Religion is the biggest troll in human history

[Einstein2.0]

Scientific based theories can never be compared to religion and its theories. The main reasons why is because although they remain theories, there are facts that support the idea. Evolution has its holes but we can see natural selection occur today, which, with proper logic, means that it most likely will become a law when someone comes along to fill the holes. Science is pure logic and all it's theories have its facts to back them up. Religion is pure guesses with a lot of hope.

The reason religion will never be taught is because it will never be proven right and enforcing such an ancient ritual is controversial for that very fact. All scientific theories that are taught is because they all lead to the true answers to life and the universe. There is a reason why they teach you math in school, it can pretty much be applied to everything and give you an answer. To correct you, Evolution is a biological process, not so much a mathematical one. I rather follow things that I myself can test and come to conclusion rather then a game of telephone that spanned from 4bc - Present Day

[Paroxysm]

If religion is "Invalidated" I guess the theory of Evolution can become "Invalidated" as-well I suppose, what is evolution but a mathematical formula equal to or near an even or full number, besides this why have many governments restricted religion being taught at public schools while evolution is being taught without question, why is this so, is it because there is evidence of evolution occurring, not so much, just a theory, is there evidence of god, some may argue no there is not, but there have been scrolls found from ancient time's that have been translated threw the centuries and decades into what most religions call their bible, others may say things get's lost in translation, this may be true but we were not around in those days so it is difficult to prove both opposing factions, but here we have many people everyday turning to a God, many maybe, but the possibility that all these god's are connected to be just 1 god with many different names who knows, it up to you to decide for yourself!

Ok so I'm going to quote the statements that are either false or trouble-some and then you can tell me which ones you would like me to respond to, because I feel like it would be a shame if I spent 30 minutes explaining why you're wrong and then realize you didn't even bother to read them.



1)

If religion is "Invalidated" I guess the theory of Evolution can become "Invalidated" as-well I suppose

2

what is evolution but a mathematical formula equal to or near an even or full number

3)

besides this why have many governments restricted religion being taught at public schools while evolution is being taught without question, why is this so, is it because there is evidence of evolution occurring, not so much, just a theory

4)

is there evidence of god, some may argue no there is not, but there have been scrolls found from ancient time's that have been translated threw the centuries and decades into what most religions call their bible, others may say things get's lost in translation, this may be true but we were not around in those days so it is difficult to prove both opposing factions,

[Mouzie]

The answer to three is:

Evolution is a standard theory taught in many schools, though it is not without controversy. Because evolution is still a theory, there will most assuredly be critics that have concerns about the concepts that are taught. Creationism and intelligent design add to the debate by adding alternative viewpoints on the origin of the universe. Still, there are reasons that many schools have chosen to teach evolution. Here are a few thoughts on why this is the case.

Tradition

Arguably, evolution is taught because it has been taught in prior generations. There are plenty of educational concepts that are taught because teachers develop their curriculum based upon what they themselves were taught in school. Because those teachers assume that their instructors knew what they were talking about, they employ and teach the same competencies. In addition, tools such as textbooks are assumed to written by experts who are presenting generally reliable or "proven" material. Granted, there is nothing wrong with passing down knowledge, but over time certain concepts can become slightly altered. For example, evolution is a theory, but many people treat it and label it as "fact." This is arguably inappropriate, because even scientists do not universally use the terms "fact" and "proof."

Faith and comfort

Evolution is also taught because humanity often feels compelled to put their faith in something. It gives people comfort to feel like their knowledge base has some assurance and backing. Ironically, proponents of evolution will lament people of "faith" who promote creationism as an different viewpoint. The reality of scientific discovery is that evolution is followed with the same type of faith in many respects. In other words, it is assumed that evolution is true, despite wide gaps in data and information. Critics of creationism will point to the statistical unlikelihood of creationism, but mathematicians will make the same judgments about evolution.

Trust in humanity.

Why Schools Teach the Theory of Evolution - Associated Content - associatedconten*****m

[Justin]

You both have very arguable point's that you can back up with, but please tell me one thing, Why is it now that Physicist believe there is a God particle that belonged to the big bang, I'm not sure if you have heard of this theory as of yet, but Physicist's think that during the process of the "Big Bang" a "God Particle" was released, I have no idea why this is but I have only just heard of recently myself, also if you read Genesis very carefully and break down the text at hand, you will see that the explanation written down on how the Universe was created has similarity's to the Big Bang Theory!

[Mouzie]

You both have very arguable point's that you can back up with, but please tell me one thing, Why is it now that Physicist believe there is a God particle that belonged to the big bang, I'm not sure if you have heard of this theory as of yet, but Physicist's think that during the process of the "Big Bang" a "God Particle" was released, I have no idea why this is but I have only just heard of recently myself, also if you read Genesis very carefully and break down the text at hand, you will see that the explanation written down on how the Universe was created has similarity's to the Big Bang Theory!

It is not called God Particle, the creator (discoverer) hates it when people call it that.

It is in fact the Higgs boson.

The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known fundamental scalar particles in nature.

The Higgs boson is the only Standard Model particle that has not been observed. Experimental detection of the Higgs boson would help explain the origin of mass in the universe. The Higgs boson would explain the difference between the massless photon, which mediates electromagnetism, and the massive W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak force. If the Higgs boson exists, it is an integral and pervasive component of the material world.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, which became fully operational on November 20, 2009[1], is expected to provide experimental evidence of the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson. Experiments at Fermilab also continue previous attempts at detection, albeit hindered by the lower energy of the Fermilab Tevatron accelerator. It has been reported that Fermilab physicists suggest that the odds of Tevatron detecting the Higgs boson are between 50% and 96%, depending on its mass.

One of the most brilliant simplifications I’ve ever come across is the term “the God Particle.” Physicists think this subatomic speck of matter, if it is ever found, could explain the mysterious code at the origin of the physical world. To know this would be to “know the mind of God,” as Einstein wanted to do. The Nobel Prize winning physicist Leon Lederman wrote a book with that name 15 years ago that was so interesting that even a physics klutz like myself (I almost failed it in high school…) read and enjoyed it.

It turns out, though, that the physicist who launched the hunt for this elusive particle doesn’t like its nickname. “It embarrasses me,” Peter Higgs said in Geneva this week at a news conference our correspondent Robert Evans attended. “Although I am not a believer myself, it’s a misuse of terminology that might offend some people.”

Higgs, now 78, first proposed a theory of the particle officially knows as the Higgs boson 40 years ago. CERN, the giant nuclear research centre at the French-Swiss border near Geneva, is building a vast underground particle collider to try to find it. “The likelihood is that the particle will show up pretty quickly … I’m more than 90 percent certain that it will,” Higgs said after visiting the collider due to start working early next year.

So the term “the God particle” may be coming to the religion blogosphere pretty soon. Instead of doing the homework and writing the essay, I’ll let others explain what it is — here are some good examples at National Geographic and Wired and a cartoon here.

Lederman, by the way, also seemed of two minds about calling the Higgs boson the “God particle.”

As he put it in his book:

“This boson is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname: the God Particle. Why God Particle? Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn’t let us call it the Goddam Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing. And two, there is a connection, of sorts, to another book, a much older one…

Lederman then goes on to quote Genesis 11:1-9 , the Tower of Babel story about mankind dispersing. Finding the God Particle, he says, would be like undoing the confusion that followed.

Even if the physicists have qualms, I think the term “God Particle” is so expressive that I’m glad Higgs didn’t get his way. I know there are those out there who don’t agree, who do and who don’t say. There are also deep implications for science and religion. Still, some things are just so awesome that a reasonable comparison with the divine seems to me like a good way to put something so hard to understand into perspective.

It does not have anything to do with the bible the man just quoted it.

It will not solve very much, it'll solve how protons and masses are created.

Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...achenbach-text

Is “God Particle” the right term for massive mystery in physics? | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters

[Justin]

Thank-you for providing that piece of Information, Even though there are many differences in views between religion and science, I am very glad to say that they have existed with each other with out any major hick-ups, there have been a few battles with Science and Religion, but this then leads me to one of the worst religious groups ever created, The Church of Scientology! This unfortunately shouldn't be called a religion but more of a Cult dedicated to Stealing Celebrities Wealth!

EDIT: Mouzie You Will be Added to My Respect List, For Providing Truly Excellent Debatable Responses and Backing It Up With Evidence, I like Your Style Keep It Up

[Paroxysm]

Oh Mouzie, you disappoint me. This "Evolution is just a Theory" is nonsense. Evolution is "just a theory" in the same sense that gravity is just a theory, or atoms are just a theory or germs being the cause of disease is just a theory. Our understanding of evolution is far more complete then our understanding of gravitation. You seem to put Evolution and ID/Creationism on the same level, one is the respect, test and proven model for the origin of species, the other is the non-sequiturial rambles of scientific-illiterates trying to undermind the achievements and understandings of science in the name of their bronze age religion. I regret to inform you Xion, but contrary to what your buddies Kent Hovind, Ken Ham or Ray Comfort might say, the earth isn't 6,000-10,000 years old, humans didn't live side by side with tyrex's and homosexuality can't be prayed away. felt I should cover some ground before my absence.

Here's a recap:

Scientific Theory Does NOT equal educated guess.
All reliable dating methods point to an earth that is 4.54 billion years old
Evolution is a fact, in fact there are so much evidence in support of evolution that scientists needed to create Evolutionary Theory, theories can be thought of as the file cabinet for facts.
The Big Bang is the scientific model for the origin of the universe.

I'll try to drop by this thread a bit more often to give my insights.
I have to say mouzie you did a good job explaining the higgs boson, although you may not of have had an extensive understanding of particle physics, the fact that you were willing to do your research is commendable.

Sometimes I feel like I have to be a scientific referee when reading arguments by creationists, it isn't fun being a fact checker. But with knowledge comes responsibility.

[Mouzie]

Oh Mouzie, you disappoint me. This "Evolution is just a Theory" is nonsense. Evolution is "just a theory" in the same sense that gravity is just a theory, or atoms are just a theory or germs being the cause of disease is just a theory. Our understanding of evolution is far more complete then our understanding of gravitation. You seem to put Evolution and ID/Creationism on the same level, one is the respect, test and proven model for the origin of species, the other is the non-sequiturial rambles of scientific-illiterates trying to undermind the achievements and understandings of science in the name of their bronze age religion. I regret to inform you Xion, but contrary to what your buddies Kent Hovind, Ken Ham or Ray Comfort might say, the earth isn't 6,000-10,000 years old, humans didn't live side by side with tyrex's and homosexuality can't be prayed away. Left I should cover some ground before my absence.

Here's a recap:

Scientific Theory Does NOT equal educated guess.
All reliable dating methods point to an earth that is 4.54 billion years old
Evolution is a fact, in fact there are so much evidence in support of evolution that scientists needed to create Evolutionary Theory, theories can be thought of as the file cabinet for facts.
The Big Bang is the scientific model for the origin of the universe.

I'll try to drop by this thread a bit more often to give my insights.
I have to say mouzie you did a good job explaining the higgs boson, although you may not of have had an extensive understanding of particle physics, the fact that you were willing to do your research is commendable.

Sometimes I feel like I have to be a scientific referee when reading arguments by creationists, it isn't fun being a fact checker. But with knowledge comes responsibility.

Did I say it is a theory?

My fault, I know it is real and even today the evolution change is still accurring to human and animals standard, I don't know much of the theories, sense I have little uses for it and because again as stated in the PM I send you, the State of Israel is a little icky about the subject because of the huge amount of diffrent Jewish religous groups and Muslim groups.

[Justin]

I commend you both on your ability to debate a subject over long periods of time, this where I must also bid farewell and return to where my services can be used the most, the CA NA Section, it's been a privilege to talk amongst some Fine Educated People!

[Paroxysm]

Just when I thought a good debate was going to start, it all ends. All good things must come to an end I guess.

[Kivrin0]

I'm agnostic. I'm not atheist, and I don't think most atheists truly understand what atheism is. It's saying there is nothing more to life than cold hard facts and science, there is no God and no spirituality. Agnosticism is basically being in the middle. You accept some form of spiritual importance but do not follow any religion. The reason I am agnostic is because:
a) There is more than one religion. Just like in science, no theory can be proved if there is a counter theory. Until there is undeniable evidence nobody can say they're correct. Why devote your life to something which will most likely be wrong? Like, what are the odds your religion will be the right one for everybody in the world.
b) There is strong evidence for every major religion in the world suggesting they were invented by humans - and most religions accept this. But they have some gay excuse like "God sent that person a message." Well I could say there's a giant man-eating sloth outside by you're not gonna believe [b]me[b] are you.


Just wanted to get that off my chest.

[Mouzie]

I'm agnostic. I'm not atheist, and I don't think most atheists truly understand what atheism is. It's saying there is nothing more to life than cold hard facts and science, there is no God and no spirituality. Agnosticism is basically being in the middle. You accept some form of spiritual importance but do not follow any religion. The reason I am agnostic is because:
a) There is more than one religion. Just like in science, no theory can be proved if there is a counter theory. Until there is undeniable evidence nobody can say they're correct. Why devote your life to something which will most likely be wrong? Like, what are the odds your religion will be the right one for everybody in the world.
b) There is strong evidence for every major religion in the world suggesting they were invented by humans - and most religions accept this. But they have some gay excuse like "God sent that person a message." Well I could say there's a giant man-eating sloth outside by you're not gonna believe [b]me[b] are you.


Just wanted to get that off my chest.

You don't understand religion do you?

Not trying to be a spidermonkey here but if you don't know me I respect all groups and religions.

Religion is a faith that people can have on in both goods and bad time, while they can't prove it, no matter what, they still belives in this faith as that person been there for them, again. You can't prove it, for thousands of years people (and Jesus) known only one person who gives them hope- religions in Christian, Muslim, and Judism views is mainly-hope, a hope of a better world when you die, a hope of freedom and to get away from the infested hellhole we called Earth.

In many cases, I think Earth IS hell as everyone suffers, everyone does, and when they die you leave this place, you leave this place as a person who is young again and who will never have to be hungry or suffers again. Religion just plainly does that for you, I pray to God so I can quickly pass this test and I have faith in him, if I pass I thank him or if I fail, I curse myself for disappointing him. And-like faith does-try harder to pass next time. You're not going to go to a classmate and goes, "DUDE, PRAY FOR ME MAN.. PRAY FOR MY SOUL!" No, they're going to call the police and- out of the subject.

I don't care what you belives in, I am just trying to get you the understanding of WHY people does religions with out without proof.

[Paroxysm]

I'm agnostic. I'm not atheist, and I don't think most atheists truly understand what atheism is. It's saying there is nothing more to life than cold hard facts and science, there is no God and no spirituality. Agnosticism is basically being in the middle. You accept some form of spiritual importance but do not follow any religion. The reason I am agnostic is because:
a) There is more than one religion. Just like in science, no theory can be proved if there is a counter theory. Until there is undeniable evidence nobody can say they're correct. Why devote your life to something which will most likely be wrong? Like, what are the odds your religion will be the right one for everybody in the world.
b) There is strong evidence for every major religion in the world suggesting they were invented by humans - and most religions accept this. But they have some gay excuse like "God sent that person a message." Well I could say there's a giant man-eating sloth outside by you're not gonna believe [b]me[b] are you.


Just wanted to get that off my chest.

I want to make something very clear because I see this problem come up all the time. Atheism can be separated into two sections, strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheism states "There is No God", weak atheism states "I don't believe in any Gods because sufficient evidence for said God hasn't been provided". I feel you have a poor understanding of the words atheist and agnostic, agnosticism isn't a statement of belief but a statement of knowledge, agnosticism means "Without Knowledge" or "Without Certainty", gnosticism is the opposite, "With knowledge", "With Certainty". So in this sense belief structures about God can be separated into four groups,
Gnostic Theism: I know there is a God
Agnostic Theism: I believe in a God
Gnostic Atheism: I know there is no God
Agnostic Atheism: I don't believe in a God

Nothing about atheism necessitates for you to not be spiritual, if you like to believe that there is a cosmic purpose for our existence or anything else that is your prerogative, but that says nothing about the nature of a god, which theism/atheism is exclusively about. Atheism doesn't limit you to believe in only the natural world, there are plenty of atheists that believe in crazy things, like the Raëlism. Raelists are atheists, they don't believe in a God, but they believe that life on earth came from aliens. Atheism doesn't eliminate ignorance or silly beliefs, it only eliminates a silly belief in God.

Here is a simple test to see if you're an atheist, ask yourself "Do I believe in a God?", if your answer is anything but Yes, you're an atheist. Atheism is literally Not Theism.

Just to clarify I am an Agnostic Atheist, I don't believe in any Gods. Towards some Gods I am a Gnostic Atheist, if the God a person presents to me violates logic, is internally contradictory and inconsistent, then I can easily say that, that God doesn't exist. I should say that there really are very little people who are Agnostic Theists or Gnostic Atheists and I'm not a supporter of Strong Atheism.

[crepern123]

SO FKIN' TRU , CANT DISAGREE MORE

[AN1MAL]