was so, without looking into the facts and information for themselves.



I apologize if my word use was offending, I tend to use the words darling and hun in normal speech irregardless of topic, and it was not intended in an offending way.



that's fairly getting into details and/or very specific forms of Creationism and abiogenesis; I was more arguing that believing in a creationist theory isn't something ridiculously different than believing in abiogenesis.

My point being I'm rather sick of being called an idiot because I believe in a God by my fellow scientists, when I have seriously looked into my religion, and sat down, evaluated my beliefs, brought up reasons and experiences I had had as various proofs, and then decided that I did believe in a God, I did also believe in a Creation theory, and believe while Christianity was what I believed to be true, I did not believe or had no opinion on many things that have been deemed 'cannon' by Christ (mainly various things that the Bible hardly mentions over-examined, or the over-literalization of many bits of text, etc etc).

Frankly, no, I don't have it all figured out. I don't expect to have it all figured out. Scientists don't have it all figured out! So why do we keep trying to say we need to have every little detail in order? Things will work themselves out in the end if we keep an open mind and are willing to look at all evidence evenly, even if it's something we can't quite comprehend yet.

I bring up the example of Quantum physics again. Why the crap is everything quantized and not a gradient of all values in between? Why does time dilate when nearing the speed of light? Why are there discreet energy levels in orbitals?
I can go more detailed, but I risk both making a mispeech/confusing those who aren't knowledgeable in this stuff/confusing myself XD.

yeah i got kinda carried away my bad. but i guess my point is that i consider the theory of evolution true because it has hard, concrete facts and evidence to back it up. but as i might have said before, theories are subject to change. if new evidence supports another theory better than this one, then my perspective on the matter would change. you say that you have had experiences that bolster your faith in your God. so this, to you, is concrete, solid proof. so i can see why you believe what you do. however, i have not ever had any experiences of the sort. so i find this concept of a God to be difficult to wrap my mind around. but we can agree to disagree.

I've always been a bit closed off about my religion (I'm Wiccan, btw), unless someone directly asks me 'What religion are you?' and refuses any cop out I might have, I'll just redirect the conversation or not comment on it. I'm so brave and heroic.

Anyway, my brother is an atheist and way more open and cool about it than I could ever be. If ever I hear someone bashing atheists, I always want to protect them (because nobody's an atheist where I live) but of course my self preservation tendencies block me.

What I'm getting at, though, is that I'm of the mind that everyone's right to an extent, because they believe they are. So bashing doesn't make sense to me. Of course, I've come into contact with a lot of closed mindedness, because I live in an area where the majority is almost exclusively people of one religion (or people raised in that religion who aren't active anymore).

I think the main reason people act like how you and I have experienced is because they're too afraid of a world where everything just happens, no reason. They want to feel like after they die there's something more than just nothingness, that they can exist in some way afterwords. If you think about it, not existing is pretty damned terrifying (at least to most people).

Evolution has not actually been proven by most standards, but it's accepted because it really makes sense. We haven't yet really observed it. Natural selection (not to be confused with evolution, but being the force that drives it) has been observed, although some of the older examples are... well... stupid. The moths in England... actually completely stupid if you know how birds see, and what chitin looks like through a birds eyes. the color really wouldn't help. lol.

The real problem with it is that for most people it depends on abiogenesis being factual. Since we cannot prove that, and without a very specific set of circumstances, which we have no proof ever existed, it doesn't work... well... it requires unprovable assumptions which those of us who love science won't make. If in the future it truly is proven then great, but it still wouldn't really refute the biblical account to a lot of people, who analyze the bible, and believe that genesis is somewhat metaphorical, or at least not completely literal. ...I could explain if you like. :)

I go to what is becoming your stereotypical christian school. We are a lutheran school and the teachers are, for the most part, open minded to other beliefs but there is the occasional teacher who attempts to force religion onto you which is rather annoying to an atheist. Second is the fact that we have compulsory devotion and chapel twice a week which means I have to sit in silence for two hours a week that would be much better used studying or catching up on homework etc. I have nothing against religion or the religious but when they get onto the "holier than thou" mentality is when I get annoyed and argumentative. I have been kicked out of a christian studies lesson for questioning the bible and the teacher had no answer but instead gave me a whole lot of useless facts that had nothing to do with anything. Our school has a zero tolerance to discrimination when in fact the teachers do most of it. We were posed the qustion "what beliefs promote love" and I answered with "pagan" the teacher laughed at me, said I didn't know religion and then gave me a detention for defending my statement.
These are some of the reasons I find the whole loving god idea hard to believe, when the people who worship him "most of the ones I know" think of themselves as higher beings to other belief systems.

Did your teacher not know how broad a term pagan is? lol. some pagan religions are extremely loving, others are... not. Neopaganism, Wicca, Frei, and many others promote love, and kindness, while some brands of welsh paganism still promote the idea that you need to die in battle to go anywhere good... It's the same with any religion with many sects.

I guess the problem with a lot of religions, and a lot of countries too, is that a few people bring down the standards for a ot of others. For example, you see news reports about Israeli suicide bombers and think that the whole country is the same because the news does not show the good, honest peoples of the land.
The same goes for religion. The news shows people from the Westborogh Baptist Church parading around condemning gays saying that they will go to hell and slandering basically every other belief or idea that does not conform with theirs. People see all of that and when they don't see good religious folk on the news they believe all christians think that way and hate people in the same way.

This brings down the standards of chistians all over the world and I guess that is why a lot of religions and countries get a bad rap, because of bad publicity.

And of course the media does that because it sells. Same reason they do their best to make celebrities look bad. It's kinda disgusting.

There is a general sense of persecution amongst the masses. I don't think that this problem is generally directed at one particular belief set, for every 'I'm a atheist and everyone is mean to me' thread, there is 'I'm a christian and everyone is mean to me' thread- and the whole thing turns into an epic saga of misdirected hate. In reality people who persecute, whether they be religious or non-religious, are arrogant, hateful, judgmental, ignorant a-holes who feel the need to belittle the beliefs that contradict their own.

From a logical and historical aspect, the Bible is quite possibly one of the greatest political tools in world history. It wasn't until a great deal of time after it was written that it was translated from Latin into German, and from there into English some time later. Not only that, but there are multiple adaptations--a big fucking no-no according to the Old Testament--and versions. And it states quite clearly what happens to men who are a.) Not Christian, b.) homosexual, c.) do not follow the guidelines set down in writing. Bringing it back to the historical aspect; you had all these religious figures with great power in the European regions who would rule by claim of divine intervention and proclamation, yet they were the only ones able to write and translate the Bible. And honestly, they don't have the best of track records.

For me, it comes down to this:
It's not a set of strict rules in black and white. The entire Bible is gray-toned (and if you've ever read the Koran, it's the complete opposite, they're pretty dead-set on rules) and supposedly meant to be a sort of guide for your actions. Which is strange to me, considering how the punishments are often abhorrent and revengeful. To me, the religion is silly and superstitious.

And, no, science and religion can't "get along".
That's probably the dumbest fucking statement I've heard all morning, and I work with twits.

My thing is, why is there so much time being wasted on debating whether or not there is a God? As an Atheist, I am tolerant of other people's religions. It is their right to believe in God just as it is my right not to. All I ask is that they be respectful as I am to them. Trying to convert me to Christianity is rude.
The same goes to Atheists. Disproving something just to try and sound smart is the stupidest thing you can do. Trying to convert others to Atheism is rude.
I belive that there is no God. Done.
So if it's a shock to you that I don't care if you tell me I'mn going to hell, that's too bad.

Science is a methodology while religion is an ideology, this makes the two incomparable in terms of consensus and conflict, for example a atheist could use scientific method to disprove God, while a religious believer could use scientific method to prove God... but both would fall flat on their faces because science can only test the empirical, it can't test the metaphysical. Science is merely a process of gathering and organizing knowledge, it is completely apathetic to that which it cannot test.

Originally Posted by TheOriginalPyro

I go to what is becoming your stereotypical christian school. We are a lutheran school and the teachers are, for the most part, open minded to other beliefs but there is the occasional teacher who attempts to force religion onto you which is rather annoying to an atheist. Second is the fact that we have compulsory devotion and chapel twice a week which means I have to sit in silence for two hours a week that would be much better used studying or catching up on homework etc. I have nothing against religion or the religious but when they get onto the "holier than thou" mentality is when I get annoyed and argumentative. I have been kicked out of a christian studies lesson for questioning the bible and the teacher had no answer but instead gave me a whole lot of useless facts that had nothing to do with anything. Our school has a zero tolerance to discrimination when in fact the teachers do most of it. We were posed the qustion "what beliefs promote love" and I answered with "pagan" the teacher laughed at me, said I didn't know religion and then gave me a detention for defending my statement.
These are some of the reasons I find the whole loving god idea hard to believe, when the people who worship him "most of the ones I know" think of themselves as higher beings to other belief systems.

I totally feel for you. and i think it is hugely unfair that you have to attend chapel for 2 whole hours. even though they're not exactly forcing their religion on you in this instance, it's still annoying...and boring to listen to if you don't believe in the words they say. [pretty much every time i am forced to go to church to please my grandparents (they don't know i'm an atheist...and they never will), i get so frustrated sitting there for an hour and a half and listening to everything they say about people like me - how we're 'misguided' or 'lost' or something similar. and i cant do anything about it.] if you are not a christian, why do you go to a christian school? what about separation of church and state? in my opinion, i believe that this fact is, to an extent, being ignored. there are lots of christian after school groups, clubs, fellowships, etc. at the high school near where i live, yet there are no organizations or groups at schools to support people like you and me and a lot of others. talk about unfair. i also find the "i'm better than you because i'm a christian" mentality more than a little annoying. i mean, i dont go around saying "im better than you because im an atheist". it's just rude. if your school has a zero discrimination policy, why didn't you take the issue up with your principal or school board? i know i would have, most definitely. that's discrimination.

----------

oh, and to those out there who care, ive been having computer issues, which is why i haven't been able to keep up with this thread. i will try to read everyone's replies and reply to them shortly.

----------

And, no, science and religion can't "get along".
That's probably the dumbest fucking statement I've heard all morning, and I work with twits.

Thank you for saying that. it seriously is impossible. there are a myriad of contradictions between the two. one is based on fact, the other is based on belief and faith. and unlike a lot of opposites, i am unable to see how these oil-and-water-like topics will ever be able mesh.

Thing of it is, most of the atheists I've met have been entirely not tolerant of other religions. In fact they have tended to be more militant about attacking others than any other group. They always claim that they think everyone is entitled to their own believes, but then insult me and others for having religious beliefs.

Quote:

Thank you for saying that. it seriously is impossible. there are a myriad of contradictions between the two. one is based on fact, the other is based on belief and faith. and unlike a lot of opposites, i am unable to see how these oil-and-water-like topics will ever be able mesh.

Aaaaannddd wrong.

First off, science and faith have always coexisted, and most of the greatest scientists in the ancient world were very religious.

There is no contradiction whatsoever. Not one. Especially not with the Bible. Depending on how one interprets it, the book of genesis describes not only the big bang, but evolution as well.

And btw. If you only believe in science, and fact, you must accept that abiogenesis cannot be proven, and never will. The theory requires unprovable assumptions, and thus, isn't science at all.

Natural selection works, and is quite proven, but that's not the same thing.

The big bang shows a good bit of evidence, but the math still hasn't quite proven it yet. Too many points might be the origin, and that screws with things. Also without finding the Higgs boson we can't even be sure of the entire field of M theory. It might all be bunk, which would make for interesting times in the physics community. Of course, you can go with a sort of multi-event theory, but it's a bit physically. . . complex. Some of the things it requires are rather counter intuitive, and according to some schools of physical thought impossible. . . .but I digress.

I happen to be very religious, and also base everything I believe on empirical data. I've experienced miracles, and thus I believe. God was proven to me by any scientific standard. I understand if you don't. I know what it means to need proof. Maybe God will be proven to you, and maybe not.

If someone tries to force their beliefs on you, then they're not a very good Christian anyway. You can tell them that. I can even give you verses to quote at them if you like. It really throws the fakers off. :)