Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pre-Medical - MD' started by pmarank, Aug 12, 2011.
No ... But on an interview, I am pope benedict
I am to Loma Linda
Very high agnostic/atheistic population here on SDN.
But I thought you needed to learn science in order to learn medicine.
It's actually a really good school.
I'm whatever will get me into heaven
it depends on what being religious means cuz i go to church every Sunday but i don't consider myself religious.
Not at all. But that doesnt mean I dont have a lot of faith.
agnostic theist here.
theres something out there that's all i know and that's all we are going to know. No religion answers that excluding the fairytale stories
These poll choices could be better...
yeah, it took me a good 2 minutes to make up my mind.
Care to elaborate?
I believe there is probably some sort of divine power, but I don't necessarily believe in any one religion. My grandfather was a deacon in the catholic church and I went to a catholic elementary school but I rarely go to church anymore. I guess I would consider myself agnostic. Couldn't really decide on a poll choice....
The most correct answer would be "Nope".
Yeah I guess you're right, brb clicking nope.
Moralistic Therapeutic Deist here.
Used to be more of a Secular Humanist, and I still hold a lot of those beliefs. I just can't really decide my thoughts on a higher being lately - even one that plays no role in humanity.
I think there is a lot of people who are biology/science majors and realize that evolution is true and creationism is obviously false. Many people say that religion and science can coexist, but it really can't. If you believe in evolution, the future descendants of chimps eventually broke off and after many common ancestors we get homo sapiens. If this is true, then there is no adam and eve in the garden of eden. If there is no adam and eve, there is no mortal sin and kills the big 3 religions right there. Obviously the earth wasn't created in 7 days.
Also if you look at how big the universe is, the earth is microscopic compared to the universe and it would seem weird that god chooses only to deal with such a tiny part of the universe. There are so many positions against religion and the internet allows a larger spread of many different points of views the longer you are on it, so people are no longer just confined to what their parents tell them. If you look around so much death and corruption comes at the hand of religion. From 9/11 to the shooter in norway to priests raping little boys, it's hard for people to continue to maintain their faith. People like to think that the cross that was formed on ground zero was an act of god, but atheists refute that with "if god was truly all powerful why did he allow the attacks to happen in the first place?"
Other points against religion include: how can you justify say jesus, allah, or yahweh as the true god (or son of) as well as saying zeus, osiris, flying spaghetti monster are just myths? These are questions religion faces and why IMO there are such a high # of atheists on SDN. I know that this board is full of highly intelligent individuals who learn to question everything and some things just make more sense. (I'm not saying religous people are stupid or anything)
I'm mostly agnostic, although I attend a Catholic church every weekend. I've always thought that there is a higher power in the universe. However, none of us are truly able to define what that higher power is. Everyone person uses a different belief system to define that divine power, whether it is Catholic, Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, etc. Everyone is right, because we can never know who is right or if anyone is right, as religion is something that we can never truly understand.
In the end, though, I think that living a respectable and decent life means a heck of a lot more than adhering to the religious beliefs of any church.
Good post. However, this does ignore other types of religious belief which are more compatible with the scientific world view. Obviously, a religious-fundamentalist mindset is not going to be compatible with modern evolutionary theory, but you must realize that there are many scientifically-inclined religious folk - myself included - that embrace both faith and science, with open-minded sincerity.
Additionally, your post fails to show the benefits of religion. I realize that religious extremism is behind many of the world's conflicts and ills; but, religion itself is also directly or indirectly responsible, albeit, if solely as motivation, for much of the great art, music, culture, literature, mathematics, philosophy, and science which has graced our planet and enhanced our civilization. Without religion, I think our species would feel a lot more like our cousin, the ape.
I consider myself a Christian and no amount of science will change that. I may not go to church or read the bible or even live my life to the exact standards 'required', but I do believe in God and that Jesus died for our sins.
I follow along the lines of this:
If you cannot prove it, you also cannot disprove it.
That can go for many things, not just religion.
Saying that, my high school science teacher had some very interesting thoughts on the topic. They weren't meant to force us to agree or disagree, just to get us thinking. Yes, I went to a Christian middle and high school. At that time I also attended church, taught Sunday School to youngsters (4-8 yo) and sang in the choir. It was never forced upon me and something I freely chose to do with my time.
Getting back to my teacher...on the first day of class he outlined two 'stories' that he has used for every single one of his classes. If you graduated from that school, you knew about, "The Fisherman and the Lake" and "The Hundred Dollar Bill in the Hallway".
The basic premise of the fisherman story was this:
A lake is filled with large organisms and small organisms. As a fisherman, you are limited as to which ones you can catch. Not because it isn't possible, but because you lack the necessary tools. You can get the mesh as small as you like on your nets, but you will always miss something. He compared the fisherman to a scientist. Just because we lack the tools to prove the existence of God or an afterlife, does not mean it does not exist.
The next analogy was a demonstration:
Students were told that there was a $100 in the hallway (a door from his class led to a hall which led to the lab). We were also told that we could have it. He invited a student to attempt to go get it. The door was locked. The premise is this. The door to heaven is also locked and no man can enter before his time. We have to accept on faith that it exists. Just as we accepted on faith that there was a $100 in that locked hallway.
I only write this to show my personal thoughts on the matter. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you don't believe in God or do, that is your personal choice. I just though I would share my 'a-ha' moment in relation to religion and science. I also believe in keeping the two separated.
My religion doesn't interfere with science and vice versa. Creationism and Evolution are both theories to the scientific community. Far too often I see people claim that evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It isn't. You are going on faith yourself if you believe in it, just as I am when I believe in Creationism.
I firmly believe that science and religion can coexist. Scriptures are words, and words can have multiple meanings. For you science folk, it's like the verbal section of the MCAT. "When the author says X, what could they mean?" There is room for interpretation. And in that room, you can find science and religion coexisting. I don't want to get into a debate or anything cause I don't want to be an armchair philosopher that will have to google and wiki countless amounts of info just to try and make a point, but I just wanted to voice my opinion.
I believe in the god of Spinoza...
My belief is that politics were alive and well 2,000+ years ago, which would undoubtably lead to a holy text that reflects common political thought of the day (i.e. stone all adulterers/homosexuals/foreigners etc.) and that the creation story is at best an elaborate metaphor and at worst an amalgamation of the stories of surrounding communities.
So, God, yes; Bible as the word of God, no.
And my parents are bible-bashers, and they hate me for this.
no but Revelations is totally true
I am going to offer this counter-argument despite the fact that I am certain that your opinion on the matter will be unchanged, such is life.
The conclusion of this story is fundamentally flawed from a logical perspective (I mean 'logical' in the technical sense). First I'll start by defining what a positive and negative claim are.
Examples of a positive claim:
- Republicans are the most well informed politicians
- Global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels
- There is a pink ninja dragon hiding in your closet
Examples of a negative claim:
- Republicans are not the most well informed politicians
- Global warming is not caused by the burning of fossil fuels
- There is not a pink ninja dragon hiding in your closet
Notice that in my negative claims I never attempted to offer a counter positive argument, I simply refuted the first one. In logic, it is the burden of the proponent of the positive claim to prove it's truth. It is not the responsibility of the opponent to disprove the argument.
To make this explanation more clear I'll stick with the dragon example.
Person A: There is a pink ninja dragon hiding in your closet.
Person B: No there isn't.
Person A: Prove it.
... do you see why that sounds a bit silly to us atheists?
You know how they say... "fate's a b!tch?" Well if we assume b!tches are female in gender/sex... then for all my philosophy majors...
If fate is a b!tch, then God is a girl.
Fate is a b!tch.
Therefore, god is a girl.
(Modus ponens FTW)
PS. When Saggy talks logic... it makes me tingle with happiness. Teehee!
Preview of what happens when 2016 goes to Vegas... wonder who the lucky girl is gonna be...
This is weak sauce. You are barely a Christian.
You are probably a believer out of guilt and fear of what may happen to you when you die. The fact that you only "believe", but do not follow any of the actual (inconvenient?) practices of your religion takes credence away from you.
And here comes the "theory" of evolution argument where the religious claim that its only a "theory"....(not saying that this theory is infallible, but spare me the semantics).
Also, inb4 thread is 9 pages
EDIT: Just read your two examples. LOL! I don't know how these things constitute evidence or even support for a Creator...
This is pretty much incorrect.
Evolution has an Everest-sized mountain of tangible evidence supporting it, and Creationism is constructed arbitrarily depending on who's telling the story. Don't realize that evolution is fact? Educate yourself more.
Look, a simple question involving religion turning into an evolution debate.
Is it possible for you to reply with a mature response to a question? After looking through your post history, at least 50% of your posts include a GIF or YouTube video. Grow up.
See: H.SDN Member.
Yeah they suck to be honest.
Oh my goooooooooooooooooosh can we stop with the religion vs. science debates on the internet? I'm not even averse to that kind of discussion but any debate I've ever seen on the internet has always sucked really badly and becomes filled with so much rambling tl;dr that no one even bothers to read it past the 2nd page except the four people pasting wikipedia/youtube links while writing pedantic columns of drivel to show how sharp and penetrating their logic is.
Please or the love of God/Allah/Nothing, spare us.
There are actually some pretty good ones on YouTube (Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc.)
If you are referring to SDN arguments, then yea, I digress.
I used to be in high school Congressional Debate...once in a blue moon some *****hole would try and refute arguments with god and religion. The entire room would immediately fill with boos. I wish the internet was like high school congress.
I think I'm going to offer my take on this argument as a Christian.
The way I view beliefs such as "God exists" or "Jesus is the savior" is that they are postulates or axioms in traditional logic. Which is to say that in order to proceed further, these are basic assumptions which must be deemed true and cannot be proven as such at any more fundamental levels. An analogy would be the postulate that a straight line can be drawn between any two points in Euclidean geometry.
These fundamental beliefs, which are assumed to be true, are then the starting points for Christianity and other religions. The assumption of truth, then, would be termed faith in religion.
Thus, while the burden of proof is on those making positive statements as they must demonstrate that no counter-example exists, there is no burden of proof for postulates (because of their nature and definition) used as fundamental truths in any one system.
Which would be quite correct However, I am happy to read your counter-argument. I do want to thank you for not making it a you-are-wrong-because-I-say-so-and-I-am-going-to-attack-you-personally-and-not-your-point-of-view.
As a forewarning to other posters, I do not participate in debates on these topics (religion & politics) because they get out of hand and quickly anger those involved. No matter how hard people try to keep things civil, it never happens. Which is why this will be my last post in this thread. The only reason for this post is to elaborate on my original, not to discredit this one or any other.
I completely understand your logic. However the money and the dragon are both just analogies. Being such, they are not perfect. I still fully believe that if you cannot prove something is true, you cannot disprove it either. With no evidence to support either side, or the ability to collect said evidence, it comes down to opinion.
In a nutshell, I am just saying that you cannot knock someone's beliefs until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it does not exist (speaking in general here...not in retort). I cannot prove that the loch ness monster exists, but I cannot disprove it either.
I do believe in the scientific method. If it is not observable or testable, then it is out of the scope of science's ability to study. This does not mean that they cannot try to prove/disprove something. It just means until they do, no one can claim anything as factual.
Just because science cannot prove/disprove something, it does not mean that something does not or cannot exist. They didn't know that the bacteria H. Pylori causes ulcers until recently. Obviously H. Pylori existed before it's discovery. Now that we know the underlying cause and how stress and diet can lead it to cause ulcers, we can work to solve the problem and not just the symptoms. As equipment and technology gets more advanced, so does science's ability to discover new things.
Maybe God does not exist and maybe he does. People do have a right to believe in whatever they want. At the end of they day, everyone accepts their beliefs on faith because there is no concrete evidence that is both observable and testable to support any claim. If I am wrong on this and missed some major news on concrete evidence supporting any of these theories, then I apologize in advance.