Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Subduction Zone]

Atheists try to deceive people into thinking that science endorses their atheistic beliefs and the truth is that real science does not want to be associated with atheism anymore then they want to be associated with YEC Creationism. That is why we use the word Hijacked when we talk about how Atheism tries to use science to promote their agenda. Science is in the middle, science is agnostic. They are not theistic or atheistic. Science tends to lean toward theism because they can show that there are benefits to theism and a belief in God. So no mater how slight the scale it tipping science is more theistic then it is atheistic. It is just that atheists try to deceive people into thinking that science supports their agenda and that simply is not true.

What are you taking about? Please name some specific lies. How have atheists hijacked science? Please note that atheists do not claim that science disproves God. Also science is actually atheistic. Science never treats problems as if there was a god. God does not come into calculations on gravity, chemistry, or geology. You may need to learn what the terms you are using mean. Let me give you a quick lesson. Atheism is about what one believes. If one does not believe in any gods then he is atheistic. Agnosticism is about what people know. And at a certain level all of us are agnostic. One does not know if gods exist or not. Most people that say that they are agnostic are also atheists, even if they don't realize it. If you asked them if they believed in a specific god they would say no every time.

You seem to be mixing up the definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and anti-theism. Anti-theism is the belief that openly states that there are no gods. An atheist just does not believe in any gods. A subtle but important difference.

 

[joshua 1 9]

FYI, only "strong" atheists have formed an actual opinion on the topic of God. "Weak atheists" (far more common) simply withhold belief either for or against the concept of a God. They simply see the problem as a "lack of evidence" (either direction), and they don't form a strong opinion in either direction.



It's true that they tend to subjectively dismiss any and all claims of "evidence" with respect to the topic of God based upon a purely "empirical" standard of evidence, but they almost never apply such a standard toward "science" or any scientific theories. There is often a double standard in play as it relates to 'evidence', I'll grant you that much.



Weak atheists fall into that category and consider their position to be "more honest" than yours actually. Your argument would really only apply to strong atheists, and few if any atheists I've met associated themselves internally with strong atheism. They may say things from time to time to reveal such biases, but generally speaking most atheists are simply weak atheists and they simply don't claim to know the answer one way or another.



The problem is that even the concept of "evidence" becomes highly subjective, and down right "personal" in some instances. Atheists tend to want to see "empirical" evidence of God, but they don't typically apply that same rigid (empirical) standard of evidence toward other branches of "science".

Spontaneous remission is still alive and well in science. Christians call it a miracle but non Christians just call it spontaneous remission. They say it is rare but it happens. They want to clam that things happen with no cause and that is impossible. We know that is a Divine Cause to all of Creation. That is what it all comes down to is those that do and those that do not believe in Divine Cause.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Please note that atheists do not claim that science disproves God. Also science is actually atheistic.

I told you they hijack science when they try to use science to prove there is no God. The truth is if anything Science can offer proof and evidence that at least the Belief in God is very beneficial. The lack of a belief in God from a viewpoint of Science in not beneficial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Spontaneous remission is still alive and well in science. Christians call it a miracle but non Christians just call it spontaneous remission. They say it is rare but it happens. They want to clam that things happen with no cause and that is impossible. We know that is a Divine Cause to all of Creation. That is what it all comes down to is those that do and those that do not believe in Divine Cause.

And that is an unjustified conclusion. There are also several other possibilities. The person may have been misdiagnosed and never had the disease to start with. The person may have been undergoing treatment but did not tell anyone. The person may have even lied about being sick in the first place.

Do you have any verified examples of this where the above and other possible explanations are ruled out? And even if it does happen, guess what, sometimes people get better. It is not evidence of God unless you can find a way to test those results.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I told you they hijack science when they try to use science to prove there is no God. The truth is if anything Science can offer proof and evidence that at least the Belief in God is very beneficial. The lack of a belief in God from a viewpoint of Science in not beneficial.

I see that you ignored the short lesson on what atheism is. Please go back and read the entire post before you jump to incorrect conclusions.

And you sincerely doubt that you can support your statement about a belief in God being beneficial. Yes, in the past when not believing in God could lead to your death by those that did it was a beneficial belief. But being forced to believe something does not give the idea any merit. Now that people are free not to believe in God we can see that freedom is a good thing.

 

[Michael]

And that is an unjustified conclusion.

That's a entirely subjective conclusion on your part by the way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a entirely subjective conclusion on your part by the way.

Wrong. Unless he can show valid evidence that supports his claim he does not have a valid conclusion. The same would apply to me if I made a conclusion that was not backed by solid evidence. That is why I am listed as an atheist and not an anti-theist. I do not believe in any gods because of the lack of evidence for them. That does not mean that I make the absolute claim that there are no gods because again, there is a lack of evidence that supports that claim.

 

[Michael]

Wrong. Unless he can show valid evidence that supports his claim he does not have a valid conclusion. The same would apply to me if I made a conclusion that was not backed by solid evidence.

Scientists routinely assert that "x thingy did it" without any empirical cause/effect justification. The fact it happens all the time means that it's a real effect and it has a real cause. Whatever the cause, you can't personally eliminate his preferred explanation any more than he can eliminate yours.

That is why I am listed as an atheist and not an anti-theist. I do not believe in any gods because of the lack of evidence for them. That does not mean that I make the absolute claim that there are no gods because again, there is a
lack of evidence that supports that claim.

Ya except you're playing judge, jury and executioner in terms of what counts as "evidence". You're subjectively selective about which invisible stuff you hold belief in too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientists routinely assert that "x thingy did it" without any empirical cause/effect justification. The fact it happens all the time means that it's a real effect and it has a real cause. Whatever the cause, you can't personally eliminate his preferred explanation any more than he can eliminate yours.

I doubt if you could name any cases of that at all.

Ya except you're playing judge, jury and executioner in terms of what counts as "evidence". You're subjectively selective about which invisible stuff you hold belief in too.

No, scientists have a very reasonable definition of evidence. And it works. It is the least subjective way of approaching evidence that there is.

 

[Michael]

I doubt if you could name any cases of that at all.

I could name four of them related to current cosmology theory, but I'll save it for another thread.

No, scientists have a very reasonable definition of evidence. And it works. It is the least subjective way of approaching evidence that there is.

That may be true, but scientists have never required a purely "empirical" cause/effect demonstrated standard of evidence as atheists tend to require of any idea related to "God".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could name four of them related to current cosmology theory, but I'll save it for another thread.

I have seen your failures in that way too many times.

That may be true, but scientists have never required a purely "empirical" cause/effect demonstrated standard of evidence as atheists tend to require of any idea related to "God".

But atheists don't demand that. They demand even less than scientists do before a theory is verified. The problem is that all of the "evidence" for gods is extremely subjective at best. Just a little empirical evidence would be nice. If an idea is true one would think that it could be supported by valid evidence. Theories require massive evidence before they are accepted.

 

[Michael]

I have seen your failures in that way too many times.

Your lack of an empirical cause/effect demonstration of your claim isn't "my" failure, it's yours. I'm simply applying the same empirical standard to all topics, whereas you're only applying a purely empirical cause/effect standard to the topic of God, and nowhere else.

But atheists don't demand that. They demand even less than scientists do before a theory is verified.

They typically do demand an empirical cause/effect demonstration as it relates to spontaneous healing, and various ideas when applied to the topic of God. They generally don't apply that same empirical cause/effect demonstrated standard to any other scientific oriented topic however.

The problem is that all of the "evidence" for gods is extremely subjective at best.

That's true of any theoretical construct.

Just a little empirical evidence would be nice.

Ditto as it relates to astronomy.

If an idea is true one would think that it could be supported by valid evidence. Theories require massive evidence before they are accepted.

Not in my experience. Typically the "evidence" itself is subjective, and begins with an "act of faith" in a presumed "cause", one that often cannot and is not replicated in any lab on Earth.

 

[katerinah1947]

Then we have a choice if we are going to please God or man. Perhaps that is why James says that friendship with the world is enmity with God.

Jas 4:4 "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity G2189 with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

Rom 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity G2189 against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

In the book of Hosea God seems to indicate that Isreal is His Bride. Jesus refers to Israel as the friend of the Bridegroom.

Hi,

EXPAND. Include all GOD says.

Somewhere, God has Paul tell us this: Do not think, that you have done a great work, in finding God. Do not think that your belief is your own doing. Both of those are gifts.

Salt, if it used too much ruins things. No salt is horrible.

Prophets of old. In the Spirit Types now. Believers. Each of them, is salt. I say.

Hopefully God agrees with that salt statement of mine. If He doesn't fine. Presently though, that is my view, of the Correctly Religious, and everyone else.

I have been given much, in life, and in the World of God.

BIBLICALLY, much is expected of one who has been given much.

So, God forced me, to do much.

Slowly, I found out what my doing resulted in.

Soon, I actually was in love with God, because of what my forced labor accomplished.

I did not realize then, that I fell in love with God.

But one day, as this crippled by his own actions, drunken Sociopath is talking to me, trying to insert his next wedge in, to get me in a position to be abused by him, he starts in that night with flattery.

(Flattery, and insults are two identical items meant to hurt and control others. They are wielded, only to do that. They both, hurt the victim. )

He starts in on me.
"You are so good."
"No, I am not. I don't even want to be here."
"You have done so much for us."
"If anything has been done for you thank my Boss(God) not me. I am taking orders. I am not here on my own accord, or because I want to be."
"How can I accept the horrors that have been done to me."
"Take it to God"
"My girlfriend has....."
"Take it to God"

This went on and on finally he stopped. It seemed he had no counter statements to take it to God.

So, I and others might be, I am not saying am, but might be salt.

Too much though is not Good. If everyone was like me, again I am guessing here, what would things be like?

Would food and clothing be made?

Would the scientists still find out "What God Has Done"?

Yes it would, as that is a Genesis 1:28 item.

All those like me, are salt. We are not life. We make life better.,

Joshua, I am so totally removed from the world now, that apart from actually being dead, I have no life like normal humans do.

God, intervenes and gives me much. My life is full and wonderful and Blessed.

I though can't live without Him......Physically, EMOTIONALLY, and not just in Spiritual ways, IN ALL WAYS.

Sure, I am allowed an earthly husband, only pick one.

Who in their right mind does not see me as s freak?

Married to God, actually!

No man wants that.

A man always being second to God!

Actually in a marriage no man wants that.

And transgendered to boot?

Please. Please. The likelihood of any spouse on earth happening is less than zero.

So, God gives me a full life, here on earth. He gives me direct experiences with Him. I have enough proven ones to share with others.

I am a soldier for life also. Even that God uses to make life better for others, but the combat part of that, removes me also from the normal world.

We all have different jobs to do for God.

No one is supposed to be me but me. Wonderful beautiful wives and mothers are jobs also for God.

Not everyone is supposed to be a Christian Mystic.

Carpenters, Dads, Husbands who will and have died for their families, that is a job for God also.

All of us, are to do our jobs for God, honestly.

Even honest atheists work for God, whether you I or they know it or not.

Yes, sometimes I am a major mystic and know much.

One day, God sends me in to talk to a major Atheist. I knew what God wanted me to do for him. I did that. I did not understand yet. Finally, I figured it out and told him. He is still an atheist. This kind. He cannot conceive of anyone being dishonest. To him, no one is dishonest. It just does not happen.

That, is the kind of Atheist he is. And, God sent me in there one day, to do nothing more, than pave the way, for him to be perfect with God.

Do you understand yet?

We don't know everything about God. Ours is to do our job. Our job is not to save (make life after death with God) everyone. Ours is to do our job, and leave the rest up to God.

An Atheist? Why was I sent in to save him, without him even knowing, other than he was told?

Why?

LOVE,

 

[joshua 1 9]

Even honest atheists work for God, whether you I or they know it or not.

Yes and I find that very interesting. I think they know that they are serving God. Still that is just the way God wants it, you have to be all the way in or all the way out. The one thing God does not want is people that are unpredictable. He wants to know what you are going to do. I noticed on here they seem to look for any weakness to test people to see if they really are fully committed to God. It is the dishonest people that are loyal to nothing and no one and not even themselves. The people that no one can trust and no one can rely on. Perhaps God can use them but I do not know what good people are that intend to back stab you whenever they get the chance.

 

[joshua 1 9]

(Flattery, and insults are two identical items meant to hurt and control others. They are wielded, only to do that. They both, hurt the victim. )

What I do not understand is that it seems like the more you do to help people the more they try to do you harm in return. As if there is nothing good in them and they can only return evil for good. In the real world people help each other out and do good for each other. At least that was the way I was raised. Yet some people do not seem to have any good to offer anyone.

 

[Michael]

What I do not understand is that it seems like the more you do to help people the more they try to do you harm in return. As if there is nothing good in them and they can only return evil for good. In the real world people help each other out and do good for each other. At least that was the way I was raised. Yet some people do not seem to have any good to offer anyone.

Well, I for one have met quite a few very "nice" atheists on the internet that have taught me different things, and some that have even gotten me to change my viewpoints on various topics, something I believe to be quite valuable actually.

I have noticed however that when one questions the beliefs of other individuals, it can have the effect of making them angry, particularly if I'm careless with my choice of words.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You may need to learn what the terms you are using mean. Let me give you a quick lesson. Atheism is about what one believes.

There is no objective definition for atheism only subjective. It is different for every person. I have never known two atheists that have defined atheism in the same way.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no objective definition for atheism only subjective. It is different for every person. I have never known two atheists that have defined atheism in the same way.

It is usually the theists who try to attach all of these other philosophies to atheism. What all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deities. What they may or may not believe outside of that common lack of belief in deities has nothing to do with atheism. An atheist can be a secular humanist or an anarchist. An anarchist can be an atheist or a theist. They are different things.

 

[Michael]

It is usually the theists who try to attach all of these other philosophies to atheism. What all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deities. What they may or may not believe outside of that common lack of belief in deities has nothing to do with atheism. An atheist can be a secular humanist or an anarchist. An anarchist can be an atheist or a theist. They are different things.

In my experience, many if not all atheists do however "hold belief" in things that they cannot see or control, and concepts that are not based upon empirically demonstrated cause/effect evidence. The only trait that they really have in common is the application of a *non scientific* (purely empirical) standard of so called "evidence" as it relates to the topic of God. On the other hand they typically apply that purely empirical standard of evidence to no other topic in the universe, nor does any other scientist apply that purely empirical standard of evidence to their own profession.

 

[Michael]

Hi there. My apologies for butting-in Michael, but too many people here (not just you) use broad generalisations to score points i.e. "...many if not all atheists do however 'hold belief' in things they cannot see or control..." Where does this come from? If you have some sort of evidence to back up such a claim, let's have it. If you're only saying this in an attempt to bolster your point of view...don't! Stick to the facts please people, or if you are generalising or assuming things, make that perfectly clear in you statement i.e. "I have absolutely no evidence for this, but I'm guessing that...." That way we don't all get sucked into a vortex of assumptions, false claims, generalisations, guesses and broad sweeping 100% bulldust statements. That will make for a better forum and lift the standard of debate! Sorry, Michael, I'm not picking on you specifically, but your post was the one that tipped me over the edge.

Cheers.

Olaf: He with the baloney detector.

I've *rarely* (it has happened infrequently however) met an atheist that didn't hold some amount of belief in big bang theory, or "black holes" or some other theoretical construct. The only time I typically see them apply a purely empirical standard of evidence is when it relates directly to the topic of God, and usually nowhere else. Krauss and Degrassi are renowned for their atheistic leanings (evangelizing), yet they both hold belief in dark energy, dark matter, and inflation, none of which enjoy any empirical cause/effect justification in a lab.

Do you hold belief in big bang theory or black holes?