GOD EXISTS

HB of CJ wrote:...few or no wars have been fought over scientific differences...

Yet! The String/M theorists didn't have armies available at the time The Quantum/Macro theorists did, but they were too busy with the NAZIs to go after each other. Of-course in the case of Stalin, he had control of the entire army so no-one could mount a "war" so it's classified as a "purge". Just wait, for the "non-holy" war mounted by atheist "scientists" to try to force everyone to renounce "religion" and conform to their religion of "science"

HB of CJ wrote:...without real basis at all...

It does, non-believers just discount it out of hand because it's a "religious" text, yet you don't question the "facts" listed in a "science" book, you just take it as accurate out of hand...hmmm...on faith that the person who wrote that book got it right.

HB of CJ wrote:...most of my educated friends, (post grad like me) tend to think the same way I do regarding religion.

Because that's their "religion". It seems to me the more someone relies on having "facts" put in-front of his face, the less he is capable of thinking beyond what his eyes can see. This is a crippling defect. if Christopher Columbus had that disability he would never have been able to imagine the obviously flat world as round.

With much respect always, it is apparent that some do not understand the difference between the process of the scientific method and that of religious dogma. Science works in a very specific way that allows for the expression of ideas that then are subjected to numerous experimentations that can be repeated. The information then obtained is then constantly tested and reviewed by peer examination.

Compare that to religious zealots who pretty much make up whatever they want to to fit their notions at that time without ANY reasonable or emperical review or examination. See the difference? Kinda like snake or shaker religious cults basing their faith just upon one or two words in a particular version of a particular religious book. There are no doubt many other examples. Respectfully. Just me.

HB of CJ (old coot) politically non correct. Five miles to the right of Atilla The Hun. Agnostic. Not to be taken too seriously.

Good to know. Conservative agnostics are good to have around on the boards. You guys tend as I said before to ask those question that test belief. Absent honest testing how solid can anyone's belief system truly be?

HB of CJ wrote:With much respect always, it is apparent that some do not understand the difference between the process of the scientific method and that of religious dogma. Science works in a very specific way that allows for the expression of ideas that then are subjected to numerous experimentations that can be repeated. The information then obtained is then constantly tested and reviewed by peer examination.

Compare that to religious zealots who pretty much make up whatever they want to to fit their notions at that time without ANY reasonable or emperical review or examination. See the difference? Kinda like snake or shaker religious cults basing their faith just upon one or two words in a particular version of a particular religious book. There are no doubt many other examples. Respectfully. Just me.

HB of CJ (old coot) politically non correct. Five miles to the right of Atilla The Hun. Agnostic. Not to be taken too seriously.

This is an excellent example of how both sides see totally different paradigms from the same situations.

The Columbus quote amuses me in that the then predominate Catholic Church was pushing the flat earth view by means of faith, yet Columbus trusted his instincts to experiment and prove his point with facts. The scientific method.

The facts in science books aren't taken on faith that the author got it right, they are only accepted after rigorous testing by their peers. You can't test faith by logic or experimentation. Religious disputes don't involve verifiable real world facts, just semantics on the various holy texts.

I'm unaware of any cases of scientists persecuting people because of their religion, yet history is full of scientists being persecuted by religions. Galileo is the classic example.

MAD-4A wrote:

HB of CJ wrote:...few or no wars have been fought over scientific differences...

Yet! The String/M theorists didn't have armies available at the time The Quantum/Macro theorists did, but they were too busy with the NAZIs to go after each other. Of-course in the case of Stalin, he had control of the entire army so no-one could mount a "war" so it's classified as a "purge". Just wait, for the "non-holy" war mounted by atheist "scientists" to try to force everyone to renounce "religion" and conform to their religion of "science"

HB of CJ wrote:...without real basis at all...

It does, non-believers just discount it out of hand because it's a "religious" text, yet you don't question the "facts" listed in a "science" book, you just take it as accurate out of hand...hmmm...on faith that the person who wrote that book got it right.

HB of CJ wrote:...most of my educated friends, (post grad like me) tend to think the same way I do regarding religion.

Because that's their "religion". It seems to me the more someone relies on having "facts" put in-front of his face, the less he is capable of thinking beyond what his eyes can see. This is a crippling defect. if Christopher Columbus had that disability he would never have been able to imagine the obviously flat world as round.

Just a minor side-track.
If there is a (singular) God, why are there so many religions, with some spawning off others (Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam being one example)?
If there is a (singular) God, why are there so many polytheistic religions?
If there is a (singular) God, why have so many wars been fought in his/her/it's name(s)?

If God designed humans, why was the job done so shoddily? (I speak as someone who needs glasses and has several members of family who have suffered things like appendicitis, inexplicable kidney failure and the sudden-death of a major nerve in the leg... not all the same person, fortunately).

I do not believe in God, but neither do I disbelieve. Instead, I accept that He/She/It/Whatever could exist, but is probably too busy face-palming at the genocidal actions of hyper-religious Bigots to worry about one such as myself.
Nevertheless, any God that condemns people to Hell simply because they don't follow a narrowly-defined highly-restrictive dogmatic path is a God that I will stand against.

I think the most important aspect of this debate is that scientific inquiry leads to new knowledge; religious dogma does not. Nothing new has been added to the Bible in, what, 1,600 years?
----------------------
I could be arguing in my spare time.

Ugh scientific atheism in the USSR of the 1930. Scientific racism of the Nazis in the 1930s. The 'White man's burden' of the late nineteenth century and twentyth century. All based on Charles Darwin's theories.

Poker

Daryl wrote:This is an excellent example of how both sides see totally different paradigms from the same situations.

The Columbus quote amuses me in that the then predominate Catholic Church was pushing the flat earth view by means of faith, yet Columbus trusted his instincts to experiment and prove his point with facts. The scientific method.

The facts in science books aren't taken on faith that the author got it right, they are only accepted after rigorous testing by their peers. You can't test faith by logic or experimentation. Religious disputes don't involve verifiable real world facts, just semantics on the various holy texts.

I'm unaware of any cases of scientists persecuting people because of their religion, yet history is full of scientists being persecuted by religions. Galileo is the classic example.


[quotes removed]

Science describes what exists in our universe, The Bible tells us why it exists.

Imaginos1892 wrote:I think the most important aspect of this debate is that scientific inquiry leads to new knowledge; religious dogma does not. Nothing new has been added to the Bible in, what, 1,600 years?
----------------------
I could be arguing in my spare time.

And what then of the torah, the Quran, the Bayan, the teachings of buddha, the bahvad gita, sikhism, shintoism, and all the other religious texts?

PeterZ wrote:Science describes what exists in our universe, The Bible tells us why it exists.

Imaginos1892 wrote:I think the most important aspect of this debate is that scientific inquiry leads to new knowledge; religious dogma does not. Nothing new has been added to the Bible in, what, 1,600 years?
----------------------
I could be arguing in my spare time.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Nothing new has been added to the Bible in, what, 1,600 years?

Not so - Book of Mormon - this of-course changes the religion to a different offshoot - in this case, Mormonism, However the Bible itself states that no-one should "add or take away from it" so anyone doing so diverges from it. There is also the newly rediscovered Dead Sea Scrolls which we are finding new text & also old known text that the Catholic church chose to leave out and hide in there private libraries. These are still being evaluated as to whether or not they should have been in or left out. In one of these books left out, it claims that not everyone will be subjected to "Eternal Damnation". They will go to hell for punishment, but when everyone in Heaven agrees that it's enough then they will be allowed out. IDK how valid this point will be or if at-all, nor do I know if they mean when everyone in heaven agrees that its enough for that person to get out, or enough overall for everyone to get out, but the text was left out due to the loss of incentive to follow the church if every one thought they would get punished and then get out eventually anyway. But when you Atheists & Agnostics find yourselves burning in hell, don't count on it to get you out, it may not be valid, no-one has subjected it to scientific scrutiny as-to whether its true or not.