THEORY is fancy word attached to many scientific statements because of Human Error or The Lack of Knowledge or Materials...(we say we're not sure because we really aren't, matter may actually be able to create itself, and things maybe able to move without being forced to...who knows?)

Anyone can have Faith in something, Science is something hard and deduced by logical questioning...which has probably been stated over 10 times in this thread...

The only thing that keeps Religion alive is the fact that we don't know how the current matter that exists came into being and the concept of infinite makes peoples heads hurt...(seriously...it does, just think about it, it just doesn't seem right)...and adding the fact that humans are Finate beings doesn't help.

I honestly, GIVE UP. Many things go unexplained, like how did Jesus come back to Life and such, but really, I have stopped caring. Please don't consider me ignorant or something of such a nature as I am more concerned with other things, such as "World Hunger" and "Bush will destroy us all!" things...(bad joke "><")

I consider myself no longer a christian, but I will not consider myself an atheist or agnostic. I refuse to label myself so society may shove me into another stupid one of it's "OMG I NEED ORDERZ U MUST B3 ATHEISTZZ" type things...

"<<"...not only that but most threads such as these always leads towards the same thing..."I believe what I beleive, you know what you know"

Note: I'm not saying all religous debate is stupid, it is very mind opening and it makes people think...I just see it always end in the same fashion...

---

...wee?

"I consider myself no longer a christian, but I will not consider myself an atheist or agnostic."

For a number of years, I didn't call myself an atheist, because I didn't want to raise a flag based on what I wasn't. I actually prefer the term "secular" myself, because it's more a affirming term. A positive term.
Atheist literally means "not a theist". It bothers me sometimes that the most common term for those of us who don't participate in religion also has to be based on it.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

i think, mr. neil, that while you claim to place no value in your disbelief in god, the fact that you'd take time out to argue your opinion regarding such concepts proves it has more value to you than you admit. you've also been given the same list of proofs and disproofs for christianity as everyone else, and you used that information to make your decision for your own self. so using that list as a reason to not believe in god would require the same leap of "faith" as if you were to believe in god, simply because all the answers aren't there and you had to decide for yourself which argument sounded more convincing.

as far as science goes, you say that scientists know how chemicals will react and where to find fossils. that is true, but if one is to give an explanation for why that reaction continues to happen as it does, the faith then enters into the situation. the core concepts of chemical (and other) science are not entirely tangible, and even scientists will admit to that. for instance: newtonian physics are a detailed set of rules to explain what happens in the physical world, but they fail to explain why these things happen. to do so, one would have to look at relativity (to tie up the loose ends unexplained by newtonian physics: rules applied to observations). some of the most basic principles of quantum physics and relativity aren't even proven because they aren't even observable. these things have to be taken on faith because they tie other observations together that we are able to perceive on a higher scale. the greatest scientists (i.e. einstein and steven hawkins) were able to admit they didn't always know. in my opinion, this is similar to a lot of religious theologies and faith.

"so using that list as a reason to not believe in god would require the same leap of "faith" as if you were to believe in god"

Wrong.  Faith is not involved in not believing in God.  I'm not committed to the non-existence of God.  I reject the claims that God exists, because they lack clarity and (most importantly) evidence. And in many cases, there is actually evidence against religious claims.
That's not faith; that's conditional belief.

And the statement you provided is sort of statement that implies that one is either a Christian or an atheist and there is no alternative. There are other religions and other deities.
I'm sure you're familiar with mythology. Have you seen Troy this year? Do you know how Paris meets Helen according to Homer's Iliad? He's bribed by the goddess Aphrodite, so that she could win a beauty contest, of which he was the judge.
And then the story goes on, and he meets Helen. He steals her away to Troy, and the Greeks come and destroy the city.
And this battle is historical. The city of Troy is a real setting which has been found. Evidence of the battle has been recovered. We know this happened.

However, are we to assume that because the city of Troy existed and that there was a war that Paris actually judged a beauty contest between the goddesses?
Surely, you don't believe in the goddess Aphrodite. Would you call that faith, though? You probably wouldn't. And the reason you reject those gods and goddesses is because they have never been shown to be true. Conditionally, you reject the existence of the Greek gods.

That's how I treat all of the modern gods. I reject them, because the claims they make cannot be substantiated at all. It's not my faith that there are no gods. I'm not committed to that ideal. There's no piety involved in my decision to reject a claim.

"but if one is to give an explanation for why that reaction continues to happen as it does, the faith then enters into the situation."

No! A thousand time, no!
I strongly urge you to look up the same words I recommended to Spree. Science is based on evidence. Faith is based on a devotion.
Even when science tries to explain something, the explanations given are based on information. These explanations are informed explanations. And if they're wrong, then they're thrown out.
That's actually the opposite of how faith works.

You have to commit to faith.  You have to believe something and make exception for it in the face of doubt.  You have to be committed.  That's not just me saying so.  That's the definition of the word.

Your representation of Quantum Theory and Relativity is sloppy and disingenuous.  Nothing in science is ever proven beyond all doubt. What science does is explain phenomena based on what we know about matter and the universe. And all scientific theory is tested on a continued basis, and is accepted on the condition that it is tested with positive results, or else it is thrown out. That is not faith.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

Okay, religion is about how you live your life, its about the history of the world and the human race, its about why the things that happen around us happen. So is science (the latin roots of the word literally mean 'to know'). I'll admit that science does take a more scientific approach to all this, but what else would you expect?

The irony of it all is this: I don't have faith in any religion, so I label other people's religions as faith (belief without proof). Nor do I have faith in science (which, when looked at considering relativity theory, is also without proof).

And by the way, not all scientific theories are tested because not all of them can be tested. In fact, practically nothing involving quantum theory can be tested these days, as the mathematics involved involve eleven dimensions.

"Nor do I have faith in science (which, when looked at considering relativity theory, is also without proof)."

Spree, do you just keep repeating the same ignorant lines in hopes that I'll just get frustrated and go away?  Listen: NOTHING in science is EVER proven beyond all doubt.  Science finds the most plausible explanation for a phenomenon based on what we know.
Your insistance on knocking science for not having the necessary proof you desire is a strawman.  Science doesn't make that claim.  How many times do I have to repeat it?

Do you know what a strawman is?  It's an argument where in a debate with someone, you create a version of that person in you mind (the strawman) and you attack the strawman instead of the person you're debating.
Science does not claim absolute proof or knowledge.  Science does not claim absolute proof or knowledge.  Science does not claim absolute proof or knowledge.

Read it.  Learn it.
You don't have faith in science?  GOOD!  You're on the first step!

Spree, we've been at this for several months, and I've honestly come to the conclusion that you argue for the sake of arguing.  You just keep saying stuff to be dissident, and a lot of what you say just is not true.
The way you treat science, as though it's something that you have to have faith in is appalling. Science is absolutely not that.

Science is the way of discovery. It's progression. It's poking and prodding at the natural world to see what works and what doesn't. And we accept it, because it works.
Science is the reason you have TV in your home.  It's the reason you even have a home.  Science developed the radio that you listen to or the computer that you're typing at.
Science never claims to know all things at all times.  If it did, then there would be no scientific discoveries or technological adancements.  We'd never need upgrades for our PCs, because we'd have had the mot top-of-the-line model possible.
But science works in progression, which is why the PC continues to get better with each year.

Really, that's all science is meant to do.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

first of all, science isn't responsible for things coming about. saying science "works" is also taking liberties. the reason i have a tv in my living room is because of engineers, not scientists (although the scientific studies made the concepts behind television accessible). but concepts like gravity, chemical reactions, weather, etc. would all still exist without science because science itself is actually the observation of these physical laws and activities (not application). we place titles on things and then use them as functions and equations to help us make other observations.

another issue: sure science doesn't claim absolute proof or knowledge, but if you take a close look at christianity (and most other religions as well) they don't claim such concrete proof either. that's why they are based on faith. like science. (i know that's going to upset you, mr. neil, but i don't see how else it can be put).

and i think it's really important to bring up argument techniques. i think verbally attacking other forum members reveals avoidance of the discussion points. perhaps letting your facts and arguments do the work instead of making it personal would keep things more civilized and in perspective. something that might be useful in regards to this: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

"the reason i have a tv in my living room is because of engineers, not scientists (although the scientific studies made the concepts behind television accessible)."

And in the parentheses, you concede to my point.  You're acting like you don't agree with me, but you actually just did.  We wouldn't have the television if it wasn't for science.
And aren't we splitting hairs here by saying the technician is the reason you have a TV and not the scientist.  I wasn't talking about who made your TV or that particular model.  I'm talking about the invention of the television.  It wouldn't be here unless we had the science to test and discover that moving images could be produced in the form of a television.

"another issue: sure science doesn't claim absolute proof or knowledge, but if you take a close look at christianity (and most other religions as well) they don't claim such concrete proof either. that's why they are based on faith. like science. (i know that's going to upset you, mr. neil, but i don't see how else it can be put)."

Nice try.  Now go back and read the part in which I pointed out the precise difference between faith and science.  I don't know why you're so committed to this, even after I've demonstrated why you're wrong.
First of all, I already said that scientific theory is based on conditions of knowledge to support it. That is conditional.
Religion, on the other hand, is not conditional. It's faith. You accept it and commit yourself to it without any verification.
I don't know how you could be having difficulty understanding this, unless you're simply not reading my posts, because I'm actually repeating myself right now.

"i think verbally attacking other forum members reveals avoidance of the discussion points."

Actually, I "attacked" Spree, because I'm getting tired of repeating myself.  After eight some pages of this, I find myself saying the same things, yet they're ignored.  To say something wrong the first time is fine, but when I explain again and again why Spree is wrong only to have Spree repeat the same tired argument over and over, ad nauseum, I'm sure you can get the picture that I get a little tire of having to repeat myself.  I think my suspicions are justified.
I can demonstrate that my posts are being ignored, because I keep saying that science is conditional (do you know what conditional means?), and I even appealed the clear definition of the word, yet people are still trying to assert that science is a matter of faith.  Even after I produce an appeal that says otherwise.
And besides... by bringing this up and attempting to scold me about it is no different then what I just did to Spree.

I will say this one more time for clarity:
Religion=unconditional devotion.
Science=conditional acceptance.

By definition, only the former is faith.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

I think I'll reply in the style of Mr. Neil...

"Spree, do you just keep repeating the same ignorant lines in hopes that I'll just get frustrated and go away?"

No, I keep repeating myself because I'm not getting answered. And ignorant is how I view your opinions, friend.

"Your insistance on knocking science for not having the necessary proof you desire is a strawman.......... we accept it, because it works."

Actually, my insistance on knocking science is because I believe science has done more harm than good. I was just trying to dispel the myth that science is right (literally not morally, though either can be argued).

If I'm going to whole-heartedly accept something, I'm going to need proof, otherwise its just faith.

"After eight some pages of this... "

Check your facts.

"To say something wrong the first time is fine... "

Just listen to yourself, you can't seem to stop insulting people. I'm only wrong in your eyes, don't tell me your head is so far up your ass that you think you're always right.

"I can demonstrate that my posts are being ignored, because I keep saying that science is conditional."

I'm not ignoring you, I'm listening with baited breath all the time, each word is like a revelation to me... Seriously, its a debate, I'm debating your points, don't assume that just because you're satisfied with your response, other people will understand what you're getting at. Maybe you aren't as ignorant as I first thought, maybe you do have some really good points (of course you do), but you just aren't translating your thoughts into sentences people can comprehend. By debating with each other we're giving each other that chance. Thats the whole point.

"Actually, my insistance on knocking science is because I believe science has done more harm than good. I was just trying to dispel the myth that science is right (literally not morally, though either can be argued)."

And that's a myth that only seems to exist in your mind.  Science doesn't make the claim that it's always right.  It's going back to the strawman.  I'm not going to defend the position that you're trying to attack, because it's simply not true.  It doesn't exist.
Any scientist will tell you that theories change and that their findings are not 100% all of the time.  They're never 100%.
I don't know what you want.  You're sitting in a debate forum, but you won't accept rationalism, which is absurd.  With the kind of arguments you make, I sit here wondering what you're even doing here.  This is why I say that you argue for the sake of arguing.

Plus, you insist on attacking a position that I have no intention of declaring, so I suggest you find another tactic.  Science is not about being 100% right all the time.  It's sort of the goal, but we can't expect that of science.  It's simply not possible.
What science is meant to do is to take what is known and theorize the best possible explanation of a phenomenon.  That's it.

"If I'm going to whole-heartedly accept something, I'm going to need proof, otherwise its just faith."

The scraping sound I hear is the sound of goal posts being moved...  Do you know what conditional means?
That statement you just made is totally irrational, because nothing could meet that expectation.  That's why we have rational thinking, to account for the things that we don't know completely.  We should at least make informed decisions.
And of course, what you just said is not even true, because I assume you leave your house to go to work or to buy things, and as you step outside the door, you accept that you can make it to and from your destination without getting pummeled by falling rocks or getting into a car accident.
That's not faith. That is a rational assessment, based on all the other times you've left your house, that those things are unlikely to happen. You know you can make it, and you have pretty good odds of making it. That's better than faith; that's an informed assessment.
In fact, when you're out buying something, is it faith that leads you to accept that the store clerk is going to take your legal tender and give you the item that you want to buy? No, because you know from past experience that this is how the system works.
In your own little way, you've done science. It's inescapable.

To call it faith is really an ultimate insult to how the human brain works.

"don't tell me your head is so far up your ass that you think you're always right."

Of course not.  I've admitted to being wrong before, but I also think that calling science faith is to demonstrate ignorance.  I'm really sorry if that insults you, but I've demonstrated the difference between faith and science.  One is conditional, the other is not. By definition, if you make an informed rational decision, you are not using faith.
And really, I don't enjoy repeating myself, but that point has gone unchallenged, and I keep getting hammered with these say-so responses that it's faith anyway.

One thing about the number of pages here.  I count eight, but I suppose I have a different number of posts set for a single page than you do.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

You're tired of going over the same ground? So am I, so I'll keep my point brief: I'm not talking about science as in the general curiosity of a human/society exploring the world around them, I'm talking about the current manifestation of science (ie. what kids are taught in school). There are people who whole-heartedly accept (but not always agree with) the current manifestation, and I believe that (like religion) it takes faith to do this. Not faith in what will happen because of science, but faith not to question the fundamentals of science.

Okay, so now we're getting somewhere.  I would concede that the way science is taught in schools is wrong.  In fact, in twelve years of public school, I don't recall ever being actually taught what science is.  I really only learned after the fact.
Basically, it comes down to "these scientists say this, so accept it as so".  And from my perspective, I see that as a problem, because there are those who do question, and they're met with harsh brow-beating and cognitive dissonance.  And this is the sort of thing that really got me mad about religions.
And I can see where it gets confusing when it's presented dogmatically, and then these scientists go and change their minds. Dogma is something that doesn't belong in science. The second you fall in love with and commit yourself to a particular idea and theory, you're no longer being scientific. That's when it becomes faith, and that's wrong.
But what you're talking about is encouraged. That's why scientists conduct tests and publish the results. They can demonstrate and explain their findings. They're repeatable.

Of course you should question science.  That's basically what you're supposed to do in science.
I still staunchly stand my ground that science is something that is not faith-based.  At least in the form that it's supposed to be.
I don't defend the grade-level science classes, though.  I had some pretty bad science teachers growing up.  And I think it's really, really sad the way things are right now, especially with politicians meddling in what should or should not be taught.

Science is the way of progression.  We don't expect it to be right all the time, and we shouldn't. Science is basically a tool for discovery.

The whole point of science is that you're encouraged to ask questions.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

I've only got this to say, cause I've been in way to many of these debates, theres always some way to rationalize things....

So here is a quote I heard.. somewhere "How do you know George Washington Exists? Have you met him?"

Proof no matter how valid, can be rationalized away. Even if God walked up and turned you into a zuchini, you'd discount it to a hallucination brought on by severe trauma.

Again "Proof" can only be proven according to scientific method, it must always work. If it doesn't work ONCE than it's not truely proof.

Now to stick to the discussion, The proof I can give is simply the complexity of the universe. Everything works together, not sort of, but perfectly. Everything from DNA to Oxygen Nitrogyn Mixture to the Earth's distance from the Sun, to Diversity in species and their balance with eachother and their environment to the simple fact that we can see.

I'm not even going to get into the mathmatical odds of this, cause the number would overload your average NASA harddrive

People never take it into consideration because theres no spot on the earth that says "By:God"

I ask you, what other god in the whole of religions past or present(Evolution Is a Religion) would have a reason to create the universe?

---

-------------------------------------
Truth is an absolute.

"So here is a quote I heard.. somewhere 'How do you know George Washington Exists? Have you met him?'"

Conditionally accepted based on things we know.  There are self written documents from George Washington.  There are dwellings.  There are corroborating testamonies from both sides of the Atlantic.  We have artifacts, such as paintings, that show a consistency in how this person behaved and appeared.
I'm not saying that my acceptance in the historical existence of George Washington is absolute truth, but based on what I happen to know from historical artifacts, I'd say is a fairly logical assumption that he existed.

"Again "Proof" can only be proven according to scientific method, it must always work. If it doesn't work ONCE than it's not truely proof."

Strawman.  Science is not out to prove anything.  It's out to make assessments based on what is known.  It's a conditional form of investigation.

"Now to stick to the discussion, The proof I can give is simply the complexity of the universe. Everything works together, not sort of, but perfectly. Everything from DNA to Oxygen Nitrogyn Mixture to the Earth's distance from the Sun, to Diversity in species and their balance with eachother and their environment to the simple fact that we can see."

We can see those things, but they're not evidence for creation or the existence of a God.  It's your opinion that these things are evidence for a God, but in fact, none of them actually point to any supernatural causation.
Furthermore, we wouldn't even know how to attribute the actions of a God, because we don't even know what a God is. Before we can even move ahead in our God hypothesis, we'd need to define God.

"I'm not even going to get into the mathmatical odds of this, cause the number would overload your average NASA harddrive"

Aside from the blatant ambiguity of this statement (thus making it meaningless), why are you assuming that chaos has such an extreme power over the universe that order is so unlikely?  Why are you making that assumption?

"People never take it into consideration because theres no spot on the earth that says 'By:God'"

Strawman again.  I said much earlier in this very debate that one of the strongest arguments I have against the existence of God is that it's paradoxial.
In other words, you're using God to explain the origin of all complex and orderly things, but you're forgetting that God is a complex being in himself.
And you have another problem, because God is supposedly omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, right? So he has ultimate power and he sees all and knows all. Well if he knows all, then everything he knows is "set in stone", so to speak, because if he ever had to learn anything, that would imply that he didn't know something.
So, when he "creates" things, he's not actually creating. He's just going through the motions based on things that he already knows. He can't make a decision. He can't change him mind, for example, because he knows what he's going to do before he does it.  This is where the incompatible attributes of God start stepping on each other.
The God concept, while seemingly wonderful at explaining "order", is really largely incoherent and therefore not worthy of anyone's prolonged attention.

"I ask you, what other god in the whole of religions past or present(Evolution Is a Religion) would have a reason to create the universe?"

False question.  I don't assume reason.  That's a presupposition.
Here's a better question: What is it that makes Christian God real and all the other God's false? What is it that makes it difficult about believing in Apollo, for example?
Even better question: What's the difference between your experience of God and something that is a product of your own imagination?

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

i once heard someone argue an intriguing definition of god: they were inspired by the book "flatland" and discussed how a two-dimensional world would react to the sudden presence of a three-dimensional object (like a sphere). the 2-D creatures (lines, triangles, etc... being confined by their dimensions) would see only parts of the sphere and wouldn't be capable of grasping the entirety of the object. this is how my friend believes it is with god. there is a creature/object/undefinable thing that is not confined by any of our own laws and concept... on the contrary, these laws and constructs are something the thing thought up in a whim at another time (though time would also be merely a constraint of our world and not the thing's). the people here would only be able to make out small parts of this multi-dimensional thing and would then piece the little parts that they could understand about it together to form a being they could understand... and give it a name... like "god." i don't know that i'm totally in the boat with this analogy, but i do like one aspect of it: it reminds me that what my brain is capable of perceiving (and also what everyone else's are capable of perceiving) is not necessarily all there is. that would be egoism in the purist form. and while some believe there is a higher power creating and controlling or watching us, i believe that there is at least a higher intelligence out there than that of humans.

and mr. neil: i disagree with you about science. there is a lot of it that is simply existant to explain why we are here. i consider that a method of proof, in that science often bases its pursuits of knowledge on presupposed hypotheses, then records the results. as a matter of fact, why did "science" come about in the first place? i thought it was to investigate why we are here... isn't that the same thing as seeking proof?