Why do you believe in God? (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true.

"This is how the universe functions" occupies an entirely different category of knowledge than "this is how you should live your life." You're committing Hume's is/ought fallacy.

How is that relevant to my point though? I'm saying religion is preaching their stories on any number of topics, and their stories are not based on anything real or provable. They will say the earth is 6,000 years old, or if you don't accept Jesus you'll go to hell, or whatever the case may be...my point is that most of what they preach is fundamentally dishonest in that it is presented as unequivocal fact.

The 6000 year old earth thing is a scientific claim because it can be disproved (and has been, of course). The claim about Jesus being God isn't scientific because it isn't disprovable. That's what I mean when I say that you're conflating two different kinds of truth claims. Science has all sorts of stuff to say about the first, but nothing to say about the second.

 

[timschochet]

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true.

"This is how the universe functions" occupies an entirely different category of knowledge than "this is how you should live your life." You're committing Hume's is/ought fallacy.

How is that relevant to my point though? I'm saying religion is preaching their stories on any number of topics, and their stories are not based on anything real or provable. They will say the earth is 6,000 years old, or if you don't accept Jesus you'll go to hell, or whatever the case may be...my point is that most of what they preach is fundamentally dishonest in that it is presented as unequivocal fact.

The difference is they say it in a church, or synagogue, or mosque, not in a public place of learning. Anyone who attends a religious service should know that it's a case of "this is what we believe" just by being there.

 

[McGarnicle]

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true.

"This is how the universe functions" occupies an entirely different category of knowledge than "this is how you should live your life." You're committing Hume's is/ought fallacy.

How is that relevant to my point though? I'm saying religion is preaching their stories on any number of topics, and their stories are not based on anything real or provable. They will say the earth is 6,000 years old, or if you don't accept Jesus you'll go to hell, or whatever the case may be...my point is that most of what they preach is fundamentally dishonest in that it is presented as unequivocal fact.

What religions are you referring to here. I've not been to church in a while but usually they just use the stories/accounts from the Bible as metaphors of how to have a happier life in today's age. I've never seen or heard any fire and brimstone type lecture or discount/discredit science in any way. And I've always attended straight up Catholic mass.

My experience started in the Catholic church, which is pretty much all fire and brimstone if they get you young. I can remember trembling in terror before my first confession. They are very clear about hell and how to get there. Then in later life, some Baptist and Evangelical churches which usually are more happy and focused on the music and positive messages, but if you hang around long enough you'll hear about those who are "saved" and those who aren't, and where those poor saps are going when they die. And the money grab is pretty much universal in all of the churches. Often they pressure you to tithe a fixed percentage of your income every month, up to 15% or even 20%. And if you don't, what's the matter, you guys don't love Jesus as much as the Hendersons?

 

[matuski]

The molecules....gases...i don't know I'm not a scientist. The stuff that set off the big bang. Where did it come from and why would it exist?

i might suggest learning what "it" is before concluding that "it" could only have a supernatural cause. you don't need to be a scientist.

"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. - See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.C1X4mvnr.dpuf"Sounds like the experts don't even know what "it" was

You are using a site run by ALLABOUTGOD.com to assert and summarize science's understanding of a topic?

Seriously? Disregard then. It was the first thing not TV show related to pop up on google. My bad, WTH would this site be run by that site SMH. And besides this post doesn't attempt to summarize or assert anything other than to help of Ditka above.Edit: my link shows this at the bottom?

Science Home | About Us | Support Us | FAQ | Sitemap

Copyright © 2002 - 2014 AllAboutScience.org, All Rights Reserved.

Click logo at top, go to about us....

 

[bostonfred]

has anyone answered "because christo decided not to have kids"?

 

[Bronx Bomber]

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true.

"This is how the universe functions" occupies an entirely different category of knowledge than "this is how you should live your life." You're committing Hume's is/ought fallacy.

How is that relevant to my point though? I'm saying religion is preaching their stories on any number of topics, and their stories are not based on anything real or provable. They will say the earth is 6,000 years old, or if you don't accept Jesus you'll go to hell, or whatever the case may be...my point is that most of what they preach is fundamentally dishonest in that it is presented as unequivocal fact.

What religions are you referring to here. I've not been to church in a while but usually they just use the stories/accounts from the Bible as metaphors of how to have a happier life in today's age. I've never seen or heard any fire and brimstone type lecture or discount/discredit science in any way. And I've always attended straight up Catholic mass.

My experience started in the Catholic church, which is pretty much all fire and brimstone if they get you young. I can remember trembling in terror before my first confession. They are very clear about hell and how to get there. Then in later life, some Baptist and Evangelical churches which usually are more happy and focused on the music and positive messages, but if you hang around long enough you'll hear about those who are "saved" and those who aren't, and where those poor saps are going when they die. And the money grab is pretty much universal in all of the churches. Often they pressure you to tithe a fixed percentage of your income every month, up to 15% or even 20%. And if you don't, what's the matter, you guys don't love Jesus as much as the Hendersons?

Ugh, glad I never noticed or paid attention to to any of that. I'm very good at selective ignoring though. I think this is the fundamental problem with this thread/discussion though. We are discussing two totally different things. The tile is "why do you believe in God" IMO religion is a completely different topic. Case in point here. Two completely different Catholic experiences much. Religions are man made. The topic of a God is totally seperate from religion.

 

[McGarnicle]

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true.

"This is how the universe functions" occupies an entirely different category of knowledge than "this is how you should live your life." You're committing Hume's is/ought fallacy.

How is that relevant to my point though? I'm saying religion is preaching their stories on any number of topics, and their stories are not based on anything real or provable. They will say the earth is 6,000 years old, or if you don't accept Jesus you'll go to hell, or whatever the case may be...my point is that most of what they preach is fundamentally dishonest in that it is presented as unequivocal fact.

The 6000 year old earth thing is a scientific claim because it can be disproved (and has been, of course). The claim about Jesus being God isn't scientific because it isn't disprovable. That's what I mean when I say that you're conflating two different kinds of truth claims. Science has all sorts of stuff to say about the first, but nothing to say about the second.

Right, science stays out of it; they don't tell you something is fact when they really have no idea if it is true or not. Science is clear about its area of knowledge. Religion is all-encompassing, filling in the blanks of the unknown with whatever their ancient book says.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true.

"This is how the universe functions" occupies an entirely different category of knowledge than "this is how you should live your life." You're committing Hume's is/ought fallacy.

How is that relevant to my point though? I'm saying religion is preaching their stories on any number of topics, and their stories are not based on anything real or provable. They will say the earth is 6,000 years old, or if you don't accept Jesus you'll go to hell, or whatever the case may be...my point is that most of what they preach is fundamentally dishonest in that it is presented as unequivocal fact.

The 6000 year old earth thing is a scientific claim because it can be disproved (and has been, of course). The claim about Jesus being God isn't scientific because it isn't disprovable. That's what I mean when I say that you're conflating two different kinds of truth claims. Science has all sorts of stuff to say about the first, but nothing to say about the second.

Right, science stays out of it; they don't tell you something is fact when they really have no idea if it is true or not. Science is clear about its area of knowledge. Religion is all-encompassing, filling in the blanks of the unknown with whatever their ancient book says.

I agreed with you earlier that religion should stay out of science. Likewise, science doesn't have anything to contribute about "meaning of life" questions. Like I said, they're two totally different things.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true.

"This is how the universe functions" occupies an entirely different category of knowledge than "this is how you should live your life." You're committing Hume's is/ought fallacy.

How is that relevant to my point though? I'm saying religion is preaching their stories on any number of topics, and their stories are not based on anything real or provable. They will say the earth is 6,000 years old, or if you don't accept Jesus you'll go to hell, or whatever the case may be...my point is that most of what they preach is fundamentally dishonest in that it is presented as unequivocal fact.

What religions are you referring to here. I've not been to church in a while but usually they just use the stories/accounts from the Bible as metaphors of how to have a happier life in today's age. I've never seen or heard any fire and brimstone type lecture or discount/discredit science in any way. And I've always attended straight up Catholic mass.

My experience started in the Catholic church, which is pretty much all fire and brimstone if they get you young. I can remember trembling in terror before my first confession. They are very clear about hell and how to get there. Then in later life, some Baptist and Evangelical churches which usually are more happy and focused on the music and positive messages, but if you hang around long enough you'll hear about those who are "saved" and those who aren't, and where those poor saps are going when they die. And the money grab is pretty much universal in all of the churches. Often they pressure you to tithe a fixed percentage of your income every month, up to 15% or even 20%. And if you don't, what's the matter, you guys don't love Jesus as much as the Hendersons?

Ugh, glad I never noticed or paid attention to to any of that. I'm very good at selective ignoring though. I think this is the fundamental problem with this thread/discussion though. We are discussing two totally different things. The tile is "why do you believe in God" IMO religion is a completely different topic. Case in point here. Two completely different Catholic experiences much. Religions are man made. The topic of a God is totally seperate from religion.

Good posting.....My god is completely different than what religion preaches... I don't know what he/she/it is or can't prove the existence of he/she/it, but I can feel it.

 

[McGarnicle]

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true.

"This is how the universe functions" occupies an entirely different category of knowledge than "this is how you should live your life." You're committing Hume's is/ought fallacy.

How is that relevant to my point though? I'm saying religion is preaching their stories on any number of topics, and their stories are not based on anything real or provable. They will say the earth is 6,000 years old, or if you don't accept Jesus you'll go to hell, or whatever the case may be...my point is that most of what they preach is fundamentally dishonest in that it is presented as unequivocal fact.

What religions are you referring to here. I've not been to church in a while but usually they just use the stories/accounts from the Bible as metaphors of how to have a happier life in today's age. I've never seen or heard any fire and brimstone type lecture or discount/discredit science in any way. And I've always attended straight up Catholic mass.

My experience started in the Catholic church, which is pretty much all fire and brimstone if they get you young. I can remember trembling in terror before my first confession. They are very clear about hell and how to get there. Then in later life, some Baptist and Evangelical churches which usually are more happy and focused on the music and positive messages, but if you hang around long enough you'll hear about those who are "saved" and those who aren't, and where those poor saps are going when they die. And the money grab is pretty much universal in all of the churches. Often they pressure you to tithe a fixed percentage of your income every month, up to 15% or even 20%. And if you don't, what's the matter, you guys don't love Jesus as much as the Hendersons?

Ugh, glad I never noticed or paid attention to to any of that. I'm very good at selective ignoring though. I think this is the fundamental problem with this thread/discussion though. We are discussing two totally different things. The tile is "why do you believe in God" IMO religion is a completely different topic. Case in point here. Two completely different Catholic experiences much. Religions are man made. The topic of a God is totally seperate from religion.

I'd be curious to know if it's a common thing to come to a belief in God on one's own, without any religious influence. Maybe I'm rejecting the idea of God because of my bitterness with my own experiences in religion.

Sorry if I took things off on a tangent.

 

[Politician Spock]

I agree it is dishonest to preach that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution is a lie, etc. But it's certainly not dishonest to preach that God created the universe, or that the Gospels are true, etc. That doesn't contradict science.

It's dishonest to say God created the universe, and the Gospels are true, and the only way to Heaven is by accepting Jesus, and you need to give us a percentage of your monthly income. Because that's usually the progression. They start by giving you their version of history, then how you should live your life, then they keep you in their pews mostly through guilt and by coercing you to give them money so you feel invested in it.

Church's are to the spiritual as hospitals are to the physical. If you have no desire to recieve physical healing, you'd be in such a mindset regarding hospitals that you could make the same argument you just made against hospitals. If you have no desire to receive spiritual healing, there's nothing beneficial for you in a church.

 

[matuski]

I agree it is dishonest to preach that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution is a lie, etc. But it's certainly not dishonest to preach that God created the universe, or that the Gospels are true, etc. That doesn't contradict science.

It's dishonest to say God created the universe, and the Gospels are true, and the only way to Heaven is by accepting Jesus, and you need to give us a percentage of your monthly income. Because that's usually the progression. They start by giving you their version of history, then how you should live your life, then they keep you in their pews mostly through guilt and by coercing you to give them money so you feel invested in it.

Church's are to the spiritual as hospitals are to the physical. If you have no desire to recieve physical healing, you'd be in such a mindset regarding hospitals that you could make the same argument you just made against hospitals. If you have no desire to receive spiritual healing, there's nothing beneficial for you in a church.

Yeah this is an awful analogy.

 

[bostonfred]

In some respects, science is the meaning of life. From an early age when every single one of us goes through the same basic steps of learning how to make sounds and crawl and pull ourselves up to a standing position, we're practicing the scientific method. Hmm, if I put my tongue at the top of my mouth and blow it off with a burst of air it makes a t sound. Neat. Let's try it again. We spend our whole lives trying to satisfy our curiosity and we're afraid to die because we don't want to miss out on whatever's next. We're incessantly curious beings.

That's not incompatible with faith. A believer might want to know more about God and God's will and what their role is in the universe and trying to be a good person because they believe they're supposed to. An atheist might see them do the same things but explain it differently, like they're curious about things they don't understand, and trying to find rational explanations for why bad things happen to good people. But it's all the same curiosity.

Pitting science and religion against one another is a mistake. A lot of religious people are afraid of scientific findings that disagree with the stuff they believe, and a lot of atheists think science is the answer to why they don't have to be religious, but there's no reason they shouldn't coexists. We all want to know more about the world around us. There's no proof of God and no way to definitively know one way or the other but good things happen when people treat each other with respect and work together to come up with the answers of how to be good people and live good lives. Let's try to get back to that.

 

[joffer]

So science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion.

The difference though is that science is based on facts that can be verified through rigorous testing. And when something is just a theory, it is stated as such. A scientist is quick to admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Religion says things unequivocally, because some book written by men says so, or God supposedly spoke to some prophet centuries ago. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'd rather have 75% of the picture and know it's accurate, than blindly follow something that says we have 100% of the picture but it's impossible to validate.

Not sure if this was a response to my post. If so I again apologize. It was by no means an attempt to say anything about science. Joffer laughed at Ditka for not knowing what the "it" was in the Big Bang. I was browsing the Internet, came across that and said "see nobody really knows what the "it" was, I should post this to defend Ditka" it was unsolisitated and I'm sure he can defend himself.

I swear I'm not the type to sway anyone's opinions or beliefs. I find most things in life interesting and love hearing all kinds of thought and opinions.

not laughing at all. merely pointing out that if your reason for believing in god is based on science having no explanation for what happened at t=0 of the Big Bang, it might make sense to at least try and understand the current theory.

 

[joffer]

So science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion.

The difference though is that science is based on facts that can be verified through rigorous testing. And when something is just a theory, it is stated as such. A scientist is quick to admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Religion says things unequivocally, because some book written by men says so, or God supposedly spoke to some prophet centuries ago. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'd rather have 75% of the picture and know it's accurate, than blindly follow something that says we have 100% of the picture but it's impossible to validate.

I don't give two sh**s about what religion says....And I am no scientist. But for me, without a purpose what would be the point of all of this... What I will say is as of right now the religious beginning (genesis) (not the 6,000 year old) is just as believable as the science theory, and until proven otherwise(which will never happen in any of our lifetimes) the big bang guys are grasping at just as many straws as the religious guys.

ok now I'm laughing. one has a mountain of evidence. one has none.

 

[McGarnicle]

I agree it is dishonest to preach that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution is a lie, etc. But it's certainly not dishonest to preach that God created the universe, or that the Gospels are true, etc. That doesn't contradict science.

It's dishonest to say God created the universe, and the Gospels are true, and the only way to Heaven is by accepting Jesus, and you need to give us a percentage of your monthly income. Because that's usually the progression. They start by giving you their version of history, then how you should live your life, then they keep you in their pews mostly through guilt and by coercing you to give them money so you feel invested in it.

Church's are to the spiritual as hospitals are to the physical. If you have no desire to recieve physical healing, you'd be in such a mindset regarding hospitals that you could make the same argument you just made against hospitals. If you have no desire to receive spiritual healing, there's nothing beneficial for you in a church.

"Spiritual healing" could come via a nice hike in the mountains and watching the sunset, or meeting a gorgeous woman, talking for hours and making love that very night. Maybe for some it comes in a church. But there are also lots of people in church out of guilt and obligation, who don't even question what is being taught there. They're accepting whatever the preacher says. Many of those people, I would argue, experience the opposite of spiritual healing. They're more like drones or slaves.

 

[TheAristocrat]

Yes we've discussed this before, but I thought I'd try to approach this a different way. Whenever somebody learns I'm an AntiTimite, the inevitable question comes up, "why don't you believe in Tim?" I think the question should be reversed for Timists to answer.

My question is not meant to be a challenge. I am genuinely interested to learn why people believe as they do. Though I may ask follow up questions, I have no intention of denigrating anyone else's beliefs.

 

[timschochet]

Yes we've discussed this before, but I thought I'd try to approach this a different way. Whenever somebody learns I'm an AntiTimite, the inevitable question comes up, "why don't you believe in Tim?" I think the question should be reversed for Timists to answer.

My question is not meant to be a challenge. I am genuinely interested to learn why people believe as they do. Though I may ask follow up questions, I have no intention of denigrating anyone else's beliefs.

Tim is awesome. That's all.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

So science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion.

The difference though is that science is based on facts that can be verified through rigorous testing. And when something is just a theory, it is stated as such. A scientist is quick to admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Religion says things unequivocally, because some book written by men says so, or God supposedly spoke to some prophet centuries ago. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'd rather have 75% of the picture and know it's accurate, than blindly follow something that says we have 100% of the picture but it's impossible to validate.

Not sure if this was a response to my post. If so I again apologize. It was by no means an attempt to say anything about science. Joffer laughed at Ditka for not knowing what the "it" was in the Big Bang. I was browsing the Internet, came across that and said "see nobody really knows what the "it" was, I should post this to defend Ditka" it was unsolisitated and I'm sure he can defend himself.

I swear I'm not the type to sway anyone's opinions or beliefs. I find most things in life interesting and love hearing all kinds of thought and opinions.

not laughing at all. merely pointing out that if your reason for believing in god is based on science having no explanation for what happened at t=0 of the Big Bang, it might make sense to at least try and understand the current theory.

Which is fine, but as you state the current theory of science does nothing to confirm or deny the existence of a god, nor does it have concrete evidence of how our universe was formed......It is all theory and as I have stated many times already in this thread, no more convincing than Genesis at this time. Let me correct that...It may be more convincing to you and if that makes you feel better great... Just like the god theory makes the religious feel better...Because again you are going to die not knowing just like everybody else.

 

[jomar]

The concept that we are in a snow globe on a shelf of some higher being is still in play just as much as the Big Bang Theory.

oof

 

[The Commish]

I'd be curious to know if it's a common thing to come to a belief in God on one's own, without any religious influence. Maybe I'm rejecting the idea of God because of my bitterness with my own experiences in religion.


Sorry if I took things off on a tangent.

You wouldn't be the first and certainly won't be the last. I've said on these forums a million times that religion is one of the biggest obstacles when trying to have a relationship with God.

 

[Politician Spock]

I agree it is dishonest to preach that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution is a lie, etc. But it's certainly not dishonest to preach that God created the universe, or that the Gospels are true, etc. That doesn't contradict science.

It's dishonest to say God created the universe, and the Gospels are true, and the only way to Heaven is by accepting Jesus, and you need to give us a percentage of your monthly income. Because that's usually the progression. They start by giving you their version of history, then how you should live your life, then they keep you in their pews mostly through guilt and by coercing you to give them money so you feel invested in it.

Church's are to the spiritual as hospitals are to the physical. If you have no desire to recieve physical healing, you'd be in such a mindset regarding hospitals that you could make the same argument you just made against hospitals. If you have no desire to receive spiritual healing, there's nothing beneficial for you in a church.

"Spiritual healing" could come via a nice hike in the mountains and watching the sunset, or meeting a gorgeous woman, talking for hours and making love that very night. Maybe for some it comes in a church. But there are also lots of people in church out of guilt and obligation, who don't even question what is being taught there. They're accepting whatever the preacher says. Many of those people, I would argue, experience the opposite of spiritual healing. They're more like drones or slaves.

I made no insinuation that churches have cornered the market on spiritual healing. Nor have hospitals cornered the market on physical healing.

A fortune teller is a "spiritual healer". If the fortune teller honestly believes they are telling the person's fortune, I don't think it's dishonest. If they know they aren't, and are doing it just for the money, then it's dishonest.

That being said, I think there are some "church" type organizations out there that don't really believe what they are saying, but are doing it for the money. In my opinion it's a small fraction of churches though, as I believe most churches really do believe what they are saying. But there's no way to really know what the percentage of the two is that make up all churches. Your guses is as good as mine.

And I don't argue with the claim that there are "drones or slaves" in churches. Again, we'd probably disagree as to the percentage of the church members that make up the church, but I can't say they don't exist. They are freaky to me, and I've been going to church for 30+ years.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

So science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion.

The difference though is that science is based on facts that can be verified through rigorous testing. And when something is just a theory, it is stated as such. A scientist is quick to admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Religion says things unequivocally, because some book written by men says so, or God supposedly spoke to some prophet centuries ago. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'd rather have 75% of the picture and know it's accurate, than blindly follow something that says we have 100% of the picture but it's impossible to validate.

I don't give two sh**s about what religion says....And I am no scientist. But for me, without a purpose what would be the point of all of this... What I will say is as of right now the religious beginning (genesis) (not the 6,000 year old) is just as believable as the science theory, and until proven otherwise(which will never happen in any of our lifetimes) the big bang guys are grasping at just as many straws as the religious guys.

ok now I'm laughing. one has a mountain of evidence. one has none.

Do they have concrete beyond a shadow of a doubt evidence of how our universe was formed......Nope.......When they do get back with us...Can they prove that there isn't the existence of a god....Nope....Get back with us when they can......I'm laughing at you for thinking you have the answers.

 

[Da Guru]

Every time I hear people talking about religion now this scene from True Detective always comes to mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RfUj09pWfM

 

[McGarnicle]

I agree it is dishonest to preach that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution is a lie, etc. But it's certainly not dishonest to preach that God created the universe, or that the Gospels are true, etc. That doesn't contradict science.

It's dishonest to say God created the universe, and the Gospels are true, and the only way to Heaven is by accepting Jesus, and you need to give us a percentage of your monthly income. Because that's usually the progression. They start by giving you their version of history, then how you should live your life, then they keep you in their pews mostly through guilt and by coercing you to give them money so you feel invested in it.

Church's are to the spiritual as hospitals are to the physical. If you have no desire to recieve physical healing, you'd be in such a mindset regarding hospitals that you could make the same argument you just made against hospitals. If you have no desire to receive spiritual healing, there's nothing beneficial for you in a church.

"Spiritual healing" could come via a nice hike in the mountains and watching the sunset, or meeting a gorgeous woman, talking for hours and making love that very night. Maybe for some it comes in a church. But there are also lots of people in church out of guilt and obligation, who don't even question what is being taught there. They're accepting whatever the preacher says. Many of those people, I would argue, experience the opposite of spiritual healing. They're more like drones or slaves.

I made no insinuation that churches have cornered the market on spiritual healing. Nor have hospitals cornered the market on physical healing.

A fortune teller is a "spiritual healer". If the fortune teller honestly believes they are telling the person's fortune, I don't think it's dishonest. If they know they aren't, and are doing it just for the money, then it's dishonest.

That being said, I think there are some "church" type organizations out there that don't really believe what they are saying, but are doing it for the money. In my opinion it's a small fraction of churches though, as I believe most churches really do believe what they are saying. But there's no way to really know what the percentage of the two is that make up all churches. Your guses is as good as mine.

And I don't argue with the claim that there are "drones or slaves" in churches. Again, we'd probably disagree as to the percentage of the church members that make up the church, but I can't say they don't exist. They are freaky to me, and I've been going to church for 30+ years.

Well you implied that someone uninterested in church in uninterested in spiritual healing. The way I read it anyway. But I appreciate what you're saying here and mostly agree.

 

[McGarnicle]

So science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion.

The difference though is that science is based on facts that can be verified through rigorous testing. And when something is just a theory, it is stated as such. A scientist is quick to admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Religion says things unequivocally, because some book written by men says so, or God supposedly spoke to some prophet centuries ago. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'd rather have 75% of the picture and know it's accurate, than blindly follow something that says we have 100% of the picture but it's impossible to validate.

I don't give two sh**s about what religion says....And I am no scientist. But for me, without a purpose what would be the point of all of this... What I will say is as of right now the religious beginning (genesis) (not the 6,000 year old) is just as believable as the science theory, and until proven otherwise(which will never happen in any of our lifetimes) the big bang guys are grasping at just as many straws as the religious guys.

ok now I'm laughing. one has a mountain of evidence. one has none.

Do they have concrete beyond a shadow of a doubt evidence of how our universe was formed......Nope.......When they do get back with us...Can they prove that there isn't the existence of a god....Nope....Get back with us when they can......I'm laughing at you for thinking you have the answers.

These last two posts are precisely why I'm an agnostic in the truest sense of the word.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

The concept that we are in a snow globe on a shelf of some higher being is still in play just as much as the Big Bang Theory.

oof

Well......enlighten us .......apparently you know something that nobody in this universe knows?

 

[joffer]

Do they have concrete beyond a shadow of a doubt evidence of how our universe was formed......Nope

science doesn't prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt. it generates theories based on evidence. and the more evidence it finds, the more likely the theory is. as for the big bang, there is quite a bit of evidence. as for the genesis account, there is none.

Can they prove that there isn't the existence of a god....Nope....Get back with us when they can...

do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? ever heard of Russel's teapot?

I'm laughing at you for thinking you have the answers.

where did I say I have all the answers?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Do they have concrete beyond a shadow of a doubt evidence of how our universe was formed......Nope

science doesn't prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt. it generates theories based on evidence. and the more evidence it finds, the more likely the theory is. as for the big bang, there is quite a bit of evidence. as for the genesis account, there is none.

Can they prove that there isn't the existence of a god....Nope....Get back with us when they can...

do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? ever heard of Russel's teapot?

I'm laughing at you for thinking you have the answers.

where did I say I have all the answers?

Yep and at the end of the day we still don't know do we. You didn't say you have all the answers you are only trying to convince others that you do...

 

[joffer]

Yep and at the end of the day we still don't know do we. You didn't say you have all the answers you are only trying to convince others that you do...

wat?

 

[Politician Spock]

I agree it is dishonest to preach that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution is a lie, etc. But it's certainly not dishonest to preach that God created the universe, or that the Gospels are true, etc. That doesn't contradict science.

It's dishonest to say God created the universe, and the Gospels are true, and the only way to Heaven is by accepting Jesus, and you need to give us a percentage of your monthly income. Because that's usually the progression. They start by giving you their version of history, then how you should live your life, then they keep you in their pews mostly through guilt and by coercing you to give them money so you feel invested in it.

Church's are to the spiritual as hospitals are to the physical. If you have no desire to recieve physical healing, you'd be in such a mindset regarding hospitals that you could make the same argument you just made against hospitals. If you have no desire to receive spiritual healing, there's nothing beneficial for you in a church.

"Spiritual healing" could come via a nice hike in the mountains and watching the sunset, or meeting a gorgeous woman, talking for hours and making love that very night. Maybe for some it comes in a church. But there are also lots of people in church out of guilt and obligation, who don't even question what is being taught there. They're accepting whatever the preacher says. Many of those people, I would argue, experience the opposite of spiritual healing. They're more like drones or slaves.

I made no insinuation that churches have cornered the market on spiritual healing. Nor have hospitals cornered the market on physical healing.

A fortune teller is a "spiritual healer". If the fortune teller honestly believes they are telling the person's fortune, I don't think it's dishonest. If they know they aren't, and are doing it just for the money, then it's dishonest.

That being said, I think there are some "church" type organizations out there that don't really believe what they are saying, but are doing it for the money. In my opinion it's a small fraction of churches though, as I believe most churches really do believe what they are saying. But there's no way to really know what the percentage of the two is that make up all churches. Your guses is as good as mine.

And I don't argue with the claim that there are "drones or slaves" in churches. Again, we'd probably disagree as to the percentage of the church members that make up the church, but I can't say they don't exist. They are freaky to me, and I've been going to church for 30+ years.

Well you implied that someone uninterested in church in uninterested in spiritual healing. The way I read it anyway. But I appreciate what you're saying here and mostly agree.

My intent was to convey that someone uninterested in spiritual healing is uninterested in church. I can see why you read it the other way though.

Somone uninterested in spiritual healing is uninterested in all parts of society that are in the realm of spiritual healing. Churches/Religions are just a subset of that realm.

 

[jomar]

The concept that we are in a snow globe on a shelf of some higher being is still in play just as much as the Big Bang Theory.

oof

Well......enlighten us .......apparently you know something that nobody in this universe knows?

hint: one of those things has at least some evidence to support it

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

This Ditka Butkus guy is making a lot of points. None of them are good but he's making them.

 

[josefrees]

Cstu, enlighten me. I think quoting an entire post for a one sentence ad hominen is some the greatest nonsense I've ever seen

 

[tonydead]

The molecules....gases...i don't know I'm not a scientist. The stuff that set off the big bang. Where did it come from and why would it exist?

i might suggest learning what "it" is before concluding that "it" could only have a supernatural cause. you don't need to be a scientist.

"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. - See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.C1X4mvnr.dpuf"Sounds like the experts don't even know what "it" was

You are using a site run by ALLABOUTGOD.com to assert and summarize science's understanding of a topic?

Seriously? Disregard then. It was the first thing not TV show related to pop up on google. My bad, WTH would this site be run by that site SMH. And besides this post doesn't attempt to summarize or assert anything other than to help of Ditka above.Edit: my link shows this at the bottom?

Science Home | About Us | Support Us | FAQ | Sitemap

Copyright © 2002 - 2014 AllAboutScience.org, All Rights Reserved.

Click logo at top, go to about us....

A lot of failed attempts at googlearning going on in here.

 

[urbanhack]

Cstu, enlighten me. I think quoting an entire post for a one sentence ad hominen is some the greatest nonsense I've ever seen

stick around

 

[tonydead]

Do they have concrete beyond a shadow of a doubt evidence of how our universe was formed......Nope

science doesn't prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt. it generates theories based on evidence. and the more evidence it finds, the more likely the theory is. as for the big bang, there is quite a bit of evidence. as for the genesis account, there is none.

Can they prove that there isn't the existence of a god....Nope....Get back with us when they can...

do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? ever heard of Russel's teapot?

I'm laughing at you for thinking you have the answers.

where did I say I have all the answers?

Yep and at the end of the day we still don't know do we. You didn't say you have all the answers you are only trying to convince others that you do...

It's not about claiming science has all the answers, science never says that no matter how many times you try to imply it does. Its about evidence, certainty and probability.

"I don't know" is a perfectly logical answer.

"There is evidence to support the Big Band Theory" is a true statement.

"I don't know so it must be something supernatural" is truly an illogical answer and attempts to spit in the face of science.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Everyone needs to find peace in their life, for some that means religion for others not.

Some have to have answers, to find out the why. And still others are comfortable with knowing not all questions have an answer.

 

[tonydead]

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true.

"This is how the universe functions" occupies an entirely different category of knowledge than "this is how you should live your life." You're The people doing the preaching are committing Hume's is/ought fallacy.

Fixed that for you Ivan.