Reply With Quote
Good for him. He seems like a very down-to-earth and sharp guy with a great head on his shoulders. All the best to him... Peace, blessings, & all of that good stuff. That is all.
Again, no hate towards anybody that chooses to be religious (basically all my family is) but it just doesnt make sense to me. I feel like part of me would have to be intentionally naive and have a strong desire to believe to begin with for it to make sense.
Good for him. He seems like a very down-to-earth and sharp guy with a great head on his shoulders. All the best to him... Peace, blessings, & all of that good stuff. That is all.
God speaks of false prophets so yes, there are those "leaders" who prey on the weak and brainwash them.
i understand where you're coming from. before i was saved i was in the same mindset as you...i grew up in the church( very religious family) and once i turned 18 i rebelled and decided to turn from God and became a full time sinner. i won't get into specifics but one night my life was about to change for the absolute worse and i remember closing my eyes and praying for the first time in years...by the time i finished my prayer and opened my eyes, God saved me. call it what you want but from that point on my life changed for the better.
everyone has a choice, it is up to you the individual to decide how to live their life. that's why when people judge me for my beliefs, i don't judge theirs. who am i to judge??? i don't give a testimony to every non believer i encounter because i wouldn't want to hear the opposite end of the spectrum from them. i chose to walk with God because he was there for me. when i abandoned him and let satan influence me, he didn't give up on me. i owe it to him to follow his word.
which god?
tbh this new breed of morons that hate on religion and dont' want any mention of religion in any type of public speaking platform are as bad or worse than the most religious idiots. for example that guy that has his HBO show.these ppl are more pathetic than the most religious individuals out there
the father of Jesus. before you type out a post, i'm letting you know right now, you have a history of lurking and waiting for me to post and quote me. if you're looking to mock my God then by all means go ahead. i won't be going back n forth with you.
Lol ok
serious question. It just seems kind of convenient that the same god your family believes in is the one who saved you. How do you know it wasn't a god of a religion you weren't raised to believe in? serious question.
no disrespect to other religions but exodus 20:3 says "you shall have no other Gods before me". i prayed to the father of Jesus Christ and he answered my prayers, i didn't pray to buddah or allah. again, it all goes back to faith, doggie.
so do you have faith that if you were brought up in a household who prays to buddah that you would pray to jesus?
That's a well known logical fallacy: see 'argument from ignorance'. THAT is the reason science isn't in the business of proving a negative.
You really need to brush up on both what science is, the scientific process, what's involved in it, etc. Terms such as 'testable', 'falsifiable', etc.
The freestyling you posted above would make any respectable scientist feel the same way Christians feel about the Westboro Baptists, tbh.
Incorrect. Science has no problem in saying "We don't know yet". It doesn't automatically attributes the unknown to some deity/magical being. That's entirely a theist construction (the 'god of the gaps').
When you get down to to the end, you can simply say "I don't know yet, we'll look into it", or you can start making stuff up about some fairy in the sky. One of them isn't serious, IMO.
As pointed out in my previous post, and completely ignored by you, both religion and theism hinge on the same non-scientific premise: a deity. Some non-observable, non-testable, non-falsifiable magical being, which is the reason science should have zero interest in religion/theism.
All y'all fools is wrong. The reason religion started is because people had no idea how to explain aliens. THose aliens came down and brought all this superior technology and looked super human to the people that were here. They lived like gods and knocked up es left and right. Man looked more like an ape before these aliens started tapping that ass. Then the offspring didn't have as much hair and were smarter than the humans at the time.
Aliens ni66as... aliens.
seriously?
Are there multiple gods, Trill? Jesus' father, Allah, Buddah, etc theyre all real ?
No, this isn't an argument from science; that's the point. It's not applicable. If a god exists, he's above the rules of science. We could (in theory) get to the end and still not disprove the existence of god. Science can't disprove anything outside its realm. That's like saying sociology can explain chemical phenomena.
That's the same incorrect understanding of what I'm saying. I'm not saying science isn't good enough. I'm saying that science by definition can only go so far. Anything metaphysical is unknowable by science. That's why they call it METAphysics.You really need to brush up on both what science is, the scientific process, what's involved in it, etc. Terms such as 'testable', 'falsifiable', etc.
The freestyling you posted above would make any respectable scientist feel the same way Christians feel about the Westboro Baptists, tbh.
Once again, we're not talking about gaps in science. We're talking about science's general apathy to why. Why is a meta-question. Science doesn't answer meta-questions. Just like a computer program has no idea why it's doing what it's doing.Incorrect. Science has no problem in saying "We don't know yet". It doesn't automatically attributes the unknown to some deity/magical being. That's entirely a theist construction (the 'god of the gaps').
I think I've already addressed above why you won't be able to simply say, "I don't know yet." Explaining how everything works doesn't preclude the idea that it works the way it does for a reason.When you get down to to the end, you can simply say "I don't know yet, we'll look into it", or you can start making stuff up about some fairy in the sky. One of them isn't serious, IMO.
As pointed out in my previous post, and completely ignored by you, both religion and theism hinge on the same non-scientific premise: a deity. Some non-observable, non-testable, non-falsifiable magical being, which is the reason science should have zero interest in religion/theism.
I didn't fail to address your observation. The first few lines in my response addressed it.
You can disagree with that stance, but to act like I didn't say anything is disingenuous.That's not the case at all. Theism and Religion are orthogonal: You can be a religious atheist (like believing in probability like Two-Face does) and a non-religious theist. The split between religion and science is epistemological, while the split between theism and atheism is metaphysical. In short; neither atheism nor theism is a scientific view.
It's clear you saw my post, assumed I was making a certain argument, and filled in your replies without actually reading what I'm saying. I barely disagree with your normative stances. I'm trying to delineate the boundaries of theism and religion so that people can actually understand the extensions of their arguments.
I don't think science should take theism into account. I just wrote that long-ass post explaining why it doesn't make sense to take theism into account. But science shouldn't take atheism into account, either. There's no need for an answer to that meta-question to do science. God's existence doesn't prevent any scientific truths from being discovered, and the same goes for god's potential non-existence.
What? Some of the greatest minds of all time and currently today are religious.
it's hard to believe a thread on butt ing could create such a discussion.
yup.
not to mention all the great artists, musicians that helped Europe become the leader of the world. Most of those did it in name of the Church.
We'd probably all be chinese or persian if not for the Church in the middle ages. europe was a pathetic hole but the Church somehow put a stop to that IMO
Just goes to show you a big reason why Republicans lost the election IMO. They thought no one cares about this stuff, but pretty much everyone has an opinion on it.
Right or wrong, the moral/soft issues matter. Errr one and their momma has an opinion on things like this, but ask the average Joe about fixing the economy and most of the time you get blank looks.
If you ever played Civilization and know what a culture bomb is. Europe's culture bomb was mainly financed and fed by the Church.
Are you saying your argument is illogical? That would actually make sense.
In order for science to disprove anything, you need to present a testable theory. Presenting a deity as a theory is non-scientific: it's not testable.
You're also applying a bad analogy: both sociology and chemistry are sciences. Theism isn't.
Metaphysics is non-empirical. Of course it has no place in science, and it never will.
No, science strives to answer all the questions. The reality is that certain questions cannot be answered right now. Could be because technology hasn't evolved enough yet, because of insurmountable time constrains, etc. So when it cannot answer a question, the result is: "We don't know yet", not some magical/metaphysical attribution to the observation. If science did that, there would be no incentive to further research. Every unknown would automatically be "metaphysical/god/deity" and move on.
That makes no sense. If you don't know something, it's perfectly fine to say exactly that.
When you try to explain how everything works and you have missing pieces, you can either say "I don't know yet" or you can start making stuff up about deities, metaphysics and all that baloney.
But you didn't address it. You keep bringing up imaginary stuff that has nothing to do with science. If your stance is "I believe in metaphysics and invisible dudes in the sky that have nothing to do with science" then, okay.
You replied to my post where I stated that the logical conclusion from not knowing is stating "We don't know who created what yet, further research is needed".
I wasn't making an argument to defend/attack theism/atheism/religion. It's clear anybody can believe in whatever the they want.
I think that's his point. Science does not have the capability to prove or disprove the existence of God. At least for the moment.
Somebody would need to present a observable, testable theory of god. That there's no such theory isn't a flaw of science, it's a flaw of the theory's proponent.
I know, right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
