Total Answers: 18 [Go Back]
Faith makes them feel superior.
are not.
are not.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:07:21 GMT
I'm quite curious of this myself. My only guess would be that religion is so much easier to understand than science and claims to have 'answers' for everything, so it's naturally appealing.
it helps people cope with death.
would be my only guesses, really.
and those who were indoctrinated as children or caught at emotional times in their lives.
it helps people cope with death.
would be my only guesses, really.
and those who were indoctrinated as children or caught at emotional times in their lives.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:08:18 GMT
God did it Actually the catholic church has recently admitted to proven sciences, stating that god is the catalyst of the start of existence or something
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:09:40 GMT
I don't do either. I submit both to the test of Truth, rationality. Premise denied. Discussion ended.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:09:55 GMT
faith is for the weak and stupid, who are incapable of accepting the world, religion is a crutch.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:11:58 GMT
How is the scientific view of the origin of the universe able to be repeated in a lab setting (i.e. empirically tested)?
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:13:20 GMT
Personally, I don't see the necessity for the divide.
can pick one side or the other or you can weigh both and find value in each. Science does not have all the answers, neither does faith.
by it's very definition requires a lack of evidence and acceptance anyway. Regardless of what is claimed, science does the same. Evidence is found and weighed on both fronts. Is there scientific evidence for a God-no. But are there questions in science that can not be answered without a God, absolutely.
pick. Find value in each with an objective mind or deny it all.
can pick one side or the other or you can weigh both and find value in each. Science does not have all the answers, neither does faith.
by it's very definition requires a lack of evidence and acceptance anyway. Regardless of what is claimed, science does the same. Evidence is found and weighed on both fronts. Is there scientific evidence for a God-no. But are there questions in science that can not be answered without a God, absolutely.
pick. Find value in each with an objective mind or deny it all.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:15:34 GMT
As an atheist, I have always thought that the fundamental difference between the way an atheist thinks and a theist thinks is thus: In any scenario, an atheist sees an outcome and doesn't know how it happened. So they proceed to gather evidence and try to figure out how/why it happened through experimentation and study, open to whatever he or she find as the cause. In any scenario, a theist sees an outcome and doesn't know how it happened. So they assume it is magic and do not seek to gather evidence.
see the magic and are happy to attribute it to a higher power, and any evidence gathered supports this idea of magic no matter what conclusion it may lead to. At the end of the day, the atheist sees magic and God as something that is a possible answer, but not an answer that has any evidence pointing to it or supporting it, thus he or she looks to the answer that does have empirical support. Additionally: I absolutely disagree with the statement "There are things that science can't answer that Faith/God can." If you are talking about morality that is simly a facet of sociology or if you want to be more abstract, Philosophy.
in the magical has nothing to do with it.
see the magic and are happy to attribute it to a higher power, and any evidence gathered supports this idea of magic no matter what conclusion it may lead to. At the end of the day, the atheist sees magic and God as something that is a possible answer, but not an answer that has any evidence pointing to it or supporting it, thus he or she looks to the answer that does have empirical support. Additionally: I absolutely disagree with the statement "There are things that science can't answer that Faith/God can." If you are talking about morality that is simly a facet of sociology or if you want to be more abstract, Philosophy.
in the magical has nothing to do with it.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:15:47 GMT
Science used to say the Pluto was a planet, now they say Pluto is not a planet.
did they come to these two different conclusions? Gravity was not discovered by Sir Isaac Newton, it was explained by him. Gravity already existed. However, during Newton's time no scientist had given gravity a mathematical equivalence.
would fail both of us if we went to explain how Albert Einstein did not discover energy, Benjamen Franklin did not discover electricity, and for the same reason, both energy, and electricity already existed during these peoples time.
way you prove there is a God is by his followers. Jehovah God said that his people are his witnesses; Isaiah 43:10. Jesus Christ said that the Good News of God's Kingdom will be preached earth wide; Matthew 24:14. Jesus Christ said this 1,977 years ago, in the year 33 CE. Today, this good News of God's Kingdom lives on, therefore proof that the good news existed in 33 CE and today.
not starting a war.
question sounds legitimate. Edit: I know Christian scientists. A father of a friend of mine-who is also a Christian-was a chemical engineer.
did they come to these two different conclusions? Gravity was not discovered by Sir Isaac Newton, it was explained by him. Gravity already existed. However, during Newton's time no scientist had given gravity a mathematical equivalence.
would fail both of us if we went to explain how Albert Einstein did not discover energy, Benjamen Franklin did not discover electricity, and for the same reason, both energy, and electricity already existed during these peoples time.
way you prove there is a God is by his followers. Jehovah God said that his people are his witnesses; Isaiah 43:10. Jesus Christ said that the Good News of God's Kingdom will be preached earth wide; Matthew 24:14. Jesus Christ said this 1,977 years ago, in the year 33 CE. Today, this good News of God's Kingdom lives on, therefore proof that the good news existed in 33 CE and today.
not starting a war.
question sounds legitimate. Edit: I know Christian scientists. A father of a friend of mine-who is also a Christian-was a chemical engineer.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:17:12 GMT
The "classic divide" is not real.
human knowledge, including scientific, ultimately is rooted in human experience.
at Descartes "I think therefore I am" even physical existence can be logically doubted.There is no more proof for the basis of science than there is for religion we all believe in assumptions that are not verified. In this context religious experience is just as valid as any other. If you do not have such experience it does not make it invalid. It is not a situation where they are mutually exclusive.
me I pick both but we do have to be aware of the limits of applicability of each.
human knowledge, including scientific, ultimately is rooted in human experience.
at Descartes "I think therefore I am" even physical existence can be logically doubted.There is no more proof for the basis of science than there is for religion we all believe in assumptions that are not verified. In this context religious experience is just as valid as any other. If you do not have such experience it does not make it invalid. It is not a situation where they are mutually exclusive.
me I pick both but we do have to be aware of the limits of applicability of each.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:20:18 GMT
Why do you not direct your question to all faiths?That's why your missing the point.All experience and knowledge is conjecture.even science.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:25:22 GMT
It is the Christian faith that is responsible for science! The Bible was in total contradiction to pagan religion which saw nature as a deity to be feared and worshiped and not as a work of God to be admired, studied and managed.
only did the Bible de-deify nature, it encouraged science through such principles as voluntaristic theology, a "positive appreciation" of manual work and an "accommodation" theory that comes from the Bible. Voluntarism emphasized that God could choose to create nature in any way he wanted and that man, therefore, had to experience nature to discover God's choice.
stimulus to experimental science was reinforced by the high value that Christianity placed on manual labor. Non-western cultures had 2 barriers to science: A cyclic view of history and an organic view of nature. Endless cycles of human history made men too apathetic to study nature.
when they did, their concept of a living, willful nature precluded discovery of those unvarying patterns that science labels natural laws.
Judeo-Christian view, in contrast, historically regarded nature as the nonliving creation of a rational God, not cyclic but with a definite beginning and end. In this conceptual context (and only in this context), modern science emerged. Earlier adumbrations of science were pale, short-lived imitations, doomed by hostile environments. Consideration of both past and present disclose the same truth: "the indispensability of a firm faith in the only lasting source of rationality and confidence, the Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible." Why do you not take pride in the intellectual framework from which your precious science emerged? If not for Christianity, you'd probably still think lightning was an angry deity.
only did the Bible de-deify nature, it encouraged science through such principles as voluntaristic theology, a "positive appreciation" of manual work and an "accommodation" theory that comes from the Bible. Voluntarism emphasized that God could choose to create nature in any way he wanted and that man, therefore, had to experience nature to discover God's choice.
stimulus to experimental science was reinforced by the high value that Christianity placed on manual labor. Non-western cultures had 2 barriers to science: A cyclic view of history and an organic view of nature. Endless cycles of human history made men too apathetic to study nature.
when they did, their concept of a living, willful nature precluded discovery of those unvarying patterns that science labels natural laws.
Judeo-Christian view, in contrast, historically regarded nature as the nonliving creation of a rational God, not cyclic but with a definite beginning and end. In this conceptual context (and only in this context), modern science emerged. Earlier adumbrations of science were pale, short-lived imitations, doomed by hostile environments. Consideration of both past and present disclose the same truth: "the indispensability of a firm faith in the only lasting source of rationality and confidence, the Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible." Why do you not take pride in the intellectual framework from which your precious science emerged? If not for Christianity, you'd probably still think lightning was an angry deity.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:30:15 GMT
Well because I just do. I mean I grew up in a christian home but I questioned the existence of God so many times.
for some points in my life I didn't believe in God.After making all the wrong decisions in my life and basically ruining my life as well as the trust between me and my parents. I came to church one day.
for once I actually decided to listen.
lady was giving a testimony on her life, and I had heard so many of these but this time was different.
I got home I fell on my knees and asked God to come in my life, that I was sorry for how I lived my life and doubting you.
day I felt his love, I encountered God, I didn't see him but I could feel him in my heart. Afterwards I just wanted to run through the streets saying God is real, he there, hes really real, and he was just in my living room". I guess what I am trying to say is his love was just to real to believe in anything else, even science. He took a broken messed up person, into well what I am today. I had read the Bible before becoming a christian, but just thought it was stories and words.
all those promises he made in the Bible well they started to come true in my life.
I was like wow this Bible is no joke.
I grabbed onto his promises, and put my faith in him. He never failed me. he's always there. science is science.
Bible is not really my evidence, but it's my guide.
Instructions Before Leaving Earth(.B.I.B.L.E. The real evidence I have is the love i have in my heart.
hope I have.
the strength to get through ANYTHING.
able to stay held together through any circumstance and make it out stronger in the end.
gave me a life. a future like he promised.
I am studying to be a nurse and a youth pastor, and I am a proud mom. I guess my point is my faith is so strong, his love is so strong,that nothing, not even science, can shake it up. besides scientists said that my baby wasn't going to make it after he was born.
I put my FAITH in God and prayed every night for my son and due to everyone doctors scientists) surprise he survived.
said he wouldn't make it to 3 days old but they were wrong. if they were wrong about that, then why can't they be wrong when they say God don't exist. science never really worked for me, but faith never failed me.:]
for some points in my life I didn't believe in God.After making all the wrong decisions in my life and basically ruining my life as well as the trust between me and my parents. I came to church one day.
for once I actually decided to listen.
lady was giving a testimony on her life, and I had heard so many of these but this time was different.
I got home I fell on my knees and asked God to come in my life, that I was sorry for how I lived my life and doubting you.
day I felt his love, I encountered God, I didn't see him but I could feel him in my heart. Afterwards I just wanted to run through the streets saying God is real, he there, hes really real, and he was just in my living room". I guess what I am trying to say is his love was just to real to believe in anything else, even science. He took a broken messed up person, into well what I am today. I had read the Bible before becoming a christian, but just thought it was stories and words.
all those promises he made in the Bible well they started to come true in my life.
I was like wow this Bible is no joke.
I grabbed onto his promises, and put my faith in him. He never failed me. he's always there. science is science.
Bible is not really my evidence, but it's my guide.
Instructions Before Leaving Earth(.B.I.B.L.E. The real evidence I have is the love i have in my heart.
hope I have.
the strength to get through ANYTHING.
able to stay held together through any circumstance and make it out stronger in the end.
gave me a life. a future like he promised.
I am studying to be a nurse and a youth pastor, and I am a proud mom. I guess my point is my faith is so strong, his love is so strong,that nothing, not even science, can shake it up. besides scientists said that my baby wasn't going to make it after he was born.
I put my FAITH in God and prayed every night for my son and due to everyone doctors scientists) surprise he survived.
said he wouldn't make it to 3 days old but they were wrong. if they were wrong about that, then why can't they be wrong when they say God don't exist. science never really worked for me, but faith never failed me.:]
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:37:56 GMT
I don't need empirically verifiable evidence. I never put much faith in the natural, material things of this world.
knew inside that there was more to life than that. Instead of worshiping myself or other worldly things I choose to acknowledge the one responsible for it all. I could've sat back wondering all my life, waiting for someone to bottle up some tangible proof of God or defy logic and take a leap of faith.
knew inside that there was more to life than that. Instead of worshiping myself or other worldly things I choose to acknowledge the one responsible for it all. I could've sat back wondering all my life, waiting for someone to bottle up some tangible proof of God or defy logic and take a leap of faith.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:48:06 GMT
I'm not sure that I qualify to answer this question, since I'm not Christian. I do believe in God, however, and I am a science-minded person. I believe that the Big Bang was the start of the universe, not Creation as described in the bible (which, as far as I can tell, is genetically impossible). However, I believe that God caused the Big Bang, simply because that makes more sense to me than "there was nothing, and then it exploded". The problem with scientific analysis is that no theory can be proven. Scientists can never say "this is definitely the right explanation, and it will always be correct forever and ever until the end of the universe." It's entirely possible to disprove theories (all it takes is a repeatable observation that conflicts with that theory), but no matter how many examples one has to support a theory, it can still be disproven. So, has the theory of God been disproven? Has the theory that God does not exist been disproven? Unless someone can come up with a testable observation that either confirms God's existence or disproves it, can anyone say for sure that God does or does not exist? The answer to all three questions is "no". While it may seem entirely likely to some that God does not exist, to say for sure that he doesn't is entirely against the science used by many to support this position, since scientific theories can never be proven for all time in the first place. I'm not trying to say that you're beliefs are wrong, I'm just saying that there's currently no direct evidence against God's existence (although, I'd love to be corrected on this if you've found some).
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:48:11 GMT
I don't choose faith over science. I very much accept science, Heck, I have a Master's of Science degree (Occupational Therapy if you're curious). So I've read many things about biology, medicine, physiology, psychology, neuroanatomy, and (a little) earth science, astronomy, chemistry, and physics in high school and/or undergrad. I still believe in God. I see the physical and spiritual worlds as parallels. I don't think we can prove in this world what exists in a different one.
science will advance enough that one day we can. I don't accept that everything happened so randomly and is so complex without some guidance. I also worked in a nursing home for 9 years, seen a lot of people die.
is something about death that I really can't describe, that makes me think there is something there.
are my personal reasons, everyone is different though. I don't see the necessity of a divide.
again, I don't take everything in the Bible literally, so that does affect my understanding of the two.
Bible is not a science textbook! It was never intended to be! If anything, God intended the Bible to be a way for man to understand things, but not every detail of it. Thousands of years ago, man wouldn't have understood theorys such as evolution and things like molecules, so why bother to explain them? It wasn't necessary. I understand why people are atheist. Especially those who are very science driven and can't accept things without physical, tangible evidence. I am willing to take it on a little faith. I know that growing up Christian affects that as well. I don't believe everything that the religion I grew up in says, but ultimately, I still believe.
science will advance enough that one day we can. I don't accept that everything happened so randomly and is so complex without some guidance. I also worked in a nursing home for 9 years, seen a lot of people die.
is something about death that I really can't describe, that makes me think there is something there.
are my personal reasons, everyone is different though. I don't see the necessity of a divide.
again, I don't take everything in the Bible literally, so that does affect my understanding of the two.
Bible is not a science textbook! It was never intended to be! If anything, God intended the Bible to be a way for man to understand things, but not every detail of it. Thousands of years ago, man wouldn't have understood theorys such as evolution and things like molecules, so why bother to explain them? It wasn't necessary. I understand why people are atheist. Especially those who are very science driven and can't accept things without physical, tangible evidence. I am willing to take it on a little faith. I know that growing up Christian affects that as well. I don't believe everything that the religion I grew up in says, but ultimately, I still believe.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:52:11 GMT
It is not just the Bible that we base our faith in. It is our daily walk where we see the work of God in the world.
just the creation, but in the workings of our lives. I wasn't raised in the church. I came to my own conclusions. I challenged and doubted, and dissed, just like many in this forum. I learned life lessons long before I saw them explained in the Bible.
I was younger and would read the Bible I would think, oh yeah well what about this or that.
when I understood the Bible I simply said. Oh now I get it.
Bible didn't lead me to God, God led me to the Bible. PS I wouldn't have a go at you because I perceive you to simply be ignorant, just as I do not think you are poking fun at us because many perceive us as idiots.
said. "You did not choose me, I chose you." Maybe that means that many atheist are simply not chosen.
can live their life by their methods and die.
that mean torment and anguish for all eternity? I hope not but it might. It might also mean nothingness for all eternity. I would rather have fellowship with a loving God and fellow believers.
that is just me.
just the creation, but in the workings of our lives. I wasn't raised in the church. I came to my own conclusions. I challenged and doubted, and dissed, just like many in this forum. I learned life lessons long before I saw them explained in the Bible.
I was younger and would read the Bible I would think, oh yeah well what about this or that.
when I understood the Bible I simply said. Oh now I get it.
Bible didn't lead me to God, God led me to the Bible. PS I wouldn't have a go at you because I perceive you to simply be ignorant, just as I do not think you are poking fun at us because many perceive us as idiots.
said. "You did not choose me, I chose you." Maybe that means that many atheist are simply not chosen.
can live their life by their methods and die.
that mean torment and anguish for all eternity? I hope not but it might. It might also mean nothingness for all eternity. I would rather have fellowship with a loving God and fellow believers.
that is just me.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:24:35 GMT
prophecy is empirically verifiable, especially the time prophecies.
it come to pass? was it written beforehand? see, you can verify this.
amazing time prophecy relates to the rebirth of israel as a nation. ezekiel gave the exact day over 2000 years beforehand. we can prove it was written beforehand. we can show how it comes out to be the feast of seven sevens day of pentecost 1948 (you have to swap between calenders, account for the bc ad change etc). we can go visit this country to verify that it is in fact there. actually, with over 90% of the thousands of prophecies already fulfilled, we require very little faith to believe that the remainder will be fulfilled exactly as written.
when you see damascus reduced to rubble in one hour, know it is time to turn to god, and be saved.
it come to pass? was it written beforehand? see, you can verify this.
amazing time prophecy relates to the rebirth of israel as a nation. ezekiel gave the exact day over 2000 years beforehand. we can prove it was written beforehand. we can show how it comes out to be the feast of seven sevens day of pentecost 1948 (you have to swap between calenders, account for the bc ad change etc). we can go visit this country to verify that it is in fact there. actually, with over 90% of the thousands of prophecies already fulfilled, we require very little faith to believe that the remainder will be fulfilled exactly as written.
when you see damascus reduced to rubble in one hour, know it is time to turn to god, and be saved.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 04:25:29 GMT