Religious debate (split from main board)

[IPorange]

Can you not read. I just did in my post.

I must be missing it too. I'm not seeing it...

 

[T-TownVol]

Speaking for myself....you seem to be projecting this theory with no evidence.
I will 100% admit that I could be wrong. I am not willing to risk eternity on it.
The quality of my life is better BECAUSE of my faith. Science is science and has its place in our world. It does not rule my world.
That is why I ask you....are you willing to take that chance?

Come on guys....you are blinded by SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!

 

[IPorange]

I have said many times that religion is man made. Try another excuse.

What makes belief in a creator irrational?

Because there is no evidence of it, especially of a specific one.


These aren't "excuses," btw. That implies I am slinking away from some sort of responsibility or truth. If that were the case, I wouldn't even bother to engage in this sort of conversation. Even if I were dead wrong, I am still here and willing to talk about it with others.

 

[IPorange]

Come on guys....you are blinded by SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!

YouTube - Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science

 

[T-TownVol]

Because there is no evidence of it, especially of a specific one.


These aren't "excuses," btw. That implies I am slinking away from some sort of responsibility or truth. If that were the case, I wouldn't even bother to engage in this sort of conversation. Even if I were dead wrong, I am still here and willing to talk about it with others.

What evidence do you need?

 

[T-TownVol]

YouTube - Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science

excellent pick up....but no admit that I did say that I could be wrong.....is it so hard to say.....come on now.....

 

[KB5252]

The difference being that when evidence arises that runs counter to those assumptions, I will lay them to the wayside.

So when evidence is produced that disputes a commonly held scientific belief you would put science aside because it has failed?

What is the difference between this and a Christian having been confronted with something from the Bible that has been accepted as a common belief in the past but proven wrong still reconciling his belief in the faith and accepting that mans understanding of the issue was wrong and finding some other way to reconcile it?

Take the Biblical time line for creation as it was interpreted for so long. There are many ways to reconcile the discrepancy, a mistranslation somewhere down the line, a day having multiple meanings etc.

Even in science there are rarely unanimous beliefs unless they have been explained fairly adequately and stood the test of time, the same rings true for the Bible in many ways.

 

[IPorange]

What evidence do you need?

A "meet and greet" with the Creator would be nice. There's no logical reason to stay hidden from us in the physical conscious world if all he wants is for us to follow his teachings. I'd be a lot more receptive to "mysteries" such as "because I said so" from an all-powerful being that is right in front of me.

Perhaps not having such a ridiculously destructive and inefficient natural world would be a more mundane piece of evidence.

 

[Gramps]

Come on guys....you are blinded by SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!

Are they blinded by science or are they using a scientific theory (evolution) to denounce God ?

 

[KB5252]

Come on guys....you are blinded by SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!

I just don't see it as a matter of religion and science being at odds, IMO far too many on both sides get caught up in this. As I see it science is a useful tool for many reasons, to me it seems a very useful way to explain the scope of creation and the intricacies involved. The way I see it one doesn't have to be mutually exclusive to the other, they actually compliment each other rather well, the problems arise when there is an agenda assigned to it.

 

[T-TownVol]

A "meet and greet" with the Creator would be nice. There's no logical reason to stay hidden from us in the physical conscious world if all he wants is for us to follow his teachings. I'd be a lot more receptive to "mysteries" such as "because I said so" from an all-powerful being that is right in front of me.

Perhaps not having such a ridiculously destructive and inefficient natural world would be a more mundane piece of evidence.

So, outside of this "meet and greet" or a less "destructive and inefficiant" world....we are screwed?

 

[rjd970]

Can you not read. I just did in my post.
How many times are you going to post the "wager" article? It still says the same thing it said the other 10 times you have posted it.
What is the facination with throwing other religions up at us? It is a tired arguement.

It's a tired argument because you have no retort, other than the sophmoric drivel of "They are wrong". Wow there "skippy", I'm awed at your intellectual prowess on shooting holes in my argument.

And I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about reasons and proof here, which where exactly in this post:

Speaking for myself....you seem to be projecting this theory with no evidence.
I will 100% admit that I could be wrong. I am not willing to risk eternity on it.
The quality of my life is better BECAUSE of my faith. Science is science and has its place in our world. It does not rule my world.
That is why I ask you....are you willing to take that chance?

Do you lay out what it would take for you to admit you are mistaken about your faith? Is it nothing could get you to admit it? And if so, exactly how is that line of thinking more intellectually honest anything I have said? And furthermore, I don't know how many other ways I can answer you silly question of if I am willing to chance my eternity. YES. Is that clear enough?

Then, in this very thread you post gems like these:

The theories that you spew here are not based in honesty

You are the one that needs some kind of tangible proof and that is sad.

To IP and myself, ridiculing all things reasoned based.

Your whole line of argument here is absurd and isn't addressing any of the points IP or myself have brought up. So continue posting the nonsense you have been and let the grown-ups here handle interesting stuff.

 

[T-TownVol]

I just don't see it as a matter of religion and science being at odds, IMO far too many on both sides get caught up in this. As I see it science is a useful tool for many reasons, to me it seems a very useful way to explain the scope of creation and the intricacies involved. The way I see it one doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, they actually compliment each other rather well, the problems arise when there is an agenda assigned to it.

I totally agree. I said as much, in different words, in another post. I love science. It is extremely important. I am very glad that God gave us all the brilliant minds that we have in this world.
You hit the nail on the head about the "agenda" issue.

 

[IPorange]

So when evidence is produced that disputes a commonly held scientific belief you would put science aside because it has failed?

What is the difference between this and a Christian having been confronted with something from the Bible that has been accepted as a common belief in the past but proven wrong still reconciling his belief in the faith and accepting that mans understanding of the issue was wrong and finding some other way to reconcile it?

Take the Biblical time line for creation as it was interpreted for so long. There are many ways to reconcile the discrepancy, a mistranslation somewhere down the line, a day having multiple meanings etc.

Even in science there are rarely unanimous beliefs unless they have been explained fairly adequately and stood the test of time, the same rings true for the Bible in many ways.

When a commonly held scientific belief fails, it it cast aside or adjusted to accommodate that new piece of information. It doesn't just stay the same. So yes.

Divine design and creation was the dominant scientific belief up until the mid 1800's. Evidence mounted that indicated otherwise, and was replaced by evolutionary concepts. Those original concepts were actually also disproven, and were thus modified into what we have today.

I am not going to get into what you've said about rectifying "discrepancies" and the like. I know that to be an issue of debate and contention within different denominations of Protestants, as well as in Catholic and Greek Orthodox bodies. I would wonder how one can not discard Genesis entirely by now, given all the discrepancies with what we know about the origins of man and the natural world.

 

[KB5252]

A "meet and greet" with the Creator would be nice. There's no logical reason to stay hidden from us in the physical conscious world if all he wants is for us to follow his teachings. I'd be a lot more receptive to "mysteries" such as "because I said so" from an all-powerful being that is right in front of me.

Perhaps not having such a ridiculously destructive and inefficient natural world would be a more mundane piece of evidence.

The cycles of destruction and creation we see all around us seem pretty efficient to me. Light and dark, good and bad surround us at all times. And it isn't an irony that's lost on me either, the Bible both begins and ends, not to mentioned filled to brim everywhere in between with cycles of creation and destruction of different magnitudes.

 

[ridethelightening]

They don't always directly translate, especially over time. Connotations change. I'm sure you have a preferred English translation of the Bible. King James is often held up as the "original and best" for English translations, but in fact has many errors from when it was translated from copies of copies of Greek texts. Nothing really major or ground-shaking, but differences.

Over 99%
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utvolpj]

When a commonly held scientific belief fails, it it cast aside or adjusted to accommodate that new piece of information. It doesn't just stay the same. So yes.

also the supporting docs/books/papers are adjusted to reflect the change. This makes it so future groups don't make the same mistake. The Bible doesn't work that way (like you said about Genesis)

 

[IPorange]

The cycles of destruction and creation we see all around us seem pretty efficient to me. Light and dark, good and bad surround us at all times. And it isn't an irony that's lost on me either, the Bible both begins and ends, not to mentioned filled to brim everywhere in between with cycles of creation and destruction of different magnitudes.

If God's creation was perfect before Man, why did literally millions of species go extinct, continents and oceans rise, fall and move around, etc? Why make something and then have it go extinct before any sentient being got to see it? Why set up such an incredibly inefficient system of adaptation and speciation, of ecology? There's nothing divine about it.

 

[IPorange]

also the supporting docs/books/papers are adjusted to reflect the change. This makes it so future groups don't make the same mistake. The Bible doesn't work that way (like you said about Genesis)

True. The former mistake is not suppressed and ignored.

If anyone ever actually reads "The Origin of Species" by Chuck Darwin, you'll see that he was actually ridiculously wrong on a few points. One of which is that future generations were influenced by an ancestor's actions, i.e. if an animal stretches up to reach leaves on a tree all it's life, that will favor it's offspring having longer limbs or a longer neck. Of course, that's completely preposterous.

 

[T-TownVol]

It's a tired argument because you have no retort, other than the sophmoric drivel of "They are wrong". Wow there "skippy", I'm awed at your intellectual prowess on shooting holes in my argument.

And I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about reasons and proof here, which where exactly in this post:



Do you lay out what it would take for you to admit you are mistaken about your faith? Is it nothing could get you to admit it? And if so, exactly how is that line of thinking more intellectually honest anything I have said? And furthermore, I don't know how many other ways I can answer you silly question of if I am willing to chance my eternity. YES. Is that clear enough?
What will it take....death and nothing after that....but then, it won't matter at that point will it?
Then, in this very thread you post gems like these





To IP and myself, ridiculing all things reasoned based.

Your whole line of argument here is absurd and isn't addressing any of the points IP or myself have brought up. So continue posting the nonsense you have been and let the grown-ups here handle interesting stuff.

Feel better?
It is amazing that you need to keep justifing your stance when you are dealing with such an immature dumb ass.
My reasons for my beliefs are just as reasoned as yours. I am not the one trying to "shoot holes" in a belief that is in the major majority in this world. Nothing you have said proves squat as to there not being a God.

 

[KB5252]

When a commonly held scientific belief fails, it it cast aside or adjusted to accommodate that new piece of information. It doesn't just stay the same. So yes.

Divine design and creation was the dominant scientific belief up until the mid 1800's. Evidence mounted that indicated otherwise, and was replaced by evolutionary concepts. Those original concepts were actually also disproven, and were thus modified into what we have today.

I am not going to get into what you've said about rectifying "discrepancies" and the like. I know that to be an issue of debate and contention within different denominations of Protestants, as well as in Catholic and Greek Orthodox bodies. I would wonder how one can not discard Genesis entirely by now, given all the discrepancies with what we know about the origins of man and the natural world.

And what exactly do we know, how exactly does this knowledge contradict the process by which man was created?

If you choose to believe that the Bible should be read word by word with every word to be taken literally with no thought or contemplation involved then I would agree, your faith would have been shattered long ago. I believe the Bible is not some instruction manual, it is guide, poetry, morality play, social commentary and book of prophecy wrapped into one.

I realize my beliefs are different from many Christians, probably at odds with many on this very forum. I see science as explaining the processes by which God creates and changes the world we live in. Why is this such a strange concept unworthy of merit for you? I do not ask this to be obnoxious or argumentative, just want to understand the reasoning.

 

[IPorange]

Feel better?
It is amazing that you need to keep justifing your stance when you are dealing with such an immature dumb ass.
My reasons for my beliefs are just as reasoned as yours. I am not the one trying to "shoot holes" in a belief that is in the major majority in this world. Nothing you have said proves squat as to there not being a God.

It's telling that you are expecting "us" to disprove God. We can't. We never will be able to. That's not the point.

You have to try and disprove the "null hypothesis" to be able to reach any real conclusion. The null in this case would be, "there is no God." How can one empirically and observationally disprove that? By proving there is a God. I see know way of proving there is a God.

 

[KB5252]

If God's creation was perfect before Man, why did literally millions of species go extinct, continents and oceans rise, fall and move around, etc? Why make something and then have it go extinct before any sentient being got to see it? Why set up such an incredibly inefficient system of adaptation and speciation, of ecology? There's nothing divine about it.

It wasn't perfect before man, at least I don't believe it was anyway. What is perfect? Aren't we all just trying to assign our human emotions and feelings to things by using terms like perfect? It is what it is, life begins and ends, solar bodies are formed and destroyed, the cycle goes on. Science is just a way of explaining the very same things religion did so long ago and still does. The human mind has expanded over the years and explanations for many things have been advanced, it doesn't change the fact that science and religion are attempting to explain the very same things.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[T-TownVol]

It's telling that you are expecting "us" to disprove God. We can't. We never will be able to. That's not the point.

You have to try and disprove the "null hypothesis" to be able to reach any real conclusion. The null in this case would be, "there is no God." How can one empirically and observationally disprove that? By proving there is a God. I see know way of proving there is a God.

Yet....my faith and belief that there is, somehow bothers you?
I am not looking for anyone to prove it to me. That does not seem to be the case with others here.

 

[T-TownVol]

It wasn't perfect before man, at least I don't believe it was anyway. What is perfect? Aren't we all just trying to assign our human emotions and feelings to things by using terms like perfect? It is what it is, life begins and ends, solar bodies are formed and destroyed, the cycle goes on. Science is just a way of explaining the very same things religion did so long ago and still does. The human mind has expanded over the years and explanations for many things have been advanced, it doesn't change the fact that science and religion are attempting to explain the very same things.

At least that's how I see it.

Correct....difference being that the believer does not have to have all the answers.