1984Echoes Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 7 hours ago, Biff Mayhem said: ... I look at something like an eye and how it works and have to wonder how people can think there was not some intelligent design behind it. That it came from nothing. If there is anything that …all that is seen and unseen…came from nothing... Quit conflating two different things: The Big Bang: where did all the matter in the universe come from? God? Or some scientific "Big Bang". That's one thing. How did humans evolve? That is a SEPARATE and UNRELATED thing to where did all matter come from. The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Homo Sapiens (the human species) is ~250,000 years old. That's a LONG freaking time for the human species to appear. There is NO such thing as "Intelligent Design". That's another fairytale concocted to try and explain how we got here, as an attempt by the religious to create a bogus "scientific theory" to try to argue against evolution. Evolution is a done deal. It's fact. Sorry. As for all the matter? ... AFTER the Big Bang, or God if you so choose... ALL the MATTER already exists. To create stars, planets, and living things on planets. Water. Carbon Dioxide and Methane and Hydrogen Sulfide atmosphere (early Earth atmosphere... note: NO Oxygen...) which slowly evolves over eons to also include oxygen. Why? Because ocean living single-celled creatures (plant kingdom) evolved an energy source using the sun, giving off a waste material called oxygen. Billions of years later: humans. Oh... your "intelligently designed" eye? That ALSO evolved over billions of years, from a single light-sensitive nerve ending, to a simple lensed eye, to our complex eye. Here is a chart of all the different types (evolution) of eyes, from its simplest form to most complex: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/eye-evolution/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Mayhem Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Did you witness all that? Why billions? Why not trillions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 As I always say, I feel like science and religion get into conflict because people don't understand that they are answering different questions. I sense animosity towards science by religion because they feel it contradicts their faith. It doesnt have to. If you take literal interpretation of ancient texts, often incomplete, by a small group of people hundreds and thousands of years ago, then that's a matter of faith. Science should go where the evidence takes them. There is no conlict between the two unless you adhere to literal translations of the various religious texts out there. If you do then you will find resistence among the science community. And the science community should understand that matters of faith do not require scientific proof. That's why it's called faith and not science. Just let them be. And that holds true to the other side. Don't feel threatened when science says something that contradicts what has been taught in Sunday School. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 5 minutes ago, oblong said: As I always say, I feel like science and religion get into conflict because people don't understand that they are answering different questions. I sense animosity towards science by religion because they feel it contradicts their faith. It doesnt have to. If you take literal interpretation of ancient texts, often incomplete, by a small group of people hundreds and thousands of years ago, then that's a matter of faith. Science should go where the evidence takes them. There is no conlict between the two unless you adhere to literal translations of the various religious texts out there. If you do then you will find resistence among the science community. And the science community should understand that matters of faith do not require scientific proof. That's why it's called faith and not science. Just let them be. And that holds true to the other side. Don't feel threatened when science says something that contradicts what has been taught in Sunday School. Hard not to come to the conclusion that the purpose of religion is to control people for political purposes. Science has its own role in that though. I mean, Noble, Oppenheimer, Norden, Von Braun., etc. were scientific and their inventions or findings resulted in the control of large populations through violence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Just now, romad1 said: Hard not to come to the conclusion that the purpose of religion is to control people for political purposes. Science has its own role in that though. I mean, Noble, Oppenheimer, Norden, Von Braun., etc. were scientific and their inventions or findings resulted in the control of large populations through violence. Fun fact: Carl Norden who invented the Norden bombsite was born in Dutch Indonesia. I did not know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 1 hour ago, Biff Mayhem said: Did you witness all that? Why billions? Why not trillions? Has anyone ever witnessed "god"? I'd like to hear a first hand account. Let's start with yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 58 minutes ago, oblong said: As I always say, I feel like science and religion get into conflict because people don't understand that they are answering different questions. I sense animosity towards science by religion because they feel it contradicts their faith. It doesnt have to. If you take literal interpretation of ancient texts, often incomplete, by a small group of people hundreds and thousands of years ago, then that's a matter of faith. Science should go where the evidence takes them. There is no conlict between the two unless you adhere to literal translations of the various religious texts out there. If you do then you will find resistence among the science community. And the science community should understand that matters of faith do not require scientific proof. That's why it's called faith and not science. Just let them be. And that holds true to the other side. Don't feel threatened when science says something that contradicts what has been taught in Sunday School. Exactly. If people (like a Biff Mayhem) or anyone else wants to believe that the universe revolves around Earth because it says so in the bible (I haven't read the bible in 50 years so someone would have to verify that... but I believe the bible, and most ancient religious texts state that belief...): They are absolutely free to do so. Which is "faith", or "belief". But if we are arguing facts it has been definitively proven that we are a heliocentric planet (all planets are...), and we revolve around the sun, not the universe around Earth. But if Biff, or anyone, wants to believe the universe revolves around Earth, go for it. I'm not stopping anyone. But I'm sticking with facts only. And the fact of the matter is we are heliocentric. If someone wants to believe in a flat Earth... go for it. But, sorry, factually, the Earth is round. That's it. But go ahead and believe whatever anyone wants to (which is why it's called "belief", not "fact".) The Earth however, indisputably, factually, is round. If someone wants to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old because that's what is calculated from the bible? Go for it. But the fact of the matter is that Earth if 4.8 million years old. If anyone wants to believe that humans and dinosaurs and eyes and everything else just "magically appeared" due to some "god", go for it. But evolution is proven fact. Indisputable. There is no definitive proof on the Big Bang so... I'm not going to argue that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigeraholic1 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 (edited) 48 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: Has anyone ever witnessed "god"? I'd like to hear a first hand account. Let's start with yours. My son was born 3 months ealry with a Tracheoesophageal Fistula. Basically his lungs were filling with stomach bile because his plumbing was connected incorrectly. He was brought out by emergeny c-section and was basically drowning with little hope for survival. The Surgeon came to my wife and I and said they had to go in between his ribs, spread them and collapse one lung and surgically repair him. He said there was a 5% chance he would survive. He asked if we wanted to go forward with the surgery or make him comfortable. We said please try to save him of course. He asked if his team could pray with us as he felt his skill alone would not be able to save him. So they all came into his PICU room got down on a knee (10-12 folks including anesthesiology) and the surgeon led the prayer. Four months later we got to take him home. I was never super religous before that but after experiencing this miracle I was moved. I saw God in that moment. Just like the kids I saw dying in Iraq begging to be prayed over while there life blood left their body. We all have the right to worship or not worship whatever we like as long as it does not intefere with someone elses rights. Those dying defenders taught me that for sure. What gets me is when someone kicks dirt on your rights (not you but others in the thread) by saying, "You are wrong, you don't have proof". Respect my right and I will respect and defend yours. Edited March 14 by Tigeraholic1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 (edited) 1 hour ago, romad1 said: Hard not to come to the conclusion that the purpose of religion is to control people for political purposes. Science has its own role in that though. I mean, Noble, Oppenheimer, Norden, Von Braun., etc. were scientific and their inventions or findings resulted in the control of large populations through violence. It's always and everywhere major human endeavor on the part of some people to control other people and those forces can and will take advantage of and/or bend any vector to that end. I don't think that actually says all that much about the vectors per se. Edited March 14 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Just now, gehringer_2 said: It's always and everywhere major human endeavor on the part of some people to control other people and those forces can and will take advantage of any vector to that end. I don't think that actually says all that much about the vectors per se. This is my longtime grievance against some blandly pacifistic types in my social circles who subscribed to the ideas of Gene Roddenberry and others that Science would lead the way to "peace." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 I respect the right of anyone to believe anything they want to, without persecution. I do not respect someone attempting to replace facts with "belief" or "hearsay evidence". I have a right to demand that someone provide "proof" when they attempt to override facts with non-factual statements or "statements of certainty" or "belief". Facts have been proven. I respect facts. I do not respect lies. Lies like "Donald Trump won the election in 2020." I have the right to demand evidence whether it is a statement I believe to be a lie, or a statement that I believe is a "belief" attempting to override the truth. Or a proven fact. You do NOT have the right to abrogate my right to evidence, or proof, when arguing beliefs over facts. Sorry if that upsets you. And I STILL respect your right, to believe anything you want to. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 10 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: I respect the right of anyone to believe anything they want to, without persecution. I do not respect someone attempting to replace facts with "belief" or "hearsay evidence". I have a right to demand that someone provide "proof" when they attempt to override facts with non-factual statements or "statements of certainty" or "belief". Facts have been proven. I respect facts. I do not respect lies. Lies like "Donald Trump won the election in 2020." I have the right to demand evidence whether it is a statement I believe to be a lie, or a statement that I believe is a "belief" attempting to override the truth. Or a proven fact. You do NOT have the right to abrogate my right to evidence, or proof, when arguing beliefs over facts. Sorry if that upsets you. And I STILL respect your right, to believe anything you want to. I'm tracking. I am hostile to any attempt to make the USA a Theocracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 (edited) 2 minutes ago, romad1 said: ... I am hostile to any attempt to make the USA a Theocracy. Which are active, virulent, hostile, even violent, and anti-Democratic/ anti-Constitutional. Edited March 14 by 1984Echoes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 12 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: I respect the right of anyone to believe anything they want to, without persecution. I do not respect someone attempting to replace facts with "belief" or "hearsay evidence". I have a right to demand that someone provide "proof" when they attempt to override facts with non-factual statements or "statements of certainty" or "belief". Facts have been proven. I respect facts. I do not respect lies. Lies like "Donald Trump won the election in 2020." I have the right to demand evidence whether it is a statement I believe to be a lie, or a statement that I believe is a "belief" attempting to override the truth. Or a proven fact. You do NOT have the right to abrogate my right to evidence, or proof, when arguing beliefs over facts. Sorry if that upsets you. And I STILL respect your right, to believe anything you want to. Actuall you don't really have the right to "demand" provide proof for what they believe. You can ask, they can decline or share their story like tigerholic did. Then you can move on without belittling them or making them feel stupid for thinking what they do. LIfe is not a court of law. You do not have a "right" to evidence or proof unless they are asking you to do something or are invading your freedom somehow. Nobody here is doing that. you are sort of contradicing yourself by saying people have a right to believe anything they want yet also saying you "demand" evidence and they shouldn't 'abrogate your right to evidence'. Nobody is asking you to change your beliefs or what you do. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 …. It doesn’t take a lot of self-control to just be courteous when discussing religion (i.e. not resorting to snotty or condescending responses), so maybe it’s a course direction some here should consider. Having said that, I’ll reiterate my years old personal opinion that a “Religion” thread isn’t a great idea. 🙂 Faith is a personal issue, and perhaps it’s better (for me) to not give people a reason to climb up onto that high horse and pontificate. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 I have a sneaking suspicion that the followers want him to be that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 2 hours ago, romad1 said: I have a sneaking suspicion that the followers want him to be that. I don't think the "who" [sic] in question refers who we think it does, or should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Apparently objective cases are a bridge too far even for Wisconsin grads, of whom I would have expected more..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 If there is one… is it Xi, Putin, or another world leader? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 (edited) By the definition in John's letters, an 'antichrist' is someone who starts out in the church, but then falls away from it teaching false or "anti-Christ' doctrine. So I don't know if any secular world leader qualifies under a proper theological definition. Putin does wrap himself in the Orthodox church, and likewise Trump with the evangelicals, so they have that part going for them, but neither 'came out from us' in the strong sense sense implied by John. Xi seems pretty much a secular tyrant. OTOH, I suppose In the more Hollywood/Manichaean/pop-American-demons-are-everywhere/Satan-is-lord-of-this-world kind of theologies - any real baddy can be read as demonic and fit the bill. 👿 Edited April 1 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Faith over fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 46 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Faith over fear. "Oops, something went wrong, please try again later." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 hour ago, ewsieg said: Faith over fear. and fat parabolic snow skis! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.