Are there ANY Christians on RIU?

[Heisenberg]

You would have to agree that science can share the same state as your statement about religion & no having answers on a level of certainly. How often is a scientific proof proven wrong? One of the fundamental scientific statements is that nothing goes faster than the speed of light. THey are now saying that there are particles that travel faster than light. THere are a ton of other examples of this sort of thing. Various finds that were totted as one thing but ended up being something else.

Many do see this as a failing of science, yet it is actually manifestation of one of it's strengths, the ability to self correct. Science is open to new ideas, new evidence, and new angles. Systematic doubt is a staple of the scientific method, IOW, science constantly doubts itself. Science takes the approach that, the best way to demonstrate that you are right is by failing to prove yourself wrong. Science changes it's mind when it is the responsible and justified thing to do.

Just a parenthetical, Last I heard the data suggesting FTL particle travel was found to be flawed.

THe thing about science is that they don't stop looking. But for example, almost all theoretical physics is just that, theory. But its treated as fact. Saying belief in an unseen God is some form of coping mechanism can be turned back & said that many scientific theories are just used to cope with not wanting to deal with an unseen God. On paper, neither argument is more valid than the other. Neither can be proven. They are both faith based.

You are mistaken. God theory is unable to show it's work, science shows mounds of it. In science, a theory is something which has been shown to have evidence, otherwise its a hypothesis. So to say something is just a theory is like saying this something has only been shown to have evidence. Science does not avoid an unseen god out of frustration, but out of parsimony.

It's funny, if it God created the universe in a week its a fairy tail. But if it happened over 13.5 billion years its a fact. We have the Big Bang & the proof of it with the echos of the microwaves & such.. Where my Christian views say the Lord spoke it into existence. An instantaneous act. (from my point of view). Science & religion both agree that it happened in an instant, but we just disagree on the cause.

In this we share common ground. There is nothing about evolution or the big bang that excludes god as an author. It would seem the creationist view has more problem with this idea than the science involved in these theories. Also, there are many other attributes which make creationism resemble a fairy tale besides god's quickness.

That's why we all need to lose the judgements on others beliefs wether religious or scientific until proven. The moon is not made of cheese. We know that because we've been there. (OH NO.. The we didn't land on the moon conspiracy! ) Until your dead, I feel pretty certain we have no idea what comes next. as for me, I choose to believe in the heaven of talked about in the bible. OThers are free to believe in what ever they like & I will not judge them for it.

As I said, I have no problem with beliefs until the exceed their basic human entitlements of expression and celebration, beyond that I think we do need to judge. Religious beliefs have a way of demanding surrender, they must be kept in check.

 

[Doer]

Scientific methods are the way we keep from spinning our wheels with conjecture. It ruthlessly cuts the false trails.

Religion to me is the opposite. Based on conjecture and in constant theological spin. The history of theology is
even more depressing than Religion. Pure Conjecture and in the Hassidic tradition an odd anthromorphic human logic. "Wouldn't a just GOD....?" Why Just, again? Oh, right, chosen people.

There are 7 main versions of the Bible today, for example, and countless revisions of those.

 

[abandonconflict]

Scientific methods are the way we keep from spinning our wheels with conjecture. It ruthlessly cuts the false trails.

Religion to me is the opposite. Based on conjecture and in constant theological spin. The history of theology is
even more depressing than Religion. Pure Conjecture and in the Hassidic tradition an odd anthromorphic human logic. "Wouldn't a just GOD....?" Why Just, again? Oh, right, chosen people.

There are 7 main versions of the Bible today, for example, and countless revisions of those.

I am religion, I seek facts to support my conclusions.

I am science, I wonder what conclusions I may draw from the facts.

 

[Doer]

I am religion, I seek facts to support my conclusions.

I am science, I wonder what conclusions I may draw from the facts.

Not even close for 1/2 of it, imo. Isn't this it, actually?

I am religion, I suppress facts to support my conclusions and I damn those that disagree.

 

[abandonconflict]

Not even close for 1/2 of it, imo. Isn't this it, actually?

I am religion, I suppress facts to support my conclusions and I damn those that disagree.

I stand corrected +rep

 

[Stillbuzzin]

All I see is a bunch of God-bashing, monkey-metamorphisis, space alien, crazy-ass beliefs, on here, and being a minister of the Universal Life Church, I'm almost tempted to roll up shop and go elsewhere... Just wondering... Little bit of a check here.... I am tolerant of anyones beliefs, but there is a great in-tolerance of anything Christian I ever say when people talk about their far-fetched, man-made, dreamed up concoctions of science and sci-fi, and whatever... Whatever happenned to just believing that Christ died for our sins, and that God created everything, including cannabis, which is clearly pointed out, and spoken HIGHLY of many times in The Bible? Anyone? Seriously, anyone?

Ever time I try to talk about this I just delete it an give up. The trolls will drive you nuts.

 

[Doer]

"just believing that Christ died for our sins," that's the part I don't get. First create sin and guilt as a tribal law and order deal and claim it was from a burning bush, then get a guy killed, say that we are saved from "sin" because of that.

Too weird. Too much conjecture. Self fulfilling degradation. Blame shifting. No real work with Self.
Why believe that? Why buy into the sin gimmick and need saving from that to have a life hereafter.

And all religions have this absurd cult logic core. I have my own Elysium and what if you are wrong?

 

[carl.burnette]

Many do see this as a failing of science, yet it is actually manifestation of one of it's strengths, the ability to self correct. Science is open to new ideas, new evidence, and new angles. Systematic doubt is a staple of the scientific method, IOW, science constantly doubts itself. Science takes the approach that, the best way to demonstrate that you are right is by failing to prove yourself wrong. Science changes it's mind when it is the responsible and justified thing to do.

Just a parenthetical, Last I heard the data suggesting FTL particle travel was found to be flawed.


You are very mistaken. God theory is unable to show it's work, science shows mounds of it. In science, a theory is something which has been shown to have evidence, otherwise is a hypothesis. So to say something is just a theory is like saying this something has only been shown to have evidence. Science does not avoid an unseen god out of frustration, but out of parsimony.



In this we share common ground. There is nothing about evolution or the big bang that excludes god as an author. It would seem the creationist view has more problem with this idea than the science involved in these theories. Also, there are many other attributes which make creationism resemble a fairy tale besides god's quickness.



As I said, I have no problem with beliefs until the exceed their basic human entitlements of expression and celebration, beyond that I think we do need to judge. Religious beliefs have a way of demanding surrender, they must be kept in check.

Wish I knew how to break up the quotes like that. Makes responding easier.

"Many do see this as a failing of science, yet it is actually manifestation of one of it's strengths, the ability to self correct. Science is open to new ideas, new evidence, and new angles. Systematic doubt is a staple of the scientific method, IOW, science constantly doubts itself. Science takes the approach that, the best way to demonstrate that you are right is by failing to prove yourself wrong. Science changes it's mind when it is the responsible and justified thing to do."

I agree that science self corrects. But, the problem as I see it is when its corrected the correction is taken as fact. As was the original theory, then when someone else has a theory ITS treated as fact. Not to start an evolution discussion, but look at evolution. Its taught as gospel & if you question your labeled a religious nu

 

[ginjawarrior]

Wish I knew how to break up the quotes like that. Makes responding easier.

"Many do see this as a failing of science, yet it is actually manifestation of one of it's strengths, the ability to self correct. Science is open to new ideas, new evidence, and new angles. Systematic doubt is a staple of the scientific method, IOW, science constantly doubts itself. Science takes the approach that, the best way to demonstrate that you are right is by failing to prove yourself wrong. Science changes it's mind when it is the responsible and justified thing to do."

I agree that science self corrects. But, the problem as I see it is when its corrected the correction is taken as fact. As was the original theory, then when someone else has a theory ITS treated as fact. Not to start an evolution discussion, but look at evolution. Its taught as gospel & if you question your labeled a religious nu

when you reply with quote the previous post is inbetween

[quote]

[/quote]

split the box up into multiple parts you need to add a finish

[/quote]

to the part you want to block off. but that then leaves rest of quote without a start so you'll need to add an

[quote]

so if you do this

Wish I knew how to break up the quotes like that. Makes responding easier.

"Many do see this as a failing of science, yet it is actually manifestation of one of it's strengths, the ability to self correct. Science is open to new ideas, new evidence, and new angles. Systematic doubt is a staple of the scientific method, IOW, science constantly doubts itself. Science takes the approach that, the best way to demonstrate that you are right is by failing to prove yourself wrong. Science changes it's mind when it is the responsible and justified thing to do."

I agree that science self corrects. But, the problem as I see it is when its corrected the correction is taken as fact. As was the original theory, then when someone else has a theory ITS treated as fact. Not to start an evolution discussion, but look at evolution. Its taught as gospel & if you question your labeled a religious nu

should look like this

Wish I knew how to break up the quotes like that. Makes responding easier.

"Many do see this as a failing of science, yet it is actually manifestation of one of it's strengths, the ability to self correct. Science is open to new ideas, new evidence, and new angles. Systematic doubt is a staple of the scientific method, IOW, science constantly doubts itself. Science takes the approach that, the best way to demonstrate that you are right is by failing to prove yourself wrong. Science changes it's mind when it is the responsible and justified thing to do."

I agree that science self corrects. But, the problem as I see it is when its corrected the correction is taken as fact. As was the original theory, then when someone else has a theory ITS treated as fact. Not to start an evolution discussion, but look at evolution. Its taught as gospel & if you question your labeled a religious nu

hmm not working how it should i hate bb code

 

[ginjawarrior]

right sod above post
quoted text has [ Q U O T E ] and [/ Q U O T E] (remove spaces)at begging and end to split it up yu need to add an end at bit you want to quote and a new begining for next block of text
[q u o t e]text {add ending here} [/ q u o t e]
{add new beginging} [ q u o t e ] rest of quoted msg here [/ q u o t e]

 

[Heisenberg]

I agree that science self corrects. But, the problem as I see it is when its corrected the correction is taken as fact. As was the original theory, then when someone else has a theory ITS treated as fact. Not to start an evolution discussion, but look at evolution. Its taught as gospel & if you question your labeled a religious nu

Science does not see any answers as absolute. What science does is attempt to give us the closest approximation of truth. Science fastidiously documents and presents the rationale behind it's approximations, and through transparency begs for others to find errors. Peer review and replication are part of the self correction process. Science is not happy with simply demonstrating things once and only looking for errors from one angle. If science is wrong, it wants to be made aware. With each correction, that approximation becomes more polished. It's true sometimes a correction calls for the need to abandon a theory completely, in which case science does if it is justified.

Science invites questions and welcomes doubt, but has little tolerance for denial. Denialism is often what we see in critics of evolution. Remember, an integral part of science is systematic doubt, so when a theory such as evolution has been around this long, it means it has withstood decades and decades of rigorous attempts to prove it false. It has made decades of predictions which have been found to be accurate, and undergone decades of refinement. Can you understand why some treat it as reliable knowledge? Creationists do not simply question evolution, they attack it with demonstrably fallacious arguments and then flat out deny the counters to those arguments. They appeal to irrationality, and thus often gain the label of nut.

Science is too worried about proving itself wrong to waste time on well countered arguments from the past.

I have no motivation to get into an evolution debate either, but it does serve as a good example of the scientific method.


"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion" - Carl Sagan

 

[Heisenberg]

right sod above post
quoted text has [ Q U O T E ] and [/ Q U O T E] (remove spaces)at begging and end to split it up yu need to add an end at bit you want to quote and a new begining for next block of text
[q u o t e]text {add ending here} [/ q u o t e]
{add new beginging} [ q u o t e ] rest of quoted msg here [/ q u o t e]

This was so confusing I have now forgotten how to quote.

 

[ginjawarrior]

This was so confusing I have now forgotten how to quote.

lol i tried to do it by using

 to reveal it but it doesnt seem to work how it used to

 

[mindphuk]

This was so confusing I have now forgotten how to quote.

I just highlight the intended quote and hit the button that looks like a word balloon. I have to delete an extraneous tag at the beginning and end.

 

[Hepheastus420]

Of course there are christians on RIU, some of my favs are Eye Exaggerate, Hep, Oly and another new guy with a monkey as an avatar who I think is also christian. They are all intelligent and participate in good debates. We have no problem with their faith, because they do not present it as fact, merely their belief. Any claims posted as reality that cannot stand up to simple logic and scrutiny, or has no empirical evidence, does get bashed here and that's a beautiful thing. It indicates that we are making progress as a species. Belief without evidence is fine, but it won't be taken seriously in this sub-forum...

Tough logical love.

 

[mindphuk]

Wish I knew how to break up the quotes like that. Makes responding easier.

"Many do see this as a failing of science, yet it is actually manifestation of one of it's strengths, the ability to self correct. Science is open to new ideas, new evidence, and new angles. Systematic doubt is a staple of the scientific method, IOW, science constantly doubts itself. Science takes the approach that, the best way to demonstrate that you are right is by failing to prove yourself wrong. Science changes it's mind when it is the responsible and justified thing to do."

I agree that science self corrects. But, the problem as I see it is when its corrected the correction is taken as fact. As was the original theory, then when someone else has a theory ITS treated as fact. Not to start an evolution discussion, but look at evolution. Its taught as gospel & if you question your labeled a religious nu

I too do not want to turn this into an evolution debate, although that is my wheelhouse, I would like to point out that most religious objection to evolution is not objecting specifically to the theory of evolution but to the fact of evolution. Darwin proposed a theory to explain the observations that species appear to change over time and began with simpler forms early in history and progressed to more complex forms. Even creationists like Carl Linnaeus saw that organisms formed nested hierarchy like family trees. It is this relationship between organisms that prompted people to find explanations. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed a different "theory of evolution" that claimed organisms could pass off acquired characteristics to their offspring. The idea that plants and animals evolved from much simpler forms dates back before Charles Darwin to at least Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather.

What we end up having is people that dispute certain facts about the history of life on earth that are not in dispute because they think somehow that evolutionary theory is pinned on the works of Charles Darwin and the fossil record. The actual mechanism for how and why populations of species change over time is what is proposed by the theory of natural selection and descent with modification, not the fact that the gene pool changes over time.

 

[tyler.durden]

Tough logical love.

Hey, Hep! Good to see you back. Where you been?

 

[Zaehet Strife]

Originally Posted by tyler.durden

Of course there are christians on RIU, some of my favs are Eye Exaggerate, Hep, Oly and another new guy with a monkey as an avatar who I think is also christian. They are all intelligent and participate in good debates. We have no problem with their faith, because they do not present it as fact, merely their belief. Any claims posted as reality that cannot stand up to simple logic and scrutiny, or has no empirical evidence, does get bashed here and that's a beautiful thing. It indicates that we are making progress as a species. Belief without evidence is fine, but it won't be taken seriously in this sub-forum...

[h=3]be·lief/biˈlēf/[/h]

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

I definitely wouldn't have a problem with it if they didn't consider their beliefs facts, but here is a problem... because there is a difference between ideas, and beliefs. If you hold onto a belief, it hardly ever changes, but if you merely think of different ideas... there are endless possibilities.

Beliefs= close mindedness
Ideas= open mindedness

 

[eye exaggerate]

Beliefs= close mindedness
Ideas= open mindedness

...is this what you believe?

 

[Hepheastus420]

...is this what you believe?

Checkmate..