Does this cover Christian belief or not?

Except that we are attached by invisible strings. Each person is attached to another by the relationships that they make. This enables a person to pull/push another and to be pushed/pulled.

Meanwhile, @Dywyddyr:
So, you're saying that Christians can't be open-minded? I think you just invented a new definition for hypocrisy, good sir.

Also, there are plenty of spectral terms and invisible strings in science. Dark energy. Dark matter. Higgs boson. Newtonian gravitational theory. These things are believed to be perfectly accurate with no actual evidence to support their existence other than vague observations. I'm not saying that the universe isn't increasing it's acceleration or that galaxies aren't held together when they shouldn't be, I'm merely suggesting the notion that maybe scientists cling to things that they can't see just as avidly as any theologian. The Higgs boson has yet to be discovered, despite the fact that we were absolutely certain that the LHC could find it. We were also certain that FermiLab could find it. And now that we're getting closer to finding out that the LHC can't find it, we're considering making a bigger LHC that we're certain can. Because Science help us if the Higgs mechanism occurs in nature without a corresponding Boson, because then we can't explain how it would occur.

Meanwhile, 96% of the universe can't be accounted for, so science makes up a couple of new particles to describe where it all went, and then goes looking for them. This is because no scientist on Earth wants to consider the alternative: Newtonian gravitational theory might not be accurate on a cosmic scale, meaning that it needs to be modified. While some scientists have, in fact, proposed some remarkable new ideas into that (including dark fluid, which attributes dark energy and dark matter to mere properties of space itself and seems to satisfy all known equations for both phenomenon), no one really talks about them, because they're not following doctrine, er, I mean what scientists have been claiming for about thirty to forty years.

I am a G-d fearing Christian, Catholic by denomination if it means anything. I was taught in a Catholic school, meaning that I was taught the theory of evolution alongside religion, because, guess what? Pope John Paul II incorporated the theory of evolution into Catholic doctrine. I can accept that what the Bible says is the Word of G-d and still reconcile evolution by making a simple assumption: G-d can lie. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the concept of a billion wasn't very apparent in Hebrew in Moses' time, nor was the concept of single-celled prokaryotic organisms adapting into single-celled eukaryotic organisms. In fact, I'm almost positive that out of that whole clause, only the word "single" even appears in ancient Hebrew/Sumerian/Egyptian/whatever.

But back to the actual question at hand: is Richard Dawkins accurate? Not really. People take it to that particular extreme, but at its core Christianity is about loving (Greek agape, meaning unconditional love) your neighbor as yourself and loving G-d with all your being. As far as why He should be concerned with sin, think of it this way: He's everywhere, with everyone, at all times, and is perfectly aware of everything we say or do. We don't get lost in the system. We don't come up as a speck of dust to Him, because that's what omniscience is. And whenever you sin, whenever you break that simple fundamental command that I mentioned above, you hurt someone, either yourself or someone else. Given that, given that He can feel your feelings at all times and can know you like no one else can, how can He not care about when you get hurt?

Anyway, that's my opinion. Let the bashing of religion continue.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, @Dywyddyr:
So, you're saying that Christians can't be open-minded?
No.
Read what I actually wrote: "scientifically open minded". Notice the extra word in there?

I think you just invented a new definition for hypocrisy, good sir.
Riiight. :rolleyes:

Also, there are plenty of spectral terms and invisible strings in science. Dark energy. Dark matter. Higgs boson. Newtonian gravitational theory. These things are believed to be perfectly accurate with no actual evidence to support their existence other than vague observations.
Oops, no. They are accepted as working (but tentative) hypotheses. Not as articles of faith. A soon as (or if) evidence comes in contradicting them they'll be ditched. This tends not to happen with religious beliefs.
 
Dude. I just said that there was evidence contradicting them. Like how about the fact that they're not there, at least as far as we can tell? There's equally no evidence contradicting the alternative theories; in fact, some of them have more evidence supporting them than the standard ones, but we don't hear about them getting put into the limelight, do we?

Also, you clearly haven't ever made an actual study of religion, otherwise you would know that the Catholic doctrine is chock-full of situations in which we basically made something up and then used observations and logic to prove. Kind of like science. Also, maybe you also want to read what I wrote, seeing as how I mentioned that the Catholic church accepted evolutionary theory once it became clear that it wasn't just a phase you scientists were going through, like the humours. Also because there's a crap-ton of evidence supporting it, and it makes the most sense for how life arrived on this planet in a scientific context.

You want to see scientifically open-minded? I accept evolution as the de facto method for the arrival of life on this planet. When you come up with an evolutionary theory for the creation of sentience, and get a lot of evidence to back it, I'll probably back that, too. I also believe that the Big Bang was what kick-started the universe. I accept all aspects of science and believe in them, because science, by its very nature, can't prove that I'm wrong. In fact, by my religious beliefs, it can only prove my rightness.

Science doesn't exist outside of G-d. Science is G-d. Every answer which sparks two more questions, every fundamental underpinning of the universe discovered only serves to give glory to the being that I believe fashioned and shaped this world. Intelligent Design is crock. My G-d doesn't have to scream his presence to the universe. All He has to do is whisper, and those who want to will hear Him.

And this is why, Dywyddyr, you will always lose your arguments to me; because I am possessed of that perfect union of Faith and Science, of the Magical and the Mundane, where one does not contradict the other but only serves to strengthen both.

I am a Catholic who is devout enough to never write the word "god" when talking about the higher power, and yet I also believe that there is evidence supporting the notion that a person's ability to choose is dictated by chemical reactions in the brain which occur before the thought of choosing is even considered. It scares the crap out of me, but it's there, and I can't ignore it. In my belief, G-d gave man eyes to see, ears to hear, and a mind to reason; to not use these faculties is, in my humble opinion, to disgrace Him.

But back to the actual discussion: any other thoughts about Mr. Dawkins' statements? Let it be known that the man isn't a social scientist or a cultural anthropologist.
 
Last edited:
Dude. I just said that there was evidence contradicting them. Like how about the fact that they're not there
Not there? They are used as explanations for observed effects. As soon as something comes along that explains things better then they'll be dumped.

There's equally no evidence contradicting the alternative theories; in fact, some of them have more evidence supporting them than the standard ones, but we don't hear about them getting put into the limelight, do we?
For example?

Also, you clearly haven't ever made an actual study of religion
Assumption on your part. Don't make a habit of it.

otherwise you would know that the Catholic doctrine is chock-full of situations in which we basically made something up and then used observations and logic to prove.
Such as?

Kind of like science.
Not in the slightest.

Also, maybe you also want to read what I wrote, seeing as how I mentioned that the Catholic church accepted evolutionary theory once it became clear that it wasn't just a phase you scientists were going through, like the humours. Also because there's a crap-ton of evidence supporting it, and it makes the most sense for how life arrived on this planet in a scientific context.
Um, after a century or so. And I DID state: This tends not to happen with religious beliefs.

You want to see scientifically open-minded? I accept evolution as the de facto method for the arrival of life on this planet.
Then you don't understand evolution. It doesn't say anything about the arrival of life.

Science doesn't exist outside of G-d. Science is G-d. Every answer which sparks two more questions, every fundamental underpinning of the universe discovered only serves to give glory to the being that I believe fashioned and shaped this world.
Supposition.

And this is why, Dywyddyr, you will always lose your arguments to me
Only in your own mind.

because I am possessed of that perfect union of Faith and Science
Wrong. As shown. Do you believe in Adam and Eve? The virgin birth? That Jesus rose from the dead? That he cured the sick by touching them? Etc..?

of the Magical and the Mundane, where one does not contradict the other but only serves to strengthen both.
Hmm, science AND magic. Wow! And you can't see the dichotomy?

I am a Catholic who is devout enough to never write the word "god" when talking about the higher power
Because you're clueless?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=109777

and yet I also believe that there is evidence supporting the notion that a person's ability to choose is dictated by chemical reactions in the brain which occur before the thought of choosing is even considered.
Hmm, another supposition.
 
Hmm...point, perhaps "arrival" was a poor choice of words. Let's say "development," then.

Okay, so then, dark fluid is a theory which combines dark energy and dark matter into a single, non-particle-based entity attributed to the nature of space itself. According to dark fluid theory, space acts like a fluid; it coalesces around matter, giving increased gravitational observations in areas of higher matter concentration (such as galaxies) while relaxing and flowing normally to give observations of an accelerated expansion of the universe. All the equations check out, and it increases the actual matter/energy component of the universe from 4% to 100%. It can also be used to postulate new theories of gravity, but, as mentioned earlier, no one wants to touch gravity. Although I hear they're using a new "squeezed" light laser to increase sensitivity of a gravitational wave sensor.

The Catholic church invented the concept of Purgatory when it was asked what happens if a man doesn't go to Confession after committing a sin and gets hit by a bus. We took some references from the Bible and justified that a person's soul goes through a time of cleansing in this case, and called the location Purgatory.

And yes, I can see how those paragraphs could be taken as supposition. I did not mean them to be, merely an expression of opinion. This is an opinion thread, last time I checked.

Yes, science and magic, because one of these things is sort of like the other once you get to the science of replicating miracles through advanced knowledge of scientific underpinnings of biology which occurs when one has omniscience. Sort of like, I don't know, a virgin birth, healing the sick, etc. Did you know that we can now combine skin cells with synthetic spider silk? Now that's magic to me. I'm sure a biologist or whatever could explain it to me, and I'm sure I would have no idea what he was saying.

Also, I think I mentioned earlier that one of my beliefs is that the Bible can be the word of G-d (respect mah opinions!) while G-d could be lying through some of it. Yes, I know the inherent problem with this. Yes, I choose to believe what I believe. I think of the book of Genesis as sort of like the story of the Stork that fathers tell to their children when they're too young to understand where babies come from.

I never said I didn't believe silly things, just that I could believe them and science at the same time.

Still winning. That's supposition. Can you see the difference, now?
 
The Catholic church invented the concept of Purgatory when it was asked what happens if a man doesn't go to Confession after committing a sin and gets hit by a bus. We took some references from the Bible and justified that a person's soul goes through a time of cleansing in this case, and called the location Purgatory.
How does this match with - "then used observations and logic to prove".

Yes, science and magic, because one of these things is sort of like the other once you get to the science of replicating miracles through advanced knowledge of scientific underpinnings of biology which occurs when one has omniscience. Sort of like, I don't know, a virgin birth, healing the sick, etc. Did you know that we can now combine skin cells with synthetic spider silk? Now that's magic to me. I'm sure a biologist or whatever could explain it to me, and I'm sure I would have no idea what he was saying.
By definition science is not magic.
We have a recent thread about the spidersilk/ skin thing. Started in the last week or so. (Probably spidergoat started it - it's his name after all).

I never said I didn't believe silly things, just that I could believe them and science at the same time.
Since they contradict each other on certain topics you're either schozophrenic or mistaken.

Still winning. That's supposition. Can you see the difference, now?
You mean you suppose you're still(?) winning? Yep, I can see that.
 
You mean you suppose you're still(?) winning? Yep, I can see that.

Good. I'm glad you see my argument.

Honestly, I'm tired of arguing at this point. Clearly. I'm making poor choices of words. Honestly, "prove"? And they're not really contradictory on certain points, so long as you assume that G-d can lie. G-d plays dice, he just cheats.

And by literary definition, "any science which is sufficiently advanced can be seen as magic." Just because you don't know how it was done doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. That's what science is about, right? Figuring out the explanation behind the magic. Just accept, for a brief moment, that there can be a virgin birth where the sex of the child is changed (i.e. not a clone, like those darned lizards in Arizona). What biological processes would have to happen for that to occur? I have no idea; I'm not a biologist. But science, by its nature, can't say that it's impossible until it's tried.

Unless they have tried. Would someone like to clue me in?
 
And they're not really contradictory on certain points, so long as you assume that G-d can lie. G-d plays dice, he just cheats.
Nous n'avons pas besoin de cette hypothèse la.
Occam. God isn't a requirement for science.

And by literary definition, "any science which is sufficiently advanced can be seen as magic." Just because you don't know how it was done doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. That's what science is about, right? Figuring out the explanation behind the magic.
Except that magic doesn't have an explanation beyond "it just happened". I.e. not science.
 
While I commend the effort to try and defend your faith, I also have a hard time following your arguments nor do I condone the tone you set.

First, "Also, you clearly haven't ever made an actual study of religion, otherwise you would know that the Catholic doctrine is chock-full of situations in which we basically made something up and then used observations and logic to prove." This is actually not a good example of how Christianity melds with science. You do not offer proper proof, and you lack proper grammar. Neither of which are attractive.

If you were going to provide an example of how Christians made something up and then found evidence supporting the hypothesis (which, I think is what you meant to put), you could put down the Flood. The flood did happen. It is one of the more notable discoveries that helps those who need solid proof that not everything in the Bible is nothing but stories for children. Joseph under the Egyptian name Imhotep is another (tentative and pending actual proof) example of Christians researching hard facts to support their texts.

Not everything in the Bible is going to have anything close to hard, tangible evidence. That is where the faith comes in. That being said, you cannot force your truth into acceptance.

No offense, but when you debate in a rage, you leave your arguments riddled with holes and make it harder for the rest of us to rationally and logically discuss.
 
Don't go to very many stage magic acts, do we? Or read a lot of fantasy literature, I see. Try "The Dresden Files" for a pseudo-scientific explanation for the workings of magic.

But you are right, G-d is not a requirement for science. And science is not a requirement for G-d, if logic holds up. Nevertheless, there are the things which we, as of yet, cannot explain, and things which we can explain. And there are things which we can explain which we truly don't understand, and things which we can't explain which we sort of do. I cannot explain G-d to an atheist; an atheist cannot explain closing his eyes at the end of his life and gaining no sensation of anything, including time and the sensation of not having any sensation, to me. Actually, if you can explain it to yourself, with full understanding of what it's like, more power to you. Except you're not dead, so you really can't, can you?

Unless you're a vampire. At which point I may have to find you and kill you. After all, you're not supposed to exist.

You are correct, SandS. I shall withdraw from this argument, therefore, to assess the ramifications of my hasty actions.

Still winning, though. Why can't you debate more like SandS? Why you gotta tick me off?
 
Last edited:
Don't go to very many stage magic acts, do we?
Oh, I thought by "magic" you meant magic, not misdirection and tricks.

Or read a lot of fantasy literature, I see.
I did tell you about making assumptions.

Try "The Dresden Files" for a pseudo-scientific explanation for the workings of magic.
Hmm, yes. A pseudoscientific "explanation" of something that doesn't exist.

But you are right, G-d is not a requirement for science. And science is not a requirement for G-d, if logic holds up.
And there's your contradiction.
One is science, the other is magic.

an atheist cannot explain closing his eyes at the end of his life and gaining no sensation of anything, including time and the sensation of not having any sensation, to me.
There's nothing to explain.

Still winning, though.
Still just convincing yourself I see.

@ S&S:
The flood did happen.
A flood happened. Not quite the same in extent as the one claimed in the bible. I get the impression that author exaggerated somewhat. ;)

Edit: reply to F's edit:
Why can't you debate more like SandS?
Um, because I'm not S&S for one.

Why you gotta tick me off?
I don't (have to). Your reaction to me isn't specifically under my control. (And my posting style suits my intended purpose for posting).
 
Last edited:
What are we talking about? God doesn't need to obey the laws of this universe, just as he doesn't have to flip us on our heads. Gods science is greater than ours.
 
Oh, Knowledge91 is extremely good at that. (Hence my rather strident comments).
He's convinced that his own "common sense" tells him everything he needs to know about god, among other things.
But he's worth a laugh on his good days.
 
Oh, Knowledge91 is extremely good at that. (Hence my rather strident comments).
He's convinced that his own "common sense" tells him everything he needs to know about god, among other things.
But he's worth a laugh on his good days.

Im sorry to offend you
 
Back
Top