100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Science backs religion | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Fact #1: The biblical mythology of the God of Abraham proclaims that mankind's "fall from grace" is what brought death and imperfection into the world.
Fact #2: Science has confirmed via overwhelming evidence that death and imperfection existed long before mankind evolved. Only possible conclusion: Science and biblical mythology are forever totally incompatible and can never be reconciled. The mythological "God of Abraham" is necessarily every bit of a myth as his Greek counterpart Zeus. There's no getting around it. This has been scientifically verified as I have just outlined above. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fact #1: The biblical mythology of the God of Abraham proclaims that mankind's "fall from grace" is what brought death and imperfection into the world. Fact #2: Science has confirmed via overwhelming evidence that death and imperfection existed long before mankind evolved. Only possible conclusion: Science and biblical mythology are forever totally incompatible and can never be reconciled. The mythological "God of Abraham" is necessarily every bit of a myth as his Greek counterpart Zeus. There's no getting around it. This has been scientifically verified as I have just outlined above. James; Science has not "proven" with any evidence that death existed before man - it has only confirmed by the overwhelming majority of scien-TISTS - that their PERCEPTION is that. Demonstrating that in a secular world, truth can be established by a mere majority consenses. And these people are called "intelligent". I'm curious as to what your argument is to support your second statement that differentialtes it from the first. And I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to get it right, 'cause you're going to be at it a LONG TIME before anything "EVIDENTIARY" is acceptable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Sat 02/06/10 04:44 PM
|
|
Eljay Wrote: Science has not "proven" with any evidence that death existed before man - it has only confirmed by the overwhelming majority of scien-TISTS - that their PERCEPTION is that. If it's your stance that science is nothing more than an opinionated club of random people voicing their PERCEPTIONS, then I suppose I would need to agree with your view. However, since I don't view science as such, I see no merit in your view. Moreover, it appears that my conclusion that science and biblical mythology are indeed incompatible still holds. All you're doing here is attempting to denounce the merit of the scientific observations. So your just denying the merit of science in that case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James; Science has not "proven" with any evidence that death existed before man - it has only confirmed by the overwhelming majority of scien-TISTS - that their PERCEPTION is that. Fine. Then produce a living specimen that has achieved immortality for scientists to examine. Demonstrating that in a secular world, truth can be established by a mere majority consenses. And these people are called "intelligent". I'm curious as to what your argument is to support your second statement that differentialtes it from the first. And I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to get it right, 'cause you're going to be at it a LONG TIME before anything "EVIDENTIARY" is acceptable. The above request is as simple as it is conclusive. No need to obfuscate or damn with ad hominems if you can produce that evidence. Lawyers have a saying: "When arguing a case, if the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When they aren't, bang on the table and shout." -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 02/06/10 08:16 PM
|
|
Fact #1: The biblical mythology of the God of Abraham proclaims that mankind's "fall from grace" is what brought death and imperfection into the world. Fact #2: Science has confirmed via overwhelming evidence that death and imperfection existed long before mankind evolved. Only possible conclusion: Science and biblical mythology are forever totally incompatible and can never be reconciled. The mythological "God of Abraham" is necessarily every bit of a myth as his Greek counterpart Zeus. There's no getting around it. This has been scientifically verified as I have just outlined above. The flaws I see in this is FIRST: What bible and verse claims ALL imperfection and death (as opposed to mans imperfection and death)was brought from a fall of grace? SECOND: By what standard are scientists determining imperfection of things non human? THIRD: As the bible is a book for humans, what evidence is there that there was death of humans before humans existed? (Did the bible actually say plants, for instance, didnt die?) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
two interesting tidbits regarding science and religion,,, from the daily mail in the uk Humans are programmed to believe in God because it gives them a better chance of survival, researchers claim. A study into the way children's brains develop suggests that during the process of evolution those with religious tendencies began to benefit from their beliefs - possibly by working in groups to ensure the future of their community. The findings of Bruce Hood, professor of developmental psychology at Bristol University, suggest that magical and supernatural beliefs are hardwired into our brains from birth, and that religions are therefore tapping into a powerful psychological force. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.html#ixzz0ek3dlqCO ITS HARD WIRED< ITS JUST WHO WE ARE.... and Infamous scientists were members of religion,,,Einstein, Descartes, Galile,Copernicus, and Pasteur to name but a few SO WE ARE IN GOOD (AND ARGUABLY INTELLIGENT AND EDUCATED)COMPANY,, LOL Humans were not programed to believe in a god. Humans are exposed to the belief in god from such a young age they can remember nothing else. Science doesn't care about religion. Science only deals with concrete evidence and verifiable facts. Religion doesn't fall into their realm at all. LOL, this does give me a good laugh though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, that nothing is hardwired but more an environmental correlation. This is actually something that, based on scientific 'research' however,, we have in common with many other 'hardwired' communities.
All things in life are a choice, nothing in our genes makes us capable of only one choice. I was exposed at a young age to SANTA CLAUS as well, but I didnt continue believing in him as I grew older. The bible , Jesus, God,, are all things I was exposed to at a younger age, but werent pounded into my head and I was given the choice to believe or not believe (Id say,, by the age of 7 or 8). I chose to continue in my faith then,, and still do to this day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THIRD: As the bible is a book for humans, what evidence is there that there was death of humans before humans existed? (Did the bible actually say plants, for instance, didnt die?) Ah, a new variant of the Chewbacca Defense. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe in love and that is most important
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe in love and that is most important 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Sun 02/07/10 12:00 AM
|
|
* * * I'm always puzzled why most of the religious people tend to disregard the history of civilization!!!
 . . . At the beginning, there was nothing... (i.e. only GOD, who eventually declared: Let there be light! Eventually, God has created a human being -- in His own image... In fact, God has been instrumental in survival of the human species since HE's given them the strength to endure various trials and tribulations... And yet, God allowed His creation advancing to such a stage of development which led the miserable human being to refuse relying upon the omnipotent creator! (Preposterous sinners!) Really, history of Humanity represents the slow but steady process of Secularization! (***Religion has become a sort of the "Moral Code" which most of the people -- including some of the greatest scientists -- live by! ***) Nevetheless, those who still believe in God, are shamelessly consuming the fruits of secular civilization!!! * In fact, they won't be able to survive without those "secular fruits" -- which, in itself, is the greatest sin possible, i.e. relying upon God-demned sinners (who deny GOD) for their (i.e. believers') well-being!!! Ain't that a controversy -- the most sinful contradiction: ACCEPTING GIFTS FROM SINNERS??? * * * THAT IS THE GREATEST HYPOCRICY POSSIBLE! ! ! * * * The modern science has actually admitted the limitations of what is currently comprehensible...(QM?) By no means does that mean science is backing religion!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * I'm always puzzled why most of the religious people tend to disregard the history of civilization!!! . . . At the beginning, there was nothing... (i.e. only GOD, who eventually declared: Let there be light! Eventually, God has created a human being -- in His own image... In fact, God has been instrumental in survival of the human species since HE's given them the strength to endure various trials and tribulations... And yet, God allowed His creation advancing to such a stage of development which led the miserable human being to refuse relying upon the omnipotent creator! (Preposterous sinners!) Really, history of Humanity represents the slow but steady process of Secularization! (***Religion has become a sort of the "Moral Code" which most of the people -- including some of the greatest scientists -- live by! ***) Nevetheless, those who still believe in God, are shamelessly consuming the fruits of secular civilization!!! * In fact, they won't be able to survive without those "secular fruits" -- which, in itself, is the greatest sin possible, i.e. relying upon God-demned sinners (who deny GOD) for their (i.e. believers') well-being!!! Ain't that a controversy -- the most sinful contradiction: ACCEPTING GIFTS FROM SINNERS??? * * * THAT IS THE GREATEST HYPOCRICY POSSIBLE! ! ! * * * The modern science has actually admitted the limitations of what is currently comprehensible...(QM?) By no means does that mean science is backing religion!!! I think it is hard to discern a secular fruit from a blessing,, for instance God made food and anyone , even sinners, who knows how to plow and sow has access to that blessing. It is also difficult to know who has sinned and chosen to sin no more and who is a committed sinner, even Jesus accepted gifts from sinners, but asked that they sin no more. My point was merely that this study that belief in something beyond ourself is a hardwired predisposition(such as is the claim about sexuality) might be a way to dissuade those who are so opposed to religious belief to lay off of it because it is just WHO we are. It is not a point I agree with, but it would be consistent with the idea of things that are HARDWIRED. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not science backing religion, its science [attempting to explain] the human propensity for religious belief. Exactly! Now why did the first handful of comments miss this key point? AH, but the pov that we have a propensity for something usually implies it is 'natural', like our sexuality,,,or our masculinity or femininity,,,,it , in an indirect way, provides a rationality and potentially a pass to be just the way we are 'hardwired' to be I think this is obviously a morally bankrupt position. We may (or may not) also have a genetic predisposition to murder, to rape, and engage in group violence, and yet all of these are 'wrong' in my eyes and are also tendencies which we (for the most part) inhibit with our cultural influences on the individual. (I also disagree with the 'homosexuality is okay because it is natural' argument.) If we do have a genetic inclination towards certain kinds of beliefs, this in no way shape or form gives credibility to those beliefs. If anything, it might help us understand how we function as irrational beings, and why we believe things despite evidence to the contrary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I dont really believe ANYTHING is hardwired, except certain gender qualities(usually). Im just poking at those who insist religion or the religious are mindless followers and not just as educated and independent as anyone else. If you want to poke at those that think religionists are mindless followers, why cite a POV which strengthens their case? What could be more mindless than following the influence of genetic tendencies without examination? If we are genetically predisposed to religion, and if anyone were religious primarily because of their genetic predisposition - well thats about as close to being a mindless automaton as it gets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) If hardwired, are Agnostics and Atheists genetically deformed? If we are 'hardwired' to be inclined towards dogmatism or irrational beliefs - well, many atheists (both strong and weak) still embrace some kind of dogmatism or irrational beliefs. Many still look for a 'higher purpose' of some sort, whether its a political cause or caring for others etc 2) If hardwired, do Orientals (just as an example, no racist remark meant) carry a "Tao", "Shinto", or "Buddhist" genome that others don't? Hey now, acknowledging genetic differences between the different families of humans is frowned upon; as if fighting racism required blinding ourselves wrt racial differences. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe in love and that is most important The most important of all... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I dont really believe ANYTHING is hardwired, except certain gender qualities(usually). Im just poking at those who insist religion or the religious are mindless followers and not just as educated and independent as anyone else. If you want to poke at those that think religionists are mindless followers, why cite a POV which strengthens their case? What could be more mindless than following the influence of genetic tendencies without examination? If we are genetically predisposed to religion, and if anyone were religious primarily because of their genetic predisposition - well thats about as close to being a mindless automaton as it gets. Or it would make educated and uneducated equally susceptible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
these anonymous people could be anyone from any chosen group, I cited WELL KNOWN BRILLIANT minds who did participate in religion, which would disprove some immediate correlation between intelligence and faith. MsHarmony, I'm really and truly not trying to focus on arguing with you, its just that I disagree strongly with several things you've said. While I'm not terribly impressed by the 'evidence' and argument presented for 'secular people being smarter than religious people', your response is even weaker. When discussing general trends, a half dozen examples are pretty much meaningless. The fact that these examples are famous/recognizable people only has significance for the foolish - the same people who will buy something from an infomercial because they recognize the celebrity that endorses the product. Further, a few of your examples - while 'being members' of a religion, were also anti-religionists in their own way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humans were not programed to believe in a god. Humans are exposed to the belief in god from such a young age they can remember nothing else. I agree than any specific notions about God can only come from other people or from the individuals creative imagination (in most cases, it comes from other people). However, even if we don't have any genetic programming for any specific beliefs, we may still have genetic programming which inclines us to certain kinds of beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I dont really believe ANYTHING is hardwired, except certain gender qualities(usually). Im just poking at those who insist religion or the religious are mindless followers and not just as educated and independent as anyone else. If you want to poke at those that think religionists are mindless followers, why cite a POV which strengthens their case? What could be more mindless than following the influence of genetic tendencies without examination? If we are genetically predisposed to religion, and if anyone were religious primarily because of their genetic predisposition - well thats about as close to being a mindless automaton as it gets. Or it would make educated and uneducated equally susceptible. To me, the word 'or' implies either 'mutual exclusivity' or an 'alternative hypothesis' and I don't see how this would apply to our conversation... so I wonder if we are not understanding each other. I agree that the educated remain susceptible - especially if we aren't clarifying the nature of the 'education'. (Hell, a person can go to Liberty University and consider themselves "educated.") As far as 'equally' susceptible - I see no reason to assume the susceptibility would be 'equal'. As another spin on this conversation, it may be that the reverence and awe some scientists have for their fields of study is a manifestation of this same (supposed) genetic inclination. |
|
|
|
|
