and porn.

 

I am assuming our new "friend" Philip is a product of an American education system.

Thinskin

 

The history of science is full of contradictions as well. Why do you believe that what you take for fact today will be what your great grand children take for fact in the future. Do you believe in the science of your great grandfather's generation?

 

DMAN RITHG I forGET WUT cums nwo??/

 

View attachment ​

 

That is the beauty of science, it follows the evidence giving the best explanation currently available, eventually when new findings are made, science has to tweak its theories so it matches what the evidence shows. Religion on the other hand, has an outdated viewpoint that does not fit with any of the facts, and no matter what evidence comes along, religion does not change its position, no matter how wrong it is.

 

well i suppose that is not entirely true, the catholic church has changed its position a few times after science proved what it teaches is demonstrably false, however there are plenty of people who take a literal view of the bible, and are not willing to make any concessions

 

An ironic statement, as the first civilization on record was ancient Sumeria, and their greatest achievements in architecture came about while building...temples? And while I might digress into how many great men and great discoveries have been motivated by faith, I think it best only to point out that motivation of any kind is necessary, that the physical world is quite meaningless without its metaphysical counterpart.

More and more so called "modern men(though they are ancient in their ideas)," seem to exist under the assumption that something which studies the purely physical, such as science, can really lead a man anywhere. Men do not build a bridge because they know how to build a bridge, men do not build a bridge for the sake of science, men do things for one reason, and that is purpose, and purpose is entirely beyond the realm of study, and entirely subjective. A purely scientific world is a world without purpose, without motivation, and without metaphysics. I abhor the thought as space abhors a vacuum. And considering that meaning cannot be quantified by any method of measurement, a purely scientific world is a world without meaning.

I can see it now, all the worshipers going to mass behind their lord pontiff, Mr. Dick Dawkins, all bowing down before the altar of the mighty amoeba and thanking chance for a theory of random variations, and finally anointing themselves with the oil of the Bunsen burner and celebrating purposeful purposelessness.

Purpose: morality, greed, pride, love and a plethora of other things motivate men to do things, science helps them do those things. The world is divided into two parts, and you are a blind man and a fool if you only see one.

Science must either leave off trying to answer metaphysical questions, or it must leave of pretending to be purely objective -- it cannot be both, not at the same time. Quite frankly, I have grown tired of this dull game of science trying to be all things to all men, trying to be entirely subjective, and objective, at once, and trying to take credit for every achievement that has furthered the human race. Science, it would seem, is not only the most fanatical of modern religions, but the least humble.

 

​

 

Nice. Well said. Although I like science and feel that it is a very important part of human development, I see science as merely the study of God's work in the physical world. I do not think that science has disproved anything in the bible. Just reviled how the physical world works. And this is true to the debate of creationism and evolution.

The story of creation goes hand in hand with evolution. God sent this story to explain to a very primitive civilization how he created us. With is hand, he reached down and formed man from the earth. Evolution does not necessarily contradict this biblical imagery which was presented by "god" to a society with a very primitive understanding of their physical world. This forming and shaping of man from the earth could very well be the process which science calls evolution. Why could creation not be a very simple and primitive explanation of evolution?

Like creationism, the "theory of evolution" is just that a theory. Although taken for fact by many, it has yet to be proven scientifically. And therefore does not disprove anything.

 

All you have done is substitute religion for knowledge, That is why men of science build bridges, not to disprove the existence of gods but to push the boundaries of knowledge a little further out, to test the latest theory and disprove it, to posit a new theory and wait for it to be disproved.
Were it left to religion where would we be, still living in the pre renaissance era.

Edit.

Dawkins would throw bricks at anyone falling to their knees to worship him. If you believe otherwise you have no real idea about atheism.

 

Oh common, not you too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LGhqbhRMMc&feature=feedu

 

Bible states the world is around 6000 years old, science says it is 4 and a 1/4 billion years old and can carbon date items to 70,000 years of age.

Where does the bible follow that, what is the stance on dinosaur fossils and other artefacts dated before the "holy" 6000 years.

Your idea that god reached down and help man grow and discover is pure fantasy, and a poor one at that.

 

Yes, I agree that there is very probably other life forms in the universe. I do not think that the bible ever specifically states that we are alone in this universe.

I also think that the idea of god actually being some kind of alien being is very possible. And I dont think it necessarily goes against the bible. So why can I not believe both to be possible? The profits who came and installed religion on earth, such as Jesus, Mohamad, Buddah, Krishna could very well have been extraterrestrial life forms. As according to the bible, God created us in his image. They would not have gone detected. Again, I dont think that either of these to beliefs necessarily contradict the other.

Yes, I agree that we are as lost as fish in the sea. without any where specific to go or do. Except we are self-destructive fish... and thats where "religion" can help.

 

You seem to be collecting all religions under your banner now, a little study will tell you that Krishna was around a long time before Jesus, in fact he is traced back to iron age settlements, which are dated before your 6000 years.

 

I dont take the bible literally. I pay no attention to the numbers. I realize that it is corrupted or those numbers were used by god since the people at the time would not have had any concept of numbers in the 100millions and billions. The story of god forming man from the earth is only imagry which I believe is not unlike that of the theory of evolution. As I said before, I dont see the bible as a history book but a spiritual book.

I think we all know that religion and science is not something to argue as neither one can disprove the other. I prefer to think of them as one thing. it makes life easier. And as a bonus my sinning ass is covered for the chance of eternal damnation. That chance DOES exist, how ever small it may be.

We really have no concept of what the universe really is or consists of. I think most atheists and top scientists Until science proves that there is NOT some kind of supreme being that is going to come back and take us to Paradise and leave the rest in a burning inferno, I am going to chose Christianity. Especially if that just means continuing to live my life as I had always lived it. I continue to do good when I get the chance as I would like people to do to me, I continue with my sins of pleasure and will be forgiven for that as i do not hold grudges against people. As I said before. It is a sinner's religion.

I dont take the bible literally. I pay no attention to the numbers. I realize that it is corrupted or those numbers were used by god since the people at the time would not have had any concept of numbers in the 100millions and billions. As I said before, I dont see the bible as a history book but a spiritual book.

 

No, it does not say it is 6000 years old. Calculations by so-called 'scholars', based on genealogy that is patchy at best that they are choosing to interpret as fact, coupled with estimations of the average age of a generation, and working backwards from Christ (or David, I forget which), they have arrived at the figure of 6000 years.

I reiterate: the figure 6000 years is produced by human interpretation of Biblical records, and nowhere is it written in the Bible.

Lastly, it is little more than arrogance to pronounce upon the truth or otherwise of Biblical legends, for you have no proof that God did not touch the likes of Leonardo, for example, and inspire him to be a little bit greater than he might have been without God's touch.

I think you've missed the point, brazi, especially in the last bit. Fish in the sea are in no way lost. They are in their element, their home. We, on this planet, in this universe, are in our element and our home. If 'place in the grand scheme of things' could ever have any meaning, it could only mean 'on planet Earth'.

God is often, as you said, used to answer the big questions. Why are we here? What is our purpose? Where is our place in the grand scheme? Theists feel that, without God to answer these big questions, life would be a lonely and discomfiting thing. But the theists have missed the point. If one does not believe in God, the questions lose all meaning. In a random universe where we have arisen by chance, there simply is no reason or purpose or place. We don't need to worry about such things, any more than we need to worry about all the air we breathe turning into avocado pulp.

 

What answers are you hoping for? Scientists have a reasonably good idea of what the universe consists of - matter - and what it is - the sum of all spacetime. What more do you want?

The burden of proof is on you, the theist, not the atheist scientist. You have asserted a being's existence; you must back that up. The very impossibility of providing verifiable evidence for God's existence is all the proof the scientists could ever want.

Now, my theology's a little rusty, but I'm fairly certain that the Bible encourages you to live outside of sin as much as possible, and not to assume forgiveness. Thou shalt not test thy Father in Heaven, as the book says (or words to that effect).

 

Again, I dont think that the bible should be taken literally. Numbers mean nothing to me, spiritually.

As for the other religions. I was just saying that it is not impossible that they were extra terrestrial visitors. And as science can not disprove extraterrestrial life in the universe, galaxy, or even in our own solar system, it is possible to me. This is a whole other subject though.