It's surprising how many Christians here think otherwise - claiming that science is positively anti-religious.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's surprising how many Christians here think otherwise - claiming that science is positively anti-religious.Learning, observing and reasoning have nothing against religion.
Are you sure you mean 'metaphysics' rather than, say, supernatural or paranormal?I'm an atheist because I reject the existance of metaphysics.
However, if you define being 'civilized' as adopting the mores and morality of your particular culture and religion, you'll find other cultures and religions will have their own definitions of 'civilized', involving their own mores and morality. 'Civilization' already has a well-accepted meaning that is not culturally relative, so I would suggest that defining it to accord with your personal cultural preferences is a backward step. YMMV.
It's surprising how many Christians here think otherwise - claiming that science is positively anti-religious.
I always thought that meant "fashion".Indian, Chinese, Japanese etc. common people all wear European originated wardrobe, it's part of their overall ''code'' and ''code'' means civilization.
Are you sure you mean 'metaphysics' rather than, say, supernatural or paranormal?
Wait, civilization now means shirt & trousers? what happened to mores and morals?Indian, Chinese, Japanese etc. common people all wear European originated wardrobe, it's part of their overall ''code'' and ''code'' means civilization.
Is he?I didn't know VirOptimus was a scientist.
Wait, civilization now means shirt & trousers? what happened to mores and morals?
Is he?
Or is it simply that he and science have 'learning, observing and reasoning' in common when trying to understand reality?
"Overwhelming evidence" is what I would call "proof". And that is quite lacking. Anyone who simply claims that there is overwhelming evidence and that it is obvious without being able to show it... explicitly denying to have to "prove it" while in the same breath with different words claiming to have proven it... is just setting himself up for a mirror argument.
See, it is totally obvious that there is no supreme "creator", the evidence for that is overwhelming, anyone who still believes in such a concept has no valid excuse for his belief. Statements confiring the existence of such a creator are exceedingly stupid statements in my view.
Some might challenge atheists to "prove that there is no God"... but that shouldn't even be necessary. It's obvious... and if you disagree, you are... blind, deluded, rebellious, evil... take your pick.
Is that an unsatisfactory line of reasoning? Well, yes, I think so. And it doesn't get any better or more satisfactor if prefaced with "The Bible tells us..."
The Bible tells us it's overwhelming, Jesus agrees that it's overwhelming, the Apostles agreed that it's overwhelming-but YOU say it's not! Whom will I pick to believe. Yow Wow! Tough choice!
Oh; what does that involve?
You know... something overwhelming should be, well, overwhelming. Not be said to be overwhelming.The Bible tells us it's overwhelming, Jesus agrees that it's overwhelming, the Apostles agreed that it's overwhelming-but YOU say it's not! Whom will I pick to believe. Yow Wow! Tough choice!
I can't help you with that. Whether you like it or not, science is a methodology for gaining knowledge based on learning by observing and reasoning.I don't like science sneaking in when talking about these things.
I can't help you with that. Whether you like it or not, science is a methodology for gaining knowledge based on learning by observing and reasoning.
Indeed - if it was overwhelming, one would expect to be overwhelmed...You know... something overwhelming should be, well, overwhelming. Not be said to be overwhelming.
I know that most religions - and Christianity especially - are authoritarian systems. But for some things that are deliberately spelled out to not be based on authority, but on personal impact... relying on authority instead of impact rather negates the concept, wouldn't you agree?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?