I just find it interesting that someone like you, who appears to have some knowledge, can take something like this so far. Well, I don’t find it unusual, but interesting.
Here’s a man, claiming to be enlightened, to have understanding and to have a grasp of reality, using science to back up his equation. Now I’m sorry, but as someone who also knows a few things, I know that science, a religion in and of itself, is NOT the worlds answer to all of our questions. In truth, the scientific method taught in our schools is NOT the true scientific method. You know that as well, don’t you?
You should also know that science is merely a tool meant to take observations and, after all is said and one, to comment on those observations. And what’s silly is, how can you be so absolutely certain that what you have not seen, that is what existed before you, really existed at all? Sure, you can take things that are here now and use that as your evidence, but where is the true science in that? You’re only observing what you see and know now, not what really was or wasn’t. There is absolutely no way science can prove or disprove anything about the origins of life, about where this solar system or universe came from, because we were simply not there. And this tool we call science is just a tool, created by human minds, molded and shaped to fit the confines of our understanding. Where science is good is when it is used to do what it is good at doing – observing and commenting. Where science fails is when it tries to enforce and justify a philosophy (whether of “intelligent design†or not).
To go further with my point, our modern understanding of science began with philosophy. It began as a thought and as a way of looking at life. So science, which was once a philosophy (even used by many Christian philosophers), still IS a philosophy, and philosophies change as societies change, as people change. Science will change, and in fact has MANY times since its methods were invented. Today the idea (yes philosophy) of no intelligent design will be pushed, tomorrow it will be disproved by the very thing that tried to substantiate it. It’s been this way for thousands and thousands of years, and you know this.
But through all of this, there is one thing that has NEVER changed (well, the principals have never changed anyway), and that is the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Heck, your science has found the very places and even artifacts pertaining to the life of the Christ. But put that aside, and simply think about how you put your faith in the religion of science, a constantly changing and disproving liquid, while there is something changeless and timeless that exists, which calls you by name – a rock that never moves or breaks. Though it breaks the heads of many who do not believe.
It’s all faith, sir, and you well know that there is no science or philosophy that can substantiate your claims to the origins of life – because we were NOT there to witness it. But we WERE there to witness Christ and his death. And we WERE there to witness his resurrection. It’s written in the history books – and not just the Bible. The crumbs of true enlightenment lead to the cross – they always have, and always will.
So push your science all you want to, but I hope and pray that you will come to a realization of the truth in your walk, and in your search for it. Because only the truth will set you free, and freedom is what you are searching for.
Roy D Carlson
I’m no expert on the intricacies of the Spaghetti Monster vs. ompnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being universe creation debate, but I think I know the difference between science and religion; in science, every part of our world-view is potentially up for debate and rejection, except the core assumptions of the methodology, without which reasoned criticism of our world-view would be impossible. In religion, certain assumptions that cannot be evidentially assessed are placed beyond doubt, even though they are not essential to all meaningful world views, thus immunising the religion against all criticism. If science is a faith, it is the faith that it is possible and desirable to criticise our world-view, rather than just accept whatever our predecessors taught us was true.
So I guess the question has to be whether the assumptions of Spaghetti monster-ism or Christianity are ‘better’. But better how? They are both beyond evidential assessment, since either The Spaghetti Monster or God can feed us any evidence He/She/It likes. So I guess we just have to decide which beleif-set has the most favourable consequences, according to our personal value system (which is also a matter of faith, but one I don’t think we can do without.)
I don’t know whether Christianity has been responsible for more love and tolerance or hate and oppression, but personally I prefer pirates to preachers, so I embrace the Spaghetti Monster into my heart. If you prefer preachers, you go be a Christian. That’s fine with us Spaghetti-Monsterists; we think you’re wrong, but we don’t pretend to have any evidence (although this may be a church-dividing issue. If so, I claim my own denomination), and we respect your right to your opinion. Why can’t you do the same for us, instead of accusing us of demeaning the name of your God?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
/applaud
Can I be a Markian-Pastafarian too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ll leave the merits of your definition of science to the more informed among us. I’d like to respond to one specific point you made.
You claim the ’saving grace of Jesus Christ has never changed’. Ignoring the science proving the existence of the world/universe before our race existed, we have at least 6-8 millenium (depending on the sources an ID proponent would choose to accept) since the birth of writing. Christianity is a recent invention, a relatively young 2000 years old.
According to most interpretations of your holy book, everyone born before Christianity would be condemned to hell since they worshipped different deities (and many of them more interesting).
Thousands of religions existed before Christianity and ruling out a mythical golden age of rational thought (and presuming our continued existence), thousands more will exist long after it has lost all relevance.
With all due respect to the Great Pasta in the Sky, I say bring back the Greek Gods. At least they knew the value of knocking back a few drinks, having a laugh and trying to pick up mortal women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Roy, thanks for being civil. That’s a low benchmark, but by the standards of what I’m seeing elsewhere here it’s not an easy one to clear. You did it with style and with logic – and with decent grammar, too. Thanks for that.
As to the substance . . . well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that, because -everything- about the Christian religion, from the book to the practice, has changed with the years. The Testaments weren’t even written until well after the man/son of God’s death, IIRC? And then there’s the multiplicity of faiths with their multiplicity of understandings of the text . . . and the Gnostic writings that were discarded . . .
It’s hardly unchanging, and it’s simply nothing one can base their faith in, IMO.
Were you to have made the case with the Torah, which has had a much more rigid copyist standard (IIRC, entire scrolls were discarded if there was so much as a single character miscopied), you’d have had more of a case . . .
. . . but in any event it’s still words written by man, no matter their provenance, and words can be wrong, or twisted.
But seriously, thanks for being an adult in tone, even if I think your faith is (to say the least) misguided.
-j
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think the funniest part of this post is being missed and that is the statement:
> it breaks the heads of many who do not believe
SO:
there is something which has no object, no dimensions, no mass, no weight, no volume, and is not testable by science though it is a rock and
OR to put it another way:
this is the thing which we dare not speak of because it is beyond knowledge, the holiest of things, and it will BREAK YOUR HEAD
That’s the thing that Christianity has over pastafarianism: behind all the religious posturing, there is a serious thump on the head, as in, my Dad thumped me on the head so I’m gonna thump you on the head, and that’s why you better belive. Are Christian’s into exploring the brute authoritarian side of their religion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“…in science, every part of our world-view is potentially up for debate and rejection, except the core assumptions of the methodology…”
And one of the current core assumptions (which will change, eventually, like most popular scientific beliefs of the day that you would have been a “fool” to disagree with at the time), is evolution, which is not a proven fact by any stretch. Dare to disagree with evolution in the scientific community and you will be held back and mocked. How is this any different from any other community of believers?
“I’ll leave the merits of your definition of science to the more informed among us.”
Hahahaha.
“Ignoring the science proving the existence of the world/universe before our race existed…”
It has not been proven that the earth existed before humans, this is a belief based on data. Anyway, Christians believe that the earth existed before humans as well.
“According to most interpretations of your holy book, everyone born before Christianity would be condemned to hell since they worshipped different deities (and many of them more interesting).”
In my opinion, the majority of modern Christians do misinterpret the Bible. Your statement about interestingness is just sad-ass retarded though.
“Thousands of religions existed before Christianity…”
Yeah, so? There were a few listed in the Old Testament as well, this is nothing new.
“…and ruling out a mythical golden age of rational thought…”
Like the kind you display? Heh. Heh heh. Right.
“…thousands more will exist long after it has lost all relevance.”
Now you’re a prophet? There’s one of those pesky beliefs again.
“It’s hardly unchanging, and it’s simply nothing one can base their faith in, IMO.”
One thing that is mostly unchanging from one millennium or denomination to the next, barring cults, is that if you believe in Jesus you will be saved. And that’s the most important part. My faith is not in anyone’s teaching, or anyone’s translation. I go to the source (the original languages) when I need clarification. As I said, I believe a good majority of Christians believe in lots of bad theology that they are taught, or learn by reading one translation, instead of earnestly seeking the truth. But there is really only one major requirement to being a Christian, and that’s to believe that Jesus (being sent by God) came to save the world and will succeed.
“. . . but in any event it’s still words written by man…”
This is your opinion, or rather, your belief. Christians also believe the Bible was physically written by men, but authored by God.
“…even if I think your faith is (to say the least) misguided.”
Again, this is your faith, which you are attempting to push as superior to his, which makes you a… can you guess what’s coming next?… hypocrite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“. . . but in any event it’s still words written by man…”
This is your opinion, or rather, your belief. Christians also believe the Bible was physically written by men, but authored by God.
Monster, dude! Lighten up! Xianity, Judaism, and Islam all have the same fundemental flaw – they focus on what you believe rather than what you do. How is that better than a purist group of Trekkies huddled in their mom’s basement arguing if ‘classic Trek’ is better than ‘Next Gen Trek’?
Xians, in particular, seem to enjoy the flippant option of ‘turn the other cheek’ vs ‘eye for an eye’. Is the almighty gawd indecisive, or is it easier to assume that he was misinterpreted? Either way, gawd can not be perfect. In changing his mind, he establishes his own imperfection.
So I guess it doesn’t matter whether or not he wrote the bible himself or phoned the notes in.
I at least hope you take the time to read the New Testament, and pay particular attention to the words of Jesus of Nazarene (seems to be the prominent figure there). Then ask yourself if you are walking in His likeness. When you are, feel free to throw stones.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“And one of the current core assumptions (which will change, eventually, like most popular scientific beliefs of the day that you would have been a “fool” to disagree with at the time), is evolution, which is not a proven fact by any stretch. Dare to disagree with evolution in the scientific community and you will be held back and mocked. How is this any different from any other community of believers?”
Go against evolution and be mocked – that is if you go against evolution with no proof for a counter theory or proof against the former. Those being mocked are those that give alternate theories with no physical proof that these theories are more correct than evolution.
“It has not been proven that the earth existed before humans, this is a belief based on data. Anyway, Christians believe that the earth existed before humans as well.”
I am in no way a Christian scholar/follower in any way/shape/form and may be EXTREMELY off when I say this but is there one part of the bible that says something like “He” created the world in a week-ish time a few thousand years ago?
I’m about to head home from work so I’ll put this short:
The thing about the magnificent “religion” of science is science will keep growing. Once someone finds something to say that the current method of dating dino fossils had a variable that drastically changed, I’ll be slightly shocked but also jump on the bandwagon of the new theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“And one of the current core assumptions (which will change, eventually, like most popular scientific beliefs of the day that you would have been a “fool” to disagree with at the time), is evolution, which is not a proven fact by any stretch.”
Google “evolution” and “misconceptions.” I understand that when one feels one’s faith is being attacked, the first reaction is to fight back. However, before any rational discussion can be held about Intelligent Design, its supporters should learn about what evolutionary theory actually means.
I respect your right to practice your religion, but I (and many others) draw the line when it comes to teaching Christianity in public schools via Intelligent Design.
BTW – Other religions have come about after the birth and death of Jesus. Islam, with over a billion followers, is far from a cult.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quote:
And what’s silly is, how can you be so absolutely certain that what you have not seen, that is what existed before you, really existed at all?
Endquote.
By that logic it would also include Jesus then? So why is Christianity any more believable than anything else we haven’t seen ourselves?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“It has not been proven that the earth existed before humans, this is a belief based on data.”
What is proof but experimental data confirming a notion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A very interesting conception of the ability of scientific observation. The great thing about our not being at the genesis of the solar system or, indeed, the known universe, is that we didn’t have to be. The rigors of astronomical observation and analysis has yielded a set of highly sophisticated models that match sets of phenomena that we observe in the solar system today. Models are one thing, of course, and we can’t say definitively that models of the past are completely accurate beyond all doubt, but that statement is somewhat of a sham considering the necessity of “animal faith” in all things that one would give his trust.
Even if I see a keyboard before me, one may doubt that it is there, or that “I” am touching it, or that a keyboard even exists, or that which I am touching is, in fact, a “keyboard.” (as it is merely a mental construct) All that is quite good, but beside the point. Given the basic metaphysical assumptions that humankind accepts as true, our models of very specific astronomical phenomena (star systems, galaxies, etc: ) are ironclad to a high degree, but only through the rigors of dutiful observation and analysis, which goes through tons of errors and corrections. Some of what we say is probably very incorrect. It doesn’t discredit the overall theories.
And if one should ridicule the scientist’s use of his “animal faith” in the basic metaphysical assumptions people must make in order to give credence to all scientific thought, then one ought to notice the animal faith inherent in his own particular beliefs. I don’t believe that this is an argument to say that two such systems are both totally equal and equally meritable either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your egregious overuse of the comma makes the baby pasta cry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Religion in its beginnings was a science. The ancient peoples didn’t know what the sun and moon were so they decided they were gods. Then someone discovered the planets, hey more gods. Then we learned some more. Early Christians didn’t know the effects of droughts, you know water dries up, amphibians have no where to go but the land, they die insects breed heavily now that they have dead amphibians to eat, red tides happen, sandstorms, etc. Religion tells us these are all miracles.
Without science these are all miracles, similar to Helios riding his fiery chariot across the sky everyday. (Who would have thought the ancient Greeks wouldn’t understand hydrogen and helium reactions at the plasma state?) High altitude cerebral edema can cause hallucinations but I am sure what Moses saw was an actual burning bush from God. Science can explain many of the wrong beliefs that our ancestors had.
Religion taught us that the world was flat, that it was the center of the universe. It taught us that the sun, moon, planets, etc. revolved around it. Galileo took a telescope and some basic math and explained that religion was wrong, and was excommunicated for it. Science shows us that we have an appendix and a tailbone neither of which we need. It shows us that whales have bones and joints for rear legs, but no rear legs (anymore).
To suggest that evolution hasn’t been proven is only to suggest that you don’t know the definition of the term ‘scientific theory’. Religion suggests that facts are arguable and the beliefs are beyond question. With that in mind, know that I am not trying to change your beliefs, merely mocking you and your silly rituals. Do you think anyone comes to this page to seek truth? If so than you have more naivety than I originally gave you credit for.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This aggression against what we see and observe comes across as quite desperate and sad. These sorts cannot stand and look squarely in the face of reality, as a “man.” They want reality to be “fair” to their…”manmade” fantasies. But reality isn’t fair. Be a man. Have some balls, and look at it square on. It won’t kill you. They told you it would, but they lied to you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I linked to this from Boingboing.
I must correct Granpa Caligua on a point. I am Jewish and can tell you that Judaism does not focus on belief but on action. Judaism is not just Christianity without Christ. It is actually a very distinct religion with a different set of beliefs. Is it perfect? No. Is it consistent? Hardly. But it is not a beta version of Protestant Christianity either.
Judaism is very hazy on the subject of the afterlife. For the simple reason that no one has ever told us if an afterlife exists or not and if it does, what it is like. Many rabbis and Jewish scholars believe that there is some form of life after death but there is very little agreement on what it is like. Many Jewish theologians argue that there is no hell even for the very evil because the concept of constant suffering is immoral. Others believe that those not ready for the afterlife are sent back to try again.
The most important thing in Judaism is to be a good person in this world. We are supposed to act with kindness and compassion to our fellow humans and study Tenakh. If heaven exists one enters it by doing good deeds and being a kind and gentle human being.
I don’t care whether people believe in God or not. I myself am an apathetic agnostic. I just like people to get the facts straight.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I have struggled all my life with a tormented and joyless relationship with God. Faith and lack of faith, punishment, grace, and rejection, all were real to me, all were imperative. My prayers stank of anguish, entreaty, trust, loathing, and despair. God spoke, God said nothing. . . . No one is safe from religious ideas and confessional phenomena. . . . We can fall victim to them when we least expect it. It’s like Mao’s flu, or being struck by lightning. . . . You were born without purpose, you live without meaning, and living is its own meaning. When you die, you are extinguished. From being you will be transformed to non-being. A god does not necessarily dwell among our capricious atoms.”
– Ingmar Bergman, The Magic Lantern, an autobiography (1987), cited in Who’s Who in Hell, edited by Warren Allen Smith
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fact is that Christians stood against the round earth theory and the solar system model to the point of burning its proponents.
Now most Christians support round earth but have replaced it with evolution as their martyr cause.
They will be shown wrong again and have to bend their beliefs, again, to fit reality or they will parish as a religion.
And as for the “what if we are right” statements, Ive though about this alot and heres my answer: If you are right then i will feel just like you would feel if Tom Cruise is right. As far as I’m concerned, odds are the same for both.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wish this guy would push MY science. That sounds hot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Truth, and Freedom”?
That’s quite strong from an intolerant freeper freak whos moral standards lies not too far from the Taleban and the Sharia laws of Iran. thios is USA: A land of Sharia. I saw it already 17 years ago in Kansas. Now, I can’t even think of how bad it’s become now. And we can al thank the iliterate freeper freaks for that.
As a christian: How would you describe these two: Freedom, and Truth. Because christianity has never endorsed either. Your church has never been right about anything. So do not tell us about right or wrong.
Thanks
M
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think the basic problem is that too many people dismiss science because they can’t wrap their minds around it. They dismiss what they can’t grasp. The distance between the stars is very difficult for some to fathom, as is the immense amount of work that goes into even the most basic science. There’s a reason you can’t be called a scientist if you only have a high school degree. It’s very easy to dismiss or missundertand something you don’t fully or even partialy grasp. Hence the rest of us should make sure to verify the things we talk about, be it science or religion. :)
The FSM letter was a joke used to throw the creationists false logic back in their faces. Get it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I got bored reading your mindless blather after the second paragraph. Don’t disagree, disprove. Until then, accept possibility. That IS science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was almost hoping for this one to be from a non-Christian. Oh well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m into science. Science has actual proof of everything. Case closed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If youre going to point out that science came from philosophy and argue that science is still philosophy and therefor true science follows philosophical methods, doesnt that leave yourself open to the case that a true Christian must partake in animal sacrifice because thats what happened in ancient Israel, which is where Christianity has its roots. If you are going to tie things like science to their roots in philosophy then shouldnt Christianity be tied to its roots in animal sacrifice?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry, you lost me at “I know that science, a religion in and of itself . . .” You guys keep using that as your main argument. If you think that science is a religion than you need to find yourself a hole somewhere to live in where the evil tenants of the science religion can not harm you. You know what I’m talking about — technology, mass production of food and other sustenance, building tools and methods —- basically everything man-made and everything natural and manipulated by man in any way is a product of this religion called science. Flee, fast and far, from your house, your automobile, your dinner!! Hurry before the demons of science drag you down to hell!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I know that science, a religion in and of itself, is NOT the worlds answer to all of our questions.”
Understand this, if you can, Mr. ’science is a religion’ (my FSM, that sounds stupid). Science has given us the only answers that we can know.
The many religions of the world do not answer any questions about the world we live in – better know as reality.
Stop suggesting that religion can offer any answers at all. If people like you ran the show, I get the strong feeling that we would still be digging holes to bury our poop in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RE : ” I know that science, a religion in and of itself, is NOT the worlds answer to all of our questions.”
Science is NOT a religion. Any paradigm or methodology can be followed in a “religious like manner, or religiously” – but that does not make it a religion.
Figuratively, like a religion in the sense that it has prescribed ways of operation.
Literally, NOT A RELIGION.
RE philosophy
“Philosophy is the science which considers truthâ€
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/08/philosophy-is-science-which-considers.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Religion is based on dogma. To some degree, scientists have made the mistake of treating theory dogmatically, but at its core, science is not based on dogma. At its purest, science CAN disprove things, though, you are right, it can never conclusively proove anything. Religion can’t disprove anything, because it doesn’t have a methodology for discovering truth. Instead, it claims to already have truth, and everyone who says otherwise is wrong. This is why science is not religion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You can’t pick and choose the science you like: you can’t root for anthropology and paleontology and shout down biology. The scientific method is used the same way in all sciences (when it is good science). If you choose to reject science in certain areas where the findings disturb you, then I must respect your right to disagree. However, please stay away from our history and our doctors as they are clearly of the devil.
Thank you and have a nice day. Oh, and get off our computers.
-Red Out
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“And what’s silly is, how can you be so absolutely certain that what you have not seen, that is what existed before you, really existed at all?”
……..Pretty sure that says it all right there. Gotta love it when they give us our argument for us, heh.
….And I dunno about you, but I wasn’t there when Christ was killed. I’m only 17, I missed it by a few years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, what well thought out statements my little muttled blurb has caused. How right-to-the-heart this gets. It’s been a while since I’ve been here; school has taken over my life for another year.
I read a comment on how we were not there when Jesus Christ was and how we as Christians cannot prove him to be. EXACTLY! We live by faith. We have faith that what has been described to us in the Bible – that is, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ – really happened. If it didn’t, our faith becomes quite futile. We have hope in what is to come – that is the resurrection of our own bodies and souls into eternity with our daddy (where our “true” home is). And now, we love (well, to be true to our belief in sin, we should love, but we don’t always). So, you are correct in saying that we were not there. But for all intents and purposes, either were you. So, whether Jesus Christ walked among us as the Son of God or not is, and can only be, a matter of faith. Again, the rock that causes men to stumble.
My challange is very much the same as yours (and by “yours” I mean, you scientific minded). You challange me to trust that the doctrine of science is true doctrine – true because it is self-sufficient, self-supported, self-speaking. Well the Word of God asks the same from you. Those who put their trust in the doctrine of reason and experience do not leave room for us faith-minded unreasonable Christians. We – though through love hold your hands as fellow sinners – DO have room in our church for “good” science. Science that states “evolution is the truth” is NOT good science. A scientist that uses poor science, in our opinion, is a no-good, self destructive plague to all you and to all of us. The use of science has been a MARVELOUS blessing to makind and to our world. The discoveries discovered, the places placed on maps, the sightings saw…science is truly a great blessing. But bad science is no science at all, because the very reason for science is destroyed in the self-serving attitude of the scientist when he says “this observation must be true”, though there are perhaps countless other possibilities he never tests.
For us who are Christ, we are compelled to go by faith without evidence. We are compelled to say “it can be no other way” because for faith to be faith, we cannot (and rightly so) attempt to introduce evidence. It would no longer be faith. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. For, as many great philosophers have deduced, we cannot always be so apt to trust our senses. Descartes, though I don’t personally take his approach to heart, was on to something when he said “We cannot trust our senses.” Our world-view is so affected by our environment – and our environment is constantly changing because of our world-view. If science proves anything, it is just that.
Christ is called the stumbling block because it calls for man to step out of himself and take a leap off of something he always thought was a bottomless pit. It reminds me of the “Indiana Jones” film, where Indiana was forced to take a “leap of faith” and step out into what he thought was nothing. Science tries to say there is something to step on or there isn’t. What it cannot see – by its very design – cannot exist. And yet, Indiana walked right across the gorge. It’s the same with Christ. We are asked, every day, to take a step and trust that the Word of God will support us. And I as a 31 year old can tell you – it has NOT failed me yet…and in my 31 years, I have been led astray by bad science being taught in our schools many times. I have been deceived by something that science says is a sure thing. If you were me…what would you put your faith in? Something that cannot be tested, but has never failed, or something that can be tested but still has failed. Here endeth the lesson.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“DO have room in our church for “good†science.”–Exactly what consititues ‘good science’ for you, then? Anything that doesn’t interfere with the bible? Basically you pick and choose what you will and will not accept. Tell me, do you accept that the world is round?
See, I always thought that if evidence is showing something, then really, you’re just being a stubborn idiot to ignore it. That’s called ‘blind faith’, and it’s generally not thought all that highly of.
-
“Something that cannot be tested, but has never failed, or something that can be tested but still has failed. “…..I must be missing something here. You’re saying that we should ignore all science that goes against what you believe in? Faith is all well and good, but when it’s been directly disproven…..I can have faith that I’ll be able to jump up into the air and fly one day, even though all evidence points towards that faith being a bit wrong. Doesn’t make me right, it just makes me look incredibly stupid. I find it a tad disconcerting that you’re willing to just throw out whatever doesn’t work for you personally by dubbing it ‘bad science’ (seriously, what the crap? Is there some defenition of ‘bad science’ I should be aware of, or is it just you deciding what is and is not Correct?) and ignoring that it ever existed? Er….
Have fun with that, I guess.
Oh, and by the way, if something cannot be tested then of COURSE it can’t fail–it can’t win, either, because there was never a test for it to win/lose at in the first place. I’ll say this much: your faulty logic is staggering.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gill, my friend, you are using circular arguments to try to somehow say christianty and science cannot work together. They CAN. “Bad Science” is what any “good scientist” would call poor work. i don’t put the label on, the scientific community did. I know many scientists who look at how science is used – and they call it bad. You don’t need me to do that. Please don’t do the “what’s their names” bit, give me that respect. To be sure, if science DOES go against what the bible says, it does not necessarily mean that the science is wrong…but I also trust in the Word of God.
This is circular because you are doing the same thing over and over…you say faith “can’t win” because it cannot be tested. But that’s the whole thing…it doesn’t have to be tested! It’s FAITH! You are not one of these bad scientists who can’t seem to grasp the idea of faith are you? Certainly not. You must understand that we make decisions based on faith every day. We cannot prove or disprove that we will not die when we get into our cars and drive to work each day – we have faith that nothing will happen. Is this faith a bad thing? Absolutly NOT, or no one would ever get in their cars and drive!
You cannot prove what you do not know. Death, is the ultimate test for this, as you cannot prove that there is nothing or that there is something beyond death. Some may have faith that there is nothing, some have faith there is. Either way is faith. But one can never know for sure based on science, be it good or bad. I know by faith that there is something afterward, and I put my hope in that. You know, by faith, that there is nothing – and thus you have nothing to hope in beyond the grave. And thus you cannot consistantly answer the 3 basic questions: Who Am I, Why Am I Here, Where Am I Going? I have an answer to every question, just as clear as day, apart from science. And I do hope in that which I do not see and science cannot prove – or it wouldn’t be hope. Why would anyone hope in what they already know or have? Why would anyone put faith in something that can be proven or substantianted? You lose with me, when you say “there was never a test in the first place”, because if there were a test, there would be no faith.
“Faith is all well and good, but when it’s been directly disproven…” So faith in Christ Jesus has been disproven? That’s news to me and probably news to most of those who are reading this. I think, you have concluded in your own philosophy that it has been, but in reality science has not disproven faith. If anything it strengthens faith. See, good science realizes that it is the study of THINGS, of the MATERIAL UNIVERSE, of MATTER, and of our EXPERIENCES with THINGS. How could it possibly have any bearing what so ever on matters of faith? Again, science is a philosophy – it always has been. Heck, who wrote the first physics book?? A scientist? NO, a philosopher, who was trying to grapple with his environment and with the observations he made about it. A good scientist understands this. A good scientist does not assume that science is the final answer to all things. It is only one way of answering questions in a whole slew of things. And perhaps one of the better ways. Bad science is the Pierces and the Mills of this world that are so closed off from anything beyond what they see that they are unwilling to even consider the possibility of that which science cannot touch. I think it’s time, Gill, that you stop drinking scientific milk and move on to more solid methodology – if you dare call yourself a scientist. Otherwise I’m sure there is plenty of room for you in the “preschool” science classes they offer at many of our public universities and high schools.
with all due respect
Roy
PS – please stop making this an “us – them” thing. There is only us. us and them are one in the same. If you could understand that, you would understand me a whole lot better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To the person who openned this thread, I think you have a few problems, the first is philosophy and science are much much older than Christ, and any of the “One God” religions. Philosophy probably started in the cave age when someone asked “Why are we here.”
(just as a side note some of the great Greek Philosophers were said to be atheists, so Atheism pre-dates your all knowing all seeing one true God).
.
Science has always been the same, we look at the evidence presented to us and come up with the likely theories.
.
So your so called one constant of Jesus, is not really a constant.
.
You also say that, “Science has found some of the places in the bible” as if that was proof the bible was totally true, Like any good Myth it has an element of truth, A man called Jesus probably lived and walked on the earth. But Troy was real, Agamemnon is said to be the person who lead the greeks to attack it, there is evidence of Odysseus. So by your logic this proves the Greek Gods to be real and cyclops and 3 headed dogs once terrorised the world.
.
But we WERE there to witness Christ and his death. And we WERE there to witness his resurrection.
.
I hear the same cry from the Greeks, We WERE there to see the Paris present the Godesses with the apple. Exactly who was there to see his resurrection? Could it not be made up be people wanting to impress others with the might of a imaginary God.
.
I’d like there to be a God, and for Justice to reign, but it just ain’t so! Stop fooling yourself and open your eyes, You are a slave to your faith and I am free due to my reason.
.
In the words of a great Philosopher “God is Dead”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Roy D Carlson
.
I can’t let this pass:
.
‘But that’s the whole thing…it doesn’t have to be tested! It’s FAITH! You are not one of these bad scientists who can’t seem to grasp the idea of faith are you? Certainly not. You must understand that we make decisions based on faith every day. We cannot prove or disprove that we will not die when we get into our cars and drive to work each day – we have faith that nothing will happen. Is this faith a bad thing? Absolutely NOT, or no one would ever get in their cars and drive!’
.
You are making what is usually described as ‘a massive, massive error’, here. Your choice to get into your car everyday is not a matter of faith at all. It is in fact a matter of evidence. How? It is a matter of *probability*.
.
You want some proof? Imagine this. You get up one morning, pick up your newspaper and the headline is ‘99 OUT OF EVERY 100 CARS TO BE SHOT BY TANKS TODAY, RULES GOVERNMENT’. Do you smile to yourself and say ‘Ah, well, my faith will see me through’? Of course you don’t. Like every other intelligent person, you phone your boss, apologise for the fact that the new militant anti-traffic measures are going to make you late, and you walk to the bus stop.
.
The reason you drive your car is that you know lots and lots of other people with cars who drive them every day and have still never had a fatal accident. You know that, whilst fatal accidents are a relatively common cause of death, you are still far less likely to have one than you are to be perfectly okay. And you know that by driving carefully and having a fairly safe car, you can improve your chances still further.
If this is ‘faith’, then it is faith in probability – in good, old-fashioned scientific *evidence*. *That* sort of faith is healthy and justified. The sort of faith that *you* seem to be advocating – faith that doesn’t care two hoots about evidence – is the sort of faith that would have got you shot by a tank in the above example. (Which, I’m afraid, if you are willing to base your life on that sort of faith, is the kind of fate you deserve, for the safety of the rest of us.)
.
I don’t want you, or anyone, to be shot by a tank. You are not as stupid as you are making yourself out to be. Admit it. Deep down, you’re a logical person. Let the logic carry you through, and we’ll welcome you into the real world. It’s really nice here!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Militant anti-traffic tanks? Good point, bad example.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
J.
.
I am not driving in tomorrow!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Roy D Carlson (Hello, by the way! Nice to meet you!),
.
Here’s another thing I can’t ignore:
.
‘Death, is the ultimate test for this, as you cannot prove that there is nothing or that there is something beyond death. […] I know by faith that there is something afterward, and I put my hope in that. You know, by faith, that there is nothing – and thus you have nothing to hope in beyond the grave.’
No, no, no.! You *believe* (ie *think* you know), by faith, that there is something after life. We, on the other hand, simply admit that we have no evidence about what it’s like to be dead, so we simply don’t assume anything. The difference is that when evidence tells us nothing, *we* assume nothing, whilst *you* assume a magical realm of eternal life, divine love and your pick of whatever other heavenly details your particular church currently describes. As ‘thinking’ goes, this can be put in the category ‘wishful’.
.
And then there’s this:
.
‘And thus you cannot consistantly answer the 3 basic questions: Who Am I, Why Am I Here, Where Am I Going? I have an answer to every question, just as clear as day’
Well, firstly science can answer the questions ‘What am I, Where did I Come From, How Am I Here?’, and the answers it provides conflict quite heavily with your answers. These are proper questions that can be given proper answers. What’s ‘proper’ mean? See next point.
.
Secondly, your big three questions are a set-up. Example:
.
–You say ‘Who am I?’
–I can quite accurately answer ‘You are Roy D Carlson’.
–You could say, ‘No, that’s not what I meant’.
–I say ‘Well, we’ll get a psychologist and a behaviourologist and a sociologist in and they can probably give you a very thorough character assessment, which should help’. –You, I expect, will say ‘No, that’s not what I meant, either’.
–I could say ‘Well, we’ll ask all of your friends, acquaintances and enemies (if you have enemies, of course) their opinions of you and see if we can define who you are that way’.
–‘No’, you say, ‘that still doesn’t answer my question’.
–‘Well’, I say… [etc]
.
I have a feeling this conversation would go on up until I say: ‘What do you mean, then?’, and you say ‘Only God can tell me Who I Am’. You see, if you phrase a massively vague question and then refuse every answer except God, then you’re not really asking a question at all. You are just creating an opportunity to say ‘God exists’. Anyone can do that. You are on the Flying Spaghetti Monster website. I could ask you exactly the same question and reject every answer because ‘Only the FSM can tell me who I am’. Does this make the FSM a reality? Or does it just make me quite annoying?
.
(As a sidenote, what *does* God tell you? Aside from the obvious stuff – ‘You are my creation and devoted servant and I love you’ – which is no more than a restatement of how you have decided to define yourself. I expect you’d be somewhat disappointed if you found yourself in heaven, asked God ‘Who Am I?’ and received the answer: ‘Roy D Carlson’)
.
And that parenthesis leads me to my third point. This is the FSM site, and, through the FSM, I can answer all three of your Big Questions.
.
1 – I am J, Pastafarian (and, paradoxically, atheist)
2 – I am here to Glorify his Noodly Goodness and to Spread His Truth to non-believers, that they too might be Touched by His Noodly Appendage. Also to say ‘Arr’
3 – I am going to Heaven, where I shall take advantage of the Beer Volcano and the Stripper Factory that He has provided for me and for my piratical brethren. Arrr, and RAmen
.
You are likely to find the above three answers facetious and ridiculous. I have not a shred of evidence for the existence of the FSM, and lot of very sound reasons not to believe in him.
.
The truth, of course, is that that is *exactly* how at least four billion people in the world see your god. You are, I’m afraid, in a delusional minority group. The good news is, you can break free at any time, and we are here to help you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pixel Pete,
.
An absurd example for an absurd error!
.
(Conveniently, Dawkins – I think – used traffic accidents as the metaphor for basically the same point years ago. He was describing how we are not accustomed to thinking in terms of the timescales involved in evolution, and their effect on the probabilities involved. Imagine, he said, if we belonged to a society just like ours, but in which the natural lifespan was thousands and thousands of years. The probability of us getting knocked down by a car each time we crossed the road would be the same as now. But, since we all crossed the road so many more times in the course of our lives, the probability of us finding ourselves mashed to a car bumper at some point would be enormously higher. Car accidents of various sorts would be the runaway main cause of death in our society. Most people would die in traffic accidents. As a society, we would be hugely concerned about improving safety and reducing accidents. We would be thinking very hard every time we considered driving our cars or crossing a road.
.
Evolution, of course, operates on a timescale that’s near enough unimaginable to us. His point was, what seems very unlikely to us is damn near a certainty over the aeons.
.
Mine was of course, much simpler. I was just trying to get Roy to notice that he’d not spotted the influence of probability on his life in the here and now.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Roy D Carlson, one last time,
‘I think it’s time, Gill, that you stop drinking scientific milk and move on to more solid methodology’
.
I am scratching my head about this one. Throughout your post, on the one hand you have upheld faith in the utterly unprovable as a positive virtue, and have on the other hand sought to define science as ‘only’ about ‘things’, and not, therefore, relevant to faith. I find this really very worrying. Deep inside, you must see that, between ‘making decisions based on the observable facts of the world and people around you’ and ‘making decisions based on whatever you feel like and calling it faith’, one is significantly better than the other as a way to live. (You will hate this description, which you will see as a caricature of your faith. It is not. Look at what you have told us logically. And read on.)
.
Before you give up on me as constitutionally unable to comprehend where you are coming from, let me quickly say that I used to be Christian. Not just an ‘I reckon there’s a god, maybe, so I must be a Christian’ sort of Christian. An honest, thought-hard-before-I-accepted-Jesus, went-to-Bible-study type of Christian. I *do* understand the powerful, powerful sense you must have of your faith as just being *right*, of it *feeling* right, of it making *sense* of the world in a way that all the jabbering on about ‘evidence’ in the world will never achieve. I understand that you know that the more effort you put into your faith, the more your faith rewards you, and that every time you struggle with doubt, your faith will feel all the stronger when you have triumphed.
.
Yes. I remember all of this.
.
This is going to be hard to accept: It’s *better* outside religion. Honestly. Maybe there was a time when you weren’t religious and you had a hard time. Maybe you feel god gives your life all its direction and meaning. It’s probably true, in fact, that your faith has taught you a huge amount about yourself as a person, who you are, and what you need.
.
If you feel that, then you have got out of faith everything good that it has to offer. It is time to move beyond faith, and into reality.
.
It’s hard when you become an atheist. Harder than when you become a Christian, in fact. As an atheist, you have to get used to being without someone whom you’ve spent a long time believing was always there for you. It takes time.
.
But the rewards! Those people who are all around you – they matter *so* much more. People are what life is made of. You will never spend another night afraid that someone you care about and whom you know to be a wonderful person is going to go to hell for reasons that contradict every bit of *human* moral fibre in your body.
.
You can look at the universe in honest awe. You can be completely flabbergasted at the majesty and complexity of life. And you can share in a sense of hard-won, justified pride that bit by bit we’re learning about it – and be awestruck afresh at how every discovery raises a raft of new questions.
.
You may miss your god, but the feeling of *knowing* him to be false is wonderful in a completely different way from the feeling of ‘putting faith’ in him. You have this great sense of intellectual honesty by knowing you have faced up to the facts, weighed them up, made the tough decision and embraced them. It’s challenging, because you have to live without a habitual support. But it’s invigorating, uplifting, inspiring, self-assuring and *right* feeling in a way quite unlike theism.
.
A lot of things in the world that seem threatening when you are a theist suddenly are not threatening any more. And, the things that *are* threatening are things that are *actually*, really threatening – the things that could really harm you and your loved ones. You can use your own faculties or reasoning, unhindered, and refer to those of other people in confidence. You are no longer being told what your instincts should be doing. They work properly.
.
And that niggling doubt that we’re always told is a natural part of Christianity – it’s gone. You can have *proper* doubts about things without feeling that you just *have* to overcome them. It’s fine to be doubtful. That’s just using your brain. And, if you come up with something new, it’s not ‘contrary to His Word’, it’s a *discovery*! (Scientists, unlike god, accept being proven wrong as a step in the right direction. Sure, they’re not always best pleased about it – they’re only human – but they accept that fallibility is an inescapable part of progress. Science is all about truth. Ever wonder where the word science comes from? Look it up: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=science)
.
That’s all carrot. There is a sort of a stick. Like it or not, whether you accept reality or choose a belief based on something else, you still share reality – the world of those scientific ‘things’ – with the rest of us. Some of those scientific things are *us*. We’re very worried about the way you feel able to view us as less important than someone you can’t show us, who won’t speak to us, who contradicts the world we see around us and who has prompted a lot of people to do a lot of horrific things. We are worried about you. We are sympathetic to you. But we are also aware, based on the abundant evidence of history, that people of faith are an enormous threat to us. As individuals, as groups and as a species. We are worried, alright.
.
I’d rather end on the positive stuff, though. So I’ll refer you to Davey, who says things much better, and much more concisely, than I do. Go to the thread called ‘for my part, my christian beliefs’ and scan down to Davey’s thread of Oct 23rd, 2006 at 4:25 pm Read away. It’s all true.
.
Thanks for your time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To my dear Roy D C. :
“You cannot prove what you do not knowâ€â€”but you can prove what you do know, right? And if there’s evidence towards something then you can’t just ignore it. Evolution is not death or the afterlife. It’s something that is well on its way to becoming proven.
“You know, by faith, that there is nothing – and thus you have nothing to hope in beyond the grave.â€â€”I believe in god. I also believe that god doesn’t want us chalking every little thing up to ‘faith’ when we could very easily prove it ourselves. *shock aw horror!*
“So faith in Christ Jesus has been disproven?â€â€”Funny, I don’t remember saying that. Have faith in Jesus, I don’t care—it’s faith that evolution is wrong because of god that’s been –more or less- disproved via evolution. Kindly don’t put words in my mouth.
“See, good science realizes that it is the study of THINGS, of the MATERIAL UNIVERSE, of MATTER, and of our EXPERIENCES with THINGS.‗ I agree. So why can’t you agree with evolution, I see no conflict here.
“if you dare call yourself a scientist.â€â€”I’m no scientist. Never have been, never will be. Planning on being a creative writing major, actually.
“please stop making this an “us – them†thing.†–but it IS an ‘us-them’ thing. Us being people who can accept that science has some answers that go against faith, and that science is right in that debate because science has supporting evidence and faith doesn’t, as with evolution; Them being people who…..kinda can’t. (Although I don’t remember calling it an ‘us-them thing’, either, come to think of it.)
“‘I think it’s time, Gill, that you stop drinking scientific milk and move on to more solid methodology’†First of all, milk is nasty and I do my utter best to avoid it. Second of all, which out of the two of us is arguing for faith—which can hardly be considered ‘solid methology’?
Lastly, your comments on ‘bad science’…again I ask, who discerns what ‘bad science’ is? Is there some man in a pretty white lab coat in charge of all of this? Even if a hypothesis is proven false, that doesn’t make it ‘bad science’; as far as I understand it, evolution has yet to be proven false and seems to be very ‘good science’, really.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But what about faith having answers that go beyond science? Again, I don’t have anymore trouble with science as the next person who sees its benefit. But when one assumes that science goes beyond faith, it’s no different than saying faith goes beyond science. It’s the same argument through a different pair of glasses. I have faith, you have science. I believe in God, you believe in god. Does science, or should science interfere with that? The trouble with evolution is that, by its nature, it evolves every day. Now, I have heard it say on the Discovery Channel, there are some who see evidence that life never started here on earth at all. But I digress…Why is evolution taught in our public schools? Why, knowing that evolutionary theory is no theory at all? Well, before I answer that, here are some things to think about…
“Evolutionary theory, as it is normally presented in the schools and in the popular media, is less than honest in at least six major ways”…
The first problem is that no one ever teaches that evolution is taught on a purely material sence. In other words, it assumes – yes “begs the question” that all there is is material. This is NOT science, but materialism – a predominant philosophy in the mid to late 19th century. The progressive movement took this idea and loaded into what we now call the evolutionary theory. To completly or even partially accept the evolutionary theory REQUIRES that the person completly deny the possibility of something beyond the material. Personally I think that is very short sighted. Thus this is where I coin the term “bad science.” When someone uses the evolutionary theory to try and prove there is no god (God), he closes his mind to anything beyond himself. That is at best, foolish. Now you say that you believe in god well enough. And I will trust that you are open minded enough to consider what that “could” mean.
The second problem: biogenesis. Evolutionary theory avoides trying to answer the question: “how did life come from non-life?” They claim that it’s not important, but the DNA is what is important. Where that DNA came from, well…we’ll know one day, but for sure it is from chance, not from design. This, of course goes against what thermodynamics states not to mention the information theory.
The third problem: the mechanism for macroevolution. How does a bat come from a mouse or a human from a fish? Classical and neo-darwinism says that “the answer is selection pressure acting on the natural variation in a species population over many generations–that is, protracted microevolution.” Macroevolution requires more than this, however, in that it requires a way to change or add to the complex structure of genetic material in such a way that the organism doesn’t completly turn to goo. Evolution offers no way to explain this. This continues to cause even the most predominant scholars to think twice. (but they don’t teach that in our schools, do they?)
Here is a quote from Murray Eden, a professor of Information Theory at MIT: “No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequence which expresses its sentences. Meaning is almost invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones. I would conjecture that what one might call ‘genetic grammaticality’ has a deterministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection pressure acting on random variation.” Interesting how one would conclude this – one who has done as much research as the next guy who accepts evolution as the final answer. Could culture/world view have anything to do with this? Hmmmm. Again, why do they teach these things in our schools?
The forth problem: fossil records…Darwin himself said about fossil records: “the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against [my] theory.” There are GAPS in fossil records! Paleontology does NOT fill those gaps…the very theory of evolution itself is dependant on paleontology, and it is flawed and contradicts itself! So who has jumped to conclusions here? And who decided that these unfounded things should be taught in our schools? Why does he want to teach lies to our kids? Could it be more than scientific discovery? Could it be politics? Could it be something more, like man trying to play God? Hmmm. Again, I digress.
The fifth problem: global extinction. It took HUGE amounts of energy to create the Paleozoic and Mesozoic formations. MUCH more energy than we can observe today. So….what happened? Where is all that energy? Our observations can’t tell us, so we must rely on assumptions…yes faith. I believe that energy to be the Word of God. But we can’t speak of that and be considered wise in a world that can only acknowledge material.
The sixth problem: radiometric dating. Radiometric techniques are in glaring conflict with most non-radiometric means for estimating geological time! For example, the rate of soluble ion accumulation in the oceans…Concentrations of highly soluble species like sodium, that are far below saturation levels in ocean water, are readily measurable in the world’s rivers. By simply dividing the current mass of sodium in the oceans by the current rate of sodium deposition show that the age of the oceans is less than 2% of radiometric dating suggests about the earth. Why? Again, the small extent of physical diffusion of radiogenic helium measured in highly radioactive zircon crystals in Precambrian granite from cores drilled at Fenton Hill in the 1970’s yields a dramatically shorter age than that obtained by radiometric methods. Why is this?? The state of preservation of bone protein in dinosaur bone from many locations in the world, including New Mexico’s own Seismosaurus, likewise suggests profound conflict with radiometric techniques. Why??? And this is just an example of the many problems with radiometric dating. Yet the evolutionists swear by it. It doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t answer my original question. Why is such a flawed and inconsistant collection of ideas being taught like pure fact in our school system? If your child came home and told you that his teacher taught him that everything rotates around the flat earth, wouldn’t you want to set him straight? And yet, these theories – theories that spit all over what science is all about – are being forced down the throats of our children. Many are told they are fools for believing in any sort of god or more powerful being beyond us. Why? I can tell you! Because we human beings do not want God. We want to be our own gods. And we doom ourselves because of it. It is what makes the “us” and the “them” one in the same.
So I live by faith that in spite of my own foolishness, I have a clear answer to life’s three questions. You go by propositions that your ever changing facts are the answer. You say you believe in “god”, but I will tell you: that is not good enough. In the realm of faith, even the demons believe in God and tremble. “god” just can’t stand up to that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
J,
are you trying to convert me? Are you trying to save me from the destructive and self-centered life of faith? Come now, J, you ought to know then, as one who was a Christian, that I would not trade my Father in heaven for your father on earth. You could throw every piece of proven (or otherwise) statements at me and it would not cause me to change my mind. Because, faith is not a matter of my mind. Faith is a living breathing thing that you cannot kill or destroy with words. I wonder why you would walk away from it…I pray it wasn’t because of what some of our more fundamental churches preach and practice – works righteousness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“But what about faith having answers that go beyond science?”
Given enough time and enough fresh lab coats, everything that is answerable can be answered. Everything else has, being unanswerable, has no answer. Faith has no answers, it assumes that the answers provided to it by church/god/your elder brother/a bloke on the street/any fictional higher power are reliable and unquestionable. Faith, far from having any answers, asks no *questions*.
“Faith is a living breathing thing”
Then you can show it to me. A photo will do.
.
“Faith is a living breathing thing”
Then it can be killed. Perhaps not with words, but it’s worth a go.
.
“I would not trade my Father in heaven for your father on earth”
Neither would I. Your heavenly father is a fiction, whereas my dad is a nice man who shares his stash of fine single malt whiskys whenever I go round to see him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“But what about faith having answers that go beyond science?â€
.
.
My imagination has more answers than even faith, so what?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
faith IS the imagination of explaining the (yet) unknown. Of course we can’t explain anything yet, that what science is all about: research! Faith is the fear to die and be dead, so life won’t have a meaning. Most people can’t imagine being gone, so they believe in something. But, be honest, as sad as it is: what meaning has life if there is an afterlife? And why did god make everything so complicated: DNA, metabolism, Fossils …. if he is almighty, why does he need beings so complex? Why aren’t we just beanbags filled with his spirit then????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Why, knowing that evolutionary theory is no theory at all? “–Just so you know, a theory is fine to teach in science class. Yes, there are gapsd in the evolutionary theory, yes, it could be disproven one day–but as a theory based on the scientific method, it can be taught in science class. (Gravety is a theory too, remeber?)
-
“You go by propositions that your ever changing facts are the answer. You say you believe in “godâ€, but I will tell you: that is not good enough. In the realm of faith, even the demons believe in God and tremble. “god†just can’t stand up to that.”–What ‘ever-changing facts’, exactly? Theories aren’t facts, they can and do change. People thought the world was flat, now they know it’s round. Are we not supposed to believe in science because it changes as we learn more?
Lastly, I find your last few comments quite funny. Are you calling me a demon? *I wish, they’ve got cool horns.* My faith in ‘god’ is strong enough that I don’t feel the need to go around trying to convince other people to agree with me, and it’s strong enough to accept evolution and still be there. Obviously you can’t say the same…..I kinda feel bad for you, that you can’t just live your life with your faith instead of going around forcing it on others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“J,
are you trying to convert me? Are you trying to save me from the destructive and self-centered life of faith? Come now, J, you ought to know then, as one who was a Christian, that I would not trade my Father in heaven for your father on earth. You could throw every piece of proven (or otherwise) statements at me and it would not cause me to change my mind. Because, faith is not a matter of my mind. Faith is a living breathing thing that you cannot kill or destroy with words. I wonder why you would walk away from it…I pray it wasn’t because of what some of our more fundamental churches preach and practice – works righteousness. ”
.
J is not asking you to trade yor father in heaven of his father on earth. What he is asking you is to trade the warm comfort of the christian lies and help us search for the truth, but if you do it involves you passing a test first.
.
I hate to use this but remember the Matrix, where the lead character has to choose between to two pills,
.
Every human in deep down knows that death is the end, otherwise we would not go to such lengths at staying alive. The question is can you face up to this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OMG! you are so completly convinced that christianity is a lie. I can see that talking to you people is like talking to more brick walls. but you know what? I don’t do this to convinced the learned and wise to believe in God. I do this in hopes that one fool – one person out of a million who might be reading this would be willing to at least take on the challange of seeing for himself. Getting outside of his shell of piety and asking the question “what if?” If only one person came to faith by what i wrote, then my mission has been accomplished – and i shall meet you one day in paradise
Like or Dislike:
0 
0