That doesn't answer the question, it just restates it as a statement.
You basically just responded to "why does 2 + 2 equal 4?" with "because 2 + 2 equals 4."
-
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!
What do you need scientific evidence for . .?
- Thread starter Biblestudent_007
- Start date
That doesn't answer the question, it just restates it as a statement.
You basically just responded to "why does 2 + 2 equal 4?" with "because 2 + 2 equals 4."
Whoa, there. Getting a little frisky, throwing that "reason" in there, aren't ya?
But seriously, what do you define as "things". As other posters have pointed out, religoius people tend to accept scientific evidence, explanation, and application when it comes to health care, transportation, and talking to people over the internet.
By "things" are you merely talking about those things of a religious nature, like Jesus was the son of God, or reincarnation, or the Earth is riding on the back of a galactic turtle?
How else are you supposed to get from nonbelief to belief?Biblestudent said:
If a Muslim came up to you and said "Hey, you should become a Muslim" would you not ask why you should become a Muslim? Would you not need some compelling bit of evidence to convince you that Islam was the better, truer philosophy to follow?
Then how come I, as a believer, still request evidence?
It doesn't stem from non-belief; it stems from skepticism. There's a difference.
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
I can try an explain - I associate the request for scientific evidence with atheism.
I could be wrong - but I'm convinced that lots and lots of requests for evidence is related to non-belief or lack thereof.
Do you understand what I mean? . . Because I do.
I could be wrong - but I'm convinced that lots and lots of requests for evidence is related to non-belief or lack thereof.
Do you understand what I mean? . . Because I do.
I understand... and disagree.
It's related to inquiry, not necessarily non-belief.
Like we've been saying, TONS of theists (i.e., believers) request for evidence.
I forget what your point is. This seems like a "Duh" statement: if someone doesn't understand something, or is deciding whether to believe something, then of course they are going to ask for evidence or reasons why they should believe it.
If a kid was raised in a Muslim household, and was invited by a friend to visit your church one Sunday, would you discourage the kid from asking questions or reasons why he should become a Christian rather than a Muslim?
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
I guess that makes sense. Ya know, I don't feel like debating a moot point.
You may believe that God exists and that it is by His will that we have sunshine and rain.
You will still find use for weather forecasts, though. And they are not done by resorting to faith or prayer.
You will still find use for weather forecasts, though. And they are not done by resorting to faith or prayer.
...uh, what?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well there's your first mistake.
So you don't rely on evidence in your own life? Great. O.K. I have a large amount of money stuck in a bank account in Nigeria...
Either we don't understand you, or you're talking nonsense.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Right. I believe the current method is flipping a coin. Heads: rain. Tails: no rain.
RedOne77
Active Member
I say watch the cows.
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Yes, in the Catholic sense a believer uses faith and reason to make observations about the natural world.
Something like that . . What if Religion and Science cooperate?
No.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
They might be more accurate if they used faith and prayer.
So, you'd simply believe him and convert to Islam outright?
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
No. . . .
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
They might be more accurate if they used faith and prayer.
We used to do it that way. They called it the dark ages.
But if you don't need compelling evidence, then why not?
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
So why use a computer to communicate? Don't you realize that technology is a by-product of scientific knowledge?
Well, reason, to me, denotes the scienctific method. A major part of the scientific method is gathering data, evidence. If reason is a part of your methodology for understanding the world, then your OP question becomes a bit strange.
Reason, if you are only taking it to mean "common sense", isn't worth that much. It's just another way of saying "this is how the world appears to me". It's how we got the sun orbiting around the Earth rather than the Earth around the sun.
How? As in: religion makes a claim, and then science goes to investigate whether that claim is possible/probable/or true? We already have that. In some instances, science supports religious claims, in other cases science demolishes religious claims, and in other cases, science can have no comment as there is no detectable, observable phenomonen.Biblestudent said:
Religion and Science are not really at war with each other. The monk can be a scientist (Gregor Mendel) and the scientist can be a devout believer (Francis Collins). Mostly science leaves religion alone and religion leaves science alone.
I know Riverwolf already jumped on this, but really, "No?" You would just believe the Muslim and convert to Islam without question?Biblestudent said:
Or are you saying you would just ignore him, and never give conversion a thought?
If that's the case, then why should I, a non-Christian, give your beliefs a second thought?