Posts: 6896
Threads: 89
Joined: January 13, 2013
Reputation:
116
RE: Science and religion
March 31, 2013 at 5:21 am
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!
Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
Quote:Some people deserve hell.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
![[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]](https://66.media.tumblr.com/5fb74c6d16622fb3dbb358509c9aec03/tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif)
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Science and religion
March 31, 2013 at 6:12 am
Basically, atheists only pretend at it. Or have subjective morality, which is the same as having none at all, or 'sheep mode'. :p
Posts: 12512
Threads: 202
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
107
RE: Science and religion
March 31, 2013 at 6:13 am
Pot meet kettle fr0d0
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Posts: 7180
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Science and religion
March 31, 2013 at 7:54 am
(March 31, 2013 at 5:21 am)missluckie26 Wrote: Sooooo you guys want to help me wrap my mind around morality? I need enlightenment.
All morals are subjective. The only question being who you crib all or most of yours from.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 548
Threads: 13
Joined: March 12, 2013
Reputation:
7
RE: Science and religion
March 31, 2013 at 7:56 am
(March 31, 2013 at 6:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Basically, atheists only pretend at it. Or have subjective morality, which is the same as having none at all, or 'sheep mode'. :p
Whilst I reject this notion, I still say it's better than getting morals from a God... Or the bible.
(March 30, 2013 at 9:51 pm)ThatMuslimGuy2 Wrote: Never read anything immoral in the Qur'an.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: March 31, 2013
Reputation:
0
RE: Science and religion
March 31, 2013 at 8:02 am
(March 17, 2013 at 6:57 pm)sarcasticface Wrote: Hello. 
I'm in the process of finding out what I believe. I still go to a Christian church even though I don't believe in the bible anymore. So today the pastor was saying how science and the bible go hand in hand, but science hasn't yet caught up with the bible. When I heard him say this I could hardly wait to get home and find out what you guys had to say. 
I don't know anything about science, so I would love to get suggestions on videos, articles, blogs, or books about how religion and science go together OR how they DON'T go together. I just want to do my research. Do science and other religions (besides Christianity) match up? Science and the Quran?
Please share. I am but a sponge ready to soak up your knowledge.
I have no knowledge of God....and there is a lack of any evidence about God that means anything to a thinking being......
religious people need the comfort of these fairy tales.........it's time humanity grew up...and equated religion with ' faries at the bottom of the garden'.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Science and religion
March 31, 2013 at 9:08 am
(March 31, 2013 at 8:02 am)pazy Wrote: I have no knowledge of God....and there is a lack of any evidence about God that means us people need the comfort of these fairy tales.........it's time humanity grew up...and equated religion with ' faries at the bottom of the garden'.
Humanity already 'grew up' and became willfully ignorant. Take a look around.
Posts: 682
Threads: 37
Joined: January 7, 2013
Reputation:
5
RE: Science and religion
April 2, 2013 at 12:56 pm
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2013 at 1:20 pm by A_Nony_Mouse.)
Posts: 682
Threads: 37
Joined: January 7, 2013
Reputation:
5
RE: Science and religion
April 2, 2013 at 6:39 pm
(March 17, 2013 at 10:18 pm)jstrodel Wrote: ...
But people have been interpreting Genesis non-literally for thousands of years. Your are presupposing that Genesis actually teaches a Young Earth. There are actually two stories in Genesis, Adam's name means simply man and there are other textual clues that say that that Genesis could be understood non-literally. You want Genesis to teach a Young Earth so you can say that science disproves Christianity, but you don't care about the many people such as the 48% of seminary professors that accept evolutionary theory and don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
...
Rather as miracles are magic and therefore impossible none of the books of the OT pass the giggle test long before invoking science. The reality that everyone learns while growing up and learning fairy tales are just that says they are all fantasy.
Posts: 1062
Threads: 9
Joined: March 1, 2013
Reputation:
6
RE: Science and religion
April 2, 2013 at 10:53 pm
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2013 at 10:59 pm by jstrodel.)
"Miracles are magic therefore impossible" is this supposed to be an argument? It is not self evident that magic is impossible. You are using psuedo-logic terminology.
You havn't disproved the existence of miracles and you won't. You assume that everything must be scientifically proven for it to be true, but you don't argue this, you assume it.
Babylonian astronomy is nothing like modern science, which trces back to Christian Europe. You are pulling anything you can to ignore the obvious roots that science has in Europe and America.
There is nothing wrong with using wikipedia as a source the way that I did, and the list of thinkers it mentions are real. You can find their biographies elsewhere.
It is not fallacious to mention the fact that many, probably most scientists in history believed in some form of God, including some of the most important ones. Obviously that does not prove the existence of God, but in your black and white world, everything either gives absolute proof of something, or it is a fallacy. This is how atheists think, everything is black and white.
If you don't think it is significant that there have been millions of scientists who do not believe the scientific method conflicts with miracles, you are just a dishonest, proud person and there is really no reason to reason with you. If you can't see the difference between providing a piece of evidence and making a formal argument, you are brainwashed by psuedo-intellectual atheist propaganda.
|
