[Kazan]

Originally posted by TrashMan
all nothing-but-science-belivers will allways wonder if there is a God....

that premise is already proven false - because i don't

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Kazan
Knight: that's not proof and you know it - don't use the word wrong

I'm using the term proof from the stance of a deeply religous person. (namely Trashman)

 I thought you would have picked up on my true stance by now.

[Kazan]

Knight: i don't care if you're jumping into their shoes - using the term "proof" validates their delusional thoughts on what is and is not proof

atleast it does so in their own minds

[Stryke 9]

Trashman is deeply religious? I think "deeply religous" people by definition don't make their religion up on the fly.

[Knight Templar]

My point was that his version of proof doesn't even fit with the religon he is defending. I never said he was right, just that his idea of proof and religon is wrong, based solely on an object view of what religon considers proof...

Do you really get so uppidity when people try to be civiliized about things? This really isn't something worth arguing over...

Stryke: Maybe he really likes his own religon. A lot.

[Kazan]

I get uppity when anyone does anything that validates mass insanity

[karajorma]

Hell I was going to become religious I'd definately make it up as I went along What's the point in following what someone else says?

If you make **** up as you go along and just claim God told you it then  you have much more fun

[Knight Templar]

Kaz: Shut up and listen for once. I was never talking (sarcastically) about validating religon. I was speaking from the point of view a religous person would have, and what they would find as proof of their religon being true. I never said that that was right, and if I came off as that way, it's not what I meant, but rather that's how someone religous would generally think. Now unless you are saying that it's not true that a person with religous feelings would feel that way, then kindly back off and cool down. Please.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Trashman is deeply religious? I think "deeply religous" people by definition don't make their religion up on the fly.

Uumm....Nah...I'm not "Deeply Religious"...Alltough I reckon I'm far above avarage....
I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, don't get into fights, don't spread bad gossip, don't steal, etc, etc...
I have my bad sides - childish, lazy, thickheaded, not very tidy..

I do try to be a good Christian alltough I tend to fail more often than not, but I don't let that discourage me....

@KT...You missunderstood.. I never said those things are solid proof, I said they are proof enough FOR ME....

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by TrashMan
I don't drink...

Just for the sake of stirring up some trouble and perhaps changing the direction this thread's taken, what do you mean by "I don't drink"? Do you abstain from all alcoholic products, or do you recognize that Jesus did indeed turn water into wine, not grapejuice, and just avoid getting drunk or habitual about drinking?

[Stryke 9]

Beating up on TrashMan > another religion debate.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by Kazan
if they wonder how stars are formed they failed middle school science

Just so you know, wonder doesn't mean ignorance. I wonder all the time at things precisely because I know how they work.

[Kazan]

Setekh: that is a contradiction

[Fineus]

Depends on your usage of the word "wonder" doesnt it? I don't wonder how stars are formed, I know how that happens. But I do wonder that it happens. It's an incredible thing. Of course there's an explanation for it - but there mere fact that it happens is something to wonder at.

I hope that makes sense

[Kazan]

it makes sense - but i disagree it isn't a wonder, it would be a wonder if they didn't form

[Grey Wolf]

Well, that's from the point of view of someone who has lived their entire life in a universe filled with stars.  If you lived in a universe with only a single star, your perceptions would be different.

On a side note, religion isn't really supposed to explain the "how". That is the role of science.  The purpose of religion and philosophy is to instead explain the "why".

Science: We are born, we live, and we die.
Religion: Why are we born, why do we live, and why do we die?

This kind of defeats the entire basis of the debate in about half of this thread, IIRC.  Of course, this still makes the concept of Genesis up through the flood impossible to be anything other than symbolic, but still.

[diamondgeezer]

Science attempts to explain why, but takes the approach that if we could understand the very first instant of the Universe, the rest of history should in theory be predictable. Or something. Hence trying to discover the theory of everything - should he ever discover that, we'll know how and why

[Stryke 9]

Who would want to, though?

[Janos]

Philosophy and religion, in intelligent forms, stay clear of scientifical questions. However, there are a hell of a lot questions and matters which will remain philosophers' areas. Literature, art, heck - human relationships are often so completely retarded that trying to find any natural causes behind actions will result in headache. Original philosophers were mathematicians, biologists and artists, but nowadays such a diversity is quite impossible.

But as religion tampers in the areas where it can give us nothing but vague statements - say, practically everything not dependant of humans - it gets evil.

[Grey Wolf]

The Unified Field Theory isn't supposed to explain the "why". It's just supposed to be a single theory that can explain the gravitic, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Where'd you get the idea that the Unified Field Theory will explain everything?