Religious debate (split from main board)

#1,177
#1,177
bam15 said:
That wouldn't solve the problem. The problem is that religions aren't interesting in tolerating other religions. Religion can do both good and bad, but more good than bad, which is why I think it is important to promote religion rather than go secular. Multiple religious beliefs should be encouraged, but again it goes back to tolerance for other religions. Faith based grants, and initiatives are excellent ideas that can spur on economic growth and opportunity. I think the characterization of people dieing from sickness because of prayer over medicine is not accurate, I'm positive that some people are in favor of this "Christian Science", and the recent case of the Neumanns', but the overwhelming trend is the embracement of medicine and science.
Click to expand...

Dang Bam.....that was plum good there
 
#1,180
#1,180
Oldvol75 said:
So if my faith/beliefs comes from a book (the Bible) its bad, but if yours (faith/beliefs) comes from a book (scientific evidence) , its good! Interesting!!!!
Click to expand...

Now, if we're to play so loosely with language as to make that statement reasonable ... I guess anything goes. But, let's pretend for a moment that we don't want to do that just yet.

First, and I have addressed this many times without a good response so I have to assume you're being lazy, the belief of the atheist and the belief of the christian are not both faith - not if you mean the same thing by faith. Faith for a Christian is the backbone of belief. It says something like "I don't have great evidence, and I don't need great evidence. I'm going to put myself as a firm believer in this proposition because it is meaningful and spiritually necessary. Empiricism or rationalism won't avail you in this arena". The atheist, if she is said to have faith, has something like "I can never know anything for certain, as human reason is fallible and many things thought to be true have been proven false. Because of this, I will tentatively hold hypotheses with the acknowledgement that they may be proven wrong."

Now tentative there doesn't mean waffling. You could hold it very firmly. What it means is that it is only prima facie belief in the proposition. It means that once new evidence comes up you will gladly embrace it for what it is worth.

Second, scientific evidence is not 'a book" like the bible, which is known as the word. The word is unchanging, the book is fixed. Scientific understanding is continually evolving and changing to meet new information. Your book was written almost two thousand years before we learned that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe! And, I know that this is rounding up - but I'm averaging out between the new and old testaments.

Scientific knowledge is subject to tests and scrutiny, and a scientific field of study is rejected if: a) it doesn't prove fruitful to predictive hypotheses, and b) if it shows itself to be utterly unfalsifiable.

I hope (and would pray) that you can see the clear difference.

Can we move on now from this absurdity that is the connection between the scientific mind and the religious mind? By all means, criticize the scientist, but don't pretend she is a metaphysician in empiricists clothing.
 
Last edited:
#1,181
#1,181
I believe what you said Rev, it's just the Alabama thing keeps throwing me. Did you hear the one about the kid that got kicked out of public school for poor grades? His mom enrolled him in a Christian school and his grades improved dramatically. His mom was curious and asked him what had happened in school to cause such an improvement. He said, "well mom, the first day I was in math class I looked up at the wall and saw that guy nailed to a plus sign and I got the message". Seriously, I try to love people and treat them well and love Jesus and treat him well. I have to say, at times, I have failed miserably at both.
 
#1,182
#1,182
turambar85 said:
Now, if we're to play so loosely with language as to make that statement reasonable ... I guess anything goes. But, let's pretend for a moment that we don't want to do that just yet.

First, and I have addressed this many times without a good response so I have to assume you're being lazy, the belief of the atheist and the belief of the christian are not both faith - not if you mean the same thing by faith. Faith for a Christian is the backbone of belief. It says something like "I don't have great evidence, and I don't need great evidence. I'm going to put myself as a firm believer in this proposition because it is meaningful and spiritually necessary. Empiricism or rationalism won't avail you in this arena". The atheist, if she is said to have faith, has something like "I can never know anything for certain, as human reason is fallible and many things thought to be true have been proven false. Because of this, I will tentatively hold hypotheses with the acknowledgement that they may be proven wrong."

Now tentative there doesn't mean waffling. You could hold it very firmly. What it means is that it is only prima facie belief in the proposition. It means that once new evidence comes up you will gladly embrace it for what it is worth.

Second, scientific evidence is not 'a book" like the bible, which is known as the word. The word is unchanging, the book is fixed. Scientific understanding is continually evolving and changing to meet new information. Your book was written almost two thousand years before we learned that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe! And, I know that this is rounding up - but I'm averaging out between the new and old testaments.

Scientific knowledge is subject to tests and scrutiny, and a scientific field of study is rejected if: a) it doesn't prove fruitful to predictive hypotheses, and b) if it shows itself to be utterly unfalsifiable.

I hope (and would pray) that you can see the clear difference.
Can we move on now from this absurdity that is the connection between the scientific mind and the religious mind? By all means, criticize the scientist, but don't pretend she is a metaphysician in empiricists clothing.
Click to expand...



Who would an atheist pray to ?
 
#1,189
#1,189
turambar, there is a pretty good speaker at UT tonight for Darwin Day. It's at 7 in Cox auditorium in Alumni Memorial and the talk is free. Dr. William Friedman is visiting from Colorado-Boulder and will be giving his presentation on pre-Darwin evolutionists. You should consider going. I just met him and he is a very interesting guy.
 
#1,192
#1,192
When I worked at Ohio State a group came to every football game that had a billboard truck with a picture of an aborted baby.

More harm to the christian faith than they could ever imagine.
 
#1,194
#1,194
OrangeEmpire said:
When I worked at Ohio State a group came to every football game that had a billboard truck with a picture of an aborted baby.

More harm to the christian faith than they could ever imagine.
Click to expand...

The group that visits UT has a truck as well. They also have a large collection of poster-sized images on display on the sidewalks around campus. Last year, they rented a plane that flew a banner with an image on it as well. They didn't care that young children would see the images. In their mind, it is all the greater good.
 
#1,198
#1,198
IPorange said:
turambar, there is a pretty good speaker at UT tonight for Darwin Day. It's at 7 in Cox auditorium in Alumni Memorial and the talk is free. Dr. William Friedman is visiting from Colorado-Boulder and will be giving his presentation on pre-Darwin evolutionists. You should consider going. I just met him and he is a very interesting guy.
Click to expand...

Yeah....thanks a lot for the reminder, but I sadly won't be able to make it. If you go, do let me know how it went!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top