From time to time people of this board have used their religious beliefs to support their position. A couple of examples are God created us in his image, not the other way around, or those who do not believe are also the Anti-Christ.
Like I have said many times before I think that most if not all religions are nothing more than religious mythology. I would include in this my belief in Mother Nature, After all science has disproved the religion of Mother Nature as it has disproven the other religions. I must clarify in that science believes in the laws of Nature, but not in some God controlling the laws of nature. Science has proven that God simply is not necessary to explain the universe.

As such you can use your religious mythology in your arguments all you want, But those arguments will have absolutely no sway on me. Because arguments based on religious mythology is nothing more then nonsense as far as I am concerned.

I must clarify in that science believes in the laws of Nature


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

no, really...science ..................believes?

Well it is not so much a believe, but rather an understanding of the laws of nature as have been found out by the scientific method.

After all a scientist does not believe in gravity, he simply knows about gravity as being a scientific construct for explaining why we do not float off the face of the earth.

Science has proven that God simply is not necessary to explain the universe.

   Right.  What a sunset does to the human spirit is nothing more than light refracted by airborne particulate.  Mozart is nothing more than columns of air, vibrating a membrane of skin.  Van Gogh is random smears of pigment suspended in oil on a piece of canvas.  You have your world, I have mine.

gus.

 

 

 

 

True, but you do not find me using my god of mother nature to prove a point of some arguement. Although I will refer to science for proof.

You are entitled to your believe in this world, and because of freedom of speech you have a right to use your believe in your arguements. I am just saying if you bring up any of Christianities constructs as an arguement to support your position on some issue, you might as well be spouting, Greek, Roman, or the God of Mother Nature, mythology as far as I am concerned.

After all a scientist does not believe in gravity, he simply knows about gravity as being a scientific construct for explaining why we do not float off the face of the earth.

   Why is it a scientific construct when there is no scientific explaination for it?  You're saying it exists, so it must be therefore scientific?  Isn't that somewhat of a rash presumption, presented only to support your *theory* of a wholly scientific universe?  What other choice is there, really, but to "believe" in gravity?

gus.

 

 

You are entitled to your believe in this world, and because of freedom of speech you have a right to use your believe in your arguements. I am just saying if you bring up any of Christianities constructs as an arguement to support your position on some issue, you might as well be spouting, Greek, Roman, or the God of Mother Nature, mythology as far as I am concerned.

   I don't have an arguement with that.  And I don't support political positions with religious beliefs or opinions, other than that of the inalienable rights of the individual, which is the cornerstone of my politics in the first place.

gus.

 

 

Gravity is a scientific fact, not a belief. In that respect I do not believe in Gravity. I just know about gravity.

Gravity is a scientific fact, not a belief. In that respect I do not believe in Gravity. I just know about gravity.

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


you do?

then how did it originate?

or is it in your "scientific fact book " that it always existed (infinite)?

if the latter is the "fact" how is that "proven, scientifically, as fact"?

if the former is the "fact" (that it had an origin)

what is that origin?

and what was there before the origin of gravity?

show me the science proving that.

i ask this of you because

"you know gravity"

if you have not actually done the physics equasions yourself that "prove" gravity , aren't you relying on "belief " that the ones who actually did the math...are telling you the "facts" or (truth) [two different things actually : fact/truth]

isnt it true that you must have faith in either the math or the person doing the math in order to say that it is fact?

unless you have omnipotent powers of understanding of all physical and mathematical /chemical portions of the universe ...isn't some of what you believe to be fact....actually baised on your "faith" in the correctness of the data (that you did not actually assemble yourself)
and the correctness of the equations (which you did not actually formulate from origin yourself)?

there must be some "faith" for you to conceptualize any complicated thing

my faith is in a designer....
primarily because the designs are too complicated and intricate and interdependent to have "randomly occurred from the void of nothing"

and if there was only a "big bang" to create the universe....what was before the "big bang"?...and where was it....and where did the material for the "big bang" come from...before it existed?


since (i am assuming) that gravity played an integral part in the "big bang"...how was this formed from infinite void/nothing?

(i ask you, fiscon) since you "know gravity"

Sigh ...

Science is the systematic study of nature. Hence, by definition, it does not deal with the supernatural. It can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or gods.

Scientists do indeed use the word "believe" in talking about current understanding, but the important distinction here is that in science, all understanding is contingent upon evidence. Thus scientists form hypotheses, test and refine those hypotheses, and if they hold up well then they say the "believe" those hypotheses. But science always stands ready to have new evidence invalidate any standing theory. That's a very different thing from the religious meaning of "believe" which implies faith - i.e. holding an idea even in the absence of evidence or the existence of contradictory evidence.

I suppose we could all conduct the experiments before determining that a scientific finding is more than a belief or accepted on faith.

The point is that a scientific finding is verifiable. In other words conducting another experiment will result in the same result. Over and over again.

That isn't possible with when dealing with religious beliefs. They are accepted solely on the basis of faith.

faith - i.e. holding an idea even in the absence of evidence or the existence of contradictory evidence.



evidence that "the big bang began the universe from void/nothing....with no material to originate the universe?


contradictory evidence that there is a designer of the very universe you stand in?


**********
and if they hold up well then they say the "believe" those hypotheses


even in the absence of evidence or the existence of contradictory evidence?

Science is the systematic study of nature


but you did not do the entire systematic study yourself...
so you must "have faith" in the people that tell you that their findings are fact...unless you collect the data yourself and run through the entire mathematical process to come to the same conclusions.....

"As such you can use your religious mythology in your arguments all you want, But those arguments will have absolutely no sway on me. Because arguments based on religious mythology is nothing more then nonsense as far as I am concerned."

Yes, oh, sigh. If you're talking to me, you're talking to the wrong person. I am NOT trying to convince you of anything, or scare you into anything. I'm not trying to force you into believing anything. For the umpteenth time, I am stating my beliefs -- period. It's a free country -- at least for now. I choose to believe that "scientific" explanations for many things are also myths.

***********************
I don't know if dead fish go with the
flow or not, but I knew they stink. Try
to avoid becoming one.

Gravity is a scientific fact, not a belief. In that respect I do not believe in Gravity. I just know about gravity.

  No it isn't.  Gravity is nothing more than playing the odds, just like a Vegas bookie.  Very *good* odds, for sure, but it is a bet none the less.

gus.

 

Scientists do indeed use the word "believe" in talking about current understanding, but the important distinction here is that in science, all understanding is contingent upon evidence.

   IOW, they are playing the odds.  Perfectly workable 99.9% of the time.  For example, radio waves are totally undetectable by our senses.  But they do the same things to the machines we have built to detect them, with near perfect dependability.  I can't "prove" radio waves in the traditional sense, but I will bet on them every single time.

  Not all hypothesees are such a safe bet.  There are some far-flung ones out there that are chosen with little more "evidence" than that they appear more plausible than any others.  And we must *always* keep in mind that nature is not bound by our expectations, and has a whole deck of wild cards at her disposal.  Just like how the human mind puts the lie to the smug and incorrect conclusions of the Behaviorists.

 Thus scientists form hypotheses, test and refine those hypotheses, and if they hold up well then they say the "believe" those hypotheses.

   Most of the time, not all of the time.  Does "pure science" exist apart from scientists themselves?  If not, what then constitutes a "pure" scientist?

gus.

 

I don't believe in gravity because I have faith, I believe in gravity because I can see it at work. I can see that everything falls except those things that are lighter than air or that use tremendous amounts of energy to counter the effects of gravity.


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

i believe in God because i have faith AND because i can see the effects of his design and its workings daily

I'd call that the effects of MOTHER NATURE's workings....but then I don't believe in any "god" either.  People invented their "gods" (imo) due to his abject FEAR of death.

PS.....if you believe in "God", gillis, then why do you LIMIT that "God" to a single gender (eg: "him" )?  Christianity teaches that their "God" is omnipotent, so that means that "God" can be ANY gender that he/she/it wishes to be, so WHY do you Christians always limit your "god " to the MALE gender?

As such you can use your religious mythology in your arguments all you want, But those arguments will have absolutely no sway on me. Because arguments based on religious mythology is nothing more then nonsense as far as I am concerned.

There are only a minute number of people on this particular board who use religion as any basis for argument, and that is very seldom.  Feel free to address it when you feel it is necessary. 

~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~

Can I see energy? Can I create energy? Can I destroy energy?

So how do I know it exists. Must be a myth. And gravity must be a myth?

Except those things that I cnnot see or feel or touch are based on loaws that man did not create. Nor can man change those laws. He simply uses other laws to overcome certain laws.(Airplanes do fly despite gravity because other laws permit it. Man did not create those law either. He simply observed them. Does that man=ke them a myth?

Fiscon, there is a law that says, "It is more blessed to give than receive." You observed that law and discover by nature that it is true. (Gravity is a law that works) Now when you read such a law in the Bible, you say you discovered it because it was the law of Nature's God. Well who is Natures God? Are his laws different from the Christian God? How?

Are you going to tell us that wars do not come from man's lust as James said? Whose law is that? Is it the law of Nature? could it be the law given by the Christian God?

Hey, Man's inhumanity to man is the law of nature. That is the law of Natures God as much as any natural law.


=================================

Glenn Beck hates 9/11 survivors. Shocking as Glenn Beck claimed that he hates 9/11 survivors. The Fox news personality and media clown has always been an outrageous demagogue, a pied piper to the illiterate, unwashed masses that make up the Fox news audience. Michael Stone,Examiner.com

I'd call that the effects of MOTHER NATURE's workings....but then I don't believe in any "god" either. People invented their "gods" (imo) due to his abject FEAR of death.

PS.....if you believe in "God", gillis, then why do you LIMIT that "God" to a single gender (eg: "him" )? Christianity teaches that their "God" is omnipotent, so that means that "God" can be ANY gender that he/she/it wishes to be, so WHY do you Christians always limit your "god " to the MALE gender?

you assume that i am christian

but...please


brilliant


what an insightful literate and discerning debater you are....

if only all liberals were as brilliant as you and could articulate the left's position in such a penetrating and deeply perceptive way....

I'd call that the effects of MOTHER NATURE's workings....but then I don't believe in any "god" either. People invented their "gods" (imo) due to his abject FEAR of death.

PS.....if you believe in "God", gillis, then why do you LIMIT that "God" to a single gender

why is it not father nature when YOU refer to "him"?

why limit "mother" nature to female?


what a brilliant genius you seem to be

....the habit that people have of calling "mother" Nature a "mother", gillis.  You can call nature "FATHER Nature" for all I care.  EVERY Christian (real or pseudo) that I know, though, calls their God "HE".

I didn't start.....

any of that myself

but

**********

EVERY Christian (real or pseudo) that I know, though, calls their God "HE".


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

all who call God "He" (or all who believe in God)

are not necessarily christian

..but the ones calling that particular God a "he" in this thread are.

If you don't believe in God or the Bible...what difference does it make what people call HIM? 

~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~

I don't believe in gravity because I have faith, I believe in gravity because I can see it at work. 

I believe in God because I have seen prayers work.  Especially those where no science could explain it. 

~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~

I am NOT trying to convince you of anything, or scare you into anything. I'm not trying to force you into believing anything. For the umpteenth time, I am stating my beliefs -- period. It's a free country -- at least for now. I choose to believe that "scientific" explanations for many things are also myths.

But for many people that is unacceptable.  Unless you believe as they do, you are simply wrong...period. 

~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~

I believe in God because I have seen prayers work.  Especially those where no science could explain it.

I have seen things science does not explain, both good and bad, if there is a God then he is an extremely cruel one and if there isn't then they are just anomalies in how we think that the world should work according to what science knows at this point in time.

Prayers effectiveness has been studied by science. Unfortunetly the last time they tried that experiment. The subjects prayed for had more complications.

To each his own experience. Observations are not always for the scientist--they are for everyone.

Take energy for example. You cannot create it, you cannot destroy it, you don't know where it comes from, but you don't call it a myth.

And there is the wind. Gee, that is energy isn't it. You don't know where it comes from but the vert=y term "spirit" is called a wind.

And it is the spirit that quickens or energizes. It is life.

So if I were a true scientist, I would make observations, and concluded how I can best use those conclusion=s that I am able to draw from such observations.

But would I call them a myth? Well, yes, if my observations are beyond feeling energy and nothing ever quickened my spirit. If I believed that the answers to my prayers were dumb luck and unanswered prayers were the norm. Yes, I could reason such things. And I would reason that it is a dog eat dog world and man has to be enslaved in order to make him safe to live in a civilized society.

I would reason that man is too greedy to share his fruits of labor and he must be made to share with everyone. Man has no compassion for his fellow man, and I would realize that only socialism, communism, liberalism, and Nazism and all dictatorships can control the destiny of man.

=================================

Glenn Beck hates 9/11 survivors. Shocking as Glenn Beck claimed that he hates 9/11 survivors. The Fox news personality and media clown has always been an outrageous demagogue, a pied piper to the illiterate, unwashed masses that make up the Fox news audience. Michael Stone,Examiner.com

"The subjects prayed for had more complications"

If you would rather not have prayers said for you when you are ill or disabled, that's fine. No one is going to force them on you. But as for me, if I'm sick or disabled, I want Christians praying for me. I say "Christians", because I know who they pray to. I don't know who some of the others pray to.

Over the years I've seen many posts on these message boards from people who were ill or facing some kind of crisis in their lives. Most of the responses have been from people who said they would pray for them; some from people who light candles or send "vibes". Whatever. I've never seen anyone who has been offered prayers refuse them for fear they would get worse.

***********************
I don't know if dead fish go with the
flow or not, but I knew they stink. Try
to avoid becoming one.

Good post, Barbara. I want people who are expecting answers to prayers to pray for me. I don't want any doubters ofr unbelievers. Just those who know God will answer those prayers.

And I don't want to pray for anyone who lacks the faith to receive the answer to prayers.

Faith is the key.

=================================

Glenn Beck hates 9/11 survivors. Shocking as Glenn Beck claimed that he hates 9/11 survivors. The Fox news personality and media clown has always been an outrageous demagogue, a pied piper to the illiterate, unwashed masses that make up the Fox news audience. Michael Stone,Examiner.com

Prayers effectiveness has been studied by science. Unfortunetly the last time they tried that experiment. The subjects prayed for had more complications.

Wow that is a new one on me.  How did they measure that?   How did they know who really prayed and didn't?  Which "God" did they use?  That doesn't add trust in the Global warming science.....

~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~

Science and religion can coexist.

Individuals often refer to the Bible as containing the "word" of God.

Isn't it really the religious leaders at the time of the books writing interpretation of what they believe God's word was or is? Some writings were excluded intentionally. Why were they excluded? Because they didn't agree with what the religious leaders at that time wished to include? Or because they weren't considered relevant?

Just who are you trying to convince....us or yourself?

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

"Coincidence is a God scheduled opportunity."
Scott Hamilton

"Better to do something imperfectly than to do nothing flawlessly." --Robert Schuller

True.....
September 20 2009, 7:41 PM

..but the ones calling that particular God a "he" in this thread are.


you don't know that

mythology

if the "science" you believe in is not performed by you,personally
then you take it on faith that the equations are correct by allowing a "scientist " ( or group of them )that you trust to do the math for you and to collect the data for you


that is faith in their work...because they say that you can repeat the experiment

faith in the unproven beliefs of others is the same mythology that you accuse of religious beliefs isn't it?

the people that i have met in my lifetime who have faith in God (mostly jews and christians)are happier
more grounded in their lives
more compassionate to others
more selfless
less "crazy" about themselves and the world around them


there are exceptions (tv evangelists may be on the nutty side)

but the vast majority are by and large more content and less belligerent to others


look at this board for example

the people claiming faith are far less likely (but not immune) to calling people assholes and cursing and personally attacking those who disagree..../ true people lose patience from time to time
but as a general average...the ones here that seem to be quick to attack personally and curse people out who think differently are not those who build on God when the discussion turns to judeo christian subjects

Maybe she's black.

Hmmm, Riela, sounds like you've been reading "The Shack".

***********************
I don't know if dead fish go with the
flow or not, but I knew they stink. Try
to avoid becoming one.

or steven king's "the stand"
one of my favorites

Ah, yes, "The Stand" Mother Abigail.

***********************
I don't know if dead fish go with the
flow or not, but I knew they stink. Try
to avoid becoming one.

True.....
September 20 2009, 7:41 PM

..but the ones calling that particular God a "he" in this thread are.


you don't know that

Yes, I do.

or steven king's "the stand"
one of my favorites

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

Well, this is my turn to agree with you. 

His best, by far.  In fact, I think I will read it again.  What a story.

Jim...

the people claiming faith are far less likely (but not immune) to calling people assholes and cursing and personally attacking those who disagree..../ true people lose patience from time to time
but as a general average...the ones here that seem to be quick to attack personally and curse people out who think differently are not those who build on God when the discussion turns to judeo christian subjects

Actually I see things just the opposite. Those on the board who claim to be the most religious appear to be rigid and very attacking in their nature.

Nothing at all like most of those I know outside the internet.

The point is that being religious doesn't seem to change the basic nature of the individual. If they are an asshole they remain an asshole.

AJC says: Actually I see things just the opposite. Those on the board who claim to be the most religious appear to be rigid and very attacking in their nature.

Nothing at all like most of those I know outside the internet.

The point is that being religious doesn't seem to change the basic nature of the individual. If they are an asshole they remain an asshole.



I totally agree with AJC on this.

Religion is myth.  The thread started out that way, and it ends that way.  Sigh!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are all equal, but we definitely are not the same"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually I see things just the opposite. Those on the board who claim to be the most religious appear to be rigid and very attacking in their nature.

 

I agree with AJ....with a couple of exceptions.  Altho most of the *religious* people here don't cuss, that is no excuse for their apparent nastiness and hatred.

America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.

Barack Obama
Acceptance Speech at Democratic Convention Aug 28th 2008

True.....
September 20 2009, 7:41 PM

..but the ones calling that particular God a "he" in this thread are.


you don't know that

Yes, I do.


NO.....YOU DON'T

as usual...wrong ...again

You Psychology majors should recognize the sydrome. Hey, if you disagree with Obama, it is hate. If you disagree with a liberal, it is hate. If you disagree with a conservative, it is hate.

Are you really unable to see what you are? But who calls names? That is where one can determine the one who actually hates because his/her argument is flawed; therefore, your ego is damaged and you are hated.

OK, Psychologists, tell us about that. Can y0ou not see the primitive cave man acting in your own lives.

=================================

Glenn Beck hates 9/11 survivors. Shocking as Glenn Beck claimed that he hates 9/11 survivors. The Fox news personality and media clown has always been an outrageous demagogue, a pied piper to the illiterate, unwashed masses that make up the Fox news audience. Michael Stone,Examiner.com