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.

 

Religous Beliefs and Science(questions)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I will start this off by saying that I was semi active in church and believed in a higher power until I was 13. When I reached this age I found logical questions could not be answered by the church or it's members. I kept on getting the "faith" answer. This is what started my new approach on the outlook on life.
I have since noticed that people of religion feel the need to push their views on everyone else. By this I mean commenting about the bible, god , Jesus and so on. Even if the topic has nothing to do with religion. Mainly science and technology where even some of the scientists that study various topics are religous. It seems like with every new science discovery made there is a flood of religous believers and non believers that try to make the subject into a religous war. Where the one's doing the studying or research has to constantly defend their belief or stance on religion. When all they wanted to do was enlighten the world to new discoveries. While I know that the U.S. is a free country and people can speak their mind(for the most part), so please do not use this as an excuse.There is a few questions that I have for the hardcore believers that make Jesus the staple of every comment or post made in a science setting.
Do you feel that new discoveries threaten your belief system?
Why do you feel that it is necessary to put your religous outlook into a conversation that has nothing to do with religion?
Have you ever pondered that your outlook could be wrong and all of these scientific discoveries are leading to the answers that we all want to know, or is it blind faith that will have it's hold on you for the rest of your days and your children's days?(I realize that my outlook could be wrong)
While if it were a scientific fact that 'GOD" created everything and there is undeniable evidence of this, I could accept this as the way it is; could you accept it if science proved without a doubt that life was not created and life is abundant all over the universe and there is absolutely no evidence of life being created or would you continue to believe blindly without evidence that god exists?
Do you think we should disregaurd all of the scientific studies that contradict the religous perpective?
While I mean no harm to anyone or ego's to be damaged, I would like people to take time to ponder these questions and reply. I in no way intend on bashing people about their views and neither should any body else.
This might seem like a rant, but I would like to know peoples perspectives on their religous and scientific views and why is it that people must use their religous beliefs in everyday conversations. I know these conversations get driven into the ground, but I just don't get it.
If you feel like commenting do, If you do not, then don't. This is the thread to work these questions out (nicely and respectfully). This is a sincere thread from an individual that scratches his head on the comments of some people.




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The reason they often seemed threatened by new discoveries is because they are. I have friends who are deeply religious who even will admit to this as many don't often. It is really about the fact that science is filling in the gaps of knowledge that were once filled by God. This closing up of gaps leave religion less and less ground to be effective on people's everyday lives and pushes the importance of religion further and further from people.

On the other point of religion being talked about too much in everyay conversations, I for one couldn't agree. Personally here in the UK it isn't talked about that much between people, mainly because of the high chance of offending someone. This is a shame as it is the general conversations people have which slowly erode away such lies and untruths and by stifling it in this way it is helping religion hold ground.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Okandetre
 


"The reason they often seemed threatened by new discoveries is because they are. I have friends who are deeply religious who even will admit to this as many don't often. It is really about the fact that science is filling in the gaps of knowledge that were once filled by God. This closing up of gaps leave religion less and less ground to be effective on people's everyday lives and pushes the importance of religion further and further from people."
I couldn't agree more with what you are saying. Some people are more outgoing about their religous beliefs, sometimes I think that offending someone is that last thing on their minds.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
There is a serious inconsistency with those that argue against new scientific theories because of their religion. For example, many christian creationists enjoy arguing against the theory of evolution because in many ways the theory dismantles certain claims made in the bible. However, theories that demonstrate a spherical earth, a heliocentric solar system and even germ theory ALSO dismantle biblical claims yet they are NOT argued.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


what science contradictcs the bible? dont mistake the roman catholics ideas and tradtions for whats in the bible. and as far as evolution goes doesnt the second law of thermal dynamics (science) prove eolutoin as false? please tell me what science contradicts the bible



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


every aspect in the bible that metions the physical world is accurate 100% show me bible verse that doesnt and your science to back up im wrong!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by unprevaricator
 


I think that a man could put two of every creature on a boat, then to expect them to carry on life without one of the two getting sick would be a good start. I don't know what verse it is.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I am religious and don't feel the need to push it on people, but if someone wants to discuss it I am more than happy to share my insights with them as well as listen to theirs. A friendly, respectful debate is good as well.

I don't feel the need to bring religion into every conversation.

Although I wish everyone would believe in God and his Word, I don't feel the need to impose my views on everyone. To each their own. If someone doesn't want to be convinced, it probably won't be me that changes it.

I do not feel that science disproves religion (or vice versa), I think a lot of people are wrong in the way they approach it. I don't feel that scientific proof takes away from God at all. I am sure I am the minority in this respect.

I have my own views on the world and I am not bothered if others choose to not agree with me.

I know the kind you are talking about though, I don't attend church for that exact reason.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by daryllyn
 


Thank you for your view. This is what I am after. Logical thought process for the sake of discussion.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Myself, like you had issues with religion growing up. However, as I get older I come to realize that religion isn't a bad thing at all. In fact, religion is inherently good. People and power and corruption are things that skew religion and give it a bad rapport.

The foundation of religion cannot be replaced by science, as much as I love science, religion is more like philosophy and behaviorism and primary is composed of giving individuals a foundation and structure with simple truths like: "Don't lie", "Don't Steal", "Don't Cheat", "Don't Murder" etc. Higher laws that make hard universalism different than primitive instincts (i,e animalistic)

Physics can tell us about the world and interactions within it, yet cannot tell us how to live. Philosophy and Religion may not have hard evidence, yet they work, and they do a lot of good in explaining things that leptons and bosons cannot.

When it comes to God, if you say that God does not exist; You are an ignorant parrot of popular belief. You cannot prove God's existence and you cannot disprove God's existence [scientifically] So stating the prior, or the latter with hard evidence is a fools errand.

However, seeing how we are just a small speck of a speck of a speck in the universe, and we think we know everything with our crude telescopes and satellites. Also our flawed science and huge lack of understanding (i,e Quantum non locality, entanglement, extra dimensions, "virtual particles" [what a crock] ) it seems there is alot of room for much that we do not know, and we are getting closer and closer to realizing that.

edit on 15-1-2011 by AsimpleAbstraction because: [sic]



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

edit on 15-1-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Right. Exactly, in fact I would go as far as agreeing with you in stating that the popular belief *was* or *is* that God exists in the particular formality originally derived from ancient text (i,e the Bible) [although there are other versions similar describing God]

Now, if this format was adopted as a whole, and the teachings of it were inherently good, but later skewed into hypocrisy by doubt or science emerging and refuting what people have taken from the text and applied to their lives. Who would be in the wrong? Would it be the zealous adopters of the belief? Or the dismantlement of something inherently good? Perhaps both. I would argue that the two extremes do not make up the whole on either side, but the extreme portion of either side or wrong in their actions.

If a Christian loses a argument that God exists scientifically, they aren't losing anything. They still have their faith. If an Atheist loses an argument that God doesn't exists, he has lost more than he originally had.

Since God cannot be proven, or proven against. The one with philosophical belief is still the wiser. [and I guarantee the happier] The inherently good attributes to Religion make it something that is good for the world, unfortunately government is trying to take place of it, and create its own set of rules and regulations to follow.

The beauty of Religious Principle is that although there are hard universal ideals, you still have free agency. With government run "Religion" it is based on force and regulating.

My double edged sword is nothing more than a stance of neutrality in this particular argument.

[why did you delete your post?]
edit on 15-1-2011 by AsimpleAbstraction because: question



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AsimpleAbstraction
 


You speak wise words. I really like your outlook on the topic.
I deleted the comment because I did not want to be taken the wrong way.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
If I could PM, I would. Too little posts I suppose.

All I'd like to say is: You are intelligent, just don't fall into the popular belief of ex nihilo that unions, and government, and special interest is after to alter the populous into a state of regulated contentment. Just learn as much as you can, and when you think you've learned enough, keep learning. Remain open minded at all costs. Science has alot more gray areas then they will lead you to believe. Search out other forms of Religion that is less corrupt, and holds higher reputation. I found that Mormonism has alot of interesting correlations between doctrine and newer scientific theorems emerging. Check it out if you get a chance.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by unprevaricator
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


what science contradictcs the bible? dont mistake the roman catholics ideas and tradtions for whats in the bible. and as far as evolution goes doesnt the second law of thermal dynamics (science) prove eolutoin as false? please tell me what science contradicts the bible


If you are trying to link the entrophy increase within systems due to The Second Law of Thermodynamics (TSLOTD) then I would sadly say it wouldn't work in this case. It is a common argument used by the Intelligent Design community to try disprove Evolution. Firstly animals on this planet aren't a closed system to take them apart from everything else would be to not take the full sample needed to apply the law to. Secondly the etropy increase can be stopped or reversed for periods when information enters the system (DNA).

On the other hand Intelligent Design would also contradict TSLOTD if Evolution did, as it would also be decreasing entropy by imposing order. The reason why we have these computers to write on ATS with now is that the TSLOTD is affected by information. Otherwise people couldn't create things for that would be imposing order, as God would.

On the side of the things in the Bible being incorrect - it's not only the Bible it is opposed to but the beliefs that sprang from it. Geocentrism due to the Bibles obsession of the saying the world to not move or be changed or faultered, giving rise to the notion of the sun moving around us. The church's stance on flat-earthism due to it not being outlined in the Bible that it wasn't, or atleast clearly enough (hence the burnings and punishments for round earth believers). The characters in the Bible who are hundreds of years old, or not even died and carry on to live, apparantly (Enoch), only possible in Heaven though (but not dead).

You see, it's not so much about direct contradictions but a whole host of situations that are if not impossible but unlikely to the extent of never happening. Though to most who believe in the Bible, this will seem to make no sense as if you believe in God then you can believe anything can happen as there is a God to make it all happen. There you end with the circular arguement.




top topics



 
2

log in

join