Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[Thorne]

Moses and the Burning Bush
You consider Moses was a lunatic? Because of his faith?

Not because of his faith, but because of his claims. Outside of the Bible there is no historical evidence that Moses even existed. All the evidence shows that the Jews were NOT slaves in Egypt, and that there was no Biblical Exodus. As far as I can tell, Moses was a fiction. And if he were alive today and claimed to be speaking with God, who took the form of a burning bush, where do you think he would end up?

Where's this liberal-minded Thorne who claims to respect other people's beliefs, even nonsensical ones? Let me quote, "... I'm trying really, really hard not to make disparaging remarks about people."

I don't think a fictional character would be upset by being called a lunatic.

I repeat, science has no place in any discussion about the existence of god. Science is nothing more than mankind's observations about the natural world. Whether or not god "exists" (in a supernatural sense) is so far beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as to be forever out of reach. Therefore to demand scientific proof is pointless.

Then by the same token, religious belief has no business in science classrooms. But look into what they are doing, and trying to do, in the Texas school system.

Suppose the burning bush's ashes had been scientifically studied. What would the scientists have found but carbon compounds in the form of ash? They would not be able to examine the gases burnt off, and they would not be able to examine any supernatural residue, because they simply would not recognise it.

Who knows what they might have found, if indeed it had been God. If nothing else, as I said, you have the ashes, which at least tells you that Moses saw SOMETHING. Doesn't necessarily mean God, of course, but at least it is something. Even if this event had taken place, however, there were no witnesses except Moses! And we are to accept his word, without reservation? Why?

scientists would have nothing to say about the other signs God gave Moses - the leprous hand, the staff turned into a snake, the water turned into blood - other than, "We can't explain it; it's not natural." So what use is science, and how could it become involved?

But also according to the story, the pharaohs priests were able to duplicate at least some of Moses' "tricks", which doesn't say much for the power of God.

The person with an opinion can say, "I believe it is not so," but the person who has no opinion can only say, "I don't know if it is so, or not. I haven't decided."

And what of the person who says, "I have not seen any evidence that it is so, so I do not believe it is so." Not a matter of indecision, but a statement of fact.

Science allows the current explanation (or explanations) to persist until it is/they are disproved or replaced by a better one.

Only if the current explanation successfully explained observed phenomena.

How many scientific theories have been formulated, adopted, then replaced by another? Quite a few, but sometimes only after overcoming the most obstinate resistance of other scientists.

If a theory has withstood the test of time, because it explained observations and made predictions which were shown to be accurate, it would naturally take a lot of pressure to have scientists just toss it aside. They would want proof that the new theory is better at explaining reality than the old one did. And sometimes, the old one is not tossed aside but only modified.

A good example is Newton's laws of gravity. For a long time these laws were accepted by scientists because they worked. They described the motions of the planets almost perfectly, and at least one planet (Neptune) was discovered because of discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus. But some perturbations in the orbit of Mercury could NOT be explained by Newton's laws, and scientist were going absolutely nuts over it! Until Einstein put forth his theory of relativity, which accounted for Mercury's perturbations. So instead of scrapping Newton's laws, which worked perfectly well in almost all circumstances, it was modified to exclude its use in high gravity/high energy areas, such as near a star!

Religions also offer explanations through faith and belief. Where they are shown to be false, the explanation is changed to accord with general perception.

The difference is that religions do nothing to test their faiths and beliefs. They are handed down as dogma, something you MUST believe in, and questioning that dogma is a religious crime. It's only when change is FORCED upon them, from the outside, that they reluctantly change. And historically, they were far more likely to suppress the reality in favor of the fantasy.

Thus, religions develop their faith and add greater meaning to their beliefs.

But still, it's all based on a foundation of nothing!

Evolution. The reason we no longer toss virgins into volcanoes.

I don't get this one. Geology is why we don't toss virgins into volcanoes.