1730 replies to this topic

[Halcyon]

Nope. Used to believe, or at least just classified myself as a believer since it was expected of me. Until one night in bed when I couldn't sleep, I just started to think about it then it all began to turn into bullshit right in front of me.

 

@Lenaryle The Conjuring was 'based on a true story' my ass. Or any other 'paranormal, based on a true story' story for that matter. Human senses can be really unreliable and stories can be so ridiculously exaggerated. They have no proof except for their claims based upon other people's claims. The Conjuring was just another cliche horror film except with a higher budget. 

[Kaddict]

I do. I am a deeply scientific person as well. The more I research, the more confident I feel science fits in with it (not creationism etc. Most religious people are uneducated lunatics that give the rest of us a bad name).

[redlion]

I do. I am a deeply scientific person as well. The more I research, the more confident I feel science fits in with it (not creationism etc. Most religious people are uneducated lunatics that give the rest of us a bad name).

Just because you posted in a ridiculously charged topic... how do you square those two beliefs?

Like if you believe in natural selection and biological evolution, how does a creator god make sense?

[Kaddict]

Creationists are silly. Matter cant be created or destroyed. Even by God. I feel that God organized the Universe, using natural laws of physics etc. Not by magic. I feel he has a hand in things, put things in motion, and once things are in motion, for the most part, they take care of themselves. That is an oversimplification and probably just confused anyone more than it clarified...

[Sweeney]

Creationists are silly. Matter cant be created or destroyed. Even by God. I feel that God organized the Universe, using natural laws of physics etc. Not by magic. I feel he has a hand in things, put things in motion, and once things are in motion, for the most part, they take care of themselves. That is an oversimplification and probably just confused anyone more than it clarified...

 

Why would you believe a proposition for which there is no evidence?

[Kaddict]

What is found in the BIble is full of "evidence.' But I feel all sorts of quantum weirdness point to a supreme being. There is no evidence saying there is no God. There is no evidence of life on other planets, but everyone would have to agree there is life out there, right?

[Frizzle]

What is the Bible's take on sociological decline of Western society?

The bibles take on string theory?

The bibles take chaos theory?

It doesn't. Because it's not evidence and has no bearing on the 21st Century.

[Dan]

 There is no evidence of life on other planets, but everyone would have to agree there is life out there, right?

 

No, I'm pretty sure any scientist worth their weight would probably tell you that life existing on other planets is likely based on the evidence we have.

 

What evidence do you have that God does / might / did exist?

[Kaddict]

We literally have zero evidence of intelligent life on other planets. SETI estimates that we will have some evidence in the next 50 years, but that is purely based on statistics, which is not evidence. The Bible itself doesn't take on string/chaos theory, but it wasn't meant to. It was meant to share personal belief and experiences of a God. I have found that religion does compensate for string/quantum/chaos/relativity in my own personal study of religion. For instance, I recently have postulated that everything has some degree of free will, down to electrons and quarks etc. This to me feels good as a scientist and a student of religion.

[Sweeney]

We literally have zero evidence of intelligent life on other planets. SETI estimates that we will have some evidence in the next 50 years, but that is purely based on statistics, which is not evidence. The Bible itself doesn't take on string/chaos theory, but it wasn't meant to. It was meant to share personal belief and experiences of a God. I have found that religion does compensate for string/quantum/chaos/relativity in my own personal study of religion. For instance, I recently have postulated that everything has some degree of free will, down to electrons and quarks etc. This to me feels good as a scientist and a student of religion.

You are not a scientist.

[Kaddict]

I have my BS and am currently working on my MD. That makes me a scientist... you don't need a garbage phD to hold that claim. I could do a MD/PhD progarm at my school, but that is a complete waste of time

[Clutch]

Yes, I believe in God.

[Sweeney]

I have my BS and am currently working on my MD. That makes me a scientist... you don't need a garbage phD to hold that claim. I could do a MD/PhD progarm at my school, but that is a complete waste of time

A Batchelors in what?
Doctors are not necessarily scientists.

I would be quite confident in saying that if you can seriously take the Bible as evidence on a scientific question, you have no place anywhere near a research lab of any kind.

[Kaddict]

I didnt say scientific evidence. Courts provide evidence from witnesses, which is essentially what the Bible is. Bachelor was done in Biology and Chemistry. And yes, all GOOD doctors are scientists.

[Sweeney]

I didnt say scientific evidence. Courts provide evidence from witnesses, which is essentially what the Bible is. Bachelor was done in Biology and Chemistry. And yes, all GOOD doctors are scientists.

I apologise, I thought my meaning was clear. I was talking purely about empirical, verifiable, scientific evidence.
But that aside, let's be honest, no court would take the contents of a two-thousand year old text as evidence for anything.

Perhaps we should get specific.

What proposition do you find evidence for in the bible that affects the way you choose to live your life today?

[Kaddict]

I think it is a great social text that would improve people's lives and that of society in general if we lived by it's teachings. That aside, not everyone who reads the bible is good and vice versa. But Sweeney, I have the same flaw you do. I too often feel that science is the only field that can back up with "fact." While I feel it is probably the most improtant (bc I am biased) other specialties can used evidence. Also, accounts and witnesses can be used in court much later. Cold case files often bring these up. Granted, that is usually 50 years vs 2000-7000 years. 

[Sweeney]

I think it is a great social text that would improve people's lives and that of society in general if we lived by it's teachings. That aside, not everyone who reads the bible is good and vice versa. But Sweeney, I have the same flaw you do. I too often feel that science is the only field that can back up with "fact." While I feel it is probably the most improtant (bc I am biased) other specialties can used evidence. Also, accounts and witnesses can be used in court much later. Cold case files often bring these up. Granted, that is usually 50 years vs 2000-7000 years.

*blink*

Being a great social text doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it necessary. None of the worthwhile lessons in the bible are unique, or even originally from that text.
I asked you for specifics, and you give me "it is a great social text"?

Please don't project your flaws onto me. I did not say that science is the only field that uses evidence, I said that I was talking about that kind of evidence.

[Kaddict]

Religion has never been about finding empirical evidence. In fact, fools (religious and in science) have felt for centuries that they cannot coexist. Something that affects the way I live my life is most of what JC taught (do unto others what you would have them do to you etc). 

[Sweeney]

Religion has never been about finding empirical evidence. In fact, fools (religious and in science) have felt for centuries that they cannot coexist. Something that affects the way I live my life is most of what JC taught (do unto others what you would have them do to you etc).

So, what you're saying is that you choose to believe that something without evidence is actually true.

Why?

[Kaddict]

There has been significant evidence saying the bible was written when and by whom it claims to be written. But no scientific evidence has persuaded me, no. It has built upon my opinion, as science has built upon your opinion. Science cannot disprove God, so why choose to disbelieve so vehemently that God doesn't exist when there is no evidence that he doesn't? At least there are testimonies of his existence through visions and whatnot.

[Sweeney]

There has been significant evidence saying the bible was written when and by whom it claims to be written. But no scientific evidence has persuaded me, no. It has built upon my opinion, as science has built upon your opinion. Science cannot disprove God, so why choose to disbelieve so vehemently that God doesn't exist when there is no evidence that he doesn't? At least there are testimonies of his existence through visions and whatnot.

For every testimony of the Christian, biblical God, you can find an equal testimony for any other god you care to mention. "Visions and whatnot" are nonsense - they don't mean anything regarding the existence of what is claimed to have been seen.

So I ask you again. Why?
I am beginning to think you don't actually know why you chose to believe in the Christian God.

[Kaddict]

I do, I just choose not to get into it online, bc it isn't going to convince anyone. For the same reasons, I avoid politics on facebook. The original question, is do you believe in God. Google the word believe for me.

[Sweeney]

I do, I just choose not to get into it online, bc it isn't going to convince anyone. For the same reasons, I avoid politics on facebook. The original question, is do you believe in God. Google the word believe for me.

This is the debate section. If you're not interested in having a conversation about a topic, don't post in it.

[Kaddict]

I do like having conversations. I am just judging my necessary use of time to get my full point across will not be worth it. Also, still want you to tell me what believe means before you demand that any christian provide proof for their beliefs....

[Sweeney]

I do like having conversations. I am just judging my necessary use of time to get my full point across will not be worth it. Also, still want you to tell me what believe means before you demand that any christian provide proof for their beliefs....

You don't need me to tell you what belief is. And I don't need to look up a dictionary definition of belief.

It might be wise to go back and see if you can find the post where I "demand[ed] proof". Because, of course, it doesn't exist. I'm asking you why you chose to believe without evidence, why you chose Christianity over other religions, and how you reconcile a belief that God interferes in the "natural order" with a career in the sciences.