Do u beleave in God

[philh 0]

Theer are books out there claiming all sorts of whacky insanse stuff, so what? Science works by submittign claims to experimental verification. If those claims make specific predicitons, measurements are done that confirm tose predictions then we start to take those claims seriosuly. for example modern big bang cosmology predicted the temperature found by the CoBe satellite, so the big abng cosomolgy was verified. This methodology provides us with a reaosnable foundation for knowledge. Faith on the other hand gives us no reasonable foundation for knowledge, it the equivalent to saying this is true becuase I want it to be true.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

After all we all have faith, when you jump out of that plane you have faith that your chute is going to open. When you get in your car and put the key in you have faith that the car is going to start. You don't have proof that it will until it does.

This is simply wrong. I have a lot of evidence that my main or my reserve has a good chance of opening.

Scientific theories are backed by evidence and experiment, they have a high degree of reliability in describing and predicting the nature of reality. There is always a chance that new evidence will arise but we work with the best information available, to call that faith on par with religious faith is a gross misrepresentation.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Uhm Im not looking for something outside of the bible thats from god , but there are passages in the bible which are not spoken by god or by Jesus. The passage you mention is such a passage and so does not count. by the way I read your passage and I didnt see anything that mentions paedophilia, although i did notice that all fornicators are banned from heaven. the fact remains homosexuality is condemmed, paedophilia is not. Thats a screwed up morality by most peoples standards.

The bible does condemen male prostitution which at the time involved young boys.

steveOrino

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

Saying the Universe was recently created is no more plausible than me saying we were all created 5 minutes ago with false memories intact to make us think we've been living our lives and participating in this thread, but it was an elaborate delusion.

The church of Last Tuesdayism I believe.

Suffered a most unfortunate schism between those who think the world was created once, Last Tuesday and those who say that the world is created Every Tuesday.

Then there are The Wednesdayists, but we don't like to mention them anymore.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

But why does it have to be lazy? There are books out there that science backs up creation so someone had to write those. They weren't lazy they wanted to research it.

That's one possibility. The other possibility - probability, in fact - is that those authors had a pre-conceived Creationist presumption as to the origins of the cosmos and life on Earth, and what they set out to do was to cherry-pick, distort and mischaracterize some evidence, and conveniently ignore other evidence, to support their Creationist presumptions, all the while holding out their junk science as good science.

In other words: it's a fraud. Their target audience are the gullible.

[billvon 2,991]

>There are books out there that science backs up creation so
> someone had to write those. They weren't lazy they wanted to
> research it.

They were not lazy, but they also have a very strong belief. There have been millions willing to die for their views on God; there are even more willing to write books. To them it's not a question of research or science, it's a question of piety and worship.

And there's nothing wrong with writing books to express your love of God. It's just not science.

[billvon 2,991]

>I guess I can't understand why most people on this thread have
> to have a ''scientifiic explaintion '' for everything. I mean what is
> wrong with having faith on somethings?

Replacing science with faith stifles learning. If we adopted that in medicine, we'd still be thinking that diseases were caused by evil spirits or bad humors, and people wouldn't live much past 40.

I think you're looking at this a little backwards. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having faith in whatever religion you choose; indeed, many people have benefitted greatly from such faith. There is also absolutely nothing wrong (theologically) about looking for scientific explanations. The two do not conflict.

The Bible suggests the earth is flat, and the sky is a dome-like vault above it. We found out that wasn't true. Religion didn't end.

The Bible suggests that all life was created in a garden about 6000 years ago, and that nothing existed before that. We found out that wasn't true. Religion didn't end.

Nowadays we are learning more and more about our origins, and can trace our lineage back to small one-celled organisms. Someday we will learn how they came into being from early organic materials. Religion won't end.

It can be a very big mistake to try to stifle science so one's religious views are not threatened. The catholic church did that to Bruno and Galileo, and that turned out to be a very dark, evil time for the church. Hopefully we won't make that mistake again.

[philh 0]

Not true at all. i dont have faith in parachutes. i have emperical evidence that parachutes work. If no one had ever seen a parachute, had no idea how it worked and had never been tested i wouldnt use it to jump out of a plane, i doubt you would either.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Not true at all. i dont have faith in parachutes. i have emperical evidence that parachutes work. If no one had ever seen a parachute, had no idea how it worked and had never been tested i wouldnt use it to jump out of a plane, i doubt you would either.

Would you jump it if the Bible said it was safe?

Would shortyj?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Replacing science with faith stifles learning.
.....
I think you're looking at this a little backwards.

I'm not sure which of the two camps are being backwards. Or at least who started it

Faith vs science is an oxymoron. Each requires a different sort of strength. It's sad to see each side dismissing the other like it's an either/or proposition.
They are exclusive concepts other than the faithful can choose to take heart that science is an example of a defined order to things.

I don't see why those that need to have faith can't just accept science as a contributor to their belief. Vice versa, I don't see why skeptics feel the need to belittle those with faith.

I don't believe in a diety(s), but most faithful people don't have any angst towards me and their belief doesn't harm me. The fanatics do, but there are fanatics in a hell of a lot more areas than just religion.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[beowulf 1]

Quote

But why does it have to be lazy? There are books out there that science backs up creation so someone had to write those. They weren't lazy they wanted to research it.

When people just rely on faith and don't actually do any research or strive to understand and just have faith that what they think they know is true, then that I consider being lazy. There are a lot of people that simply believe and cannot back it up with any thing other then faith.

[billvon 2,991]

>Faith vs science is an oxymoron.

I wouldn't call it an oxymoron; that implies that faith is sorta the opposite of science. Which it isn't. It's like asking which is better - the Krebs cycle or Picasso. There's no basis for comparison.

Gould called them "non-overlapping magisteria" to point out that they don't conflict not because they agree with each other but because they have to do with two completely different realms. Proving that we are related to bonobos does not diminish the good that religion does for some people, and pointing out that we don't know how the first life began does not mean that "evolution is a bunch of hooey." It's a conflict that doesn't even need to exist at all, but sadly I think some people stake a lot of their beliefs on there having to _be_ a conflict.

[dorbie 0]

Newton pursued three great passions.

He studied Physics, he studied Alchemy (chemistry really but they didn't know about atoms and mollecules yet), and he studied the Bible.

OTOH I do I wonder if Newton would have been able to crack chemistry if he'd had more time.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

When people just rely on faith and don't actually do any research or strive to understand and just have faith that what they think they know is true, then that I consider being lazy.

such as peer reviewed/approved pseudo-scientific conclusions?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

I don't believe in a diety

Same here. If people want to lose weight then they should do some exercisey!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

When people just rely on faith and don't actually do any research or strive to understand and just have faith that what they think they know is true, then that I consider being lazy.

such as peer reviewed/approved pseudo-scientific conclusions?

At least they do something.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

I don't believe in a diety

Same here. If people want to lose weight then they should do some exercisey!

diety
deity

oh,

well, I mean that too

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When people just rely on faith and don't actually do any research or strive to understand and just have faith that what they think they know is true, then that I consider being lazy.

such as peer reviewed/approved pseudo-scientific conclusions?

At least they do something.

sure, they get published and funding

It's a living

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I guess I can't understand why most people on this thread have to have a ''scientifiic explaintion '' for everything. I mean what is wrong with having faith on somethings?

There is nothing wrong with having faith on something.
But it goes wrong when you are trying to force others to act according to your faith - for example, by attempting to ban abortion for everyone, not just for the people who share your faith.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

There is nothing wrong with having faith on something.
But it goes wrong when you are trying to force others to act according to your faith - for example, by attempting to ban abortion for everyone, not just for the people who share your faith.

Again I say, people act out of conscience whether that is to feed the poor, bring civil rights to the oppressed, or change laws. Christians have every right to lobby against what they deem as an immoral act. You have every right to lobby for what you believe in as well.

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You said "In fact from my memory(please correct me if am wrong) the bible condemms home sexual sex acts but not sex acts for minors, implying that god prefers paedophilia to homsexuality."

And I said: "The bible (Paul) speaks against both "

Are you sure? Could you provide the exact quote?
Because I can provide you quotes from the Bible where people were sleeping with their daughters.

For example, Lot had sex with two his daughters (GE 19:30 - 19:38), but Peter (2Peter 2:7 - 2:9) still says that Lot was "that righteous man".

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Christians have every right to lobby against what they deem as an immoral act. You have every right to lobby for what you believe in as well.

And here is a problem.
Your faith, and "moral standard" are based on beliefs, not on facts - so far I failed to see any evidence from you. So when you try to lobby against anything based on your religion, you are actually forcing anyone, who do not belong to your religion, act according to your faith. And this is completely unacceptable, that's what freedom of religion was for.

If you believe something is immoral - don't do it, nobody is forcing you to do so. But don't force others to live according to your beliefs - it is not your business what we do with our bodies. Remember that a lot of people do not care about Heaven or Hell.

That is probably the main reason a lot of people do not tolerate Christianity.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[billvon 2,991]

>Could you provide the exact quote?

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Of course this is also the section that states that anyone who has sex with a woman during her period is to be banished forever, and that people who wear glasses cannot come near the altar in a church. So take all that with a grain of salt.

[philh 0]

there are at least three possibilities. 1 it condemmed it because they were young 2 it condemmed becausue it was prostiution 3 it condemmed it because it was home sexual. You are in no position to assume option 1 is true

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

You said "In fact from my memory(please correct me if am wrong) the bible condemms home sexual sex acts but not sex acts for minors, implying that god prefers paedophilia to homsexuality."

And I said: "The bible (Paul) speaks against both "

Are you sure? Could you provide the exact quote?
Because I can provide you quotes from the Bible where people were sleeping with their daughters.

For example, Lot had sex with two his daughters (GE 19:30 - 19:38), but Peter (2Peter 2:7 - 2:9) still says that Lot was "that righteous man".

Bill quoted OT and I was referring to Paul's letter in the NT -- 1 Cor 6th chapter

I hardly doubt the case where Lot's daughters thought they would never marry and decided to get their father drunk so they could sleep with him in order to bare children is an avocation for pedophylia. You're really reaching for that point, eh?

One thing that sets the bible apart from many "religous" writings is that is shows the characters as they are, warts and all.

steveOrino