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

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

How would anyone know that?

If anything it would seem from the evidence that if there is a god he doesn't care about humans at all.

A, so now you're a deity expert as well. What you mean is "if there's a God and he's like humans then he doesn't care at all" because you believe that if there'd be a God he'd do the things that YOU think are right.

They aren't the same kinds of faith. Religion requires blind faith. You have to believe god exists without any evidence.

You don't need blind faith in science. It might be difficult but you can reproduce the results claimed by science and verify them yourself.

I'm sure most rely on faith with regards to science. Faith in the scientists that they are not deceiving the public.

No, you're wrong. Most people that believe in God have had plenty of evidence. What you're saying is believe in God without evidence repeatable in a lab. There's quite a difference.

So I'd say that the main difference is then believing someone else's evidence (science) versus your own evidence (religion). That doesn't mean one is more valid than the other. But people who believe in God generally believe that they've had plenty evidence.

So I still say it's the same thing. Just based on different things. The Idead FAITH doesn't change whether you put it in science/medicine/people/religion/whooping naked around a campfire/your ancestors.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

A, so now you're a deity expert as well. What you mean is "if there's a God and he's like humans then he doesn't care at all" because you believe that if there'd be a God he'd do the things that YOU think are right.

You're the one claiming to know what god cares about and you claim I'm the expert?

And now you're telling me what I mean? I know what I mean and it's not what you claim.

There is no evidence of a god intervening in human lives at all. If he's a caring god he sure isn't doing much.

If he just cares about humans but does nothing then he's irrelevant.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

No, you're wrong. Most people that believe in God have had plenty of evidence.

They can claim they have evidence but it doesn't mean they actually do.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

What you're saying is believe in God without evidence repeatable in a lab. There's quite a difference.

Why would anyone care about anecdotal evidence?

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

So I'd say that the main difference is then believing someone else's evidence (science) versus your own evidence (religion). That doesn't mean one is more valid than the other. But people who believe in God generally believe that they've had plenty evidence.

No they aren't just as valid. One is anecdotal evidence and the other isn't.
Completely different things.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

You're the one claiming to know what god cares about and you claim I'm the expert?

And now you're telling me what I mean? I know what I mean and it's not what you claim.

There is no evidence of a god intervening in human lives at all. If he's a caring god he sure isn't doing much.

If he just cares about humans but does nothing then he's irrelevant.



They can claim they have evidence but it doesn't mean they actually do.



Why would anyone care about anecdotal evidence?



No they aren't just as valid. One is anecdotal evidence and the other isn't.
Completely different things.

That's just arguing whether the faith is justified or not. Not whether it's faith or not.

Untill you've actually repeated those experiments yourself. It's still faith. And unless you have a large Hadron Collider in your basement I don't think you'll be doing a whole bunch of those in the near future.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

That's just arguing whether the faith is justified or not. Not whether it's faith or not.

Untill you've actually repeated those experiments yourself. It's still faith. And unless you have a large Hadron Collider in your basement I don't think you'll be doing a whole bunch of those in the near future.

When did I say it wasn't faith?

I said it's not the same kind of faith and it's not.

And they are not equally valid.

Hey guys, none of you is going to change each other's mind, and this discussion is going to spiral down if it is going to consists of nothing but 'is not, is too!' quoting back and forth.

If you've gotten to the point where you do not want to hold a constructive argument, then just drop it ok?

Originally Posted by Bruno

Hey guys, none of you is going to change each other's mind, and this discussion is going to spiral down if it is going to consists of nothing but 'is not, is too!' quoting back and forth.

If you've gotten to the point where you do not want to hold a constructive argument, then just drop it ok?

You don't understand Bruno, he who has the last post/word wins.

Guys, I was reading the first pages and was truly impressed by the gentlemanly conduct as well as relevance of the posts. But the more and more I was reading, the further away people were getting away from the initial subject and bitting down on their bone harder & harder.

Religion is a delicate subject to debate that takes alot of effort by everyone involved. It's VERY easy to get emotional and say something that can be interpreted in a way that gets under someone's skin, so PLEASE use your best judgement to stay a true gentleman when posting.

The discussion are starting to ro round & round, let's not have it go down also....

Cheers !

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

You don't understand Bruno, he who has the last post/word wins.

Well, if the bickering keeps up, then that would be me, explaining why the thread was closed. You may or may not believe in God or the Young Earth, but in this little corner of the universe called 'SRP' you can always believe in me.

.
.
.
.

Ok guys I don't want to take myself too seriously, but that line was just waiting to be said

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

When did I say it wasn't faith?

I said it's not the same kind of faith and it's not.

And they are not equally valid.

So now there are different kinds of faith. Teach me oh great master.

I've only claimed to far what faith is exactly and that untill someone acquires proof on his own (on any subject) that faith is just as valid as anyone else's.

But it seems you know about different kinds of faith. I'd like to know what kinds there are, what they're called and hear some examples on what that means.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

So now there are different kinds of faith. Teach me oh great master.

I've only claimed to far what faith is exactly and that untill someone acquires proof on his own (on any subject) that faith is just as valid as anyone else's.

But it seems you know about different kinds of faith. I'd like to know what kinds there are, what they're called and hear some examples on what that means.

Well i'm no great master by any means but if i may explain how i see the difference between 'faith' and 'faith', or call it 'belief'. As said, in my language there are different words for these, so i try to tell what is a difference.

Now you know how the material world works. It works based on the laws of physics. With little knowledge in chemistry, physics and mathematics you can go far. At simpliest i can say that 2+2=4. I know it is true; i doesn't have anything to with faith. Now we can make it complicated and i still know it is true. Without faith. Even i hadn't calculated most complex theories myself, i know that they can be recalculated at any time. This how the world goes on. If the world wouldn't work by the laws of nature, or laws of physics, it wouldn't work at all. However i must admit that i've worked with engines and motors with such poor condition that little help from any God would have been great
Science is universal. The world works the same way everywhere, it has nothing to do what people believe. Sun shines for pagans too.

Now the second faith. I'm no religious person at all, but i can easily imagine such thing as higher spirit, supernatural or God (or Aesir and Vanir in case of my wife). Now if somebody tells me there is a God, can such claim be repeated and verified in some neutral enviroment in a way that there will be no way for anyone to deny any more? Is it 2+2=4 or is it just someones personal faith without any scientific proof? I say the latter. I'm not saying there is or is not God(s) of any kind but you cannot make an idiot proof claim in the terms of science. You cannot ever proof to say fundamentalist Muslim why your God is more true than his and vice versa. You both only believe and have faith on what is yours and that is it. Can you even take some word from others that there is a God and just rely on that or is personal experience necessary?

Back to my original claim: faith on any higher spirits and science are wrestling on a different arenas. Sometimes they agree and in a case of the OP they disagree. In a scientific terms claiming that the world is 10000 old is an equation that is untrue and false. To believe it is ok but to teach such thing as a science is dangerous.

Lastly i'm not arrogant and try nor am not even ever capable of changing your mind or telling you are wrong. I think that this is just gentlemanlike conversation with just exchanging of opinions.