If you have a faith that's fine. When you post on a public forum though expect to get a response. I believe what I believe and I don't mind if someone disagrees with me, but do expect a response. I'm not sure what this really means. Are you trying to suggest that because there have been scientists throughout history that have been religious that it's somehow ironic for someone to use scientific principles to criticize religion? I suppose it is depending on how you look at it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so. Science is an institution where fact is decided by testable, rational, evidence. Religion offers little to none. That's fine though, because religion is a belief founded on faith, it's just that when it comes to discerning if it's true or not you don't really have a leg to stand on. You added to your post, I went over it quickly. The reason I believe there is no afterlife is because from what I can observe there is no reason to believe there is one. From what I can tell, when you die, you rot in the ground and that's that. You said atheists have no evidence or something (I might be wrong, only went over it quickly, not really in the mood for a debate) about life, when infact, it's the complete opposite. All I have is evidence, and that's what I base my beliefs on.
I know the type, and they are equally despicable. (Imagine getting sat next to either one of them at a long dinner party???) So full of themselves and their self-righteousness. But the Bible tells us that ALL our righteousness is as filthy rags. Isa 64:6 And truly here I don't see that sanctimonious type around that much. I do see a proliferation of the nasty boy athiests type around though. With all their "cookoo" and "retard" bullshit.
It was a passing remark aimed to offend, thanks for taking the bait. Really though, I have no problem with faith. Believe whatever you like if that's what makes you happy. The only time it gets me ugly is when people use their faith as leverage against medical advancement and the like.
I think that's just a bias speculation. Irrational people are everywhere; they may be atheists, Christians, Jews, etc. Let's stop making hasty generalizations.
Cheksum, you write: LOL.... I come here for response. I am not evangelizing here. All I'm saying is that the ones with the most vitriol against those who do believe in God, and in favor of science, are the least scientific of them all. I have yet to see one scientific or historic anything proposed as a footnote to their opinion. Yet they demand Christians apply these very standards which they themselves seem not to possess. So, no, it is not that "it's somehow ironic for someone to use scientific principles to criticize religion?" For there has been NO, I repeat, NO - scientific principles in defense of athiesm given.
I'm very happy with this thread, it has been debated fully and responsibly with respect for both believers and non believers being able to put their points across without any flaming or irrelivant posts. As long as GTech doesn't see this thread we'll all be fine.
Bait would be something attracting someone to it. It would be representing something it is not. But as you say your aim was to offend. I therefore did not take your bait. I was instead actually offended by your cockinbull. Bait has within it - finesse. Your remark did not.
Few questions to ask you who say we have no creator, and we were created from a big bang or something. Is it just a fluke that water freezes on top instead of on bottom like most liquids so fish and other ocean creatures don't die? Is it a fluke that our universe is perfect distance from the sun so we don't burn of freeze? Is it a fluke that our bodies were made for our exact environment (mostly nitrogen) so we could live? Is it a fluke that our days and nights or very even so we can sleep and work? I see a creator involved. God
No, it's not. I was not implying that a group acts a certain way; I was merely responding to your argument by stating that the contrary is true.
To be honest buddy nobody really knows exactly how we were created, nobody knows what happens when we die either. We all have theorys, we all believe in what we believe. My God is called Theirry Henry.
Are you looking for one scientific principle that can be used to discredit religion? How about this principle, theory based upon evidence. Religion has little, and when it is apparent it's only by the cherry picking of beliefs. You believe, or atleast I assume you believe, Christ was ressurected from the grave. Where is the evidence for this theory? All I have ever seen used is the accounts of Christ found in the New Testament, St. Paul's being the most "accurate" account. He never met Christ and he is the strongest link we have to that time period. There are so many conflicting stories of similar nature (how many gospels were thrown away? ) from that time period it's hard to know what's true and what isn't. Not to mention you have dozens of other religions that creeped around during that period using the ressurection story in almost the same manner as Christianity. Any rational person would take these conflicting accounts and come to the conclusion that the ressurection story is not accurate. I doubt you believe me, so take this lecture for example, it provides many sources for the conflicting accounts. So that's where faith takes you, but on the other hand you have rational scientific principles such as decomposition, and the understanding of human biology in regards to death. These two things make it quite clear that when you die, you rot. Nothing else. The brain stops transmitting signals. You die. Period. Who provided the evidence? Which theory is more reasonable? Evolution forced us to adapt to our planet and it's climates, it was no fluke. Think about it like this; if the universe was any different would we exist? The answer is no. The reason we are here today, as you said, is largely due to our planet's relation to the sun (I assume you meant planet, not universe). It may seem amazing that there could be such a finely tuned environment for us to live in, but the fact is that it wasn't finely tuned at all, it just is, our lives and all other life is simply a consequence of these conditions.
The universe is 15billion years old.. its hardly that flukey that ice happens to freeze upwards on this planet..
Bingo!!! Right on the money!!! Belief in God should NEVER be tied down to issues like "evolution" or, lol, far worse, inconsistencies in the variety of translations in the Bible. For as you so RIGHTLY POINTED OUT, everything is just a theory, and what I always seem to run into is precisely that men of faith are always being held to a higher standard by those who do not believe, when these same folks feel they have the liberty to avoid these same standards which they would apply to others. Again, in conjunction, AGS, with your statement, I have yet to have an athiest show me how evolution demonstrates that God did not create man. Some will laugh and deride men of faith, saying God could not have created man in a single day. Well, as men of faith we believe He could have. BUT we also read that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years: 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. On the other hand I have yet to have one conservative Christian explain to me how the Bible precludes any sort of evolution of any kind. Especially when we read that God had already created man and woman prior to Adam. See, the one claims science as it's partner to prove that God does not exist when they are the least scientific of all The other claims the Bible as it's only source when the Bible itself tells us that no one can know the ways of the Lord. Here is what God says in the Bible to the most righteous of men: Job 38:4 ¶ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding... who laid the corner stone thereof; ...when the morning stars sang together... Job 36:26 Behold, God [is] great, and we know [him] not...
no one here is discussing a belief in god... we are discussing a belief in religion. Its a favourite tactic of the religious snake oil salesmen to argue on theological grounds. As they know it can neither be proven either way. We're not going to play your little game. Christians - prove what you think about Christ Muslims - prove what you think about Mohammed Jews - prove what you think about Moses Buddists - prove what you think about Buddha Taoist - prove what you think about Tao Shintoists - prove what you think about Amaterasu Sikhists - prove what you think about Nanak Jainists - prove what you think about Rishabha Krishnas - prove what you think about Krishna Hindus - prove what you think about Rama otherwise.. sod off.
Isn't the arbiter our government and those that represent us? Technically speaking. I'll put it up to a higher level--even righteous, if I dare say so. I think we have a moral right to practice our faith/beliefs, as long as we don't physically force those beliefs upon others. Well, morality is our government...either way we put it. I believe freedom is a system which invokes maximum personal leverage vs any other collective/idea/etc. It's a principle of neutrality in a way. I think (for the better part) it's both practical and in my beliefs moral. Although with me...the spectrum of the moral and practical...are virtually the same color. I think there's just certain issues were manners tend to leave. 'No religion or politics at the table.' I know. I grew-up around both religious and non-religious people, and have formed a sense of neutrality under many different situations. Among the culture of athiesm is fervent belief in defacing the Christian religion in particular--an outright agenda. Not all athiests epouse this behaviour, just as not all Christians are throwing the bible at non-believers...but one must remember...athiesm is anti-belief system,...an assertive of a negative. Like an form of power, it only exists within the confinements of it's philosophy.