The protein myth

[macdady]

Dude you have your beliefs I have mine. I'm not trying g to start a argument. Its just another view is all. We could go back and forth all day with god this random explosion that but its not worth the time... I've looked into evolution but don't find anything that I agree with. And yes I believe in science, I'm not crazy, but I believe in god. Just put your computer sword away calm down and go about your friendly typing. Like I said just another view point no need to get all twisted up about it

 

[asooneyeonig]

thats the problem, i wasnt stating a belief. i was stating a fact. you cant compare facts with beliefs/opinions.

to define them so there is no missunderstanding.


fact
noun
1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.



be·lief
noun
1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.


o·pin·ion
noun
1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.


as you can see, facts i am stating are not just viewed but are the truths of things accepted by all and are not up for debate. opinion and beliefs by definition can be proven incorrect with facts. i have not even brought up my beliefs and will state that they are such when i do.

i post this for the benefit of others that may be reading this, not just for any particular person.

 

[fueledpassion]

No, it's not proven. At the end of Darwin's book of theory of evolution, he lists a number of things that would totally derail the theory to begin with. You should search for that list. Granted, you won't find that list on the internet.

Gravity isn't a theory. It's a force in nature, along with the strong & weak nuclear forces and electromagnetic force. That's about like saying atmospheric wind is a theory, lol.

Science is a constantly evolving in itself, which means what is "fact" or "accepted theory" or even "accepted fact" as in your case, will be bad information tomorrow. To say that we as humans, who in fact don't know everything there is to know about everything, can declare something as truth and fact is arrogant and ignorant and will prove itself in time that we are such. And as a matter of "fact", the only thing we can take to the bank is that we dont know everything and will constantly be revising what we call truth & fact, lol. To be fair, the individual who brought up the book of Genesis is in fact referring back to the most reliable and complete form of historical records that we have. Just know that if you don't believe Genesis chapter 9, then you should probably not believe any historical reference in the Bible, which means you should also believe nothing that our current historians talk about as "history".

Take the scientific articles with a grain of salt, please. Otherwise you'll fall victim of "knowledge" that will be laughed at in the future.

 

[macdady]

Thank you for that fueledpassion. I'm not exactly a wordsmith lol that was nicely said... and all I was trying to do was bring something else to the table about us not being designed to eat meat. Not start a internet war

 

[asooneyeonig]

another article on law vs theory specifically pointed towards gravity.

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

many people truly do not understand what law, theory, and hypothesis is in the usage of science. that is why i posted earlier [links to] definitions of those items to clarify so that the above post need not be posted at all. please refer to those links for the meaning of theory and law as used in my previous posts. if you do not understand please refer to those links again for the meaning of theory and law as used in my previous posts.

 

[asooneyeonig]

atmospheric wind, which can also be referenced as atmospheric pressure and dynamics is a theory. here is some research on such.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.html
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?id=39756

if you reference the links i provided earlier on the definition of theory as used in science you will see you analogy was not as effective as you think it was.

 

[asooneyeonig]

Thank you for that fueledpassion. I'm not exactly a wordsmith lol that was nicely said... and all I was trying to do was bring something else to the table about us not being designed to eat meat. Not start a internet war

feel free to bring assumptions, opinions, beliefs, and even facts to the discussion. just realize that assumptions, opinions, and beliefs are not necessarily based upon fact. they can be used to allow a person to think of things and in ways that they have not before which is healthy in discussion. but in the end, especially during a discussion about truths, facts win out. that is why they are facts.

 

[macdady]

Wow your really going all out? Why is it that throughout this entire thread there is talk of evolution and no one has argued or chastised anyone yet when one person says something about the bible you go crazy? I smell a internet bully lol

 

[EasyEJL]

feel free to bring assumptions, opinions, beliefs, and even facts to the discussion. just realize that assumptions, opinions, and beliefs are not necessarily based upon fact. they can be used to allow a person to think of things and in ways that they have not before which is healthy in discussion. but in the end, especially during a discussion about truths, facts win out. that is why they are facts.

The problem with calling evolution fact rather than a strongly documented theory is that there is no empirical way to duplicate it and show that overall an organism as a species will change to fit its environment better. The process is too long and slow. Is there evidence that makes it look like it happened? yes, and it very likely did. But it isn't provable to scientific standards due to that timeframe issue.

 

[macdady]

Haha do you know how many scientists actually do not believe evolution to be true? Probably more than you think. Evolution is not fact you cannot prove evolution just the same as I cannot physically prove there is a god. But if you think that the earth and every delicate thing about it and even humans came about by chance I don't get that? And another thing. The big bang is funny because all I have to say is god is the one who put those gases in the air in order for it to happen and you can't prove otherwise lol

 

[macdady]

I'm gonna stop with the arguing. I wasn't trying to start a debate I was simply offering another point of veiw . I'm tired of being attacked and I'd rather not start attacking you. All I do is try to be friendly around here lol

 

[fueledpassion]

This is true. In the end, none of us truly understand anything well enough to speak like it is absolute, especially things like theories.

You know, if we wanna go into this crap about the physical versus the unseen, you might as well bring in all the hypocriticalityof the science community to light. I think of examples like a black hole, dark matter, dark energy, quantum foam (that's a really good example) etc etc. From what I can tell, the word "scientific fact" doesn't actually exist. There are many things that we take faith upon, particularly, scientific communities put faith in Isaac Newton (who btw trusted deeply in the Bible) along with many other significant scientists, I don't see why suggesting Biblical recordings as reliable is off either. I'd rather place my trust in the most significant piece of literature that was written over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors w/ 66 different books, in three different languages on 3 different continents all in harmony with one another (if read in it's proper context) and has remained the most valuable book in all of history, over the assumptions of one Charles Darwin, a man who after losing his 10-year old daughter, had to find a way to explain her death and feel peace about it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100597929

and his doubts..

http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html

And so we all know the differences, lol:

•Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
•Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
•Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. (This is where gravity fits)
•Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.


Also, EasyE, that was a tasteful comment worthy of note. But lets not go any further. Someone else can have the last word but I will also opt out of pursuing this any further.

 

[asooneyeonig]

The problem with calling evolution fact rather than a strongly documented theory is that there is no empirical way to duplicate it and show that overall an organism as a species will change to fit its environment better. The process is too long and slow. Is there evidence that makes it look like it happened? yes, and it very likely did. But it isn't provable to scientific standards due to that timeframe issue.

that is why its a theory. if you follow the links i provided earlier it defines theory in the scientific method.

 

[asooneyeonig]

Wow your really going all out? Why is it that throughout this entire thread there is talk of evolution and no one has argued or chastised anyone yet when one person says something about the bible you go crazy? I smell a internet bully lol

actually i am not even trying. only posting definitions of terms and facts to make sure we are all on the same page for the discussion.

and i saw the evolution part and its all wrong as well. i have yet to post on that as i dont have links for facts as of yet while at work.

 

[asooneyeonig]

Haha do you know how many scientists actually do not believe evolution to be true? Probably more than you think. Evolution is not fact you cannot prove evolution just the same as I cannot physically prove there is a god. But if you think that the earth and every delicate thing about it and even humans came about by chance I don't get that? And another thing. The big bang is funny because all I have to say is god is the one who put those gases in the air in order for it to happen and you can't prove otherwise lol

Thats the difference between hypothesis and theory. I have offered a definition for this discussion and you have not offered an alternate definition so I guess mine hold. Which is good as they came from dictionary.com.

If you were to read those links they would explain your confusion above. The theories you bring are just that so your post does not moce forward the discussion. Only side steps.

 

[asooneyeonig]

The problem with calling evolution fact rather than a strongly documented theory is that there is no empirical way to duplicate it and show that overall an organism as a species will change to fit its environment better. The process is too long and slow. Is there evidence that makes it look like it happened? yes, and it very likely did. But it isn't provable to scientific standards due to that timeframe issue.

Evolution is a theory. It's easy to look that up. I have defined theory with links earlier. That will clarify things for you. I recommend you review them.

 

[asooneyeonig]

I'm gonna stop with the arguing. I wasn't trying to start a debate I was simply offering another point of veiw . I'm tired of being attacked and I'd rather not start attacking you. All I do is try to be friendly around here lol

Can you please show me where I have made any personal or derogatory attacks against you? I see none from my previous posts.

And I am not arguing either. Only attempting to clearly define terms for the sake of discussion.

 

[asooneyeonig]

This is true. In the end, none of us truly understand anything well enough to speak like it is absolute, especially things like theories.

You know, if we wanna go into this crap about the physical versus the unseen, you might as well bring in all the hypocriticalityof the science community to light. I think of examples like a black hole, dark matter, dark energy, quantum foam (that's a really good example) etc etc. From what I can tell, the word "scientific fact" doesn't actually exist. There are many things that we take faith upon, particularly, scientific communities put faith in Isaac Newton (who btw trusted deeply in the Bible) along with many other significant scientists, I don't see why suggesting Biblical recordings as reliable is off either. I'd rather place my trust in the most significant piece of literature that was written over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors w/ 66 different books, in three different languages on 3 different continents all in harmony with one another (if read in it's proper context) and has remained the most valuable book in all of history, over the assumptions of one Charles Darwin, a man who after losing his 10-year old daughter, had to find a way to explain her death and feel peace about it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100597929

and his doubts..

http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html

And so we all know the differences, lol:

oFact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
oHypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
oLaw: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. (This is where gravity fits)
oTheory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Also, EasyE, that was a tasteful comment worthy of note. But lets not go any further. Someone else can have the last word but I will also opt out of pursuing this any further.

So what I am seeing is that you agree with me about science, theory, hypothesis, and laws. Or am I missing something?

 

[JudoJosh]

There are no facts in science. NOTHING is a fact. Hell, the concept of "nothing" was a debate I attended revently. Does nothing exist? ... anyway there are no facts. Darwinian evolution is not a fact and neither is gravity and just about everything else.

 

[JudoJosh]

We could get biblical if anyone here is religious and believes the bible lol... read Genesis chapter 9 verses 1-3... just sayin

He asked for peer reviewed research journals. Sorry the bible does not qualify

Evolution isn't fact either mister its called the "the theory of evolution" for a reason lol... I'm not here to start a argument buddy just throwing out another view point on meat eating.

I hate how this is always said in that tone. It just shows the lack of understanding of how the scientific process works and its sad really since this is something you learn in 8th grade.

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19
http://thehappyscientist.com/study-unit/when-does-theory-become-law

gravity is a theory, it is also a fact it exists. try again. this is not argument, it is facts. science FTW.

Theories never become laws

No, it's not proven. At the end of Darwin's book of theory of evolution, he lists a number of things that would totally derail the theory to begin with. You should search for that list. Granted, you won't find that list on the internet.

decent
Nothing is proven, only observed. And any scientist can and will be able to provide you with an exhaustive list of why their hypothesis may be wrong. This is how you do science and in no way doe this take away from evolution being most likely true

Gravity isn't a theory. It's a force in nature, along with the strong & weak nuclear forces and electromagnetic force. That's about like saying atmospheric wind is a theory, lol. [/quote]

Sorry but Newtons law of gravitation is a theory. What you are saying is the concept of gravity is a fact since we now we are kept on earth and not floating away. Problem is this can be explained any number of ways and anyone may possibly be true. Newtons law of gravitation is the one that makes sense and has the evidence to back it up so that is the one which is accepted. Same with evolution. We know we are here and how we got here can be explained any number of ways but Darwinian evolution is the one that makes the most sense and has the evidence to back it up

Science is a constantly evolving in itself, which means what is "fact" or "accepted theory" or even "accepted fact" as in your case, will be bad information tomorrow. To say that we as humans, who in fact don't know everything there is to know about everything, can declare something as truth and fact is arrogant and ignorant and will prove itself in time that we are such. And as a matter of "fact", the only thing we can take to the bank is that we dont know everything and will constantly be revising what we call truth & fact, lol.

yup, isnt it awesome!

To be fair, the individual who brought up the book of Genesis is in fact referring back to the most reliable and complete form of historical records that we have. Just know that if you don't believe Genesis chapter 9, then you should probably not believe any historical reference in the Bible, which means you should also believe nothing that our current historians talk about as "history".

Take the scientific articles with a grain of salt, please. Otherwise you'll fall victim of "knowledge" that will be laughed at in the future.

LMAO... wtf. Genesis is the most reliable historical record and we should take scientific papers with a grain of salt? Is this backwards day?

This is true. In the end, none of us truly understand anything well enough to speak like it is absolute, especially things like theories.

You know, if we wanna go into this crap about the physical versus the unseen, you might as well bring in all the hypocriticalityof the science community to light. I think of examples like a black hole, dark matter, dark energy, quantum foam (that's a really good example) etc etc. From what I can tell, the word "scientific fact" doesn't actually exist.

correct, it does not

There are many things that we take faith upon, particularly, scientific communities put faith in Isaac Newton (who btw trusted deeply in the Bible) along with many other significant scientists, I don't see why suggesting Biblical recordings as reliable is off either. I'd rather place my trust in the most significant piece of literature that was written over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors w/ 66 different books, in three different languages on 3 different continents all in harmony with one another (if read in it's proper context) and has remained the most valuable book in all of history, over the assumptions of one Charles Darwin, a man who after losing his 10-year old daughter, had to find a way to explain her death and feel peace about it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100597929

and his doubts..

http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html

wow.. okay a couple things.

1. We do not put faith in scientific theories the same way christians put faith in biblical events, stories, gods, readings, etc. Attend a dissertation or a conference. Skepticism is rampant and just about everything is challenged. Not much "faith" there but more to the point. We put faith in Newtons law of gravitation because an exhaustive review of the evidence has been done and it has been concluded this is the most probable explanation. Has this been done with religion? Has a biblical story been through the rigors of intense questioning and challenging? When was the last time a religious leader called together a group of religious folks and discussed if the great flood occurred with the level of questioning and skepticism similar to that of a dissertation or conference? It doesnt happen. You accept it as true based on pure faith not on evidence. So in this sense, no there isnt many scientist who put faith in others work. This is why we have peer reviewed journals. We may have faith that if I drop a pen and a piece of paper they will fall proportional to their weight but this is not blind this, this is faith I have it will happened based upon the evidence available and past observations.

2. "Newton trusted the bible" Irrelevant and yes many scientist do believe in the bible but these beliefs cease when they are in a lab or conducting research. If they dont they are shllty scientist and wont last very long in the field. (Side note: men of Muslim faith are responsible for a **** load of mathematical and scientific discoveries. Does this make their religion true?)

3. He lost his daughter and this may or may have not sparked the curiosity that lead to his research. So what! How does this take away from the evidence presented? How does this change anything? Do we read the story of the finches and then go, "that was nice but his daughter dies so he is probably bullshltting", ?

 

[TexasGuy]

I don't know what any of this has to do with 1.5-2.0 grams of protein per pound daily being optimal, and preferably from animal sources, but every system has its administrator, regardless of the individual parts of a whole. Just because the helpdesk can't understand the architectual big picture doesn't mean helpdesk joe's perception is the epitome of understanding, it just means he has a limited and ignorant perception. This is science, ignorance seeking understanding of greater knowledge, which is great, unless you refuse to accept anything outside of your help desk experience because you personally haven't seen some other scientist demonstrate an as of yet undiscovered piece of knowledge.

In my mind things like the dead sea scrolls, archelogical sites et cetera lend to a greater system than this thread will acknowledge, but if you're going to ask for peer reviewed proof regarding the bible, put it up for evolution, too. Then prove evolution isn't a machination of the biblical God before criticizing someone ele's helpdesk seat.

 

[asooneyeonig]

^^^ best post ever.

 

[fueledpassion]

That post kinda refers back to the fact that we just don't know everything and in this lifetime we never will. In accepting that fact, we should know that our perception and theories are not absolute.

I simply defended the defenseless because yes, this board (along with a majority of other bodybuilding boards) are extremely secular and tend to throw away anything outside of the physical "I can touch and see" observations. Yet, even then, scientiists along with secular society tends to inadvertently pursue this idea of randomness and Godlessness. That there is no purpose in our existence beyond the same purpose as rats, dogs and baboons.

And for Judo, I wasn't referring to Genesis by itself as being the greatest piece of historical records, but the Bible as a whole.

To each his own. This is one of those things that I'm guilty of being apathetic to (how others view my stance on what is truth, reality, etc).

 

[jontrainer]

It's not what you put in your body, it's what you get out. Bodybuilding is a perfect example. Nobody rips up calories like these guys. Their body's are constantly renewing cells and ridding waste.

 

[Resolve]

Just, curious, but how many of you with such strong opinions about what science is have any actual background in science?

 

[fueledpassion]

Just, curious, but how many of you with such strong opinions about what science is have any actual background in science?

I dont know who that is directed to. But just in case it was to me, I have a little background in science. Not anything extravagant.

Yet, I don't have a strong opinion about what science is. I have a strong opinion about what science is not. It isn't absolute truth. it isn't to be trusted with my soul. And it isn't gonna give me a sense of purpose or joy in life. It's our best explanation at that time under the constraints of very limited understanding. We just don't have the full picture and will likely never have it for any given topic in science.

 

[Resolve]

I dont know who that is directed to. But just in case it was to me, I have a little background in science. Not anything extravagant.

Yet, I don't have a strong opinion about what science is. I have a strong opinion about what science is not. It isn't absolute truth. it isn't to be trusted with my soul. And it isn't gonna give me a sense of purpose or joy in life. It's our best explanation at that time under the constraints of very limited understanding. We just don't have the full picture and will likely never have it for any given topic in science.

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I very much see the value in religion for those whom find purpose and joy in it. I was raised in an ultra-conservative creationistic environment and told for decades that's what truth was. It wasn't until I was adult and able to actually apply some basic logic to existence that I realized that everything I'd ever been told about God could never be verified and blatantly opposed the vast majority of data that does exist. It literally spurred me to become the scientist I am today (molecular bio, pharmacology, hepatology)

I totally agree that our understanding is very limited. But, in that limited understanding, it makes less sense that to me that Shepherds from the bronze age knew more about reality than we do today. But whatever you believe, as long as you understand that it is a belief and not a fact, is fine by me.

 

[fueledpassion]

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I very much see the value in religion for those whom find purpose and joy in it. I was raised in an ultra-conservative creationistic environment and told for decades that's what truth was. It wasn't until I was adult and able to actually apply some basic logic to existence that I realized that everything I'd ever been told about God could never be verified and blatantly opposed the vast majority of data that does exist. It literally spurred me to become the scientist I am today (molecular bio, pharmacology, hepatology)

I totally agree that our understanding is very limited. But, in that limited understanding, it makes less sense that to me that Shepherds from the bronze age knew more about reality than we do today. But whatever you believe, as long as you understand that it is a belief and not a fact, is fine by me.

With that, I'll end my part of the conversation in saying that if any of it were "fact" as in, I have zero uncertainty about it, then faith wouldn't and couldn't exist and therefore the principle behind the entire Bible and God would be invalid. Ultimately, I can't know it all. If I did, then I'd be God. But since I don't, faith must exist.

I can also easily argue that scientists also have tons of faith, just either in themselves, some other man, or otherwise some mysterious force of nature that is not fully understood or recognized. Even so, I bet there is a common denominator to all of those.

 

[Resolve]

With that, I'll end my part of the conversation in saying that if any of it were "fact" as in, I have zero uncertainty about it, then faith wouldn't and couldn't exist and therefore the principle behind the entire Bible and God would be invalid. Ultimately, I can't know it all. If I did, then I'd be God. But since I don't, faith must exist.

I can also easily argue that scientists also have tons of faith, just either in themselves, some other man, or otherwise some mysterious force of nature that is not fully understood or recognized. Even so, I bet there is a common denominator to all of those.

Confidence intervals are not faith, nor are statistics. Noone has zero uncertainty about anything - but that still does not make having faith in different things equally valid. I can 'have faith' the sun will rise because it has risen every day for the entirety of my life and the lives of every human who ever lived, but that does not validate believing in a 6000 year old earth.

And you must ask yourself - if everybody has faith, then SOMEBODY's faith is wrong. What makes you so sure your faith isn't the wrong one? Is your faith sustained by nothing but itself? Faith cannot support faith, as that is just then a claim without evidence, and so can be logically dismissed without evidence. Nor is the Bible, nor any other holy text, anything more than a claim without evidence.

If every last scrap of science was destroyed and forgotten, it could all be entirely reestablished with simple observation and experimentation - no God could be so discovered. No holy revelation could so be regained, without a miracle. If truth is self-evident, the idea of needing a higher-power to specifically reveal what is true and what is not through unverifiable scripture cannot itself be true.

So my faith is really just trusting in evidence that I myself, and others like me, gather and test. And it is an ongoing process - errors are constantly found and rectified in an onward march. If such suggested or supported divine intervention, I would be open to the idea - because we are constantly searching for what is actual truth, regardless of whether it falls into what we want to be true.

I did not want to stop believing in God, but there simply isn't the evidence to support it. Even though the truth's of religion are supposedly immutable, we've seen countless changes in every church over the millenia - because they're so-called infallible truth is fallible. And if it's fallible, then so is God. And if he's fallible, he's not God.

So yes, scientist have faith, but it is faith that their recorded and observed and REPEATABLE phenomenon follow a certain set of natural laws. This is based on experiments that anyone could discern for themselves with logic and not books of ancient tradition passed down verbally or carved on sticks for generations.

 

[Distilled Water]

I eat a lot of protein (1.5-2gr/lb) every 2-3 hrs and I'm jacked & strong.....science that!!!!

/me being a doucher

I'm half joking/ half serious

 

[Resolve]

I eat a lot of protein (1.5-2gr/lb) every 2-3 hrs and I'm jacked & strong.....science that!!!!

/me being a doucher

I'm half joking/ half serious

Hell yeah! Sample size of one ftw!

 

[asooneyeonig]

Just, curious, but how many of you with such strong opinions about what science is have any actual background in science?

my first go around in college i studied physics. stopped just short of my degree as i did not go into that field. i didnt take the fluff classes to get all the credits i needed but did spend some time in a research lab.

does that count as having a science background?

 

[fueledpassion]

Confidence intervals are not faith, nor are statistics. Noone has zero uncertainty about anything - but that still does not make having faith in different things equally valid. I can 'have faith' the sun will rise because it has risen every day for the entirety of my life and the lives of every human who ever lived, but that does not validate believing in a 6000 year old earth.

And you must ask yourself - if everybody has faith, then SOMEBODY's faith is wrong. What makes you so sure your faith isn't the wrong one? Is your faith sustained by nothing but itself? Faith cannot support faith, as that is just then a claim without evidence, and so can be logically dismissed without evidence. Nor is the Bible, nor any other holy text, anything more than a claim without evidence.

If every last scrap of science was destroyed and forgotten, it could all be entirely reestablished with simple observation and experimentation - no God could be so discovered. No holy revelation could so be regained, without a miracle. If truth is self-evident, the idea of needing a higher-power to specifically reveal what is true and what is not through unverifiable scripture cannot itself be true.

So my faith is really just trusting in evidence that I myself, and others like me, gather and test. And it is an ongoing process - errors are constantly found and rectified in an onward march. If such suggested or supported divine intervention, I would be open to the idea - because we are constantly searching for what is actual truth, regardless of whether it falls into what we want to be true.

I did not want to stop believing in God, but there simply isn't the evidence to support it. Even though the truth's of religion are supposedly immutable, we've seen countless changes in every church over the millenia - because they're so-called infallible truth is fallible. And if it's fallible, then so is God. And if he's fallible, he's not God.

So yes, scientist have faith, but it is faith that their recorded and observed and REPEATABLE phenomenon follow a certain set of natural laws. This is based on experiments that anyone could discern for themselves with logic and not books of ancient tradition passed down verbally or carved on sticks for generations.

Mine isn't based on books alone. You don't have to defend anything man. No one is challenging your view point.

In part, I base my faith the same way Paul did in the NT. A plethora of experiences that statistically are nearly impossible. Furthermore, there are 10's of millions of other people who also take up the same faith that also have many statisically unlikely happenings. I have the same motivations to believe what I do as you do with confidence intervals. Not to mention the big one, which was the permanent heart change that happened to me several years back and literally a new nature in my mind. You talk about God being fallible, yet you can't prove it. That's just the thing. You call it lack of evidence, I call it too much pride. The challenge is not finding evidence for God, the challenge is moving oneself off the throne of "god" and allow someone more fitting to take the seat. This has been an age-old issue - people desiring to be their own god, deciding their own system of truth and establishing their own set of morals -->complete chaos if the whole world simultaneously decided to do that.

I don't challenge other beliefs. I just let people observe mine (along with many others), and decide for themselves. Just because they can't find reason or understanding in my faith doesn't make it wrong or inaccurate. It just means they made a choice to not believe. I've learned over the years that there is no arguing with people who have a fleshy approach to believe systems. I don't want to discuss about who's faith is null and void and who's is logical with someone who is incapable of believing in unseen things to begin with.

I don't know how this got away like it has but protein at one point was the main topic of discussion. Let's get back to that.

 

[itzmorph]

I did not want to stop believing in God, but there simply isn't the evidence to support it. Even though the truth's of religion are supposedly immutable, we've seen countless changes in every church over the millenia -

Just want to say that I respect your opinion and don't really have a problem with it. I just can't help myself from stating my opinion as well.

To me the proof of a supreme being (creator) is evident from the things observed around us. All due to pure happen chance? In my opinion, no. I believe in evolution, not as a religion but just a process. There must be a reason for it all.
The church has evolved over many years weather Christians want to believe it or not. That is how God planned it. What would be the purpose if God just appeared to you and said, "this is what i want you to do". And He explained the plan for you. That would be like a free lunch or giving a 16 year old a new lamborgini for his first car. You don't deserve a free lunch or a lamborgini. God doesn't want robots, He wants people to seek Him. If the proof was so easy to obtain than we would be a bunch of robots drinking the cool aid.


Forget about the miracles and myth parts in the bible. Just focus on the message and purpose. If every one were to treat one another with love and respect this would be a better world. That's the kind of thing the bible teaches. Put others first. don't be selfish. Love your enemies. This is the hardest part for us to accept. What other religion teaches this? This is truth brah's.

I spent a lot of time taking the bible apart piece by piece finding all the faults. And I have quite a bit of convincing proof that the stories in the bible don't add up. I finally gave up because in the end all that doesn't matter. What matters is that God does want a relationship with every one. Even me, and my faith is weak in comparison to a lot of other Christians.

Bill

 

[JudoJosh]

Just, curious, but how many of you with such strong opinions about what science is have any actual background in science?

My background in science is academic and recreational (yes I said i science for recreational purposes ) I work in a patient care setting but am looking into getting into more of a research job

 

[Resolve]

I have no problem with someone challenging my viewpoint. My viewpoint can be challenged all you want - it's open to scrutiny, because I want to change based on available data. That's the difference, I want the errors in my beliefs to be found and eradicated. I do it for a living.

Things is, I can mathematically demonstrate the necessity of evolution in a population from one generation to the next. I cannot do that with God. "Looking all around us" is not evidence.

And Josh - don't go into research unless its at an upper level. workload to compensation ratio is real bad.

Edit: Oh and Morph if more christians actually did what you say, I totally agree the world would be a better place. But at least the ones I've dealt with my entire life (in california, washington, nevada and texas) live less like Christ than many of the non-believers I know. Being a christian does not make you good and many christians have many beliefs that are not good.

 

[JudoJosh]

I ll

Yet, I don't have a strong opinion about what science is. I have a strong opinion about what science is not. It isn't absolute truth.

Science doesnt claim to be absolute. Religion does. Scientist are quite content in the uncertainty and will readily admit they dont know everything.

it isn't to be trusted with my soul. And it isn't gonna give me a sense of purpose or joy in life.

Thats the reason for religions popularity. It fills the void in many peoples lives. Gives them a sense of purpose, meaning, belonging, etc. Religion has never filled that void in my life but science has

It's our best explanation at that time under the constraints of very limited understanding. We just don't have the full picture and will likely never have it for any given topic in science.

Correct

With that, I'll end my part of the conversation in saying that if any of it were "fact" as in, I have zero uncertainty about it, then faith wouldn't and couldn't exist and therefore the principle behind the entire Bible and God would be invalid. Ultimately, I can't know it all. If I did, then I'd be God. But since I don't, faith must exist.

Agree. Religion is ALL faith, blind faith.

I can also easily argue that scientists also have tons of faith, just either in themselves, some other man, or otherwise some mysterious force of nature that is not fully understood or recognized. Even so, I bet there is a common denominator to all of those.

No. Faith isnt required in science. I dont have faith in evolution, I simply accept the evidence thats being presented as the most plausible compared to other alternatives. This is not faith

And you must ask yourself - if everybody has faith, then SOMEBODY's faith is wrong. What makes you so sure your faith isn't the wrong one?

YES!

There has been thousands of religions and varations of beliefs, all of which claim they are absolute and have the truth. At best only 1 can be write but considering they all claim the same it is most likely that none is right. What makes one from catholic faith any more right than one from baptist faith? Or from islamic faith, from norse mythology, etc. Why is the God of Abraham true and Zeus is make believe?

Is your faith sustained by nothing but itself? Faith cannot support faith, as that is just then a claim without evidence, and so can be logically dismissed without evidence. Nor is the Bible, nor any other holy text, anything more than a claim without evidence.

Hitchens razor

it is an ongoing process - errors are constantly found and rectified in an onward march.

Yes, science is the most exciting when they get things wrong.

 

[Distilled Water]

Why's everyone ignoring my science!!!!


I need attention!!!

 

[JudoJosh]

In part, I base my faith the same way Paul did in the NT. A plethora of experiences that statistically are nearly impossible. Furthermore, there are 10's of millions of other people who also take up the same faith that also have many statisically unlikely happenings. I have the same motivations to believe what I do as you do with confidence intervals.

So your religion is true because it is popular and filled with unexplainable stories? I think its safe to say this is true of all religions and faiths. There are a great number of muslims on this planet and im sure they have just as many unexplainable situations that happen to them. What makes one true and the other false? What about the varations that exist within Christendom? Im sure just as many Catholics that have unexplainable happenings to them as say protestants

You talk about God being fallible, yet you can't prove it. That's just the thing. You call it lack of evidence, I call it too much pride.

You can not prove a negative nor is it his responsibility. I cant disprove that the easter bunny isnt the love child of Santa clause and rudolph. Does this make it true?

What would be the purpose if God just appeared to you and said, "this is what i want you to do". And He explained the plan for you. That would be like a free lunch or giving a 16 year old a new lamborgini for his first car. You don't deserve a free lunch or a lamborgini. God doesn't want robots, He wants people to seek Him. If the proof was so easy to obtain than we would be a bunch of robots drinking the cool aid.

Um... isnt that how we got the bible? A guy is all alone in a cave, dessert, mountain top, etc and god then appears to him and breaks down everything and the guy goes forth a spreads the word?

Forget about the miracles and myth parts in the bible. Just focus on the message and purpose. If every one were to treat one another with love and respect this would be a better world. That's the kind of thing the bible teaches. Put others first. don't be selfish. Love your enemies. This is the hardest part for us to accept. What other religion teaches this? This is truth brah's.

Problem is, this is not the only message of the bible nor is it the result of religiosity

 

[JudoJosh]

I have no problem with someone challenging my viewpoint. My viewpoint can be challenged all you want - it's open to scrutiny, because I want to change based on available data. That's the difference, I want the errors in my beliefs to be found and eradicated. I do it for a living.

And its what makes science so amazing.

And Josh - don't go into research unless its at an upper level. workload to compensation ratio is real bad.

Matches what I have been told before, lol. I want to work in a research setting to see if it something I enjoy or not. My university has an obesity research center I am trying to get into.

 

[JudoJosh]

Why's everyone ignoring my science!!!!


I need attention!!!

MOAR PROTEIN!!!!

 

[fueledpassion]

So your religion is true because it is popular and filled with unexplainable stories? I think its safe to say this is true of all religions and faiths. There are a great number of muslims on this planet and im sure they have just as many unexplainable situations that happen to them. What makes one true and the other false? What about the varations that exist within Christendom? Im sure just as many Catholics that have unexplainable happenings to them as say protestants



You can not prove a negative nor is it his responsibility. I cant disprove that the easter bunny isnt the love child of Santa clause and rudolph. Does this make it true?



Um... isnt that how we got the bible? A guy is all alone in a cave, dessert, mountain top, etc and god then appears to him and breaks down everything and the guy goes forth a spreads the word?



Problem is, this is not the message of the bible nor is it the result of religiosity.

Judo, I respected you up until that last post in BOLD^^^

You are simply dead wrong in that statement. The point of the Bible is very clear, even the Old Testament is completely in line with the New Testament teachings, as Jesus and Paul both use the OT extensively to get points across in the NT. I respect your understanding of science as always. But who are you to talk about a God whom you do not know? I bet you haven't even read the New Testament gospel in its entirety, which is apparent after that last statement you made. Your lack of understanding of this just came to light, and quite honestly after seeing that response, I feel like your perspective is clearly built out of hatred towards Christ, the Bible, and in general anything that challenges men to a higher standard than their own.

I was out of line earlier for what I said to the other gentleman, even though he went out of his way to attack what is most dear to me, my God. Yet you are deliberately doing the very same thing with no other incentive I'm sure than to reassure your own position. That's fine man. But you aren't going to change me simply because my life is not my own and I couldn't change my faith if I wanted to.

Believe what you want, but keep it and preach it to yourself. You guys are always challenging Christians to stop "putting their beliefs on others", how about you do the same as well.

 

[fueledpassion]

Judo, I respected you up until that last post in BOLD^^^

You are simply dead wrong in that statement. The point of the Bible is very clear, even the Old Testament is completely in line with the New Testament teachings, as Jesus and Paul both use the OT extensively to get points across in the NT. I respect your understanding of science as always. But who are you to talk about a God whom you do not know? I bet you haven't even read the New Testament gospel in its entirety, which is apparent after that last statement you made. Your lack of understanding of this just came to light, and quite honestly after seeing that response, I feel like your perspective is clearly built out of hatred towards Christ, the Bible, and in general anything that challenges men to a higher standard than their own.

I was out of line earlier for what I said to the other gentleman, even though he went out of his way to attack what is most dear to me, my God. Yet you are deliberately doing the very same thing with no other incentive I'm sure than to reassure your own position. That's fine man. But you aren't going to change me simply because my life is not my own and I couldn't change my faith if I wanted to.

Believe what you want, but keep it and preach it to yourself. You guys are always challenging Christians to stop "putting their beliefs on others", how about you do the same as well.

And to be clear, that "man in a cave" was Moses, who wrote the Torah, which is the first 5 books of the Bible.

Once again, as a reminder, 40 authors, 66 books, written over a period of 1500 years, 3 different continents, 3 different languages, same message throughout.

If we just took the infinite external factors that could have stopped the Bible from being written and copied, and made those factors finite, we would still come to mind-blowing odds of it happening, consider the near infinite things that could have occurred in that 1500 years and 40 authors...do the math. Stop talking in a "matter of fact" tone please.

 

[JudoJosh]

And to be clear, that "man in a cave" was Moses, who wrote the Torah, which is the first 5 books of the Bible.

I was referencing Muhammad

Once again, as a reminder, 40 authors, 66 books, written over a period of 1500 years, 3 different continents, 3 different languages, same message throughout.

If I may add some more statistics to this, this was all edited in the 17th century based off of translations that were written in the 16th century off of scrolls from the 4th century of which exist over 8,000 varatiins with no two being alike but all of which claim to be copies of scrolls that were written in the first century and hundreds of years after the last apostle died.

If we just took the infinite external factors that could have stopped the Bible from being written and copied, and made those factors finite, we would still come to mind-blowing odds of it happening, consider the near infinite things that could have occurred in that 1500 years and 40 authors...do the math. Stop talking in a "matter of fact" tone please.

Exactly

That is the reason why I am extremely skeptical over its validity and why religion is truly only faith based. One needs a hell of a lotta faith to reject empiracal evidence and instead relay solely on an ancient book that odds are its wrong.

 

[Colbert]

I clicked the linked to read facts about protein myth and I see bunch of stuff about religion.

What is this, muscular development?

 

[itzmorph]

That is the reason why I am extremely skeptical over its validity and why religion is truly only faith based. One needs a hell of a lotta faith to reject empiracal evidence and instead relay solely on an ancient book that odds are its wrong.

I have to deal with being a skeptic every Sunday morning bible class. ie, the flood story, virgin birth story, etc....

My preacher says that if you don't believe in the virgin birth you have no faith. Well, i don't believe the Holy Spirit caused Mary to become pregnant. Also don't believe the flood was universal, had to be local. But I still have faith.
I don't believe a lot of the far fetched stories in the bible. The new testament reads that we are all to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. That's what I am doing.
It is really difficult to explain so some one who has already made up their mind about religion about the truth. A person really needs to be born again and with the renewing of their mind the message becomes more clear. It all begins with humbling ones self. Humility wins here.
The problem with Satan is that he didn't want to humble himself and wants to put himself in the place of God. (Story used for illustration only) But makes sense none the less. We do the same through pride.
Use the stories in the bible for illustration purposes, no need to take them so literal.
The life lessons illustrated in the bile are undeniably very valuable for showing man the correct way to live. How can some thing so right be so wrong?

 

[Distilled Water]

I clicked the linked to read facts about protein myth and I see bunch of stuff about religion.

What is this, muscular development?

Dude....I tried

 

[Resolve]

Judo, I respected you up until that last post in BOLD^^^

You are simply dead wrong in that statement. The point of the Bible is very clear, even the Old Testament is completely in line with the New Testament teachings, as Jesus and Paul both use the OT extensively to get points across in the NT. I respect your understanding of science as always. But who are you to talk about a God whom you do not know? I bet you haven't even read the New Testament gospel in its entirety, which is apparent after that last statement you made. Your lack of understanding of this just came to light, and quite honestly after seeing that response, I feel like your perspective is clearly built out of hatred towards Christ, the Bible, and in general anything that challenges men to a higher standard than their own.

I was out of line earlier for what I said to the other gentleman, even though he went out of his way to attack what is most dear to me, my God. Yet you are deliberately doing the very same thing with no other incentive I'm sure than to reassure your own position. That's fine man. But you aren't going to change me simply because my life is not my own and I couldn't change my faith if I wanted to.

Believe what you want, but keep it and preach it to yourself. You guys are always challenging Christians to stop "putting their beliefs on others", how about you do the same as well.

I attacked nothing. I genuinely wanted to have an open conversation about a subject very near to me. I was very religious for a very long time, but I wasn't being honest with myself- there were just too many holes and illogical gaps in christian existence. I apologize if simply showing inadequacies in christianity is attacking it - last time I checked when someone diagnoses a problem with good intentions its not an attack, its information. Information that changed my life and helped me understand what genuine truth is. The things I wrote are very legitimate questions you should be asking yourself. If you can't answer them honestly and without fallacy, there's a problem.

And the point of the Bible, like any book, is subjective to the scrutiny of the reader. And I've read the bible from cover to cover many times. It was just part of growing up.

Don't say God calls us to higher living. I left the church of the global hypocrisy it exhibits. The ideal Christian may be better than the average man, but I have yet to meet such an individual outside the pages of the new testament.

The part I've bolded makes me sad. I don't want to reassure my position - honestly, I want God to be real. I want there to be a heaven. But it just doesn't add up. And the outlook that you're not your own is such an unhealthy one - that you have to do what something else wants you to do with no regard in the matter? Then you just apply confirmation bias to the situation, ascribing every positive thing and none of the negatives to God's intervention, to keep the deception going, to convince yourself that your doubts are the lies, not the scriptures. It's the most oppressed I've ever felt.

 

[TheMovement]

SSsooo......about those great protein sources.....

 

[johnnybeegood]

listen buddy, i used to be a vegetarian for like 10 years. it's no good for gains or bodybuilding unless you are very, very disciplined with your diet. even then, it is still difficult to get enough protein imo.