| Author | Message | ||
     Buellrider66 |
Faith - strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence. Most religions require some level of faith. As there are areas that cannot be documented(proven), Or there would be no doubt as to which religion is correct, including Atheism. Whatever you believe is yours to believe, just don't try and get me to believe your version is right and mine is wrong. We CAN all get along. (Message edited by buellrider66 on May 24, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
Curtis (Notpurples2), >>> And before the discovery of micro-organisms, viruses, ect, illness was blamed on evil spirits. Are you claiming that was the mainstream religious belief? If so, you are way off base. Par for the course. You and so many have been horribly misled by those not interested in truth. They have their own agenda. If not truth, then what might it be? Do the hard work, don't be deceived. >>> Mental illness was believed to be possession by demons or the devil. Demons, yes. The devil/satan himself, not so sure. Are you claiming that there have been no recorded cases of successful exorcism? >>> Is it better to strive for a scientific explanation or simply label what we don't yet understand as supernatural or the work of God? Who is doing that? No one I know. Certainly not me. That notion that you present is just another misleading straw-man concocted by deceivers to deflect those seriously searching for truth. The truth is that the more we do understand (microbiology, DNA, cosmology, particle physics, anthropology) the more evidence we find in support of a purposeful intelligent designer. You ask: "Is it better to strive for a scientific explanation or simply label what we don't yet understand as supernatural or the work of God?" I would ask: Is it better to accept the possibility of a creator beyond that which science has been able to irrefutably confirm, or is it better to glibly deny the possibility of a creator outright as "non-scientific"? Which is better science? Science involves testing theory with evidence. Though they've tried for decades, no scientist has been able to credibly explain the myriad of problems confronting a purely evolutionary explanation of origins. On ANY other issue, the evidence amassed that tends to refute that notion would have put it to bed a LONG time ago. The science of probabilities has all but proved the impossibility of an accidental, purely by chance explanation for the universe and life. I am just perplexed by those who are so driven to so stridently deny god and belittle and attack those who do. I appreciate folks who just happen to hold an opinion or who are unsure. I appreciate those who rail against organized religion. I understand, and share many of their views. I just don't understand the destructive agenda of some who are out to figuratively bash in the heads of those who believe in a creator. It's not a thoughtful or positive behavior. It's often downright mean and hateful. I don't put you in that category at all, but I'd be surprised if you've not seen the kind of behavior I'm talking about. What did "scientists" say about disease and mental illness before they found the truth? What they thought was "supernatural" turned out to be the work of entities previously unfathomed, living on a scale and in a realm unimagined. So why do you dismiss offhand similar possibility for the existence of a creator? To do so is poor/irresponsible/dishonest science, no? (Message edited by blake on May 24, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
Chad (Buellrider66), >>> Whatever you believe is yours to believe, just don't try and get me to believe your version is right and mine is wrong. Those who wish to avoid discussion/debate are 100% perfectly free to do so. Some folks, me included, really enjoy putting our beliefs up to a good challenge. My experience is that it's a very informative, educational endeavor. My views on religion have changed a LOT over the years. Thoughtful debate (absent mere absolutist declarations or malicious hateful content) has informed, challenged, and ultimately bolstered my own current beliefs. Refusing to challenge one's beliefs is unfortunate. It shows a weakness in that which one believes, or at least one's knowledge of it. But I absolutely agree with you that I don't appreciate someone coming in and blasting their views upon me but then refusing to entertain rebuttal. More than anything, that speaks to the weakness of their position. | ||
| Blake |
Court at age four?...  The little guy was lucky he only had one knife. | ||
| Buellrider66 |
I was referring to those that put their beliefs as irrefutable. (The crusades of past and present religions.) Open and informative discussions are always enlightening and sometimes profound. In other words, I think we agree. But since I cannot prove it, I will just have faith. | ||
| Notpurples2 |
Blake, Don't be so defensive. Again you assume that I'm stating things that I am not. Didn't say any of that was mainstream religious belief. You act like you're being attack and have to defend when you don't. My main point was this; Haven't things that were once seen as supernatural since been better understood and explained by science? Sure lots of scientist and theorist have had bad ideas. But once they're shown to be bad ideas they're corrected or tossed aside. To me it's like this: Religion proposes that it has the answer for how everything got here. God did it. Science isn't sure but there are lots of people working on it and they have some really interesting ideas. One thing that strikes me is that Believers always ask "Well what was before the Big Bang? Where did the matter/energy come from?" Usually this is mean to some how disprove the theory. But they have no problem believing that God has always existed and did not need a "before" | ||
| Hootowl |
"But once they're shown to be bad ideas they're corrected or tossed aside" LOL see global warming hysteria. Not a dig at anything you said, just poking fun at the Big Green Money Machine. | ||
| Sifo |
One thing that strikes me is that Believers always ask "Well what was before the Big Bang? Where did the matter/energy come from?" Usually this is mean to some how disprove the theory. But they have no problem believing that God has always existed and did not need a "before" I see that argument as disproving a theory, but simply pointing out that science ultimately fails to answer the same questions that religion fails to answer. BTW I see no need what so ever to disprove the big bang (or any other origin theory) to strengthen my faith. I know there are those who feel that the big bang theory somehow proves that there is no God however. I've never been able to understand that logic, especially coming from someone who is claiming to be following scientific methods. On a somewhat related note... I know of a teacher that has these two bumper stickers on her car. I've also seen the coexist sticker with the Darwin footed fish. I've often wondered what these people have going on inside their heads with and anit-religious message along with the coexist message. They are very conflicting messages.   | ||
| Sifo |
Funny thing, on the coexist sticker you can just make out the copyright belonging to peacemonger.org. I just went to their website and found that they are selling these too...     Perhaps the copyright owners of the coexist sticker really don't believe in the coexist message after all.  | ||
| Aesquire |
I've got one of the "science" rocket/fish ones. Blake and I disagree on several subjects, for example, Intelligent design I see as a philosophical/religious subject. Not hard science. ( I admit I find many of the "soft sciences" not to be science either ) We draw the line there differently. ( I also find "intelligent design" as usually presented just creationism with the serial numbers filed off ........ Just as "global warming" is the apocalypse con with charts..... and May, oops! October 21st is a con to make a dude rich. ) But That's ( Intelligent design ) as usually presented. As a philosophical exercise, we don't know what happened 1 second before the Big Bang. Some stuff is good guesses, other stuff seems decent theory, but is as science always is subject to revision as we learn more. TO tackle a few questions. How are we able to see "back in time" to the beginnings of the universe, if matter can not travel the speed of light? We can see the reflection of the "bang" on the edges of the universe... which we can't see. ( the edges ) it exists as the "microwave background radiation" first "seen" ( actually heard ) by Bell Lab scientists with the first satellite phone ground station horns. that reflection turns out not to be uniform, like the Universe is also lumpy. What was there before the "space" expanded to fill it? Beats me. damn good question. ( no, I won't guess, others have and do. What do you guess? ) One theory thinks our bubble displaces other bubbles. ? Does that imply there is an end to space? Are we in a bubble? That seems to be the idea. you can't reach the "end" without FTL. Perhaps not even then. What you'd do if/when you get there? what's outside? I dunno. I'm not sure that question is asked properly, as we are applying terms to stuff poorly grasped. Is the bubble still expanding? Will it stop? Will the bubble collapse eventually? What happens to the matter in the bubble? That's what the search for "dark matter" is all about. What we can see that glows isn't enough mass to stop the Universe expanding forever. If it's expanding. Our view of stuff isn't clear enough to be really sure. So it may just expand into infinity. ( cold empty space ) Or contract into a black hole. ( hot crowded space...then another big bang? ) Or just kinda be this way? We've only been looking for a few centuries, and the tools get better all the time. ( well, they did when we had a space program. But that's another subject for an angry rant ) I hope that helps a little. Some of what was once religion is now science. We have a better grasp of many life functions that were once demons and spirits. Other stuff? Still past the edges of what we know, and well into what we guess. Stars glow because of nuclear fire. Who made the hydrogen, and if that is even a proper question, is in the guess part. If someone tells you "the science is settled" they are lying to you and probably want to rip you off or hurt you to get power and wealth. Bet you a paycheck every time. The end of the world is good money. The A$$holes. | ||
| Sifo |
That's what the search for "dark matter" is all about. I recently read a short article about "dark energy". They said dark energy was believed to be the cause of the universe accelerating in it's expansion. Unfortunately the article left more questions open than anything else. I found it odd that they gave percentages of the make up of the universe, most was dark energy, a lesser percentage was dark matter, (I don't remember the exact percentages they gave), and only 4% was matter as we commonly know it. I didn't understand the difference between dark energy and dark matter, or how energy makes up a big part of the know universe. I think it may have been an extremely poorly written article, but it would be interesting hearing what the scientists were thinking before it got butchered by a reporter. Aesquire, I wouldn't have pegged you for a public statement against Christianity on the back of your car. | ||
| Aesquire |
Not against Christianity.....FOR Rockets! Haven't stuck it on a car. It's next to the model Zeppelin and Austro Daimler bicycle in my Man Cave. I may not share your faith, but I'll defend to their death any who want to keep you from practicing it. Besides, some atheists ( not all, they come in many flavors ) fit the adolescent reject your parents mold, and never get past a petulant "no". Never search for a greater truth than the feeling they've been lied to by authority figures. ( sad thing is they are partly right ) Others just like to be massively righteous in their own superiority. These seem to be the ones who sue because a war memorial built in 1945 has { gasp! shudder! } a CROSS! They're just jerks. Then there's the ones that actually worship something but lie about it and express that as atheism. Communists and other State worshipers are the best example. They are as aggressively anti- choice as the worst of the monotheists. Lots of variation though, some atheists actually have considered morality, and decided on a code that suits them. I don't have a problem with that. Nor with Christians who don't insist I live by some screwed up moral code based on a desert dwelling bronze age patriarchy. Those who do, I ignore, mock or avoid. Where their weird creed becomes law, I ignore, mock and avoid better. Just quieter. | ||
| Aesquire |
The whole "dark energy" thing.... weird. I've been reading about it, can't quite grasp it, and it still seems like something made up to try and fit facts to the graph. It seems a lot like invoking negative weight to explain Phlogiston Theory. Inventing New forces to fit an old theory sometimes just means you need a new theory. ( though doing Chem problems using Phlogiston theory can really amuse your Chem teacher... very briefly.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory Then again, I still think there is something to Aether. | ||
| Sifo |
Not against Christianity.....FOR Rockets! Haven't stuck it on a car. It's next to the model Zeppelin and Austro Daimler bicycle in my Man Cave. LOL! That explanation fits much better with how I have you pegged. I trust you can see how it's considered anti-Christian though. I am more than willing to accept that's not your purpose in having it though. Personally I do see humor in them, even as a Christian. Not all of us are so blasphemous though. The whole "dark energy" thing.... weird. I've been reading about it, can't quite grasp it, and it still seems like something made up to try and fit facts to the graph. That was kind of my take on dark energy too. I didn't bother to look for any more information though. Just curious, would you consider science looking at the beginning of the universe (big bang theory) a hard or soft science? The reason I ask is that it employs many of the same techniques as intelligent design theory, and I've heard your take on that. | ||
| Jon |
"Faith - strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence" I'll take issue with this. This is not exactly an objective definition, but rather someone's personal opinion. Generally faith is based upon something. You have faith that your favorite QB will make the play he needs to because of past performance. Faith as in Christian faith is not based on nothing, it is based upon the specific teachings of the Bible. The things that believers believe are those specific things in the word. And before you call them nothing you have to disprove them. You will get in a long of people who have tried to do that. Evolution on the other hand requires blind faith as the apparent evidence needs imagination to give it life. There is no active evidence to observe in evolution around us that explains a godless beginning and growing sophistication. You also have to step over the natural conviction of a God to get there. Ask yourself...how did energy come from a state of no energy, matter come from a state of none matter and then life come from a sterile lifeless environment? You will say what the "experts" say...given enough time anything can happen. That's what is truly blind faith. There is a good DVD set called the Truth Project. The truth is stronger than a lie. | ||
| Blake |
Curtis, I'm not being defensive. I'm engaging in refutation of your point. T'is a debate, yes? >>> Didn't say any of that was mainstream religious belief. Then what was the point??? I figure that if you are trying to show how a religion is false then whatever ills you are assigning it would be implied to be mainstream (representative of the religion), or again otherwise what was the point? I don't know anywhere in the Bible where illness is blamed on evil spirits. It does mention demonic possession. We all have our demons, no?  You didn't answer my questions. T'is a debate, not a lecture, yes? >>> Haven't things that were once seen as supernatural since been better understood and explained by science? How does that relate to religion, Christianity in particular. Are you trying to tie in all of mankinds' foolishness to the Bible? I don't follow you. Seems your concocting another straw-man. >>> Sure lots of scientist and theorist have had bad ideas. But once they're shown to be bad ideas they're corrected or tossed aside. Might not the idea that the time itself, the universe, matter, and life ALL originated out of pure random chance out of nothingness, blind happenstance, might not that idea be one of those bad ideas? >>> To me it's like this: Religion proposes that it has the answer for how everything got here. God did it. Forget religion. I'm talking science and origin. Once you can accept the viable scientific probability that a creator acted to generate that which we know as the universe and intelligent life, then we can talk about what said creator's intent might be, if any, concerning us. So to borrow your phraseology, I'd offer that... To me it's like this: Evolutionism/atheism proposes that it has eliminated the answer for how everything got here, nature did it; no intelligent intentional creative effort was involved. The only acceptable answer is naturalistic random chance. That simply isn't good science. It's belief. It's faith. (Message edited by blake on May 25, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
I too read that dark energy article the other day and had the same reaction, sounds like yet another complex variable added to the list to help try to make theory work. I also read where Hawking made a bold statement recently, something about the universe doesn't need a god or something like that. Here's a good article about it... http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-02/world/hawking.g od.universe_1_universe-abrahamic-faiths-divine-cre ator?_s=PM:WORLD | ||
| Cpeg |
There is a good DVD set called the Truth Project. The truth is stronger than a lie. That is the crux of my problem, how do you know it is the truth? Aren't you taking it on faith that it is the truth? (Message edited by cpeg on May 25, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
Thanks for the DVD recommendation Jon. A good read by a PhD Physicist/Cosmologist is The Creator and the Cosmos, Dr. Hugh Ross. | ||
| Blake |
William (Cpeg), >>> That is the crux of the problem, how do you know it is the truth? Aren't you taking it on faith that it is the truth? "It"? Please clarify. | ||
| Blake |
The faith in god part comes in having faith in the words, teachings, and history related by the Bible. That following god's will is by far the best possible way to live. | ||
| Cpeg |
I edited my statement to clarify it. I am not questioning your faith in what you consider the truth, so don't take me down the road of blasphemers. I have a problem with how one justifies calling it the "Truth" based on faith and calling what anybody else believes a lie. My "Lie" is just as truthful for me as yours is. Yes my truth is based on faith, that faith comes from what I have learned from more than just one source. The bottom line is still a belief in God. So why is my God a lie? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
How many disparate and segmented Faith factions are there of Christianity ? Quite possibly because man is reading (on rare cases) texts that were translated, interpreted, archaic, and modified from their original... which were written by men. At times there were even discouraged from reading the Bible, because the authority of the church was to tell them what was in the content. If a horse could write, or erect statues, 'God' would be equine. | ||
| Buellrider66 |
According to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there exist roughly 39,000 Christian denominations worldwide in 2008. That is up from 500 Christian denominations in 1800, and the number is expected to grow to 55,000 by 2025. Currently, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary estimates that a new Christian denomination is formed every 12 hours. | ||
| Blake |
William, I'm still not sure what you mean by "it". Are you meaning the belief in a creator/god, or a particular religion? >>> so don't take me down the road of blasphemers. I was trying in good faith ![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) to answer your question. What evoked that comment?  >>> I have a problem with how one justifies calling it the "Truth" based on faith and calling what anybody else believes a lie. I don't go around calling the beliefs of others lies. That is rude and unproductive, not to mention out of line. A lie is a knowing willful falsehood. Anything short of that is open for discussion. >>> My "Lie" is just as truthful for me as yours is. Yes my truth is based on faith, that faith comes from what I have learned from more than just one source. I think you have it backwards. Base faith on truth, but not truth on faith. >>> The bottom line is still a belief in God. So why is my God a lie? Again, I'd not be so harsh as to call it a lie. If I knew which god you are referring to, I might offer some points to consider. It is true that if one religion demands belief that is blatantly contrary to another, then it is unlikely that both are true. Both may be false or mistaken in some aspects, but both cannot be true. Denominations are born out of frustrations and/or ambitions of men, some for good reason, some for not so good reason. I'd not characterize every new non-denominational church on the corner as a separate denomination, which is what it sounds like that seminary is doing. Kilgore has over 50 local churches. They all get along as far as I know. | ||
| Sifo |
I see quite a bit of irony that "science" often nit picks the details of creation as stated in the bible, completely ignoring the message of the bible... Salvation. Science has nothing to offer on that. | ||
| Moxnix |
It's a binary question with a binary answer regarding God/no God. If a Christian walks with God in a forest, he/she sees God all around. If a non-believer enters the same forest to find God, he/she finds trees. So, if I understand it correctly, those who do not believe consider themselves the highest and most powerful known form of intelligence in the universe. | ||
| Drkside79 |
>>>>Kilgore has over 50 local churches.  That's a lot of church's for a 15.4 sq mile town with 12k for a pop. Not knocking it just suprised | ||
| Cpeg |
"It" is what you are proclaiming is THE Truth. According to your statements, my Truth is a lie. Whether you base your truth on faith or your faith on truth is semantics, you are still basing what you believe to be the truth on faith that, what in your mind, is the truth. My God does not consider Jesus a God, he was a disciple of God. Christ was not Jesus's last name. Christ is the awakened spirit of God within man. The Christ consciousness is not the consciousness of Jesus, but of the spirit of God within. | ||
| Cpeg |
Give me your take on Genesis 1:27 |
