FairwoodKing wrote: There's a line from the movie "The Firm" that I like: "Don't tell me what you believe, tell me what you can prove." That sums up my thinking. Religious people can believe anything, but when it comes time to prove their beliefs, they fall flat on their faces.

If you can offer me some kind of scientific evidence to back up your beliefs, then I will listen.

By your own logic your atheistic views fall flat as well.

You can not prove there is no supreme being, just like I can not prove there is.

By your own definitions, your own logic, your own posts, you are probably more agnostic than atheistic.

To expect a humanistic rationale to prove an inhuman presence seems a little silly to me. It won't happen.

True believers don't obtain their belief by human means. The presence of the Holy Spirit and the gift of Faith comes from God the Father not a rational thought process.

jmog wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: There's a line from the movie "The Firm" that I like: "Don't tell me what you believe, tell me what you can prove." That sums up my thinking. Religious people can believe anything, but when it comes time to prove their beliefs, they fall flat on their faces.

If you can offer me some kind of scientific evidence to back up your beliefs, then I will listen.

By your own logic your atheistic views fall flat as well.

You can not prove there is no supreme being, just like I can not prove there is.

By your own definitions, your own logic, your own posts, you are probably more agnostic than atheistic.

God is not my theory so it is not up to me to prove it. If you want me to believe in the existence of God, then prove to me that he exists.

FairwoodKing wrote:

God is not my theory so it is not up to me to prove it. If you want me to believe in the existence of God, then prove to me that he exists.

So really, since you believe in only "scientific proof" you are not only an agnostic (not an atheist), but you also do not believe the Big Bang happened, or that live (first single cell animal) happened by random protein/amino acids coming together to make a cell?

Is this true? If it is then you truely are an agnostic, if you say you believe in the Big Bang and completely the whole evolution story, from no life to humans, then you don't truly believe in "prove it scientifically to me and I'll believe it".

jmog wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

God is not my theory so it is not up to me to prove it. If you want me to believe in the existence of God, then prove to me that he exists.

So really, since you believe in only "scientific proof" you are not only an agnostic (not an atheist), but you also do not believe the Big Bang happened, or that live (first single cell animal) happened by random protein/amino acids coming together to make a cell?

Is this true? If it is then you truely are an agnostic, if you say you believe in the Big Bang and completely the whole evolution story, from no life to humans, then you don't truly believe in "prove it scientifically to me and I'll believe it".

I guess that is what we would have to classify as selective agnosticism. Of course, we know that there are many people that practice selective Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, etc., so it really should come as no shock.

jmog wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

God is not my theory so it is not up to me to prove it. If you want me to believe in the existence of God, then prove to me that he exists.

So really, since you believe in only "scientific proof" you are not only an agnostic (not an atheist), but you also do not believe the Big Bang happened, or that live (first single cell animal) happened by random protein/amino acids coming together to make a cell?

Is this true? If it is then you truely are an agnostic, if you say you believe in the Big Bang and completely the whole evolution story, from no life to humans, then you don't truly believe in "prove it scientifically to me and I'll believe it".

By definition, I am an atheist because I don't believe in God. An agnostic is something else.

You're reading too much into these labels. As I have said before, you can simply call me a non-believer and I will be happy.

As far as the Big Bang Theory and evolutionist theories are concerned, I admit that I really don't know. But no one is sure about these things and scientists don't claim to be. At least these are theories that are observable by scientific methodology. The theory of God isn't.

Agnostic is being either unsure if there is a god or not or indifferent if there is one or not.

FairwoodKing wrote:As far as the Big Bang Theory and evolutionist theories are concerned, I admit that I really don't know. But no one is sure about these things and scientists don't claim to be. At least these are theories that are observable by scientific methodology. The theory of God isn't.

I will challenge you on that. I have repeatedly heard scientists espouse the theory of evolution as scientific fact. They unabashedly bastardize their own field by assigning law status to a theory. Additionally, I will challenge your assertion that the 'theory of God' is less observable than Big Bang, evolution, etc. Both require a faith in something that is not quantifiable, reproducible or
explainable by any form of definitive scientific evidence.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/God

I just read through that page and not only did I learn a lot but I also laughed a lot.

BCBulldog wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:As far as the Big Bang Theory and evolutionist theories are concerned, I admit that I really don't know. But no one is sure about these things and scientists don't claim to be. At least these are theories that are observable by scientific methodology. The theory of God isn't.

I will challenge you on that. I have repeatedly heard scientists espouse the theory of evolution as scientific fact. They unabashedly bastardize their own field by assigning law status to a theory. Additionally, I will challenge your assertion that the 'theory of God' is less observable than Big Bang, evolution, etc. Both require a faith in something that is not quantifiable, reproducible or
explainable by any form of definitive scientific evidence.

If you knew anything about scientific theories, you would know that they are never proven. A scientist does an experiment or observation based on his hypothesis and then either disproves the theory or fails to disprove. Proving something is never an option. Evolution is something where scientists get more and more information that fails to disprove the theory. The same with Big Bang. Any scientist who claims that evolution is fact is not much of a scientist.

Wow, I'm surprised you tried to attack me considering all you did was reiterate pretty much exactly what I said. The only point of contention is that you claim to have never heard any scientist state that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact. So, I quote...

“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles.”
- James D. Watson, Nobel Prize Winner in Physiology or Medicine - 1962, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA

Evolution is a fact though. We have literally watched different things evolve. Butterflies in England changed to suit the new darker soot stained trees back in the day and we've been able to watch small organisms and bacteria, etc change over several generations.

So evolution is a fact, that shit happens.

Although I guess you're probably referring to the ape to dude evolution which is sort of a different argument.

I Wear Pants wrote: Evolution is a fact though. We have literally watched different things evolve. Butterflies in England changed to suit the new darker soot stained trees back in the day and we've been able to watch small organisms and bacteria, etc change over several generations.

So evolution is a fact, that shit happens.

Although I guess you're probably referring to the ape to dude evolution which is sort of a different argument.

Precisely.

FairwoodKing wrote:

jmog wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

God is not my theory so it is not up to me to prove it. If you want me to believe in the existence of God, then prove to me that he exists.

So really, since you believe in only "scientific proof" you are not only an agnostic (not an atheist), but you also do not believe the Big Bang happened, or that live (first single cell animal) happened by random protein/amino acids coming together to make a cell?

Is this true? If it is then you truely are an agnostic, if you say you believe in the Big Bang and completely the whole evolution story, from no life to humans, then you don't truly believe in "prove it scientifically to me and I'll believe it".

By definition, I am an atheist because I don't believe in God. An agnostic is something else.

You're reading too much into these labels. As I have said before, you can simply call me a non-believer and I will be happy.

As far as the Big Bang Theory and evolutionist theories are concerned, I admit that I really don't know. But no one is sure about these things and scientists don't claim to be. At least these are theories that are observable by scientific methodology. The theory of God isn't.

1. "non believer" is by definition agnostic, they aren't sure if there is a god or if there is not a god either way.

2. Please explain to me how the Big Bang and proteins to single cell life are theories that are "observable by scientific methodology". As a scientist myself I'd LOVE to see these observations.

I Wear Pants wrote: Evolution is a fact though. We have literally watched different things evolve. Butterflies in England changed to suit the new darker soot stained trees back in the day and we've been able to watch small organisms and bacteria, etc change over several generations.

So evolution is a fact, that shit happens.

Although I guess you're probably referring to the ape to dude evolution which is sort of a different argument.

You are talking about microevolution, or evolution within a family like dogs, butterflies, etc. What BCBulldog was talking about was macroevolution, from single cell to humans.

Microevolution is fact.
Macroevolution is theory.

Huge difference.