Tag Archives: religion

Science Probably Can Explain It

One thing I think I’m going to try to be very cautious about is to NEVER say, “Science cannot explain this or that phenomenon.”  I get uneasy when I hear another Christian say something like that, too (even the slightly less brazen “Science has not yet explained this or that phenomenon”).  It always is to imply that the reason science hasn’t is because they can’t and they can’t because it’s supernatural and therfore GOD because you can’t measure God.

Well, that’s silly.  And it’s that kind of attitude that I think has played a large role in drawing a line in the sand between “science” and “religion,” and that’s a line I’m tired of running into because it shouldn’t be there.  When a believer tells a non-believer that science can’t explain something, the believer somehow thinks that the non-believer will hear that and then fall to their knees and worship Jesus (at best; at worst they expect them to feel stupid and ashamed–I know because I’ve naïvely expected both at different times).  What the non-believer actually does is takes that assertation as a challenge.  So the non-believer learns science and eventually EUREKA! they explain whatever could not be explained.  So now the non-believer takes that back to the believer and demonstrates that what was unexplainable was explained with science, and since the believer said that you couldn’t explian it because it’s supernatural and therefore GOD, the non-believer says that they did explain it and therefore it is natural and therefore NO GOD.  So the believer recomposes themselves and picks something else behind what science has just explained and say that science cannot explain that. Rinse, repeat.  Like I said, it’s silly.

Why is the criteria for “God” or “no God” based on whether man can measure creation and understand creation better?  And I mean that for both the Christian and the naturalist.  To the Christian:  I was under the impression that God actually wants us to learn about his creation.  Now, I by no means think that everying “science” says is correct, but I need to resist the temptation to say that science is unreliable and should not be used or trusted at all.  To the naturalist:  I don’t get why one would think that the ability to, say, observe the chemical reactions in one’s brain during prayer, or have a determination of the particles present in the earliest seconds of the universe negates God.

I know that the arguments are much bigger than that on all sides, but it’s just something I thought about today.  Probably because I’ve been spending way too much time at Yahoo! Answers again–but that’s because I’m up to something.  Just you wait. . . .

Advertisements

Arguing with Idiots

I’ve been mistaken before as a person who “has to be right.”  This is not correct.  I have no problem being wrong.  None.  When I’m shown that I’m wrong, I go through what I think are normal stages of denial, anger, and acceptence, but I can absolutely admit that I’m incorrect about something.  What I ACTUALLY am is someone who can’t stand someone else being wrong.  You may say that’s not much better, but I say that’s up for debate.  This goes for factual errors they have, like the guy that I met through an old roommate one day who was wrong about every movie trivia thing he brought up.  The one I remember– Him:  “So that new Die Hard movie is coming out this summer?  Man, they released those FAST.”  Me:  “Fast?  How do you figure?”  Him:  “Well the first one came out like mid-90’s!”

Sigh.  This is the point in which a responsible and mature person would keep their mouth shut.  What does it matter if he’s wrong?  Well . . . it matters to me.

Me:  “Um . . . no, actually the first one came out in the late 80’s.”

Him:  “No, the first one was like 1996!”

Sigh.  I knew I was right.  I remember not being allowed to watch the first one with my new step family, with whom I was joined in 1989.  But I could see that debating with him further would be ultimately pointless, so I let it go.  Painfully, but I did let it go.  But rest assured if he were someone I were closer with, I wouldn’t have.

This also goes for logical fallacies.  Actually, it goes primarily for logical fallacies.  And when you’re someone who has the hardest time in the world seeing a logical fallacy and shrugging it off, comment sections on the internet are the WORST places for you to be.  I try to stay away . . . but they’re like crack!  Sweet, emotion-riling crack.

Recently there was an article about how Iran was restricting acedimic studies which they deemed “western” and would only allow subjects that they, an Islamic-based government, deemed okay.  Most of the comments were related to the story, but twenty to forty percent of them that I saw were some kind of stab at religion, in general, and more than half of those were directed right at Christianity:

The christians fighting to destroy seperation of state and church should be forced to live in Iran. Then MAYBE they can see why we wouldn’t want the same thing.

The funny (or not so funny) thing is that the American Christian Taliban is doing the same thing. Trying to deny scientific fact in the light of neo-‘Christianist’ dogma. Trying to suppress truth, history and the facts surrounding the violence inherent in the spread of Christianity, et cetera.  No difference.

hey all of you anti-islam nuts you do realize that islam split off from the jewish faith just like christianity.

Every time I read articles like these, I can’t help to notice the similarities between the radical Muslims and the radical Christians here in America. They are fundamentally the same! Only names change.

I got over arguing directly against claims like these a long time ago.  What I struggle with now is the contradiction in their hearts.  This is best explained via my comment:

How funny that so many people LEAPED at the opportunity to bash Christians in a story about oppressive Islamic governments.  You have a prejudice. If you had no prejudice, your reaction would have been 100% about the Iran government and not an excuse to complain about something entirely unrelated.  If you insist that they ARE related, then let me reiterate my point that you have a prejudice.

You and I could go round and round about whether or not I should have said anything, but that’s not why we’re here.  We’re actually here because of the responses I got to that.

“6” said, “Show me one person without prejudice and I’ll show you a liar. .”  Well I guess that settles it, right?  Everyone has prejudice in some fasion, so all this prejudice is justifiable.  Problem solved.

Watch out for that puddle of sarcasm I left back there.

How about another one?  “XC” said, “It’s funny how so many people LEAPED at the opportunity to bash liberals when this story is totally unrelated. Hypocrite much?”  I want you, as my reader, to PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me what part of my comment up there was bashing liberals.  I’m at a loss.

And now for my favorite one, from screenname “What?Why?”:

You assume that we assumed.
You are prejudging us to be discriminatory of others.
NOICE!

Ready? FIGHT!!  What?Why? uses “Poor Logic!”  “Poor Logic” causes Braden to perform a self-attacking DOUBLE FACEPALM!!!  CRITICAL HIT!!!  BRADEN HAS BEEN K.O.’D!!!

This guy got plenty of thumbs up on that response, too, which tells us that there are more people out there who think that he made sense.

I assumed that he assumed?  What did I assume?  I saw comments bashing Christians and saying that all Christians want to oppress the world with creationism and prayer in schools after an article about the Iranian Islamic government.  I’ll ask again–what did I assume?  And I “prejudged” them to be discriminatory of others?  What does that even mean?  How does one “prejudge” someone else when they point out something they just did?

This is the kind of stuff that gets me the most.  And it eats at me that I can’t find that guy and sit him down and explain to him how what he said was, well, moronic.  Which is what keeps this comment section cycle spinning . . .

Confessions of a Closet Yahoo! Answers User, issue 2

So I’ve been at it again.  I fell off the wagon.  Rather than feel guilty over it, I’m going to share my experiences here.  Hopefully this will be good therapy, as I clearly need help.

I started out in areas of helping people with guitar questions.  It seemed sterile enough.  But that turned out to be the problem . . . I needed controversy.  My brain needed twisting; my emotions needed riling.  So I stumbled into the cesspool known as the “Religion & Spirituality” category.  It really found me, honestly.

So I responded to many questions that caught my eye.  I’d answer one, then see the four suggested “Open Questions in ‘Religion & Spirituality,'” find a new one, answer that, then rinse and repeat.  All said and done I answered probably 15 questions.  I’m so ashamed . . . but let’s get to what we have.

Let’s start by giving you an idea for the two polar opposites that are at war in the “Religion & Spirituality” category of this site.

First, my *cough* brothers and sisters in Christ . . .

Yes or No…… Do you believe in this lie of the Devil ——>?

Pangaea……
The absurdity of India forming the Himalayas is of particular interest…….
Should not India be surrounded by 250 Million year old Oceanic-Crust?
If you say it has been Sub-ducted then how did
India get enough traction to form Mount Everest?

To which I responded, “Can I answer your question with a question?  How will this poking and prodding and instigating arguments change people’s hearts about Jesus?”

I didn’t get best answer, but I did get five votes from those who are not myself FOR best answer.

And in the other corner, the “free thinkers” of the world, the Angry Atheists . . .

When will Christians understand that when you finally accept the truth that gods are just silly . . . ?

To which I responded, “And come to accept everything you believe, since there is absolutely no way that you have been lied to or deceived?  I wonder when, indeed.”

That question was actually deleted because it violates some Yahoo! Answers rule, which I find amusing.  Not that it got deleted, but that Yahoo! Answers has rules.  I answered that one late in my binge and my patience was wearing thin, as if any time spent there will reap any positive rewards.  It’s just people on one side prodding at people at the other side, and no one actually wants answers, they just want to be right.  And there I am, playing along with all of it.

They range from the playful in spirit . . .

Christians, would the arrival of aliens to earth change any of your religious tenets?

Would it affect you more if they were atheists or had their own deities?

The one chosen as best answer is actually pretty darn good:  “Hum, fun question.  No, theoretically it changes nothing for me, or the Bible story.  Good news, anthropic principles are so strong that such an idea is basically scientifically dead and the distances God has put between the Galaxy’s are so huge that how could we ever get there anyway?”

. . . to those with inter-religious bones to pick . . .

If Jehovah’s Witness faith is wrong then explain how your church has been in wars and theirs haven’t?

I’ll let you mull that one over on your own.

. . . and then you have the mind-bogglingly, poorly thought out questions from both those who hold a political point of view that clashes with Christianity, and those who claim atheism.

Exhibit A:

A question for pro-life Christians?

Just out of curiosity, do you attach the same importance to opposing the death penalty and war that you attach to opposing abortion?  If not, why not? Are lives less valuable once they’re out of the womb?

To which I lost it and answered: “Okay, I’m tired of this argument, because it’s clear as day that you, and those who hold it, haven’t thought it through. YOU want to throw in our faces the reality of war and the consequences of heinous crimes against humanity as a justification for ending a 100% innocent life out of convenience. So is YOUR ideal world one without war, without the death penalty, and no one questioning whether it’s right or wrong to kill a baby?”

and Exhibit B:

If “god” made me, why did he make me an atheist?

Which got deleted, too.  Gotta love them rules.  Another one of the same kind:

Why do theists want so badly for hell to be real?

Again, take a second to think through the logic of that, especially if you’re a Christian who believes in the reality of Hell.  Then know that the “best answer,” as chosen by the asker, was, “Revenge, for picking on them,” and the asker followed up with, “Sad to say I believe you’re right.”

Sighplusface-palm!

All of this really brings me even further to the conclusion that nothing of value can come from not only this site, but any format like it.  There has been plenty of discussion, and even research, on how poor of a resource this site is for actual answers, and it’s clear that its worst when the questions are the most important of all.  I have to fight the temptation to spread the word about this, which will only ultimately keep me here . . . . . . I sure hope he ignores those thumbs down under my answer, seeks out a real person, and makes it.

No . . . wait . . . that one got deleted, too.  What rule did that break?