Why the divide between Science and Religion...

[Cynic]

Do you remember making this statement? And yet you're not an authority? So do you mind if some of us who have studied the Bible in its entirety and say that those statements were made out of LOVE and not BRIBERY get at least a little credit for knowing something?

If Cedar Point Amusement Park was handing out free tickets to anyone who would just come up and take one, would you be at the entrance shouting, "Bribery!"?

I was a Christian for 9 years and I am quite familiar with the bible.

The motive of self interest does not logically justify a belief. I was not refering to why such statements are made, but the unreasonabileness of accepting it, given that your only motive is self interest.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

*tip toes in room with collinder on head and wooden spoon in hand*

The bible was so hard for me to understand as a child, that it and the corruption I witnessed in "Churches" sent me to the 'atheist' chair for a few years.

Science showed me to look for patterns. When something is true there will be a consistant pattern. Throughout my life I have been exposed to many different people with many different religious beliefs. Being of 'no religion' I didn't focus on the differences, looking for fault in each religion, trying to validate one or the other. I, instead, saw amazing similarities. A pattern began to emerge. And where there is a consistant pattern, there is truth.

I, personally have decided that there is something bigger than us, that we cannot fully understand or explain with science, yet. I do not have faith in any one collection of scripture, but I study all of them, and I look for patterns.

*runs back out of room and peeks in window*

 

[michel]

And what makes you an authority to state that such versus are scientifical and coincide with science?

Jesus is before ALL things. Which word don't you understand? He was IN THE BEGINNING. Just like slientists say "in the beginning there was this 'thing', and it exploded".

Also this same Jesus upholds all of His creation by HIS power. In other words, He is taking credit for creating the strong and weak nuclear forces that keep atoms where they belong on the Periodic Table.

So,are you going to suspend judgement on THAT and hide behind a cloak of Agnosticism and admit you don't know if this is true (as Agnostics should)? Or are you going to just dismiss it outright as 'coinciding with science'?

 

[JerryL]

And which camp are you in? Because you seem to "know" a lot about what my Bible shouldn't say, while all the time hinding behind a label of neutrality.

Wouldn't you like to know?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And as far as who wrote 2 Timothy and Matthew: Paul and Matthew.

Very unlikely, particularly if you've deluded yourself into believing that an apostle wrote gMat. You're really not very good at this stuff.

 

[JerryL]

trying to validate one or the other. I, instead, saw amazing similarities. A pattern began to emerge. And where there is a consistant pattern, there is truth.

Odd. I was sure I responded to this.

What truth does it point to? The truth about God or the truth about people... that people are substantially the same with the same problems and same questions and tendancy to find the same answers?

For example, there's a consensus among most ancient people that the Earth is flat. This talks about common assumptions more than whether the Earth really is flat.

 

[michel]

I was a Christian for 9 years and I am quite familiar with the bible.

The motive of self interest does not logically justify a belief. I was not refering to why such statements are made, but the unreasonabileness of accepting it, given that your only motive is self interest.

Well, I've read the Bible more times than you've been a Christian in years (11 vs. 9), and I can say, from authority, that God is dead-set against self-interest. Freud may have taught it, but you didn't get it from the Bible. When I go to Heaven, it's because I want to see my Saviour, Who loves me and gave Himself for me, not to walk on streets of gold - (although I look forward to that, too).

 

[Cynic]

Jesus is before ALL things. Which word don't you understand? He was IN THE BEGINNING. Just like slientists say "in the beginning there was this 'thing', and it exploded".

Also this same Jesus upholds all of His creation by HIS power. In other words, He is taking credit for creating the strong and weak nuclear forces that keep atoms where they belong on the Periodic Table.

So,are you going to suspend judgement on THAT and hide behind a cloak of Agnosticism and admit you don't know if this is true (as Agnostics should)? Or are you going to just dismiss it outright as 'coinciding with science'?

If I said that the verses you chose, coincided with science, it would be an insult to science.

I suppose that you believe that gravity is really God pushing us down?

 

[michel]

For example, there's a consensus among most ancient people that the Earth is flat. This talks about common assumptions more than whether the Earth really is flat.

Yea, now it's a "consensus among most ancient people". Why aren't you saying it this way:
"Most ancient people were taught by scientists, that the Earth is flat"?

 

[michel]

If I said that the verses you chose, coincided with science, it would be an insult to science.

Well, the bottom line is, you insult Agnosticism when you side with science, and you insult Agnosticism when you side with the Bible too. I have a feeling you just wear Agnosticism as a label.

 

[michel]

If I said that the verses you chose, coincided with science, it would be an insult to science.

And, BTW, "agnostic" and "non-theist" are contradictions in terms.

 

[Cynic]

Well, the bottom line is, you insult Agnosticism when you side with science, and you insult Agnosticism when you side with the Bible too.

How is siding with science an insult to Agnosticism?

I have a feeling you just wear Agnosticism as a label.

Your intuition is very inaccurate.

 

[Cynic]

And, BTW, "agnostic" and "non-theist" are contradictions in terms.

Please tell me how they are contradictions.

 

[Sunstone]

And, BTW, "agnostic" and "non-theist" are contradictions in terms.

How so?

 

[Cynic]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Nontheism (or non-theism), broadly conceived, is the absence of belief in both the existence and non-existence of a deity (or deities, or other numinous phenomena). The word is often employed as a blanket term for all belief systems that are not theistic, including atheism (both strong and weak) and agnosticism, as well as certain Eastern religions like Confucianism, Taoism, and Zen Buddhism. This usage is somewhat misleading, however.

 

[michel]

How is siding with science an insult to Agnosticism?

For the SAME reason it is with the Bible.

Your slogan should be: Give me neutrality, or give me death!

I'm not saying suspend judgement on Gravity or Heat, but I'm saying that as an Agnostic, I don't understand them saying things like, science is more accurate than the Bible. I just don't get it.

 

[ChrisP]

Yea, now it's a "consensus among most ancient people". Why aren't you saying it this way:
"Most ancient people were taught by scientists, that the Earth is flat"?

IMHO science has very little to do with religion. Those who once believed the earth was flat, were acting upon the evidence they had before them and the various interpretations they could gather from this evidence.

Religion (for most) is a way to understand our purpose for existence. The answer to the biggest question for an individual that some spend their whole life pondering ponderously.

One example is a Aston Martin DB9:

A mechanic understands how the Aston works, what makes it stop working, and how the different parts interact to create a supreme racing MACHINE!!! (mmmmnnnn racing machine)

A religious person seeks to understand where the car takes the occupant, and why it takes them there.

So science seeks to understand what is around us that we can detect with our five senses, whereas religion seeks to understand our direction within the framework of the physical.

O and this is an Aston Martin DB9 :jam: : http://www.in.gr/auto/parousiaseis/foto_big/ae_AstonMartin_DB9_08.jpg

 

[michel]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Nontheism (or non-theism), broadly conceived, is the absence of belief in both the existence and non-existence of a deity (or deities, or other numinous phenomena). The word is often employed as a blanket term for all belief systems that are not theistic, including atheism (both strong and weak) and agnosticism, as well as certain Eastern religions like Confucianism, Taoism, and Zen Buddhism. This usage is somewhat misleading, however.

Okay, now here's a quote from my "website":

HE THAT IS NOT WITH ME IS AGAINST ME - (Matthew 12:30). Okay, Agnostic, which do YOU go with - Wikipedia or Matthew?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Nontheism (or non-theism), broadly conceived, is the absence of belief in both the existence and non-existence of a deity

That is horrible ... :banghead3

 

[michel]

IMHO science has very little to do with religion. Those who once believed the earth was flat, were acting upon the evidence they had before them and the various interpretations they could gather from this evidence.

Hi, SnaleSpace, nice to meet you.

But I love what you just said. It is a beautiful illustration of what I'm talking about.

You say those who once believed the earth was flat.

How did they come to believe that, when Isaiah and David taught otherwise?

I'll tell you. Some rebellious Bibliphobe decided that his "science" and "observations" were more authoritative than Scripture, and started teaching that heresy as 'science'. Then people, CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE, started believing it.

Then comes someone like Christopher Columbus, who knows better because he believes the Bible, not 'science' ... and basically proves 'science' wrong and the Bible correct.

But what do the 'scientists' do? They just say, "Oops, now we have more evidence" and they readjust their data to ... guess what? ... coincide with the Bible!