American Christians, do you feel persecuted?

[Col. Hstar]

If our brains are fallible then the conclusions you draw from scientific research can also be fallible. You don't get it both ways.

True. This is why we have things like repeatable experiments, double-blind trials, and peer review - we know we're biased, so we do our best to eliminate the biases.

Yes but all humans are fallible. Imagine someone adding 2 + 2. If you are using the same broken calculator or another broken calculator to add 2 + 2 you'll never get 4. If you put so much trust in that broken calculator you'll start thinking that 2 + 2 is 3. Obliviously this is a metaphor but you get the point. If all of our brains are fallible, how can you trust the repeated tests, peer reviews, and double-blind trials. You wouldn't even know if you're doing it right.

I don't need it both ways - I'm not the one who's trying to equate "we're not absolutely sure evolution is correct" and "evolution must be wrong and my favorite idea must be correct instead".

Oh neither am I. I don't need to disprove evolution. As I have stated time and again we are each entitled to our beliefs.
What I am doing is taking away the illusion that not believing in God is a sign of education and rational thinking. You're belief that there is no God is built just as much on faith. The fact that you can't see God, comprehend God, or measure the effects God to your satisfaction, doesn't mean he does not exist. It means you're human and not a God

Also to address the claim that people believe in God blindly. In my personal opinion the advances we have made scientifically that allow us to study life as we know it right now, prove to me that there is a God. How anyone can look at something even as small as a blood cell and think it came about naturally all by itself over time is (IMO) ridiculous. No one would look at the computer you're using right now and assume that there is a possibility that the CPU formed itself naturally. No one can assume that all the components inside would form together naturally and then work together naturally to make a working computer. No one would assume that, yet the blood cell is infinitely more precise and detailed in it's workings. Cells come together and work to support life. The point is that the computer needs a designer and so did the blood cell. This is how science proves to me that God exists. I look at the scientific data we have now and I use (IMO) common sense to deduce that for something as amazing as the human blood cell there must have been someone of a higher power to design it.

Last thing for me to say in this thread is that it also takes humility to believe in God. If you are convinced that humans are the most advance beings in the universe and nothing greater could exist then you will never understand belief in God.

[CommanderOtto]

that was a good response

[THEWULFMAN]

I don't have the time in my life to sink it into this thread even though I want to.

I would like to say I am pleasantly surprised at the speculation Narg did earlier, it fits with some of my own thoughts.

Also, this is how it looks to me.

The concept of Atheists being educated while Christians are not is both true and false. True in that many, sorry, most Christians deny things we've essentially proven with science. In this case Evolution. This is not to say there are not educated Christians or ignorant Athiests. We've essentially done it again. We, and by "we" I mean you guys, are lumping groups into one rather than recognizing all the sects out there.

Take myself for example. I consider myself educated(in this case), in that I understand how Evolution actually works. I am also a Christian. I've come to a point in my life I realize I can make my faith fit anything science throws at me. Science can be proven, religion can not be proven with non-subjective evidence as of now. I'm not going to sit there, ignorant of the truth. The truth. That's what I always care about. I'd rather live in a harsh reality over a fictional paradise, just because I care about the truth.

To me there is no reason that Christianity and Evolution can't fit together.

[NiteRunner81]

Wulfi, we must think along the same wavelength....

I usually let people have their beliefs and their traditions and see no reason to belittle them but these goddamn faith healing child neglecters really CHEESE ME OFF!!! Do they think that their god had NOTHING to do with Medicine? I believe that God leads doctors to their duty, the path to research, and that faith will lead to healing as long as you use the tools (medicine and doctors) to encourage it.. not these "oh we will only pray and it will be gods will" and a year later their child is dead and they are sitting in a jail cell.... that is the type of blind faith I find ridiculous and unacceptable in our day and age..

nuff said, I'm going to bed...

[Col. Hstar]

Wulfi, we must think along the same wavelength....

I usually let people have their beliefs and their traditions and see no reason to belittle them but these goddamn faith healing child neglecters really CHEESE ME OFF!!! Do they think that their god had NOTHING to do with Medicine? I believe that God leads doctors to their duty, the path to research, and that faith will lead to healing as long as you use the tools (medicine and doctors) to encourage it.. not these "oh we will only pray and it will be gods will" and a year later their child is dead and they are sitting in a jail cell.... that is the type of blind faith I find ridiculous and unacceptable in our day and age..

nuff said, I'm going to bed...

I didn't see anyone saying they believed that prayer was a substitute for modern medicine. Crater brought up people who feel that prayers healed them and Otto was mentioning what he saw in Brazil but no one at this site made the claim that medicine should be ignored if someone believes in God. That would be as you said, extreme.
To be clear though the bible does talk about the power of prayer and it is powerful, but it never says not to take medicine to heal illness. In fact there is one instance I can think of where the apostle Paul gives some medicinal advice to Timothy which was pretty accurate for that time period. (1 Tim 5:23) There are other but I can't think of them right this second.

[The Master]

10 Pages!!! We would have had 100 pages on the Why MT doesn't believe thread

[[m'kay]]

10 Pages!!! We would have had 100 pages on the Why MT doesn't believe thread

~nobody cares~

[Darth Crater]

Yes but all humans are fallible. Imagine someone adding 2 + 2. If you are using the same broken calculator or another broken calculator to add 2 + 2 you'll never get 4. If you put so much trust in that broken calculator you'll start thinking that 2 + 2 is 3. Obliviously this is a metaphor but you get the point. If all of our brains are fallible, how can you trust the repeated tests, peer reviews, and double-blind trials. You wouldn't even know if you're doing it right.

We trust them because they work. You are posting on a machine that is only possible because people did experiments and built off of the results. The scientific method isn't perfect, and doesn't have to be. It just has to be better than any known alternative.

Oh neither am I. I don't need to disprove evolution. As I have stated time and again we are each entitled to our beliefs.
What I am doing is taking away the illusion that not believing in God is a sign of education and rational thinking. You're belief that there is no God is built just as much on faith. The fact that you can't see God, comprehend God, or measure the effects God to your satisfaction, doesn't mean he does not exist. It means you're human and not a God

This is true. It does, however, mean that your deity is not visible, comprehensible, or measurable. This is utterly impossible to distinguish from "nonexistent".

(watchmaker argument)

This is still as false as every other time it's been brought up. For example, using this argument, I can conclude that since burning wood gives off heat and light, and the sun gives off heat and light, the sun is made of burning wood. You are neglecting all other possible explanations of the evidence (nuclear fusion in my case, natural selection in yours) in favor of your preferred hypothesis. Not to mention that "appearing designed" is ultimately subjective.

Last thing for me to say in this thread is that it also takes humility to believe in God. If you are convinced that humans are the most advance beings in the universe and nothing greater could exist then you will never understand belief in God.

Nobody can look at the Pale Blue Dot or the Hubble Deep Field and conclude that humans are in any way advanced or important. Imagine, then, the sheer hubris involved in thinking that an entity advanced and powerful enough to create that would care about one planet, one species, or one individual...

[Col. Hstar]

I keep trying to get away from this topic but it's addicting

We trust them because they work. You are posting on a machine that is only possible because people did experiments and built off of the results. The scientific method isn't perfect, and doesn't have to be. It just has to be better than any known alternative.

Yes those experiments work on testing these machines because they are far less complex and easier to make then a human being.

(watchmaker argument) This is still as false as every other time it's been brought up. For example, using this argument, I can conclude that since burning wood gives off heat and light, and the sun gives off heat and light, the sun is made of burning wood. You are neglecting all other possible explanations of the evidence (nuclear fusion in my case, natural selection in yours) in favor of your preferred hypothesis. Not to mention that "appearing designed" is ultimately subjective.

Except that while nuclear fission is a scientific fact that is confirmed, there is no scientific fact or proof that natural selection did happen.

Not to mention that "appearing designed" is ultimately subjective.

Appearing? Really? So you would conclude that a while a computer chip needs a skilled designer, a human blood cell or even our brains do not....
Okay then. Let's take a look at how objective you are with your theory of Natural Selection.

Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, what we now call selective breeding.

Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, whereas less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. As species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose the ones with gene mutations that made them capable of surviving in their new environment. As a result, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.

Google Darwin's Finches, it was about a research group that began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought on the islands, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. It was believed to be significant that if a drought occurred every 10 years then a new species would emerge in 200 years. What this experiment fails to also say though is that in the other 9 years the small beak finches would dominate and at best through interbreeding a stronger offspring would emerge, but not a new species. The finch is still a finch

Claiming that adapting to one's environment can lead to the creation of a new species is unverifiable. This is a process that would take thousands of years to properly study. Since I doubt there is a science program or test that been conducted that long you cannot see it happen, and you cannot measure it happening. You can measure adaptations, but there is no proven record of one species coming from another through natural selection.
So you say my explanation is subjective and based in invisible, unmeasurable evidence. But you give theories of things like natural selection a pass in the "let's make sure there's evidence for it" department because it suits you're narrative. Yes that's real objective.

Nobody can look at the Pale Blue Dot or the Hubble Deep Field and conclude that humans are in any way advanced or important. Imagine, then, the sheer hubris involved in thinking that an entity advanced and powerful enough to create that would care about one planet, one species, or one individual...

This is the very reason why it's important for someone who believes in God, to learn about him. It makes no sense to you because you don't believe in God. But being that to me he is real, and that to me the bible is his word to mankind - as a whole and as individuals - I can't see the sheer hubris in ignoring what he has to say, simply because as human I can't see him.

Now post away, I'm not going to be able to keep this up. If there is anything major that needs responding to I might, but I'll probably just let you have the last word.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Yes but all humans are fallible. Imagine someone adding 2 + 2. If you are using the same broken calculator or another broken calculator to add 2 + 2 you'll never get 4. If you put so much trust in that broken calculator you'll start thinking that 2 + 2 is 3. Obliviously this is a metaphor but you get the point. If all of our brains are fallible, how can you trust the repeated tests, peer reviews, and double-blind trials. You wouldn't even know if you're doing it right.
Humanity will never be infallible, but we don't have to be. We simply have to be the best we can be, develop, progress, and learn. Suggesting that because we are fallible we cannot know evolution is occurring and has occurred over time is comparable to saying we can never know anything! It's as if we live in a world where nothing is certain, we don't know whether we exist, whether what we encounter is real (according to you) - but we must make some assumptions; we must accept that what we perceive may not be the whole picture, so to speak, but be willing to work with what we do "know."
Oh neither am I. I don't need to disprove evolution. As I have stated time and again we are each entitled to our beliefs. Evolution is not a "belief." It is scientific fact (that must be improved and added to, to be sure) that has proven true time and time again.
What I am doing is taking away the illusion that not believing in God is a sign of education and rational thinking. You're belief that there is no God is built just as much on faith. You are associating belief in evolution with denial of God. You can't make that equation. The fact that you can't see God, comprehend God, or measure the effects God to your satisfaction, doesn't mean he does not exist. Burden of proof.It means you're human and not a God According to your own arguments (above), we don't know anything - so you can't say we are human, and because we can never encountered a God, you don't know what that is - so you can't say we are not Gods either.

Also to address the claim that people believe in God blindly. In my personal opinion the advances we have made scientifically that allow us to study life as we know it right now, prove to me that there is a God. How anyone can look at something even as small as a blood cell and think it came about naturally all by itself over time is (IMO) ridiculous. No one would look at the computer you're using right now and assume that there is a possibility that the CPU formed itself naturally. No one can assume that all the components inside would form together naturally and then work together naturally to make a working computer. No one would assume that, yet the blood cell is infinitely more precise and detailed in it's workings. Cells come together and work to support life. The point is that the computer needs a designer and so did the blood cell. This is how science proves to me that God exists. I look at the scientific data we have now and I use (IMO) common sense to deduce that for something as amazing as the human blood cell there must have been someone of a higher power to design it.
Again, watchmaker argument. Computers don't adapt or evolve by themselves over time...at least not yet. Life does. Your assumption that the complexities of nature are so incomprehensible that only a God could have designed them is ludicrous. Why can't evolution have formed the same conclusion?
Last thing for me to say in this thread is that it also takes humility to believe in God. Why? If you are convinced that humans are the most advance beings in the universe and nothing greater could exist then you will never understand belief in God. I don't believe humans are the most advanced beings in existence. That said, I don't know if there is an almighty, perfect being out there either.

Responses in blue.