Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[Kiechi]

We need a debate and discussion forum.

[Mish]

Mish. My Government spends MY tax dollars to fund huge numbers of public & social assistance programs, education, & health care.

Your tax dollars primarily cover social infrastructure services such as prisons, police, fire department, medical services, military, other government services. Government is not primarily aimed at providing philanthropic relief or charity work. (Although there are a couple of services that they do cover). I'm not going to give you world wide statistic for how much all Religious organizations around the world give. But here is an example of just one Catholic organization in America (remember this is just the tip of the iceberg) [url]http://www.providencediocese.org/2008%20Catholic%20Charity%20Fund%20Appeal%20Im pact%20Brochure.pdf[/url]

Way more than any religious charity, possibly more than most of them combined (tho I don't have that data, so that's a guess).

Does your government spend tens of billions of dollars each year on charity and philanthropic activities? As well as provides hundredss of thousands of volunteers to help out people in need? I don't think so. Indi, I understand what you're trying to say, but the efforts of your government alone are nothing compared to the world of organizations that has billions of members and which support hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people around the world (if not more).

What I DO know is that My Government gives HUGE tax incentives to these organizations. In fact, they are tax exempt. Damn right they should be giving back. Bastards. Do you think that a scientists lab reagents are tax-free? Or the salary of their research assistants?

I think the fact that they receive huge tax incentives is justified by the fact that they give out a lot. You don't have to pay for these organizations, so why be angry at an organization that gets a tax breaks for providing community work? You could probably get the same if you joined one of them and provided to your community (btw)

[Tiay]

I'm sorry, I really did not mean to come off as rude.

this thread is getting a bit muddly, so I'll summarise the previous argument without like in a chat archive.

Tiay: My atheism is a realisation based on facts. therefore, not religion

Lilwing: no, it is a belief not a realization. You said atheism is science, which it is not.

Tiay: I still think it's a realisation based on scientific fact. I don't think atheism is a branch of science, though. It is just the realisation you reach based on science, that's what I meant.

hang on.. you said.. a belief is not a realisation. Hmm, this is making my brain tie itself in knots. A belief is not a realisation. Wait a sec. Isn't a belief what you get when you realise something? Let's say that lizards in the desert have been observed to be sand-coloured. Therefore, I believe that there are no green lizards in the desert. Science can't prove that there are no green lizards in the desert, after all, we could simply not have found them yet. But, science also has no shred of evidence for green lizards. Therefore, my belief that there are no green lizards is a reasonable belief based on science.

Same with religion. Science can't disprove god, but there also isn't a shred of evidence for his existence, therefore, my belief that there is no god is based on science.


-----

Tiay: so if a scientist came along and theorised "I think birds are descended from dinos thus we might be able to find a proto-dino-bird to prove it" he is religious.

Lilwing: No, dear. Please see my definition of religion. That has nothing to do with religion. That's a hypothesis. After you've found the 'proto-dino-bird skeleton' and other evidence to support your hypothesis, you come up with a theory based on observation of your evidence and whatnot.


Tiay: Ah, we have a misunderstanding on our hands methinks. The word theory is too vague. In my definition, a theory and a hypothesis are, for the purposes of this debate, pretty much the same thing. A proposed explanations for a phenomenon that can be proved (or disproved) by experiments. An apple falls, Newtons theory of universal gravitation explains it, yet gravity is not a religion. Or, a cheap shampoo works better than a brand name shampoo, and my x ingredient theory attempts to explain it in a provable way, yet cheap shampoo is not a religion.

a theory, however, can also mean an opinion or speculation that is not based on facts and that can not be proved or disproved. This is, I guess, the type of theory you meant. And yes, I guess a theory not based on facts, a theory that can't be falsified, that could be a religion... at least at the moment I can't think of a reason why it shouldn't be a religion.. or a "belief system".

------

tiay: In fact, you've just defined every scientist who's field is on the cutting edge (hence no proof of their theories yet) as religious. And as soon as their theory has proof, it stops being just a theory and thus the scientist stops being religious the second he lays eyes on the fossils he was looking for.
In fact, everything starts with a theory.

lilwing: Not necessarily. When a scientist states a theory about what was before, and/or what is after, it has the potential to be a religion. Because a theory is a theory, and not a law (Theories are not legitimate enough to be called "scientifically proven) if people choose to believe that according to the theory that's how everything is, then yes, that could account for a religion.

Did you know that a lot of theories are unsuccessful? It seems as though you neglected that thought.


Tiay: Good point. Of course, tons of theories are unsuccessful, that's obviously how we narrow it down to successful theories. I ignored unsuccessful theories because in order for a theory to be unsuccessful, it must be shown to be false, and if a theory can be shown to be false, that means it was a scientific, testable, falsifiable theory.

again.. if I theorise that cheapo shampoo is better than brandname due to x ingredient, I am not therefore religious! My brother just yesterday theorised that the car salesman who told him a false VR tax estimation for a car, despite my brother repeatedly explaining the proper math to him, was not doing so out of inability to understand math, but because he wanted to sell the car. Is that a religious theory? of course not. My point is everyone makes mundane theories like this, every day. Thus, under this definition of "theory", everyone would be religious. Or, are you saying that it's only a religious theory if it pertains to the creation/running/organisation/etc of the world, the meaning of life and other such "deep" stuff? But then it is equally valid to believe in the unicorn or the spaghetti monster as it is to believe in the big bang theory.

So, to avoid that, you can define theory as any opinion or speculation not necessarily based on facts, that is not falsifiable. But, then there is no such thing as an unsuccessful theory at all. You can't have it both ways.

What do you mean by "theories are not legitimate enough to be called scientifically proven"? some theories are. For instance evolution is a proven theory. Before it was proven, it was an unproven theory. That still doesn't make it a religion.

Actually, I do agree that even a scientific, falsifiable theory has the potential to become a religion. Take the bird-dino scientist. He proposed his theory, and stated how we could go about proving it, ie by finding the right fossil. The scientist knows he could be wrong. However, if the scientist believed with all his heart that this is how it happened despite him never finding the fossil, then I think it could possibly be called a religion. However, religion doesn't even try to prove itself. It is a not a "theory" by the definition of a theory as a proposed explanation for something that can be observed and tested. It is only a theory by the definition of a theory as an opinion or speculation not based on facts and that can not be falsified.

-----------

[Tiay]

Tiay: you've also just made all inventors religious.
Lilwing: I don't really understand how. Can you explain this a little more?

hm, inventors start with a theory. Ie, if we pass electricity through a bad conductor, maybe it will give off energy in the form of light. They experiment, and see what happens. Actually though, maybe inventors are a bad example. Who knows if he actually had that theory first, or if he just happened to stumble upon the effect.

------

tiay: You just have to accept that science is not 100% hard fact. just because it has soft edges and unclear bits, doesn't make those parts religious.

lilwing: Well, the process of science is not 100% fact. But science itself is 100% fact and the search of 100% fact.

Science is, to paraphrase wikipedia, a system of developing explanations for what we observe in the world around us, basec on scientific method...

science is just our system of collecting info on the world. It is run by humans afterall ^.^, hence it can never be 100%, as there will always be some error or other.

------

Tiay: yes, but not quite..
Religion tells you exactly on what day god made what. It isn't presented as a theory, it's presented as fact; this is how it happened. Not so much based on observation, experimentation or reasoning.

Lilwing: Damn it. I hate it when people just think religion is another word for Christianity. Don't you realize that religion categorizes many different religions that are very unique to Christianity, some which pertain to a godless idea? CHRISTIANITY states that God created this and that on particular days. Not every religion is pro-creation, either. I hear people make this confusing mistake every time this debate comes up.

wow, I hit a button. Sorry, Christianity is just one religion. It happens to say on what day god created what. Other religions don't specify this. One religion says, I if I remember correctly, that the world consists of the droppings and urine of a giant bird. Dunno what happened to the bird afterwards. My point is, religions say stuff without proof. You can't question it, because it's not a falsifiable theory.


lilwing: And according to The Bible, which is what the Christians study creation from, the words of the Bible were 'inspired' to them by God itself. It's your decision as to whether or not the people that wrote the Bible are nutbags, and you have every right to believe that every Christian is a nutbag, but for Christ sake, let them be a nutbag if they want, okay?

hey, they can nutbag away for all I care. I just like debating, and i gain respect for those I debate with. Nobody is forced to if they don't want to.

WOW, dude, you wrote an essay there!

tiay:And science doesn't always present solid facts. Often we think we know something, and then we turn out to be wrong in the next experiment. But that didn't make the first assumption a religion. It just means that the known facts changed. Like gribble said.. show me a horn and hoof prints, and I might entertain the possibility of a unicorn existing.

Lilwing: A fact is indeed a solid statement that witholds the truth. If it does not hold the absolute truth, it is not a fact, it's an opinion... or from more scientific terms, a hypothesis. And so what? The unicorn might exist, but what's that got to do with religion? Well if it somehow has to do with how the earth and life and everything else came about, then yeah I guess, it has an indirect measure to religion, but not directly, unless it's some sort of "holy unicorn" that magically created the universe with the sound of its hooves clapping on cobblestone.

The facts we think we know about science may turn out to be wrong, though. We don't *know* that evolution is a fact. There's just a lot of evidence to say that it is.

Also, didn't you just rant about how some religions don't have an actual god, or a creation of the world. why does the unicorn need to have created the world to be a religion? or am I missing the point?

also, the invisible pink unicorn is religion (the unicorn is a goddess), be it a satirical religion with no actual believers. It simply stands for all the infinite number of things whose existence is possible, but can not be disproved.
------

tiay: The statement "I believe in god" is not a reasonable assumption because there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support it, whereas the dino-bird theory, even if it turned out to be wrong, was backed up with scientific facts.

Lilwing: That is the individual's decision. Not yours. The sole reason why religion exists is because it's not scientifically proven that there is no god(s), or afterlife. The big bang theory (I hope you already realize this) is not scientifically proven. Yeah, it's a theory and yeah, there's facts behind it, but it is not scientifically proven. It is not fact. For someone who seems to be as actively involved in science as you do, you should understand that.

whether a belief is reasonable or not is not a decision at all, it either is or isn't.

I personally believe in the big bang theory. I don't, however, believe it 100%. I simply feel that given the stuff I've read about it, it seems to be a reasonable assumption to believe, for the time being anyway, that it is the most likely theory. This could change with new research.

Yes, and the sole reason the invisible pink unicorn 'religion' exists is because science does not disprove it, either. It is meant to show that simply because science can not disprove something, does not make that something a viable, reasonable belief.

------

Lilwing: Well, religion is a very personal topic. That's why it's dangerous to talk about. One has to be extremely civilized and reserved to debate it. The other thing is that everyone's trying to shove their own religion up another person's ass because they are very close minded and don't see the truth or understand what religion is; I said that before. If people were not so hostile and ignorant, there would be no problems with discussing religion.

yeah, I mean, look at the giant debate it sparked here. I can't imagine your family handling it sensibly, to be honest.


-----

Lilwing: "All arguments actually die eventually, whether the controversies are solved or not."

I'm not sure if I agree with that.. but.. my brain is all used up for today, and that's a whole new kettle of fish anyway.

----

Lilwing: Anyway, please don't turn this thread into another this-is-why-my-religion-is-better-than-yours thread. That topic is wrong, and to the extent of my personal knowledge, nobody on loveforum including myself has the knowledge, proof, or credibility to back ourselves up in that subject. If you want to continue debating about this topic, Tiay, fine, but no bashing religion, okay? That goes for everyone else; in fact it's a forum rule isn't it?

Actually, my argument is more along the lines of "I don't have a religion", I didn't say anything about my beliefs being "better" than anyone elses. What the heck defines better anyway? that would be a whole different debate.

[Charlie Boy II]

Jesus Christ!

Scorp meet Tiay. Tiay meet Scorp.

[Junket]

This is a deflective statement. Even if its true its not related to the fact that atheism is not a religion. Sorry.

What are you talking about?

I was directing that at OV.

I wasn't even arguing for, or against the idea that atheism is or is not a religion.

My point was atheist, like religious, prefer to categorize people, because anything that cannot be placed in their familiar categories disturbs them.

[IndiReloaded]

For the record, so everyone is on the same page:

Hypothesis = suggested explanation for a phenomenon or a proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. In science, a hypothesis is testable.

Theory = explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations.

Law = scientific law, is a law-like statement that generalizes across a set of conditions. It is well understood under a number of conditions & has wide predictive value for new conditions. A law is descriptive of phenomenon whereas a theory attempts to explain it.

[Tiay]

thanks indi, I badly needed that refresher.

edit: Actually, i'm still not sure that I totally get that. Wikipedia says that a confirmed hypothesis can become part of or grow into a theory. So, would I be right in saying that a hypothesis would start out as saying "huh, there seems to be a correlation between smoking and lung cancer", it gets proven by an experiment, and grows into/becomes part of a theory which states that smoking is bad for your health?

and, a law, such as.. um.. gravity? that simply describes gravity, it does not attempt to explain why/how gravity happens? or.... huh?

either way, in science both theory and hypothesis are testable, so, it does not really affect my argument.. but it'd still like to understand it.

[Charlie Boy II]

oooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh cutting! What do you have to say to that Indi?

[anachronistic]

I'll have to put this thread in my list of things to do for tomorrow.

[IndiReloaded]

oooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh cutting! What do you have to say to that Indi?

She wasn't being cutting you dumbass, lol.

[IndiReloaded]

thanks indi, I badly needed that refresher.

edit: Actually, i'm still not sure that I totally get that. Wikipedia says that a confirmed hypothesis can become part of or grow into a theory. So, would I be right in saying that a hypothesis would start out as saying "huh, there seems to be a correlation between smoking and lung cancer", it gets proven by an experiment, and grows into/becomes part of a theory which states that smoking is bad for your health?

and, a law, such as.. um.. gravity? that simply describes gravity, it does not attempt to explain why/how gravity happens? or.... huh?

either way, in science both theory and hypothesis are testable, so, it does not really affect my argument.. but it'd still like to understand it.

Your hypothesis would be: There is a correlation between smoking & lung cancer (its actually that there ISN'T a correlation, its called 'rejecting the null hypothesis', but the idea is the same). Smoking being bad for your health isn't what I would call a theory, tho, no. Its just another hypothesis that isn't testable unless its made more specific. Theories tend to be wider encompassing, like the Theory of Evolution, or Mendelian Inheritance, and so on. That's what is meant by theories explaining things. But yes, you can think of hypotheses as being contributing parts of a theory, that can make or break the theory.

Laws don't explain. They simply ARE. Gravity is. So are the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. These aren't theories b/c they are recognized as fundamental truths in the universe as we know it. So far, noone has been able to demonstrate anything different.

Hope that makes sense.

EDIT: There IS an 'explanation' for the fundamental laws, Tiay. But not the way you are thinking. It would be the mathematical equations that describe those laws. You would have encountered these in one of your early Classical Mechanics courses. I hope that explains a bit better.

[TheSphinx]

While perhaps a little late into this post, lilwing, I think your family should be okay with your decision. I'm sure that they will be concerned, but just remind them of the prodigal son (though you may not be living it through to its full extent).

To the broader issue. In my view, science and religion both have holes. There are some who base their decisions on "feelings" or "experiences" while there are many "great minds" who have researches and poured over incredible amounts of knowledge in search of an answer and still have come to divided conclusions.

Like a previous poster mentioned, it's a lifelong process. Live as you reason or feel it best and then accept the consequences that come with your decisions.

~Sphinx

[yy17616433]

Your speech is very nice!

[Off2College]

study philosophy