How to discuss religion with believers?

[Scientia]

I expected an answer rather than all those questions in response, but I'm familiar with this so I'll play along (I numbered your questions in your original post for ease):


1) The big bang is the most scientific theory because, unlike religion, it is based on the scientifc method. This means scientists went out in the field, made astronomical observations, formulated hypthesis and built a theory around it. 

2) How would you describe something that defies any physical law and makes no real sense, based on what we currently know of this perceived reality? I've read many colourful definitions of god, either some transcendent being that is everywhere and nowhere, knows everything, is intangible and can't be seen but is there and you can perceive it depending on some conditions. Such elusive and vague descriptions allude to the nothingness from my pov, so I just label it as "magic" for ease of speech.

3) You misunderstood what I wrote. I don't personally have any issue with either theory, but from this topic here https://atheistforums.org/thread-52712.html , I could see that one of the main "counter-response" to atheists was the fact that they "seemingly" support abiogenesis. So in response to their "you don't have enough proof of creationism" you answer back with "you don't have enough proof for abiogenesis". I'm trying to move a step ahead and say "I don't know which one is true, but how are you so confident of your own theory? Do you possess some particular piece of evidence that eludes everyone else?"

The thing is, not being able to explain from where life originated at the present moment, doesn't necessarily imply that we have to hurry and see the answer somewhere else. If neither parties can prove it, then just take more time to investigate it further. 

4) Many details are left out, all descriptions of this god are vague and elusive. It's like describing the nothingness. Even anti-matter has an easier to understand definition. Other uncertain things can be found in my original post but I'll copypaste for ease:


5) Basically any time people ask to "disprove" the existence of their god or when they go on about "How do you explain this phenomenon? Your dear science failed to explain it, while my religion can". It's as if they expected science to be already fully evolved and fledged out. It doesn't cross their mind that perhaps science hasn't YET explained it.

Now that I've answered your questions, would you bother to answer the questions I asked in my previous post?

Thanks for your answer and the organized approach.  Just going to respond back, but may have an additional question or two so as to clarify some things.


1.  Can you clarify which study that used the scientific method? Just curious as to how they applied the scientific method to demonstrate it as being feasible explanation

2. Got the "ease of speech" thing.  I believe how we define things are important.  That way we know how to study something.   In other words, if we don't have a basic understanding of what something is supposed to be, then how can we observe it in the context of which it is.

3.  The "creation vs abiogenesis" thing can end up in a wash a lot of times, but we are talking about the past. We've not observing the creation of matter and/or energy, and observe it as law that we won't see it happen by natural processes.  Abiogenesis isn't something that is naturally observed.  Of course we know biogenesis is observable (life begets life), so it's easy to conclude.  Personally, I'm not just interested in organic from inorganic, but also increases and improvements in genetic information, just because you can't go from A to Z if you're still stuck at B or C.

4. I understand where you are coming from here. For me personally, I would rather define something as it is assumed to be. Not how I might want it to be.  If everything was subject to how I choose to define it, then apples could be oranges, and oranges could be whatever I want them to be.,  But I could never explain to someone else what I meant if they assumed the common definition and I was out in outer space with mine.

5. I would suggest that you don't need to try and "disprove God", but I don' have an issue as to both "God" and science providing viable explanations to things.  In practice, I would rather know before I assume, or even discount something.  Of course I have my moments when I can violate my own rules, be it unintentionally.

Also, I already answered your initial question in post #7, but I'll repeat it.

"Be honest to people. Don't make up definitions for things, then assume they'll accept them. Apply logic and use citations from the Internet or literature you are referring to. If you're using two different standards, there's no point. "

1) They started from the hypothesis that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous, which they derived from Sommerfield's constant that puts in relation all the physical constants. It's like taking all the known constants (eg gravitational acceleration, gas constants, proton/electron charge etc) and fusing them together to obtain a cumulative number that acts as our universe's ID. If this number was already 20% different, then that would mean that all the physical laws would be very different and that it'd be another reality/universe. So physicists at the time made some calculations and concluded that any discrepancy in this constant considering how these parameters changed with time was below 0.001% (and therefore the universe as we know it never changed significantly across time, and so it could be considered constant, homogeneous and isotropic).

But this was still an assumption. So later on more scientists tried to contribute to this theory by providing more physical and actual observations, specifically how nebulous corpses and stars behaved relatively to earth, how things moved in space etc. Basically, astronomists observations took turns with other physicists occupied solving equations and they started piling up all these observations and derived equations and eventually reached the current theory. 

I tried to express it in simple terms, so to highlight where the empirical method came into play. If you wanted to delve more into detail of the theory, I don't need to tell you that you could read the wiki page of it. If you want more accountable references than wikipedia, then I can provide you ways to access peer reviewed journals for free. Astronomics and advanced physics are not my field of expertise, so it would even take time for me to fully digest the theory in detail and properly understand it before passing the knowledge onto you. 

Getting back to my first statement, this is why I think the big bang theory is a more scientific approach than creationism, which still remains more vague and mystical. However, taking into account how much I know at the present moment, I can't rule out the latter and so I'm open to both possibilities being plausible explanations of how we arrived here. I don't dismiss it just because the other is more appealing.

2) I agree with you. When discussing more difficult things, I try to put down nails and create a "framework" within which I can discuss with my interlocutor. For example, in my view the concepts of "good and evil" do not exist at all, but for ease of speech I may still use these terms to refer to a set of behaviours and actions, and so I make sure my interlocutor knows what I mean by them in order to avoid misunderstandings.

3) I lost you here a bit . Anyways, I just wanted to point out that I'm not really interested in either of them and that if someone wanted to use any of those as "leverage" in an argument, that I myself put my hands forward and say "I don't know".

4) Reconnecting to point 2), there are some definitions that are more specific and "carved in stone" (eg. anything that is clearly defined in a scientific textbook and typically attributed to objects or physical entities) and harder to misinterpret. Then there are more subjective and questionable concepts such as good/evil, beautiful/ugly, tasty/nasty, etc which are relative to our five senses and to our personal opinion/perception of it. I think the latter do need to be defined, while the former can often go without further clarification. If doubts are still present, it doesn't hurt to ask "what do you mean by X?".

5) What I find hard to accept blindly is not that there is a superior being that created everything. It's a possibility, why not? What I find hard to accept and digest is that this superior being corresponds exactly to the description of god found in quran, or to the description of god found in the bible, etc. 

I can perfectly agree with someone saying "well, maybe we were created by some superior being. Yes, I actually find this more likely to be the case, I believe we were created by some superior and more powerful being that I'm going to label god. It makes more sense this way". 

But when someone comes and says "we were created by this god that said these things and that is depicted as this and that and that orders you to specifically follow these rules, else you go burn in hellfire, as it's written in this book that someone I don't know wrote", my first reaction is "Do you have any hard evidence of this? Did it not cross your mind that whoever wrote that book may have had some bad intention and ulterior motive or was just trying to fool you? How can you be certain that what was written by another man like you corresponds to the truth? How can you be so confident about this specific description of this superior being you call god? What if someone decided to troll humanity on that day and started writing gibberish that eventually became religion? Did anyone have any control over this? What if this religion book indeed spoke the truth but some time-traveler went back in time, rewrote the book at his convenience and went back? You'd be believing some false gibberish written by someone and you'll never be certain.

Can you see my change in position here? I'm fine with not knowing, I'm fine enjoying speculations if I don't have proofs and I'm fine discussing potential views with other people who are aware they don't know. But when someone is so sure about something, and that something does not even follow the commonly accepted procedures of the scientific method (which is, according to me, the most reliable way to understand the reality we perceive at the moment), then I start questioning them to no end. I try to be humble and assume it's ME who overlooked some important information and so I keep asking for further proof.

At this point you could turn the question back to me: how do I know that all the science up to now is 100% true? How can I be so certain that some physicist isolated this or that element? How can I be so sure that the gravitational acceleration is 9.81 m/s2? How can I know for certain that mixing X and Y gives Z? The answer to that is rather simple: it works. 

Do you know why I took chemistry? Chemistry studies the physical interactions of matter at a microscopic level. Its the science that tries to understand the most how things actually work in this world at their fundamental level. I spent a good deal of my time carring out experiments, mixing A + B, confirming what was written books. Most of the time reactions didn't even work as planned, and this would trigger more study of the subject until I understood why it didn't go as planned. At this urrent moment I solved all my questions and doubts relative to my bachelors years, and it was by following science. It works. But now I still have to understand why my last experiment I did on monday didn't go as planned .

Of course I don't have all the time, nor the expertise, to try out every single experiment to confirm that everything science produced so far is foolproof, but it works. It's the reason why airplanes fly, why boats float on water, why burning wood produces heat. It's not because of magic or uncontrollable things. So I would conclude that it's reasonable to assume that science is reliable to a good extent to explain things. Not 100%. I'm in the research field, part of my job is reviewing other peoples' work and I can already tell you that it's not uncommon for people to submit shitty works. But even if I reject their paper, someone else may accept it and so bad science gets published anyways. So in that sense it's not foolproof, but it works to a very good extent. It can evolve, it can reshape itself and adapt to new discoveries and improve itself. Between this and a story book, I'm more inclined to invest in the former. But once again, I'm open to the possibility that the other may be true and so I question and try to understand. So far I didn't change my views though.

[sdelsolray]

I have spent many years in discussions with theists. I conclude their arguments, at their core, are based on religious faith. Few theists have the awareness or honesty to admit this and many (most?) tend to employ negative arguments attacking any position that contradicts the religious faith (e.g., ID renders unguided biological evolution impossible therefore my belief that God created humans is correct).

I conclude that theists simply rely on certain brain functions (emotion) and non-theists rely on other brain functions (rational thought).

Instead of debating theists about many of the common disputes, I find it more interesting to learn about how theists and non-theists learn to use their brains. I am fascinated with the persistence and power of childhood religious indoctrination and related social peer pressure upon the development of how the brain functions once exposed to those influences. I am equally interested in how many indoctrinated theists eventually shed that indoctrination and reprogram their brains' neural paths to favor evidence based rational thinking.

Of course, probing into the depth and extent of a theist's religious indoctrination and the ongoing peer pressure to remain in the fold is a personal intrusion, and many theists simply avoid those inquiries, or minimize them.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Thanks for your answer and the organized approach.  Just going to respond back, but may have an additional question or two so as to clarify some things.


1.  Can you clarify which study that used the scientific method? Just curious as to how they applied the scientific method to demonstrate it as being feasible explanation

2. Got the "ease of speech" thing.  I believe how we define things are important.  That way we know how to study something.   In other words, if we don't have a basic understanding of what something is supposed to be, then how can we observe it in the context of which it is.

3.  The "creation vs abiogenesis" thing can end up in a wash a lot of times, but we are talking about the past. We've not observing the creation of matter and/or energy, and observe it as law that we won't see it happen by natural processes.  Abiogenesis isn't something that is naturally observed.  Of course we know biogenesis is observable (life begets life), so it's easy to conclude.  Personally, I'm not just interested in organic from inorganic, but also increases and improvements in genetic information, just because you can't go from A to Z if you're still stuck at B or C.

4. I understand where you are coming from here. For me personally, I would rather define something as it is assumed to be. Not how I might want it to be.  If everything was subject to how I choose to define it, then apples could be oranges, and oranges could be whatever I want them to be.,  But I could never explain to someone else what I meant if they assumed the common definition and I was out in outer space with mine.

5. I would suggest that you don't need to try and "disprove God", but I don' have an issue as to both "God" and science providing viable explanations to things.  In practice, I would rather know before I assume, or even discount something.  Of course I have my moments when I can violate my own rules, be it unintentionally.

Also, I already answered your initial question in post #7, but I'll repeat it.

"Be honest to people. Don't make up definitions for things, then assume they'll accept them. Apply logic and use citations from the Internet or literature you are referring to. If you're using two different standards, there's no point. "

1) They started from the hypothesis that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous, which they derived from Sommerfield's constant that puts in relation all the physical constants. It's like taking all the known constants (eg gravitational acceleration, gas constants, proton/electron charge etc) and fusing them together to obtain a cumulative number that acts as our universe's ID. If this number was already 20% different, then that would mean that all the physical laws would be very different and that it'd be another reality/universe. So physicists at the time made some calculations and concluded that any discrepancy in this constant considering how these parameters changed with time was below 0.001% (and therefore the universe as we know it never changed significantly across time, and so it could be considered constant, homogeneous and isotropic).

But this was still an assumption. So later on more scientists tried to contribute to this theory by providing more physical and actual observations, specifically how nebulous corpses and stars behaved relatively to earth, how things moved in space etc. Basically, astronomists observations took turns with other physicists occupied solving equations and they started piling up all these observations and derived equations and eventually reached the current theory. 

I tried to express it in simple terms, so to highlight where the empirical method came into play. If you wanted to delve more into detail of the theory, I don't need to tell you that you could read the wiki page of it. If you want more accountable references than wikipedia, then I can provide you ways to access peer reviewed journals for free. Astronomics and advanced physics are not my field of expertise, so it would even take time for me to fully digest the theory in detail and properly understand it before passing the knowledge onto you. 

Getting back to my first statement, this is why I think the big bang theory is a more scientific approach than creationism, which still remains more vague and mystical. However, taking into account how much I know at the present moment, I can't rule out the latter and so I'm open to both possibilities being plausible explanations of how we arrived here. I don't dismiss it just because the other is more appealing.

2) I agree with you. When discussing more difficult things, I try to put down nails and create a "framework" within which I can discuss with my interlocutor. For example, in my view the concepts of "good and evil" do not exist at all, but for ease of speech I may still use these terms to refer to a set of behaviours and actions, and so I make sure my interlocutor knows what I mean by them in order to avoid misunderstandings.

3) I lost you here a bit . Anyways, I just wanted to point out that I'm not really interested in either of them and that if someone wanted to use any of those as "leverage" in an argument, that I myself put my hands forward and say "I don't know".

4) Reconnecting to point 2), there are some definitions that are more specific and "carved in stone" (eg. anything that is clearly defined in a scientific textbook and typically attributed to objects or physical entities) and harder to misinterpret. Then there are more subjective and questionable concepts such as good/evil, beautiful/ugly, tasty/nasty, etc which are relative to our five senses and to our personal opinion/perception of it. I think the latter do need to be defined, while the former can often go without further clarification. If doubts are still present, it doesn't hurt to ask "what do you mean by X?".

5) What I find hard to accept blindly is not that there is a superior being that created everything. It's a possibility, why not? What I find hard to accept and digest is that this superior being corresponds exactly to the description of god found in quran, or to the description of god found in the bible, etc. 

I can perfectly agree with someone saying "well, maybe we were created by some superior being. Yes, I actually find this more likely to be the case, I believe we were created by some superior and more powerful being that I'm going to label god. It makes more sense this way". 

But when someone comes and says "we were created by this god that said these things and that is depicted as this and that and that orders you to specifically follow these rules, else you go burn in hellfire, as it's written in this book that someone I don't know wrote", my first reaction is "Do you have any hard evidence of this? Did it not cross your mind that whoever wrote that book may have had some bad intention and ulterior motive or was just trying to fool you? How can you be certain that what was written by another man like you corresponds to the truth? How can you be so confident about this specific description of this superior being you call god? What if someone decided to troll humanity on that day and started writing gibberish that eventually became religion? Did anyone have any control over this? What if this religion book indeed spoke the truth but some time-traveler went back in time, rewrote the book at his convenience and went back? You'd be believing some false gibberish written by someone and you'll never be certain.

Can you see my change in position here? I'm fine with not knowing, I'm fine enjoying speculations if I don't have proofs and I'm fine discussing potential views with other people who are aware they don't know. But when someone is so sure about something, and that something does not even follow the commonly accepted procedures of the scientific method (which is, according to me, the most reliable way to understand the reality we perceive at the moment), then I start questioning them to no end. I try to be humble and assume it's ME who overlooked some important information and so I keep asking for further proof.

At this point you could turn the question back to me: how do I know that all the science up to now is 100% true? How can I be so certain that some physicist isolated this or that element? How can I be so sure that the gravitational acceleration is 9.81 m/s2? How can I know for certain that mixing X and Y gives Z? The answer to that is rather simple: it works. 

Do you know why I took chemistry? Chemistry studies the physical interactions of matter at a microscopic level. Its the science that tries to understand the most how things actually work in this world at their fundamental level. I spent a good deal of my time carring out experiments, mixing A + B, confirming what was written books. Most of the time reactions didn't even work as planned, and this would trigger more study of the subject until I understood why it didn't go as planned. At this urrent moment I solved all my questions and doubts relative to my bachelors years, and it was by following science. It works. But now I still have to understand why my last experiment I did on monday didn't go as planned .

Of course I don't have all the time, nor the expertise, to try out every single experiment to confirm that everything science produced so far is foolproof, but it works. It's the reason why airplanes fly, why boats float on water, why burning wood produces heat. It's not because of magic or uncontrollable things. So I would conclude that it's reasonable to assume that science is reliable to a good extent to explain things. Not 100%. I'm in the research field, part of my job is reviewing other peoples' work and I can already tell you that it's not uncommon for people to submit shitty works. But even if I reject their paper, someone else may accept it and so bad science gets published anyways. So in that sense it's not foolproof, but it works to a very good extent. It can evolve, it can reshape itself and adapt to new discoveries and improve itself. Between this and a story book, I'm more inclined to invest in the former. But once again, I'm open to the possibility that the other may be true and so I question and try to understand. So far I didn't change my views though.

1. I understand (well sorta) and appreciate the effort and study that went into it, but it's still speculative.  One thing I love is extrapolation studies, and even with those, one event or anomaly could have thrown off the data/information even though we still attempt to use it to form a conclusion about the past.  I also couldn't use the scientific method and demonstrate it as conclusive in the present, because there's no natural way to reproduce whatever it was that happened.   If we assume "something from nothing", we can't even repeat that within the natural world.  Energy and matter are considered constants, and as such I can't recreate an event that would demonstrate otherwise.  Some have claimed they have, but it has always been met with great skepticism in the scientific community as a whole.  That's why I couldn't say that I know for sure there was some bang.  Even if their was, I don't see why it would suggest no God or creation, because it could've been how He did it, but I do not know that.  Just something to ponder.  As far as the wiki pages, feel free to link them or whatever sources you would like to share. Happy to look at what's there and consider it.

2. Right on. I don't share the same view about good and evil, but your view is understood. I agree that it's important to bend just a bit with smaller points to get to the bigger ones that you're really aiming for. At least I think that's what you're suggesting here.

3. Thanks for clarifying.  I'll also be the first to admit that "I dunno" more than I do know, so sometimes that's the best answer.   It also works well when someone asks, "Who ate the last cookie?"  

4. Absolutely. The moon will always be the moon. (Unless, of course, someone lost their pants).  Seriously though, even using "the moon" it should be obvious in the context of a discussion.  There may be an exception of if you're talking about other planets, but I would assume that would've been established previously.  With anything subjective, I typically proceed carefully. I think it can be asserted as long as I identify it as such.

5. I think the difficulty with God in the Bible, or in the Quran is that there are attributes that are different.  So are they talking about the same or a different identity.  I'm not Muslim, but I don't pass judgment on them either.  I have friends who are Muslim, and more of the focus is what we agree on rather than what we don't agree on, which is probably more important anyway.  I really wouldn't want it to extend beyond that anyway, because one silly argument could lead to less mutual understanding.  To me, having that openness is priceless.

I liked your remark about "How do I know it wasn't written by a man like me."  I believe it was, but that's also the beauty of it.  We also know it had multiple authors, and is a compilation of books.  So assuming there is a God, then it seems pretty cool that He would want us involved.  Not that He had to, but that it was relational.  If know it's a bit different, but if a king asked me to write rules for his kingdom, I would think it was an honor.  Or even if he asked me to write a cookbook. The point is, it gave me additional purpose, and probably give me a greater sense of responsibility.  Kind of like the kid who has to save up to buy his bike.  If his parents just handed him a new bike whenever he wanted one, he would care little about what happened with it.  However, if he had to work for it and he knows that if he breaks it, he'll have to work for a new one, he'll most likely care more for his bike.  Why?  Because he "owned it" before he even had it.

- I hated chemistry in college.  It was my first college level science class.  I like it for practical purposes and have a basic understanding of it, but sometimes it could be frustrating.  I still remember this sign my prof had hanging on the wall.  Something about how great chemistry is because everything is made up of chemistry.  Probably not exactly how I put it, but it was cool.

- I am a social scientist, which is why you'll probably see me focus on the human condition and how we relate to each other and the environment.  I like most other branches though, so i guess I could be considered a hobbyist in some of those fields as well.

[ignoramus]

I have spent many years in discussions with theists.  I conclude their arguments, at their core, are based on religious faith.  Few theists have the awareness or honesty to admit this and many (most?) tend to employ negative arguments attacking any position that contradicts the religious faith (e.g., ID renders unguided biological evolution impossible therefore my belief that God created humans is correct).

I conclude that theists simply rely on certain brain functions (emotion) and non-theists rely on other brain functions (rational thought).

Instead of debating theists about many of the common disputes, I find it more interesting to learn about how theists and non-theists learn to use their brains.  I am fascinated with the persistence and power of childhood religious indoctrination and related social peer pressure upon the development of how the brain functions once exposed to those influences.  I am equally interested in how many indoctrinated theists eventually shed that indoctrination and reprogram their brains' neural paths to favor evidence based rational thinking.

Of course, probing into the depth and extent of a theist's religious indoctrination and the ongoing peer pressure to remain in the fold is a personal intrusion, and many theists simply avoid those inquiries, or minimize them.

Indoctrination is like kinky sex. Once you get exposed to it, nothing is kinky anymore.
IE: all woo becomes feasible... (once you've made those logical circuits dormant)

[Godscreated]

You are pushing against the religious because you see them as stubborn in their belief and yet you are doing the same thing you accuses them of doing, You can't do that and get anywhere. You say you do not believe in anything without proof stick around for a while and you'll be challenged on that statement, many things in science have no proofs and thus by your own words must reject them as you have God, welcome to the forum.

GC

Alll I perceive is the present physical reality, no more no less. Someone in the past tried to understand how this reality works, carried out experiments and discovered the fundamental laws that regulate everything and it turns out they actually work

Most of those people were Christians looking to explain God's creation. The reason you only experience the present physical reality is because it's all you have. until you come to know God it will be all you will ever know. Christians like myself have come to know the creator God and in that we can have an understanding from Him if we seek it. Many Christians blab about God did it without ever knowing what they are talking about, but the sensible Christian will set down and explain things to you. But if you use the references about God that you did in this post to me you will find most Christians pushing back at you for not having respect for their beliefs especially when you have no proof they are wrong.

How did everything come to life? I don't know. There are many theories around such as the big bang, which is the most "scientific", and then there is creationism, which is more abstract and magical.

I guess it might seem like magic to those who can't understand even to some Christians. However the correct word their is omnipotence, "all powerful." By the way if you are not as afraid as most of the atheist here you should seriously look into creation science you just might find yourself finding the truth you say you're looking for, if you are not afraid to.

What really puzzles me is how believers (no matter the religion) have this certainty that it was a magical being called god. Where do they get this confidence? Do they possess some kind of evidence I overlooked in my learning process? If so, can they share with me this personal evidence they uncovered?

Since I can't and want speak for other religions I will speak to the case of Christianity. Yes you have missed out by rejecting God and yes you have rejected God, you see there is no middle ground, you either believe or reject. Some people play at Christianity but they too have rejected Christ. Again if you want to truly get somewhere in understanding the truth of God from others, words like magical want help you, alienating people with disrespect will put you on the outside looking in. Like I said earlier find a Christian who will set down with you and explain what they know, but if proof is the only thing you will except then you are never going to get there. God gives proof to those who come to Christ and ask Him to show them truth, he will do it in His time for your good.

Also, assuming that we were created by some entity, where do they get the confidence it's the benevolent and magical god described in their book? Couldn't it be some impartial, neutral and uncaring being that just creates life and moves on?

Benevolent, show me in the Bible where that word or any phrase concerning that word is located. God is many awesome things but benevolent isn't one of them. God through His grace will show or give benevolence to individuals, but to be benevolent in the same way He is truth and love would limit Him in His work.

 I personally stated in the first line that I'm agnostic and I remain open to the possibility of both being plausible until conclusive evidence is shown. The difference is that believers are very confident in their statements. It's like they are in a hurry to discover the truth and would rather blindly accept some sketchy story now rather then question it and keep exploring.

When you use the words you have to describe the Christian God and then say you are open to the truth, well, you betray yourself and show that you only engage in discussions with Christians as a pass time, you even said so in this post to me. There is a world of evidence for God and the creation, but only to those who will take their blinders off and actually seek the truth. Of coarse we are confident, Paul tells the believer that we can have such confidence when we trust in God, I do and I have that confidence, it is unshakable. There is no fast track to the truth, it takes an open mind, patience and trust in God. I'm a questioning Christian and through that God has taught me many things, I ask and if He desires for me to have the answer I will receive it and I have been shown many amazing things. Why me, because I have trusted my life to God through Christ and want to sincerely know the real truths. You can't get truths from God until you accept Him as the truth and that my friend means accepting Christ as your savior. Sorry if you do not like that but that's the way it has to be, it is God's creation man has spoiled after all.

[quote pid='1870520' dateline='1545248421']

Ultimately, to anyone who makes it their strong point that "science can't explain this, so it must be god", I'd like to add a "yet" in their sentence. Give it time, don't be in a hurry. I'd rather die questioning than blindly accept some farfetched story.

There you go again, far fetched story, you're betraying yourself again. Science will never explain everything because the science that you speak of is man made and man manipulated. God knows all, omniscient, He has all the truths, things that would blow our minds if explained to us, things we could never understand. About that "yet," I say the same thing when it comes to things we have not been able to explain that's in the Bible, so my yet holds the same weight as your's does. I have explained some things to you now it's up to you to search out the truth and it want happen on this forum, I've been here many years and I know what happens here. I came back from a rest that I've not finished to see what was happening and had no intentions of being in any discussions, I decided to for this one thread, but now I'm finished and will continue with my rest, yes that means I will have no further discussion with you about this thread, good luck in your search, i hope you can find a way to open your mind up to find the real truth.

GC

[/quote]
[/quote]

---

... many things in science have no proofs...

I'm not sure you know what that means. The only thing science cares about is evidence. In scientific terms, proof is a term used to reference evidence that supports a theory not that it is an absolute sum of all knowledge. In theism, proof means that the evidence supports an absolute as the sum of all knowledge. The theists definition of proof does not actually exist in science.

The nuance is important. Not only does it have a completely different meaning in science and religion, but how the word is used in scientific terms distinguishes actual science from junk science.

Thus the problem with modern science, it doesn't seek absolute truth only that which supports what a given scientist wants to believe. As I said to Scientia, I will not be engaging in further discussions in this thread, I have a rest to finish.

[Maketakunai]

Okay, now you're just confusing actual science with junk science. 

No response is necessary...

[Fake Messiah]

... many things in science have no proofs...

I'm not sure you know what that means. The only thing science cares about is evidence. In scientific terms, proof is a term used to reference evidence that supports a theory not that it is an absolute sum of all knowledge. In theism, proof means that the evidence supports an absolute as the sum of all knowledge. The theists definition of proof does not actually exist in science.

Let me explain what GC is trying to say

[Drich]

Hello,
I'm a chemist irl and work in a research center. I've always been very curious and inquisitive and even though I grew up in a christian family, it didn't take long for me to discard any belief in general.

I'd classify myself as an agnostic, since I don't really have proof for the non-existence of some "creator", but my views are very close to those of an atheist. I have a nihilistic view of the world and life, in my view there is no good/evil, there are just a bunch of things that move. I found myself often discussing religion with believers, be it christians or muslims, but every time we hit a wall. There is just one thing that I, as a scientist, can't accept: believe something without proof. 

No matter how nice and detailed and passionate one religion can be, it's still a book written by another person like me that, for all I know, could have been a troll. The main argument of these people is always the same: "How do you explain this and that? You can't, so it must be because of God, as it's written in this book". 

This is non-sense and just bad practice in the research world, as it's not my duty to prove its non-existence: it's their duty to prove its existence. When writing a research paper or defending my doctoral thesis, I was being questioned for the smallest things like "how can you say for sure that you found that crystalline phase in this solid? From XRD I only see peaks relative to this and that phase, so you are speculating a bit", so how can I let pass something huge like "I can't explain it, so it must be God's work" as a proof of god's existence?

I tried discussing religion with a seemingly chill muslim who looked very quiet and available when I was asking him about islam, but when I started questioning his point, stating that what he presented wasn't enough proof, he started getting irritated and annoyed, since according to him I should have already been converted by his speech. His argument was:
"The quran describes scientific facts in detail and it's the word of Allah. So what other proof do you need to believe in islam?"
However from my experience, any chemistry of physics book does the same thing without claiming it to be the word of god. According to his reasoning, then any scientist could claim godhood by stating "This phenomenon happens because of this, I dare you to prove it wrong. Yeah you can't, I'm god."
At this point he just got mad and started saying I'll go to hell. When I suggested that the world could have as well been created by an alien or giant uncaring monstrosity, he said "Com'on, that's absurd", as if magic wizard Allah was any less absurd.

Most of these religions are sketchy and superficial and fail to address many points (eg, how are animals or plants judged? And what about cavemen that didn't know how to speak and communicate and just hit things with their club? And what about people who are born in such conditions where knowledge is kept hidden to them? What about people who are born physically or mentally ill and can't really help themselves? What about those who are forced to behave in some way? If we really must assume there is a creator, then I'd picture it as some neutral and uncaring entity that wanders in the universe. No hell or heaven, just something that spawns life here and there and moves on).

So my question is: how do you engage in a discussion with these people without it derailing? It's as if they were willfully ignoring or filtering some information, I don't really get it. I'm not really trying to convert them, but rather trying to understand the reasoning that leads them to believe in whatever religion... but no matter how hard I try to understand, their logic is just not in order. Sometimes I'm literally asking them to help me believe in their religion, but every time it's just not enough information to warrant any belief.

Here's the thing I found (I started as a atheist seeking the truth no matter where it woud lead me.) and it took me through several religious expressions of the more or less same TYPE of faith. First and foremost... despite what you think about the superority of your ablity to reason over theirs.. People are not in general as stupid as you would have them to believe. While most may not be able to articulate their faith, there is a literal driving force behind all religions. There is something in each expression of faith that sustains a believers faith. Now I have found that soceity play a big role in many faiths. however it is oftentimes the case when that soceity fails so too go their God's as it was soceity making good on the promises of their gods. so when the soceital structure could no longer support their beliefs, and keep the promises of their God. soceity moves on to a different system of belief.

So I've found their to be 4 major types of 'religious fuel' things that support religion.
society being the big one but is often telling by the rise and fall of civilization (rome greece egypt all good examples) 

self perpetuating philosophy is another these apply to more zen or spiritual based religions where one simply needs the correct programming or cultural inputs to interpret natural occurring cause and effect to be apart of full filling the promises and wisdom of the religion. Buddhism to a degree shintoism and to a lessor degree even hinduism

now we move into religions that span society and philosophy and move into a moral power base that puts one group incharge over another. here the religious hierarchy/the religious leadership becomes their god. WWII japan, North korea and down to more mordern examples like mormonism and scientology

Next we have the supernatural Whether it genuinely be God or a demonic influence people see and recognise there is a power beyond this world beyond our full understanding and they see it at work. to discern whether it be God or demonic in nature will be fleshed out in the commands the deity gives and or the promises for full filling those commands.

The big three religions fall into this category as these religions have span time despite society's influence, dictatorish rule religious philosophy and even a move to 'grow past deity.'/the rise of the newest faith/religious belief system... science.

What you may not understand is that on either side of one of these three religion is a super natural presence or power that affects enough people to maintain a faith for well over 4000 years collectively. Again you do not have the market n intellegence cornered here. people who work as chemists or engineers aren't the only cognisant people on the planet. The reason people believe after so long is because even n modern times the promises of said religion are being kept.

Now that said if you want to look at all the religions to see what the followers are being promised we can and I can show you how these are more or less self full filling except when it comes to islam and Christianity. where as islam demand more or less total obedience to the end goal of total world domination (literally) and to anyone who would die in this goal instant entrance to the after life and all the plunder and perversions that are forbidden in this world. God in this life has little to nothing to do with the common man, but supposedly speaks to the leadership through an angel.. (satan and his demons where angels) again look at the end goal of the religion and what is promised to the believer to decide who they worship.

With christianity bible based christianity any way we are promised direct access to God. no preists no go betweens just you and God not in the next life but here and now. what are his demands? cast off sin/meaning not sin no more but do not love or seek to embrace sin. seek forgiveness through christ and ask seek and knock for the holy Spirit, the over time learn to love God with all of your being and your neighbor as yourself. In those two rules all of christian is defined. the measure of God promised to all of us, and you will have access to the God of the bible.

Now there are many variations of christianity and whatever floats you boat will work so long as they all share the base principles I laid out. why? because if there is forgiveness when we openly sin there is a ton more available when we are worshiping God with all of our heart mind spirit and strength and simply get something wrong. Paul puts it this way; we are all members of the same body, but we are different parts meaning we see things differently we function differently and thus we will have different ways to express a total love. for instance a hand may offer to build to repair to write something as an expression a total love. while a foot may take yout to a place or away from danger or sin or it may kick someone's ass as a total expression of love which is wrong? which is right? they are doing two totally different things yet because of the grace we have been extended each is judged on it's own crb rather than to arbitrary line in the sand. which make biblical christianity different than all other forms of religion. while yes if you love God you will keep his commands, but at the same time we are not tied to a 'morality' like all other religions.


Nw it is through this freedom that I myself cashed in on the big promise of direct contact with God. and I am an engineer. so it was with a dissecting eye did I approach God in the beginning and I saw the pattern from which he worked with me to the point I could anticipate what would happen next (trial, blessing test reward.) To the point where he began to simply open doors for me and in faith I would sometimes be required to give up or risk everything on what would seem like a crazy deal to most but to me I knew it to be a door God opened. This is not a one two or ten time thing. these things happened repeatedly over 25 years, 18 or 19 of that in business for my self with a loan from a complete stranger/someone I have met once in passing/didn't even know his name. To a company who has a nation customer base two locations and looking to open a dealership outside this country if the opportunities keep presenting themselves.

Again people are not stupid even if they can not observe what powers their system of belief they know it is being supported by some force and that force full fills the promises of that specific religion.

That is why people believe. Some sell themselves short in their beliefs cashing out in this life with small promises to the next with no way to vet (buddhism provides a tranquil society and pleasant living system that supports it's base before a time where the government took that role. EG. cashing out the benefits in this life.)

While others hedge their bets with a religion that will allow them to indulge their most depraved desires by casting out the infidels and in the next be more greatly blessed with all manor of sexual exploits. Islam allows those who feel a pride or need to force everyone under them to break the world as it is and remake it into a place that serves the hierarchy of this religion. 

While most christian denominations only focus on eternal life. God promises in the bible a relationship in this life and a better one in the next if you can learn to submit and work with him. in this life I have taken him up on this offer and in almost 20 years of working for him his abundant blessings have yet to stop. again All tayloried to me and my specific life. which is what he offers to each and every individual who will simply seek him out on his terms found in scripture.

While almost all churches can deliver salvation.. a relationship with God in this life and the next takes strict obedience at first to find and work with the holy Spirit. Any church can get you to heaven, but there are different level/jobs in heaven. You don't want to be the heavenly equivalent of a homeless person. That is why as soon as you are saved you want to move on to finding the Holy Spirit. Once you do Jesus said he will move mountains of doubt in your mind he will give you everything you specifically need to establish and maintain your belief. all you need do is be faithful with the truth he gives you and you follow it through

[Angrboda]

Oh bullshit, Drich. You found God as a side show to chasing some skirt. Not out of any concern for the truth.

[Drich]

Oh bullshit, Drich.  You found God as a side show to chasing some skirt.  Not out of any concern for the truth.

I went to a specific church chasing skirt.. I did not marry that girl nor do I go to that church or ascribe membership to that denomination. the principles I teach here primarily the bit about having the core beliefs and it does not matter which church you choose because of God's grace is considered heretical there in that church. they are very legalistic and honestly believe they are the only example of God's true church on earth and as a result will be the only church representing the whole of heaven.

I also went to 7 day adventist church because of a girl who drove a 70 mach 1 mustang I liked

Studied Islam because of an employee I had for 2 years invited me over for dinner.

Went for the girls.. stayed to check out what they believed and why. 

Did my own study found the missing pieces.

put the into practice found what the bible promised.

Starting out was definitely not a saint, cant even pretend I was as concerned about 'morality' as much as you people are. I just knew there was truth in all of this some where and sought it out. for me then and my way of thinking the girl was sent by god (for different reasons) that what i believe now. in short God sent a carrot instead of a stick

---

The whole Hell thing kicked started this whole process. I knew hell was real its just I didn't know which version. again all I knew was of Dante's inferno version of hell/the catholic version so I was pretty sure that was wrong because what i experienced was nothing like it. but as I studied I found what I experienced was in the bible despite not being apart of most versions of hell in christian church. I got my 'second chance' because I did not know any better and I wondered would I be here if I did know the truth. So I set out to learn the truth even if it was at the allure of a very pretty face and a nice set of boobs.