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.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: 0bserver1
"Science and God always seems to follow a contradictory path."
Actually science and religion have a remarkable amount in common.
Science thinks humans are special.
Science casts out heretics and persecutes all other religions.
Science reveres its own saints.
Science makes up stories to explain our origins.
Science has its own code of ethics.
Science has its own priesthood.
Science is based on established dogmas.
Science will bend to accommodate modern trends.
Most of science is unfounded.
Science requires faith.
And those are only the top 10 similarity's.
listverse.com...
originally posted by: saint4God
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: saint4God
The public universities these days prefer to teach people how to hate one another, and to play the victim. Christian ideals wouldn't fit well with that.
If the term Christian means "one who follows Christ" (as I believe it does) then there is very much the conflict as Jesus said:
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," Matthew 5:43
originally posted by: charlyv
The fundamental core of any religion, is to believe in something greater than yourself. How religions have been able to manifest that in very evil ways, through history, really keeps you thinking about the relationships.
I go with Kaku's assessment. The complexity is infinite, and what could possibly have come up with it?
Think how different the world would be, if everyone thought of God like that.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: GetHyped
Credible source or not, the similarities remain.
originally posted by: andy06shake
Again i see that you refuse or are unwilling to explain why you disagree that there are similarities between the two.
Science thinks humans are special
Science casts out heretics and persecutes all other religions.
Science reveres its own saints
Saint: a person acknowledged as holy or virtuous and regarded in Christian faith as being in heaven after death.
Science makes up stories to explain our origins
Science has its own code of ethics
Science has its own priesthood
Science is based on established dogmas
Science will bend to accommodate modern trends
Most of science is unfounded
Science requires faith
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: GetHyped
Well science/experimentation requires repetition which produces the same results to be considered credible, that would be my understanding of our scientific method.
Out of the ten points listed in the article what is it that you disagree with?
originally posted by: Woodcarver
You can say anything with assurance.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
It's proving it that is the trick.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
And no matter what you say, you can't prove it to be true.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
You simply add the caveat that god is merely hiding the evidence, or that you cannot detect god and that there is another undetectable realm that only you have access to, but no tools of science can penetrate.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Which is nothing more than circular reasoning. You do understand that a lot of people don't believe because there is absolutely zero evidence that what you are saying is true, and that the proper use of the scientific method does not allow for your opinion as proof. No matter how much assurance you say it with?
originally posted by: Woodcarver
So i, and others like me, are supposed to take your word for it?
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Because you do admit that there is no evidence at all to back up what you say right?
originally posted by: Woodcarver
If you were really scientifically minded you would know that you cannot make claims that you cannot prove, and realistically expect anyone to take you seriously.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Yet you don the persona of spiritual advisor, and peddle your wares with ASSURANCES that you are special and that you can communicate directly with god? And i'm supposed to just trust you? With no proof?
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Knowing that your mind can make serious mistakes in judgment, Even you should need better proof to accept what you believe. How do you reconsile the lack of proof?
You had a vision while you were killing yourself?
originally posted by: saint4God
originally posted by: Woodcarver
You can say anything with assurance.
I couldn't just say anything with assurance, because there would be an ethical conflict, but in fairness someone would have to know me well to accept that. There's only one thing I know for sure, that God's son died for my eternal life (and actually present one too).
originally posted by: Woodcarver
It's proving it that is the trick.
Yes. Fortunately it's not up to me to prove it, though I can try to help others obtain their proof.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
And no matter what you say, you can't prove it to be true.
Or to rearrange the sentence, "it cannot be proven true by what I say", but this is also the case in science as well.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
You simply add the caveat that god is merely hiding the evidence, or that you cannot detect god and that there is another undetectable realm that only you have access to, but no tools of science can penetrate.
Way too many over-statements here, if I may trim the hedges a bit. God isn't hiding evidence, God can be detected, everyone has access, tools of science point towards God but may not be accepted by the majority as proof. Quite a bit of yard work there, looks like a different landscape.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Which is nothing more than circular reasoning. You do understand that a lot of people don't believe because there is absolutely zero evidence that what you are saying is true, and that the proper use of the scientific method does not allow for your opinion as proof. No matter how much assurance you say it with?
Yes, as a former aggressive agnostic, I remember what it was like. I also wouldn't merely accept someone else's word, I needed to see for myself.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
So i, and others like me, are supposed to take your word for it?
Not at all, but hopefully intellectually curious enough to launch a personal investigation.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Because you do admit that there is no evidence at all to back up what you say right?
No evidence you've found yet perhaps, which is not to say others are without evidence. I have no evidence to show you the moon is made of rock instead of cheese, but it is fact.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
If you were really scientifically minded you would know that you cannot make claims that you cannot prove, and realistically expect anyone to take you seriously.
Science does this all the time. Surprisingly, many people accept it as true without their demand for proof or even investigation. Trust exists in all fields. For example, the bank says it has a certain amount of money for you. Have you seen the full balance? How then do you know it exists? All you get is their word in the form of a number that it's there and available for you.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Yet you don the persona of spiritual advisor, and peddle your wares with ASSURANCES that you are special and that you can communicate directly with god? And i'm supposed to just trust you? With no proof?
It's a good thing the U.S. dollar doesn't say "In saint4God we trust" because we'd all be in a heap of trouble. No one is supposed to just trust me, they're supposed to trust God. He is the proof, can provide the proof and is where I'd gotten mine.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Knowing that your mind can make serious mistakes in judgment, Even you should need better proof to accept what you believe. How do you reconsile the lack of proof?
I agree, everyone should need better proof to accept what I believe. All I'm doing is pointing where to get it as my username suggests.
You had a vision while you were killing yourself?
I never went as far as to attempt suicide, just contemplated the 'what if' had I done so. Looking back, I don't think this is as unusual for a person as I did at the time.
originally posted by: Badgered1
I'm going to have to agree that the title of the thread should have been more like, "Some of my professors think my faith may get in the way of what they are teaching me about science."
originally posted by: Badgered1
Instead it's a drama filled dog-whistle toward those who believe Christians are persecuted.
originally posted by: Badgered1
Back to the content: Through my magic invisible binoculars I can see an opportunity for a great "god of the gaps" argument.
Professor: Now, we're not exactly sure yet how this comes to be, but by our calculations, and observations we believe tha...
Student: AHA! It's god. See? Gotcha. You don't know, do you? You "believe," eh? Is that "Faith???"
originally posted by: Badgered1
Sorry, that's really a bit oversimplified, but nonetheless something that happens everyday.
In order to justify science and faith being mutually inclusive you have many things to clarify first:
* Is your God a 'force of the universe' or a 'personified, personally involved deity as described in the Bible'?
originally posted by: Badgered1
* Is your faith based on Biblical teachings?
originally posted by: Badgered1
In which case, which parts do you take as allegory, and which as literal? Which parts do you ignore completely?
originally posted by: Badgered1
* How do you justify to yourself Biblical events that have since been clearly explained by science? And how will you react when this happens again?
originally posted by: Badgered1
* If your faith is Bible based, is it the New Testament (New Covenant) only, or do you agree with Jesus that he was to uphold the old laws? How much of the Old Testament should we accept as well?
originally posted by: Badgered1
* Do you think that because there are historical references in the Bible it should be used as an historical document?
originally posted by: Badgered1
Do you think that, say, an archaeological dig uncovering something mentioned in the bible proves the bible to be true?
originally posted by: Badgered1
* How many of the fantastical claims in the Bible are miraculous to you, and which are simply not possible?
originally posted by: Badgered1
* Could a scientific discovery affect your faith?
originally posted by: Badgered1
Sorry to ask, but I had a discussion recently on similar content, and found that my opponent (albeit in a very polite way) used blind faith to gloss over a lot of scientific knowledge, and used pseudo-science.
originally posted by: Badgered1
On a historical timeline, religion and science have never intersected.
originally posted by: Badgered1
Science works by observing, and experimenting to understand the best available explanation. It changes as new data comes along, and continues to strive for better understanding. No faith required.
originally posted by: Badgered1
Faith begins with an unchanging opinion,
originally posted by: Badgered1
and sets about trying to find ways to uphold this opinion. It doesn't change, and insists that those who do not agree are wrong.