Most Christians accept evolution

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Funny how all the theists wander off when the conversation begins making any kind of logical sense. Religious platitudes only get you so far in an argument.

I'm declaring this thread a victory for free thinkers everywhere.

"“Whatever you ask in My name, that I will do . . . .” The disciple who abides in Jesus is the will of God, and what appears to be his free choices are actually God’s foreordained decrees. Is this mysterious? Does it appear to contradict sound logic or seem totally absurd? Yes, but what a glorious truth it is to a saint of God." (Emphasis mine)
~Oswald Chambers

The reality exists in the illogical. That is the way God works.

Nothing but bullshit, with no evidence to support it.

[beowulf 1]

How do you know this?

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

The spirit is as real as you perceive it to be.

So you say... Where is the evidence?

Believe what you want. There is a reason it is called faith! One day you might just get what you are asking for but you know it is impossible to provide the "evidence" you are asking for and if that leads you to believe there is no spirit or God that is fine.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

How do you know this?

Easy.... the many scientists I know and how they operate. I love science but the truth is that it will never disprove God and it is separate from faith.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

How do you know this?

Easy.... the many scientists I know and how they operate. I love science but the truth is that it will never disprove God and it is separate from faith.

It is a logical fallacy to prove the nonexistence of something. The burden of proof is on those that are making the claim of existence.

If no one can prove that God exists then there is no reason to believe that he in fact does exist.

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How do you know this?

Easy.... the many scientists I know and how they operate. I love science but the truth is that it will never disprove God and it is separate from faith.

It is a logical fallacy to prove the nonexistence of something. The burden of proof is on those that are making the claim of existence.

If no one can prove that God exists then there is no reason to believe that he in fact does exist.

So say you..... but I am not asking you to disprove God nor am I using it as an argument. I am simply stating the fact that Science will never and can never do it.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[beowulf 1]

So your point is pointless.

You are saying science can't do something that science says can't be done.

The burden of proof is on those making the claim that god exists and to date they have not provided any evidence that can be independantly verified and tested. In fact no real evidence of any kind, as personal experience is not evidence of anything as it is extremely suspect.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

So you can't answer a simple question, nor can you use your own words to get an idea across. Try thinking for yourself sometime. I know the church forbids it, but you might be pleasantly surprised.

You see, that is the adolescent mind in argument. You ask a question and I answer from personal experience. You deny my personal experience and ask for other evidence. I provide evidence of like minded thought from other well known scholars. You accuse me of not being able to think for myself. I provide you with evidence from a first person point of view. You say first person point of view is not valid.

Bottom line, you are seeking validation for a decision that you made which caused heartache with your parents. Ergo adolescent rebellion. IMHO

That is OK with me. I do not walk in your shoes. I do not have to live with your choices.

I know that a strong defense exists for a reason. You are certainly entitled to yours. And remember, I do not have to sell. I choose to share. You may choose not to accept.

I travel a narrow path that not many seek. I like it that way.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

You see, that is the adolescent mind in argument.

See, pops, this comes from both sides.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

So you can't answer a simple question, nor can you use your own words to get an idea across. Try thinking for yourself sometime. I know the church forbids it, but you might be pleasantly surprised.

You see, that is the adolescent mind in argument. You ask a question and I answer from personal experience. You deny my personal experience and ask for other evidence. I provide evidence of like minded thought from other well known scholars. You accuse me of not being able to think for myself. I provide you with evidence from a first person point of view. You say first person point of view is not valid.

Bottom line, you are seeking validation for a decision that you made which caused heartache with your parents. Ergo adolescent rebellion. IMHO

That is OK with me. I do not walk in your shoes. I do not have to live with your choices.

I know that a strong defense exists for a reason. You are certainly entitled to yours. And remember, I do not have to sell. I choose to share. You may choose not to accept.

I travel a narrow path that not many seek. I like it that way.

You haven't provided any evidence. You have simply made an unsubstantiated claim and then tried to back that up with another person’s unsubstantiated claim.

Personal experience can't be tested or repeated independantly because it is unique to the person.

You are not traveling a narrow path that not many seek. Christianity has many members.

[normiss 903]

***Christianity has many members sheep.

FIFY

[beowulf 1]

That fits the metaphor of shepherd and flock!

[deltron80 0]

Quote

Quote

So you can't answer a simple question, nor can you use your own words to get an idea across. Try thinking for yourself sometime. I know the church forbids it, but you might be pleasantly surprised.

You see, that is the adolescent mind in argument. You ask a question and I answer from personal experience. You deny my personal experience and ask for other evidence. I provide evidence of like minded thought from other well known scholars. You accuse me of not being able to think for myself. I provide you with evidence from a first person point of view. You say first person point of view is not valid.

Bottom line, you are seeking validation for a decision that you made which caused heartache with your parents. Ergo adolescent rebellion. IMHO

That is OK with me. I do not walk in your shoes. I do not have to live with your choices.

I know that a strong defense exists for a reason. You are certainly entitled to yours. And remember, I do not have to sell. I choose to share. You may choose not to accept.

I travel a narrow path that not many seek. I like it that way.

I'm way past adolescence, but you probably associate my views with young people because your views are dying out with your generation.

I'm sorry you've spent your whole life devoted to a lie, and you're obviously too far gone to change your opinions now, but thankfully I was able to pull myself out of it. I'm not seeking validation here, I'm just trying to help others realize that they don't need to remain in your violent, intolerant cult which claims the majority of humanity will be tortured for eternity.

Your religion is a lie and you've damaged our society by perpetuating it. I'm willing to overlook that in your case due to the incredible contribution you've made to human flight.

If anyone reading this is doubting their faith, send me a PM and I'll help you the rest of the way out. Having been on both sides, I assure you it's much better to be free.

[Meso 38]

Quote

I am going to call bullshit on this. Science or those who study it do not normally give credibility to anything but what they say is correct. Scientists claim to re-evaluate all of the time but they are only willing to do so as they see fit. A hand full are not like this but most are.

All you've done here is show that you don't understand science.

What do you expect, for them to study science, then come across something that is NOT SCIENCE and then try include it in their study just because it may look as though they're being hard headed?

The argument is weak.

A direct equivalent would be if the bible stated that 2 + 2 = 5. And then when mathematicians say "No, it's 4." You tell them to stop being so closed minded and try to accept other things.

Science is science, it's nothing more and nothing less. But if one thinks that science should pretend to see merit in things that hold no scientific credibility, it's insane.

I can't even express how little sense it makes to try get scientists to be more open to religion. When religion is NOT science and if anything is the opposite. Science is something that one can replicate numerous times, look at the results and come to a conclusion that if x and y happen, then z will occur.

Religion is complete the opposite, good luck at trying to recreate miracles and spiritual happenings. The things people claim to experience at church and through the holy spirit are things they have been told often that they will or should feel. Scientists can perform the same experiment continents apart, without speaking to each other and without the experiment ever being done before and it will turn out the same.

There's a million easy cop-outs for arguments for the religious, and scientists accept that you can't disprove faith.

But if one is going to try put religion and science in the same category, one is making a big mistake.

As I mentioned above, it's no different than the bible making a mathematical claim that does not follow mathematics, and then you getting pissed off at the mathematicians because they refuse to accept that your religion knows more about their field of study than they do, when they follow all the rules and nature of that field.

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

I am going to call bullshit on this. Science or those who study it do not normally give credibility to anything but what they say is correct. Scientists claim to re-evaluate all of the time but they are only willing to do so as they see fit. A hand full are not like this but most are.

All you've done here is show that you don't understand science.

What do you expect, for them to study science, then come across something that is NOT SCIENCE and then try include it in their study just because it may look as though they're being hard headed?

The argument is weak.

A direct equivalent would be if the bible stated that 2 + 2 = 5. And then when mathematicians say "No, it's 4." You tell them to stop being so closed minded and try to accept other things.

Science is science, it's nothing more and nothing less. But if one thinks that science should pretend to see merit in things that hold no scientific credibility, it's insane.

I can't even express how little sense it makes to try get scientists to be more open to religion. When religion is NOT science and if anything is the opposite. Science is something that one can replicate numerous times, look at the results and come to a conclusion that if x and y happen, then z will occur.

Religion is complete the opposite, good luck at trying to recreate miracles and spiritual happenings. The things people claim to experience at church and through the holy spirit are things they have been told often that they will or should feel. Scientists can perform the same experiment continents apart, without speaking to each other and without the experiment ever being done before and it will turn out the same.

There's a million easy cop-outs for arguments for the religious, and scientists accept that you can't disprove faith.

But if one is going to try put religion and science in the same category, one is making a big mistake.

As I mentioned above, it's no different than the bible making a mathematical claim that does not follow mathematics, and then you getting pissed off at the mathematicians because they refuse to accept that your religion knows more about their field of study than they do, when they follow all the rules and nature of that field.

Who said anything about being open to religion? I didn't. I am talking about scientists and what they will accept from field to field but thank you for telling me I do not understand science. I followed with a post saying that religion/belief/faith and science are different.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

... religion/belief/faith and science are different.

Well, yes and no. Science is solely concerned with the physical world, which is at least potentially subject to observation and experimental manipulation. Questions such as the "meaning of life" are deeply important to many people, and science doesn't touch this issue. If people derive happiness from their belief that their life is guided by some divine mandate, more power to them. If people derive comfort from a belief that they will see their deceased loved ones in the afterlife, great. I (at least) can't prove that these things are untrue, and I see no value in trying to strip people of a belief that gives them purpose and comfort, as long as they don't try to force me to believe the same way.

The problem is that religion is never limited to the internal experience of the mind. Certainly, virtually every variation of the Judeo-Christian faiths state that the world was designed and created by God, and that God intervenes in the physical world to make things happen. Almost all Christians believe that when good things happen to them God has caused it, and that God challenges people with trials and tribulations. Some believe He cares about the outcome of sports competitions.

Once you start in with a God who makes things happen in the physical world, you are saying something about the nature of the physical world, and so are crossing into the territory of science. If God can make things happen, then either there should be detectable evidence of that or else our notions of conservation of mass and energy are incorrect. A God who can move things around but never be seen, uses no energy, is not detectable in any way even in theory, pretty much implies that reality itself is not real, but is just a reflection of the whims of that God. If God so wished, the sun would rise in the West and set in the East tomorrow, without us suddenly finding ourselves smashed to bits as the rotation of the Earth is instantaneously reversed.

Even the notion that it is possible for God to do this, which is pretty much fundamental to Judeo-Christian faiths, is an inherent conflict with science. On the other hand, if we were to say that God could not do this because of the laws of physics , that would put science in conflict with religion.

Maybe some religions do pertain only to the mind, and so pose little conflict with science. Buddhism come to mind. I suspect for many Christians, the conflict doesn't seem very obvious mainly because they don't think about it except on a superficial level. Doubtless there are many who are comfortable with the idea of the physical world as the false one, a veil that can be pushed aside to reveal to "true" world. Others just accept that God wrapped His hands around the baby in the plane crash, protecting it from injury while everyone else dies, without bothering to ask why God didn't just prevent the plane from crashing, or maybe why He made the plane crash in the first place, and how He could do that without leaving the slightest trace.

A world where there is really no conflict between religion and science would be a world where God speaks (perhaps) only in the mind, providing meaning and comfort, but who never intervenes in the physical world in any way. When good things, or bad things, happen to people it's just random, and has no relation to the Will of God. The baby survived the crash because some engineer designed a good seat, or by sheer chance no chunk of metal or burning jet fuel happened to intersect the precise point in space that the baby was occupying. I don't think that sort of belief would be very appealing to many who call themselves religious.

Now, if we were to talk about science vs spiritualism I think the discussion would be quite different. But spiritual is not the same as religious. I know a lot of atheists who are quite spiritual people.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[RonD1120 62]

Good words, I like what you stated. Within the Christian world I have considered myself outside the statistical norm. You touched that belief.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[maadmax 0]

Now, if we were to talk about science vs spiritualism I think the discussion would be quite different. But spiritual is not the same as religious. I know a lot of atheists who are quite spiritual people.

Don

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Give it up Max....they are confused in their inability to think in other terms than their own narrow world.

You see that's the irony.

The irony is you rant without reading the entire post.
Read on, Meso.

Seems odd that you say what you do when the title of the thread says what it does.

My quote shows one scientist that can accept the two differences and most Christians can accept the two differences but some of you in here can't or won't.

Broader horizons is a good thing.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I am simply stating the fact that Science will never and can never do it.

They've been told that since day 1.
Give it up. They are trolling.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

You see, that is the adolescent mind in argument.

See, pops, this comes from both sides.

Truth hurts sometimes.

So after all the adolescent and hateful commentary from the one side, you pick this to equate?
Really?

You should have picked some of my comments to harp on that. But alas, you don't know which side, if any, of this fence I'm on. I don't recall anyone even asking. Perhaps that's because they are all wrapped up in anger and ego. I dunno.

And no, don't bother.

You might want the weigh the quantity and quality of it coming from one side as opposed to the other direction.

And yes, your evaluation of what constitutes 'truth' is your business. It is what it is.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

Now, if we were to talk about science vs spiritualism I think the discussion would be quite different. But spiritual is not the same as religious. I know a lot of atheists who are quite spiritual people.

Don

I agree. But it seems that the concept of a spiritual reality is a total anathema for most atheists in this forum.


...

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

But if one is going to try put religion and science in the same category, one is making a big mistake.

You're preaching to the choir. We've been telling you guys that all along. They don't get it. Your comment should be directed at them...you know, those asking for physical 'proof'.


You guys are talking yourselves into a circle.

C'mon. You guys get it together...either religion can or cannot be 'proved' by science. Some of you realistically say no, some are blindly demanding yes.

Unbelievable.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[wmw999 2,598]

Well, to be honest, they're not trying to say that religion needs to be proven by science; they just say that religion needs to be provable for them to think it's valid.

And as long as one cares about their opinion, then it bears reading. If one doesn't, then it doesnt.

Me, I read the ones that bring in new thoughts, because new thoughts that I disagree with are often even more valuable than ones I agree with. But once you start ranting, well, game over. And that goes for both sides. I doubt that some Christians consider me to be a Christian, just as atheists think I'm a moron for considering the possibility. Which means I'm in a reasonable place for me -- between the poles.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

Give it up. They are trolling.

And the fish are biting!

Anyway, I hope I'm not trolling. I don't disagree with the statement that science can't disprove the existence of God, I'd just add that that isn't a question that science is even concerned with. Science only comes into it when religion makes assertions about the physical world, things that can be observed, measured, and experimented on.

Hope you're doing well, Andy.

Cheers,
Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)