It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Faith VS Science & Athiests

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Q) Did religion build nuclear weapons or was that your beloved science?

A) Democracy

Q)How about Guns and other assorted weapons? Was that religion? Does religion boast that it is constantly under threat so we need to keep building more weapons to protect ourselves?

A) Democracy

Q) Did religion influence the atrocities your country commits overseas? You know, the murder of innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and now Syria over the last decade? Remembering the promise was democracy and all these countries are still fighting?

A) Democracy

Q) Here's a good one, Did religion save NAZI war criminals in exchange for their technology after WW2?

A) Democracy

Q) 1 in every 40 Americans are in jail, I guess that's religions fault also.

A) Democracy

Q) People like you?

A) Democracy

Q) What the one thing in this world that doesn't have any influence through religion because it believes religion and state should be separate?

A) Democracy

Q) Racism?

A) Democracy

Q) Who has the most brainwashed people in the world after North Korea and China?

A) A Democratic society.

I think it's funny that you actually believe science and democracy can do no wrong. Science has created some of the worst things that humanity could invent. Democracy how ever, well it's destined to fall because by the time it's done there will be nothing left at all. For someone who is all for science your pretty narrow minded. The biggest scientific experiment in the world is? Democracy.
edit on 8-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by 168617
 


What does Democracy have to do with the scientific method? You ask some questions, a few with an either or option for the answers then give an answer that is completely different from the options given. Seems like you have an issue with the Democratic process and not science.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by 168617
 


What does Democracy have to do with the scientific method? You ask some questions, a few with an either or option for the answers then give an answer that is completely different from the options given. Seems like you have an issue with the Democratic process and not science.


They feed off each other these days and I do not believe a dribble that comes out of either of their mouths. Hypocrites and Liars. Just like the Vatican on the other thread. Politicians are Athiests.
edit on 8-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

168617

Krazysh0t
reply to post by 168617
 


What does Democracy have to do with the scientific method? You ask some questions, a few with an either or option for the answers then give an answer that is completely different from the options given. Seems like you have an issue with the Democratic process and not science.


They feed off each other these days and I do not believe a dribble that comes out of either of their mouths. Hypocrites and Liars. Just like the Vatican on the other thread. Politicians are Athiests.
edit on 8-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)


I hope you'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it. Perhaps you can provide proof of these claims?



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 168617
 





Q) Did religion build nuclear weapons or was that your beloved science?

A) Democracy


yeah north Korea china and the soviets were all democratic when they develop their nukes


Its like any question you give the same answer regardless of the question,as the shaft song




posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

168617

Krazysh0t
reply to post by 168617
 


What does Democracy have to do with the scientific method? You ask some questions, a few with an either or option for the answers then give an answer that is completely different from the options given. Seems like you have an issue with the Democratic process and not science.


They feed off each other these days and I do not believe a dribble that comes out of either of their mouths. Hypocrites and Liars. Just like the Vatican on the other thread. Politicians are Athiests.
edit on 8-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)


Those are HUGE jumps in conclusions. You are correct, liars exist, but that doesn't mean you need to throw the whole process out because a few liars may exist that abuse the system. Also, just because a Democracy may use the scientific method more than a religion doesn't mean that science is flawed. Again your issues seem to stem from politicians, namely Democratic ones, and not so much with science.

Also your claim that Politicians are Atheists needs to be sourced. Last I checked there seems to be a Republican politician about once a month spouting off at the mouth about Christian values and morals.

To be honest, your argument is all over the place and is hard to respond to. You've linked science with democracy, albeit loosely, so you can denounce them both. Stick to one argument. How is the scientific method flawed?



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


In one sense the problem is not the method, it works. The problem is our valuation of it and forgetting of oursleves and worshipping that aspect of reality which is but the husk, because of its help to us. If we could balance that problem then we would be in better shape and philosphy would be given its proper due. So is there a Religion vs Science/Athiesm? No, because God which is the Creator of everything in and outside of our planet also created science and atheism. Could the universe live without human scientific research? Yes. Can the human live without the Universe (God)? No. It's a no brainer.

Science is what we can explain in the physical world but it will never explain the Spiritual world. The Spiritual world comes from within a person and this is why Athiests and Scientists will never understand the Bible. There focus is on the world they can see and touch. A Spiritual person thinks about spiritual things. Reflective and Critical thinking are required when studying the Bible. You cannot scan over picking out two sentence verses to understand the true meaning. If you read two chapters of a novel, does that mean you read the entire book? Religion is it's own science and even scholars through experiments and their flawed practices have got the bible completely wrong. Or maybe they have done it deliberate for another purpose.

It's not that I disagree with all science but I do believe some science eg: Evolution which has cracks all through it, Climate Change and others are used for Political gains and the Media always seem to be right there also.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   
The day Christ splits the mount of olives in two as he returns. And all
can see with their own eyes, the glory that makes him King of Kings
and Lord of Lords. When every knee has bowed and when every
tongue has confessed Jesus Christ is Lord! Science, by it's own
protocols, will still not be able to prove his existence.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   

PerfectAnomoly
The important difference being... We CAN SEE the EVIDENCE of evolution everywhere.... We do not see the evidence of a god.... or at least current knowledge allows us to now safely say that what we do see does not point towards the existence of a god...

Again... the difference between a "scientific theory" and a "theory" is the important point there....

Nice story... but the professor was an idiot if he couldn't come up with a simple off the cuff rebuttal...

PA
edit on 7-4-2014 by PerfectAnomoly because: (no reason given)


Hmm, I would say we see evidence for Variation of Species everywhere. Lets examine some of the problems of evolutionary theory, and then we will see if there is any evidence of the Christian God.




"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish


www.newgeology.us...

There have been years of experiments done on fruit flies and bacteria, but at no point in time have any of them ever turned into anything other than more bacteria and more fruit flies. But thats not enough for us to dismiss it completely so lets continue.




Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.






Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years."





A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments."





Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting about. In a few more minutes it may look like a bird. The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts.


So I quoted the post because it explains the information much better than I could. I hope this shows you that there are some inconsistencies within the theory as of current date. Now lets examine the idea of Intelligent Design. I will argue from the standpoint of a Christian. So if the Christian God created the earth, what predictions does its theology make about the universe?


Well lets start with Creation.

Genesis
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was [a]formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was [c]moving over the [d]surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

From verse Three we can tell how God created the Universe. He Spoke it into existence. The First thing He speaks into existence is light. So the first thing that Christian ID predicts is that on a basic level everything should be sound, and that light was the first thing to exist in material form. Quantum theory tells us that the base level of all matter is quanta, which can be viewed as tiny bits of energy that can be viewed as light or sound. All matter big or small has something known as a resonant frequency this is completely consistent with what is predicted about the universe if God SPOKE the universe into existence from nothing.

ID also predicts that the information the creates and sustains life would have a semiotic dimension. In fact DNA and protein synthesis work very similar to a language or a computer code. This is information with semiotic dimension(information that carries meaning).



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Those with faith believe in information that could be wrong.
Atheists deny everything that could be related to religion.
Science is a way to write down things we see, often claims they are true, even though a lot is wrong and the whole created by the greedy to prevent us from understanding more.

All 3 have some information in them, only if you extract information from all 3 in an open minded way you will learn and teach in the fastest way. Denying religious people for example won't teach them.
-Don't deny or fight any 3 of them-
The bible was written by greedy people, but includes texts of wise people.
Atheism just sees the greedy people.
Science is a way to pass on things, not something to mocking you.

There are mass media claims that fight each of the 3, but please do not fall for them and combine and love each other. There are more than enough strategies to divide us. Become one.

Don't fight, exchange to become the same
edit on 9-4-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 168617
 


Are you seriously trying to claim that the Bible is scientifically accurate. Because if you are then you're going to have a shock coming your way.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   

168617
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


In one sense the problem is not the method, it works. The problem is our valuation of it and forgetting of oursleves and worshipping that aspect of reality which is but the husk, because of its help to us. If we could balance that problem then we would be in better shape and philosphy would be given its proper due. So is there a Religion vs Science/Athiesm? No, because God which is the Creator of everything in and outside of our planet also created science and atheism. Could the universe live without human scientific research? Yes. Can the human live without the Universe (God)? No. It's a no brainer.


To add to this, humans can also live without religion. We don't need some group of priests telling us how to live our lives. If a creator exists that desires our worship (unlikely since that assumes the god has the human flaw of narcissism, but we'll just go with it), we should be free to commune with that god in our own ways and not have some human priests who are susceptible to corruption like purposely embellishing holy stories that are getting written into their holy tome telling us how to do it.


Science is what we can explain in the physical world but it will never explain the Spiritual world. The Spiritual world comes from within a person and this is why Athiests and Scientists will never understand the Bible. There focus is on the world they can see and touch. A Spiritual person thinks about spiritual things. Reflective and Critical thinking are required when studying the Bible. You cannot scan over picking out two sentence verses to understand the true meaning. If you read two chapters of a novel, does that mean you read the entire book? Religion is it's own science and even scholars through experiments and their flawed practices have got the bible completely wrong. Or maybe they have done it deliberate for another purpose.


Wow that's an unfair argument you are making there. Religious types are forever harping on the science types saying that you cannot disprove god and here YOU are, a religious person, telling us what science can and cannot do. What makes you think that science cannot ever become advanced enough to study these things? Sure currently, our current paradigm makes it highly unlikely that we could study such things, but you are falling for the same fallacy that people from your camp constantly call us out for. Humans may possibly advance science enough to study these things. You know that saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Well that saying should be extended to, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but once the extraordinary evidence is obtained they become ordinary claims." This means that everything that we currently consider ordinary and mundane, at one point used to be an outstanding claim that could have been assumed to never be adequately explained by science. Yet here we are.

Hey don't lecture me on not cherry picking verses and chapters from the bible. That is something that religious types do. Science types just read the book and interpret the information logically. As a result, we have determined that there are quite a few contradictions in it. Which came first? Man or animals? Not to mention many accounts don't line up with the geological record. Noah's flood myth or the Exodus. And some just appear to be at the least embellishments into a cult of personality and at the most down right lies. The Jesus account. Sure there are some good messages in there. Golden rule. Actually wait, that is the ONLY good message in there. Everything else is either subjective, probably not real, or contradictory. If a god exists, the bible is NOT the answer on how to commune with it.


It's not that I disagree with all science but I do believe some science eg: Evolution which has cracks all through it, Climate Change and others are used for Political gains and the Media always seem to be right there also.


Sigh... Evolution DOESN'T have large cracks in it. I'm going to take a large assumption here since I don't know much about you, but I feel it is a safe one to make considering you decided to go down that road, the reason you think Evolution has cracks in it is because you don't completely understand the theory (like possibly thinking that the creation of life has something to do with Evolution). Climate Change is real. It's a fact. Whether it is currently being caused by man is open for interpretation. Being politicized doesn't destroy its credibility. Politicians politicize religion JUST as much as science. Hobby Lobby cause? Abortion issues? That is why I say your problem is with Democratic politics and are just trying to loosely lump science in with it.
edit on 9-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by 168617
 


Are you seriously trying to claim that the Bible is scientifically accurate. Because if you are then you're going to have a shock coming your way.


Hey remember how I was telling you the Zionists helped Britain win WW1?


In August at the 6th Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, a discussion takes place regarding an offer from Britain to provide Uganda as a base for a future Jewish Zionist state. The Jews present complain they want Palestine, and then suddenly Max Nordau makes the following shocking statement regarding how the Jews will get Palestine through a stepping stone process, which would play out to the letter more than 15 years later. This is what he said:

“Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl; the Zionist Congress; the English Uganda proposition; the future world war; the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.”




That was said in 1903. 11 years before the beginning of WW1 and 16years before the Paris peace conference. Without religion I wouldn't know these types of things. With a university degree you don't know these things. Is that logical?
edit on 9-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)


Z ionism and Palestine before the mandate, Page 132
T he 20th Century, Page 598
The 19th Century, Page 617
edit on 9-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   

168617

Hey remember how I was telling you the Zionists helped Britain win WW1?


In August at the 6th Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, a discussion takes place regarding an offer from Britain to provide Uganda as a base for a future Jewish Zionist state. The Jews present complain they want Palestine, and then suddenly Max Nordau makes the following shocking statement regarding how the Jews will get Palestine through a stepping stone process, which would play out to the letter more than 15 years later. This is what he said:

“Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl; the Zionist Congress; the English Uganda proposition; the future world war; the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.”




That was said in 1903. 11 years before the beginning of WW1 and 16years before the Paris peace conference. Without religion I wouldn't know these types of things. With a university degree you don't know these things. Is that logical?
edit on 9-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)


I see. So you decide to bring up a point in another thread to somehow prove your point in this thread? Eh? And I don't think that your point even works. By 1903 tensions were starting to rise in Europe. The UK was moving away from Splendid Isolation towards the alliance systems. So what if someone guessed that there would be a war coming? Plenty of others also did. And the First World War did not start because of Zionism. It started because a tubercular young man murdered the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, starting a diplomatic catastrophe. The US did not enter the war because of Zionism. It came in because the German Foreign Secretary sent off a massively ill-thought out telegram laying out a proposal for Mexico to join the Central Powers.
Oh and Palestine became a British Mandate after the war. Not a Jewish state.
Finally I fail to see your last point. You found that quote via what? The power of religion? Or the science of the internet?



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


No that information actually comes out of History books you can buy and read for yourself.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Well let's put it this way, if I hadn't of done nearly a decades worth of study on not only The Bible but The Qu'ran also, the odds are I wouldn't care who said what or when or how and I would probably agree with everything you say. But because I'm not ignorant and took the time to study, I come to the conclusion that everything isn't as it seems and that includes the indoctrination from your precious universities which at the same time use indoctrinated "secular" theories to try and work out spiritual problems in religious scripture. It's like a Christian thinking a flying spaghetti blob is going to save them when the end of the world comes round to get them.

Both will not answer questions from a religious perspective. Now did I go to church and get told what I should believe? No, I took it upon myself to work out what was wrong with these teachings and the only solution I came up with was the followers who have helped destroy something which could of been a benefit to humanity.
edit on 9-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by 168617
 


I think you mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And no-one actually believes that he/she/it exists. It's a parody. A bit like the Invisible Pink Unicorn.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by 168617
 



It's like a Christian thinking a flying spaghetti blob is going to save them when the end of the world comes round to get them.


Instead, they should have absolute faith that when the end comes, it will be heralded by a 2,000-year-old corpse on a white horse floating down from the sky. Right?



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by 168617
 


Why is a free Jewish state important?



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by 168617
 



It's like a Christian thinking a flying spaghetti blob is going to save them when the end of the world comes round to get them.


Instead, they should have absolute faith that when the end comes, it will be heralded by a 2,000-year-old corpse on a white horse floating down from the sky. Right?


Islam says he will rise from a White minaret in Damascus. So if their version is correct, he wont be falling from any sky. He will be human and he will also die.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join