Does this mean that godless atheism (and remember: That's the worst kind of atheism) is also responsible for promiscuous sex before marriage (but not necessarily promiscuous sex after marriage), doing drugs and drinking in excess?
Upvote
0
Creationism... I guess its true!! ::sigh::
- Thread starter Zadok
- Start date
Does this mean that godless atheism (and remember: That's the worst kind of atheism) is also responsible for promiscuous sex before marriage (but not necessarily promiscuous sex after marriage), doing drugs and drinking in excess?
How come everyone that has felt Gods power accepts that He exists. How do we exist if He doesn't. How come God ALWAYS answers our prayers? Eh? Science is God's laws- there was a scientific reason for the parting of the Red Sea. Satan loves to give evidence that God doesn't exist.
Upvote
0
umm if God came to you and say "hey buddy; follow my son". How could you deny that?
satin will use mans nature to doubt agenst them.
Upvote
0
Oliver
Senior Member
I found the site from which I got my figures. It quoted a novermber 1997 poll from Gallup. When I first read those figures about a year ago if I remember well, I went to the Gallup site to check them and I did find data to support them. However, these polls now seem to be restricted to subscribers.
In this polls, people were asked to choose between three options:
1) Creationist view : "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. "
2) Theistic evolution : "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. "
3) Naturalistic Evolution :"Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process. "
and the results were as follow:
Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%
Which implies that 45% of scientists believe in a personal God. (I was wrong though in saying that 45% of scientists were christians). It still hardly supports 2infinity's claim that scientists accept evolution because it "gives them grounds for that belief [atheism]"
[edit: I forgot to include a link to this site:
religioustolerance ]
Upvote
0
I wonder why they only included those three options? What would have been the results if additional choices were available?
Upvote
0
Sinai:
No, godless athiesm isn't responsible for anything at all. People are the ones responsible. Godless athiesm is just a belief, nothing more. Beliefs can't be responsible for turning society upside down - People, however, can.
Oliver:
Thank God, truth isn't decided by popular opinion.
No, godless athiesm isn't responsible for anything at all. People are the ones responsible. Godless athiesm is just a belief, nothing more. Beliefs can't be responsible for turning society upside down - People, however, can.
Oliver:
Thank God, truth isn't decided by popular opinion.
Upvote
0
Really? "getting away with" certain things obviously didn't bother god way back in the old testament. Or have you forgotten?
He didn't have a problem with letting people "get away with" beating slaves...
EX 21:20-21 With the Lord's approval, a slave may be beaten to death with no punishment for the perpetrator as long as the slave doesn't die too quickly.
Loveless forced marriage and sexual relations without concent on god orders (of course god let them "get away" with it)...
DT 20:13-14 "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."
DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go.
Or letting his people "get away" with slavery...
Or letting his people "get away" with countless baby killings...
Or lets people "get away" with human sacrifice...
Upvote
0
Mmmmmmmmmm, rape, torture, war, genocide. Obviously the tools of an Atheist. Oh wait. The is from the bible? Must be the tools of other side.
Upvote
0
Zadok:
Dont think for a minute those people got away with it though. Eventually God destroyed Israel too, ya know - and for the same reasons God used Israel against other cultures.
Dont think for a minute those people got away with it though. Eventually God destroyed Israel too, ya know - and for the same reasons God used Israel against other cultures.
Upvote
0
Zadok, I'm sorry man but did you even do any research on what you posted?
If so, what was it?
If not, post the verses and your rationale for believeing that THIS is what it said. By this I mean I want the verses stated completely, a Historical basis for what was going on in the nation, a Historical basis for what was going on in the enemy nation, a Historical basis for human conditions at that time, and I also want you to give me the overall message in the Book and Chapter.
I demand all this because I think you are missing some key elements in these verses.
If so, what was it?
If not, post the verses and your rationale for believeing that THIS is what it said. By this I mean I want the verses stated completely, a Historical basis for what was going on in the nation, a Historical basis for what was going on in the enemy nation, a Historical basis for human conditions at that time, and I also want you to give me the overall message in the Book and Chapter.
I demand all this because I think you are missing some key elements in these verses.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oliver
Senior Member
I know, some options are missing (for example some people believe that God created several times over millions of years but no evolution occured...).
But my point was that 45% of US scientists include a God in the process, thus at least 45% of them believe in a personal God.
Upvote
0
"Yes, that's fortunate. And neither are the accepted scientific theories ."
keyword: "accepted" - accepted by whom? those with opinions. read for yourself the very words people use to claim validity. you'll come to find that much of the truth we think we "know" is actually an assumption about what someone else has "said". "accepted" in this sense of group opinion is simply another term for "popular".
keyword: "theories" - obviously not the facts themselves (otherwise they would become Physical Laws), but stories made up to fit the facts. Belief in stories requires a subjective approach in accepting them. As such, any theory accepted which is not yours, is a theory accepted based on personal agreement - thus an "opinion" of what you believe to be true.
combine these two key words: "accepted theories", and one could just as easily replace them with: "popular opinion."
Hence, I disagree with your implied assertion that "accepted scientific theories" are the equivalent to "truth", and thus are not in anyway decided by popular opinion.
keyword: "accepted" - accepted by whom? those with opinions. read for yourself the very words people use to claim validity. you'll come to find that much of the truth we think we "know" is actually an assumption about what someone else has "said". "accepted" in this sense of group opinion is simply another term for "popular".
keyword: "theories" - obviously not the facts themselves (otherwise they would become Physical Laws), but stories made up to fit the facts. Belief in stories requires a subjective approach in accepting them. As such, any theory accepted which is not yours, is a theory accepted based on personal agreement - thus an "opinion" of what you believe to be true.
combine these two key words: "accepted theories", and one could just as easily replace them with: "popular opinion."
Hence, I disagree with your implied assertion that "accepted scientific theories" are the equivalent to "truth", and thus are not in anyway decided by popular opinion.
Upvote
0
Oliver
Senior Member
Hi Josephus. I think that you misunderstood what I meant. Let me explain a little:
This is not at all what I implied:
I don't think that accepted scientific theories are equivalent to truths. Science is not a quest for the truth but seeks models that will account for our observations of the physical world as precisely and reliably as possible.
One of the basic principles of science is to allways be ready to question a theory when new data are found. Considering an accepted theory as the unchanging truth would be contrary to this principle.
In this perspective, the accepted scientific theory for a phenomenon is just our best shot at explaining it.
For me, to accept a theory is not simply to believe the guy(s) that found the theory: it implies that you have a minimum knowledge of the evidence presented to back up the theory (i.e that you have access to them or can reproduce them) and that you are able to critically analyse this evidence.
THIS, is why it is in no way decided by the public: because the public is most of the time not equipped to make this kind of analysis.
As I explained above, I meant something much more precise than just "believed by the public".
accepted is not equivalent to believed since it implies a minimum knowledge of the phenomena at stake and of the evidence gathered.
The answer to your question ("by whom") is then: by the scientists in the field.
This is certainly so among the internet community or among the general public.
Of course, what we, as laymen, accept, is most of the time based on how we trust what others say. But by accepted, I didn't mean accpeted by the laymen...
A physical law is, just as a theory, what you call a "story made up to fit the facts". Could you explain me how Newton's law of motion is any more factual than the theory of relativity? It isn't. It fact, since this law only works for speeds much lower than the speed of light and is then to be replaced by the theory of relativity, we could say that it is less of a fact than the theory of relativity is.
I suspect that the use of the words law or theory is more a question of fashion than anything else. Anyway, neither a theory nor a law are facts, and both have to be supported by facts. Your claim that "otherwise [theories] would become Physical Laws" shows a misunderstanding of what a law is in physics: it is "just a theory", so to say...
When the scientific community "evaluates" a theory, it does much more than just read about your results: your evidence is examined and your experiments are reproduced by other scientists. If noone is able to reproduce your results, then your theory is not accepted. A mere opinion, however authoritative, is never considered sufficient.
I hope that you understand better now why, in my previous post, accepted scientific theories cannot be replaced by public opinion.
And let me say it again clearly: never did I think or imply that a scientific theory was "the truth".
This is not at all what I implied:
I don't think that accepted scientific theories are equivalent to truths. Science is not a quest for the truth but seeks models that will account for our observations of the physical world as precisely and reliably as possible.
One of the basic principles of science is to allways be ready to question a theory when new data are found. Considering an accepted theory as the unchanging truth would be contrary to this principle.
In this perspective, the accepted scientific theory for a phenomenon is just our best shot at explaining it.
For me, to accept a theory is not simply to believe the guy(s) that found the theory: it implies that you have a minimum knowledge of the evidence presented to back up the theory (i.e that you have access to them or can reproduce them) and that you are able to critically analyse this evidence.
THIS, is why it is in no way decided by the public: because the public is most of the time not equipped to make this kind of analysis.
As I explained above, I meant something much more precise than just "believed by the public".
accepted is not equivalent to believed since it implies a minimum knowledge of the phenomena at stake and of the evidence gathered.
The answer to your question ("by whom") is then: by the scientists in the field.
This is certainly so among the internet community or among the general public.
Of course, what we, as laymen, accept, is most of the time based on how we trust what others say. But by accepted, I didn't mean accpeted by the laymen...
A physical law is, just as a theory, what you call a "story made up to fit the facts". Could you explain me how Newton's law of motion is any more factual than the theory of relativity? It isn't. It fact, since this law only works for speeds much lower than the speed of light and is then to be replaced by the theory of relativity, we could say that it is less of a fact than the theory of relativity is.
I suspect that the use of the words law or theory is more a question of fashion than anything else. Anyway, neither a theory nor a law are facts, and both have to be supported by facts. Your claim that "otherwise [theories] would become Physical Laws" shows a misunderstanding of what a law is in physics: it is "just a theory", so to say...
When the scientific community "evaluates" a theory, it does much more than just read about your results: your evidence is examined and your experiments are reproduced by other scientists. If noone is able to reproduce your results, then your theory is not accepted. A mere opinion, however authoritative, is never considered sufficient.
I hope that you understand better now why, in my previous post, accepted scientific theories cannot be replaced by public opinion.
And let me say it again clearly: never did I think or imply that a scientific theory was "the truth".
Upvote
0
For what it's worth (which may be nothing), I've noticed an increasing tendency in scientific writings over the past couple of decades for Einstein's theory of relativity to be referred to as Einstein's law of relativity. As one who grew up with it always being called a theory, it's a bit hard to change old habits....
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,914
- 1,529
- 18
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
No, "accepted" by "people who have been studying in the field, and are qualified to come up with reasonable theories". Would you trust a layman's interpretation of the Bible over that of a priest or pastor who's spent 20 years studying it? In general, I wouldn't.
All of science is theories; we have had to shelve so-called "Laws" before, and all "Law" means is "theory that we've had a lot of success with".
It's not just "stories made up to fit the facts"; it's that you make up a story, and then you say "if that's how it happened, I'd expect to see this other phenomenon in the real world", and you look.... and if you can find the phenomenon, your theory is stronger.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
