Do you believe in God?

[dylansan]

TankAss: So I suppose you follow all the old testament laws?

 

[TankAss95]

There is no proof confirming your beliefs. Sorry for sounding sceptical, but how often do you question your beliefs? Just wondering...

Point is we don't know if either is correct (God or no God in existence). If this "God" is indeed some supernatural being it is possible HOWEVER very unlikely that humans just aren't able to see this "realm" that heaven and this "God" are in.

Therefore it is probably better (and not as insane) to argue that this "God" does not exist, as no physical evidence has ever been given to support "believers" opinions. We live in a society of scepticism where humans need proof to support their opinions. I do not think Christians (or people of any religion which supports the belief that there is a God) can even attempt to make Atheist's believe that there is a God as there is no physical proof to support these religious peoples claims. A proper analogy to use for this is that Atheists are the Ford F150 that is driving up a hill and goes over it and keeps going, and the religious people are the Fiat 500 that makes it halfway before rolling back down because there arguments are rather pointless. I could give all my opinion to say Mark Sanchez is the #1 Quarterback in the NFL, but proof shows that I'd be downright wrong.

So for religious people, I simply ask, where is the proof to support your claims of an "All-mighty, good 'God' that gives us the 'freedom' to choose between two places which have not been proven to exist, that cannot do no evil, yet floods the entire earth killing many"?

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

(Genesis chapter 6)

You asked a question about Christianity, which is based on the teachings of the Bible. I responded quoting the Bible.

I have read the bible, it was an interesting fictional read. In fact bookstores hate when I take a bible out of the religious section and put it in the fiction section.

Yeah, the same way as I treat the "big bang theory as fictional, seeing how you can only explain parts of the Jigsaw puzzle.
"Oh! But well explain that in the future! Just have patience!"
Then why are you referring to the theory as being purely factual, seeing that you have not fully explained it yet?

 

[huskeR32]

No, because of your pathethic overreaction to a post that was intended only to grasp some irony on the so called atheist certainty. You're reacting to an distinct opinion (or a misunderstood concept, as you made it sound like) much like a fervorous fanatic believer would do.

Funny, I thought only the atheists were being disrespectful.

Fair enough, it's only a matter of ignoring all other beliefs, disqualifying them all. But yet, without coming up with a plain solution.

Why would atheism require a "solution?" I am perfectly comfortable with saying that I don't know for sure how everything started, but also not believing any unfounded religious explanations for it. I don't think being aware of a wrong answer requires that one knows the correct answer.

"Pure" atheism is then just a complete confrontation of flawed religious history with a sheer dose of ignorancy.

You've got part of that exactly right: religious explanations are flawed. Which is why I don't believe them. As for my "ignorancy," I'll again point out that this completely invalidates the pompous high road that theists have been claiming in this thread. Calling me pathetic and ignorant is just as disrespectful as anything I've seen in this thread so far.

I believe the universe formed from an intelligent design, who sketched the cosmos to allow intelligent life to exist? A common pattern? a misterious particle? That may be the definition of a "God" to me, and in regards to that, as you've already explained atheism by itself, is completely oblivious and ignorant.

I actually completely agree with you here. What people sense as "god" may be some mysterious force in the universe. I'm completely open to that idea. But applying "ignorant" to atheism is a little nonsensical. Please explain how not believing something without proof equals ignorance.

Your theories are wrong, I'll just disqualify them without providing any alternative solution.



See how pathethic that sounds?

I can see your point (even though it's still a misinterpretation of what atheism is...). And now it's my turn to play the "You obviously didn't read any of my posts" game. When have I ever said that all religions are wrong? That's right! I haven't! I just said I don't believe them. Isn't hypocrisy fun?

I'm not contesting the philosophycal concept of atheism since as you've already exposed, it's just unbased denial.

Refusal to accept anything without evidence does not equal denial. The term "denial" implies that what you don't believe is actually a proven fact. As religion is not proven, I'm in denial about nothing. Skeptical? Yes. Rational? Absolutely. In denial? Not even a little bit.

I'm not Christhian, nor do I believe in any classic representation of a God... though I'm not surprised you don't know that, you actually didn't read any of my previous posts, but instead got the first opportunity to spread your anti-religious manifesto all over the thread. That's why I called you a fanatic, you're not posting, you're acting in a campaign.

Round 2 of the hypocrisy! Yay! When have I ever said I'm not religious? For all you know, I'm a Christian who's just hoping that the theists here can manage to put together a rational argument, and playing devil's advocate until they do. Seems I'm not the only one who's making assumptions here, huh?

Yeah, I was arguing against the arrogancy of the so called atheists on this thread. The crucial point is: The christians must prove the existence of their God, believing that you only have to disqualify the christian theories is tackling the discussion in a single-sided and unfair way, making this not a debate, but more of a trial.

Yep. The only people making a claim (because for the millionth time, atheism doesn't make any claims) are the only people who need to provide evidence. If I've actually claimed something as fact without evidence in this thread, please remind me of it, because I would genuinely like to correct that if I have. I try to avoid making wild, unsubstantiated claims.

Much like Tic Tach's analogy, which I politely was contesting.

If you don't believe in the efficiency of a theory, provide uncontestable evidence to unprove it, otherwise you're just being ignorant.... oh, or atheist.

Really? That's how you want to play it? You need to have evidence to not believe something? Alright. My car can go a billion miles an hour. Since you can't prove that it can't, you have to believe it. You HAVE TO. Bow in awe to my billion mile-an-hour car. HEY! Don't touch it! Hands off the car. Only look at it.

In the end, if I'm a fanatic because I have this weird idea that theists should stop misinterpreting atheism when they argue against it, then fine. I guess I'm a fanatic. But a debate is only functional if both sides first recognize what the other side is about. And theists have now ignored one fundamental fact for almost 200 pages: atheism is not a belief. It just isn't. At all. And I'm getting really tired of that claim still being made.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

You asked a question about Christianity, which is based on the teachings of the Bible. I responded quoting the Bible.



Yeah, the same way as I treat the "big bang theory as fictional, seeing how you can only explain parts of the Jigsaw puzzle.
"Oh! But well explain that in the future! Just have patience!"
Then why are you referring to the theory as being purely factual?

Never said the theory was purely factual. But at least we have some evidence to begin with. Something someone wrote in a book can be changed, edited, and we don't even know its what happened.

 

[homeforsummer]

Wow ... The empire stricked back in the latest 12 hours I see. You guys are so predictable it gets funny. And a bit sad too, because it becomes apparent that when the going gets tough, some lose their restraint, stop rational debate (oh the irony, this from the rational scientifical side) and start posting in a borderline insulting way towards those that don't mind saying publicly they believe in the existence of God.

I agree. Some people are getting a little close to the bone with the insults now and it's doing more harm than good to their arguments.

 

[TankAss95]

Never said the theory was purely factual. But at least we have some evidence to begin with. Something someone wrote in a book can be changed, edited, and we don't even know its what happened.

Science constantly corrects itself, meaning you are never certain that what you believe is correct.
I have no problem with atheists, it's just when they mock Christianity that angers me.
For example:
Christians have a view if what the jigsaw puzzle may finish out to be - the outcome which they believe in.
Atheists however have parts of the jigsaw puzzle in 'progress', while constantly 'correcting' themselves. They say to Christians: "Look! We have a section of our Jigsaw puzzle completely different from you! This then means your version must be wrong!", while they scatter around correcting themselves, changing the outcome of the section of the overall picture. They believe their version must be correct, disproving Christianity, while they are still making changes, and still don't have the full picture.
I'm not trying to disprove science, all I'm saying that I do not take their 'evidence' for the non existence of a God seriously.
You are free to make your own conclusions about the existence of God, just don't bash others for disagreeing with you.

 

[High-Test]

The reason we are here discussing an irational subject is because we care about humanity going forward and about your brain being mind******.

Your posting history would argue otherwise.

In the marijuana thread, you replied to TankAss as follows:

And you'll be in my hate mail.

You care about proselytising all of the theists into non-theists. That has been your very goal since the beginning of this thread. You think you're more intelligent than everyone else and gleefully berate and insult those who don't agree with you. When they post sensible arguments about how moot this point is, you dig your claws into the ground and open all of the bilges that nominally hold back your anger.

What do you gain out of insulting people?

 

[Tic Tach]

Indeed I was sarcastic about it, the impressive thing is that such statement is taking an impressive response, because while some people can identify it as sarcasm (maybe by checking previous posts in this thread), there is people who doesn't identify such thing as sarcasm which demonstrates that such claims and basis for choice are indeed handled like that by Christians.

The irony of this is that while I was sort of sarcastic about it, people tent to dismiss the sarcasm outright instead of analysing the basis of this idea which surrounds the whole "religion choice" in the west.

I suggest that to identify the post you made as sarcasm is not possible looking at the text. And to expect people to delve back into a thread that has nearly 200 pages to find out what your stance might really be is unreasonable.

Good to know that you were sarcastic though, but it's sad that there are many who have had their minds so abused that they actually do believe what you stated as reality.

Cheers

 

[PeterJB]

Slight mishap, Pressed enter too soon

 

[Tic Tach]

I believe in God because I believe that it is the only possible way in which we exist.

There are other, more satisfying reasons, backed by mountainous evidence. As Stephen Jay Gould said:

"We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher' answer, but none exists."

 

[Tic Tach]

I also find it interesting that this god is called "Him"

That's because he was created by patriarchal desert men.

Man created god in his image: intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm not trying to disprove science, all I'm saying that I do not take their 'evidence' for the non existence of a God seriously.

That's not quite correct. Atheists (or indeed scientists, who aren't all necessarily atheist) aren't trying to provide evidence for the nonexistence of God, which several of us have already covered isn't possible.

The evidence any of us are providing can be (and has been) used to disprove aspects of religious history which are clearly false. Such as the book of Genesis.

Once again: God is neither provable or disprovable. Several things that can only otherwise be explained by "God did it" are disprovable though.

 

[TankAss95]

That's because he was created by patriarchal desert men.

Man created god in his image: intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent.

Instead of arguing for or against the existence of God, you are arguing against Christianity in particular. This is therefore not the appropriate thread.

 

[Tic Tach]

.....if anything this discussion made me question and rationalize my beliefs once again and so far I think they have become even stronger

Not surprised.

Most true believers, when faced with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, will hold on to those beliefs even more strongly. (Mark Thomas)

 

[hampus_dh]

Your posting history would argue otherwise.

In the marijuana thread, you replied to TankAss as follows:

You care about proselytising all of the theists into non-theists. That has been your very goal since the beginning of this thread. You think you're more intelligent than everyone else and gleefully berate and insult those who don't agree with you. When they post sensible arguments about how moot this point is, you dig your claws into the ground and open all of the bilges that nominally hold back your anger.

What do you gain out of insulting people?

No stop using the sensible arguments.
There is no such thing when it comes to believing in a god.

 

[Tic Tach]

You cant discuss rationally about god because there is no rational things about believing in a god.

Yes, that reminds me of this:

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into. (Jonathan Swift)

 

[TankAss95]

Not surprised.

Most true believers, when faced with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, will hold on to those beliefs even more strongly. (Mark Thomas)

Yes, because it reinforces there faith in the belief in God through all the loopholes existent through scientific theories from which they say explains our existence.

 

[TankAss95]

Science constantly corrects itself, meaning you are never certain that what you believe is correct.
I have no problem with atheists, it's just when they mock Christianity that angers me.
For example:
Christians have a view if what the jigsaw puzzle may finish out to be - the outcome which they believe in.
Atheists however have parts of the jigsaw puzzle in 'progress', while constantly 'correcting' themselves. They say to Christians: "Look! We have a section of our Jigsaw puzzle completely different from you! This then means your version must be wrong!", while they scatter around correcting themselves, changing the outcome of the section of the overall picture. They believe their version must be correct, disproving Christianity, while they are still making changes, and still don't have the full picture.
I'm not trying to disprove science, all I'm saying that I do not take their 'evidence' for the non existence of a God seriously.
You are free to make your own conclusions about the existence of God, just don't bash others for disagreeing with you.

Quite an interesting thought, isn't it?

No stop using the sensible arguments.
There is no such thing when it comes to believing in a god.

If you feel this way, then I cannot understand why you continue the effort to argue anyway.

 

[hampus_dh]

Yes, because it reinforces there faith in the belief in God through all the loopholes existent through scientific theories from which they say explains our existence.

And for every day that goes by we kust continie to knock down every single thing you religious people claim as facts.

Patience.

 

[TankAss95]

Science constantly corrects itself, meaning you are never certain that what you believe is correct.
I have no problem with atheists, it's just when they mock Christianity that angers me.
For example:
Christians have a view if what the jigsaw puzzle may finish out to be - the outcome which they believe in.
Atheists however have parts of the jigsaw puzzle in 'progress', while constantly 'correcting' themselves. They say to Christians: "Look! We have a section of our Jigsaw puzzle completely different from you! This then means your version must be wrong!", while they scatter around correcting themselves, changing the outcome of the section of the overall picture. They believe their version must be correct, disproving Christianity, while they are still making changes, and still don't have the full picture.
I'm not trying to disprove science, all I'm saying that I do not take their 'evidence' for the non existence of a God seriously.
You are free to make your own conclusions about the existence of God, just don't bash others for disagreeing with you.

Please read again.

And for every day that goes by we kust continie to knock down every single thing you religious people claim as facts.

Patience.

Not quite sure what you mean here, but I feel my answer towards that is also displayed above.

 

[Famine]

believe ... believe

This is a problem.

Evidence denies belief. You can't believe in something that has compelling evidence. You don't "believe" in science.

Well, some people do, but that's their problem.

I'm not trying to disprove science, all I'm saying that I do not take their 'evidence' for the non existence of a God seriously.

This is a problem too. I know my post was huge but you did quote it. I repeatedly pointed out that there cannot be any evidence for the non-existence of something and, specifically in the case of non-falsifiable ideas, neither can there be evidence for its existence.

Science doesn't - and cannot - have evidence that God does not exist. It is a misrepresentation to state otherwise.

For example:
Christians have a view if what the jigsaw puzzle may finish out to be - the outcome which they believe in.
Atheists however have parts of the jigsaw puzzle in 'progress', while constantly 'correcting' themselves. They say to Christians: "Look! We have a section of our Jigsaw puzzle completely different from you! This then means your version must be wrong!", while they scatter around correcting themselves, changing the outcome of the section of the overall picture. They believe their version must be correct, disproving Christianity, while they are still making changes, and still don't have the full picture.

Speaking of misrepresentations...

A jigsaw puzzle comes with a set of instructions in Esperanto and a picture of a windmill on the box. We all know that it's a picture of a windmill before we even start it. Brilliant!

The atheist - or rather the scientist - puts the jigsaw together methodically. First he does the outside bits to create the shape and structure - some bits are missing, but he'll catch those on the second pass - and then he slowly fills in the middle parts. It takes a bit of time and occasionally some pieces go in a bit wrong, but after corrections, even with the majority of the jigsaw not completed, it looks rather like it's a picture of a cow...

"No," says the believer, without even looking at the puzzle. "It's a picture of a windmill. It says so on the box and a friend of a friend translated the instructions which say it's a picture of a windmill. Besides, you've not done loads of it, how can you be so sure?"

The scientist keeps on putting the jigsaw together and the gaps in the image become smaller and smaller.

"No, it's a windmill. I know because the instructions and picture we've had from the beginning say so. Why would they lie? There's still gaps anyway - your belief it's a cow is no more valid that my belief it's a windmill and I've got these instructions which say it's a windmill to back me up. What have you got?"

This continues until the jigsaw is completed and it's clearly a picture of a cow.

"Well, the picture was just a suggestion and the instructions were clearly a metaphor for a cow. I knew it was a cow all along, you just have to read the instructions right.

Hey, let's do a jigsaw!"


Presently, believers' attitudes towards the fields of cosmology, quantum physics and evolution reflect the nearly-complete jigsaw stage of denial, while we've completed other jigsaws together and they happily use the internet jigsaw to tell us that the cosmology, quantum physics and evolution jigsaws don't look like what we say and aren't finished anyway...


But of course none of this is relevant to a belief in a deity nor any specific deity. Plenty of people don't quite understand the complex science behind some of these things and regard them at a belief level. It's just the nature of belief vs. evidence.

 

[PeterJB]

Because he is blind (not visually but logically), he has been brainwashed by the religious folk to believe in some invisible creation in one man's mind to give people comfort.

Heck, if you got a bunch of people to start up churches around the world for a new religion that said 'God' was an potato, and you said that the potato provided comfort, there'd be people dumb enough to believe it. Kind of like how some believe in so-called 'God'.

Where's Tic Tach? I'd like to see what he thinks (to bring some common sense back into the thread).

As I have stated previously, while I cannot offer you empirical evidence, I can offer anecdotal evidence in form of things like answers to Prayer and feeling His presence in my life when I ask for it. I left church several years ago so I could decide for myself what I truly believed in an unbiased environment, and I eventually came to the conclusion that there is a creator.

It might surprise you to know that I believe in the theory of evolution, and in the big bang theory. While also believe in intelligent design and the existence of a Creator, which I believe is known as evolutionary creationism. I could waffle on extensively about things like Newtonian Mechanics and Astrophysics that humanity has acquired over time if I wanted to. But at no point would my religion be brought into the mix, because it is not the job of religion to be scientifically accurate. Is it their for guidance on how to live your life. Things like the story of creation for example need to be taken with a pinch of salt, because it is clear that is it very scientifically innacurate in a literal sense. The same goes for things like Moses, Abraham, and Noah's Ark for example. They are not there to be scientifically accurate, they are there for to learn from the meaning of the events, and how you implement this into your life.

Your posting style (as is that of many pther atheists in this thread), is completely unneccesary. This is not a discussion if all you do is dismiss eveything we throw at you as rubbish and then thrown insults because you can't think to say that actually adds to this so-called discussion. It is incredibly ignorant and close-minded of you to assume that all thiests are basically sheep that have no knowledge of the world or the universe around us.

You compain that all thiests preach and shove their religion down your throats. That is EXACTLY what you are all doing. You all seem to think that by saying 'God is fake, we can't prove it but we know it's true anyway' will turn all us to atheism. Questioning ones opinion is fine as long as it is done in a respectful manner, that is what a discussion is. This is not a discussion, it's a trial.

I have my own beliefs, you have yours. DEAL WITH IT.

 

[homeforsummer]

But of course none of this is relevant to a belief in a deity nor any specific deity. Plenty of people don't quite understand the complex science behind some of these things and regard them at a belief level. It's just the nature of belief vs. evidence.

It's also worth mentioning that it's absolutely okay to not understand the science - whether you're a layman with very little scientific knowledge for whom it's all simply too complicated, or whether you're a scientist who's trying to find that piece to complete the jigsaw, still unsure of the full picture.

I have plenty of time for people who maybe don't understand scientific theories - I don't understand plenty of things, both scientific and otherwise (I'm very hazy on particle physics - I've no qualifications in the faculty and what I do know has essentially been gleaned from wikipedia, for example), but I'd hate to be scorned because of it - but not understanding something so filling the gaps with gibberish isn't really the same thing as just not understanding because you've reached your personal limits.

And unfortunately, that's what a lot of theists do. They get to a point where the science either doesn't make sense to them or they don't understand the existing science, so they fill those gaps with the most implausible explanation of all, which is that a supernatural being in the sky did it.

 

[Famine]

It's also worth mentioning that it's absolutely okay to not understand the science - whether you're a layman with very little scientific knowledge for whom it's all simply too complicated, or whether you're a scientist who's trying to find that piece to complete the jigsaw, still unsure of the full picture.

Yep. In fact all knowledge starts from the gaps.

 

[TankAss95]

This is a problem.

Evidence denies belief. You can't believe in something that has compelling evidence. You don't "believe" in science.

Well, some people do, but that's their problem.

This is a problem too. I know my post was huge but you did quote it. I repeatedly pointed out that there cannot be any evidence for the non-existence of something and, specifically in the case of non-falsifiable ideas, neither can there be evidence for its existence.

Science doesn't - and cannot - have evidence that God does not exist. It is a misrepresentation to state otherwise.

Speaking of misrepresentations...

A jigsaw puzzle comes with a set of instructions in Esperanto and a picture of a windmill on the box. We all know that it's a picture of a windmill before we even start it. Brilliant!

The atheist - or rather the scientist - puts the jigsaw together methodically. First he does the outside bits to create the shape and structure - some bits are missing, but he'll catch those on the second pass - and then he slowly fills in the middle parts. It takes a bit of time and occasionally some pieces go in a bit wrong, but after corrections, even with the majority of the jigsaw not completed, it looks rather like it's a picture of a cow...

"No," says the believer, without even looking at the puzzle. "It's a picture of a windmill. It says so on the box and a friend of a friend translated the instructions which say it's a picture of a windmill. Besides, you've not done loads of it, how can you be so sure?"

The scientist keeps on putting the jigsaw together and the gaps in the image become smaller and smaller.

"No, it's a windmill. I know because the instructions and picture we've had from the beginning say so. Why would they lie? There's still gaps anyway - your belief it's a cow is no more valid that my belief it's a windmill and I've got these instructions which say it's a windmill to back me up. What have you got?"

This continues until the jigsaw is completed and it's clearly a picture of a cow.

"Well, the picture was just a suggestion and the instructions were clearly a metaphor for a cow. I knew it was a cow all along, you just have to read the instructions right.

Hey, let's do a jigsaw!"

Presently, believers' attitudes towards the fields of cosmology, quantum physics and evolution reflect the nearly-complete jigsaw stage of denial, while we've completed other jigsaws together and they happily use the internet jigsaw to tell us that the cosmology, quantum physics and evolution jigsaws don't look like what we say and aren't finished anyway...

But of course none of this is relevant to a belief in a deity nor any specific deity. Plenty of people don't quite understand the complex science behind some of these things and regard them at a belief level. It's just the nature of belief vs. evidence.

Current evidence cannot be described as being 100% correct, unless the evidence 'fits in' smoothly with the present. For current evidence to be applied to the knowledge of the future, or past, it must fit the conditions of that time, which we often don't know. Scientists constantly 'correct' themselves as they have done through time (which I have said, and you have confirmed previously).
In the big bang theory, many points are still to be explained, according to current laws of science itself. If these points cannot be explained or do not 'fit in' with sciences understanding, then that must alter what they know about the future too.
Therefore, science can only be referred to as 'fact' when science has completed the jigsaw puzzle if you like, from every angle, which is I think is impossible.

That's my understanding if it, anyway.

 

[huskeR32]

Your posting style (as is that of many pther atheists in this thread), is completely unneccesary. This is not a discussion if all you do is dismiss eveything we throw at you as rubbish and then thrown insults because you can't think to say that actually adds to this so-called discussion. It is incredibly ignorant and close-minded of you to assume that all thiests are basically sheep that have no knowledge of the world or the universe around us.

I love how these two statements are in the same paragraph. Love it.

You compain that all thiests preach and shove their religion down your throats. That is EXACTLY what you are all doing. You all seem to think that by saying 'God is fake, we can't prove it but we know it's true anyway' will turn all us to atheism. Questioning ones opinion is fine as long as it is done in a respectful manner, that is what a discussion is. This is not a discussion, it's a trial.

I have my own beliefs, you have yours. DEAL WITH IT.

Still referring to atheism as a belief. Shocking.

 

[PeterJB]

I love how these two statements are in the same paragraph. Love it.



Still referring to atheism as a belief. Shocking.

Make it opinions then.

 

[Famine]

Current evidence cannot be described as being 100% correct, unless the evidence 'fits in' smoothly with the present.

The last piece, right in the middle of the cow, might be a windmill-shaped branding mark.

For current evidence to be applied to the knowledge of the future, or past, it must fit the conditions of that time, which we often don't know. Scientists constantly 'correct' themselves as they have done through time (which I have said, and you have confirmed previously).
In the big bang theory, many points are still to be explained, according to current laws of science itself. If these points cannot be explained or do not 'fit in' with sciences understanding, then that must alter what they know about the future too.
Therefore, science can only be referred to as 'fact' when science has completed the jigsaw puzzle if you like, from every angle, which is I think is impossible.

Two problems here. First every aspect of science is subject to the same criteria and scrutiny - sauce for the goose is very much sauce for the gander. Your internets, your car, even your food comes from the same processes that govern cosmological discovery and evolutionary biology. You cannot pick and choose.

Second is the nature of correction. Correction, in science, is refinement. Every piece of data gathered goes towards the previously discovered trend and refines it. It doesn't change the trend itself - you don't throw out the previous knowledge, you just make it better. All data gathered in evolutionary theory to date has supported the original observations of evolution from two hundred years previously (Darwin is the best known, but not the first) and refined our understanding of the processes behind them. Nothing, yet, has contradicted it. Now, we cannot preclude the possibility that we'll find something that contradicts it and if that day comes it will be something of a problem but I suspect it'll be that data that's wrong rather than all data that preceded it, refining the trend (compare CERN's superliminal findings - we haven't discarded all of quantum physics as a result, merely gone "Huh, that's interesting" and are checking and rechecking it).

"Correction" isn't "Sorry, we were wrong. Our bad.". Correction is "Now we understand a little bit more". Evolution is pretty much there - it's refined enough to say "This is how it is." with the occasional "Whoops, missed a dot on that "i" there.".

 

[TankAss95]

The last piece, right in the middle of the cow, might be a windmill-shaped branding mark.

Two problems here. First every aspect of science is subject to the same criteria and scrutiny - sauce for the goose is very much sauce for the gander. Your internets, your car, even your food comes from the same processes that govern cosmological discovery and evolutionary biology. You cannot pick and choose.

Second is the nature of correction. Correction, in science, is refinement. Every piece of data gathered goes towards the previously discovered trend and refines it. It doesn't change the trend itself - you don't throw out the previous knowledge, you just make it better. All data gathered in evolutionary theory to date has supported the original observations of evolution from two hundred years previously (Darwin is the best known, but not the first) and refined our understanding of the processes behind them. Nothing, yet, has contradicted it. Now, we cannot preclude the possibility that we'll find something that contradicts it and if that day comes it will be something of a problem but I suspect it'll be that data that's wrong rather than all data that preceded it, refining the trend (compare CERN's superliminal findings - we haven't discarded all of quantum physics as a result, merely gone "Huh, that's interesting" and are checking and rechecking it).

"Correction" isn't "Sorry, we were wrong. Our bad.". Correction is "Now we understand a little bit more". Evolution is pretty much there - it's refined enough to say "This is how it is." with the occasional "Whoops, missed a dot on that "i" there.".

My head honestly hurts.

Them how can science answer 'ultimate' questions?

 

[huskeR32]

Make it opinions then.

Sorry, still doesn't fit. The statement "I don't subscribe to any religion because none of them are backed by evidence" isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

On the other hand "Christianity is wrong" is an opinion (though one that is supported by an awful lot of evidence). Now here's the kicker: I've never said that. Not once. Theists take the first statement and argue against it as if it's the second statement.

Unfortunately, that means you're arguing against nobody. Please tell me you understand this.