The Religious Discussion of 2012

[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.

 

Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing."

 

Yes because how else can you get a mass following without any evidence of the miracles you claim you can perform?

[johnnyrodgers20]

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...

 

 

good enough

[carlfense]

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...

You're still wrong, Enhance. Anyone who doesn't completely agree with my specific version of religion is an IDIOT.

[johnnyrodgers20]

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.

 

Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing."

 

Yes because how else can you get a mass following without any evidence of the miracles you claim you can perform?

 

 

The people who were there saw the evidence that is apparent in the paragraph before that sentence.

[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.

 

Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing."

 

Yes because how else can you get a mass following without any evidence of the miracles you claim you can perform?

 

What am I supposed to say? I'm sorry that Jesus doesn't come back every 50 years to reaffirm peoples' faith in Him?.....

[johnnyrodgers20]

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...

You're still wrong, Enhance. Anyone who doesn't completely agree with my specific version of religion is an IDIOT.

 

 

I hope you are not talking about me?

[husker_99]

 

 

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.

 

Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing."

 

Yes because how else can you get a mass following without any evidence of the miracles you claim you can perform?

 

 

The people who were there saw the evidence that is apparent in the paragraph before that sentence.

 

Because you can exactly remember an event that happened in your life 60 to 70 years later just like the day it happened right?

[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.

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.

You really need to pay closer attention carlfense. Here you are again attempting to tell other people what they really mean when the only problem would appear to be your comprehension skills. If you would've read my post directly preceding this one that you replied to (which I'm sure you did) you would know that I don't feel consensus proves anything. But, don't let that interfere with your attempts to reframe the discussion in a manner advantageous to your point of view. You are very good at that-no argument here. I would use one of your favorite lines "pot meet kettle" for the bolded above but, I can't in this instance because you are the only one in this discussion who has tried to claim consensus makes global warming a fact and simultaneously claim it means nothing as regards the stats I posted. Additionally, you may want to re-read my statements about scientific consensus of global warming. Show me exactly where I say there is no evidence of man caused gobal warming. I only spoke to the known inconsistencies of that consensus.

[husker_99]

 

 

 

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.

 

Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing."

 

Yes because how else can you get a mass following without any evidence of the miracles you claim you can perform?

 

What am I supposed to say? I'm sorry that Jesus doesn't come back every 50 years to reaffirm peoples' faith in Him?.....

 

It's conveinent that he refused to provide proof to the people and you have no idea that the miracles that were performed even happened in the first place. Even the New Testament writers thought he would be back in their lifetime but didn't happen. How long must people believe Jesus is coming back only to be let down when it doesn't happen?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

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."

 

That italicized part is the most important part of this ENTIRE discussion.

 

Science can't be used to prove that God exists. Science should not have to prove if God exists, wether or not He does exist is up to each individual when they decide wether or not he or she wants to believe in Him. No one, and I repeat no ONE is berating you for having faith in God. Everyone here accepts yours and others religious views.

Nor is it possible to use science prove that He doesn't exist. Right again. Science can not and will never prove the existence of God.

 

The problem that so many people have on here is you and some others are being intolerable towards the fact that there are a good portion of people who just may think a little differently than you do. I know, scary thought. Accept that there is no right nor wrong answer, it isn't one way or the other, there is no better and there is no worse answer or opinion. Accept that, and you'll find that people are a lot more friendly towards your ideas.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Husker 99 Quote:

 

Because you can exactly remember an event that happened in your life 60 to 70 years later just like the day it happened right?

 

 

 

If I saw a blind man see I would tend to remember those things. The blind man was also taken in front of the sanhedrin. So you can't remember anything about your childhood? You are all blank upstairs except for the last few years, it that what you are telling me?

[carlfense]

You really need to pay closer attention carlfense. Here you are again attempting to tell other people what they really mean when the only problem would appear to be your comprehension skills. If you would've read my post directly preceding this one that you replied to (which I'm sure you did) you would know that I don't feel consensus proves anything. But, don't let that interfere with your attempts to reframe the discussion in a manner advantageous to your point of view. You are very good at that-no argument here. I would use one of your favorite lines "pot meet kettle" for the bolded above but, I can't in this instance because you are the only one in this discussion who has tried to claim consensus makes global warming a fact and simultaneously claim it means nothing as regards the stats I posted. Additionally, you may want to re-read my statements about scientific consensus of global warming. Show me exactly where I say there is no evidence of man caused gobal warming. I only spoke to the known inconsistencies of that consensus.

Ah, yes. Consensus doesn't prove anything . . . BUT LOOK! . . . 92% of people agree with my worldview.

 

You're trying to have it both ways. I'm calling you on it.

 

That's about the extent of it.

 

 

 

Also . . . this:

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://www.huskerboa...post__p__930059

 

Apparently disagreeing with a consensus makes one egotistical and self-centered.

 

 

 

I would greatly appreciate you showing me where I said that near scientific consensus about global warming makes it a fact. A direct link to my statement would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. (This is when you realize that you fabricated that and that I had merely asked how you feel about a consensus about a topic other than your religion.) Apology accepted in advance.

[The Dude]

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."

Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up. Observation is the basis for science. We've observed polar bears, so we can rationally conclude that polar bears exist. We haven't observed sasquatches, so we can't rationally conclude that sasquatch exists. We haven't observed a god, so we can't rationally conclude that god exist. Coming to the conclusion that god exists requires a leap of faith.

 

As I brought up in another thread, I find the idea of relying on faith as the only way to make it to heaven to be unsettling. Why would a benevolent, loving god mess with our heads like that? Why would he make it so easy for it to rationally make sense that there is no god, then when we fall for it go, "sorry, now you have to suffer eternally"?

[HuskerShark]

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."

Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up. Observation is the basis for science. We've observed polar bears, so we can rationally conclude that polar bears exist. We haven't observed sasquatches, so we can't rationally conclude that sasquatch exists. We haven't observed a god, so we can't rationally conclude that god exist. Coming to the conclusion that god exsits requires a leap of faith.

 

As I brought up in another thread, I find the idea of relying on faith as the only way to make it to heaven to be unsettling. Why would a benevolent, loving god mess with our heads like that? Why would he make it so easy for it to rationally make sense that there is no god, then when we fall for it go, "sorry, now you have to suffer eternally"?

 

Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up.

......... Uh, read the thread. There are at least 4 or 5 people on this thread that are begging for scientific proof that God exists, that the words in the Bible are true, that magic is possible, etc... I didn't bring it up.

 

In response to your last paragraph, I agree. It is a leap of faith. And I agree, the fact that we don't know the true meaning to life and the fact that we don't have answers to all of our questions is frustrating. But I like to think of it more as a blessing. I'm glad we don't have all the answers. It adds fun to life IMO. What would life be like if God was visibly hovering over the earth so no one could question His existence, and he answered all of our questions and solved all of our problems? It would be too easy. You think that we have an obesity problem today? Think about a world with no concerns, no difficulties, and no challenges. People would just sit around all day and eat in their comfort and get fat because all of their problems would be taken care of.

 

No, it's not a perfect world. But don't think of it as such a bad thing.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

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."

Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up. Observation is the basis for science. We've observed polar bears, so we can rationally conclude that polar bears exist. We haven't observed sasquatches, so we can't rationally conclude that sasquatch exists. We haven't observed a god, so we can't rationally conclude that god exist. Coming to the conclusion that god exsits requires a leap of faith.

 

As I brought up in another thread, I find the idea of relying on faith as the only way to make it to heaven to be unsettling. Why would a benevolent, loving god mess with our heads like that? Why would he make it so easy for it to rationally make sense that there is no god, then when we fall for it go, "sorry, now you have to suffer eternally"?

 

Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up.

......... Uh, read the thread. There are at least 4 or 5 people on this thread that are begging for scientific proof that God exists, that the words in the Bible are true, that magic is possible, etc... I didn't bring it up.

 

In response to your last paragraph, I agree. It is a leap of faith. And I agree, the fact that we don't know the true meaning to life and the fact that we don't have answers to all of our questions is frustrating. But I like to think of it more as a blessing. I'm glad we don't have all the answers. It adds fun to life IMO. What would life be like if God was visibly hovering over the earth so no one could question His existence, and he answered all of our questions and solved all of our problems? It would be too easy. You think that we have an obesity problem today? Think about a world with no concerns, no difficulties, and no challenges. People would just sit around all day and eat in their comfort and get fat because all of their problems would be taken care of.

 

No, it's not a perfect world. But don't think of it as such a bad thing.

 

Actually in a world with no concerns, we would sit around all day and eat, but wouldn't get fat, but instead turn into athletic, healthy individuals.