BiscottiGelato

原帖由 puZZle 於 2009-1-5 20:16 發表
3）仇視科學、指鹿為馬
"因為科學界普遍來說已承認進化論是科學事實的時候..."

um....before we talk about evolution... how about we solve the problem of where life came from first? science has never showed that life arose out of random chance has it?
Therefore, as far as we know by now, evidence towards creation is more abundant than evidence supporting abiogenesis
IMO, the burden of proof rests on the people who believe there is no creator first right?

just my 2cents

7）出賣尊嚴、自我作賤
教徒應罪就是錯
政.府高官不認錯 就大錯特錯?

For 3): Science never showed where life arose out of. It seems that there just isn't sufficient information to make a strong enough claim that sides either the creationist or abiogenesist. If you say that there are more evidence towards creation than abiogenesis, what are these strong claims? Why is it by default that the burden of proof rests on people who believe there is no creator first? Personally, I am just waiting for the scientific community use objective methods to find more clues and develope fuller theory to get closer to what the truth might be. I just don't see how, in terms of the many theories surrounding the beginning of life, that the one preached by Christians is so bullet proof under the scientifc method such that it shall be taken as the 'truth' without further questioning.

I am not a believer in Science, as Science is not a blind religion. In Science, you don't believe, you observe results from the Scientific method. That is what sets Science apart from religion. Science tries to disproof what it found, and through this process gain a fuller understanding of the universe and it's history. Relgion on the other hand arrive at the conclusion right away through means that are un-objective (The Bible said so, some scroll said so, someone said so, God said so, a voice in my dream said so, etc). Which method gets you closer to the truth is quite apparent IMO.

For 7): 政.府高官不認錯 就大錯特錯? Of course! But I just don't see what it have to do with whether "教徒應罪就是錯"??

BiscottiGelato

To further elaborate my personal opinion:

I have nothing against any religion in anyways. Believing in something is a personal choice. Just that in my opinion, I don't see the reason behind why someone will believe in any certain religion. From a 3rd person perspective, I don't see why there is 1 religion that is more believable than another. If you just look at all of them from bird's eye view, all of them looks like a fairy tale story. Why believe in one but not in another one when they all are arrived with means that are unobjective? On the flip side, if people still choose to believe in something, I do not see why anyone else should be concerned about someone else's personal choice either.... UNLESS

To my second point, the only danger I see in religion is that, people who believe in it are heavily influenced by emotion. When people's ability to objectively reason is heavily compromised by emotional influences, these same people can be very vulnerable to be manipulated. Manipulation toward doing good is all fine and dandy. However history shows that religion can also be used as a tool to manipulate people in doing bad things. More over, people with power in religion can be corrupted. They can either be corrupted in the first place, thus starting or joining a religion. Or, they can simply be corrupted by the power that is afforded by the position in the heirarchy of their religion (aka, what they say heavily influences the disciples of the religion, such that it can sway it's disciples for various personal motivations).....

[ 本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-1-5 22:47 編輯 ]

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 rockypath 於 2009-1-5 23:01 發表
1) Do you believe in creation? Why do you believe or not believe?
2) Do you accept there is God? Why do you accept or not accept?

Again, I choose not to believe or not believe in creationist theories, or any other theories in regards to genesis. I find various theories that people come up with interesting (including the theory where there is a 'god' and that this 'god' created the 'world' and life in this 'world'), and is even more interested in what scientific findings or reasoning they have come up with to support their theories.

Why believe and accept any random thing AS the truth, instead of putting in the effort (or at least appreciate the people and effort that have been put in) in attempt to FIND the truth? There is no way to know the absolute truth in it's entirity, but you can always get closer to it. OR of course, you can always refuse to get closer to the truth and just find your nearest religion and simply accept that as the truth.

Again, what you choose is your personal choice, as long as your choice does not affect other people (aka, in the moderate cases, being motivated to preach your religion, and in the process annoy other people. Or in extreme case being manipulated to conduct terrorist attacks, etc).

A third point just came through my mind..

There is probably nothing more counter productive to civilization than to advocate the denial of the scientific method, which have been one of the most, if not the most brilliant thing that human kind have came up with. The theory of evolution, is probably the closest theory that the scientific method have came up with so far in explaining how living things have came about. It definately shall not be just accepted as the entire truth as it is, as that'd be nothing more than believing in any other random things such as religions. However complete denial of the result entailed by the theory of evolution is nothing short of denial of the scientific method and the basis of science itself. If that is what 'religion' is about, then that'd probably be the 2nd biggest danger I see that 'religion' is posing to society. This danger is that a religion can attempt to drive it's disciple away from science, essentially throwing the world backwards. This is because the scientific method is designed to 'disprove' something, making way to get closer to the 'truth', which is pretty much the absolute opposite of what religion is about...

[ 本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-1-5 23:26 編輯 ]

BiscottiGelato

Thus far, nobody dares to counter my points it seems LOL...

What I want to know is, for the believers, under the context of the points I posted on page 3 and 4, why did you believe in a certain religion in the first place? No offense, you can still believe in whatever you want, I just find the mindset behind choosing to believe in religion very intriguing and I think it will greatly benefit non-believers in understanding the perspective that believers held.

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 13:40 發表

why are you asking such a fundamental question?

Why someone believe in something?  Let me ask you a question, why do you believe your mom is really your biological mom?  I assume you haven't done a  ...

The evidence is that she claims to be my mom and cared for me for my entire life thus far. Birth certificate also indicates so, along with all official documentations, etc. Thus, there are strong evidence that she is my mom. Now, if you go ahead and do a DNA test, which gives IMO an even stronger evidence, I will put that as part of the consideration when trying to determine whether my mom is my mom. That's called scientific method. I only trust something when there's sufficient evidence. I am also ready to reshape and refine my understanding when under further and alternative evidences. Note that in no where in this response did I use the word 'believe', because I don't need to blindly believe as there are things much stronger than just blind 'faith' that can reach the conclusion that my mom is my mom.

The difference here is that, religion try to shove their disciples a default 'conclusion' on what the 'truth' is. At least in the case of some religion, including Christianity, their principle is based on faith in believing in a pre-determined ultimate 'truth'. It is not a religion that can accept something like the scientific method, which goes in reverse, is shaped based on doubt with no pre-determined conclusion. Only theories which is continually reshaped and refined in order to get closer to what the truth might be.

Again, I'm not going to reiterate myself... As I have already said in page 3:

"I am not a believer in Science, as Science is not a blind religion. In Science, you don't believe, you observe results from the Scientific method. That is what sets Science apart from religion. Science tries to disproof what it found, and through this process gain a fuller understanding of the universe and it's history. Relgion on the other hand arrive at the conclusion right away through means that are un-objective (The Bible said so, some scroll said so, someone said so, God said so, a voice in my dream said so, etc). Which method gets you closer to the truth is quite apparent IMO."

[ 本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-1-6 14:56 編輯 ]

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 13:40 發表

why are you asking such a fundamental question?

Why someone believe in something?  Let me ask you a question, why do you believe your mom is really your biological mom?  I assume you haven't done a  ...

I stated objective reasons why I see science as a much more logical way in explaining the world and form opinions and decision in my life than religion. Instead of attacking me, my mom and also my dad in 1 sentence, which IMO destroyed your credibility in logical reasoning, why don't you state why the objective reasons I stated does not apply to you, and what was the primary motivator that initially swayed you into a believer of your religion?

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 15:23 發表

You think your method is more scientific than believing a religion?  I disagree.  Before you actually go and have DNA tested, what you think is evidence might not be real evidence.  People can give f ...

You bring up another very interesting aspect, and that is the ability to perform independant verification. Using back the somewhat offensive example. If the birth certificate is faked, I can go test DNA, and if the DNA result is faked, I can test it independantly somewhere else. This is the power of science, it is because the scientific method allow for independant verification of any particular claims. As in science, nothing is 100%, it allows for more evidence to be corrected, such that the probability that the claim is true will be enhanced as more evidence is collected.

Let's use another example. If Einstein lied about one of this claims, we can always have another scientist to reproduce the his result to independantly verify his claim. In fact, we can have hundreds of thousands of scientists of different background to redo his experiments and redo the math. This is the power of science. Even kids can easily do the experiments and do the math themselves to reach their own conclusion. Nobody, no books, and surely no god is required in the process.

On the flip side in religion, particularly Christianity, independant verification will be very difficult. If a priest lies, or the Bible lied, or if 'God' lied, it is almost impossible to independantly verify the claim. The heirarchy of power is simply dangerous, as stated by one of my points in page 3.

Of course, as chunsh have suggested, many 'immature believers' will start claiming that 'god' never lies because 'god' is 'God' and they believe in it, thus the claims are always true and independant verification is unecassary etc etc. But it is apparent that Science is one of the most efficient methodology in guarding against false claims and verifications.

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 rockypath 於 2009-1-6 16:47 發表


Science has never and I doubt it would ever be able to disapprove the existence of God. To prove that, scientists must elimiate all the possibilities which is impossible and not doable.

Human bein ...

Yep, that is absolutely correct. Using science, people have never been able to disprove that there is a possibility that there is a god, and particularly the theory that there is a Christian god as described by the Bible.

My opinion here in this thread so far, is just trying to say that Science, is the best methodology and benchmark we as human being have came up with so far to explain things, with much better accuracy, depth and probability than any religion is able to do so. Further on, I stated that under Science, it is also possible that any theory preeched by any particular religion can be true, just that human beings have not gotten around to use the methodology of science to sufficiently proof it to become main stream adoption by the scientific community.

HOWEVER, when there are so little evidence so far to side any particular theories, and that there are so many different theories, including theories preeched by various religion, (for example) in regarding to the creation of the world and life on Earth... What is the odd that a certain theory preeched by a certain religion is going to be true? Thus, based on the limited scientific understanding I have on the world around me, by personal choice I just don't strongly side with any one particular theory. Particularly I don't see how the theories preeched by various religion have high probability to be true, as in my opinion, most of them is backed by some of the weakest logical reasoning that I can understand.

Further more, I am even more interested in why or how some of the religious believers on this forum have become religious and believed in their particular religion in the first place? Based on my personal logic, as I have stated, I just can't convince myself to believe in any particular religions. This is the reason why I am very interested in the thinkings of other individuals on this forum that seem to have a very different train of thought than I am.

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 rockypath 於 2009-1-6 18:23 發表


You should be aware that in science, independent verification is impossible in many areas. Many areas and process cannot be reproduced. Therefore, they are just theories and many scientists use gene ...

I'd say that the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are yes, mere theories. So is the theory of General Relativity, which the theory's explaination of nature have been used as the basis of much of modern technology (GPS, long range radio communication, etc). So yes, much of Sciences are theories, but usually the most accepted ones are pretty darn good in attempt to explain the world that surrounds us.

Further on this note, I totally agree that the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution should not be just taken as fact as it is. However I am highly against any claims that try to dilute or simply deny the fact that these theories are very well supported by much evidences and matches a lot of observations. There are still a lot of insufficiencies in these theories, but that shouldn't be grounds for people to simply label them as outright 'false'. Ignorance in how well the rest of the theory is able to explain our surroundings, and how important a role they have played in the development of technology and our society, is in my opinion an act that attempts to throw civilization backwards. Because thus far, the Big Bang Theory and much more so for the Theory of Evolution, are still one of, if not the most well supported theory when examined using Scientific methodologies. Moreover, it is because of the deficiencies in these theories that people show work even harder in attempt to find out more and get closer to the truth. Just running to any random religion in attempt to find a convinient answer is in my opinion, an act of ignorance.

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2009-1-6 18:34 發表

I like your scientific way of thinking and I agree science can do a lot.  However, for things as straightforward as it seems, science still can't prove that you're your dad's son 100%.  So at the end ...

Science can't proof anything 100%. Does that mean that we should just run to any random conclusion that claims that they are the truth without a doubt, 100%? Science cannot proof anything or show anything 100%. It is this reason why we are given the ability and the tool (Science, logical thinking) to help make the picture more complete. Heck, it might be some sort of god or creator that have given us this power too, I'm not denying this is a possibility, but there are so many theories as to who this god might be that believing it is any particular god from a certain religion is just... let's say, beyond me. Let alone that there are other theories to choose from that you can believe in that does not involve any creators....

On another note, we as human kinds does not require the assurance that we know something 100% before we can proceed in life. Life is filled with uncertainties, and people can never know everything. Human kinds are given the ability to abstract, such that we can function without knowing every intricate detail in our everyday life. You don't have to know how every single bit in your computer is flipping in order to use your computer, all you need to do is to abstract that each time you press a key on your keyboard an alphabet will be displayed on ur computer. I am fine with not knowing everything, and I don't need to rely on a religion to reassure me that I already know the truth and my purpose in life in order to live it.

Now, I have to say that from the other side of the pond, I will not discount that religion can provide spiritual support to some people that can find comfort, relief and refuge through it. This is definately something that hard Science does not provide, and does not need to provide. Recognizing that there is a role for religion in society, does not mean that far fetch scientifically contradicting stories as depicted by many religions is worthy for me to believe in. To understand the world you don't need to believe in anything, because Science does a darn well job in showing what it is. I do rather find some religions that does not base themselves in creators or blind faith (ones that are more like a spiritual principle or a philosophical school of thoughts) to be very inspiring.

The fact that I don't depend on faith or believe in understanding the physical world does not mean that I lack the ability to believe in people or in things. I believe in people and things that to me, under of course the limited knowledge I am able to gather, that sounds probable, reasonable, logical and with a good track record. This sounds like hard cold logic, but really it's just the same logic as  you won't believe in claims like 'typical pigs flies higher and faster than the typical birds', you won't believe in your bf/gf/spouse if it's the 5th time he/she have been caught cheating on you, etc etc....