"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein Eh, too lazy to add anything more
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." - Look-it-up
Transhuman i already made that quote. "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself."
Well then you know nothing about physics of philosophy. Einstein may have had a keen visual aptitude for conceptualizing a curved space but he struggled to adapt to the developments in quantum mechanics. He would be phased by today's understandings. Points for knowing it though.
So I may not know much about physics, but I do know that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God. Whichever you choose is your choice.
There is no scientific proof that says that you need a God. As said by Laplace 200 years ago when he presented the first model of the Copernican Solar System to Napoleon, "It works without that assumption". And on the contrary. It's not that the lack of evidence makes the idea of God more feasible, in fact it is greatly less.
That's what always bothered me in debates like these; the question, "You can't prove there isn't!" It's like saying that I have a gigantic spider on my head, one that you can't see, hear, touch, smell, taste, or sense using any sort of advanced technology. However, I'm completely sure that there's a giant, invisible spider on my head. Would I be considered crazy if I started telling people that if they don't believe that the spider is there, they'll burn forever in an imaginary land of torture? Or by saying that if you DO believe in the giant spider on my head, you get to live in eternal prosperity? Point is, that question is invalid. It's one of the laws of logic; you don't have to disprove a negative.
Although true, just want to point out wikipedia is not what professors like to think of it as which is a any troll could edit whatever piece of misinformation they want. Moderators actually fact check things people edit and misinformation gets deleted pretty quickly. Some articles are even locked and are uneditable.
Wikipedia is objective? I knew I would learn something new in this thread eventually. Anyway, back to the debate. If anyone has a doozy in the chamber, now's the time.
Lol the arguments for theism in the wiki were so clearly false, I even saw ontological argument and the transcendental argument in there XD Appeals to authority, hearsay, circular reasoning etc are all that that wiki article has for the theist side XD
You can't frame religious viewpoints with a scientific perspective, you'll get eaten alive. The only way to frame a religious point of view is to say what the religion gives you that you couldn't otherwise get from something else. Now people can debate that to death but at least that argument is harder for a scientist to win against.
Good point. My Christian faith gives me hope that I can one day reunite with loved ones who passed away. It gives me a sense of happiness and a positive outlook on life. Can you tell me where that could go wrong? I dont run around telling people they are gonna rot in hell. I just try to spread the love of Jesus Christ and by the free will of mankind, you will either embrace it or reject it. So for what reason does anyone feel they should bash my belief or debate it when you and me both live the way we want regardless. I have an extremely satisfying life here with my wife and son and those two people alone feel like a gift or a blessing. So tell me, whats the problem with me looking at them, and the awesome sites and wonders of this earth and thinking that something created that for us to enjoy? You want to believe you were created by an alien experiment, or just appeared one day, then died and turned to dust, thats fine. You want to tell everyone you came from an ape, so be it. Thats free will so you do what you want, but dont look down on me like I am less of a person because I choose to believe in God.
So you have just conceded that religion and science are irreconcilable, and primarily because religion forces one to abandon the objective viewpoint. Finally some progress. Wish-making, we get it. It gives you false consolidation but you can't do without thinking you aren't part of some divine plan for happiness. So maybe you don't run around telling people they are going to rot in hell, but did Jesus? Let me ask you, at what point is hell introduced in the Bible? In the Old Testament we have genocide, genital mutilation and the degradation of women, but it's not until gentle Jesus appears that we are greeted with this concept of eternal torment. Just remember it's the teachings of Jesus that have been used to terrify children for hundreds of years. You might not wish to carry the burden of choosing who goes where but your church certainly has the time to point it out. I don't know what you don't get about the history of relationship between Islam, Judaism and Christianity that makes you think everybody just wants to live the way they live. I'll stay out of the other two since nobody has introduced them self an associate, but there is nothing about Christianity that presents as though it wants to keep to itself. In the US you are in bitter dispute just to keep creationists out of your schools, and you forget you are the only country in the world with a wall of separation between church and state. I think if the founding fathers could have seen it coming then yes they would have included the separation of religion from education too. I don't mean to criticise you on a personal level either but i'm just as strongly against the idea of raising children through parents faith. It's wholly stagnates development by smothering the keen interests of children with paranoid garbage and training them to immediately reject anything to the contrary. No child should have a choice as strong as what they believe in made for them.
Matty I think you're getting caught up in an odd rant storm in which you forget who you've been arguing with. I never was arguing for religion. My central point of view on all of this was that this thread was a bad idea and incapable of producing religious discussion that didn't dissolve into endless debates. I always thought religion and science were incompatible and explained that I don't believe in organized religion. My viewpoints on an afterlife are completely different then "heaven/hell". I'm confused was that last part a rant towards me, who again doesn't care that you think that way, or towards other people in the thread and in general and that the only part that related to me was your "good point" sentence.