There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science

[Dywyddyr]

When a Christian asks you to believe in God and preaches the Gospel etc to you, they are offering you a hope in Eternal Life.

Huh? What "eternal life"?

1. What is it you are offering to us when you ask us NOT to believe?

Who said I was "offering" anything? I asking what justification (in the real world) there is for holding such a belief.

2. What advantage(s) does belief in NO God offer?

Let me reverse that: what does accepting belief offer? Nothing provable. All you get (so far as can be shown) is the comfort (and self-satisfaction in many cases) derived from that belief. All I'm asking is WHY should I believe.

3. Why is Rejection of God better than Acceptance of God?

Why is the rejection of unicorns better than acceptance of same?

4. Why is Hopelessness (No afterlife) better than Hopefulness (glorious afterlife)?

Hopelessness? My, you are uninformed. Granted your belief gives the (unsupported) hope that you will have an afterlife. It also diverts, to some extent, from getting on with your life here and now. My lack of belief frees me to concentrate on what, so far as I can see, actually is. As one example, try reading Adstar's posts - now there's a guy who has said, more than once, that he considers life to be virtually worthless and that he can't wait for "Heaven". Is that a rational way to go through life?

I am a simple believer in God, because it makes no sense to me NOT to believe in God.

I am an unbeliever because it makes no sense to me to believe in something for which I have seen no evidence.

I am a Christian because Christianity, built upon Love, makes more sense than any other faith that I have looked at.

I haven't come across a faith that does make sense.

So tell me - What does the "faith of Atheism" offer that is not found in a "faith of theism".

There is no "faith of atheism" - one more time: atheism is a lack of belief due to lack of evidence for that belief.

Most forms of belief in God, particularly Judeo/Christian belief, whether right or wrong, offers the Hope of salvation and an eternal life of happiness. What can Atheism offer me except the grave?

So basically you're 'saying you believe because you can't face the thought of non-existence.
To paraphrase Mark Twain: "I didn't exist for millions of years before I was born and it didn't affect me in the slightest"

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

You've made no ground with your links.
"Law" is "law", a set of rules and guidelines, in which transgression carries penalties. The law of science is another set of observation of laws (genre-related) which are set.

The reason why you are so set on creating differences is because
you know that if there is a law, then there is a law-giver, and such logic
gives rise to God, or some intelligent mind in control of the universe.


This is why I regard your type of mindset dangerous. You will do anything
to discredit God.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You've made no ground with your links.
"Law" is "law", a set of rules and guidelines, in which transgression carries penalties. The law of science is another set of observation of laws (genre-related) which are set.

Physical laws are not the same, or the equivalent of, "legal" laws. Your statement "Law is law" in this context is factually incorrect.

The reason why you are so set on creating differences is because
you know that if there is a law, then there is a law-giver, and such logic
gives rise to God, or some intelligent mind in control of the universe.

Unfortunately there are (at least) two problems with that:
1) I am not "creating the difference" those differences are documented and I had no hand in that documentation. Many centuries of human thought have gone into those differences and how and why they are different. Your persistent and wilful ignorance won't alter the facts.
2) The "logic" is flawed since it is based on a false premise and an unsupported assumption.

This is why I regard your type of mindset dangerous. You will do anything to discredit God.

And this is why I find your mindset utterly despicable: you will deny or ignore (or lie about) anything that threatens your unsupported belief simply in order to sustain that belief.

 

[Jan Ardena]

both looking for rules from an outside source.
both trying to justify their own beliefs to the other.
both being guilty of what they claim of the other.
both playing the 'slam' (insult)card against the other.
both claim to be/have 'the' answer.

to me science is knowledge.
Religion (in its ideal form) is wisdom.

the two are not mutually exclusive.

Religion is not a search for truth from outside source, there are established
disciplines that provide information.
The scripture is not interested in justifying its claims to the scientific community.
Science is a tool to find stuff out, it's not system whereby one arrives at the truth, and as such can be content in their lives.

There is no contradiction between God and science, only betwee people of different religious persuasions.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

There is no contradiction between God and science, only betwee people of different religious persuasions.

False.
God itself is an unscientific premise.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan must have given in… to minds not being able to be fundamental, making God impossible.

Theism being wisdom is wizdumb.

Listen, contribute to the thread properly, or just don't bother me.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

False.
God itself is an unscientific premise.

Is the concept of the car a scientific premise?

jan.

 

[gmilam]

"Law" is "law", a set of rules and guidelines, in which transgression carries penalties. The law of science is another set of observation of laws (genre-related) which are set.

So, how does one transgress the laws of nature and what are the penalties?

 

[Jan Ardena]

So, how does one transgress the laws of nature and what are the penalties?

Try and stop your air supply and see what happens.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Is the concept of the car a scientific premise?
jan.

Of course. Or, more specifically, a technological premise.

Try and stop your air supply and see what happens.
jan.

That isn't a transgression of natural laws. In fact the result is supporting evidence of them.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Religion is not a search for truth from outside source,

whether you consider god an outside source or not is up for another discussion,

there are established
disciplines that provide information.

created by man

The scripture is not interested in justifying its claims to the scientific community.

true..it is man who does the justification.

Science is a tool to find stuff out, it's not system whereby one arrives at the truth, and as such can be content in their lives.

this is subjective,some do find god in science..

There is no contradiction between God and science, only betwee people of different religious persuasions.

this is where we would disagree..not with there being any contradiction between science and religion(i believe that also,communicating this is a challenge), but that there should not be any contridictions between religions, i believe there is only one god and the different religions have translated him according to their own needs.i am looking for the common denominator so to speak from all religions, what is it that they agree on? (as opposed to focusing on where they do not agree).

in order to find the common ground from all religions there has to be some sort of protocol, one of which is to encourage the 'think for yourself' perspective which fosters learning as opposed to the 'do as your told' perspective which is inherent in religion and only fosters dissension and wishy washy faith in god.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Of course. Or, more specifically, a technological premise.

Let's look at the two answers you provided;

You say a concept is (Of course) a scientific premise.
Then you say it is a technological premise.
The latter comes into play to realise the former.

That isn't a transgression of natural laws. In fact the result is supporting evidence of them.

It is a transgression because it goes against life on this planet.
Who needs supporting evidence of air being necessary for ones own life, whether you know what air is, or not?

jan.

 

[NMSquirrel]

just an observation dyw, jan ..

you both are guilty of what i call 'little miss can't be wrong' syndrome..
you take it personally when someone intones you are wrong.
this is why neither of you are getting anywhere in your discussion.
but if its any consolation, you are both doing a good job of discussing your perspective issues..

 

[Dywyddyr]

Let's look at the two answers you provided;

Ah, I see you also fail to comprehend that.

You say a concept is (Of course) a scientific premise.
Then you say it is a technological premise.
The latter comes into play to realise the former.

Would that be, do you think*, the reason I used the wording "more specifically"?
How would you comprehend a comment on the lines "Her clothing, more specifically her skirt, was fading in colour"?
What is your point? Do you have one?

It is a transgression because it goes against life on this planet.

No. It is not a "transgression".

Who needs supporting evidence of air being necessary for ones own life, whether you know what air is, or not?

If you'd care to actually read my statement, at no point did I declare that the supporting evidence was required in this instance. I merely stated that the result would be supporting evidence.
Of course, if you don't know what air is then you WILL need supporting evidence. Obviously.

* That's a fair question in its own right.

 

[Dywyddyr]

just an observation dyw, jan ..
you both are guilty of what i call 'little miss can't be wrong' syndrome..
you take it personally when someone intones you are wrong.

I'll repeat the question I asked the last time you made this claim: would you please point out where this is the case with regard to me?
If you find such a case I'll amend it or retract it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

NMSquirrel,

whether you consider god an outside source or not is up for another discussion,

it needn't be though.

created by man

formulated by man, to be precise.

...but there should[/B] not be any contridictions between religions, i believe there is only one god and the different religions have translated him according to their own needs.i am looking for the common denominator so to speak from all religions, what is it that they agree on? (as opposed to focusing on where they do not agree).

Which is why you should reference claims made by religious people, with
scriptures. Religions should be bound by them. If they contradict them, or add/remove stuff, then that should set alarm bells ringing.

...in order to find the common ground from all religions there has to be some sort of protocol, one of which is to encourage the 'think for yourself' perspective which fosters learning as opposed to the 'do as your told' perspective which is inherent in religion and only fosters dissension and wishy washy faith in god.

The common ground is scripture.
This is where you learn about God, plain and simple.

jan.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Which is why you should reference claims made by religious people, with
scriptures. Religions should be bound by them. If they contradict them, or add/remove stuff, then that should set alarm bells ringing.

there is where we will disagree..the bible is a guide book, not a rule book, IMO to view the bible as a rule book takes god out of the equation, (see my take on adam and eve) god gave us the ability to choose, for man to set rules takes the choice away from us thereby negating any god.(why would we need god if we have rules?)

The common ground is scripture.
This is where you learn about God, plain and simple.

this is one way to learn about god..and it is not plain and simple.
btw, i have found the bible valuable in seeking god, so do not think i am trying to invalidate the bible,i just do think the bible should be an excuse to 'do as your told', it is a valuable tool for 'think for yourself'.

 

[Jan Ardena]

there is where we will disagree..the bible is a guide book, not a rule book, IMO to view the bible as a rule book takes god out of the equation, (see my take on adam and eve) god gave us the ability to choose, for man to set rules takes the choice away from us thereby negating any god.(why would we need god if we have rules?)


this is one way to learn about god..and it is not plain and simple.
btw, i have found the bible valuable in seeking god, so do not think i am trying to invalidate the bible,i just do think the bible should be an excuse to 'do as your told', it is a valuable tool for 'think for yourself'.

Forget about rules and regulations for a moment.
If you want to gain some understanding of God then you can find
it in scripture. Otherwise you will try and understand God from your own
perspective. Our own perspective is based on our current position which is
undoubtedly one of ignorance, and selfishness.


Don't limit your search to the bible.


This is thinking for yourself.


jan.

 

[GeoffP]

*********************************************************

Beautiful Poster

To the tune of "Beautiful loser" (Bob Seger)

Runs 'round the forums like a hard man
Fronts the wisdom of an old hand
Got the new Norton Security
Floats like a sailor in a urine sea

Beautiful poster
When you gonna fall?
You should realize
He's just not ever wrong

Been on the forums since I don't know when
If you post, posts right back again
Never willing to be second-best
Gotta get his viewpoint off his chest

Beautiful poster
Read his Facebook wall
And realize
You just can't win at all
He must be ten foot tall

You just can't win at all
Ohh, ohh, can't win at all
You can try, you can cry, but you can't win at all
Oh yeah

Always makes lots of enemies, enemies (yaw)
Won't admit if he's banned for a week (naw)
Seems real nice, then kick in the teeth

Beautiful poster
Never take a fa-a-all
It's just easier
Bang your head against a wall
You just can't win at all
You just can't win at all

You just can't win at all

Maybe I'll go out to the mall

*********************************************************

Eh. Mea culpa.

 

[gmilam]

Try and stop your air supply and see what happens.

jan.

:bugeye:

Although we require oxygen, breathing is not a law of nature. And your half hearted attempt at evasion is duly noted.