Does Science Obviate Religion?

I don't think it makes it obsolete unless you believe in the big bang, or at least part of it, if you believe god caused the big bang then both science and religeon can coexist at least if your christian.

Then how can you prove that evolution happened? How can you prove that a big bang happened? That is faith WITHOUT evidence; at least evidence that would hold in a court of science! Now I do understand that you may have what SEEMS like evidence (such as similarity between animals), but how is that valid evidence? If you would be an automobile designer, then OBVIOUSLY your cars would be quite similar, only getting better each model! In the same way, God created creatures that have similarities! Imagine 1000 years into the future, not knowing that humans created cars, and saying that they evolved from some scrap metal! That would be a stupid assumption to make.

As to believers loving God out of requirement, that is NOT true. You obviously have NEVER loved Him at all. But I can almost guarantee that if someone rescued you from dying a certain death, you would at least FEEL GRATEFULL to the person. In the same way, we love God because He saved us from eternal damnation and separation from Him. God didn't force me to love Him....I love Him because He loved me first! I am not AFRAID or SCARED of God at all!

Xtreme Kommander

Something like the Big Bang must have happened because something created the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The CMB is proof of some inflationary point after the Big Bang where the Universe became cool enough to form electrons and protons. Thus it must have began small and hot.

Well I have never lost an argument under estimating the intelligence of an Atheist. I say now that all should test the nature of debates between Science and Religion. What fuels them is the fact that Atheists are so frustrated. While Christians, for example, are content. Atheists try to argue using science. which, in my opinion, almost obviously proves God exists.
You can pose many examples. I like to use Thermodynamics. Therein, our first law, everything moves to a state of disorder. Under this Law, our fuel, Hydrogen is abundant. The universal energy source. So if time were cyclic? We would have no Sun and we would have run out.
The red shift, Doppler effect, proves the singularity or origin, If you will. The Bible states that the stars will fall from the sky. In one of it's most confrontational verses. Which explains the reversion to this singularity. Research the literal translations of the bible from Hebrew. As John Clayton stated. The Beginning of Genesis actually reads in English, That for which there were none before created the heaved up things. Heaved... and, when written, they had no ideas about a theory as complex as the Big Bang. Not until 1934 or so. That's always a fun debate. Can of worms, anyone.

"Hitchens argued that believers seem to love God out of a requirement, not out of freedom. "The compulsory love of someone you must fear is something of a celestial North Korea," said Hitchens."

From dictionary.com:

Fear:
4. reverential awe, esp. toward God.

I guess his definition leans more towards this:

Fear:
1. a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.

I taught in South Korea, and met North Korean Christians who escaped to South Korea. They revere God, and not man.

It seems to me that Atheists want to believe that religion is useless and archaic, but with what shall they replace it?

I certainly am not going to bow down or revere a test tube or a Pyrex (c) beaker, nor will I bow to another human being just because he knows so much more about the world than I do.

No one can prove or disprove the existence of god, thats the nature of it. Although no one can prove that I am not god, or that there isn't a purple scorpion god that lives in my freezer.

As to the person who doesn't believe in evolution, viruses do it on a daily basis, we can literally watch it happen, don't lose all credibility with an ignorant statement like that. I am not going to sit here and list the volumes of rigorously debated and peer tested evidence of evolution, look it up.

If you believe in a god, thats fine, if you believe in the teachings of the bible that was written less than 2000 years ago, then you assume god did not give the benefit of his teachings to thousands of generations of humans that preceded it. You also assume that the Earth is 5000 years old and that dinosaurs are another scientific error, as is plate tectonics, geology and astronomy, for if the universe if 5000 years old then how did the light from stars 10000 light years away reach us yet? Of course you will counter with the argument that God has simply worked this into his plan, or that for some strange reason he created the Earth with all signs pointing to it being older than it is.

If you believe in a God then why was there many gods in the religions that preceded christianity? How do you know not to sacrifice lambs to Zeus? Did all those people simply go to hell? On the topic of Hell I will finish this comment (which I could go on for hours with), with a quote,"If god created man out of dust knowing that that man would be condemned to hell, then shouldn't he have left that dust alone in the first place?"

The crucial problem with evolution is that it isn't science. According to the scientific method, science is repeatable and observable. The Big Bang isn't repeatable or observeable. Evolution fits more correctly in the religion category, in that it answers the three eternal questions, "Where did we come from?, Why are we here?, and Where are we going?"

One of the things I truly dislike about this debate is that people always present the case as science vs religion. I don't believe that it has to be this way. Science does not oppose religion nor does religion science. Seeing the debate as science vs religion only shows an opposition overshadowing commonalities. In every part of the debate; cosmology, physics, biology (evolutionary debate), or the earths beginnings, there is evidence that is strongly presented on both sides using so called scientific reasoning. I'm not to fond of that term because even that definition becomes biased based on the case you are trying to debate. Someone could consider something a science while others would called it still a hypothesis or theory that cannot or has not been disproved. One example of this is faith based off personal experience. Is that true evidence. some would say yes, some no. Either way experience whether circumstantial or not cannot be taken away from someones case as evidence. Personally I believe that this is our biggest obstacle in a search for the truth about life's mysteries. Science does not combat religion, it is just that it is impossible to assess all given information on a subject in its entirety to reach any certain conclusion other than opinion. So do your research in an unbiased way and have a well backed opinion thats all our finite minds can do.

To naterz_g, evolution is repeatable, like the virus example I gave earlier, the mechanisms for evolution and natural selection are built within cells themselves, can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that god didn't put them there in the beginning, no, but maybe it was the purple scorpion too, so why not bow to him. The big bang is not repeatable but at least there is indirect evidence that we can observe and measure which can lead us to a clearer picture. With god you always assume.

I agree with eat_777 religion and science don't have to oppose each other, but religion does have a knack for getting in the way of science, (isn't that what the enlightenment was all about?)

What is god anyway? Basically with a lack of any evidence of god or any evidence of what occurred before the big bang the are essentially the same thing, the great unknown, so yes we are all looking for a common answer to where did we come from. My problem is personifying the great unknown into something that is familiar to us and deriving teachings and guidance from from absolutely nothing. At least science tests new hypothesis and is willing to change based on what is learnt and observed where religion assumes to know and changes based on convenience.

Ian1108 I absolutely believe in evolution. The bibles teachings don't reference time like you say. Foremost Adam could have lived for a billion years in the garden. He was aged from when he left this place. So every part of evolution works.
Don't forget that when people were more innocent. They were closer to the lord. So every part of the linguistic origins makes sense. They would not have needed as much like animals evolving from lesser... Their knowledge has led them here. Evolution and The Big Bang both follow idea's of God, and the bible. I like the facts about Space and mention of Plate Tectonics, Geology and Astronomy. Religion only has a Knack for interfering with science when you turn it into a science which it is not. It's about seeing what is good like people, idea's, lifestyles, personalities. Everything that made you grow up and choose anger or happiness. Everything that makes an animal, content seem so amazing.

Again though you are assuming there was a garden of Eden and that people were close to the lord, where did you learn that from? Somebody wrote that down during the last 2000 years, and since there was no christianity 3000 years ago the garden of eden story was not orally passed down either. That only leaves the option of god himself telling somebody to write it down in one language only for a certain group of people, because native americans would not be able to get this message he must have left them out, I guess. That doesn't sound very reasonable, what does sound reasonable is that somebody made it up and wrote it down, probably someone in a position of power and influence, who then used it to reinforce his own influence. It may have not been sinister in motive, people were quite superstitious and uneducated but still craved an explanation as to their origins, it may have been created to make them feel better, but nonetheless by pure reason it must have been a fabrication. Why then wouldn't he give his teachings (which failure to follow could result in eternal burning in the hellfires) to all the populations of the Earth in a clear and concise manor. Even us mere mortals know the danger of writing vague laws open to interpretation, they are inevitably broken or bent on perspective. If I had a child who disobeyed me, much like eve took the apple, I would correct him, but I probably wouldn't condemn him and all his future generations to the possibility of being burnt for millions of years by a demon, that is not love or forgiveness.

And the Earth being approx 5000 years old was calculated by a bishop by counting back through the generations in the bible, so not directly stated by the bible but it is inferred, which highlights the danger of the scripture being so
open to interpretaion, anyone can read what he wants to read. That is the major strength of the god argument and why it is hard to argue against it, even the followers don't know what it means so how can you counter point on it?

Ian1108, The ignorance of some Christian and religious folks can be quite taxing and frustrating, but forgive me when I slightly, maybe alter your perspective on the subject.

Now I'm a Coptic Orthodox Christian and quite ignorant when it comes to some degree of religion and definitely science, (first year college), but I feel when you mention that Christians state the earth was only around 5000 years, you may have been told that by an uninformed christian or just was some common understanding or belief, but in fact the bible would clearly state that the earth was made in six phases, or six days and the seventh was the rest day, as said in the first word and chapter of the bible (genesis). I wont post bible quotes here not to offend anyone, but it clearly outlines the phases that is actually accepted in the scientific community as how the planet earth developed billions of years ago. Scientists say after the big bang, the earth was nothing more than rock and poisonous gases, and asteroids from space hit the planet which were full of water, then the sun developed and somehow life developed. The days it took to build the universe according to the old testament, took 6 days and those six days could be even considered one day as a billion of years, since even the bible did not state at what time frame, or the meaning of the day was to god, it could be a billion years.

I don't know if this is true but two scientists 2 years ago won the nobel peace prize for discovering the universe is actually around 300,000 years old somehow, and again I could be mistaken and completely wrong, it was in yahoo news is where I saw it.

Now some common understandings and beliefs in science really confuse me and this may be pure ignorance and I really really do ask for your pardon, but stated in the big bang theory, it clearly accepts that out of nothing came something? Doesn't that defy the law of energy, where energy can neither be created nor destroyed and same for mass? Where did the energy required even mass come from? Again PLEASE forgive my scientific ignorance, there may have been a response to this and would really love to hear it, knowledge is power!

Another thing that confuses me is how is it that the earth, placed on such a perfect degree as so are the other planets that they fail to collide together, even though nature as we know it is quite random, especially the big bang made it really random.

This may be not so astronomical but why are we the "dominant" creatures living on this planet, although we posses all the animalistic instinct and urges we tend to posses a sense of creativity and yearn to explore and experience, rather then just focus on eating and sleeping and "mating" (which can be the lifestyle of many people)? Many animals posses great intelligence such as the simple bird when building a nest or a dog who can identify if his master is in danger.

By the way, you mention something about the garden of eden, and was asking where did we know that. According to tradition, Moses was the first to write the actual book of the old testament, using past down tradition and I guess talking to god, he gained the wisdom to write down what was needed to be written, I know people in general, can greatly underestimate tradition which is passed down verbally but I can assure you some things get lost in history but some orally past down traditions were carefully passed down to the letter, and I can't prove that but I can almost guarantee it.

I know you probably think Religious people can be quite ignorant, which can definitely be true, but I remember that there was the school of alexandria which was a theological school around the second century till the arabs invaded Egypt and destroyed the Library of Alexandria (mistaking it for one big christian library) and the school of alexandria which was greatly associated with the library thus the misconception of the arab invaders, the main things they would learn in that school is math and sciences, particularly Astronomy, while also studying philosophy. They would study religion along side math, science and philosophy.

Again I'm sorry Ian1108 as using you as my focus point, but I meant no insult to you or anyone else, this post is clearly to state my opinion and belief on your post and the general subject. And please forgive my ignorance. There will probably be more that I wanted to post but will forget, aww well.

It disgusts me how I can never wait to speak and barely listen to what people say, I always wait for my turn to talk. Ian1108 I didn't read your full post till now. If its alright with you, I would like to, in my best ability, to explain to you what the Bible clearly states, because to me it seems you may have skimmed through it or are not fully familiar with it.

WARNING, this post may be to religious so if you're not even interested just don't read it. no offense taken, and hopefully none caused.

Now when you mention that God only spoke on one language, and didn't focus on all people such as native Americans, It might be correct to mention how the Bible now is in nearly every language. Now the question as why Christianity didn't come to the new world as soon as it was preached is Gods wisdom, which may sound religiously cliche.

When you state someone was at great power must have written the bible, According to Christian belief, Jesus Christ was born to a simple family whose guardian was a carpenter and mother was a simple woman who used to serve the temple. How can an individual from such humble beginnings and no education become suddenly unimaginably wise and giving people a more human way of living. One thing I believe is that people in ancient days were not stupid at all, nor were they as ignorant as we think, for crying out loud, look at the societies and empires they developed, some of the math and philosophy we learn today were developed even before Greek times in such places as Egypt, and Mesopotamia, I'm pretty sure you had know "Pythagorus" Theorem to build the pyramids, which were built thousands of years before Pythagorus birth and around 5,000 years from today.

When you mention that failure to follow the laws written in the bible would result in the eternal burning, you forget to mention what those laws are. Usually they consist of no murdering, no rape,no theft, and to love God. What's scary is we think these things should be laws, and how RIDICULOUS that thought is that essential human rights should be laws, If someone raped me or killed me, shouldn't he be punished for that, and hopefully I can find the power to forgive and forget and for the one who victimized me realize that he did a mistake by violating my human rights or as some believe "these laws". Now this subject is really complicated religiously, why God treated mankind different in the old testament and treated us different in the new testament, and would be willing to explain if you are willing. So to say Jesus Christ is a cruel god or unfair, is kind of like saying a murderer should go to heaven, what's fair is fair, and hopefully you hope that person will regret and become good again then he/she is forgiven. Think of the court system but without the corruption, the ability to really know the truth, with infinite mercy.

Its hard for me to explain this but I hope it gets through. Almost everybody asks, why did God create us even if he knew we would disobey him and even curse him? Why do we humans and animals feel the urge to reproduce? We all know children are a complete alteration of a lifestyle, they cry and are extremely demanding, and its completely not based as an economic decision at all! So why are we so in love with having children, do we love the way we look so much, or do we just want that experience? Why do we just want that experience??? WHY? I feel God encoded in us simple things to help explain his wisdom using our human nature.

Im sorry for this and if you got this far, I hope I opened your spectrum of knowledge a bit on this subject, and again forgive my ignorance and anything I said to offend.

Ian1108, Love your comments bro. Especially the quote regarding ashes.

The problem with religion is that it requires the belief that a supernatural being came from nothingness and has some grand plan that he wants to obliquely put forth, instead of the universe did the same thing sans the super-natural angle/plan.

People wanted to understand how things worked and gods and religions helped us with those questions. We now understand that we can use science to do the same thing, and get more correct answers. We don't need religion. Religion is about control,and fear, and asking for what you have, and never having to deliver on their promises.

Religions make people do the right things for the wrong reasons, and the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

I used to be a "believer" once and never thought i would ever be a "non-believer". I couldn't stand the close-mindedness and intolerance that comes with religion anymore. Many things never did make sense to me and I tried to just believe.

The debate between science vs. religion will never end. Religion operates on emotion and emotion is a very strong force that can alter perception and reasoning. I find science to have much more humility than religion, that is, science is receptive to be proven wrong with evidence.

Religions will continue to increase in sects because of differences in interpretation, i.e. many sects of christianity. How do you accept pre-marital sex is a sin (condemned to hell) and condemn those who do it, yet, when you commit the sin, you go back to the same bible that condemns it and find interpretation that say you can still go to heaven. Once again, believers will interpret whatever fit what they need in different situations. If god is all knowing, then why did he create sinners who are going to hell anyways? isn't that a waste of resources?

"Did god created man, or man created god?" unknown

I was intrigued by this phrase "when it makes truth claims without evidence".

The truth was explained clearly in the Gospel. If you cannot find the truth in the Gospel then you are not the only one, even Pontius Pilate ask "What is truth?" So,please study the gospel and hope that one day, the true meaning of the Word shall set you free and make you understand the Truth. The evidence you are looking for are all around you, as written in the Gospel.

For those who claims they know the truth, I hope you can understand the meaning of this sentence, "For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away."

If you cannot understand this sentence then you have to consider the alternative logic that you might be biased against the truth. For this reason, there is no way for you to find the truth or the evidence in the Gospel.

Im agnostic but i see the points made by both sides. Religion is what people use to make up for things they dont understand, science is providing evidence to show why things do things we didnt understand before. Although i have a strong belief that people should believe in a religion that benifits the world(exanple- the ten commandments are things everyone should follow) not have no faith in anything.

You know, I really don't care where I came from. I'm just glad someone figured out how to pour hot cheese over tortilla chips.

This is to the people who say viruses evolved yes they did, but notice it is evolved with a SMALL e which evolution of this form occurs all around us. Everything around us adjust to its surroundings, its all in the DNA. Using the virus example if it is in a colder area the next generation will be born with cold resistance if there environment heats up then the next generation will be heat resistants. The evolution you are referring to is Evolution which is the theory that all these small changes could ad up into a perminite change in the species. This we have never seen before ever. So as of yet NOTHING HAS EVOLVED but Everything has evolved.

I have way to many points to try and rebuff in one comment, but I will suggest that most of you helped prove my point about religion, you change what was written down as seven days of creation to possibly or maybe 7 epochs of creation, why because as I stated earlier, science changes on observation and religion changes on convenience. Thats the beauty of the vaguely worded bible, it can mean anything you want it to, somebody else will tell me it's 600 000 years or it was 60 years or whatever time frame and manor suits their own personal arguments. As for the bible being available in every language, sure now it is, the Mayans of Meso-America sacrificed people or "murdered" them to appease what they believed was god, without the scriptures how were they to know that was against the "real" gods way.
Remember everyone I have not said that there can be no god, I must acknowledge the fact that as I said earlier he can be neither proved or disproved. I disagree with people diluting themselves into thinking they somehow commune with god, or the people who wrote the scriptures did. Give me a break, thats the oldest trick in the book, priests and big men throughout history have always taken that approach because it elevates them above those who they mean to rule. I honestly am not going to sit here for hours endlessly debating but if you read what I already said and understand it then I really don't need me to. Antoher quote perhaps " I cannot believe that the same god that endowed us with reason and intellect intended us to forego their use."

There will never be another solution to this debate as both people think they are right and yet none can approve the other!!!!! sorry to say but this a pointless debate

there is no point in talking about viruses and evolution when experiments have still not found that connection,.

Somehow it is hard for some people to connect the dots.

How old do you guys think the religion is? (I am not just talking about Christianity. You should look at the essence of religion; believing in one God and avoidance of idolatry and sin)

According to Bible and Quran there have been prophets on earth since the beginning starting with Adam.
Especially in Quran it is mentioned that aside from the 5 prophets there had been hundreds of thousands of messengers. (Read the footnote)
So there was guidance for people all thought out history. It is just the human nature to ignore and not believe in things are contrarily to ones beliefs.

Anyways, religion is thousands of years old, and the last was about 1400 years ago.

Now what I want you guys to know is that how else god was supposed to relay a message to his creatures without making their small brains to short circuit once they know about the universe.

Do you think god 2000 years ago could have told people about the evolution, the idea that humans, for example, evolved from apes?! And expect people to start believing?
Humans were ignorant at those times, still many many are at the 21st century.
People tortured the prophets just because their ideology and beliefs were different from the norm. Now imagine prophets would have told the common men about the evolution, science and universe….
If that happened my guess would be that people would either start worshipping apes or they would kill the prophets on site.

If god started talking about atoms and quantum physics do you think anyone would have understood?
Instead, god explained to men the simplified version of the law of the universe, which he created, so that anyone from a 3 year child to an illiterate 90 year old human could understand.
Adam and Eve, Heaven and Hell, good vs evil, souls, good deeds vs bad deeds….all of those are simplified versions of much more complex events.

When it comes to religious beliefs it is the interpretations that should surface. It is up to people which version to believe. If you know science well then you can interpret religion through it, to some degree. But don’t expect science to have all the answers. Our knowledge is still primitive. We still got a long time to go.
Compare the the age of earth, billion of years, to the time humans have been on earth, merely tens of thousands! Now imagine how much knowledge we can acquire if live on earth for some million of years; if we don’t exterminate our race by our own hands, that is.

So what is the real interpretation of religion beliefs?
I don’t know. We could all have our own interpretations.

What is a soul? Where does it come from? Is soul tangible? Is is matter?
What about Dark matter? Could souls be the mysterious dark matters?
It was until recently that we discovered the dark matter. What if there different types of matter.
Or maybe there is another matter called white matter which souls are made of!
That could make to normal matter/dark matter/ and white matter, white matter being the smallest and the most undetectable matter which constitute less than a billionth of all the matters in the universe.

There are still lot of unanswered question..
What is life? How do you define life?
Do sperms have life? Do seeds of the trees have life in them?
Is life the same as the will? What is soul?
Could souls evolve too?
Could souls be some type of matter?
What is heaven and hell? Maybe heaven and hell are not places… but they are different states/types/phases of matter…

Another thing is that we are still now sure what we are doing on earth. What is the faith of men and why are we here? But one thing we are sure is that god doesn’t want to spoil it for us. He doesn’t come out and share the knowledge. He tells us to seek the knowledge ourselves instead. So don’t expect god spoil it and tell us how the universe operates or tell us all about the evolution. Those are the knowledge that we have to obtain ourselves.

Footnote from Wiki:

Muslims regard Adam as the first prophet and Muhammad as the last prophet; hence Muhammad's title Seal of the Prophets. In Islam, Jesus is regarded as a nabi and a rasul because he received wahi (revelation) from God, through which God revealed the Injil (Gospel) to him.[1] Muslims believe that God has sent over 124,000 messengers all over the world as mentioned in the Sahih Hadith. Five (sometimes known as Ulul Azmi or the Imams — i.e. leaders — of the Rasuls) are accorded the highest reverence for their perseverance and unusually strong commitment to God in the face of great suffering. These five are Nuh (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Isa (Jesus), and Muhammad.

124,000 messengers with different messages, great thats an easily understandable way to inform everyone. How do you know these were messengers from god, and why tell small groups of people at a time? Surely he could have laid down one precise, easily understood set of rules for all to follow from the beginning of time. He didn't have to explain everything, he doesn't now anyway. So why follow these religious texts that contradict each other, Jesus was either just a prophet or the son of god not both, you either worship him as the son of god or you don't. Did god introduce to Muhammad the idea of the Jihad? That even though god created the universe he needs mere mortals to carry out his bidding, as if he couldn't just send down a lightning bolt and smyte those who oppose him. If he didn't explain evolution to those people 2000 years ago because they were too ignorant to understand then why did he give his teachings in a cryptic fashion to those who are obviously too ignorant to understand today? If they weren't then we would all follow the same set of rules.

And these assumptions drive me nuts! God doesn't want to spoil it for us? Who told you that, YOU MADE IT UP. He tells us to seek the knowledge ourselves? He didn't tell me that, I must have been in the can when he dropped into my living room to inform me. Luckily though some other guy heard it 1500 years ago and wrote it down, he must have been more deserving of the complete truth than I. This reminds me of the telephone game that kids play where the message starts out with "red bike" and goes around a circle and comes out "purple monkey dinosaur". The problem with religion is precisely that anyone from a 3 year old child to the illiterate 90 year old man does NOT understand his teachings, that is why history is strewn with holy wars since the beginning.

So where are our prophets today? Surely with greater understanding of the world god could clear up a few things for us now, that would be nice. Maybe send us down an internet version of his teachings, ya know The Commandments version 2.0.

The avoidance of idolatry and sin is common, but what is considered sin has varied widely over that time. Sin is simply what is outlawed by a particular religion at a particular time. I also dislike the implied notion that if you don't follow an organized religion you are somehow morally bankrupt. There is no need to read the Quran or the Bible to know not to harm people, in fact more people have been harmed because of those books. Is it because people don't understand them? Then god should make man understand, he is all powerful remember. With the alternative to not understanding being eternal damnation then I think he owes us the chance to make an informed decision on our behavior.

How can god be all powerful if Satan exists? Just eliminate him, his original intention according to the adam and eve story was to let us live in paradise, so why not now? Why make a man with the capacity to make mistakes and then put the path to eternal damnation in front of him? If I bring a dog home, and leave meat in a bag on the floor, who is to blame when I come home to find it strewn about the living room? MYSELF!

To lan1108

I like the fact that it does seem through your comments that you are researching the reason for your existence. It does come off though that you are like many people researching with a bias. Are you looking at both sides of the coin in comparable depth. Your right not to want to list all the debates over evolution which is just one of many debates. It is too much material and people should "look it up". But you did state a couple problems you had with Christian beliefs.

I am being carefull to not go too much in depth on these questions/answers becuase the topics are to broad to be fully discussed. If it leaves someone to speculate or need further information, then do that. Research it.

1. no one can disprove or prove God? I half agree.
It is left up to each individual to decide for himself. I believe God wants us to chose him, and what Kind of choice would it be if He made himself blatantly obvious or completely absent. Personally though I believe there is much to prove his existence.
2.Can anyone or anything be a god? Sounds like your veering towards pantheism here and I would definitely say no. Can anyone you know create a universe?
3. Does the bible benefit preceding generations? Yes, Old and New Covenents/ Old and New Testiments. People though living pre Christ were able to be saved too.
4. Many gods before christianity. True, but look at the sources on how these religions came to be and some facts about them. It becomes clear that a lot of them are easily proven to be false ideology.
5. Man is condemned to Hell. (Your quote about mans creation from dust) No, That is just not true. Man believe it or not chooses his destination though his beliefs. What good is free will if we didn't have the right to chose. Otherwise we would be like machines or robots and they don't have free will. Our choice to choose God is worship and he honors our choice by following through with what we choose.
6. Lack of Evidence for God. I would say look around. Look how precise our environment is. How our earth works. Its placement in the Universe. We are on the perfect galaxy, on the perfectly sized placed and so on planet, with the perfect sun. Some would consider these things circumstantial but when studied the probability is astronomical.
7. Religion and religious people assume to know everything then adapt if they are wrong. I also personally hate it when someone assumes to know everything about a subject. There is just to much to know. But I think this happens in all walks of life, on all kinds of debates not just religious ones. I would also add that the opposite is true about science and religion. As time goes on science continually advocates religion. Where religious ideas seem to go astray is human error and bad human interpretation. Our minds are finite and the material is too overbearing and substantial for any one to never be wrong or vis versa always be right. More information is needed and subject by subject debates will always rage continuing in absence of perfect certainty based on opinion and interpretation.

I still would challenge anyone to keep studying though and form a solid opinion with good logic and fact, but be flexible knowing that because we are human we are subject to human error and bias.

Even though the task is overbearing and extremely critical to our lives. I have found more and more comfort in my choice by challenging myself to continually study.

lnwolf41.Regardless of your personal belief,most have some form of all powerful being. we have the laws of gravity,motion,mathmatics,energy,.... who do you think set the laws up for us to discover?

To ask "Does science obviate religion?" assumes that theistic religion holds a respectable position which is capable of being obviated. This simply isn't true.

No rational basis for theistic religion, in any sense, has ever been put forward. So I, as should scientists everywhere, find it intellectually demeaning that the above question is even being considered a valid one.

First show us that ANY god exists. Only then will it NOT be a complete waste of time to hold the discussion about what consequences exist.

Okay here we go again
1 Prove or disprove god- if you make a choice with no evidence you have neither proved or disproved.
2 Can anyone be a god- Prove that I didn't create the universe, it's the same argument.
3 Precedeing generations-Well that is very nice of god, or the person who wrote that in the bible, I guess we'll never know.
4 Many Gods- Who decided they were a false ideology, they didn't think so at the time. I think christianity is false ideology.
5 Condemned to hell-Free will, maybe, but the creator of the universe and of time surely knows what that choice will be. I would not put my child in a position where the consequences were so dire if I could help it, thats real love.
6 Lack of Evidence- Everything around us is perfect to us because we evolved to suit it. Venus would work perfect to an organism that ate molten sulpher. Astronomical chances become inevitable when there are literally trillions of planet/ star combinations in the universe.
7 I do not know everything about the universe either, far from it, I have to often make choices on things that are not clearly laid out for me or do not have complete evidence. Yet the tool that I do possess is reason, and I have to make educated guesses to fill in the gaps, religion fails on so many points of reason, that while I cannot disprove it I will place my bet against it.

I do not wish to be on the attack, but inevitably I must while political leaders, military leaders and others in power use what is clearly a concept on shaky ground to be a basis for their decisions. These decisions affect billions of people, and while I would prefer to stay out of the way, I will play the devils advocate to illustrate the point. Let reason prevail and if there is a god, then as the benevolent creator of all, he will understand in the end, you don't have to worship, you don't have to fight, and you can acknowledge concepts that may stray from your accepted doctrine if reason allows. If he made you then you are already doing what he intended. I have a wrist cramp now thanks.

"124,000 messengers with different messages?"
Different messages? There was NO different messages. They were all saying the same thing. Sure, there have been slight difference in details, but they were all basically saying the same thing.
But don't forget all these messengers were living in different times, different locations, and living in different cultures.
Even today you can not talk to people from different cultural backgrounds and expect them all to understand you exactly the same. This is one basic rule in operating a global business today.
That’s why these religions have very slight difference in details.
But in my opinion you can define religion in one page…or even in couple paragraphs, and that is what is common to all of these religious beliefs. You don’t need to read a couple thousand page book to be religious. And most importantly you don’t even need to have a religion to be religious or be a good person! Religion helps people by teaching them how to control their self centered egos, their animal instincts, and their hunger for pleasure.
Religion basically says: do good deeds, don’t do bad deeds. Respect others. Treat other well. Don’t want things (or do things) for others which you do not want for yourself.

Also lot of stuff you are told about religion is not true. There is lot of Mumbo Jumbo in the religion that just came from bad practices, and just simply has been past down generations.

As I read more and more comments there is a common theme here. lan1108 I think you play a good "devils advocate role" what I mean by that is I don't think your hiding your position on this debate. Just that you spend more time trying to debunk and christian ideas or naming more debatable subjects pertaining to religion. I have not really seen you or anyone really try and make to much of a case for science in the sense that it opposes religion. The debated case is religion is in opposition to science and no one is arguing the science thus it make religion out to be inferior. Now that I don't like no one has seemingly given the notion that they work in concordance with each other.

Yes a lot of the bible is up for interpretation but that doesn't mean it is wrong just sometimes if certain subjects are not studied carefully enough that will happen. People are human and our ideas are limited by our humanity.
But the same is true in the ideas of philosophies of science. In know that this is not a very current example but it is still a good one. The earth was once considered to be scientifically proven to be flat (and that adaptation was on more information needed by limited research ability). Science can adapt to further given information without any seeming consequence, why can't religious interpritaion in an individuals quest for knowledge also change.
Note when reading this I said individuals interpretation because I believe there is an absolute truth, but from an individual standpoint, individuals will always be wrong in some aspect of some debate. The more an individuals learn the more they grow and learn shaping there interpretations a little crisper and bringing clarity to there mind on issues. Religion is not perfect by any means thus the different sects of religion, but there is an absolute truth out there. Also in saying these things that even though people have different opinions on the minute details of religion a lot of the core values of many churches and organizations are very similar and have not changed through time.
The same seems to be true about science, in that it changes as more information comes along. But the changes are in a different way. It is not an individuals ignorance, it is a hypothesis or theory that many people take for fact that changes.
One last thing I would say is that a lot of so called churches have really strayed from any form of truth or logic based upon someones interpretation. I don't mind little debates but some church sects take a personal interpretation to the extreme then corral a lot of people to there cause.
Keep in mind it is not always this way. The core of Christian beliefs is very solid and has very factual and logical foundations.

YES a lot of different messages, and not slightly different, some of them a polar opposites. Some say eating pork is a sin, others say do not kill period, while others say eye for an eye, some do not condone adultery while others advocate polygamy. These are not minor details but glaring contradictions.
If religion teaches to control self centered egos, then how can the pope sit all powerful like a king at the center of the catholic universe? Control animal instincts like cleaving a mans head off with an axe for control of a holy city?
Not to mention their hunger pleasure, isn't religion the pursuit of unlimited pleasure in the afterlife, 70 virgins, that kind of pleasure? I am not told these things about religion, I witness these things about religion. Please tell me that these are only perversions of religion, yeah, heard that before.

If you want to believe in God, Great! No problems here, but as I said earlier and this pertains to science and religion was that they do conflict, that is what the enlightenment was about. Casting off superstition and ignorance to better the self and the human race through observation and reason. Science and god do not conflict but science and religion do.

Yes religion is not all bad, teaching to love your fellow man is a great concept and the reason the major religions agree is because it is common sense. Another reason that they agree is that religion was created in lawless times where control of large areas could not be enforced, the solution was to make people fear retribution in the afterlife or give great reward in heaven and have them police themselves. Another fabulous benefit was that people fought a lot harder and died in battle if they thought they would go to heaven for it, such a great benefit that is still widely used today.

Lan1108
Don't forget that I like the fact it seems you have definitely given some thought to these matters. But it is not enough to just bring up the other side of the debate a lot of people can do that. It is not enough to know the debate itself but I think you must research more on these topics. Spouting on a given side just proves you know another question, loophole, or idea that needs to be explained. The comments given as a rebuttle are not themselves an absolute answer it goes deeper. I have heard those arguments too but trust me even after that other issues are raised and it continues. I just hope readers don't suppose there aren't answers to you objections. We can point to point debate forever. But moreover I would just hope the readers would not be completely biased towards one side of researching. Yes know the debate, know both sides but don't just use your knowledge to try and prove your side. I wish debates were more about reaching clarity on given subjects rather than band wagoning and personal pride.

The questions are the point, though, if religion is the answer to mans existence then it should provide answers, it doesn't. People on the religious side are quite
vocal on their opinions and never seem to be challenged. Just look at the postings, even though I am one of the only ones advocating my side their are many people who agree and say nothing. That is why I raise the questions, right now there is an election going on where it would be suicide to admit you weren't
a god fearing flag waver. Those who refuse to accept the smoke screen of religion are excluded, as if we couldn't possibly be competent. When I pose questions I expect answers because people use religion to make decisions on how to run their lives and others. If a religious president is elected then he may declare war on a country based on religious doctrine. If it wasn't this way I could let it go but it is forced on those who do not accept it, maybe not always in a direct fashion but it does happen. 9/11 had a direct impact on me and it sprang from religion, perversion of it or not. People are rarely killed in the name of evolution.

The great debate! This one will be settled but not by man.

An Atheist believes there is no God therefore his mind is closed to arguments or statements to the contrary. They often respond in anger or result to angry arguments (anger is a reaction to fear, in this case the fear that he is wrong). He/She relies on science to answer Why – How – Who which science cannot do as true science is agnostic in that it only deals with empirical data.

A Religious believes he knows the answer to Why – How – Who close minded to and threatened by information that appears contrary to his belief. They often respond in anger (the fear is that the atheist is right and maybe there is no God).
An argument between these two is untenable. Both sides ultimately relent to volition and close their minds while blaming the other for being close minded. They sling clever lines or hurtful statements or walk away in disgust.

The one who Knows God and is Known by God understands these things and does not waste time in argument. He/She takes pleasure in the discovery of the things God has hidden. “it is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of man to seek it out”. The foundation of science was built by men and women who understood this. Not by lost people who desire to prove their own.
The beauty is that there is truth, and it is Truth that sets man free. Seek Truth vs validation, seek Truth vs Ego seek Truth above all else and it will be revealed to you. Do not for an instant be so arrogant as to think you know lest you die ignorant and alone.

If you replace the word god with "Invisible Pink Unicorn" in all of the comments they will make as much sense. Religion is there to keep people under control, nothing more. Nation states took over the role for a while and there was a movement to separate the church and state.. but now big business has taken over.
Evolution is not a joke, and it's not open to discussion, it's fact, it's observable, TB has evolved to become immune to the same medicines we used to kill it in the 70's. Humans, reptiles etc. are all multi cellular organisms and therefore evolution will take much longer to be visible. If you fully understand the theory of evolution you will know that it's not something that happens in one generation, but over millennia. There are gaps in the fossil records yes but those gaps are due to the way in which fossils are created, nothing to do with the Invisible Pink Unicorns intervention.
I can't believe that in a world so full of knowledge that seemingly intelligent people still believe in one God.
This should not be a debate about science v's religion, it should be a debate about science v's fairytale... just because there is no evidence of God doesn't mean that he exists and no matter what way you choose to interpret the Bible remember that it's an interpretation, that's not to say it's a book of actual facts. It's amazing how religiously inclined people "interpret" the Bible when it suits them but quote it word for word when it suits them too. Science isn't open to interpretation, science is fact, it's about time churches were disbanded and Science was given it's rightful place at the top of the pecking order. I think we'd all benefit from an hour of a science lesson every week rather than an hour's exposure to the worlds greatest fairytale... seriously religion is a joke, it has no place in the 21st century

Photo Phinish are you the one who knows god? What a mighty responsibility and lofty perch you sit on, how futile and trivial our pursuits must seem to you as you gaze from the perch of enlightenment. Please do not take a stance as this might require you to be thrust from the heights into the mass of confused ignorance that lies below.

There are people who site the Bible as proof for the Bible. There are many people who believe in science because they are told the science encompasses all. A large portion of people who have a strong opinion seem to be stubbornly unopen to critic. I have an opinion on the matter, but I will not state it. Research has shown that simple fact correction merely reinforces faulty reasoning.

However, I will state that this is NOT an argument of religion vs. science. Science covers only that which can be empirically proven, and therefore is not at all related to the basis of religion. After all, it is absolutely impossible to scientificly prove that George Washington was the 1st president of the United States. It is really an argument over wether the driving force in the universe was some kind of intelligent being or random forces acting on chance.

As i have stated, fact correction merely reinforces fallicious reasoning. Instead I will try to present the arguments as I have heard them from competent individuals on each side.

A:There is no proof that god exists, so ther is no reason to believe in him. I could say that there is a flying noodle monster. Just because there is no proof against it doesn't mean that it exists.
T:The proof is that there is design. If you look at a clock, you wouldn't say that it was formed by the wind and the rain. You would say that there is a designer. Also, since it appears that the universe has design, you have the burden of proof by suggesting that the universe was created by random chance. Besides, since the universe is expanding, it shows that there must have been a begining. That which has a begining must have a beginer. Therefore the universe must of had a beginer. This beginer would have to exist outside the realm ofspace and time in order to begin the universe. That is where God comes in.
A:We merely see a design because we exist, it appears that the conditions for life are perfectly met. If we hadn't have come into existence, then there wouldn'tappear to be design. There could be an infinite number of universes. ours just happens to be the one with life. The universe could merely be just one in a series of collaspsing and expanding universes, each with their own physics. Life is so complex because the more elegant and efficient crreatures survived.The universe doesn't have to be designed to appear designed, therefore you have the burden of proof.
T:But the universe itself has many qualities that if changed at all, would cease to allow any existence of anything. The entire universe is specifically designed for life. The proposal that there aare multiple universes is impossible to test because of its very essence. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that there are multiple universes. Since there is evidence of a designer, suggesting that there isn't a designer is clearly the more absurd argument. (Evidence doesn't have to be scientific. It is commonly historical or based on logic.)

Okay, I don't want to write more than two questions per side on each topic so moving on:

T:How in the world can evolution occur? I have heard many forms of evolution used interchangeably so that there seems to be no concrete definition. What i am refering to is masive speciatation. Natural selection allows those with the most beneficial gametic traits to survive. However, it does not create new structures. It merely selects from existing ones. Meanwhile, mutation is basically a copying error. Almost all mutations are harmful, and the majority of nonharmful mutations are nuetral. I understand that given enough time, something like a smaller forehead could develop, but it seems that mutations merely changeexisting structures. They don't create new information.
A:You are right in saying that these things have to occur over time. Evolutionisn't a line. It is a squiggle. Some things may arise that are slightly different from an existing structure. Eventually the environment changes, and the animal must change as well. A new structure then forms that is slightly different from the second one. As millions of these changes acrue, new structures or qualities arise. Anexcellentexample is the evolution that occurs in bacteria every day that wield antibacterial resitant strains.
T:The bacterial mutations are effective because antibiotics work by inhibiting one of the structures necessary for reproduction or survival. The mutations, using laymens terms, screw up these structures. Since the structures are already faulty, the substance that would usually spell the germ's demise doesn't work. This leaves normally inferior bacteria as the dominant lifeform in the affected environment. If the healthy bacteria were reintroduced, then they would most likely outcompete the mutants for resources. What I meant with my earlier question was that some structures simply couldn't evolve gradually. Take a mousetrap for example. If you don't have the whole thing, then it is usless. You can't expect to catch a mouse with a spring and a block of wood. You can't expect to have an optic cell with just a membrane and and a mitochondrian. You can simplify almost any large structure, but eventually you may get down to something that is simply too complex to arise in one mutation, yet too simple to be brokendown into more simple structures. In Darwin's day, the cell was unknown. They thougth that the cell was simply a blob of goo with limitless potential. Now that we have a better understanding of of DNA, we can see that there isn't limitless potential for natural selection. Darwin himself admitted that if a structure was found that couldn't develop with small gradual changes was found, then his theory would be moot. I simply don't see how some structures like the flaggelum or sexual reproduction could have developed. I can see why (how they are beneficial), but not how (how the structures actually would have arisen.)
A:The structures arise because they are beneficial (as you said). The fact that these structures are incredibly complex doesn't mean that they couldn't arise eventually. Anything is possible given enough time.
T:So a dishwasher could form out of a cloud of metalic dust?
A:You're speaking out of turn.
T:Sorry. I'm just tired.
A:yeah, me too

Well, that's all for now. The point of doing both sides is not to avoid offending someone. It is because fact correctionputs someone on the defensive.This causes them to stop thinking clearly and resist logical arguments. Trying to ACCURATELY depict both sides can challenge the reader to think openly. Therefore it is a muchmoreeffective persuasion tool in my opinion.

That was very well done, I suppose I would be the A. Hearing it put like that does persuade me more effectively, I am now an even bigger A. This is where the T comes in and says "yeah A stands for A#*hole" and we all have a good laugh. Seriously though as good as that comment is, I by my argumentative nature have a hard time not taking a position, it is very diplomatic but I find it not very satisfying. Sitting on the fence is great but as much as you'll never be wrong, you'll never be right either. I like to take the chance that I may be wrong but push forward an idea rather than have it stagnate. Take a chance and pick a
side, it's fun, unless you are scared to join me in Hell.

To Maven. I am a person who believes in whats right and good and pleasing to everyone else. It happens to make me live in happiness. Coincidence? Well I can tell you that the people who don't care about others are the ones that make decisions like you say. They are the ones who created Science Vs Religeon. Do these people think that Christians don't believe in science? No. What motive then?

I really enjoy the topic on debate, but this is ridiculous. This debate so far has not been about reaching a conclusion or clarifying given information. It has just been about winning or defending. Does anyone really care to find out the truth or is it more important to prove yourself on online post. I have already stated it is to much material to debate online, with to many aspects, and to many case and points. Seriously we haven't even touched the subject, unless you want an unbelievably long and comprehensive post. We have not even (really) touched on the issues of;
cosmology
geology
historical records (verification of sited information is it viable reliable information)
archeology
biology
Philosophy (which I consider a certain science in that science has hypotheses, philosophy poses theories on asked questions)
physics
etc.
That still doesn't even touch it and those are broad subjects. So I would say stop trying to win an argument and concentrate your efforts more on being justified through time not in one debate.
I still challenge people to study without bias, which it doesn't seem like some of the posters have done. Seriously do your research because it has serious implications. Don't let ego get in the way.

Just like the rest of you I have an opinion ;)

First off, I don't really believe in god. However, there is insufficient evidence to rule it out.

When you boil it all down, it comes to one of the following two situations.
1) God created the universe, matter, everything we know. Whether he did it directly (poof, there is a human) or indirectly (setting up the stages for the big bang and/or evolution) is irrelevant.
2) Energy/Matter spontaneously came into being from total and complete vacuum (Assuming God doesn't exist).

Assuming #1 is true.
Who created God? How did he come to exist? Most people will tell me "He has always existed!"

Assuming #2 is true.
This is as unimaginable to me as God spontaneously coming into being from total and complete vacuum (or always existing which is the same to me). I have read some weird theories about particles that pop in and out of existence but I won't even begin to say I understand of believe it.

Therefore, I deduce that it is equally likely that God came to exist out of nothing as Energy/Matter came to exist out of nothing.

Although, I must admit. I would be pissed to find out there was a God. I mean hell, why should I have to believe something without some kind of direct evidence? Its kind of crappy that I have to go to hell (or simply be withheld from some reward) because I don't believe.

One other note. Someone once told me "I bet even if God showed himself right now and said. I am God. That I would not believe." I thought about it for a few minutes and I realized he was right. Even if God showed himself. I would put him through a hell of a lot of tests. I would make him teleport me here/there. Past/Future. All sorts of crazy stuff beyond the comprehension of our current science. But, at the end of the day, I would probably just assume he was some sort of advanced life form with scientific and technological understanding far greater than our own. I believe in science. God help me.

Last thing. Who cares what I think. If you believe in God and your a happy camper. Good! I love a good argument anyways :) But, I don't like the idea of indoctrinating kids into religion from birth. It's kind of cheating isn't it?

-- Mike

Thank you eat! You get my more subtle points from my last post. There really is no reason to debate online. It is impersonal and everyone subconciously equates everyone else to sniveling wombats bashing randomly on the key board while the spell-check makes a futile attempt to translate the mash into a coherent sentence. The only way to make any feasible attempt at convincing someone of something is by talking to them. You have to have a series of casual, calm, non argumentative descussions. Otherwise it puts someone on the defensive and closes their mind to reason. I was also trying to get the strawman users, like Ian to can it.

To mike, you also grasped one of my points. Science and religion are completely seperate. Science is empirical eveidence while religion attempts to explain where we came from and/or why we are here. This isn't the dictionary definition, but if you look at any religion, then you realize that this holds true. Naturalism and theism are both religions using that context. (although you did forget that a god or the God is supernatural, meaning above natural. Therefore the laws of time and cause and effect don't apply. Hence that particular argument is not effective against most theistic belief systems.)

I guess you guys jumped on here and didn't bother to read the other posts or you would see we covered this. It is amazing that even though you claim to be objective and rational you still come off just as smug and opinionated as the rest of us. If there is no reason to debate then why are you on here? You want to throw in your two cents like the rest of us so even though you take the middle ground don't act like it's not an opinion. I thought your rational approach was supposed to not people on the defensive, if anything it puts me more on the defensive because of the condescending tone that we couldn't possibly recognize the merits of the opposing sides argument without someone as wise as you to spell it out for us.

sorry. What I was trying to reiterate was that online forums are a horrible medium for discussion. I apoligize for the personal attack on ian. A strawman argument is an argument derived from listening to the worst representative of the other side of the argument. My use of cacaphonous language was quite tactless though. My pointing out that the creation of god argument was a faulty one is because I despise fallicous reasoning (such as the strawman argument). It just so happens that theism has more instances of that form of reasoning against it because naturalism is in school textbooks, and thus most people are familiar with it. This is because of the fine line between the sciences of natural selection, mutation, and speciation, and the religion of purely natural causes. I was merely suggesting that one should read some form of theistic literature before one points out the arguments against it. Also, I assure you that my tone was not intended to be condenscending. That really is how I talk. This would not be the first time that I have unintentionally insulted someone... and I hate wombats.

I don't understand the point of the debate. Are religious people somehow obligated to bring in converts? Why should we fill up heaven with a bunch of people who are so reluctant to believe in the first place? I say, leave me the elbow room. This ain't multi-level marketing.

You want to be a skeptic? Go for it. I will say one thing: if you don't believe in religion, then you're just substituting science for it. You're still not free of the irrational. Prove the Big Bang occurred, and not just something else that would have left the same cosmic signature. You can't. Prove Evolution is correct (not natural selection, that's obvious and not debated) by pointing out just one complete chain of fossil evidence wherein one species became another one (and please look up the meaning of "species" before you reply). You can't.

Believe what you want, just don't be hypocritical. Acknowledge that whatever you think, you're accepting it on faith. I'm fine with it, personally. But some of science's greatest minds (like Albert Einstein) were religious. Who am I to argue with that?

Chuck

Contentment is no measure of intelligence, mentally retarded adults are often quite content. They sometimes have a distinct world view that simplifies the world around them into an easy to understand metaphor.

Science discovers what it discovers. It is not limited to a previously mandated doctrine, and not subject to validation from anything other than proof. It sees fact as a series of proven concepts. This in no way disproves the existance of God. It merely shows that mortal man really hasn't acheived a perfect concept of God.

Science has shown the earth to be many millions of years old, not thousands of years. Science has shown that life didn't appear in it's present form in the blink of an eye. Science has shown that it is possible for man to leave the planet and travel to the moon. Science has shown definite genetic connections between the species of this planet. Science has shown man how to harness the power of the electron for use in everyday life. Science has shown many ways to use our understanding of physics to do many things that the biblical world wouldhave never conceived of in any other way than devine magic.

Science doesn't really obviate religion. Nobody has ever proven that the universe doesn't operate by laws created by God. Science does obviate dogma. It shows time and time again that man really doesn't understand the nature of God and how God's universe works. Man has come up with a pretty wide selection of fairy tales over the centuries to convince others of his own divine recognition, but when you get down to it they are pretty much fairy tales.

That being said, there is no future in trying to convince any person that has a deep need for religion that the teachings of that faith are part inspirational thoughts, and part self serving dogma designed to keep one entrenched and serving that religions cause. It's a complete waste of time.

An Atheist just has no god belief. The same way a Christian doesnt believe in the existence of say, Zeus, Odin, or Thor, Atheists just place the Abrahamic god at the top of the list. You are not required to have a god concept to be a scientist nor is a god concept needed to be educated in science nor do you need a personal idea of an inconceivable deity in order to understand science. The scientist does however have to observe the cosmos for what it is. When someone believes words written by men approx. 2000 years ago about their primitive understanding of natural phenomena and apply it to today's understanding it pales in comparison. I see the ancient doctrine as a old, out dated version of windows 95, and the scientific method as the vista or xp operating system. BTW the comparison of the pile of metal evolving into a car is just stupidity. A car is not a living organism. And the metal is not being used to build an organism. I cant stand how people like to put their creator in there as a gap filler. They still want to have the "watch maker" or now the cosmic mechanic as the craftsman when there is no need for it. If you lived 2000 years ago without the modern scientific method, how would you explain the natural processes observed with the naked eye? Religious doctrine could give you magical or vague explanations, or a shaman may tell you that an eclipse is their doing and that they will only bring back the sun if you sacrifice a child or animal to their deity to ensure a good harvest, they will not be educated by modern standards nor will they be an authority on any of the known facets of empirical inquiry. Notice how many old religious creation stories there are. One for every culture's creator god.

BTW...Your loving god killed more people in the bible than satan...

I'm an atheist and anyone around me who new me a little but not that, would NEVER know. That's because I still live my life by loving my neighbor and never wishing people harm. By having compassion for everything from the people who died in car accidents today, to the way a caterpillar turns into a butterfly. The difference is I don't need god in order assure myself that this is who I am every Sunday. I'm comfortable with the fact that I wont exist after I die. Does ANYBODY here remember where they were before they were born? Of course not, they didn't exist. Well we go to the same happy place when we die, non existence. The reason a God fearing person will never accept that, is because they believe in a spirit and soul. Well just because my brain has the ability to hold thoughts and recollect them, does not mean to me that I find myself so elite I must have been custom made by a god. Even my dog remembers me when I come home from work. I don't believe a soul is created when a fetus is made. I believe a work of organic art has naturally formed through a process that has been perfected over millions of years. Survival of the fittest, so please believers out there- stay in your house and pray me into believing, I'll be out skydiving while I still can.

I would like to Quote a few people on what they think about Religion, Science, Faith, and Evidence...

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."-Isaac Asimov
"If we see that a tree has been knocked down, we can explain it with a flying elephant.... but then we unexplain everything else we know." - Isaac Asimov
You will notice that in all disputes between Christians since the birth of the Church, Rome has always favored the doctrine, which most completely subjugated the human mind and annihilated reason. –Voltaire
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities. –Voltaire
God is that of a three-headed monster and to know this monster better, look at those who say they serve him, liars and hypocrites...-Thomas Jefferson
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." --Thomas Jefferson
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823 - Thomas Jefferson
"In the 'bullsh** department' a businessman can't hold a candle to a clergyman” -George Carlin
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile." -Kurt Vonnegut
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."-Napoleon Bonaparte, French emperor
“Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one.” – Richard Dawkins
'It is far better to grasp the universe as it is, rather than to persist in delusions, however satisfying and reassuring.''-Carl Sagan
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." ~Aristotle (384-322 BC)
“Why should I allow that same god to tell me how to raise my children, who had to drown all of his own?” – Robert G. Ingersoll
"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane." -Robert Green Ingersoll
“Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery.” Robert Green Ingersoll 1833-1899
Science is but an image of the truth.-Francis Bacon
Lighthouses are more helpful then churches. -Benjamin Franklin
Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions. - Blaise Pascal
Religion is regarded by the common people as being true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Edward Gibbon
"I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul.... No. All this talk of an existence for us, as individuals beyond the grave, is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life our desire to go on living … our dread of coming to an end.” Thomas Edison, American inventor (1847-1931).
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true."- Mark Twain
"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." - Mark Twain-Samuel Clemens
A belief, which leaves no place for doubt, is not a belief; it is a superstition. -José Bergamín
To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy -David Brooks
“I still say a church steeple with a lightening rod on top shows a lack of confidence.” – Doug McLeod
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” –Christopher Hitchens
“Contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. – Stephen Roberts
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.” –Douglas Adams
“I don’t feel obliged to believe that the same god that would endow us with senses, reason, and intellect, would forego their use.” Galileo 1615 AD
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"I think that naming your ignorance God and pretending that, having named it, you have converted ignorance to knowledge is a sorry approach to the unknown."...John Popelish
“I turned to speak to god, about the world’s despair; but to make matters worse, I found god wasn’t there” -Robert Frost
I believe, it’s hard to believe in a belief system making believers believe in make believe. -me

Man is a truly imaginative life form...here for a moment and gone, having accomplished nothing of value for the universe but imagines himself as being an Immortal. He is truly imaginative. Humans are very limited in our knowledge of our universe. We are barely down from the trees and we dare to claim we know the secrets of eternity. Theism is created by the deprived and wanting. It thrives amongst the needy and fearful. Unfortunately, the majority of mankind is involved. This is evidence of our infancy as a civilized species. We know the difference between hope and knowledge, we hope for happiness here, and we can wish for happiness hereafter, but we do not know for certain if there even is a hereafter. We cannot assert, we can only hope there is. We can imagine... so much invested in a dream… so much time and so many lives lost to it. A dream manifested for a small few, that’s a nightmare to everyone else.

More quotes:

Abigail Adams:

"A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest Man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society?....The Scriptures tell us "righteousness exalteth a Nation." ]

"The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but the God of Israel is He that giveth strength and power unto His people. Trust in Him at all times, ye people, pour out your hearts before him; God is a refuge for us."

John Adams:
""We...took our horses to the meeting in the afternoon and heard the minister again upon "Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." There is great pleasure in hearing sermons so serious, so clear, so sensible and instructive as these ...."

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

"Let them revere nothing but Religion, Morality and Liberty."

As President, John Adams Addresses the nation March 6, 1779:
"I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to his righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34)"

As the Declaration of Independence was being signed, 1776, Samuel Adams declared:

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."

Fisher Ames (Author of the First Amendment)

"Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble....In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith."

Abraham Baldwin (Founder of the University of Georgia)

"It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality, and early to place the youth under the forming hand of society, that by instruction they may be molded to the love of virtue and good order."

Alexander Hamilton

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

John Hancock

"In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off the impending Judgements....All confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that GOD who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness--and all created Power Vanity"

Patrick Henry ("give me liberty, give me death" guy)

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

For everyone saying Christianity came before so many religions it is flawed, Judaism has been around for along time my friends, and christianity evolved out of it after Jesus walked the earth.

So many people mindlessy eating the fruit

^^ I agree. But both Jews and Christians worship the same God - we just have different views as to how to worship Him, and different beliefs as to if Jesus truly was the Messiah. I think people also need to keep in mind that the entire Bible was NOT written 2000 years ago. The ancient Greeks wrote plays based on the events of the book of Exodus - proof that that book had been around for quite some time.

Seeing that religious study has been made into a science, I believe it to be apparent who the victor is in this debate and going forward.

As long as people are testing and recording and no religious dolts get in the way by destroying that information, which they have done before(several times), science will -eventually- find an answer. And if there is a deity, we will some day have a conversation with him through our own inventions.

-OR-

Confirm what many people are starting to believe, that there never was a supreme deity.

It takes some evidence to believe in something. Supreme beings are no different. The amount of evidence required to believe in something varies from person to person.

Science is expanding, and constantly refining itself.

Religion(s) isn't(aren't).

There will come a point when science can confirm the existence or lack there of a supreme deity. And since there is already enough evidence for an unignorable amount of these said people, it is just a matter of time before full conversion.

"As long as people are testing and recording and no religious dolts get in the way by destroying that information, which they have done before(several times), science will -eventually- find an answer."

It is quite funny to me - the entire world looks at business men and executives, CEOs, etc, and all agree that they are somewhat crooked - they are in it for the money. We say the same thing about many other professions - the entertainment industry: Why risk money on a new movie concept when they know that Shrek 39 will make them a gazillion dollars? But... everyone assumes that scientists work only for the people, that they are the most noble of workers, the most honest of citizens - everything they discover they will give to the people! They aren't in it for the money - NO! Now, I know that there are many, many scientists who are good people. I also know that there are many, many people who claim to be Christians who aren't - who use the church for power and glory, not the way they should.

I guess what I am trying to say is this: In both fields, science and religion, there will be nuts, fruitcakes, and all around jerks. There will also be extremely loyal and true people on both sides as well. But to think that all scientists are telling the truth about every scientific discovery...that is just preposterous.

All it takes is for one researcher, who is on a deadline to find some form of evidence before his grant money runs out...

Here come the flames...

I have heard alot of bold statements from both sides claiming to know all there is about what they believe. I am a seminary student working on my masters in Advanced Biblical Studies. I know I'm coming into the debate late, but I will answer questions for those that have them. Just ask one at a time. By the way Ian1108 is a very smart and reasonable person. He or she is very misguided as well. I welcome your critiques.

^^^ Hello. : )

I have a question: Do you believe in a literal 6 day creation, or do you believe that God used evolution in some form or other over a much larger time span? If the latter, how do you reconcile it with Romans 5:12?

Foyle, yes I do believe in a literal 6 day creation. Which I believe makes the earth between 6000 to 10000 years old (depending on how you take the data). Many have recently tried to say that it was not 6 days due to the science seeming to suggest that it could not be, but from the beggining it was assumed 6 literal 24 hour time periods. So, what about those stars billions of light years away? I think I can shed some light on this subject (no pun intended)Well, it is well known that our awsome solar system is very near to the center of the universe. You must understand creation in this way. When God spoke the words, "Let there be light" At that moment there came into existince all the matter that makes up the universe. This happened in an explosive way. Matter bursting fourth at the word of God. Even the Bible talks about the universe expanding. The reference is in Isaiah. So, that answers the cosmic microwave background question. What about star light? After all they weren't made until the fourth day. There has been lots of explainations as to how we can see stars so far away, such as God made the light in-transit. These types of assumptions don't really explain things to well. Here is my explaination. Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.
Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.” So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity. It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that’s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth’s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks. Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below. Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility. In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.

Very, very interesting. You obviously know your stuff, which is something I'm glad of. Many other Creationists are quite arrogant and un-intelligent in their comments (as in this newsvine discussion: http://jogreen76.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/10/1981672-creation-museum-d...), and so I thank you. Too many people who call themselves Christians but aren't, are making a tremendous negative stereotype for Christianity.

Very interesting. Unfortunately, our reputation as Christians is being severely demoted by other creationists (as in this newsvine discussion:http://jogreen76.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/10/1981672-creation-museum-draws-big-crowds). This angers, disappoints, and saddens me.

Why is this even an issue for anyone, going that far back everything is pure speculation. everything about where we came from is just another theory among a pile of theories. Some people choose the big bang for their explanation for others it's religion. But no matter what you choose NOTHING CAN YET BE PROVEN IF EVER.

Forgive me trueperspective for telling you how funny this sounds to me... Did you ever think that your just assuming they said it goes on for infinity? All I have ever heard is they can't see how far it goes on for, because we cant see any farther than what we can now. Your assuming that means it for sure goes on forever, and there are unlimited number of stars, when in fact they cant count them all because we cant see for forever ago. And one huge flaw in your interesting 'perspective' (pun intended, you'll get me soon..) of our universe, is this: You say that you MUST understand creation in the way that our solar system is very near the center of our universe. Well of course you do, because you take Edwin Hubble too directly, and of course would put yourself at the center of the universe again. To explain- The universe is NOT expanding from one center! As far as humans can determine, everything in the universe is expanding equally in all places. Which means that since everything appears to be expanding away from us, the same is true NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE! The big bang was not an explosion in space, it was an explosion of space. The CMBR (microwave radiation) is uniform in all directions. Proof that it is not matter expanding from one point, but instead space itself which expands evenly... Go back to school. Or at least check this out: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html