StarCraft® II

Know without a doubt that you are saved?

Posts: 1,736
How is science flawed maverick?!?!?

On the contrary science has improved our daily lives significantly.

Just because your religious doesn't mean you have to hate science or something, think off it like this if it helps you.

Religion tells you why, science tells you how.
Reply Quote
Posts: 400
Science is flawed, as in science is not perfect. Man made science, and man is not perfect, so science is not perfect. Everything man does is flawed. A thousand years ago, many thought that flies sprung from rotting meat, which was "proved" by experiments done centuries before THAT. It could be said that that was science. The man who said that flies sprung from rotting meat made an observation, came up with a hypothesis, and performed experiments. The experiments were flawed, therefore the science was flawed. Science is inherently flawed, as is everything man does. I am not saying science is always wrong. Science is just not always right, and is often wrong. Like I said in my last post, the current scientific set of ideas is a paradigm. Paradigms change. Right now, most people think that FTL (faster-than-light) flight is impossible. However, tomorrow, or in a hundred years, someone may discover that it is possible. That is how science is flawed. I never said science did not help us. I do not hate science. Au contraire, I love science. After all, how could one play StarCraft without science? *smiley face*
Edited by Maverick on 2/22/2014 8:09 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 400
I know I am saved because, to use your logic, there is no evidence to the contrary.

The Bible does match up with the Dead Sea scrolls.

Your beliefs do not constitute reality either.

Circular argument. I do not have to prove the Bible because it has not been disproven. (Given this is also a circular argument, but I think that it gets my point across).

A: The Bible does not say God created 'birds' on the fifth day. It says that He created 'all manner of flying creatures'. (Note that we may be referencing different versions, the person who translated/edited yours may have decided that the difference between 'birds' and 'flying creatures' was negligible).

How do you know that the earth did not exist before the sun? You were not there. This argument is based on a disbelief in the supernatural. Again, how do you know the sun never stood still in the sky? You, again, were not there.

Your next two pieces of 'evidence' are both based on the conviction that here is nothing supernatural, one of the items I had stipulated to not be used as arguments. God is infinite and omnipotent. He can do anything, therefore these, as supernatural events, are clearly the work of God.

How do you know there was never a global flood? There is plenty of evidence that there was, if you choose to look for it.

The Bible does not say that the earth is flat, nor does it say there is a dome over it.

Stars can fall to earth, if you lived over a thousand years ago. Tell me, how do explain the idea of 'meteorites' to someone with no astronomical background, like the people the Bible was dictated to? You would have to explain the concepts of 'space' 'stars' 'gravity' (not thought of until Newton) 'asteroids' 'planets' and 'momentum', in addition to a host of other concepts required to formulate a meteorite hitting the Earth.

B: Atheism/ rationalism is NOT the only rational position. There is plenty of evidence for both sides. This is one of the reasons that this is such a hotly debated subject, and not one that is settled in one grand argument i.e. "Satellite photos show the earth is a sphere".

C: How is my definition of atheism incoherent? As I recall, I never defined it. I was simply using it as a blanket term for people who do not believe in God, believe the Bible, or accept creation.

Secondly, you are using the same argument as before, that there is no evidence for Christianity. This is untrue. As I said above there is plenty of evidence for both sides. In fact, some of this evidence is THE SAME for BOTH SIDES! We are simply choosing to interpret it differently according to our personal beliefs. I accept that your counter-argument would be to say that I am misinterpreting the evidence. I could say the same to you. Again, this is dependent on our PERSONAL beliefs and opinions.

Looking at my now-defined version of 'atheist' you would see that my version of 'atheist' IS 'totally convinced that the Christian cannot be right'- until the Christian convinces the atheist of the accuracy and truth of his beliefs, or vice versa.

D: And for your last argument, may I refer you again to my above argument? There is evidence for Christianity, just as there is evidence for evolution. Eye-to-eye is necessary for a debate to take place in a accurate and moderate manner, without both side's arguments being dismissed by the other. Otherwise, it's like going elephant hunting in the Atlantic Ocean. Neither I, nor any other Christian, are professing belief without evidence. This ties directly back into my argument that a Christian and an atheist cannot see eye-to-eye. You are claiming I have no evidence because you are convinced that my evidence cannot be right. Likewise, I discard your interpretation of the evidence because I believe it to be faulty. Eye-to-eye? Nonexistent (in this debate) AND necessary.
Edited by Maverick on 2/22/2014 8:58 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
02/22/2014 08:08 AMPosted by Maverick
Science is flawed, as in science is not perfect. Man made science, and man is not perfect, so science is not perfect. Everything man does is flawed. A thousand years ago, many thought that flies sprung from rotting meat, which was "proved" by experiments done centuries before THAT. It could be said that that was science. The man who said that flies sprung from rotting meat made an observation, came up with a hypothesis, and performed experiments. The experiments were flawed, therefore the science was flawed. Science is inherently flawed, as is everything man does. I am not saying science is always wrong. Science is just not always right, and is often wrong. Like I said in my last post, the current scientific set of ideas is a paradigm. Paradigms change. Right now, most people think that FTL (faster-than-light) flight is impossible. However, tomorrow, or in a hundred years, someone may discover that it is possible. That is how science is flawed. I never said science did not help us. I do not hate science. Au contraire, I love science. After all, how could one play StarCraft without science? *smiley face*


Science is not flawed, how we conduct experiments and such as scientists may be flawed but the actual science itself is never flawed. Science MAY be a man made thing unless in this expansive universe that holds numerous galaxies complete with solar systems and such does not house another sentient species.

Science as defined per the oxford dictionary: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

Scientific studies may not always provide correct conclusions but that does not mean that science as a whole is just flawed.

And science does not make absolute statements of fact, it provides theories and possible explanations of the world around us according to observations.

Everything science has produced are generally theories meaning they are possible explanations of phenomena that occur in our world. There is no flaw in science because the goal is to get as close to the truth as possible (while finding out the truth is also a possibility), so with that in mind science is not flawed.

As the oxford dictionary states science is the systematic STUDY of the world, science helps us study the world around us, there have never been flaws in science because nowhere in the definition does it say science provides absolute facts for us to acknowledge simply it helps us study.

There are no flaws in science, it is a search of the truth, not an absolute statement of the truth.
Reply Quote
Posts: 400
All right, I defer. I see where our ideas diverged and contradicted each other. You are right. Science as you defined it is not flawed. I defined science as the actions and products of your definition of science. Your definition of science is an abstract concept. As such, it is not wrong. Perhaps I should have said that the RESULTS of science are flawed.
Edited by Maverick on 2/22/2014 4:39 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
02/22/2014 04:38 PMPosted by Maverick
All right, I defer. I see where our ideas diverged and contradicted each other. You are right. Science as you defined it is not flawed. I defined science as the actions and products of your definition of science. Your definition of science is an abstract concept. As such, it is not wrong. Perhaps I should have said that the RESULTS of science are flawed.


Amen to that brother, just look at geocentrism, the most hilariously F***ed up result science has ever made IMO.
Reply Quote
Posts: 400
Yes, I actually considered using that as my example. :)

EDIT: I was looking up at some of the earlier posts on this page, and I saw that you said the Bible condones slavery. It does not condone slavery as we think of it now i.e. Civil War era slavery. I have an online class where we debate things like this and read books on the subjects. We spent about three hours debating whether the Bible condones slavery, and we came to the conclusion that it does not. (The books we read were the Bible, Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Slave Narratives, and The Killer Angels).
Edited by Maverick on 2/23/2014 9:20 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
02/23/2014 09:14 AMPosted by Maverick
Yes, I actually considered using that as my example. :)

EDIT: I was looking up at some of the earlier posts on this page, and I saw that you said the Bible condones slavery. It does not condone slavery as we think of it now i.e. Civil War era slavery. I have an online class where we debate things like this and read books on the subjects. We spent about three hours debating whether the Bible condones slavery, and we came to the conclusion that it does not. (The books we read were the Bible, Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Slave Narratives, and The Killer Angels).


Unfortunately at that point it essentially becomes the result of your debate versus the results of my debates or other people's debates, its a shaky topic in general.

With that in mind I look at the bible the same way I look at every other book, take whats good from it and discard what's bad from it.

Although the bible is the "word of god" as some people say at the end of the day it was created by humans, and at that time period there were definitely influences on the ideals of the book (if the bible were created today for all we know it could have had a different opinion in regards to !@#$%^-*!@ity). Personally, I believe in God (was agnostic a few months ago but nvm that) but I refuse to be put into an organisation or religion, he is my personal God in which I determine what I think he approves and does not approve. Unfortunately the Church can be extremely conservative socially and that doesn't fly by me, in fact that doesn't even fly by the teachers in my school (Jesuit high school) and even the priests that run the school.

Personally until the church can as a whole finally get over the issue of abortion and #$%^-*!@#$ity I will not be joining it.

EDIT

huh? really? h o m o s e x u a l i t y is a censored word? -.- Wutevs Blizzard.
Edited by Luftwaffe on 2/23/2014 9:59 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 400
I can see your viewpoint. However, on the subject of h--------y, and abortion, we will have to agree to disagree. I am against them, you are ambivalent, and we each believe the other wrong. The only way to reconcile this would be for each of us to do our own research and critical thinking, and come to our own conclusions.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
02/23/2014 10:01 AMPosted by Maverick
I can see your viewpoint. However, on the subject of h--------y, and abortion, we will have to agree to disagree. I am against them, you are ambivalent, and we each believe the other wrong. The only way to reconcile this would be for each of us to do our own research and critical thinking, and come to our own conclusions.


I'm ten times easily more leniant on the idea of abortion and understand the other side so to speak. But I absolutely cannot stand the idea of opposing the basic rights that gays should be granted. The Jesuits I know are on my side in that matter.

I expect A LOT from you if you are to argue on why h o m o s e x u a l i t y is wrong. And if you revert to Leviticus as any evidence at all I swear to god I will ignore you for the rest of my life.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
02/20/2014 08:38 PMPosted by Hylozoist
Because christianity has no evidence for its claims, as such atheism is the only rational position.


Or agnosticism, personally I thought agnosticism was the way to go until very recently, but I'm still not part of a religion.
Reply Quote
Posts: 400
Although, as I said above, there is evidence for Christianity.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
02/24/2014 06:43 AMPosted by Maverick
Although, as I said above, there is evidence for Christianity.


I dont understand why people need evidence for religions, they are BELIEFS, it was acknowledged so many years ago, it's not like you walk around and see people saying God is factual or anything, its belief!

The true goal of Christianity wasnt to believe in God or say there is hell and heaven or any of this dumb bull!@#$ we do today with religion.

The only purpose Christianity serves as far as i can tell is creating a moral code in which we can follow so that we dont revert to pre-monotheism savages where it was ok to %###*@@@ that poor lady who visited the town or kill the men who were minding their own business because it seemed fun.

Christ was a compassionate man who loved everyone, he wasn't arguing about people being %^-*!@#$%^, never once did I see in the Bible Jesus walked up to a hommosexual man and tried burning him at the stake or saying hes a lesser human, he was compassionate for everyone.

Religion nowadays has lost sight of what Christ was trying to teach us. We are misinterpreting his words, or as logical fallacies would say (Hylozoist), we're putting straw-men into his words so that we can beat up on Gays and people we think are lesser.

I personally loved Christ and many of the things he stood for, but I can't stand what his religion has become today.

It's a fact... Religion causes wars.
Reply Quote
Posts: 400
I can't believe that anyone would have this opinion of religion or of Christianity. I am withdrawing from this debate because I cannot argue against such illogical and just plain wrong position.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,411
02/25/2014 07:14 AMPosted by Maverick
I can't believe that anyone would have this opinion of religion or of Christianity. I am withdrawing from this debate because I cannot argue against such illogical and just plain wrong position.

Good bye! We wish you luck.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
02/25/2014 08:26 AMPosted by Engineer
02/25/2014 07:14 AMPosted by Maverick
I can't believe that anyone would have this opinion of religion or of Christianity. I am withdrawing from this debate because I cannot argue against such illogical and just plain wrong position.

Good bye! We wish you luck.


You know... you made yourself look like a complete fool maverick. But that wasn't the issue I encountered in this thread.

I've more than made a fool of myself in other past threads, I've been told that I was unreasonable by engi and Hylozoist, but what separates that situation from this situation, was that I acknowledged it, I told them I wasn't perfect and I had been flawed, did I keep my opinion? Yes, but the whole point was the acknowledging of one's own mistakes.

THAT is what truly *offended* me, not your ranting of me being illogical and wrong.

If you're going to say that I am illogical and wrong then you have to say something to support your side of the equation, and you failed to do so. But hey, the main point in the end was the failure to acknowledge your mistake, but it certainly did make it worse when you went on to bash my opinion and the ideals I've stood for.

I'm just a freshman in High School who right now holds a piece of !@#$ under 3 GPA, what do I have that can possibly challenge Engineer or Hylozoist? That's the thing, it's not about my chances of "winning", it's about learning and improving upon yourself not only as a debater but as an intellectual person. And I've learned a lot from those two, now I'm asking you to do the same.
Edited by Luftwaffe on 2/25/2014 3:40 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,411
02/25/2014 03:38 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
I'm just a freshman in High School who right now holds a piece of !@#$ under 3 GPA, what do I have that can possibly challenge Engineer or Hylozoist? That's the thing, it's not about my chances of "winning", it's about learning and improving upon yourself not only as a debater but as an intellectual person. And I've learned a lot from those two, now I'm asking you to do the same.

You make me feel old, but also I feel that I'm doing good by trying to rub off intelligence onto other people.

02/25/2014 03:38 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
look like a complete fool maverick

That may be so, but remember he's new.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
02/25/2014 09:51 PMPosted by Engineer
That may be so, but remember he's new.


Indeed

02/25/2014 03:38 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
But that wasn't the issue I encountered in this thread.


02/25/2014 09:51 PMPosted by Engineer
You make me feel old, but also I feel that I'm doing good by trying to rub off intelligence onto other people.


A good human never keeps knowledge to themselves :D
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
02/25/2014 07:14 AMPosted by Maverick
I can't believe that anyone would have this opinion of religion or of Christianity. I am withdrawing from this debate because I cannot argue against such illogical and just plain wrong position.


It never was a debate, you offered nothing but unsupported assertions, then threw a fit and flounced off when people didn't accept them.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
02/28/2014 07:08 PMPosted by Hylozoist
02/25/2014 07:14 AMPosted by Maverick
I can't believe that anyone would have this opinion of religion or of Christianity. I am withdrawing from this debate because I cannot argue against such illogical and just plain wrong position.


It never was a debate, you offered nothing but unsupported assertions, then threw a fit and flounced off when people didn't accept them.


Indeed, but all I'm asking for personally is for him to acknowledge the mistakes as I have done with mine in the past. That's all I wish from him, anything else would be secondary in nature.

Sidenote: His evidence is the bible, the word of God. My oxford dictionary means !@#$. If only I could see your reaction to that if you ever read that yet XD
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]