Can Science and Religion co exist?

• Heretic

  

  Tiernan;1599481 wrote:I'm banking on all the slutty fun chicks will be in Hell.

  And rock stars. And basically anyone actually worth hanging out with. I'm pretty sure the whole moralizing part of the bible is there essentially to tell you that if you go to heaven, you're essentially going to be in the largest library known to humankind. Where you won't be able to speak above a whisper, will have to be immaculately groomed at all times and will essentially be spending eternity in that sort of stilted and formal uncomfortableness you'd usually feel on a big job interview you had to have.
• cruiser_96

  

  Sleeper: to your point #2) I never stated that saying "I don't know" is what is childish. I stated that hiding behind as you bark at others is what is childish.
  
  Humble and accurate would be recognizing, as jmog states, that we are all in the boat, not being a jerk about someone else's beliefs.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1599468 wrote:1. I changed my mind originally because of evidence that was fed to me by professors, not facts, but they were presented as so.
  2. I investigated things on my own scientifically with no assumptions of which side was 'true' since I had once believed in evolution.
  3. The evidence I found showed way too many holes in the theory, way too much 'bad' science being used as fact to spread a message that the scientists wanted to spread. Things like falsifying fossil records, modifying fossils to make it look like what they thought it should, knowingly "carbon dating" something to millions of years when carbon dating can't date anything past about 50,000 years, and the list goes on. The problem is, and this is true on both sides, TOO MANY scientists these days make a hypothesis and instead of proving or disproving said hypothesis (like the scientific method states) the prove the hypothesis as fact no matter what type of data they have to 'create' or 'modify'. Piltdown Man was modified as an ape jaw and human skull to fool the masses. Nebraska man was a freaking pig tooth ONLY that somehow turned into a whole "missing link" family picture that is still in text books today. That's right, a freaking pig tooth was all that was found, but it is now still in text books as a "Nebraska Man" whole family.
  
  So, I ask you, who is more brainwashed? Kids growing up reading stories about Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man (I could list others) that are known hoaxes, but are taught them as fact in their text books...or a man who evaluated both sides of the argument scientifically and logically and came to a conclusion/belief.
  
  I have most definitely discussed my beliefs with any colleagues that are so inclined to ask. And no, no one laughs, because they are scientists too and know the holes in the theory and can see why someone would come to a different conclusion. Also, they are not assholes, like those that would ridicule someone for something they came to a believe in a logical fashion.

  I find it interesting that you go through all this research, including checking various studies and their flaws, while holding no such standard for accepting your current belief system which permeates far more than just your professional life. I agree there are likely scientists out there that 'cheat' and there is still a lot left to learn about evolution and the origin of life, but I'm confident that over time with enough studies following the scientific method that we will find the truth. Religion will remain with its current evidence(which is zero) from now until the end of time.
  
  I absolutely think anyone who believes in a religious based god is brainwashed and delusional and the only way to 'solve' this is by being direct and aggressive to believers. I know I lived the first 16 years of my life as a delusional Catholic believer until one day I cured my ignorance and realized how big of a FRAUD religion is.
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1599487 wrote:Sleeper: to your point #2) I never stated that saying "I don't know" is what is childish. I stated that hiding behind as you bark at others is what is childish.
  
  Humble and accurate would be recognizing, as jmog states, that we are all in the boat, not being a jerk about someone else's beliefs.

  Because you don't know either and the barking is the frustration being expressed at those who don't know either yet claim they do and provide no evidence.
  
  I'm not being a jerk about your beliefs; the feeling you are experiencing is called 'cognitive dissonance'. You know you are wrong but don't want to admit it so instead you claim the high ground of 'WELL ITS MY BELIEF AND YOU CANNOT PROVE ME WRONG YOU JERK!' and I just sit here and shake my head. I have you and you delusional brethren figured out and I do not care if you think I'm being offensive or if you think I'm being a jerk. Reality is harsh and I prefer it that way.
• Automatik

  

  Sleeper brings the logic in religion threads. Great entertainment...I <3 it.
• cruiser_96

  

  Yes. The feeling I'm experiencing. You can't tell me what I'm experiencing. Your arrogance is shining through.
  
  Either A) we created ourselves, B) nothing created us, or C) someone else created us.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1599478 wrote:That doesn't happen.
  
  Nebraska man was retracted when it was discovered that they had made a mistake. In fucking 1927. That's your basis for your belief that current scientific consensus is incorrect?

  I said I could go on.
  
  Nebraska Man was a biased mistake. Piltdown Man was a deliberate fabrication, and it was in textbooks for over 40 years. I said I could keep going on the mistaken/fabricated "missing links". I only happened to name 2.
• jmog

  sleeper;1599489 wrote:I find it interesting that you go through all this research, including checking various studies and their flaws, while holding no such standard for accepting your current belief system which permeates far more than just your professional life. I agree there are likely scientists out there that 'cheat' and there is still a lot left to learn about evolution and the origin of life, but I'm confident that over time with enough studies following the scientific method that we will find the truth. Religion will remain with its current evidence(which is zero) from now until the end of time.
  
  I absolutely think anyone who believes in a religious based god is brainwashed and delusional and the only way to 'solve' this is by being direct and aggressive to believers. I know I lived the first 16 years of my life as a delusional Catholic believer until one day I cured my ignorance and realized how big of a FRAUD religion is.

  Why would you assume I don't put the same rigor and look for the same holes in my current belief system? My belief system is constantly evolving as I uncover or understand new information.
  
  You are making too many assumptions about me. If I went through a phase of fully believing in creation, to fully believing in evolution, to back to believing in creation, all while looking at evidences for both sides, your biased belief stemmed right to the idea that I had to ONLY look for holes in evolution and not into the other side.
• jmog

  sleeper;1599489 wrote:
  I absolutely think anyone who believes in a religious based god is brainwashed and delusional and the only way to 'solve' this is by being direct and aggressive to believers. I know I lived the first 16 years of my life as a delusional Catholic believer until one day I cured my ignorance and realized how big of a FRAUD religion is.

  There's one thing we can agree on sleeper, I am NOT a fan of 'organized religion'. I believe the majority of catholics are well intentioned/nice people, but the organization as a whole is NOT how the Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible wanted his followers to behave/worship/act/etc.
  
  I am with you there, organized religion has become corrupt for the most part. That, however, does NOT mean that all Christians are "brainwashed" and ignorant.
  
  You have a valid beef with organized religion but you vent those frustrations on ANYONE who has a belief system that is even in the same ball park as that same organized religion.
• jmog

  sleeper;1599494 wrote: You know you are wrong but don't want to admit it so instead you claim the high ground of 'WELL ITS MY BELIEF AND YOU CANNOT PROVE ME WRONG YOU JERK!' and I just sit here and shake my head. I have you and you delusional brethren figured out and I do not care if you think I'm being offensive or if you think I'm being a jerk. Reality is harsh and I prefer it that way.

  Truth of the matter is that you are being a jerk.
  
  The fact is that he is right, you (or any PhD scientist that has ever lived) can not prove God doesn't exist.
  On the other side of the coin, no theist (those that believe in a 'god') can not prove that he does exist.
  
  So neither side can prove the other one to be wrong, which is why it is a philosophical discussion and not a scientific one.
• HitsRus

  

  Religion is designed to circumvent any logic and reason within the brain and therefore relies solely on fear tactics in order to keep the believers in line.

  Although you need to believe that so your argument makes sense...that simply is a generalization that is not true.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1599434 wrote:If you have truly graduated from college, as you say you have, you would know that just as much brainwashing goes on by many college professors as by religious institutions.
  
  For your information, but you know I have stated this many times, there was a point that I fully believed in single cell to human evolution, was I brainwashed at that point too?

  You've said this before but I don't believe you when you say this. You've mentioned before that you were raised an evangelical christian and maybe you doubted your faith for a little bit but you never gave up fully believing in abiogenesis and evolution with common descent to revert back to young earth creationism. Especially because your arguments as to why you were convinced that evolution with common descent are so easily refutable. You were never investigating in good faith. Like a homocide detective with the inside scoop, you already "knew" who did it from the beginning. You just think pretending that you once were a genuine believer in evolution with common descent that it makes you more credible when you argue in favor of young earth creationism. It doesn't. Sorry.
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1599517 wrote:Yes. The feeling I'm experiencing. You can't tell me what I'm experiencing. Your arrogance is shining through.
  
  Either A) we created ourselves, B) nothing created us, or C) someone else created us.

  The feeling you are experiencing is a normal and well studied behavioral mechanism. It isn't a bad thing and practically everyone experiences it multiple times in their life but few actually have the cognitive level to understand what and when they are experiencing it. If obtaining more knowledge than you and recognizing your very human flaws makes me arrogant; then damn I'm the most arrogant guy on the planet.
  
  Your options are rather vague, but religious folks have it figured out so tell me how we got here and what/who created everything. I'll need to review your evidence as well.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1599536 wrote:Why would you assume I don't put the same rigor and look for the same holes in my current belief system? My belief system is constantly evolving as I uncover or understand new information.
  
  You are making too many assumptions about me. If I went through a phase of fully believing in creation, to fully believing in evolution, to back to believing in creation, all while looking at evidences for both sides, your biased belief stemmed right to the idea that I had to ONLY look for holes in evolution and not into the other side.

  I would love to see the evidence and/or your logical progression into believing that the Earth is 10,000 years old and that god created everything. There is no evidence for creationism; the only thing you have to review a book that was written by people who wanted to indoctrinate and influence others into their own belief system. It may have some historical data that is accurate but I'd be shocked if history would leave out the 7 plagues or whatever from Egypt or the entire world being flooded for 40 days and 40 nights. I mean come on man.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1599535 wrote:I said I could go on.
  
  Nebraska Man was a biased mistake. Piltdown Man was a deliberate fabrication, and it was in textbooks for over 40 years. I said I could keep going on the mistaken/fabricated "missing links". I only happened to name 2.

  So you were once fervently committed to evolution with common descent and you gave up your fervently held beliefs based on a fallacy of composition and weren't really a committed evangelical christian looking to justify young earth creationism the whole time. Got it.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1599548 wrote:You've said this before but I don't believe you when you say this. You've mentioned before that you were raised an evangelical christian and maybe you doubted your faith for a little bit but you never gave up fully believing in abiogenesis and evolution with common descent to revert back to young earth creationism. Especially because your arguments as to why you were convinced that evolution with common descent are so easily refutable. You were never investigating in good faith. Like a homocide detective with the inside scoop, you already "knew" who did it from the beginning. You just think pretending that you once were a genuine believer in evolution with common descent that it makes you more credible when you argue in favor of young earth creationism. It doesn't. Sorry.

  So your opinion is that I am lying, got it, thanks.
  I never said or implicitly stated that I think having a background that I once believed in evolution made my story more credible. You are making some vast leaps in logic with major assumptions.
  
  You seem to believe "know" everything about me even what I am pretending or lying about. Interesting, either you are full of crap or stalking me, I'll go with full of crap.
  
  I never said that I did not believe in God at all in that time, I just did not believe in the stories of the Bible and believed common descent evolution was fact with the possibility that "God" 'started it', as in he set it in motion with the first cell.
  
  You can think I am pretending or didn't fully believe it all you want, but you would be incorrect and you are pretty presumptive. I have never presumed to know how you came to your world view/belief system.
• jmog

  sleeper;1599550 wrote:I would love to see the evidence and/or your logical progression into believing that the Earth is 10,000 years old and that god created everything. There is no evidence for creationism; the only thing you have to review a book that was written by people who wanted to indoctrinate and influence others into their own belief system. It may have some historical data that is accurate but I'd be shocked if history would leave out the 7 plagues or whatever from Egypt or the entire world being flooded for 40 days and 40 nights. I mean come on man.

  Not that hard to search my name for posts on this site, I will not post them all again for the 20th time.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1599551 wrote:So you were once fervently committed to evolution with common descent and you gave up your fervently held beliefs based on a fallacy of composition and weren't really a committed evangelical christian looking to justify young earth creationism the whole time. Got it.

  So, I list a few obvious fabrications/fallacies and that immediately means I never believed evolution? Come on man, use a little logic before you make huge leaps in assuming what my background/belief is based on.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1599552 wrote:So your opinion is that I am lying, got it, thanks.

  I wouldn't call it "lying" per se....probably more like "delusional". It's not a lie if you believe it after all, mirite? You probably think that you were a true believer in common descent but you never were. In any event I don't see how admitting that you reverted back to young earth creationism after leaving the secular empirical investigation of a university and using spurious arguments as justification helps your case.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1599555 wrote:So, I list a few obvious fabrications/fallacies and that immediately means I never believed evolution? Come on man, use a little logic before you make huge leaps in assuming what my background/belief is based on.

  "Use a little logic" from the guy resting his whole case against evolution with common descent on the fallacy of composition. We've done this too many times for this to be worthwhile. You cannot shake the faith of a true believer and that is the logical progression Jmog. Anybody can see that you didn't really give up any true beliefs you had based upon such spurious reasoning. You had the inside scoop your whole life and you just needed to find a few "holes" in the case against your inside scoop and you moved on, content, "knowing" you had it right all along.
• cruiser_96

  

  Sleeper: my statement wasn't that "cognitive dissonance" didn't exist. My statement was that you cannot possibly know how I'm feeling.
  
  And sleeper, your statement was "I don't know" when it came to the origins of our existence. I gave you three vague choices. Pick one. Or even choose section option d) other, but please, fill us in. Or you can continue down the pathway of childish behavior, "taking your ball home with you" as you call others names because they won't agree with you.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1599556 wrote:I wouldn't call it "lying" per se....probably more like "delusional". It's not a lie if you believe it after all, mirite? You probably think that you were a true believer in common descent but you never were. In any event I don't see how admitting that you reverted back to young earth creationism after leaving the secular empirical investigation of a university and using spurious arguments as justification helps your case.

  So I am either lying or dilusional...you are really digging in deep here.
  
  I guess I could say you REALLY don't believe in common descent, you truly believe in creationism and will come around someday...that's about as absurd a statement as what you are saying about my belief.
  
  Now, you then get it completely wrong by saying I changed my beliefs AFTER leaving the secular university. Matter of fact I was in college for a total of 6 years (bachelors and masters). If I had to put dates on it, it was around my sophomore year that I became a believer in common descent evolution, it was during my senior year and masters that I did most of the investigation into both sides of the story. My 2nd year of my masters is when I had 'reverted' to being a creation believer.
  
  Also, using "spurious" arguments? So any arguments I make are fake/false? See, you can change the word from liar to something else, but the meaning is the same. Call me a liar all you like I really don't care, my story is what it is. If it makes you feel better to call me a liar, then so be it, but it really doesn't help your argument at all to just insinuate the other guy is lying. I mean seriously, I could pull the same comment on you in the politics forums, that you are just lying, truly a conservative and just feeding us "spurious" evidences to fool us. It would do nothing for my side of the argument other than make me look foolish.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1599557 wrote:"Use a little logic" from the guy resting his whole case against evolution with common descent on the fallacy of composition. We've done this too many times for this to be worthwhile. You cannot shake the faith of a true believer and that is the logical progression Jmog. Anybody can see that you didn't really give up any true beliefs you had based upon such spurious reasoning. You had the inside scoop your whole life and you just needed to find a few "holes" in the case against your inside scoop and you moved on, content, "knowing" you had it right all along.

  Fallacy of composition implies that I have applied the few forgeries to all fossils, and that I do not look at all fossils on their individual merit.
  
  You are 100% incorrect once again, you either don't understand what fallacy of composition is, or you haven't really read. You are making major assumption leaps.
  
  We got it, you think I am a huge liar, you can keep changing the words around to other things like "dilusional" and "spurious" but you are really just trying to use semantics so that it doesn't appear like you are calling me a liar. We get it. Move on.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1599563 wrote:Fallacy of composition implies that I have applied the few forgeries to all fossils, and that I do not look at all fossils on their individual merit.
  
  You are 100% incorrect once again, you either don't understand what fallacy of composition is, or you haven't really read. You are making major assumption leaps.
  
  We got it, you think I am a huge liar, you can keep changing the words around to other things like "dilusional" and "spurious" but you are really just trying to use semantics so that it doesn't appear like you are calling me a liar. We get it. Move on.

  Again, I think it is wrong to call you a liar. You simply weren't evaluating evolution with common descent in good faith and that is why I say you're acting on the fallacy of composition when you talk about "holes in the evidence for evolution" and talk about the farking Piltdown Man. LOL. That is as spurious as it gets!
  
  And there is a difference between you saying that I will believe in creationism one day as you're missing the point. I'm suggesting you always had that creationism card in the back of your mind.
  
  There's two places people who were evangelical christians can go when they're confronted with the truth....they either accept the sadness and despair that comes with knowing all you believed your life was a lie and march foward doing the best you can....or you revert. Most people who do the latter will have some silly explanation as to why they came to understand that common descent is a fraud and blah blah blah.