Protests Erupt In Syria Over Christmas...
News6 mins ago
Jesus Christ Is Lord.
63 Answers
In spite of all of the alleged evidence to the contrary, I am convinced that the atheistic view of the world is totally flawed, and unworthy of serious consideration.
We all have a duty to revise our beliefs in the light of new evidence, and I have revised mine accordingly as I learn more about my faith, and the misleading statements coming out of the world of science.
Science is depicted as noble and impartial, but scientists are also full of human failings, and will promote their own best interests even if this means ignoring or fabricating evidence.
How can the layman get through to the truth?
A lack of integrity and honesty is as apparent in scientific circles as it is in religious circles where each camp, on occasion, promotes its own agenda.
My faith is strong enough for me to declare, "Jesus Christ Is Lord."
So, hasn't science misled us, the very thing that religionists are often accused of?
We all have a duty to revise our beliefs in the light of new evidence, and I have revised mine accordingly as I learn more about my faith, and the misleading statements coming out of the world of science.
Science is depicted as noble and impartial, but scientists are also full of human failings, and will promote their own best interests even if this means ignoring or fabricating evidence.
How can the layman get through to the truth?
A lack of integrity and honesty is as apparent in scientific circles as it is in religious circles where each camp, on occasion, promotes its own agenda.
My faith is strong enough for me to declare, "Jesus Christ Is Lord."
So, hasn't science misled us, the very thing that religionists are often accused of?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"How often are scientists presented on the T.V. as infallible? Quite often in my opinion."
You haven't got a TV, WIzard has. In any case 'quite often in my opinion' is a pretty lousy proof by any yardstick.
"Scientists believe .... " is a worn out phrase that accompnies most of their presentations."
'worn out'? Not poisoning the well, there are ya?
"Not proofs though, no, beliefs."
Without knowing some specifics other than your incredibly vague contention, there is no argument to refute.
"And Hawkings reasoning? A singularity? His maths may take him there, but it is beyond experimental proof, but the theories are presented in such a way is to be viewed as irrefutable by the general public, which includes me."
What part of his maths do you have trouble with? I'm betting that you go through life (as we all do) depending on science that you don't understand, yet do not question the validity of. Why should your failure to be able to follow the science invalidate the science here when it does not the rest of the time?
This is just you expressing your personal incredulity, not an argument why Hawking is wrong.
You haven't got a TV, WIzard has. In any case 'quite often in my opinion' is a pretty lousy proof by any yardstick.
"Scientists believe .... " is a worn out phrase that accompnies most of their presentations."
'worn out'? Not poisoning the well, there are ya?
"Not proofs though, no, beliefs."
Without knowing some specifics other than your incredibly vague contention, there is no argument to refute.
"And Hawkings reasoning? A singularity? His maths may take him there, but it is beyond experimental proof, but the theories are presented in such a way is to be viewed as irrefutable by the general public, which includes me."
What part of his maths do you have trouble with? I'm betting that you go through life (as we all do) depending on science that you don't understand, yet do not question the validity of. Why should your failure to be able to follow the science invalidate the science here when it does not the rest of the time?
This is just you expressing your personal incredulity, not an argument why Hawking is wrong.
I have revised my atheistic scientific beliefs in the face of the overwhelming evidence for creationism.
I used to believe in ridiculous guff promoted by StEvEn HAwkInG like the Big Bamp and the universe coming from a tiny but really heavy dot smaller than my table but obviously it is so crazy sounding it can't be true.
I have chosen creationism because it is much easier to swallow and as Ockham said with his Razor thing, the swiftest solution is normally the rightest one.
So this is what I believe (creationism). There was nothing except god who is this spirit, then he made the world we see in one go, this was about 5000 years ago. Then he laid down a bunch of fossils that look older than this, and rock sediments, to confuse us a bit. And then he went into hiding for a while (Witness Protection Program).
In fact: I specifically said on another thread that the 'swallowability' of a theory was no measure of its veracity, rather the validity and reliability of how it arrived at its conclusion; this statement went unchallenged. Glad to see it was well absorbed, though!
I think tbh most christians don't have a ****ing clue what science actually is. They think they do, and they squash an entire philosophy of life around this little bit of science and epistemology they picked up on the interweb and page 34 of the Mail on Sunday.
I used to believe in ridiculous guff promoted by StEvEn HAwkInG like the Big Bamp and the universe coming from a tiny but really heavy dot smaller than my table but obviously it is so crazy sounding it can't be true.
I have chosen creationism because it is much easier to swallow and as Ockham said with his Razor thing, the swiftest solution is normally the rightest one.
So this is what I believe (creationism). There was nothing except god who is this spirit, then he made the world we see in one go, this was about 5000 years ago. Then he laid down a bunch of fossils that look older than this, and rock sediments, to confuse us a bit. And then he went into hiding for a while (Witness Protection Program).
In fact: I specifically said on another thread that the 'swallowability' of a theory was no measure of its veracity, rather the validity and reliability of how it arrived at its conclusion; this statement went unchallenged. Glad to see it was well absorbed, though!
I think tbh most christians don't have a ****ing clue what science actually is. They think they do, and they squash an entire philosophy of life around this little bit of science and epistemology they picked up on the interweb and page 34 of the Mail on Sunday.
So meredith, do atheists have a monopoly on science? What about scientists who hold with a belief in a creator God, and find nothing in science to refute their beliefs?
Yes, Waldo, I put my faith in technology every day of my life without understanding how it works, so I am easy prey for scientists who make unproven claims, that are beyond experimental proof.
Yes, Waldo, I put my faith in technology every day of my life without understanding how it works, so I am easy prey for scientists who make unproven claims, that are beyond experimental proof.
Modern science and christianity are irreconcilable.
Christianity was born into a world where science was very basic and hardly existed in any way comparable with its modern form. The greeks had a shot, but no one really understood that as a species we came, like all other species, from a process of evolution; that the processes of thought, willed-action, and memory, were carried out by the jelly-like matter that sits in your head; that no known mental process can be pointed out that cannot be identified as having at least a substrate in this jelly-like matter; that order in the world could come from processes within the world itself. None of this was widely accepted when mainstream religions were born, nor when they were accepted as giving a good depiction of how the world was, and should be accepted as being. Science moved on. We have knowledge that they didn't have. You live in an era with this new knowledge. You do not use it. Many greeks would have. Many disciples of Jesus would reject him because they would make use of this knowledge. If Jesus was reincarnated today he may well spit in the face of modern christians and call them morons, waving his bloody hand at them, shouting 'Back then we had an excuse: we didn't know. You have 2 thousand years of solid scientific advancement, and yet you choose (yes choose) to remain in the dark.' Jesus is turning in his grave.
As for Plato, he'd probably kill you.
Christianity was born into a world where science was very basic and hardly existed in any way comparable with its modern form. The greeks had a shot, but no one really understood that as a species we came, like all other species, from a process of evolution; that the processes of thought, willed-action, and memory, were carried out by the jelly-like matter that sits in your head; that no known mental process can be pointed out that cannot be identified as having at least a substrate in this jelly-like matter; that order in the world could come from processes within the world itself. None of this was widely accepted when mainstream religions were born, nor when they were accepted as giving a good depiction of how the world was, and should be accepted as being. Science moved on. We have knowledge that they didn't have. You live in an era with this new knowledge. You do not use it. Many greeks would have. Many disciples of Jesus would reject him because they would make use of this knowledge. If Jesus was reincarnated today he may well spit in the face of modern christians and call them morons, waving his bloody hand at them, shouting 'Back then we had an excuse: we didn't know. You have 2 thousand years of solid scientific advancement, and yet you choose (yes choose) to remain in the dark.' Jesus is turning in his grave.
As for Plato, he'd probably kill you.
All I know is the Catholic church said they weren't and had them omitted from the bible. I watched a programme on them last week. The forbidden texts or somethign like that it was called. I don't go to church anymore, God exists outside church. I'll not be brainwashed by some guy that works one day a week and survives solely on hand outs from a guilty congregation of slaves.
Skreech - Have you considered that god works through human agency, and therefore His will was to include books inspired by the Holy Spirit and reject those with only human authorship?
As for the R.C. church, well, they add to scriptur anyway and you are better off outside of it.
Meredith - there you go telling me how I should accept hook, line and sinker, evolution, the universal lie, unproven, and yes, I come to that conclusion using the grey jelly.
As for the R.C. church, well, they add to scriptur anyway and you are better off outside of it.
Meredith - there you go telling me how I should accept hook, line and sinker, evolution, the universal lie, unproven, and yes, I come to that conclusion using the grey jelly.
Man......you reject evolution. What do you accept in its place? Are you agnostic on origins? Or do you believe humans arrived on earth some thousand years ago fully formed in their current state, if you had to give an answer.
While we're at it: what specifically stops you accepting the idea of everything in the known universe being compressed into the size of your kitchen table?
While we're at it: what specifically stops you accepting the idea of everything in the known universe being compressed into the size of your kitchen table?
This one could go on for ages, I do believe in good and evil thats a fact in my mind, the world is made up of nice people and not so nice people, belief in anything should be personal and not be allowed to be force fed to anyone, You do not have to attend church to be a good person , goodness comes from the heart and mind of the person, You do not need to be brainwashed by anyone to be a good person , and no one is right , just do what you feel as long as you treat people as you want to be treated .............
what kind of proof of evolution would you be looking for? what do you think is generally meant by 'evolution'? If god did create, did he need to do it all at once, as opposed to making something very basic, like an amoeba, then letting changes just take their natural course? Is your rejection of evolution on scientific or religious grounds?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank40 mins ago
Is It Feasible To End I C E Car Sales By...
News65 mins ago
Road rules67 mins ago
Video Edit, How To Rotate To Play On Tv
Technology116 mins ago
