Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 131,857

FRANKFORT, Ky. - The state would create rules for teaching about the Bible in public high schools under a bill filed Monday by three Democratic senators.

Full Story

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#98858 Apr 7, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>But how do you do that without evidence? Every religion is certain that they are right and everyone else is wrong. You realize that don't you?
Read it again please.
I said that only one view can be right. I didn't say religion.
Meaning that atheists that believe there is nothing after death could be right. Either way, there will be only one scenario that happens after we die. It doesn't matter if we, as a race, had 6 billion ideas of what will happen after death, only one will be right.
Do you understand what I meant?

You are correct for the most part. Most everyone feels that their stance is correct. There aren't many that are open in saying, oh well I might be wrong. And there is a percentage that treat religion like insurance. In other words, Well I don't believe anything happens when we die, but just in case, I'm going to go to church. I see this as wasted time. You either act on what you believe, or don't believe it. Don't be undecided.

“There is no god”

Since: Jul 12

War, WV

#98859 Apr 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Question for you,
Why do you insist on using the word cult?
You are told what to think, every one else is an outsider, every one else is evil, no one else understands, avoid the secular world, do not question, etc....
Christianity is a cult. Preachers jump from verse to verse so you can not grasp the concept of the verse, instead of answering hard questions they attack you for asking (you do not understand the bible is the same answer over and over)
Killing any one who is not a part of your religion, all of the Abrahamic religions are cults

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#98860 Apr 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Read it again please.
I said that only one view can be right. I didn't say religion.
Meaning that atheists that believe there is nothing after death could be right. Either way, there will be only one scenario that happens after we die. It doesn't matter if we, as a race, had 6 billion ideas of what will happen after death, only one will be right.
Do you understand what I meant?
You are correct for the most part. Most everyone feels that their stance is correct. There aren't many that are open in saying, oh well I might be wrong. And there is a percentage that treat religion like insurance. In other words, Well I don't believe anything happens when we die, but just in case, I'm going to go to church. I see this as wasted time. You either act on what you believe, or don't believe it. Don't be undecided.
This is very rational. It is rare that a religious person comes on a forum such as this (in which many atheists are also posting) and concedes such an important point.

Here is a follow up to what you said:

If we don't know the final answer, does that mean we cannot find ways of getting close to being right? If so, it would mean that all pursuit of knowledge is futile and meaningless. I think that looking around at all the incredible things we've accomplished through careful study, investigation, and trial and error shows that pursuit of knowledge is important. It changes lives. And life is really the only thing we have for sure.

So if we can have knowledge (we virtually wiped out polio...we CAN have knowledge), then there is going to be an optimal pathway to that knowledge. What is the optimal pathway?

Religion did not get rid of polio. It didn't invent the wheel, hand soap, or the Space Shuttle. Reason did all of that. Reason leads to science.

I argue that science *appears* to be the best pathway to finding truth.

This of course has nothing to do with your freedom to believe what you want to believe. I would fight and die for that freedom. I'm just pointing out my view of the world and supporting my view with evidence.

(And lest anyone should pop in and point out that many scientists are also religious...I don't care. Their religion wasn't what led to their scientific discoveries. It was the methodology of science, the application of reason and value of evidence. Newton was a devout Christian but nothing in the theology of Christianity helped him figure out his laws of motion.)
curious

Ocoee, FL

#98861 Apr 7, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure thing, glad you asked.
So if you are asking me literally what I now about God the answer is nothing. I don't believe in God, never seen a God, and since there is no record of anyone else ever seeing a God I can't really answer the question. If God exists then he either only shares information about himself with people privately and never allows himself to be observed or verified or he is absolutely outside of our reality.
Now, if you are asking me about my personal experience and knowledge about religion I do have some. I got saved when I was a lad and it was a terrifying experience. I spent a few years worrying about Hell then went through a short Jesus phase. Then all of that stuff quickly started to fall away and by the time I was 35 I was calling myself an atheist. I don't think I ever really believed. Some atheists did believe very strongly before losing their faith. I never did. I could never get past certain problems with religion.
For example, I could not accept that God is good and that he sends people to Hell. It made no sense to me even as a teenager. As I got older I started to expand that thought and I realized that a world in which kids can suffer painfully and die is not a world in which a loving God exists.
End of story for me.
But I have a really strong interest in religious beliefs, skepticism, and science. So I am fairly well versed in the various religions. Particularly the Christian sects since that is my heritage.
Now, if I was going to look for God I really have no idea how I'd go about doing that. I'm a naturalist. I don't do the whole praying thing and I don't do faith. If God doesn't have the common decency to leave me some overt and unambiguous evidence that he in fact does exist then I have no real way to ever find him. And it strikes me as a little dubious that he would create me with a rational mind that he knows will seek evidence, then provide me with no evidence.
Test of faith? Without some kind of firm evidence which faith am I to accept as the true one? Billions of people accept faiths other than Christianity with just as much passion and sincerity. How do I know they aren't the true ones?
There is no way to test for God. It is a magical idea that is not in the domain of nature and therefore outside of science. It is purely a matter of faith, not reason.
And that is why ideas such as Creationism are always rejected by science. They are also based on faith, not reason. Science is a product of reason. Faith is not in the recipe.
Glad you answered,.I was raised a Catholic,family tradition.My family seldom went to church.
I was taught the OUR Father,Hail Mary,Apostles Creed and some other prayers and told to repeat them before I went to sleep and when I got up in the morning.So,I did as I was told.
As I got older,about,14 years old, I drifted away from that process,dropped out of High school and went to work,menial job,selling magazine subscriptions door to door
Picked up some bad habits along the way.
I was not making a lot of money,I learned to scheme,planned car accidents,so I could sue,stole a blank baptisimal certificate,used that to establish a phony identification,used that to establish credit and defrauded anumber of clothing and furniture stores. Raised additional cash by borrowing $3000. from HFC.
Then at age 28,decided to get GED diploma.Scored 260 out of possible 270 on my final test.Applied for loan for college and was accepted. By now ,was married and had 2 kids.
Took a 101 course in philosophy. My proffesor laid out what I thought were some compelling arguments for not believing in God.
CONTIUE ON NEXTPOST
curious

Ocoee, FL

#98862 Apr 7, 2013
Some of those same arguments have been posted on this thread.
So,I became an agnostic.If God existed,I certainly was not aware of it,moreover I did not need him. I believed,as a result ,of my schemes,at which I was very successful,that I could accomplish whatever I desired.I believed I could deal with any problem that I would be confronted with.

became very cocky" arrogant". I finished college and got a job a job in sales with a Business forms company. Became very succesful at what I was doing. Then I was confronted with a problem
for which I ,try as I might,could not find a solution.I lived with this problem for about 3 weeks and it was causing me a great deal of mental anguish. I was desperate,and concluded that,maybe God could help me

.But,I did not really believe that,if there is aGod,that he would help me. To me it seemed a waste of time.
But,desperate times call for desperate measures,I decided to pray to God,but not let anyone know what I was doing. I did not want to make a fool of myself,in the event that my prayer was not answered.

That day I prayed and that very same day,my prayer was answered in such a way,that I could find no explanation for the result,other than God responding.That particular event,did not convince me that God truly existed,but it did arouse my curiosity.After that event took place,I bought a bible and started reading it,what I read,further aroused my curiosity...Over a period of time,by putting what I read in the bible into practice and diligently seeking God,other problems that I confronted were resolved as a result of prayer.Things that I read in the Bible,which I did not understand and seemed to be nonsensical,suddenly became clear to me.
That is the basis for my faith..
What I know about evolution,the big bang theory and scientific theories for life coming into being,other than through God,is very
limited.But we can discuss one and the other,in gentle manly terms.
One thing,I will not be able to prove God's existence. only God can prove his existence,what I can tell you is why I believe God Exists
Kitty

Monticello, KY

#98863 Apr 7, 2013
Satanic Priest wrote:
<quoted text>Since there is no god and that did not happen I would say that you do not understand reality because no one except the christian cult has ever said that man came from apes.
What a stupid statement and a big lie to prop it up with. You don't and can't know that. I just take my belief on Faith. You have neither..not proof and no Faith. Where is the evidence that holds up your "there is no God" heresy? What facts make Christians a cult and not the anti-Christ/ Atheists. I want to see that please. I'll give it a look see, but it must hold water better than my Bible. By what authority do you declare such things to be true.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#98864 Apr 7, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Read it again please.
I said that only one view can be right. I didn't say religion.
Meaning that atheists that believe there is nothing after death could be right. Either way, there will be only one scenario that happens after we die. It doesn't matter if we, as a race, had 6 billion ideas of what will happen after death, only one will be right.
Do you understand what I meant?
You are correct for the most part. Most everyone feels that their stance is correct. There aren't many that are open in saying, oh well I might be wrong. And there is a percentage that treat religion like insurance. In other words, Well I don't believe anything happens when we die, but just in case, I'm going to go to church. I see this as wasted time. You either act on what you believe, or don't believe it. Don't be undecided.
I guess I don't understand your point. Nor do I understand the distinction you're trying to make between "religion" and "view".
While I agree with you that there is only one reality, and there can be only one thing that happens after we die, I disagree with the irrelevance you've placed on the beliefs that we have while alive. You make decisions based on your beliefs, or at least are affected by your beliefs (the fact that we're having this conversation is proof). Some of those decisions could affect other people's lives (e.g., who you vote for, passing a bill to establish a state religion,...etc.). It's not trivial, nor irrelevant.

And it's more than just atheism vs theism. It, to me, is the silliness of Pascal's Wager. If you agree with Pascal and hold the position that it is better to believe than not, how are you to choose the correct god (let alone religion/denomination)? There is no more evidence for any brand of faith than the other.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#98865 Apr 7, 2013
Satanic Priest wrote:
<quoted text>You are told what to think, every one else is an outsider, every one else is evil, no one else understands, avoid the secular world, do not question, etc....
Christianity is a cult. Preachers jump from verse to verse so you can not grasp the concept of the verse, instead of answering hard questions they attack you for asking (you do not understand the bible is the same answer over and over)
Killing any one who is not a part of your religion, all of the Abrahamic religions are cults
Yeah we all get the definition of cult, but why use it? It is only a term used when degrading someone else. Is that your sole purpose? To degrade others that believe differently than you?

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Heidrick, KY

#98866 Apr 7, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
That's funny, Q. Cherry picked quotes. And one of them is from a think tank DEVOTED to destroying AGW. How does that one fit into the theme of "they're changing their tune"? I would not accept that one on the face of it, especially in a AGW denier jpg.
Also, please understand I am not married to AGW. I am not well schooled on that topic so all I can really do is give my conditional trust to what the majority of scientists tell me. I've read some of it, it makes sense, I'm ok with it.
But you more than most people on this thread should be aware that science is always always ALWAYS *conditional* and subject to change. This topic of AGW is a young idea and in a frenzy of debate. I think that you are correct in saying there is a sort of quasi-religion surrounding "green". But I think it is also true that the push back comes from the quasi-religious idea of magical Free Market Capitalism with it's mystical Invisible Hand. The push back is all about protecting the market, and that has its own high priests and clergy.
Can we not agree that this is young science, still debated, subject to massive changes over the next decades? I'm happy to accept that some of its ideas are or might be wrong. That is what I love about science. It can be wrong. But I am not willing to reject it outright because some libertarians think they should have no limits. I will reject it outright when it is proven false and people smarter than me are convinced it is false.
Know what I mean?
Well Lets see... No Significant temperature increase in the last 15 years seems to make the point... http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Rep...

There are literally 1000's of people smarter than the both of us combined that have come around to the obvious...

Consensus in erroneous conclusions have always done great damage in science..

But I do like that you are going with the "There is Vigorous Debate" that's actually headway sense I have had to listen to "There is No Debate" by Believers it was getting annoying...

And I disagree it's New Science... It's the Same science and the Same claims made in the 40's when we were all going to die from ice caps melting and run away sea rise, and the 70's when we were all going to freeze and the globe was going to be a big ball of ice, and the science of the 90's when again we are all going for the big swim in a tropical Arctic Ocean...

If Ever Consensus in the scientific community goes for the There is no man made global warming, that went I start looking hard at how man is actually causing global warming....

As for Capitalism versus Socialism... Capitalism gives us Electricity, Cars, Vaccines, abundance of food, TV's, Radios and all the tools to fix my motorcycle.... Socialism give you totalitarian rule and mass graves....
webster

Sheridan, AR

#98867 Apr 7, 2013
Faith by defination, means having no proof.

If you were born in India, you would probably believe in Hinduism...born in China? Buddhism...born in Afghanistan? Islam...noone should doubt your faith, but just know that, faith and evidence supporting facts (with today's technology, mind you) are on opposite spectrums of reality...if you don't agree, well, that proves my point.

...the human mind is highly susceptible to delusions...an atheist doesn't beleve in anything supernatural, magical, miracles, exc...because there's a scientific explanation for these things to tell us why things do what they do.

...the next time you get a headache, don't grab that aspiran, it was created by science...just pray for your head to stop hurting....or better yet just refust any medical treatment at all, after all, that's just humans playing god, right?...refuse all medical treatment from this point on, and I'll believe that you belive.

“There is no god”

Since: Jul 12

War, WV

#98869 Apr 7, 2013
Kitty wrote:
<quoted text>What a stupid statement and a big lie to prop it up with. You don't and can't know that. I just take my belief on Faith. You have neither..not proof and no Faith. Where is the evidence that holds up your "there is no God" heresy? What facts make Christians a cult and not the anti-Christ/ Atheists. I want to see that please. I'll give it a look see, but it must hold water better than my Bible. By what authority do you declare such things to be true.
I do not need an authority, I already stated why your evil cult is a cult, faith is another word for believe and is not tangible, and the Hubble telescope and voyager 1 prove that there is no god (as well as modern medicine proving that germs not unclean spirits cause illness and the world being round not flat)
Prove there is a god, be honest and back your proof up

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Heidrick, KY

#98870 Apr 7, 2013
GODS PITBULL wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what do evolutionists believe man came from?
5 of 15 Questions for Evolutionists:
1. How did life originate?
2. How did the DNA code originate?
3. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
http://creation.com/15-questions
1.. We are not sure, there are several possibilities that are well studied... panspermia, spontaneous only on one planet, spontaneous on many planets or implantation by another species ... But first have the Creationist tell us all what Constitutes Life in the first place....

2.. See 1

3.. DNA/RNA Mutations Don't change a microbe into a microbiologist.... They can change a microbe into a deadly microbe or a health improving microbe causing the microbiologist to die or live longer though... Since there are More Microbes inside a microbiologist than microbiologist it's an idiotic question... The Change over Geological and Cosmic time frames is due to Environment, Self assemble of matter into ever more complex forms, destruction of species during catastrophic events opening new niches in the eco systems and the ability to transfer DNA/RNA from members of one species to others within the species and the ability to transfer DNA/RNA from other species causing variations and additions to the sequences....

4.. Because it Does... One of the primary forces of diversity of species is natural selection but it is not a linear thing.. Once a catastrophic event wipes out most species there is a Fast phase where plants and animals move into new environments and those born or seeded that can't take the new environment die and those few that can survive thrive.. That is why if a species finds itself isolated it quickly changes it's structures, habits, and lifestyles to survive in the new environment and we see this in many of the birds in the Galapagos islands, we see it when a new species is introduced into a previous stable eco system... Once in a new environment assorted forces such as food, water, radiation and microbe injection adds additional code to the DNA/RNA chains of the target species...

5.. Through trial and error under pressure of the environment.. If a offspring has a new pathway that is detrimental in the environment the species finds itself in it dies and fails to pass that aspect to the next generation, if it is beneficial it lives longer and has a better chance of passing along the trait... This process is faster after a catastrophic event causes many environmental niches to open up because of higher death rates of those that cannot survive the new environment and after a species becomes stable in an environment the process slows because the species becomes adapted to the eco system... It is not a Linear process.... Also see #2

Class dismissed....

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

Heidrick, KY

#98871 Apr 7, 2013
GODS PITBULL wrote:
<quoted text>
Why rich? Do you not know that the rich cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven?
Matt. 19:21-24
21 Jesus answered,“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples,“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Our life of poverty is as necessary as the work itself. Only in heaven will we see how much we owe to the poor for helping us to love God better because of them.*Mother Teresa
Matt. 5:3 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Quant 1:3 "Horsey Puckey Doo Doo"
GWB

Roseville, CA

#98872 Apr 7, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Well,you have said a mouthful,based on your feelings and emotions.
I have given my reasons for my faith,which you automatically discarded and without any basis in fact,you claim that my faith is based on fear of being tortured by God and wanting eternal life.
I never said that I could prove the exitence of God,What I said is that GOD proved his existence to me by answering specific prayers that only he and I knew about.
Now,there is natural evidence that God exists,the Universe,stars,our planet,inhabited by the most sophisticated machine( life form known to man....the human species,among others.
But,many reject this evidence and attribute this immense creation
to some accidental explosion that they can not explain based on facts and then theorize how life came into existence through an evolutionary proces. The problem with that is that,they cannot EXPLAIN how life came into being,because they don't know it occurred
They can not explain how nonliving nonintelligent matter was able to spontaneously come to lihe and create the human species,amomg others.
Does science try to prove the existence of God?Science will never prove the existence of God by using man constructed criteria.
The natural can not prove the supernatural.
Not to be repetitve,God has clearly stated how one may come to know him; If you seek me diligently,you will find me.
To unbelievers that is foolishness,but not to those who believe,have tested his word and found it to be true
What is wisdom to God ,is foolishness to the Godless
What is wisdom to the Godless,is foolishness to GOD
Therefore, Intheir search for widom and knowledge,the Godless have attained unto foolishness.
I don't know that man will someday,be able to grow limbs on amputees,could it happen,yes.This would come about as the result of an intelligent being figuring out the process on how this could be achieved...
It would not come about as a result of nonliving nonintelligent matter spontaneously creating that limb.Or would you believe that is possible? and if so,explain how.
Your faith cannot prove that God exists, that is why i discarded it. Contradictory teachings of the bible by other faiths do not help your arguments for the existence of a God. I will pray to win the super lotto to test if a God of luck exists, then i can say God did it.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#98873 Apr 7, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem fixated on the origin of life. You criticize science for being unable to explain it, but the same question is just as applicable to your own beliefs.
I'll ask again...where did your god come from? Explain that to me.
I am not fixated on the origins of life.The Bible already provides ME with that information.
What I am fixated with is,the unability of renowned Scientists to
explain how life came into being and expect me to believe that nonintelligent and nonliving matter, spontaneously created life and then evovlved into the human species.
As I stated before,in 1982 NASA confirmed that the elements contained in dirt were also found in the human body.
Previous to that finding,unbelievers mocked the idea that humans were formed out of the dust of the ground.
But now,Sientists agree that man was made from that same nonliving
matter that The Bible had informed us of,thousands of years ago.
What Science can not provide us with is,evidence as to how this nonliving matter came to life,whereas,the bible does.
Your question about "Where did God Come from" meaning,Who Created God? Will hopefully be explained by th folloing article which was published by CARM.

This question is logically problematic. If everything needs a creator, than no matter what exists, it must have been created. Furthermore, to be created means that someone or something had to create it. But then, who created the creator and so on? Logically, this would mean there would be an infinite regression of creators (prior causes), and we would never be able to find the first uncaused cause, since by definition (the question says that "everything needs a creator") there wouldn't be any uncaused cause. This would mean that the sequence of creations is eternal. But, if it exists that there is an eternal regression of creators, then who created the infinite regression of creators? Remember, the question presupposes that all things need a creator -- even the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd. Furthermore, if there is an eternal regression of creators that are eternal, then the question is not answered. In fact, it cannot be answered, since its weakness is that "all things need a creator." Of course, this only begs the question in that how did the process begin? Therefore, the question only raises the same problem it asks, and it is a question that, by its own design, cannot be answered. Therefore, it is invalid.
Continued
curious

Ocoee, FL

#98874 Apr 7, 2013
The question is better phrased as a statement: "Everything that has come into existence was brought into existence by something else." This is a more logical statement and is not wrought with the difficulties of the initial question. In the revised statement, "Everything that has come into existence" implies that the thing that "has come into existence" did not already exist. If it did not already exist but then came into existence, then something had to bring it into existence, because something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence (a logical absolute). This pushes the regression of creators back to what we would call the theoretical "uncaused cause" since there cannot be an infinite regression of creators as discussed above; and since an infinite number of creators would mean there was an infinite number of creations and created things, including things that cannot be destroyed since they would constitute things that exist. If that is so, then the universe would have had an infinite number of created things in it, and it would be full. But it is not full. Therefore, there has not been an infinite regression of creations.

By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the uncaused cause (Psalm 90:2). He was always in existence and He is the one who created space, time, and matter. This means that the Christian God is the uncaused cause, and is the ultimate creator. This eliminates the infinite regression problem.

Some may ask, "But who created God?" The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#98875 Apr 7, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
As for Capitalism versus Socialism... Capitalism gives us Electricity, Cars, Vaccines, abundance of food, TV's, Radios and all the tools to fix my motorcycle.... Socialism give you totalitarian rule and mass graves....
Woah, hold on there Sport. I never said a dad blasted thing about "socialism". Big pet peeve of mine is when people jump from a criticism about Free Market Capitalism to Socialism. I think what we have and what we want is a blend of these ideas, certainly not Stalin or Mao or any of that nonsense.
curious

Ocoee, FL

#98876 Apr 7, 2013
GWB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your faith cannot prove that God exists, that is why i discarded it. Contradictory teachings of the bible by other faiths do not help your arguments for the existence of a God. I will pray to win the super lotto to test if a God of luck exists, then i can say God did it.
Again,you err.
I never said that my faith would prove that God Exits.
My personal experiences are real and through those personal experiences I have come to believe in God.
God proved his existence to me
Since YOU did not experience what I did,I can understand the reason for your unbelief, Faith can not be transferred from one person to another.
I know what I experienced,you don't know what I experienced,therefore,your inability to understand...
That does not mean that you are not intelligent,it does not mean that my intelligence is superior to yours....
Anyway,I know that what I experienced is real,I lived it and the fact that someone may have a different opinion or theory about my experience,will not serve to invalidate what I believe is true.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#98877 Apr 7, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>This is very rational. It is rare that a religious person comes on a forum such as this (in which many atheists are also posting) and concedes such an important point.

Here is a follow up to what you said:

If we don't know the final answer, does that mean we cannot find ways of getting close to being right? If so, it would mean that all pursuit of knowledge is futile and meaningless. I think that looking around at all the incredible things we've accomplished through careful study, investigation, and trial and error shows that pursuit of knowledge is important. It changes lives. And life is really the only thing we have for sure.

So if we can have knowledge (we virtually wiped out polio...we CAN have knowledge), then there is going to be an optimal pathway to that knowledge. What is the optimal pathway?

Religion did not get rid of polio. It didn't invent the wheel, hand soap, or the Space Shuttle. Reason did all of that. Reason leads to science.

I argue that science *appears* to be the best pathway to finding truth.

This of course has nothing to do with your freedom to believe what you want to believe. I would fight and die for that freedom. I'm just pointing out my view of the world and supporting my view with evidence.

(And lest anyone should pop in and point out that many scientists are also religious...I don't care. Their religion wasn't what led to their scientific discoveries. It was the methodology of science, the application of reason and value of evidence. Newton was a devout Christian but nothing in the theology of Christianity helped him figure out his laws of motion.)
Good point.
Personally, I don't think the two are exclusive. I think that God is the author of our scientific laws (such as gravity) and He operates within those laws normally. We don't fully understand how all these laws work but (to quote from Joe Dirt), it just does. His hand isn't in everything we do directly, but He normally works through other people.
Anyway, I see nothing wrong with learning as much as possible while on this earth, on as many useful topics as possible. But I don't see knowledge of science as proof that we don't need God, I see it as proof that a highly intelligent being is behind its conception.
For example, since I am Mormon, I believe that the church that Christ originally set up, is now restored. I do not see it a coincidence that this massive knowledge, and technological boom happened shortly after His church was restored. Inventions like the printing press made it possible to publish the ancient record that was unearthed and translated. The automobile, computers, Internet, etc make it possible to spread God's gospel all over the world in less than a second.
If the gospel would have come forth in the 1200's for example, it would be impossible for the entire world to listen to God's prophet and apostles speak to us, live on TV or internet (which is happening today at what we call General Conference).

These technologies boomed quickly after His church was restored. I say quickly because of the comparison of now vs. all recorded history. It's an exponential curve that takes off in the 1800's. His church was restored in 1830.
So anyway, I know fully well you will not agree, and that's ok, I just wanted to say that because of my beliefs, I see things a little differently, but still agree that science is fascinating and should be explored in almost all facets. I just do not think the goal should be to disprove a creator, nor to prove one.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#98880 Apr 7, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>I guess I don't understand your point. Nor do I understand the distinction you're trying to make between "religion" and "view".
While I agree with you that there is only one reality, and there can be only one thing that happens after we die, I disagree with the irrelevance you've placed on the beliefs that we have while alive. You make decisions based on your beliefs, or at least are affected by your beliefs (the fact that we're having this conversation is proof). Some of those decisions could affect other people's lives (e.g., who you vote for, passing a bill to establish a state religion,...etc.). It's not trivial, nor irrelevant.

And it's more than just atheism vs theism. It, to me, is the silliness of Pascal's Wager. If you agree with Pascal and hold the position that it is better to believe than not, how are you to choose the correct god (let alone religion/denomination)? There is no more evidence for any brand of faith than the other.
Sorry to confuse. I was just being very general. I absolutely think it is imperative to seek out the truth. And when I say view instead of religion, it is because most atheists do not consider their beliefs a religion, though their beliefs (or lack of) come with a certain expectation of what will happen in the afterlife. That's why I said view. I could have said opinion, belief, expectations, whatever word you like.

My faith absolutely shaped my life and my decisions. I didn't mean to be so general that you thought my religion, or anyone's, is trivial. I believe it is the main purpose of life.

So how does one find the true church? If that was your question to me, the answer to me will be different than that of a Hindu, for example. My belief is that the truth can be found through the Holy Ghost. Jesus said seek and you shall find. The apostle James said if any of you lack wisdom, to ask of God.
I believe you have to work for it, but He will answer through the Holy Ghost.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Where is Nick Mandel? 2 hr Momof4 1
missing pit bull 3 hr Worried 6
Knox Central 4 hr guess 2
truck payments 5 hr gator 10
Need food badly 5 hr Need food badly 25
~~Keep A Word~~Drop A Word Game. (Jun '10) 5 hr TOASTup 404
city of barbourville 8 hr Three losers 15
Porsche mills 15 hr Prayers 17
How to make homemade ice melt for steps, sidewa... (Jan '13) Dec 15 Corky 51
Barbourville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Barbourville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Barbourville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:18 am PST

Bleacher Report 7:18AM
Tennessee Titans vs. Jacksonville Jaguars: Complete Week 16 Preview for Tennesse
NBC Sports12:38 PM
Dexter McCluster out Thursday, likely out Week 17 as well
NBC Sports 2:30 PM
Manziel looking for better showing in second start - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 2:48 PM
Titans RB McCluster ruled out of game vs. Jaguars - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 5:47 PM
Denver Broncos vs. Cincinnati Bengals Betting Odds, Analysis, NFL Pick