Thread: Gallup Poll: 4 in 10 believe man created by God 10,000 years ago

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

There is evidence of what I'm actually seeing is happening...it's other people.
They can corroborate my claims of what I'm seeing.

Sure there are lots of things with no evidence but people usually don't believe those things actually exist. Like dragons or goblins.

Ah, so testimonies of others are proof? Here's the thing. In the end it all comes down to faith.

Whether you have faith in the testimonies of others (such as scientists, the witnesses in the bible or your neigbour), or in your own experiences. It all comes down to "what do you believe in". (or who do you believe)

I subject that even evidence comes down to faith. Because a sceptic will not even believe the faith that his own senses tell him. His faith is in something else therefore he'll not take your proof as proof.

What you're subjecting is saying that if enough people testify and truly believe or claim that it's true. Down to claiming to have seen/heard/worked out things. It must be true.

If that's the basis for truth then the creation theory is just as true as any other because there are plenty that have (and will) testify that they've seen/felt/heard truth. The old testament is FILLED with witnesses that claim to have had direct dealings with God. By the law of witnesses that should then be truth.

On the other hand if witnesses can't establish truth....then nothing can be taken for certain and all evidence is dubious at best.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Ah, so testimonies of others are proof? Here's the thing. In the end it all comes down to faith.

Whether you have faith in the testimonies of others (such as scientists, the witnesses in the bible or your neigbour), or in your own experiences. It all comes down to "what do you believe in". (or who do you believe)

I subject that even evidence comes down to faith. Because a sceptic will not even believe the faith that his own senses tell him. His faith is in something else therefore he'll not take your proof as proof.

What you're subjecting is saying that if enough people testify and truly believe or claim that it's true. Down to claiming to have seen/heard/worked out things. It must be true.

If that's the basis for truth then the creation theory is just as true as any other because there are plenty that have (and will) testify that they've seen/felt/heard truth. The old testament is FILLED with witnesses that claim to have had direct dealings with God. By the law of witnesses that should then be truth.

On the other hand if witnesses can't establish truth....then nothing can be taken for certain and all evidence is dubious at best.

I find it difficult that you equate the scientific advances that have been made in the last 300 years (and effectively sully the credibility of these innovative minds who ultimately excelled and brilliantly advanced us.. most often in defiance of extreme opposition from religious factions) with the unsubstantiated and juvenile (as far as our species as a whole is concerned) wish thinking that is every organised religion on the face of the earth.

Science is what it is and to even attempt to put it on the same level as 'faith' smacks of desperation. It is performed under controlled conditions and the hypotheses are tested and re-tested until proven and thus documented.

I welcome the day anybody, whether they be scientist or religious leader, can prove the hypothesis of the existence of any one deity (of the many to choose from) but I dare not hold my breath.

Religion will never, ever find itself in a position to claim such an esteemed position as science, chiefly because it has no way to prove it's ...ahem... hypothesis.

More importantly (to me anyway) it is yet to answer any of the many abhorrent charges that have arisen against it over the years relating to a plethora of crimes against humanity.

These, gentlemen, while easily and readily springing to mind, are too numerous to list. And I am too much of a gentleman to list them.

Science easily trumps religion on every level. My two cents.

Regardless, I wish you all great shaves.

Originally Posted by MykelDR

I find it difficult that you equate the scientific advances that have been made in the last 300 years (and effectively sully the credibility of these innovative minds who ultimately excelled and brilliantly advanced us.. most often in defiance of extreme opposition from religious factions) with the unsubstantiated and juvenile (as far as our species as a whole is concerned) wish thinking that is every organised religion on the face of the earth.

Science is what it is and to even attempt to put it on the same level as 'faith' smacks of desperation. It is performed under controlled conditions and the hypotheses are tested and re-tested until proven and thus documented.

I welcome the day anybody, whether they be scientist or religious leader, can prove the hypothesis of the existence of any one deity (of the many to choose from) but I dare not hold my breath.

Religion will never, ever find itself in a position to claim such an esteemed position as science, chiefly because it has no way to prove it's ...ahem... hypothesis.

More importantly (to me anyway) it is yet to answer any of the many abhorrent charges that have arisen against it over the years relating to a plethora of crimes against humanity.

These, gentlemen, while easily and readily springing to mind, are too numerous to list. And I am too much of a gentleman to list them.

Science easily trumps religion on every level. My two cents.

Regardless, I wish you all great shaves.

Faith has nothing to do with religion. It is a state where you trust in something without actually seeing it.

I find it sad that you see the words religion and science in one sentence and have an allergic reaction to it.

I didn't say ANYTHING about either being more true, in fact I stayed as neutral as could be trying to think instead with a clear mind. Not with all those premonitions.

I have faith in certain scientists. I have never seen the idea that I have "genes" or a "genetic makeup". Yet I trust the people that have done the research. I have FAITH in their research. That is the definition of faith that I was putting forward.

Your accusations of religion as the major crime causer also leaves a bad taste in my mouth because we both know that argument can swing both ways. (for example, MAO wasn't very religious, or Stalin...how many were murdered again in the name of their "scientific" beliefs?) It is a straw argument and one meant to insult.

You swing words like "juvinile" and "sully the credibility" around as if the fact that they are fancy words covers up the fact that they are intended to insult and demean. You're one of the few to do that in this thread.

Many have brought facts and ideas to the table and have done so well, even when one doesn't agree with someone else doesn't mean they have to go around insulting people.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Faith has nothing to do with religion. It is a state where you trust in something without actually seeing it.

I find it sad that you see the words religion and science in one sentence and have an allergic reaction to it.

I didn't say ANYTHING about either being more true, in fact I stayed as neutral as could be trying to think instead with a clear mind. Not with all those premonitions.

I have faith in certain scientists. I have never seen the idea that I have "genes" or a "genetic makeup". Yet I trust the people that have done the research. I have FAITH in their research. That is the definition of faith that I was putting forward.

Your accusations of religion as the major crime causer also leaves a bad taste in my mouth because we both know that argument can swing both ways. (for example, MAO wasn't very religious, or Stalin...how many were murdered again in the name of their "scientific" beliefs?) It is a straw argument and one meant to insult.

You swing words like "juvinile" and "sully the credibility" around as if the fact that they are fancy words covers up the fact that they are intended to insult and demean. You're one of the few to do that in this thread.

Many have brought facts and ideas to the table and have done so well, even when one doesn't agree with someone else doesn't mean they have to go around insulting people.

Welcome to my ignore list.

1. Faith has EVERYTHING to do with religion. Without faith religion would cease to exist.

2. No allergic reaction to the simultaneous mention of religion and science... merely the equation of the two.

3. I never said religion was a major crime causer. But I insist all religions need to take responsibilty for the crimes committed in their name, for which most of them have yet to do so.

4. My public school vocabulary has not been utilized to insult or demean anybody. I voiced my opinion on religion as a whole. That is all. It is a pity you are insulted. I cannot help that and never intended to do so.

5. Indeed, many have brought facts to the table in this thread. Some very well. I appreciate YOUR contributions. Thoroughly enjoyed all your posts. I LOVED Jimmy's post re 'Numinous' (though I am of the belief that one should be careful as to how the concept should be emotionally utilized). Still, none enough to convince me of the existence of any deity.

I still wish you great shaves

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

If that's the basis for truth then the creation theory is just as true as any other because there are plenty that have (and will) testify that they've seen/felt/heard truth. The old testament is FILLED with witnesses that claim to have had direct dealings with God. By the law of witnesses that should then be truth.

That is an interesting opinion but i'm not all sure if i could follow the path it leads. In fact i'm always been little curious about people who claim they have direct dealings with God. Not only Christian God, but Allah and countless other Gods people been worshipping in past and present.
Also taking the Bible, Qaran or Gilgamesh etc blindly by the word will bring some other problems, mostly because those people, who in their time wrote all the words down, lived in a different time with little different moral codes and no such knowledge on world we have today.

Religion, or faith in any higher power, plays on a whole different field than science, which tells about reality, with universal terms. What and why things happen the way they happen. Faith is believing in something even if you had no psychical evidence.

I might be repeating myself but i see it the way that science will never ever be able to prove that there is or is not any higher powers, call them Gods if you want, while religion, or faith in such powers will never ever beat hard science what it comes to scientific matters.

Originally Posted by Sailor

That is an interesting opinion but i'm not all sure if i could follow the path it leads. In fact i'm always been little curious about people who claim they have direct dealings with God. Not only Christian God, but Allah and countless other Gods people been worshipping in past and present.
Also taking the Bible, Qaran or Gilgamesh etc blindly by the word will bring some other problems, mostly because those people, who in their time wrote all the words down, lived in a different time with little different moral codes and no such knowledge on world we have today.

Religion, or faith in any higher power, plays on a whole different field than science, which tells about reality, with universal terms. What and why things happen the way they happen. Faith is believing in something even if you had no psychical evidence.

I understand what you mean. However I subject that the idea "faith" means the same thing in both cases.

I.E. acting on something that is true yet unseen/unproven. To me personally it hasn't been proven that atoms exist. And that everything is made out of smaller parts. However I have faith in the people that DID prove that to the point that I take their word for it and live as though it's true. So far, me acting on that idea hasn't backfired and I'd say that my faith in science has proven usefull so far.

The problem is however that in general faith is seen as something to do with religion. Yes, you can have faith in a religion. Thus acting as if it's principles are true and living the religion as if it's principles are true.

However, I have faith in my car as well. I believe that when I get in I'll be able to use it again today. I have no proof for this, someone might have tampered with the engine, something might have worn out on the inside. However I exert my faith by getting in and turning the key (living as though what I believe is true).

The funny thing is that this is also the definition given in the bible, only there mostly they speak as faith in God. But this isn't the only thing one can have faith in. I have faith in my wife, leaving my children with her untill I return from my job.

Faith in the Dutch public transportation. (and although they often disappoint I always get there in the end proving my faith to be true.)



We always talk about proof and science.....but how many of us have actually seen this proof firsthand? For most of us it's just based on faith in the scientist presenting it.

And just as with science, in religion we each have to decide what is worthy of our faith (and our acting upon it's basis) and what isn't (leaving it by the side of the road).

Faith isn't a blind thing.....we can often see the results once we start acting on it. And when we see those results...we can decide whether our faith was justified (increasing our faith and confidence in that principle) or whether is isn't. (decreasing or destroying our confidence and faith.)

But I agree that it's nigh impossible to do for every belief and every religion.

I might be repeating myself but i see it the way that science will never ever be able to prove that there is or is not any higher powers, call them Gods if you want, while religion, or faith in such powers will never ever beat hard science what it comes to scientific matters.

And this, I agree on. If it's true...and such a higher power exists and does not want to be proven, then we never will.

And according to the scientific method it's (if I'm not misstaken but someone may correct me on this) not possible to prove a negative theory

It's certainly fun and informative to read the opinions here. I'm a flat-earther myself. The sun does rise and set, don't you know: I don't see any around whatever spinning going on. And isn't there a big turtle involved with this somewhere? I haven't spoken with God personally, but many TV evangelists do on a regular basis and if you send them enough money will mention you during their next conversation with Himself.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

... "faith" means the same thing in both cases.

Your submition is patently false, Alex. You have confabulated the literal meaning of 'faith', the belief in something, irrespective of evidence, with the more colloquial useage, something expected because evidence supports it, a theory. I can theorise or 'have faith' in the car because, beyond doubt, I have seen it work. It cannot be denied or disproven. Every attempt fails. Then you argue that because the same word can be used to mean different things, that those things are in fact the same thing, but they're not. Religions claims refuse to be even disproven. Properly speaking, science can never prove anything, only disprove. Since religions claims are not falsifiable there can be no comparison. It doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what can be shown. In all instances every effort must be made to remove opinion from the equation.

It is of no consequence to the actual facts what percentage of Americans, or anyone else, believe or opine anything.

Originally Posted by xman

Your submition is patently false, Alex.

Always correcting people eh? Thanks for the correction. Why is subjecting not correct in this case? (honestly don't know and I'd like to know)

You have confabulated the literal meaning of 'faith', the belief in something, irrespective of evidence, with the more colloquial useage, something expected because evidence supports it, a theory.

It's the same thing however. This because past results NEVER fully garantuee future results. Even when something has been done 9999 times and went the same way EVERY TIME that still means something different could happen the next time. We have evidence that it's supposed to go one way and we act based on our faith in that evidence. However any scientist knows that in (pretty much) every experiment at least a number of things will happen differently from expected. We dismiss those because of the small number, but that doesn't make them less true.

I can theorise or 'have faith' in the car because, beyond doubt, I have seen it work. It cannot be denied or disproven. Every attempt fails. Then you argue that because the same word can be used to mean different things, that those things are in fact the same thing, but they're not. Religions claims refuse to be even disproven. Properly speaking, science can never prove anything, only disprove. Since religions claims are not falsifiable there can be no comparison. It doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what can be shown. In all instances every effort must be made to remove opinion from the equation.

It is of no consequence to the actual facts what percentage of Americans, or anyone else, believe or opine anything.

I disagree. You have seen the car work yes. But you have no evidence that it will THIS time. Something can be changed. The same way that someone can have faith in a person. Does that mean he believes that the person might not exist? Does it have a religious meaning to have faith in someone? No it does not.

It means that you have have a belief that they will come through and you base your actions on said belief.

My belief is that 99.99% of people in the world misunderstand and use the words belief and faith as synomyms (*spelling?) while in fact they are not. They mean different things.

Faith indicates a willingnes to act on beliefs.

Belief is just that, an opinion of or on something.

So while a lot of religions TEACH a certain belief. Only people can have faith by acting on said belief.

You believe that the car will work, thus and when you step into it and turn the engine, you have faith.

Remember Idiana Jones and the Last Crusade? Faith required him to step out on the ledge. If he'd just believed it'd have been enough to say "I believe this can be crossed" and he could have gone home after that.

He could have believed that he COULD cross the ravine. But he didn't have faith untill the point where he actually stepped out on the ledge. Was there a scientific explanation? Offcourse! There was a cleverly camouflaged bridge. Did that matter? Offcourse not!

There is a beginning and there is an end... We have already had our beginning... So now we have our end to look forward too...

I was always told not to talk religion, politics or football...