Science vs. Religion
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#2009 Oct 6, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's the case, then you must believe that Thomas Paine was 'irrational', or had no 'rational basis' for believing in a creator.
No, as I have told you previously Thomas Paine “reasoned” based on the law of cause and effect that since the world exists there must have been a creator. That may or may not be true but it is a "rational basis" for his belief.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#2010 Oct 6, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
And do you place little green men living in Ireland in the same category as the creator that deists like Thomas Paine believe(d) in?
No, because as I just pointed out Thomas Paine put forth a rational argument for the existence of “God” while I have heard no “rational” argument for the existence of leprechauns.
Possible does not equal rational.
Info

San Diego, CA

#2011 Oct 6, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Dude, when posting like this please make sure you're spelling is correct. It's "too dumb", not to.
Dude, when you criticize someones proof reading be sure yours is perfect first. You sound narcissistic, topix is not the Wall Street Journal. Most christian posts I've read show they wouldn't know the difference between two, too or to anyway.

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#2012 Oct 6, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
My brother-in-law is a PhD Biologist and his name shows up all over in actual scientific websites. Since his career was in the private sector most of his technical work is unpublished.
God bless you.
Maybe Gary really is a scientist but he can't be of any import if he doesn't have any scientific work published or even acknowledged. Maybe he saw pandering to the religious right a way to make a quick buck. Only God knows. I kind of think he doesn't exist at all.
Maybe your bil is full of hisself where Gary isn't...just sayin'...
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#2013 Oct 7, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's an interesting link...
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony5.p...
Yes there are a few (very few about 0.1%) scientists and science educators with valid credentials that do not accept the theory of evolution. Several of them have testified in court cases about creationism. However their non-acceptance has always been determined to be based on religious belief rejection of valid scientific evidence. Gerardus D. Bouw earned a Ph.D. in astronomy in 1973, and believes that the sun revolves around the earth. However, as you would expect, he provides no scientific evidence to support his position only scripture and criticism of the generally accepted scientific evidence.

"...he mentioned a Dutch-Canadian named Walter van der Kamp (photo at left) as an extreme case where a Creationist advocated the literality of Scripture to the point of a stationary earth. ...I set forth on a three-week, six-days-per-week, sixteen-hours-per-day study to determine the truth of the matter insofar as the Bible was concerned....Once I dismissed the erroneous humanist teachings, the Lord opened the door with a career, first at C.S.U. and later, in 1980, at Baldwin-Wallace College where I am now a tenured full professor." - Testimony of Gerardus D. Bouw
Common Sense

San Diego, CA

#2015 Oct 7, 2013
Correction:

Whether you read it or not it will make no difference with your belief, you've already stated nothing will change it which is fine with me..

“Vader2016!”

Since: Sep 10

The Deathstar

#2016 Oct 7, 2013
lol wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a failure in the classroom, only eggheads like YOU actually believe the tripe known as evolution.
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/08/evolu...
Along with 75% of medical doctors and over 99% of people working in the field.

And your link is to a site dedicated to quote mining. Taking a sentence out of context to make your point. Or quotes from people not in the field of biology.

You have no case.

Also because you like quote mining so much:

"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19

So your god is helpless against Iron Chariots.

Good to know.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2017 Oct 7, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's an interesting link...
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony5.p...
Thanks NDanger. Gary Parker is another example of a former evolutionist turned Creationist. And of course via his association with "Answers In Genesis" is immediately dismissed by many.

And of course lack of peer review is used as the usual tool.

Here's an interesting quote:

Richard Horton, then editor of The Lancet, contributed a guest editorial for the Medical Journal of Australia (Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion and crack-up; MJA 2000; 172: 148-149) in which he wrote:

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

From a journal editor, that sounds pretty damning, but perhaps it is just an acceptance of reality. The system may mean that  quite rightly  a paper has been subject to independent review before publication, but it does not make it irrefutable. And, of course, science itself is not a set of absolute truths but at best a collection of the best knowledge and interpretation at that particular time, open to review, validation or falsification. Human nature being what it is, peer review can get in the way of this process, since reviewers are usually the ones whose treasured beliefs might be questioned. It is disingenuous for editors to talk about how eager they are to publish groundbreaking new work which upsets existing orthodoxies; it takes a degree of courage to break away from the herd.

----------

Now of course when an evolutionist breaks away from the herd and embraces creationism, he is seen as someone who became a creationist because of a religious experience rather than evidence leading them away from evolution. Or, they assume that all creationist scientists were always creationists.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2018 Oct 7, 2013
Prophet of Jesus Christ

San Antonio, TX

#2019 Oct 7, 2013
Job wrote:
Please if you will...answer this question for me.

Are you worth it to God...to save you?

Yes or no?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2020 Oct 7, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>So you base your argument and support of your "proof/evidence" on the idea that information is regularly lost over time...?
Kinda shaky and shady way to do things...
Its consistently funny that believers have to rely on all means of loopholes to support their POV. Always playing the "What-If?" game.
One of my favorites is what was lost inside the Temple when the Romans sacked it. All sorts of hard proof that the Judeo-Xtian God, and even Jesus is real.
No, I don't. That's why I specifically used an "apocalyptic event" as a reference. As long as the age of information remains in tact, that obviously wouldn't happen.

The thing is, when referring to these ancient civilizations where various myths originated from, there 'was' what we could say were "min-apocalyptic events" (relative to a potential global apocalypse). Loss of information is a 'reality' when it comes to ancient civilizations.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2021 Oct 7, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
So if the loss of information causes myths to arise - its as highly likely that the myths created around the Gods you deny could be based on Real Gods.
I think a more accurate way to put it, loss of information over extended periods of time, due mainly to events like wars and maybe natural disasters cause, or can cause various misconceptions. If some sort of global apocalyptic event happened in the future that wiped out enough information, humans in a 'rebuilt' society could certainly mistake the sinking of the Titanic as some sort of copy or sequel to the earlier novel consisting of the ship called the "Titan". Depending on how much information would be available, some might see evidence of the sinking of the Titanic as a real event, whereas others may reject it. However, I don't see any reason for there to be any 'prejudice' involved. That if there were 2 differing parties, they wouldn't still look at the evidence objectively.

When it comes to the issue of Jesus being a copycat version of other myths, the prejudice is very obvious due to the over-the-top twisting of word usage to give an appearance of copying.

As far as the potential possibility of other gods being real, I think in a sense they are. I would say the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc. gods were modeled after the men of renown mentioned in the Book of Genesis.

The problem is, when the possibility of a Supreme Creator God is dismissed, the skeptic is reduced to relying on "myth chronology". Which myth was written first. If God exists (as I know that He does), then chronological order is not that significant. For instance, when we consider the many stories of the catastrophic flood throughout the ancient world, what many do is assume someone started a 'myth', and it just spread out from there, eventually getting to ancient Hebrews who decided to put their version of it into their scriptures. However, in such an event where only a family is left on earth after such a flood, all they can do is 'verbally' communicate what happened. Over time, the event gets spread out to different regions, and inevitably various details get changed. So ultimately it doesn't really matter which culture produced the 'first' written document of what has eventually become considered a myth.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2022 Oct 7, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
One point I always like to make when the subject of the similarities of Xtianity to other earlier Religions - is that the term Copy or plagiarized is being applied to narrowly, even too strictly, to mean exact replicas, that an idea or imagery is exactly the same with no variances. When the reality and better term would be BORROW. That Xtianity borrowed ideas, themes and imagery.
Its undeniable that Xtianity from its early days "borrowed" from other Religions - most obviously Judaism, as it struggled to find its Religious identity. A practice that continued and still does to this day. Xtianity like all Religions borrows ideas from other sources to round out its Core System of beliefs. The over-arching theme can be seen as "Xtian" (namely Jesus and his miracles centered), but along the way there are the borrowed ideas and beliefs that hold up that arch.
What is ignored (out of ignorance and belligerence) today by most American Proty Fundy Xtians is the very history of the "How and Why and When and Who" of the formation of Xtian theology and doctrines. The very reality that it all took shape over-time, and was not there the day after Jesus left town for the last time. That Jesus himself didn't hand over a fully formed and shaped Theology of his own. Most especially that the Bible itself describes this Theology-Doctrine in plain and simple English.(Which is itself part of the problem that English is viewed as THE language of NT Scripture.)
Xtianity borrowed a great many ideas from outside sources, much of it from the pagan Greeks. Other "borrows" come in from its expanding history in Western Europe and beyond. Be it from the Germanic tribes, The Gauls, the British Isle tribes, or the more Northern realms. Al lots of cross-contamination took place and stuck.
The expansive notion of this place called Hell, with all its versions, is clearly and often too exactly modeled off of many native/local European myths. That the concept of a "Hell" went from a very minor concern of the influential and seminal Judaism, and local lore of 1st century Palestine to the Main Character next to Jesus - is very much influenced by Western Xtianity's expansion and absorption of ideas and beliefs thru western Europe.
There is no escaping these realities.
Yes,'borrowing' would be in my opinion an entirely different matter. I don't believe inspired scripture 'borrows' from other religions. There may be elements of other religions that are similar to Biblical scripture due to certain inevitability (universal truths included being in scripture), translations influenced by other religions but don't profoundly effect the message in any way, and external (outside of scripture) practices, traditions, ceremonies of Christian denominations, etc.

One of the things to consider though is that many new converts in the U.S. don't know anything about Christian history. I was one of them. Jesus reveals Himself to an individual, and that pretty much ends any dispute as to Christ's authenticity. In China many Christians take the scriptures for what they say without much if any hermeneutics, believe for miracles (physical healing, raising from the dead, etc.), and experience them.
Huh

Sussex, WI

#2023 Oct 7, 2013
Job wrote:
Some interesting verbage,

"as they are judged on the basis of the number of papers they write"

and

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#2024 Oct 7, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Some interesting verbage,
"as they are judged on the basis of the number of papers they write"
and
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
The Scientific Alliance is a UK-based political lobbying organization started in 2001 by Robert Durward (owner of a granite mining company in Scotland) with the help of Foresight Communications (a public relations company, specialising in political consultancy). It is anti-environmental (denies the science of climate change), anti-organic food, pro-GM (genetically modified food) and pro-nuclear power.

“Last month the Scientific Alliance published a joint report with the George C Marshall Institute in Washington that claimed to "undermine" climate change claims. The Marshall institute received £51,000 from ExxonMobil for its "global climate change programme" in 2003 and an undisclosed sum this month.”- David Adam, science correspondent The Guardian
JJJ

Sydney, Australia

#2025 Oct 7, 2013
HighlyEvolved wrote:
Which is the more important invention of humankind, science or religion?What do YOU think?
Whatever our persuasion, honesty dictates that beyond established scientific fact, much is still theory and in this life by that I mean the 'human interface' no science will ever explain eternity...

And religion.... well there is almost no fact there but only a fool would completely ignore the spiritual side of our existence...

The truth of the matter is we will never completely understand or find the answers to big questions...

How could we? To do so would mean that we would have to bigger that the process that is taking place, that is expanding the universe from a point of seemingly nothingness to eternity and perhaps back again...

The real miracle is this...

The whatever the answer is, we are connected units of the same energy that always existed and always will..

We will never know how, when, where or why because to do so is to be separated from whatever the process is. And the secret to contentment is to be okay with not knowing... to stop living our lives as if just around the corner is the answer....

When I get this or that done... or when I receive this or that then I'll be happy...

Not true.... stop waiting and just start living. While minute circumstances (universally speaking that is) may rock our little speck of the universe the truth of the matter is that whatever units of energy we are.... we don't have that long in this organic form..

After the organic decays and is left behind.... the energy that is us, that is connected to the original energy that first went 'bang' all those billions of years ago...

It lives on, it has to because you can't destroy energy...

Now as to what sort consciousness we exist in....

Well that's another whole eternity Rubik's cube to hung up on...or not.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2026 Oct 8, 2013
JJJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever our persuasion, honesty dictates that beyond established scientific fact, much is still theory and in this life by that I mean the 'human interface' no science will ever explain eternity...
And religion.... well there is almost no fact there but only a fool would completely ignore the spiritual side of our existence...
The truth of the matter is we will never completely understand or find the answers to big questions...
How could we? To do so would mean that we would have to bigger that the process that is taking place, that is expanding the universe from a point of seemingly nothingness to eternity and perhaps back again...
The real miracle is this...
The whatever the answer is, we are connected units of the same energy that always existed and always will..
We will never know how, when, where or why because to do so is to be separated from whatever the process is. And the secret to contentment is to be okay with not knowing... to stop living our lives as if just around the corner is the answer....
When I get this or that done... or when I receive this or that then I'll be happy...
Not true.... stop waiting and just start living. While minute circumstances (universally speaking that is) may rock our little speck of the universe the truth of the matter is that whatever units of energy we are.... we don't have that long in this organic form..
After the organic decays and is left behind.... the energy that is us, that is connected to the original energy that first went 'bang' all those billions of years ago...
It lives on, it has to because you can't destroy energy...
Now as to what sort consciousness we exist in....
Well that's another whole eternity Rubik's cube to hung up on...or not.
It is interesting to read what you are saying and you are not alone thinking like that.

The human brain is made to serve human life, living and functioning within a social group of individuals who are competing and depending on one and other.

It is not right that we will never find the true answers about our existence; the answers are there for us to come and get, but the question is if we really want to see or know for sure?

We are living within a temporary frame of chaos, coming from chaos and going into chaos.
If it has been like that since the beginning of infinity is one question, but I believe it has.

Time is how chaos evolves and we and our world is temporary “patterns” printed out from chaos, things crystallize out, exist for a while and then disappear again.
Everything seems to be made that way, from the elements of matter, molecules of biology, living organisms, interaction between living beings in nature and our social lives.

But the trouble is that chaos is never in perfect harmony with itself, there is always some tiny error that builds up over time and ultimately it will change everything back to chaos.
It works like some sort of calculus-integral.

We are not entirely spiritual even when most of our thinking goes by what our brain comes up with; we are depending mostly on the physical conditions in our environment.

We are emotionally insecure about a lot of things and for that reason we tend to repeat over and over the things that makes us feel secure.
We have our everyday routines, our daily bread and things like that and we are doing it over and over.

For some of us it becomes an obsession, an illness like obsessive hand washing or something like that.
For others it might be something harmful and destructive, like abuse or risky behaviour.

What we should do is to understand all of these things and to adapt society and our behaviour to it; to find a way to reduce the errors that builds up and ultimately brings back the rule of chaos.

Sorry for the theoretical way of putting things, but I hope someone will get the point.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#2027 Oct 8, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I think a more accurate way to put it, loss of information over extended periods of time, due mainly to events like wars and maybe natural disasters cause, or can cause various misconceptions. If some sort of global apocalyptic event happened in the future that wiped out enough information, humans in a 'rebuilt' society could certainly mistake the sinking of the Titanic as some sort of copy or sequel to the earlier novel consisting of the ship called the "Titan". Depending on how much information would be available, some might see evidence of the sinking of the Titanic as a real event, whereas others may reject it. However, I don't see any reason for there to be any 'prejudice' involved. That if there were 2 differing parties, they wouldn't still look at the evidence objectively.
When it comes to the issue of Jesus being a copycat version of other myths, the prejudice is very obvious due to the over-the-top twisting of word usage to give an appearance of copying.
As far as the potential possibility of other gods being real, I think in a sense they are. I would say the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc. gods were modeled after the men of renown mentioned in the Book of Genesis.
The problem is, when the possibility of a Supreme Creator God is dismissed, the skeptic is reduced to relying on "myth chronology". Which myth was written first. If God exists (as I know that He does), then chronological order is not that significant. For instance, when we consider the many stories of the catastrophic flood throughout the ancient world, what many do is assume someone started a 'myth', and it just spread out from there, eventually getting to ancient Hebrews who decided to put their version of it into their scriptures. However, in such an event where only a family is left on earth after such a flood, all they can do is 'verbally' communicate what happened. Over time, the event gets spread out to different regions, and inevitably various details get changed. So ultimately it doesn't really matter which culture produced the 'first' written document of what has eventually become considered a myth.
"If God exists (as I know that He does),"

If you knew, you could tell us how you know and then we could all know.
You say you know but you don't know.

God bless you.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#2028 Oct 8, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes,'borrowing' would be in my opinion an entirely different matter. I don't believe inspired scripture 'borrows' from other religions. There may be elements of other religions that are similar to Biblical scripture due to certain inevitability (universal truths included being in scripture), translations influenced by other religions but don't profoundly effect the message in any way, and external (outside of scripture) practices, traditions, ceremonies of Christian denominations, etc.
One of the things to consider though is that many new converts in the U.S. don't know anything about Christian history. I was one of them. Jesus reveals Himself to an individual, and that pretty much ends any dispute as to Christ's authenticity. In China many Christians take the scriptures for what they say without much if any hermeneutics, believe for miracles (physical healing, raising from the dead, etc.), and experience them.
Well sure, Jesus reveals Himself in the occasional fence post and grilled cheese sandwich but if you look at the historical evidence the Blessed Virgin Mary is doing the heavy work.

http://www.latestbuy.com.au/img/product-image...
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#2029 Oct 8, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
If you are going to refer to Thomas Paine’s “God” I’m going to refer you to what Thomas Paine himself said about it.

2. I’ve already told you that if a supernatural creator exists he would, by definition, have created by supernatural means.
<quoted text>

3. That is exactly what I have been trying to say! If a supernatural creator created by supernatural means science will never discover it because the scientific method can only discover (prove) natural causes. That’s why scientists do not look for (or throw away the possibility of as you put it) supernatural causes. Why would they waste their time trying to do something they know they cannot do?

4. However, scientists, by discovering a natural cause, can disprove the possibility of a supernatural cause.
<quoted text>
1. When not directly referring to Thomas Paine, I will use the term "deistic god", or "deistic deity".

2. All right.

3. If scientists didn't throw away the possibility of a creator using supernatural means to create the universe, they would 'have' to consider the possibility that man did not evolve from a lower life form. And that, among evolutionary scientists is considered heresy.

4. There's no proof that scientists can always prove a supernatural cause to be false. Like I said before, they may prove by finding a natural cause that lightening is not a deity throwing an electrical spear. However, they will never discover what ultimately happens after death. In other words, they will never be able to claim that man goes into eternal unconsciousness, goes into another natural 'or' spiritual realm, etc.,(the Creator placing a deceased human soul into a different realm or location being a supernatural act) via scientific discovery. That would be because the creator has placed certain limitations on man's discovery. In fact, it's interesting that so many insist that there is no spiritually oriented eternal destination for the deceased, when it's something that is 'completely' detached from science.

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.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do you believe in tolerance for Gay Christians? 16 min Calvin_Smith 67
Jesus did not claim to be God 30 min Barnsweb 298
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 42 min Barnsweb 213
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 43 min Barnsweb 9,190
Is it possible for Jesus to be Messiah and Rabbi 1 hr Atheistgirl 29
Born in Spirit, Perfection, Sanctification, Sin... 1 hr cgaviria 4
Proof that Christianity is a lie 1 hr Atheistgirl 131
More from around the web