Nope, from the get go I was talking about common sense and the ability of critical thinking, that aint got nothing to do with science. It's like saying Yao Ming is better than Hakeem Olajuwan, it doesnt make sense. Based on varius radiometric dating methods the earth is 4.54 billion years old, while Bible suggests that the earth is anywhere between 6000-10000 years old. We've found fossil records of dinosaurs and thousands of animals which are not mentioned in Bible. Aotearoa and Australia are not mentioned in Bible. I can go on and on, the problem is...Science(or scientific methods) doesnt need you to believe in it. Its objective, it keeps improving by fixing its own mistakes, its making a difference in our daily lives by providing us millions of things that we can see, touch and experience. The car we drive, the smartphones we use, internet, clutchfans website, live streaming of rockets game, etc. None of them has anything to do with your God. Science is not a religion either, you theists make it sounds like everything is a matter of whether someone believes in it or not --- It doesnt work like that. Science look at things in an objective angle, it has principles instead of worshiping some invisible man in the sky. It is a common knowledge in science that there is no absolute truth. Believe in your God all you want, I don't care. But if you believe in God and Science at the same time, you God will probably have to disown you. Then lets see some evidences. Through out history, every mystery, ever solved, has turned out to be not magic. Yes there are always questions can not be answered right away, thats why you need objective yet effective, proven methods to discover the answer --- definitely not a book written in BRONZE AGE. And your action is based on...or should I say controlled by the Bible, in this case it is the absolute truth to believers. You can't just cherry pick the good parts then leave the bad parts behind, thats dishonest towards your own god.
And it's also dishonest to leave out context when talking about stories and maintaining that all religious texts must be literal.
That's a very strange view of science if you think those things have nothing to do with science. Again though you are applying an empirical methodology to something that is beyond empirical. As I've said frequently it is a mistake to apply religious reasoning to scientific issues such as in asserting Creationism (or most forms of Intelligent Design) over Evolution. Saying that empirical objectivity overrules faith though when it comes to questions of things like whether God(s) exist whether we have a soul, and what happens to such a thing as a soul after death are not questions that can be answered by empirical evidence and as such aren't scientific questions. As far as "my God" I haven't claimed to have a god(s). I have never said science is religion. In fact I am stating specifically it is not and stated that science is based on doubt. On the other hand you are applying scientific reasoning to religion. They are separate ways of thought. Also FYI I am not a theist in the strict sense. While I am willing to accept the existence of God(s) I think such a being is so beyond human understanding as to be essentially be practically meaningless in terms of our lives. Also I find it interesting that you as a non-believer happen to know better than believers the will of their god(s). See above. What does it matter though as long as they become better people? Whether Jesus or an invisible dragon tells you you should be compassionate what does it matter? I always notice that one who interpret holy books the most literally are fundamentalists, critiques of the religion in question and atheists. Its ironic that people who don't believe in the faith in the first place insist upon the most rigid interpretation that faiths material.
Oh god (no pun intended)... why am I even posting in this topic... First, I'm not actually an atheist, but an agnostic. Still, I'm atheist-leaning, in the sense that if I were forced to choose yes or no, I'd say no god. The above seems to imply that there's some detailed doctrine of what all atheists believe floating around somewhere. There isn't. Being an atheist means you believe there's no such thing as god or gods, but it doesn't guarantee that you believe life has no meaning outside of survival and reproduction. Many atheists believe, for example, that the purpose of life is to be happy, and making others around them happy by giving a helping hand is often part of that. Or, for myself, I believe life's meaning is arbitrarily made up by each of us, and that anything will do, so long as you're happy with it and it doesn't negatively impact others. As far as the other part of the statement above... that Christians do it out of compassion, and heaven is just the icing. Um. Sometimes that's true. Just as often it's not. I've met plenty of Christians who wondered aloud why I did community service, if I wasn't trying to get into heaven or afraid of going to hell. I've also had people give me the time-honored "well, I chose to believe in god because if I die and he's real, I get into heaven, and if I don't, I go to hell, so it's safer to believe." Saying that all Christians' motivation for good acts is primarily compassion is just idealistic hogwash.
Black swan theory (not the crazy chick) Remember our correspondance from wayyy back? If you can find lectures by Father Richard Rohr namely True Self False Self, I'd be totally enthused about your thoughts on it. Or you can hit me up on email about it.
Oh geez. I actually ran a search in my e-mail for "Invisible" and found it. Seems like that was much longer ago than it actually was. In truth I didn't recall it at all until you brought it up. As far as that lecture... it looks like it's CD-only, right? And if I were to get it off Amazon it would set me back $25 or so. Do you have a copy you could let me... err... "digitally borrow"? :grin:
Oh really ? how can you know for sure? Did you just talk to God himself?! You cant disprove it, so it must be true....NO?
Sorry, but you see God a totally different way than I do. So for you to comment on what will happen is only true if I saw God the exact same way you do. If I see God as love, love doesn't disown someone and doesn't conflict with science. There is no way for love to disown someone. Sorry.
If God is the absolute truth, but man's understand of God grows and changes, and even allows that the absolute truth is so huge that there are many facets to it, then it shouldn't be looked at so narrowly right? Why are you assuming God is a being or personified thing? I agree that if I saw God the way you do, I wouldn't believe in it either and think all of the things about it that you do. But I don't have the same beliefs about God that you do. Based on how you view God, I don't fault your conclusions at all. I just have a different perspective.
"If the churches took half the money they was making and gave it back to the community, we'd be alright. If they took half of the buildings they use to praise God and got it mofos that need God, we'd be alright. Have you seen some of these God damn churches that take up the whole block in New York ? Its homeless people out here. Why ain't God lettin' them stay there? Why these *****s got gold ceilings and ****? Why God need gold ceilings to talk to me? Why God need colored windows to talk to me, why can't God come to me where I'm at." - 2Pac
According to the Bible God is the truth, are you trying to tell me that Bible is inaccurate? Which God you believe in? If God is all loving all caring why would he send you to hell for eternal suffering just because you did something he doesnt like? As a father myself I will never do that to my kid, even in some extreme cases like he will not love me back, there's no ****ing way I would wish him anything bad. Im glad that you see your God as love, because the Bible God has nothing to do with that. Yes, You are most likely a lot better than your God anyways.
The things I mentioned are all from the bible. So if I didn't believe what I do in order to believe what you do about God, I'd be calling the bible inaccurate. You can read it yourself. The bible says that God is love. It says a lot of things such as those that know love know God. I'm not going to call those things inaccurate. God doesn't send anyone to hell, and I believe the way you see hell is not the way the bible talks about hell. Most of the time when the bible refers to hell it is talking about a physical place on this earth that was a dump outside the city where refuse was burned, and was an awful place. I'm not saying the bible is inaccurate. I'm just saying that looking at it through a fundamentalist-most-literal interpretation eye like you are doing without any historical context would make me have the exact same feelings you do. As someone who believes in Christ, and tries to follow the bible, I don't see it the way you do. That's all. I don't believe the bible supports the idea that someone would burn in a fiery plane called hell for eternity. There are plenty who do see the bible that way. But there are also plenty who don't.
Great, you are on the right track. Think for yourself for once my friend, if God is the absolute truth, if Bible is correct, then the understaning of God shouldnt have changed dramatically in our history. There wouldnt be any other religions, but the fact is that we have had thousands of religions through out history. And if you read Bible, not just picture him in your head, hes not that loving at all --- Which one is true? the Loving God or the Bible God?
God may not change, but human kind's understanding of God will certainly change. If you read the bible and have no historical or cultural context then it may appear he isn't always so loving. But I've found the more I learn about the culture, traditions, history, and things the bible was actually addressing then he's even more loving. Again it is from the bible that my ideas come from. That includes the idea that God is love that there isn't a fiery plane which sinners go to and burn for eternity etc.
You realize that is self-affirming, circular logic right? It's still only the choice that it is right that makes it right, nothing outside the system proves it. I'm all for you making it, but realize it is no more valid than any other belief system anyone else chooses. And I only care in those case of those who want to deny the same life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to others who don't share their Christian belief. It wasn't 50 years ago that Protestants and Catholics were killing each other over religion. How can you not be a communal pacifist socialist?
Thats called cherry picking, you love the good parts, dont we all. But you forgot the bad parts, the part that is almost r****dedly bad. Which part is true? Or I shall ask, do you even care whats is true or not. Now please explain to me, in what kind of context, under what kind of circumstances, it is morally OK to torture your kid and to kill your wife? You dont believe in the same God suggested in the Bible, especially when you stated God doesnt send anyone into hell. Franchise, please.
