Comments by "Maksie0" (@Maksie0) on "Can Scientists and Religious Leaders See Eye to Eye? | Middle Ground" video.

  1. You can value both, but religious belief will always be in spite of science, not because of it.
    7
  2. No it doesn't.
    7
  3. What do you mean by "haven for science"?
    6
  4. Do you think that's a good thing? To never question your beliefs?
    5
  5. The facts don't support that. The Earth was formed through the natural process of accretion.
    5
  6. Flat earthers deny evidence and make up conspiracy theories. Comparing these scientists to them is absurd.
    5
  7. How so?
    5
  8. It's full of destruction and chaos, and the vast, vast majority of it is completely hostile to human life.
    5
  9.  @GloryBeToGodForever  Doubt isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
    4
  10. The problem with nail clippers is that they don't dry your hair.
    4
  11. You don't need supernatural abilities to recognize that the universe around us, for all the awe it inspires and mysteries it contains, is a chaotic place that was not designed for us. Or designed at all.
    4
  12. Okay? Is that supposed to convince anyone? I doubt anyone hasn't heard that before.
    4
  13. You can be a religious scientist, as long as you have a mental wall between the two.
    3
  14. What's lame about valuing what can be demonstrated, without believing in supernatural claims that are without evidence?
    3
  15. What makes you think our consciousness "goes somewhere"? As far as scientists can tell, consciousness is the product of a functioning brain. And when the brain stops functioning, no more consciousness.
    3
  16. Why do you need religion to give life purpose?
    3
  17. Humans have empathy because we're a social species that functions better when its members cooperate with each other and avoid harming each other. Of course, humans still find plenty of things to divide themselves over and cause harm to each other over. Like religion.
    3
  18. They can be. But there'll still be a degree of separation between the two. They're religious in spite of science, not because of it.
    3
  19. But it's true. Evidence is better than faith. Why shouldn't we say that?
    3
  20. I still want to see God heal an amputee.
    3
  21. Why?
    3
  22. Why did you capitalize the word "theory"? You do realize that a scientific theory isn't the same as a wild guess? For something to be a theory in science means it has met its burden of proof, or it would be a hypothesis.
    3
  23. Leprechauns are the only way to the pot of gold!
    3
  24.  @dogeimations9255  To some degree, sure. But it means there's something unscientific you believe in.
    3
  25. What if life is only possible under specific conditions, and the earth happens to have those? Think of it this way. When it rains, water will form puddles in shallow depressions in the ground, but not on a smooth surface. This isn't because the depression was designed to hold water, it just means that's where puddles could form.
    3
  26. Why?
    3
  27. Sounds comforting, but how do you know it's true?
    3
  28. Religion does a poor job at that then.
    3
  29. It's not. It's a method, a tool.
    3
  30. Complexity is not indicative of design.
    3
  31. How do you know that a god is responsible for any of these things?
    3
  32. They can be. But religion can't be scientific.
    3
  33. Now here's the kicker: humans are animals.
    3
  34. False.
    2
  35. If knowledge is the enemy of your beliefs, I think that says enough.
    2
  36. Living Waters is run by professional liar Ray Comfort.
    2
  37. The scientific method was developed by humans several centuries ago.
    2
  38. Okay, and why should we care about any of that?
    2
  39. Science is a human-developed method.
    2
  40. Science isn't "the way it all works", it's a method humans developed for, simply put, arriving at conclusions that are the most likely to be true.
    2
  41. Well where is the proof?
    2
  42. These aren't proofs though, they're examples of modern scientific discoveried read into vague ancient texts. Except for maybe the fetus one but that would easily be discoverable by ancient people by observing miscarriages. Let me ask you this. I have a book that says 10 things. 9 of the 10 things are demonstrably correct. Does that tell you anything about whether the 10th thing is correct?
    2
  43. But then you're starting with the position that a god is responsible for the existence of the world, a position that you didn't arrive at through science.
    2
  44. Religion and morality are not synonymous though. You can be moral without religion, and religious teachings can sometimes be quite immoral.
    2
  45. How does religion help science?
    2
  46. Yeah, like the wonderful design of one hole to breathe and eat through so I can choke on my food and die.
    2
  47. My goodness, you must be quite old. I'd just like to say that I like how you made the autistic man say "Bazinga!"
    2
  48. Why is science blind without religion?
    2
  49. No god has ever been demonstrated to exist scientifically.
    2
  50. So God is an ape? Does he have bowels? Armpit hair? A colon? A scrotum?
    2
  51. How do you know it was made by a god?
    2
  52. Stop dodging my question. How do you know a god created this world?
    2
  53. Religion cn lead to tremendous harm, as has been demonstrated many times and continues to be demonstrated. People can find individual meaning in their lives without appealing to religion.
    2
  54. Personally, I think only a life without religion is meaningful. We're all born into this world not knowing why we are who we are, on this planet, in this time period. And personally, I see much more value in exploring what life has to offer and how you can improve it for the other humans (and other animals) who were born into this world with the same questions, than following an ancient set of traditions.
    2
  55. Religion isn't required for empathy or morality.
    2
  56. That's just blatantly untrue, and it again implies that religion is required for morality. Which, again, is just not the case. What's moral and what's legal are two seperate things. Funnily enough though, it's religion that tends to treat morality and law as the same thing. Is it not a grave sin to break a commandment, regardless of whether or not it is moral?
    2
  57. There's no evidence that suggests the "garden of eden" narrative has any basis in reality. The earth has always been cruel and inhospitable.
    2
  58. But not because they demonstrated said god to exist scientifically.
    2
  59. But can you scientifically demonstrate that god created everything?
    2
  60. How do you know?
    2
  61. Why does the existence of the human mind necessitate the existence of a god?
    2
  62. Scientists can definitely be religious. But religion is not supported by science.
    2
  63. Can you demonstrate that Allah caused the big bang scientifically?
    2
  64. Why do you think they're arrogant?
    2
  65. So the formation of the earth is either "magical appearance" or "made by a god"? How do you know those are the only options, or that those are options in the first place?
    2
  66. What evidence do you have for this universe being a "creation"?
    2
  67. Can you explain what exactly this means?
    2
  68. DNA is not a code in a literal sense. That is an argument from analogy fallacy.
    2
  69. Education about demonstrably real natural processes is not comparable to religious indoctrination.
    2
  70. Leave it to Christians to describe human sacrifice as "nice"
    2
  71. So you're saying religion is something you question... until you decide to stop questioning it?
    2
  72. What if you chose wrong but you have faith that you chose correctly? How would you find out?
    2
  73. If I hear someone in a locked room flipping a coin, I can have faith that the coin landed on heads. I can't go into the room to see if I'm correct. But regardless of what I believe, the coin either did or did not land on heads.
    2
  74. But then the faith was either placed in something that turned out to be correct, or misplaced. The best position would be to make no assumptions about what the coin landed on until you can see it.
    2
  75. That's an assumption based on the belief you already hold.
    2
  76. You could say I'm in lava with this volcanologist
    2
  77. When rain falls into a shallow hole, it fills it up to perfectly form a puddle. Is that a coincidence? Did somsone conspire to make that happen? Or is it simply the expected result of natural processes at work?
    2
  78. It's a scary thought, isn't it? What if we someday had the technology to repair brains? Could we live forever? And does it mean those who died before that technology was developed died needlessly?
    2
  79. Science was developed by humans.
    2
  80. We live in a void in which life can only exist with highly advanced technology, on a planet where most of the surface is hostile to life, on which a diverse population of lifeforms has come to exist through a great many extinctions over an incredibly long time. Doesn't exactly sound designed for life to me. This comment is mostly for others though, considering you appear to be some kind of conspiracy theorist. I don't expect you to be swayed by it.
    2
  81. Sure, but they don't apply the scientific method to their theistic beliefs.
    2
  82. No god has ever been demonstrated to exist. Planets orbiting the sun is not "luck", it's the result of the laws of physics. You have no justification for this theistic claim.
    2
  83. How do you justify accepting a religious answer though? What's wrong with simply saying "I don't know" when science doesn't have an answer for something?
    2
  84. How?
    2
  85. Nothing fails like prayer.
    2
  86. How do you know the world's animals were created by a god?
    2
  87. Aren't they?
    2
  88. What, would the other suns in the galaxy "fall down" were it not for an omnipotent spirit's instructions? You made some claims, now demonstrate that they're true.
    2
  89. Good news! There is no hell!
    2
  90. They're seen as oppositional because scientific discoveries often conflict with creation myths and other beliefs originating from theistic religions, and theism itself has not been demonstrated to be true scientifically.
    2
  91. Happiness and surprise require a functioning brain, something you no longer have after death occurs.
    2
  92. False. Science is a method, a tool. The most reliable one we currently have for gaining information about the universe.
    2
  93. What about cancer? The possibility of cell division going so wrong that it kills an organism seems pretty sloppy. If I were an all-knowing and all-powerful being designing life I would make it so it didn't do that.
    2
  94. You're reading things into an ancient book of myths.
    2
  95. Why?
    2
  96. What evidence is that?
    2
  97. There's nothing scientific about leaping to conclusions about afterlives without sufficient evidence.
    2
  98. Accepting that historical figures exist based on historical evidence is not quite the same thing as accepting a supernatural entity exists based on a singular source.
    2
  99. The current scientific hypothesis is that the world formed through a process called accretion, in which debris forms into a larger mass through gravity over a very long period of time.
    2
  100. How's that? Because as far as I can tell, Christianity makes truth claims that either can't be supported scientifically, or go directly against what science observes.
    2
  101. What you call the "physical world" is known as reality. But I have no reason to believe that anything about this supposed "spiritual world" is actually real.
    2
  102. But humans created science. It's a method developed by humans.
    2
  103. Accepting claims for which there is no evidence is completely unscientific though.
    2
  104. But they didn't get to that position through science.
    2
  105. How's that?
    2
  106. If Jesus has a crush on me, he can come tell me himself instead of doing this high school note passing nonsense.
    2
  107. But that definition of science contains the very unscientific assumption that the universe is a "god's creation".
    2
  108.  @IssyFishyy  I thought you were gonna show me demonstrable evidence for a god. This is just an argument from ignorance fallacy. You can't imagine matter existing without a god, so you think a god did it.
    2
  109. If there's no scientific explanation for something, the answer is "I don't know", not "God did it".
    2
  110. @ Science is an evidence and experimentation-based method of learning about the world. It doesn't meet the definition of a religion. Also, hope the past four years have treated you well.
    1
  111. Humans created science.
    1
  112. If every mosquito who ever died has gone to heaven, wouldn't that make it hell?
    1
  113. No, science is a human invention.
    1
  114.  @sean9470  No, not really.
    1
  115. What makes you think pro-choice people and LGBTQ+ people are somehow against science?
    1
  116. What's wrong with materialism?
    1
  117. You're using two different definitions of materialism.
    1
  118. Right. I'm talking about the second one. Because as a skeptical person, I am a materialist by necessity, because I can't scientifically investigate anything beyond the material world.
    1
  119. Because there's no evidence for gods or other supernatural phenomena.
    1
  120. We know from evidence and experience that buildings are made by intelligent beings. We have no such evidence for nature.
    1
  121. Praise the Volcano God!
    1
  122.  @hopedoyle6876  "For anything to exist, it HAS to be created." "only created things have a creator." You're contradicting yourself.
    1
  123. What kind of evidence?
    1
  124. I think the idea is to get demonstrable evidence, which people are incapable of presenting after they die.
    1
  125. Supernatural beliefs might be fun, but they're not exactly reliable for making well-informed decisions.
    1
  126. Religion still makes claims about reality that can't be scientifically demonstrated to be true.
    1
  127. Imagine you roll 10 dice. They land on 4, 3, 2, 3, 6, 1, 1, 6, 5, 6. Rolling this exact combination again would be extremely unlikely. If just one dice landed differently, you wouldn't have the same combination. So did someone deliberately make the dice land that way?
    1
  128.  @MarkoTiano  100 dice, 1000 dice, 10000000 dice, the idea is the same.
    1
  129. As an atheist, I don't use faith. It's not a reliable method for arriving at conclusions that are actually consistent with objective reality.
    1
  130. Okay, so, there's a magical invisible bear stalking you right now. When you go to sleep tonight, it'll enter your home and maul you to death. The only way to stop it is to take your favorite book and burn it in a metal bucket while doing the Gangnam Style. What I just told you sounds like made up nonsense, but following Pascal's Wager, you should probably do this, right? After all, losing just a material item that gives you some pleasure is surely worth saving your life!
    1
  131.  @smeargleos4594  Oh, now it's about evidence? I thought your whole argument was about believing just in case. You say the "existence of a god" is consistent in human civilizations, what I think you mean is the belief in said gods. Their existence has not been demonstrated.
    1
  132.  @smeargleos4594  Scientists "choose to believe" in the big bang (which you seem to not quite inderstand given your explanation) because that's where the available evidence has led them. There is no such evidence for theism. When you say planets are "perfectly aligned" and life "reacts perfectly", what do you mean exactly?
    1
  133. What supernatural thing did you take a picture of?
    1
  134. If someone was giving children cancer and letting genocide happen while being able to stop it, why wouldn't you question such an immoral monster?
    1
  135. You have no way of knowing that's true.
    1
  136. No, I'm literally not convinced that a god exists.
    1
  137. How's that?
    1
  138. Religion does tend to make claims about the natural world though, which science can and does refute.
    1
  139. You know that a scientific theory is not the same as a theory in the cuolloquial sense, right?
    1
  140. So the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve was a more sensible size in the Garden of Eden, but the mankind sinned and Satan made it loop all the way up and down the giraffe's neck from that point onward?
    1
  141. Do you love science enough to apply it to your religious beliefs?
    1
  142. Egg. Dinosaur eggs.
    1
  143. Like what?
    1
  144. No, prove yourself right.
    1
  145. Hard to imagine? No, I can imagine all sorts of things. Hard to believe without demonstrable evidence? Absolutely.
    1
  146. That's just not true.
    1
  147. No, it doesn't.
    1
  148. Why would an all-powerful god design creatures in such a way that his designs come to fruition in such a way that they're indistinguishable from the results of unguided natural processes, and also in such a way that it requires billions upon billions of deaths and the extinctions of most species of animals?
    1
  149. Can you have faith in something that is ultimately not true?
    1
  150. If I made a universe specifically for life I certainly wouldn't make the vast majority of it completely inhospitable to life
    1
  151. How is that science?
    1
  152. I mean, there hasn't been any demonstrable scientific evidence for religious claims yet.
    1
  153. Why? I don't have a burden of proof. I'm not making any claims about any gods, I simply don't believe.
    1
  154. What a bizarre thing to say.
    1
  155. Science is a humanmade methodology.
    1
  156. I never quite understand what quoting this is meant to accomplish. Is it just meant to be like "Oooooh, you'll see!"? Or is it meant to actually convince people somehow?
    1
  157. What makes one set of religious beliefs more "valid" than another?
    1
  158. What evidence?
    1
  159. How do any of those natural processes require a creator?
    1
  160. How did you determine the probability of these things?
    1
  161. How does the existence of the universe, or the occurence of the big bang, necessitate the existence of a god?
    1
  162. The heart pumps blood.
    1
  163. Dawkins is knowledgable of evolution but he and Harris have gone off the deep end a bit I think.
    1
  164. There's no demonstrable evidence for a supernatural "creator".
    1
  165. Sure. So until we find demonstrable evidence, the default position is nonbelief.
    1
  166. How are they interlocked?
    1
  167. Oh boy. Libtards owned epic style.
    1
  168. How do you know you saw a supernatural being?
    1
  169. There's plenty of religious scientists, sure. They're probably vastly more knowledgable and intelligent than I am. But that doesn't change the fact that theistic belief is unscientific.
    1
  170. Make your actual argument first maybe?
    1
  171. Why would you ask "who made it"? What makes you think it was a "someone" and not a natural process like all evidence seems to indicate? But you avoided my question, so I'll ask again: How do you know it was made by a god?
    1
  172. You're operating under the assumption that there is a being who is responsible for the earth, and I don't believe that's justified.
    1
  173. You'd be mistaken, because the harm caused by molesting children is demonstrable. Morality comes from the consequences of actions, not a list of a deity's likes and dislikes.
    1
  174. Empathy causes me to not want to harm the people around me, it's as simple as that.
    1
  175. How?
    1
  176. You say there's no difference and then name the biggest, most important difference... Science is based on evidence and independently reaching the same conclusion, while religion is based on blind faith. As such, science is infinitely more reliable.
    1
  177. There are religious scientists, sure. But the fact remains that theism has never been scientifically demonstrated to be true. So there's always that limit to where they'll apply scientific reasoning.
    1
  178.  @ruthrick3080  Which would make nonbelief the only justifiable position for anyone who values science, yes?
    1
  179.  @ruthrick3080  When you play the lottery, you either win the jackpot or you don't win the jackpot. But that doesn't mean the odds are 50/50. When it comes to a god existing, we don't even know if it's possible for there to be a god. There would need to be evidence first. Also, I don't make the claim that there is no god, I just don't believe that there is one. Important distinction.
    1
  180.  @ruthrick3080  I don't know if there is a chance that a god exists. How would you even determine if there's a chance?
    1
  181. This means nothing to nonbelievers. Who are you trying to convince?
    1
  182. How do you know that's true?
    1
  183. But how do you know that it's actually factual?
    1
  184. How's that?
    1
  185. How are they connected?
    1
  186. How does science prove that it's possible for a god to exist?
    1
  187. How do you know there's an afterlife?
    1
  188. How do you prove something without science?
    1
  189. Our observations about the natural world correlate far more with the idea that the world was formed out of natural processes, than the idea that some sort of cosmic architect was at work. If this world was created specifically for life to thrive, why are there destructive natural distasters and mass extinctions? Nearly all species that have ever inhabited this planet are now extinct.
    1
  190. More evidence for a god than for evolution? Interesting how the vast majority of biologists disagrees with you.
    1
  191. Really? You're doing the "just a theory" thing? You know what a scientific theory is, don't you?
    1
  192. Unfortunately, faith will always be inherently unreliable.
    1
  193. The vast majority of species of animals is extinct. If I were hand designing a planet I wouldn't include so much needless death.
    1
  194.  @isabelv6885  No, even before humans came along a ton of species went extinct.
    1
  195. Because we cannot apply science beyond the material world. And so scientists are essentially forced to be materialists.
    1
  196. Why's it sad?
    1
  197. If the existence of something is asserted, shouldn't there be demonstrable evidence?
    1
  198. But you didn't arrive at your theistic position through the scientific method. The claim that science is explaining "the amazing things god did for us" is unscientific.
    1
  199. Why do you think there must be a supernatural power?
    1
  200. What's the difference?
    1
  201. Do faith and religion help us explain the oriign of these things though? After all, we can't actually demonstrate if religious claims are true or not. When science can't reach an answer, are we really justified in trading it in for something far more flawed?
    1
  202. Science is reliable exactly because it doesn't deal in what cannot be empirically demonstrated. If science had adoped the method of "opening their eyes to what they can't see", we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because no scientific progress can be made when you're not looking at reality objectively.
    1
  203. Right! And because of that, belief in the supernatural can never be justified. Now you're getting it!
    1
  204. You don't understand the big bang theory, or the scientific method, or epistemology in general.
    1
  205. Can you demonstrate that a god is responsible for HIV?
    1
  206. "Uhhhh actually humans doing the bad stuff made it look like it wasn't designed so hah"
    1
  207. Did the giraffe's laryngeal nerve not make a 15ft detour before mankind sinned?
    1
  208. This world was created as a result of natural processes. If a deity "created" it, they apparently did it in such a way that's indistinguishable from them not having done so at all. So how can you say there's no question?
    1
  209. You mean when they try to actually verify the claim of theism scientifically? That thing that you should probably do to any truth claim before accepting it?
    1
  210. But you can't arrive to theistic belief through the scientific method. I think that's what Larry's getting at.
    1
  211. Because as far as we can tell, there's no demonstrable evidence.
    1
  212. But that leading to a belief in a god is not done through science.
    1
  213. Faith isn't really good for anything besides maybe some peace of mind.
    1
  214. Because theistic claims contradict scientific understanding of the "how", and still need to meet the burden of proof. Which it seems they do not.
    1
  215. Religion routinely makes unscientific claims, or even claims that directly go against observable evidence.
    1
  216. How did you know there was a sink outside my door?
    1
  217. Why?
    1
  218. Who is this meant to convince? Do you think an unbeliever will read this and go "ok I'm convinced"?
    1
  219. Atheism has been around for as long as theism. When the first person in ancient times proclaimed "There is a god!" there was a person saying "I don't believe you."
    1
  220. Atheism is the lack of theistic belief. Religion has been very prevalent throughout human history, and modern atheism is relatively new. But that doesn't mean the concept of not believing in a god is new.
    1
  221. You're arguing from a very biased perspective, and your arguments are fallacious. You assume that life has to come from a god for arbitrary reasons.
    1
  222. If there's no evidence, then belief is not justified.
    1
  223. The Abrahamic deity was invented by a partiarchal society, so it's reflective of that society's values.
    1
  224. Life, including human life, emerged on earth because it could. It didn't emerge on Uranus because the requirements for life are not present on that planet.
    1
  225. Because when ancient books conflict with science, believers tend to go with the ancient books. That's literally the only reason there's still people who refuse to accept that evolution is real, or that there was never a worldwide flood.
    1
  226. I don't think religion really helps us learn anything. It can help us cope, maybe. Bring some together while also dividing. But it's not a reliable tool for learning, at least about empirical matters.
    1
  227. Are you kidding me? "Perfect harmony"? Animals are constantly killing each other, countless species have gone extinct over the history of the earth, some at the hands of each other and others because of natural disasters, like the infamous meteor that wiped out dinosaurs.
    1
  228. So first you say that you shouldn't claim to know things about the universe that you can't understand, which I agree with. But then how can you say you believe in a supernatural creator?
    1
  229.  @zem_o6  Well, do you have actual demonstrable evidence for such a creator? Because I feel like until you have that, belief isn't really justified. We don't know, after all. Something being complex doesn't necessitate a god making it.
    1
  230.  @zem_o6  Smartphones and towers are manmade of course. But "everything" has a creator? How can you possibly know such a thing?
    1
  231.  @zem_o6  But having no evidence does mean that believing it's true is not justified. That's why I initially agreed with you about not knowing.
    1
  232.  @zem_o6  Why? I haven't made any claims about either of those.
    1
  233.  @zem_o6  I am an atheist. And I would like to learn the truth about the universe, sure. But you'd have to be able to demonstrate that it's the truth. Otherwise I'll go with the default "I don't know".
    1
  234.  @zem_o6  "By birth" I guess, if you mean I wasn't raised to believe in any particular religion. And you can recommend a book, but I can't guarantee I'll read it, I've got a pretty hefty backlog of books already
    1
  235. What? Science doesn't say anything about a "soul".
    1
  236. I mean, if there's a god and he sends unbelievers to hell, wouldn't it be objectively better to reveal his existence to prevent needless eternal torture?
    1
  237. Complexity is not indicative of design, design is recognized in contrast to what occurs naturally.
    1
  238. How do you know something's designed if it occurs naturally? Have you seen it being designed?
    1
  239. What naturally occoring thing's designing have you witnessed?
    1
  240. Did human beings make giraffes' laryngeal nerves take an unnecessary 15ft detour through the entirety of their necks? It's little things like that that point to a lack of design in the world. Or if there is design, it's sufficiently sloppy to be indistinguishable from the result of natural processes.
    1
  241. No
    1
  242. No I do not. Wanting there to be some kind of "cosmic justice" is wishful thinking.
    1
  243. How did you determine if it's possible that a god exists?
    1
  244. When you play the lottery, you either win the big jackpot or you don't. But that doesn't mean it's a 50/50. That's not how odds work. And in the case of a god existing, I'm not even sure how one would calculate those odds.
    1
  245. Ah, I misunderstood. That's pretty much the same as my position then.
    1
  246.  @No_Frills_Carnivore  Of course, and you should too. Covid is no joke.
    1
  247. But they didn't become religious through rigorous science.
    1
  248.  @donnyannessa654  The possibility of it hasn't been demonstrated yet though.
    1
  249. Well I didn't vote for him
    1
  250.  @Johnghftsk7350  I mean, you can boast that you have more answers. But answers aren't necessarily correct. That's kind of the whole problem with religious beliefs.
    1
  251.  @Johnghftsk7350  Excuse me?
    1
  252.  @criticclips1560  Because science is reliable?
    1
  253.  @criticclips1560  How so?
    1
  254. I'm leaning more towards 0%.
    1
  255. Some things that science explains today used to be mysteries left to religion. And how do you propose we apply science to the supernatural?
    1
  256.  @moccaccino9084  I'm sorry, there's scientists studying reincarnation? How?
    1
  257. Science must "adopt the principles of religion"? What do you mean by that?
    1
  258.  @VahidCullsberg  I wouldn't say you need religion to work towards the betterment of mankind. Look into humanism.
    1
  259. Orinoco, every time you open your mouth you prove that homophobia is alive and well.
    1
  260. I don't have any faith in any gods.
    1
  261. Then nothing has failed.
    1
  262. I'm supposed to just take your word for it? The human body needing oxygen is so easy to demonstrate I can prove it by holding my breath for a little while. How do you prove something like a god existing?
    1
  263. Well, not all atheists are skeptics I suppose.
    1
  264. But the existence of a god doesn't seem to be able to be demonstrated scientifically. That's why people say they're not compatible.
    1
  265. No offense but I have no idea what point you're trying to make in this wall of text
    1
  266. The world, while very complex, simply does not show any signs of being designed. And that's not because of any "human corruption" or anything.
    1
  267. People didn't invent earthquakes, or sinkholes, or tornadoes, or flesh-eating viruses, or eating holes that double as breathing holes so you can choke on your food.
    1
  268.  @blackscrow  Following those principles, if your scripture actually were wrong about something, you'd never find out.
    1
  269. Adam and Eve are fictional.
    1
  270. It's clear to anyone who isn't indoctrinated to believe otherwise. Evolution has been demonstrated to be true scientifically. The vast majority of experts agrees. And if humanity evolved from non-human ancestors, there was never an Adam and Eve. Now stop following me already, you creep.
    1
  271. Creationism and evolution are directly contradictory though.
    1
  272. How do you know that's true?
    1
  273. "Successful inside"? What? And this question has nothing to do with the validity of people's positios. If anything it shows an inaccurate picture because you can point at a lot of historical figures who lived during a time when holding religious beliefs was the norm.
    1
  274. What do you mean?
    1
  275. Alleged supernatural events need more than mere testimony.
    1
  276. Coincidence has nothing to do with it. Life simply formed where it was able to form, and adapted to its environment. When it rains, is it a coincidence that the rainwater perfectly forms a puddle? Or is it just the result of a natural process?
    1
  277. What's your scientific evidence for the existence of the Christian deity?
    1
  278. Not that a god isn't real, but that belief isn't justified until there's evidence. And we do have evidence of evolution.
    1
  279. I mean, you can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But those are seperate. They didn't arrive at their religious beliefs through science.
    1
  280. If this Jesus supposedly wants a relationship with every single human, it's odd that he seems as dead as every other bronze age historical figure in every way. And a tree is not an article. Design isn't recognized by something like complexity, but in contrast to what occurs naturally. And trees and other lifeforms occur naturally.
    1
  281.  @englishislit7720  Natural doesn't mean sprouting from one's hand, what are you talking about? And is there an audible voice when you speak to this person? Is he physically present? Could you maybe take a picture or make an audio recording if at all possible?
    1
  282.  @englishislit7720  Not in a literal sense, no. That would be an argument from analogy fallacy.
    1
  283. @sara yeah Why does an omniscient being need to test anything?
    1
  284. So this deity murders young children left and right to see if we get sad about it or something?
    1
  285. I highly doubt we're influencing the universe at all besides our own planet.
    1
  286. How's that?
    1
  287. I think the main issue is that to be a religious scientist means you don't apply the scientific method everywhere.
    1
  288. Religious scientists exist, but religious belief is still inherently unscientific.
    1
  289. Why is religion required for a healthy worldview?
    1
  290. You can hold beliefs that aren't religious in nature.
    1
  291. I don't know of the existence of any gods. No ancient book knows what's in my head better than I do.
    1
  292. Complexity is not indicative of design. Design is recognized in contrast to what occurs naturally.
    1
  293. And I'm just telling you that the claim that a god exists has not been demonstrated to be true. The existence of human beings is not evidence for a supernatural creator.
    1
  294. You are delusional.
    1
  295. But that's just objectively false...
    1
  296. What's lame about science without religion?
    1
  297. How?
    1
  298. Science is a reliable tool for learning about the universe based on evidence and peer review. Religion is a set of unchanging beliefs. They couldn't be more different from each other.
    1
  299. Sounds like something you would prefer to be true.
    1
  300. The people who believe in the Abrahamic deity believe in a disposable earth, that will be abandoned when their deity returns.
    1
  301. I disagree with Al. Science without religion isn't lame. It's rad!
    1
  302. What's your evidence that that's true?
    1
  303.  @jackbelden3851  How do you know the bible is a reliable source of information?
    1
  304. Most of all of existence is hostile to life. The vast majority of species has gone extinct. If this universe is designed for life, it's a very strange design with a big focus on death.
    1
  305. In a seemingly infinite universe, something that has a low chance of occuring is practically guaranteed to happen. Rolling a dice and getting a 6, and repeating that 19 more times in a row is incredibly unlikely. But with infinite rolls, the chance becomes 100%.
    1
  306. In my dice roll scenario, would rolling a six 20 times in a row make it plausible that a dice god exists?
    1
  307. See, here's the thing. Rolling a six 20 times in a row would be very unlikely. But if I rolled a die 20 times right now, whatever outcome I get would be equally unlikely. The one where it's all sixes stands out because it's more meaningful to us. A reality where life as we know it exists on earth is just as likely as any other reality. But the reality where life as we know it exists on earth has meaning to us.
    1
  308. I roll the die twenty times. The results are: 3, 1, 1, 5, 6, 3, 5, 2, 6, 1, 4, 6, 2, 1, 1, 4, 5, 3, 2, 6. This specific outcome is just as unlikely as one with all sixes.
    1
  309. The version of earth and life on it we observe existing is just as likely as any other specific version of earth.
    1
  310. Complexity is not indicative of design.
    1
  311. How does this perceived "order" prove that a god exists?
    1
  312.  @Alexa-pc6ux  "We must be created by someone"? How so?
    1
  313. Earth's day and night cycle isn't infinite though. The sun's gonna collapse eventually.
    1
  314. That dishonest hack doesn't need another platform.
    1
  315. Why would you believe what an ancient book says without any doubt?
    1
  316. I'm glad you liked your own comment enough to give it a like. But if there was really inadequate evidence for evolution, it wouldn't be a scientific theory, it'd be a hypothesis. I'm not aware of any evidence that points to Christianity's supernatural claims being true.
    1
  317. The existence of a god, women being made from ribs, talking snakes, dead coming back to life, that sort of thing.
    1
  318.  @austinfurgason3634  We know that houses are built by humans. We have absolutely zero evidence of any kind of intelligent being creating planets. Complexity is not evidence, and neither is awe. You can be awestruck by nature's beauty and recognize that it's full of complex systems while also recognizing that all demonstrable evidence points to everything around us (apart from manmade things obviously) being the result of natural processes.
    1
  319. You're the dishonest one
    1
  320. Exactly, humans held inaccurate ideas but changed them when new observations and scientific discoveries were made. So that needs to happen before we accept the idea of a "spiritual world."
    1
  321. They're the only reliable tools. If you need unreliable tools to arrive at the desired conclusion, you can't justify arriving there.
    1
  322. This whole thread is like watching two people argue over Bigfoot's shoe size
    1
  323. What? What does that mean?
    1
  324. A god that lives in the gaps of scientific knowledge is a shrinking god.
    1
  325. You forgot +Gullibility, -Tolerance, and -Skepticism.
    1
  326. Maybe they disected a leech
    1
  327.  @haroongasmi6771  Cut open a leech Cut open a person I don't understand why you think some kind of divine intervention is required for this
    1
  328.  @haroongasmi6771  I'd say you don't know science very well if you think having some knowledge about a leech's digestion system is evidence for theism.
    1
  329.  @haroongasmi6771  It's not! At all!
    1
  330.  @skysoldier6647  Or it's the other way around. Humans can create, and they can imagine better creators than themselves, so they imagine the ultimate creator.
    1
  331.  @skysoldier6647  The earth's not gonna be around forever either. Stars die.
    1
  332.  @skysoldier6647  I sure hope I won't be around for that, that'd mean it would be happening awfully soon
    1
  333. Does that mean something else can explain it?
    1
  334. How's that?
    1
  335. Except religion also tries to explain the how.
    1
  336. Why though? Does God only want the gullible people in heaven? Why is it a good thing to believe something without demonstrable evidence?
    1
  337.  @IssyFishyy  What's the demonstrable evidence?
    1
  338.  @IssyFishyy  Ok, I see my apartment. Did you hide the evidence in here somewhere?
    1
  339.  @IssyFishyy  How does the existence of atoms and molecules and whatnot necessitate the existence of a god?
    1
  340. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
    1
  341. But the concept of god has not been demonstrated scientifically.
    1
  342. How am I gonna see anything when I'm dead? I'm not gonna have a functioning brain attached to my eyeballs.
    1