The Religious Discussion of 2012

[carlfense]

I didn't say you don't believe in Jesus I asked if you do! A question that can have many answers!!

 

Actually, you did say that I don't believe in Jesus. That was only 43 minutes earlier. Yikes. Keep it up. You're doing great!

 

 

And what is with your moral ourtrage over a man you don't even believe in, kinda pathetic to try and use Jesus now just to try and make points!!

 

 

You know I meant that in terms of him being the Son of God!! Do you believe him to be the son of God?

That is not what you said. Say what you mean and mean what you say. It will make your life easier. For someone who accuses me of twisting words around you sure try to do the same.

 

I think Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph.

[JJ Husker]

A few interesting statistics on what Americans believe.

92% believe in God.

85% believe in heaven.

82% believe in miracles

71% believe in the devil

69% believe religion plays too small a role in our lives

15% believe religion plays too large a role in our lives

34% believe in ghosts

34% believe in UFO's

29% believe in Astrology

25% believe in reincarnation

 

I'll be the first to admit that being in the majority is not always what it's cracked up to be but, 92%? People can do what they wish but I would really have to do some serious thinking and possibly re-evaluate my position if I knew 92% of other people disagreed with me on an issue that could have such eternal ramifications. Either that or I would have to be extremely egotistical and self centered to think I was that much smarter or more informed than so many other people.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ntum_ad_populum

I am not advocating that what the majority believes makes anything absolutely true or right. In fact, I feel the majority often gets it wrong. Our elected politicians are enough evidence of that. But, when it is you against the world, I do believe it is time to dig a little deeper and possibly re-evaluate your position. I posted the stats only to cause people to think about it, not to claim that 92% makes anything fact.

[JJ Husker]

A few interesting statistics on what Americans believe.

92% believe in God.

85% believe in heaven.

82% believe in miracles

71% believe in the devil

69% believe religion plays too small a role in our lives

15% believe religion plays too large a role in our lives

34% believe in ghosts

34% believe in UFO's

29% believe in Astrology

25% believe in reincarnation

 

I'll be the first to admit that being in the majority is not always what it's cracked up to be but, 92%? People can do what they wish but I would really have to do some serious thinking and possibly re-evaluate my position if I knew 92% of other people disagreed with me on an issue that could have such eternal ramifications. Either that or I would have to be extremely egotistical and self centered to think I was that much smarter or more informed than so many other people.

Eh. Everyone believed the world was flat for a long time. Everyone believed that sickness was caused by "bad vapors" for a long time. Etc.

 

How do you feel about the near scientific consensus on global warming?

Meh. There was also a time when 92% believed the world was not flat and was sure it was round.

 

Do you mean real scientific evidence or the kind of evidence that requires collusion and secret emails to make sure everyone is on the same page? After all it kind of defeats the purpose to have data and facts showing up in "official" research that refute the original hypothesis. Makes it really tough to advance proposals that would create energy credits, increase taxes, and promote technology that simply isn't viable yet.

[bennychico11]

Why can't they coexist? The scientific explanation for the white light doesn't change the fact that it could still be the beginning process of the afterlife.

 

But why even assume that it is the beginning process. You don't know for sure. Nothing in your holy texts says "you'll see a white light as your are being taken to heaven." One believer one day probably said he felt as if he was being taken away and that the light was his god and the rest of humanity took it and ran with it. Ignoring the fact the guy was losing brain function and the inability to think logically...yet alone recollect exactly what was happening to him later on.

It just confuses me why people are so readily to make up answers that fit their beliefs based off of emotion. Just because you want it to be true. There are other, rational, scientific explanation for these things. Why not be satisfied with them?

[carlfense]

A few interesting statistics on what Americans believe.

92% believe in God.

85% believe in heaven.

82% believe in miracles

71% believe in the devil

69% believe religion plays too small a role in our lives

15% believe religion plays too large a role in our lives

34% believe in ghosts

34% believe in UFO's

29% believe in Astrology

25% believe in reincarnation

 

I'll be the first to admit that being in the majority is not always what it's cracked up to be but, 92%? People can do what they wish but I would really have to do some serious thinking and possibly re-evaluate my position if I knew 92% of other people disagreed with me on an issue that could have such eternal ramifications. Either that or I would have to be extremely egotistical and self centered to think I was that much smarter or more informed than so many other people.

Eh. Everyone believed the world was flat for a long time. Everyone believed that sickness was caused by "bad vapors" for a long time. Etc.

 

How do you feel about the near scientific consensus on global warming?

Meh. There was also a time when 92% believed the world was not flat and was sure it was round.

 

Do you mean real scientific evidence or the kind of evidence that requires collusion and secret emails to make sure everyone is on the same page? After all it kind of defeats the purpose to have data and facts showing up in "official" research that refute the original hypothesis. Makes it really tough to advance proposals that would create energy credits, increase taxes, and promote technology that simply isn't viable yet.

Ah. So you agree with the consensuses that you agree with.

 

I.E. If a consensus lines up with your worldview it is proof that your worldview is correct. If a consensus disagrees with your worldview then the consensus should be disregarded.

 

That's convenient.

[The Dude]

A few interesting statistics on what Americans believe.

92% believe in God.

85% believe in heaven.

82% believe in miracles

71% believe in the devil

69% believe religion plays too small a role in our lives

15% believe religion plays too large a role in our lives

34% believe in ghosts

34% believe in UFO's

29% believe in Astrology

25% believe in reincarnation

 

I'll be the first to admit that being in the majority is not always what it's cracked up to be but, 92%? People can do what they wish but I would really have to do some serious thinking and possibly re-evaluate my position if I knew 92% of other people disagreed with me on an issue that could have such eternal ramifications. Either that or I would have to be extremely egotistical and self centered to think I was that much smarter or more informed than so many other people.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ntum_ad_populum

I am not advocating that what the majority believes makes anything absolutely true or right. In fact, I feel the majority often gets it wrong. Our elected politicians are enough evidence of that. But, when it is you against the world, I do believe it is time to dig a little deeper and possibly re-evaluate your position. I posted the stats only to cause people to think about it, not to claim that 92% makes anything fact.

It mostly just makes me think this is the biggest and best example of the majority getting it wrong. Since there's zero evidence of magic ever existing, I think it's a fairly safe position to take.

[johnnyrodgers20]

I didn't say you don't believe in Jesus I asked if you do! A question that can have many answers!!

 

Actually, you did say that I don't believe in Jesus. That was only 43 minutes earlier. Yikes. Keep it up. You're doing great!

 

 

And what is with your moral ourtrage over a man you don't even believe in, kinda pathetic to try and use Jesus now just to try and make points!!

 

 

You know I meant that in terms of him being the Son of God!! Do you believe him to be the son of God?

That is not what you said. Say what you mean and mean what you say. It will make your life easier. For someone who accuses me of twisting words around you sure try to do the same.

 

I think Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph.

 

 

I did not make myself perfectly clear that is my bad. But I think that Jesus and God are one and the same so when I said Jesus and when I say Jesus in the future I am referring to him as a man and God. I do not ever use Jesus in terms of just being a man. Unless I am brought into an instance by someone else. The inference is now there.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Why can't they coexist? The scientific explanation for the white light doesn't change the fact that it could still be the beginning process of the afterlife.

 

But why even assume that it is the beginning process. You don't know for sure. Nothing in your holy texts says "you'll see a white light as your are being taken to heaven." One believer one day probably said he felt as if he was being taken away and that the light was his god and the rest of humanity took it and ran with it. Ignoring the fact the guy was losing brain function and the inability to think logically...yet alone recollect exactly what was happening to him later on.

It just confuses me why people are so readily to make up answers that fit their beliefs based off of emotion. Just because you want it to be true. There are other, rational, scientific explanation for these things. Why not be satisfied with them?

 

 

If you believe there is an after life then that example can easily fit just as yours can. Why does yours have to be right? Especially if you are nothing after you die.

[Enhance]

Enhance 89 Quote:

 

I take offense to being called a cynical non-believer. Just because I don't sit inside your clown car of lies doesn't mean that I don't believe in a God, it just means I don't believe in your version of God. I know what you mean by "cynical non-believer" - you're implying that we're all halfwit morons who should accept your meaning of faith because it's obviously the best explanation of the world around us. Bull sh#t.

 

Don't hide behind a "I mean something completely different!" curtain when somebody contradicts you. You clearly believe the "white light" just before death has something do with the Christian God, yet entirely dismiss the notion that it could be science related and simply part of something that happens when we inevitably die. And how do you do this? By casting a "you're a cynical non-believer!" blanket over those who have the nerve to contradict your religious blather. Again, it's bull sh#t.

 

And, lastly, don't sit there and say you don't care. There's 9 pages of your blather that showcase you do care - care enough to tell everybody they're wrong because you have faith in something. Believe what you want, but don't insinuate others are idiots simply because they don't think like you do. Don't try and say that's not what you meant, either - if you wanted to be less direct and more open about your beliefs, you would be. Every time you post something, however, you directly ignore the counter-argument. I've been open to your interpretations this entire time, despite my disagreement with them. That doesn't mean I think you're wrong, and I'm right, it just means I don't have all the answers. You sure as hell don't, either.

 

 

Why can't they coexist? The scientific explanation for the white light doesn't change the fact that it could still be the beginning process of the afterlife. Why can't science and faith coexist? Sir Isaac Newton was one of the greatest minds ever and was also a devout Christian.

This further substantiates that you, and shark, don't pay attention to a word I say.

 

"I've been open to your interpretations, despite my disagreement with them. That doesn't mean I think you're wrong, and I'm right, it just means I don't have all the answers."

 

I'm not sure that I can be any more blatant with you two. The quote is literally four spaces above what you wrote. I'm getting tired of explaining my position to you two when you clearly don't grasp anything I say. So, as simply as I can put it, I'll say it one more time - I'm not denying your interpretations, I'm merely saying there's no 100% right or wrong answer.

 

My word...

[Enhance]

Why can't they coexist? The scientific explanation for the white light doesn't change the fact that it could still be the beginning process of the afterlife.

But why even assume that it is the beginning process. You don't know for sure. Nothing in your holy texts says "you'll see a white light as your are being taken to heaven." One believer one day probably said he felt as if he was being taken away and that the light was his god and the rest of humanity took it and ran with it. Ignoring the fact the guy was losing brain function and the inability to think logically...yet alone recollect exactly what was happening to him later on. It just confuses me why people are so readily to make up answers that fit their beliefs based off of emotion. Just because you want it to be true. There are other, rational, scientific explanation for these things. Why not be satisfied with them?

People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Enhance 89 Quote:

 

I take offense to being called a cynical non-believer. Just because I don't sit inside your clown car of lies doesn't mean that I don't believe in a God, it just means I don't believe in your version of God. I know what you mean by "cynical non-believer" - you're implying that we're all halfwit morons who should accept your meaning of faith because it's obviously the best explanation of the world around us. Bull sh#t.

 

Don't hide behind a "I mean something completely different!" curtain when somebody contradicts you. You clearly believe the "white light" just before death has something do with the Christian God, yet entirely dismiss the notion that it could be science related and simply part of something that happens when we inevitably die. And how do you do this? By casting a "you're a cynical non-believer!" blanket over those who have the nerve to contradict your religious blather. Again, it's bull sh#t.

 

And, lastly, don't sit there and say you don't care. There's 9 pages of your blather that showcase you do care - care enough to tell everybody they're wrong because you have faith in something. Believe what you want, but don't insinuate others are idiots simply because they don't think like you do. Don't try and say that's not what you meant, either - if you wanted to be less direct and more open about your beliefs, you would be. Every time you post something, however, you directly ignore the counter-argument. I've been open to your interpretations this entire time, despite my disagreement with them. That doesn't mean I think you're wrong, and I'm right, it just means I don't have all the answers. You sure as hell don't, either.

 

 

Why can't they coexist? The scientific explanation for the white light doesn't change the fact that it could still be the beginning process of the afterlife. Why can't science and faith coexist? Sir Isaac Newton was one of the greatest minds ever and was also a devout Christian.

This further substantiates that you, and shark, don't pay attention to a word I say.

 

"I've been open to your interpretations, despite my disagreement with them. That doesn't mean I think you're wrong, and I'm right, it just means I don't have all the answers."

 

I'm not sure that I can be any more blatant with you two. The quote is literally four spaces above what you wrote. I'm getting tired of explaining my position to you two when you clearly don't grasp anything I say. So, as simply as I can put it, I'll say it one more time - I'm not denying your interpretations, I'm merely saying there's no 100% right or wrong answer.

 

My word...

 

No, Enhance, you obviously do not understand that you are obviously wrong. I thought that was clear by now. You have to believe things one way, and one way only, otherwise you are wrong...

[JJ Husker]

Science doesn't disprove one thing about God or creation. It is virtually pointless to argue these matters with those who do not believe in God or are unwilling to honestly consider the possibility. God created science. God created every shred of evidence we have to go on. I can't help but feel somewhat sorry for people who actually think we arrived where we are today by some random series of mathmatically improbable events that placed the earth the correct distance from the sun, gave us water, habitable temperatures, etc. If a person can come to the conclusion that this is not the result of intelligent design, especially persons who claim to know so much about science, odds, math, etc. I'm pretty sure there is not much that can be done about that. Not because the logical evidence is not there but because some people simply don't want to acknowledge the truth for a variety of reasons.

 

The only problem with your statement is that an early Mars was an Earth like planet. It is also the correct distance to support life. We are finding more Earth like planets the more we look.

I don't think your Mars example or evidence of other planets "like" earth cause any problems with my statement. Unless you have some news of intelligent life residing on any of these other planets. Using your examples only causes me to wonder why that early Mars did not develope life like earth or why we have not discovered that phenomenon anywhere else. Maybe I'm being a little impatient in the grand scheme of things but it isn't like we haven't been trying to find it. And, intelligent life on another planet, in another solar system, whatever, would not be any evidence to change my mind. If I had the power God has, I would probably be trying out some different models in other locations.

 

This is what kind of "gets" me about this whole deal. I have no doubts whatsoever about the limits of what God is capable of. I don't believe there are any limits. Some people who don't believe in God can take the simplest scientific evidence and claim it refutes the existence of God and/or nullifies biblical passages. Whereas I have no problems (at least so far) reconciling this human discovered scientific evidence with either being some remnant of God's actions or possibly even misinformation presented to see how we react to it. I really can't even imagine what kind of information could be presented to cause me to change my mind. It's not that I am not willing to consider other points of view. But, so far, those views have not been able to satisfactorily convince me.

[Husker_x]

Why can't they coexist? The scientific explanation for the white light doesn't change the fact that it could still be the beginning process of the afterlife. Why can't science and faith coexist? Sir Isaac Newton was one of the greatest minds ever and was also a devout Christian.

 

Isaac Newton was also an alchemist.

 

I think the reason faith and science cannot coexist is that they are opposite mindsets. Faith is the belief in a thing without evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary. Science doesn't permit faith of any kind. It only ever allows evidence. When new information comes along that creates a problem for long-held positions (say, Newtonian physics), you adapt your beliefs to fit the evidence, not the other way around.

 

What does faith do when it comes across something that challenges it? Take for example the idea that the the story of Noah's Ark and a global flood in Genesis is completely impossible. We get people like Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, and convict Kent Hovind--people who professionally rationalize away evidence by all means necessary. Apologetics only exists because faith cannot be moved by evidence, which is why I think there will often be a conflict.

[HuskerShark]

Science doesn't disprove one thing about God or creation. It is virtually pointless to argue these matters with those who do not believe in God or are unwilling to honestly consider the possibility. God created science. God created every shred of evidence we have to go on. I can't help but feel somewhat sorry for people who actually think we arrived where we are today by some random series of mathmatically improbable events that placed the earth the correct distance from the sun, gave us water, habitable temperatures, etc. If a person can come to the conclusion that this is not the result of intelligent design, especially persons who claim to know so much about science, odds, math, etc. I'm pretty sure there is not much that can be done about that. Not because the logical evidence is not there but because some people simply don't want to acknowledge the truth for a variety of reasons.

 

The only problem with your statement is that an early Mars was an Earth like planet. It is also the correct distance to support life. We are finding more Earth like planets the more we look.

I don't think your Mars example or evidence of other planets "like" earth cause any problems with my statement. Unless you have some news of intelligent life residing on any of these other planets. Using your examples only causes me to wonder why that early Mars did not develope life like earth or why we have not discovered that phenomenon anywhere else. Maybe I'm being a little impatient in the grand scheme of things but it isn't like we haven't been trying to find it. And, intelligent life on another planet, in another solar system, whatever, would not be any evidence to change my mind. If I had the power God has, I would probably be trying out some different models in other locations.

 

This is what kind of "gets" me about this whole deal. I have no doubts whatsoever about the limits of what God is capable of. I don't believe there are any limits. Some people who don't believe in God can take the simplest scientific evidence and claim it refutes the existence of God and/or nullifies biblical passages. Whereas I have no problems (at least so far) reconciling this human discovered scientific evidence with either being some remnant of God's actions or possibly even misinformation presented to see how we react to it. I really can't even imagine what kind of information could be presented to cause me to change my mind. It's not that I am not willing to consider other points of view. But, so far, those views have not been able to satisfactorily convince me.

 

Boom. Hit the nail on the head. You can't use science to prove that God exists, nor is it possible to use science to prove that He doesn't exist. Why? Who knows. Maybe because God doesn't want it to be obvious that He is real, so that way he knows who are faithful to Him. Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing."

[husker_99]

Science doesn't disprove one thing about God or creation. It is virtually pointless to argue these matters with those who do not believe in God or are unwilling to honestly consider the possibility. God created science. God created every shred of evidence we have to go on. I can't help but feel somewhat sorry for people who actually think we arrived where we are today by some random series of mathmatically improbable events that placed the earth the correct distance from the sun, gave us water, habitable temperatures, etc. If a person can come to the conclusion that this is not the result of intelligent design, especially persons who claim to know so much about science, odds, math, etc. I'm pretty sure there is not much that can be done about that. Not because the logical evidence is not there but because some people simply don't want to acknowledge the truth for a variety of reasons.

 

The only problem with your statement is that an early Mars was an Earth like planet. It is also the correct distance to support life. We are finding more Earth like planets the more we look.

I don't think your Mars example or evidence of other planets "like" earth cause any problems with my statement. Unless you have some news of intelligent life residing on any of these other planets. Using your examples only causes me to wonder why that early Mars did not develope life like earth or why we have not discovered that phenomenon anywhere else. Maybe I'm being a little impatient in the grand scheme of things but it isn't like we haven't been trying to find it. And, intelligent life on another planet, in another solar system, whatever, would not be any evidence to change my mind. If I had the power God has, I would probably be trying out some different models in other locations.

 

This is what kind of "gets" me about this whole deal. I have no doubts whatsoever about the limits of what God is capable of. I don't believe there are any limits. Some people who don't believe in God can take the simplest scientific evidence and claim it refutes the existence of God and/or nullifies biblical passages. Whereas I have no problems (at least so far) reconciling this human discovered scientific evidence with either being some remnant of God's actions or possibly even misinformation presented to see how we react to it. I really can't even imagine what kind of information could be presented to cause me to change my mind. It's not that I am not willing to consider other points of view. But, so far, those views have not been able to satisfactorily convince me.

 

Who says Mars never did develop intelligent life? they may have died out as the atomsphere change and it's not exactly like we can go there and start digging around to where we find skeletal remains. There may be intelligent life but may be less developed than we are or in the same spot to where we really can't explore space in spaceships like Star Trek. You can call me wacko or whatever but i do believe that we are being watched by aliens. There are too many people seeing spaceships and aircraft behavior that we can't explain and technologically can't do. I know things can be faked and whatnot but i don't believe there are that many people doing that stuff.