Science and Religion are Not Compatible, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 05:39 AM by pieman
reply to post by Jim Scott

let me try to explain this a different way to you jim.

there are clearly contradictions in the bible.
if you are a christian you need to reconcile this fact. you can either decide it means that a)god makes mistakes and later corrects them, so he isn't perfect and omnipotent, or it means that b)god didn't actually write the bible but inspired man to do so. although god is perfect, man is not, and sometimes misinterpreted the inspiration and made mistakes which god later corrected.

either way, the bible can't be taken as literally the last word and truth from a perfect god.


reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 07:07 AM by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Republican08


What part of

And the irony is this is true for any belief. Whatever the belief may be there will be fanatics at some level.


did you not read/understand? Does that sound like a generalization? Would it set up the text following in the post to be generalizations?

Your reaction of "laughter, insult, laughter" is exactly the behavior I was describing.

I bet you did you a quick glance at my post, got all huffy and/or self-righteous and your fingers flew all over the keyboard not once letting go of a self made sense of superiority. Reminds me of some fanatics I know.

It doesnt matter what motivates one to behave like a jackass only that one is behaving like a jackass. I wouldnt say all atheists are jackasses. I wouldnt even say Republican08 is a jackass. I would have no problem, however, saying that at a particular instance Republican08 behaved like a jackass. See how that works?


reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 11:26 AM by The Riley Family
Originally posted by pieman
rubbish.
we're supposed to believe that a god, who is omnipotent, knows everything that ever was and ever will be, who knows before we're born weather we will be good christian fundi's or rabid, ignorant athiests, needs to set up an elaborate series of traps we won't be able to see for most of existence in order to test our faith?

and this belief in the most convoluted and clearly illogical story is more important to god than your behavior towards other people and the world around you?

and then you say god loves us? sounds to me like your god is a drunken redneck looking for an excuse to beat his red headed step child. i'll take my chances, thanks.


Pieman and Atheists,

There is much of what you say that makes sense, if only you would take this sense and apply it to interpreting the bible. You would be surprised how much of it fits. But instead you use others interpretations that are obviously unsubstantial and use it to try and dispute their beliefs as well as the bible. Why look at it the scriptures the way they do as if their belief is a true understanding of them. Maybe their God is no God at all, but that does not dispute God's existence and does not dispute the validity of the bible.


Originally posted by Jim Scott
There will never be absolute proof of either creation or otherwise. That is the way God intended it to be.


Jim Scott and Christians,

Does this way of thinking make sense? How is there supposed to be credibility in ideas like this or creation in 7 24 hour periods when it is obvious this is not the case. It would be beneficial for you to stop introducing non sensible thought and doctrines into interpretation of the scriptures. It only gives Atheists fuel for their assault.

Romans 1:19 because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.

And without excuse we are. Creation itself is absolute proof of itself, what is called creationism is lacking proof because it is a fanciful idea based on fanciful thought and not on reason, reality, or even understanding scriptures.

Religious folks accept their fanciful ideas and expect others to do the same while Atheists who see through this "rubbish" who seemingly don't want to believe in the scriptures use the "rubbish" to dispute these fanciful ideas as if it disputes the scriptures themselves. Atheists don't seem understand that the bible itself advocates for their cause in proving the fanciful ideas are exactly what they are. Disproving a supposed bible believing believer's beliefs (say that three times fast) does not invalidate the scriptures but actually validates it.

Does any one think that maybe the bible does not contradict itself but instead lack of understanding it correctly is what makes it appear to then the ignorant as contradiction?

It has the appearance that the real reason religious folks interpret the bible the way they do and self indoctrinate their religion is because they really don't want to believe what is in the bible as being wholely true. It also has the appearance that the reason the Atheists use those interpretations and doctrines to try to dispute the bible is because they don't want to believe what is in the bible as being wholely true. Hey wait a minute does that mean Athiests and Christians actually believe in the same thing?

Let's come together by interpreting what is as what is. Then there will no longer be Atheist or Christian but fellow believers in what is the truth.

The proof exists in the truth, and the truth proves itself by what is true.

One proof of this is that jesus is the antichrist, check out the facts.

www.newhopeforall.info

[edit on 25-6-2009 by The Riley Family]



reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 11:44 AM by DaMod
Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Jim Scott

let me try to explain this a different way to you jim.

there are clearly contradictions in the bible.
if you are a christian you need to reconcile this fact. you can either decide it means that a)god makes mistakes and later corrects them, so he isn't perfect and omnipotent, or it means that b)god didn't actually write the bible but inspired man to do so. although god is perfect, man is not, and sometimes misinterpreted the inspiration and made mistakes which god later corrected.

either way, the bible can't be taken as literally the last word and truth from a perfect god.


A few years ago we thought the atom was a solid mass, then we said no it's mostly empty space with a core of positive and neutral particles being orbited by a cloud of electrons.

Then we think there is some magical force called dark energy that is the fundamental force behind the fundamental forces. Then we think that maybe the small micro particles are not particles at all, they are strings of possibility that form into the particles we already "know" are there.

My point is our understanding of the "real" is very limited, and even if every religion is wrong, and it turns out we know nothing of who or what god really is, it doesn't mean that entity does not exist. Perhaps god is really the composition if the universe combined to form a consciousness. Maybe god is a extra-dimensional being that thought the universe into existence. This can be neither proven nor disproved btw.

These are possible examples of what god could be. The point I am trying to make is around the fact that we may know nothing, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Everyone assumes that we know what god really is. Isn't that just as illogical as either of your own examples? Do we know what dark matter really is? Do we know what gravity really is? Those concepts would be easier to understand. It even says in the bible that god is far beyond our understanding, how then could we possibly have an accurate dialog of the will and history of god? That would be just as illogical. Even if the bible is totally wrong, it doesn't mean there isn't a god.

If god came down and did something, would his actions be accurately documented by someone who could not possibly understand the intention of the actions of a higher being? Could you understand the not understandable? Could you possibly leave it to interpretation? The answer is of course yes, you would interpret the actions the the best of your ability but does that mean your account would be accurate?

[edit on 25-6-2009 by DaMod]


reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 01:31 PM by Jim Scott
Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Jim Scott

let me try to explain this a different way to you jim.

there are clearly contradictions in the bible.
if you are a christian you need to reconcile this fact. you can either decide it means that a)god makes mistakes and later corrects them, so he isn't perfect and omnipotent, or it means that b)god didn't actually write the bible but inspired man to do so. although god is perfect, man is not, and sometimes misinterpreted the inspiration and made mistakes which god later corrected.

either way, the bible can't be taken as literally the last word and truth from a perfect god.


Rather than my trying to think of what you consider to be contradictions, could you please volunteer one for analysis?

The concept of inerrancy in the Bible does not refer to the existing texts, but to the original autographs. Translations can create errors.


reply posted on 25-6-2009 @ 03:26 PM by bigwhiffa
Originally posted by Jim Scott
Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Jim Scott

let me try to explain this a different way to you jim.

there are clearly contradictions in the bible.
if you are a christian you need to reconcile this fact. you can either decide it means that a)god makes mistakes and later corrects them, so he isn't perfect and omnipotent, or it means that b)god didn't actually write the bible but inspired man to do so. although god is perfect, man is not, and sometimes misinterpreted the inspiration and made mistakes which god later corrected.

either way, the bible can't be taken as literally the last word and truth from a perfect god.


Rather than my trying to think of what you consider to be contradictions, could you please volunteer one for analysis?

The concept of inerrancy in the Bible does not refer to the existing texts, but to the original autographs. Translations can create errors.


bingo, pretty much all "inconsistancies" are only found in the translated Bible regardless of the language.



reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 04:20 AM by ahnggk
reply to post by Rams59lb


I think otherwise, and I believe Science and Religion can't dispute each other. Regarding evolution:

-The Bible for example didn't give detailed description of how first man looked like.

-The theory of evolution is uncertain - it's not yet a solid theory whether we came from monkeys(because we have modern apes). We're not even sure if we came from monkeys. It could actually go the other way around - de-evolution - we might have degraded into these lowly beings we are now from higher beings.

-The Big Bang Theory is plausible. but it's also plausible that God caused the Big Bang.

Anyone who got a solid theory proving otherwise, pls, give a solid evidence too! It's beyond logic that we are fighting over things that are both nneither proven nor disproven.


reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 05:51 AM by Kaytagg
Originally posted by pieman
Originally posted by Kaytagg
I don't steal from my friends because we have a mutual understanding not to hurt each other, and to respect each other.
so what does common sence tell you about stealing from strangers or people you don't like?

It tells me that to live in a large society (which doesn't work at all, btw), everybody has to be on the same page when it comes to stealing and working together for the benefit of the community. Therefore you don't steal, even from strangers, because you assume they won't steal from you.

Yet the same argument still works for Christians who share the exact same belief system, laws, morality, etc,
this isn't true, just clearly isn't. it's just ignorance on your part. the only unifying factor among christians is that they believe jesus was something to do with god, they don't even all believe he was god.

I think this is disputable. I was always taught that to be a christian, the first thing you have to accept is that Jesus is Lord, and the only way to heaven is through him. Nothing about Jesus is lifted from history, it all comes from the bible, ergo, Christians must believe the book has some validity. A lot would say it's infallible.

If you're talking about "cultural Christians" like Richard Dawkins, who celebrates Christmas, Easter, go to church on occasion, etc, then you have a valid point.

now weather or not hitler believed in god or not is irrelivant, it's not an argument that is worthwhile because the point still stands if i just mention the other three.

Just for clarification, it seems abundantly clear that he did. When he says he is a Christian doing the Lords work, I take his word for it.

Should it have any part in 21st century discourse?

it's the single most important element in the development of our society and civilization, so there really isn't any choice in the matter. it really doesn't make any difference weather you believe in it or not, it is the basis of our political system, justice system and social/moral system.

There are plenty of much more significant and important developments in "our" civilization (whatever you mean by that).

If you're talking about America, I would put the revolutionary war, world war II, Central banking, Corporate personhood, presidential term limits, etc as having a much greater impact and influence on our contemporary culture. Hell, even TV has had a more significant developmental influence than the bible.

It's definitely not the basis of our political system (Almost none of the founding fathers were Christian), justice system (how do you explain legal abortion if Christianity has any part of our justice system?), or social/moral system. It might be part of YOU'RE social/moral system, but don't confuse what you covet with what others covet.

if you don't understand it, know about it and have the ability to apply it to society your going through life half blind.

How so? I think I'm going through life with a clear mind and open eyes. I don't need a bible to explain the world to me -- all I have to do is look for myself.

I find it much more satisfying to figure things out for yourself, including ethics/morality. I don't rely on people to tell me what's right and wrong. I decide what's right and wrong.


Anyway, nice debating with you. I'll read whatever you reply with and leave it at that.



reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 08:38 AM by pieman
Originally posted by Kaytagg
Therefore you don't steal, even from strangers, because you assume they won't steal from you.

so house alarms are installed on the premise that people won't steal from you? i see what you're trying to say, it's wrong to steal because you wouldn't like to be robbed, maybe empathy should be enough but it isn't for a lot of people.

here's my thoughts, what that single commandment describes is a concept of personal ownership which, although taken for granted, is quite an unusual cultural development for a tribal society. this commandment amounts to the codification of personal ownership of property as a fundamental human right, above the law of man.

I think this is disputable. I was always taught that to be a christian, the first thing you have to accept is that Jesus is Lord, and the only way to heaven is through him.
'fraid not, a christian is anyone who follows the teaching of christ, acceptance of his divinity isn't required or, IMHO, particularly useful.

Just for clarification, it seems abundantly clear that he did. When he says he is a Christian doing the Lords work, I take his word for it.
if you want to take a mass murdering sociopath at his word, that's your problem.

There are plenty of much more significant and important developments in "our" civilization (whatever you mean by that).
western judeo-christian civilisation.

If you're talking about America, I would put the revolutionary war,

the idea of personal freedom and liberty without which that war probably wouldn't have happened, is rooted in the idea that we are all equal under god, an almost exclusively christian idea.
world war II,
the idea of a national identity as we understand it, an identity of a people outside of the people that rule you, seems to have it's origins of thought in the hebrew culture and, even if it also arose in other places, like china, the influence of the bible on middle age european thought certainly instilled it in our culture. this idea of a national identity, despite the restriction of borders and jurisdiction, nationalism, is what sparked WW2.

Central banking, Corporate personhood,
absolutely based in religious thought. because it's sinful for one man to lend money to another at interest, a corporation, not a man, should do it and then give the profit to men, avoiding the sin.
presidential term limits, etc
absolute power corrupts absolutely is the philisophic basis of this one, again, biblical in origen.

It's definitely not the basis of our political system (Almost none of the founding fathers were Christian), justice system (how do you explain legal abortion if Christianity has any part of our justice system?), or social/moral system. It might be part of YOU'RE social/moral system, but don't confuse what you covet with what others covet.

it's the basis, it isn't the be all and end all, it's the basis. our ideas of freedom and state are biblical, our laws are based in the ten commandments, it's just the way it is. are they exactly as the bible states? no, nor should they be, but the philosophical basis for a lot of our thought is the bible, thats why "the west" is referred to as a judeo-christian culture.

[edit on 26/6/09 by pieman]

[edit on 26/6/09 by pieman]


reply posted on 27-6-2009 @ 12:32 AM by Jim Scott
Originally posted by The Riley Family

Jim Scott and Christians,

Does this way of thinking make sense? How is there supposed to be credibility in ideas like this or creation in 7 24 hour periods when it is obvious this is not the case. It would be beneficial for you to stop introducing non sensible thought and doctrines into interpretation of the scriptures. It only gives Atheists fuel for their assault.


On ATS, ideally, your presentation should show why it is nonsensical thought. On the contrary, there are indications that the world was created instantly. See www.halos.com. I am correct in stating that you have a choice to believe in either creation or a 13+ billion year old universe. I choose to believe God, you choose to not believe God. If everything scientifically confirmed that the universe was made in less than 10,000 years, you would have no choice but to believe God. This way, He can see if you love Him or love science more. Simple, isn't it? The world you and I live on is nothing of consequence in this universe. Here's a photo of it, have a look for yourself: www.grebz.fr... I believe God made the universe, and if I am right, He would have no problem making that little pale blue dot, or anything we will ever see or sample, appear to be aged, as He is omnipotent. I love the way He doesn't brag about it. He, in Jesus, is extremely humble...a lesson for each of us, don't you think?

Romans 1:19 because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. And without excuse we are. Creation itself is absolute proof of itself, what is called creationism is lacking proof because it is a fanciful idea based on fanciful thought and not on reason, reality, or even understanding scriptures.


As I said, creation is part of the Bible, not part of the publicaton "Nature" or a scientifically peer-reviewed journal. It does not need to be proven. Miracles are never based on reason or reality. When God resurrects your dead and decayed body into a brand new and beautiful everlasting body, it will also not be based on reason, scientific testing, or any other rational concept. Yet, as you stand before Him, you will not be worried about how He scientifically did it. (And you will stand before Him.)

The creation describing the Godhood is an interesting verse. I was inspired with an understanding of what that verse means. For the longest time, that verse really bothered me. I wondered "How could anything in your creation, Lord, be so obvious and so many people not see it?" If you see this reply, ask me. I have an answer from God on that verse.

Religious folks accept their fanciful ideas and expect others to do the same while Atheists who see through this "rubbish" who seemingly don't want to believe in the scriptures use the "rubbish" to dispute these fanciful ideas as if it disputes the scriptures themselves. Atheists don't seem understand that the bible itself advocates for their cause in proving the fanciful ideas are exactly what they are. Disproving a supposed bible believing believer's beliefs (say that three times fast) does not invalidate the scriptures but actually validates it.


I am confused between what your saying about the rubbish and the scriptures, who uses what, how, etc. Could you put it another way?

Does any one think that maybe the bible does not contradict itself but instead lack of understanding it correctly is what makes it appear to then the ignorant as contradiction?


I agree mostly with this, but there are some problems in the Bible. The errors, however, are likely not in the original manuscripts, but in translations. For example, when the Bible is translated to Tagalog or Hmong, there is a lot lost due to the simpler language. Similar problems occur when translating from a complex language, Greek, to a less complex language, English. For example, love in Greek is eros, filios, and agape. In English, love. Fortunately, the errors are not related to any important theology.

It has the appearance that the real reason religious folks interpret the bible the way they do and self indoctrinate their religion is because they really don't want to believe what is in the bible as being wholely true. It also has the appearance that the reason the Atheists use those interpretations and doctrines to try to dispute the bible is because they don't want to believe what is in the bible as being wholely true. Hey wait a minute does that mean Athiests and Christians actually believe in the same thing?
There are probably overlapping understandings.

Let's come together by interpreting what is as what is. Then there will no longer be Atheist or Christian but fellow believers in what is the truth.

The proof exists in the truth, and the truth proves itself by what is true.

One proof of this is that jesus is the antichrist, check out the facts.


Well, I don't believe Jesus could be against Jesus as his own anti-Christ. However, you qualify as an anti-Christ by making that statement. Congratulations.

www.newhopeforall.info


I believe God made the creation in 6 days, and rested on the seventh, just like He said. I believe He made it appear aged. I believe He gave us an example of that at the miracle at Cana, as I previously discussed in this thread.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by The Riley Family]


[edit on 27-6-2009 by Jim Scott]


reply posted on 27-6-2009 @ 04:08 AM by 0nce 0nce
I agree with Jim Scott, science and religion are completely compatible.

However, you have to be careful how you state that, because it is both true and false at the same time, which causes mass confusion.

Let me tell you my view, but first you have to understand the basic definitions of science and religion;

Science; "Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world (universe) gained through observation and experimentation."

Religion; "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe..."

Science is more of an action, to observe and measure. Religion is knowledge, to understand and believe.

So you can see by the definitions that science will actually strengthen religion. If religion is the belief of how the universe works and it's purpose, and science is the study of the universe, you can see that science will actually help religion.

HOWEVER, in order to observe and measure the universe correctly (scientifically), you have to forget about what you already believe (religion). If you don't, then what you learn from science could be flawed.


Analogy;

If you knew nothing about cars and how they work, and you wanted to study it (scientifically) so that you can figure out the truth of how they work, you have to completely forget about what you believe you already know about them (religion).

If you believe that some magical force pushes the car, then, when you scientifically study the car, you might study it the wrong way. That is one way science and religion don't mix. However, the more you scientifically study the car, the more knowledge you get of how it works, and it's purpose (like religion).

That is one reason why I believe that a very long time ago there was a really advanced civilization that had already figured out how the universe works scientifically, and that is how religion was created. Then over the years, the religion (knowledge of the universe, and its purpose) was slowly forgotten, and lost, or encrypted, and or purposely modified.

There are very important facts in science (today) that actually support a lot of beliefs found in most religions.

A while ago, I learned a lot of interesting facts found by scientific study, and it got me to see the world differently. Then, I started reading the Bible again, and I'll tell you, whoever really did write the Bible, and every quote from Jesus, actually knew a whole lot about science, and was truly "enlightened". This is why I choose to believe Jesus existed, and was real. Jesus' quotes have enlightened me.


reply posted on 27-6-2009 @ 06:05 AM by pieman
reply to post by Jim Scott


it seems to be that you require an awful lot of "interpretation" in order to make the bible fit into your world view.

i tell you what, this little quote seems pretty clear to me "what is called creationism is lacking proof because it is a fanciful idea based on fanciful thought and not on reason, reality, or even understanding scriptures." i don't think a lot of interpretation is required there, sums it up fairly well. particularly where understanding rather than knowledge of the scripture is specified.


reply posted on 28-6-2009 @ 04:08 AM by Jim Scott
Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Jim Scott


it seems to be that you require an awful lot of "interpretation" in order to make the bible fit into your world view.

i tell you what, this little quote seems pretty clear to me "what is called creationism is lacking proof because it is a fanciful idea based on fanciful thought and not on reason, reality, or even understanding scriptures." i don't think a lot of interpretation is required there, sums it up fairly well. particularly where understanding rather than knowledge of the scripture is specified.


I believe creationism is on the wrong track by attempting to prove creation scientifically. Science measures and confirms facts. Creationists fail to accept that God may have altered the facts.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^