-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
the right religion
- Thread starter islam abduallah
- Start date
waitasec
Veteran Member
you are obviously reaching at straws here....explain how a gun kill someone if it's just sitting there...hmmmm?
man used the knowledge of how things are done via science...in the same sense man used the justification for murder via the creation of god made in their image.
nice try but sorry, you don't get a :cigar:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
If science could solve the debate then why hasn't it. A system based on natural law has no meaningfull application concerning the supernatural. :sorry1::sorry1::sorry1::sorry1::sorry1::sorry1: The emoticon wars have begun.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Claiming a book which contains in it's core teaching the command to not murder actually causes more murders coming from a system that can't even meaningfully justify why murder is actually wrong is nuts.
:sad4::flirt::sarcastic:yes:
Curious George
Veteran Member
I would suggest that many things that were once believed to be supernatural have proved to be natural. The idea that because something is believed by some to be supernatural should prevent us from discovering the nature of such a supposed occurrence or entity is false. If the supernatural is truly supernatural then there will be no problem in continuing to prove it to be natural.
waitasec
Veteran Member
1robin
Christian/Baptist
What does that have to do with anything I said? What is that commercial? Science doesn't kill any one it makes killing people easier. It doesn't make a hole in ozone layer it makes it bigger. Actually I didn't claim science did any killing.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I would suggest that man is going to or would have murdered and used whatever rationale they could find. I would say this applies to all acts we might dub as "evil" as well as all acts we might dub as "good." In short, we can't blame the bible for atrocities committed in the name of "God" any more than we can credit it for the pleasantry that has been committed in the name of "God."
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
Claiming a book which contains in it's core teaching the command to not murder actually causes more murders coming from a system that can't even meaningfully justify why murder is actually wrong is nuts.
you got that wrong eugene....
really really wrong.
do you actually mean to say that the israelites, while wondering in the wilderness didn't already know that murder was wrong
besides thou shall not murder isn't exclusive to the abrahamic religions...not by a long shot...:sorry1: you didn't get the :cigar: either....
Jain
Member
Watch Religulous. Read Sam Harris. Billions can be fooled into believing some very mythical stuff, like virgin births, etc. When you are raised into a set of beliefs it is easy to follow them even if they make no logical sense.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Yes, science allows us to kill easier, and science allows us to save peoples lives easier as well.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I never said anyone should be prevented from doing any thing in science. However I do wish that professors would stop using faith based concepts to claim macro evolution is a fact. Or claim that they know what happened 4 billion years ago when no one can agree what happened a hundred years ago. I am all for looking but would restrict claiming as fact only what actually is. A natural method is prevented by every rule in science from detecting something outside of natural law. If it could it could prove what love, consiousness, astetic value, or morality is. If it is proven to be natural then it is by definition not supernatural. Your getting some concepts all mixed up.
What exactly is in the bible as supernatural that has been proven to be natural?
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I agree, it just reminded me of that commercial. Since my claim had nothing to do with this could someone address the actual claim? I think I got confused with someone else. My posts were 2063 and 2064.
waitasec
Veteran Member
waitasec
Veteran Member
same could be said for religious faith...however that would put religious faith in the same box as science....a tool box.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Nope, it had to do with this:
That is why it was posted with the statement. It is also why you cannot highjack it and then wonder why it doesn't do whatever it is that you are saying it doesn't.
Speaking of tools. It was saying that science as a tool can solve the debate. I said it could not. Tools do not have to be intentional to be capable. A BB gun can't stop a T-55 tank. Science can't solve a religious debate.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I Don't know that I said that anything in the bible that is supernatural has been proven to be natural. But if you are looking for something in the bible that has been interpreted as supernatural to be proven wrong I can give you that. The creation story has been taken by many people to be literal. Barring explanations of temporal relativity which were not available to the people who made these claims, dinosaurs prove that animals were not created the day before humans.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
same could be said for religious faith...however that would put religious faith in the same box as science....a tool box.
The religous (Christianity) system actually has a universal core imperative that says point blank do not murder.
The scientific system has nothing in it that would identify or prevent injustice of every kind by your own admission.
These two systems are in no way equal on the issue. In fact one is almost the inverse of the other. To claim otherwise is biased rhetoric and desperate. Science might give some insight as to how but the bible would as to why. The former has no moral input the latter institutes the only justified ultimate moral meaning to the equation.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I do not know that it is logically sound to make the first bold conclusion given the second bold evaluation.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
First of all a large portion of the Christian community believes that Genesis is allegory. So your contradiction is more with an interpretation than a known biblical claim. I do not have a position myself. Second of all your scientific explanation is anything but. It is a scientific guess based on faith based assertions and violates scientific laws itself. Macroevolution is academic schizophrenia. As I pointed out there are still raging debates over what happened at Gettysburg or who Shakespeare was and that was a cosmic second ago but scientists arrogantly claim they know what transpired billions of years ago with no witnesses and no battle reports. They even dislike the implications of our finely tuned universe so they invented a concept (bubble universes) to escape from it which not only has not one shred of evidence but never can and claim they have actually accomplished something. I saw back to back shows concerning string theory and some holographic effect where the first claimed the universe is actually two dimensional and the second said it has at least 11 dimensions. To make it even worse they were the same scientists. They can suggest all the theories they want but when they start thinking their absurd hypotheses based on flawed premises derived from best guesses can counter the bible they have left science and are using more faith than the religion it's self requires. There are different classes in science. The ones who must produce workable results are fine by me. The academic who get paid to sit around all day and think about stuff they dont and cant know and then find the nearest camera and claim otherwise I can do without. So again I say science has not and probably never be able to solve the mystery of religion.