What's your Religion?

Yes, some of your comments are insulting and childish (recent example above).

I will answer you, the difference is I am using my own thoughts to relay my point(s). You don't, you ramble on in very immature and antagonizing ways, pasting videos that debate religion because you can not relay in a positive way your own beliefs, and you clutter the thread. My counter argument is there are great thinkers on both sides, no need to start bringing up others to try and prove your point as we could all go on and on with it but the links really won't convey anything. I hope people can peacefully learn and share ideas for themsevles, no need to bring in crap from the web as it is just weak.

 

Lol

Hypocritical much ?

 

I hate to confuse you with facts, but I did not mention one person's ideas or link them as he did. I stated a fact that we could all do it and nothing is accomplished. There is no hypocracy here, but I can see how you would "lol" at something you may not be able to grasp.

 

You were berating him for using examples / words that weren't his own to prove his point .

Is that not basically " faith " in a nutshell ?

I grasp it just fine , thanks

 

Obviously you don't understand faith as that is hardly what it is in a "nutshell". Have a nice day, just have it somewhere else.

 

In order to have " faith " , you need to believe that was has been conveyed to you about God to be true , correct ?

By others before you , no ?

Faith in the teachings , faith that they are correct .

If I've got it wrong ,enlighten me then .

I'm all ears .

 

I would agree to an extent, but there certainly was no hypocracy there. When a Scientist dissproves religion, do you or anyone belive him, particularly when you know nothing, or little, about Science? What about the Scientist that beleives in a God? We can go round and round with this. My point was totally valid, he was not able to hold an intellegint conversation without resorting to links and childish insults.

In a "nutshell", are you enlightened?

 

The part that puzzles me is how different religions can be so utterly sure that their version of the " truth " is correct .

I can totally get the unilateral belief of most religions of a creator / God , whatever , but ultimately the rest boils down to believing the story that has been passed down to you .

 

Mtek,

 

Does it puzzle you how many diff scientific theories are out there regarding the creation of the universe? How about how many times science dissproves there own teaching in a multitude of other areas?

 

Not really , because as older theories are disproven they are abandoned

 

You say that like new discovery is bad, and better understanding shows science to fail, while that is what is good about science.

Faith suspends discovery and understanding.

 

Well, then how are we to know the current scientific trend is correct? As you say, it is constantly changing. How convenient.

 

other, Jedi

 

But you just said the key word, scientific THEORY. Scientists rarely ever say with absolute confidence that their newest theory is 100% true.If the said item meets its burden of proof then it can be accepted as true until technology and/or our understanding improves and the theory then changes at that time.Remeber any good scientist looks forward to being proven wrong because that means at the end of the day at least in some small part our overall understanding has improved which is the end goal.

Also not all Atheists are close minded although some certainly are. I was raised a Deciple of Christ and believed until about two years ago so I know how these people feel. I am not trying to shit on anyones beliefs just trying to get people to think a little.Also WHILE being atheist I have attended a catholic mass, an evangelical service, and a non denominational service. I wouldnt have done that if I was close minded to it all.

 

You say it is constantly changing as though it is haphazard change, science's goal is progressive improving.

You clearly are denying that the scientific method is valid, simply because it requires change as we better understand nature.

How convenient indeed.

 

I think about it like this;

Most of the worlds most intellectually stimulating, and influential individuals werent of a specific faith. If i have the spend the remainder of my "eternity" (if such a notion actually exists) with people, i'd rather it be with people whom pushed the envelope, and furthered the world.

Spending the remainder of my "whatever" with sheep, seems maddening.

 

Fair enough, good post. I do tend to disagree with THEORY though, it is a way for people to follow and beleive in science without "proof", actually it is not unlike a religious person's faith as far as I am concerned. Like religious zealots, there are arrogant scientists that think they have the3 answers, and without them being able to make it law they come up with grandious "theories". My own thought here.

What did you think if attending the religious service?

 

I do deny it's validy to an extent, yes. Science will never stop "growing", as they will never have the answers to life's most complicated questions. Theories will abound, but they will never be able to conclusively replicate and announce how we came to be as law.