Have some scientists been too fanatical?

Both imo, though I'll admit that the ones doing acts of violence would be far more of a fanatic. I would like to think that christians would never resort to violence but I know it has happened before, despite what the bible and more specifically Jesus teaches. It's a shame and an embarassment to the religion.I don't have an overwhelming problem with south park. I do feel that at times its a poor excuse for comedy. Its what I call shock comedy, sort of along the lines of a horror movie that just uses excessive gore with a bad story.Thats my opinion and I don't mean to make any great claims about south park. It's still on so a lot of people must like it, which I'm fine with. I was just trying to offer up an example of a television show that might go a bit over board. It's prob not the best example but I said it,so I'll own it.

Yeah I agree that Christians have messed up a lot and its a real shame. I don't mean to imply that I feel like only aethiests should change how they interact with christians. I think that christians have a lot of adjusting to do in order to one day gain some respect from aethiests. The sad part though is that usually when one side insults the other, it is returned. Both sides are guilty of this, speaking on the level of the general population. This I feel needs to change, because I doubt either side is ever going away and it would be a real pity to discount someone based only on their personal belief.

Well thats what I got when I did an internet search for the theory of evolution and I pasted the section described as darwin's theory of evolution.Heres another one that clearly says the same, that life came from non-life. I just realized the first site I pasted from may have been from a non-mainstream source.(I didnt look much at the site just clicked on the first one I saw)http://curiosity.discovery.com/...hat-is-theory-of-evolutionI know this isnt an official scientific site but again it says the same.After trying to find an official site with the most current definition as it apparently has changed quite a bit, I came up empty. I think the theory only technically says that life evolves lol. Think we all know this already. Can someone maybe link what the official theory says?It would seem to me though that science believes in cause and effect. This would presume to say that life came from non-life unless you believe that in the singularity or pre big bang that life already existed.I do know that almost everytime I hear of evolution on television, the notion of life springing up in a primordial soup is almost always mentioned. It should be clear why this is a common misunderstanding of what the theory says and I dont think its unique to just creationists. Edited by sinamatic, : No reason given.

Thats what I meant by somewhere somehow, might have been a poor choice of words but I was simply try to say that common ancestor implies that life started from non-life by some scientific means. I would also argue that most christians believe God to be a living god. The Living word, the living lord etc. Saying we all agree that life started from non-life is not really as simple a statement as you might think.I do see your point though, and I would agree that if someone said that life came from non-life with a common ancester that evolved into everything that existed, that would not necessarily specify wether or not God was involved. Common sense tells me it does though, so thanks for the compliment.

I'm not sure how I missed your post, but I did and thank you for a great site that I can more accurately say what I mean to express in the future.

panspermia is a pretty interesting idea and one that I used to give thought to. I just can't imagine how any life would survive the big bang though. I think it just kind of kicks the can down the road on the question of life's origination. I see it as an idea that isn't widely accepted but may one day be the mainstream if evidence is found.I think that a lot of people try to use science to explain everything. I think this is a flaw because how can science explain what or why someone thinks a thought or makes a choice? If it ever did explain it then people would not be responsible for any action or thought they ever had, good or bad, because science did it. People would not have a choice in how they behaved because the chemical processes in their brain made them do it.I know this is getting really off topic but I find it interesting to hear how science explains thoughts and choice. Seems to me that if it can be explained scientifically, then humans havent discovered a single thing. It was just the product of chance and science that we know what we do now, and it determines what someone is going to post on this forum next. I might not even be me, there is no me, only matter and energy behaving with the laws of the universe.Back to you though nwr, you make valid points and I hear what you are saying.

I was replying to nwr who put the two in the same sentence.Please explain what you mean by phenomenon

What I mean is that most aethiests, believe that there is a scientific explaination for why we got here. I know that scientists do their best to formulate theories based on evidence and not over extend what the evidence shows. Big questions still remain though and people are taught that there is a scientific explaination for everything out there, it just needs to be discovered and some things we will never be discover because our base of knowledge rests only on what we can observe here from earth , I get that.My goal is to try and show that belief in a god is not as far fetched as a lot of people claim. I've been accused of believing in fairy tales, believing with blind faith, magic, and of being dellusional. I accept what scientists claim and see the evidence. I take all that with a grain of salt though. I think some scientists over step their boundries sometimes though in the name of science. Science as an institution does an excellent job of wording their theories to match what the evidence shows. I understand that at times this has conflicted with what some religious institutions have taught and dont blame them for saying what they find to be true/untrue.So my question is if some scientists have been too fanatical, combining their personal beliefs not based on evidence with evidence that can be reliably used in science applications. I also would like to point out that it is entirely possible for a person believing in god to practice science just as well as an aethiest.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI5I10CAGIghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-OBokk5TbU
a good debate imoLinked those just to show that there is debate to be had defending an existence in god without denying what science shows.Civil debates are a good thing, and I would like to see more of them.The first link is only to show the desire to debate, not to accuse dawkins of being afraid to though I must admit after watching that
I wonder why dawkins would decline that debate yet agree to debate kirk cameron lol...what?However I applaud dawkins for accepting all of his other debates. He obviously believes strongly in what he does and isnt afraid to have a dialog about it. I think that is the way people should try to change peoples minds, not by teaching them only one side, military force or social pressure.

ok correction then, solely a scientific explanationIf not then that kind of assumes something supernatural has happen or happens, or that nature itself is supernatural, not a far cry from believing in a diety or possiblility of one.Edited by sinamatic, : No reason given.

Yeah it doesn't even try. It explain's why God did it

You sir moved up a notch in my book, for what its worth, and I thank you for that. If only everyone thinked like this, then every discussion would be civil and not degrade to petty insults.I also try my best to understand aethiest and agnostic viewpoints
As long as they don't violate my moral code, I don't criticise them either as, after all, we are all on this journey together.Sometimes though I'll admit I may try to persuade them to change their beliefs and I expect the same back at me from time to time

You seem to me as a person who believes there is a answer to everything satisfied through knowledge of science. I don't believe science is capable of answering all questions about our lives. God is the answer to these questions for me. Science has not convinced me of why life exists or why do we have such incredible imaginations or why do we ask why, to list a few examplesSo naturedidit for you and goddidit for me it would seem

To you it doesn't but to me it explains everything. I say that refering to science, my religion and my personal experiences. I still have questions but I feel like on the whole I have a much more general understanding of how I fit into the grande scheme of things.I know that you don't feel the same but we can agree to disagree

Yeah I'm not going to argue with that because I can see how that might very well be true.