An argument that I have often seen used in religious debates on ProU is that belief in god is an article of faith and that belief in god should not have to do with evidence or proof or logic.
However, it seems logical to me that this sentiment, that god is above evidence, is probably a fairly modern way of looking at belief. Before advances in science began to show discrepancies between the natural world and the history of the world as told by the old and new testament, it would have been logical to believe in god. How else could the Universe and everything in it have come into existence. Now, however, science has been making strides in its ability to explain the Universe without god so that belief in god must be an article of faith.
Please run a quick spell check prior to posting. I went ahead and edited for spelling this time, but ProU users really take better to posts with the fewest errors.
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." Isaac Asimov
"Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that they contain the whole truth, or the only truth." Charles Dana
Sorry about that and thanks.
did you know that science has started to prove GOD right, and showing that humans may not have risen from the ape as previously thought?....GOD is above all to me and science is one of my passions. i feel that science can explain a lot of things but GOD created all things.
The most precious thing you have on this earth is your life, so don't waste it, because once its gone you don't want to regret not speaking your mind!!
beaute==
did you know that science has started to prove GOD right ...
DB=
As an atheistic scientist who is interested in religion, I can tell you that I am not aware of that.
Here are some of my blogs that suggest otherwise:
http://www.progressiveu.org/000335-responding-to-ignorance-very-long-pos...
http://www.progressiveu.org/090035-scientific-studies-of-the-effectivene...
http://www.progressiveu.org/230259-putting-a-religious-fundamentalists-b...
http://www.progressiveu.org/084904-does-science-and-religion-conflict
http://www.progressiveu.org/165114-so-tell-me-my-friend-how-did-the-univ...
beaute==
... and showing that humans may not have risen from the ape as previously thought
DB=
Ermm ... that would depend upon what you mean by "ape". If by "ape" you mean a chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, or Gibbon, then you are correct. However, if by "ape" you mean a primate with a flat face, and no tail or cheek pouches; then we definitely come from apes.
Here is a link to one of my blogs that discusses the evidence we DID arise from apes:
http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-int...
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
> did you know that science has started
> to prove GOD right...
Would you please cite at least some of the science that you think "proves" this?
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
yeah, yeah, yeah. You and your citations.
He has a valid point. Anyone can make a claim about anything and regularly do. Unless there is data backing it up it's nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor. Claiming something is fact when it is in reality nothing more than rumor is pointless. Asking for some proof is a lot less horrible than saying something is fact when it isn't.
-----
Fallon
"It is never too late to give up your prejudices." Henry David Thoreau
"In case of dissension, never dare to judge till you've heard the other side." Euripides
-----
...that your comment was based in ignorance, but instead I tried to give you a way to gracefully investigate and discover for yourself the fact that you don't know what you are talking about. But, if you're going to be a brat about it, you can expect that in the future I won't be as willing to extend to you that courtesy.
As I have told you before, if you want to be taken seriously in these discussion, you're going to have to do a little work, and prove to us that you are at least marginally informed about the subjects you rant on about. If you cannot do that, then expect to be pat on the head and sent back to the playground with the rest of the children.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I've been having issues with faith for a while. It's rather difficult for me to accept such a rhetoric that relies completely on faith and faith only. My friend says that's because I need to experience Him as the true God and Savior to have this faith. Conversations with my church counselor often goes like this:
me: but why, if we're all Christians, do we have different interpretions of the bible and what to do in practice?
C: Well, if you follow the wrong faith you'll find by the time you die that you won't be going up, but down. That's why we have to be extremely careful to follow the correct faith.
me: But everyone's so sure that they're right. Choosing one church to belong to sounds like a gamble to me.
C: It's not exactly a gamble, per se, it's something that you must trust in. In the end, it's all up to God who He chooses to go into paradise.
me: Then why do we act so sure that our interpretion of the bible is correct? How can you ask me to trust you and follow your explaination of the bible blindly if you cannot assure me that what you know is God's will, and not merely man's idea of God's will?
C:Grace, I think you're having issues with faith in God.
me: No, I want to believe in God, but I can't trust man when there's so many factions...
C: I know what you mean. The devil does this, divides us into factions, so that we will doubt His Word. But what we really need is for us Christians to unite, to come into one body with Christ. That is what God wants.
If I were you, I wouldn't whine to this atheist. You are only strengthening his point of view, that there is no GOd. If you still think there might be one, then looking to an atheist for advice will definitely take away your faith
Being rude is not the way to go about it. Please tone it down and steer clear of name calling and personal attacks which violate the terms of service. You're skating on the line right now.
http://progressiveu.org/privacy
-----
Fallon
"It is never too late to give up your prejudices." Henry David Thoreau
"In case of dissension, never dare to judge till you've heard the other side." Euripides
-----
I think it's safe to assume that myself, DB and Percivale have been lumped together to be "this atheist". The Jsaj aspect of 'this atheist' is mainly amused by your statement and partially irritated. Firstly, I don't see why it is in any way irrational not to accept, as evidence, your own personal anecdotes and pseudo-science from the Creation Evidence Museum.
Just as another's personal belief in god doesn't weaken my point of view, another's doubts don't strengthen it. If I believed that there was truth in numbers I would be a Christian.
If someone asked me for advice on the issue of belief, I would do a number of things. First, I would tell them that I am an atheist, then I would tell them why I am an atheist. I would also ask them not to take anything I say as truth blindly. That is, I would ask them to examine what I say and decide if it is true based on their own studies. I would also say that, if they want a fair examination of their faith, they should talk to a religious figure like a priest, rabbi or imam or whatever. While I don't agree with religion and I am vocal about this, I am not out to destroy religion or take away a person's faith.
Anyway, a person of true faith won't be swayed. A person who really and truly doubts the existence of god is an atheist or at least an agnostic. They may be swayed to return to their faith, but as long as they don't believe in god, they are an atheist.
I noticed that you believe in evolution, but may I ask if you believe in a worldwide flood? The reason I ask is because you were using myths about a worldwide flood to try and prove the Bible as being incorrect, but did you know that there are over 200 different stories of a worldwide flood? I find this pretty interesting if you find evolution to be true; an evolution which has no place (by its claims) for any world wide flood?
Bekka Joy
A world wide flood would have left a very easy to detect sedimentary layer in the geological record. No such layer exists. There are many stories of catostropic floods in the myths of various cultures, because floods are a common natural disaster. Primitive folks often consider the lands of which they have knowledge to be "the whole world," but the reality is that the world is a lot bigger than most primitive cultures realized.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Do yourself a favor and check out this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/flood-legends
Bekka Joy
HES LOST AND DROWNED BUT CHECK MY BLOG OUT AND SEE HOW THEY HATE ME FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IN
1) Debating and arguing is not at all the same as hating.
2) Posting in all caps does nothing for your argument or comment; it's considered screaming.
-----
~Fallon~
"Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something." Henry David Thoreau
-----
1) I don't hate Brittney wilcox. I just wish she would stop using all caps and no punctuation.
2) There are floods. Sometimes there are big floods. When your world is comprised of a small part of the Earth, it is easy to see why people would think the flood world-wide.
2b) Even if there was a worldwide flood, what makes you so sure that the Biblical version of the story is correct?
C) I hardly think a site with the motto "building a biblical worldview" is exactly objective.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil