Religion anyone?
-
You guys crack me up!
-
the debate is on; words and evidences of two parties were laid down all around. discussions were became interesting but creating more discord. Instead of religion, which i do beleive really have been used to control accidentally, knowingly or unknowingly, why not talk on other things. Even during Jesus time he said to the religious leaders how hippocrite they are and how blinded they are in leading the people. See even here we could see how religion and beleif which the Pharissees claimed from GOd eventually were rejected by Jesus himself and in the end Jesus teaching was not even about Religion but freeing people from this bondage by means of what he called "relationship". He is focused on restoring relationship between God and man rather than set of rules and regulations, no wonder the commandments were jsut sreamlined with 2 "Love your God, and Love your neighbours as you love yourselves". After that good church with full of love, see what happened again? All different rules and regualtions were being pushed again to control people, no wonder churches became less and less attendees. Lookin on the history,how many people even killed in the name of advocating religion. Philippines has no exception with this, we were under the Spanish regime for 300 years, and the whole country was controlled by the religion. Womans were raped by the priest, etc. etc. Is that Jesus teaching? its the reversal is int.
Look what's happening around, some Extremist believes that terrorism is ok, Of course many of our muslim brothers dont agree with it. But the extremist view to die with this cause is Martyrdom... hmmmm.
How about global warming? why not these Group of people advocate in the pulpit, the reality of Global warming? How about us? shall we just spend our time arguing which is true and not. The truth is look whats happening around us. Global warming is real and even there are tons of evidence. The bible said God rested in the 7th day, and saw how beautiful his creation. And i believe all of us agree that we should be proactive on this. Perhaps use this forum to discuss some other ways how? perhaps it would be a little impact, but imagine there are 10000 members, how much these 10,000 memebrs can do.
i could say im a creationist, because i want this environment to be protected
Do i have religion? I HATE that word " I prefer more the relationship"
Do i believe in God? Yes I do.
Do i beleive in Science? Yes I do.
Do i respect the opinion of others? YES and yes. even you dont agree wiht me.lastly here is my last word.
Let us be a channel that advocates the reality of Global warming... "no pushing, its up to you. again no rules! it might become a religion hehehehe.
here is one of the poster i did about an advocacy on the reality of Global Warming
All sketchup model+podium render. but lo were such creative bunch of guys were in our small ways we could advocate this cause.
-
@nomeradona said:
...Jesus teaching was not even about Religion but freeing people from this bondage by means of what he called "relationship". He is focused on restoring relationship between God and man rather than set of rules and regulations...
Amen...and well put!
-
@alan fraser said:
Cornel, the age of the earth has been verified in just about EVERY laboratory on earth. Maintaining that it is still a matter of debate is just ridiculous, You might as well try to argue that the earth is flat or there are fairies at the bottom of your garden.
A quick look at some historic science will show that the age of the earth has been changing faster than a TV at a channel-surfer's convention.
According to science:
In 1899, the earth was 100 million years old.
In 1905, the earth was 500 million years old.
Today, the earth is 4.6 billion years old.At that rate, the earth will age 109,057 years in the next 24 hours; one year from now, the earth will be 39.8 million years older than it is today.
Sure glad science could confirm that for us
@sepo said:
Yeah right but also large number of scientest were killed by the Church in the name of God. I wonder how many of the ones survived were really Christians or where they just putting the act so that they could be left alone. I am afraid Religion ( I mean organized form ) was certainly beeing used to do pilage ,rape and murder.....and that is the case still today... Organised religion is just another mechanism to control humanity... Thank you very much ...not good for me....
Scientists killed? Really? Which ones? Actually, atheists killed more people in the last century than religious people killed in the previous 20 centuries. I've looked at atheistic blogs and forums, and the pure hatred and vitriol I've seen spewed there against Christians in general stands in stark contrast to the care and concern I've seen expressed for atheists on Christian sites. Even in this thread, how many times has Cornel been attacked and ridiculed? How many times has he attacked or retaliated? I'd have to say that, given the evidence, Christianity is less evil/dangerous than atheism.
@andyc said:
@chango70 said:
The man that more than any other credited with kick starting the scientific revolution was 15th Century theologeon Thomas Aquinas. He posited a thesis in which God as a creator set in motion the laws of nature and do not interfere (no freakin' miracles). Sounds familier? Because it is a scientic view of nature.
Sorry chango, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Any thesis which begins with God as creator cannot be described as scientific.
A.
I can certainly agree to disagree. Just thought you might be interested to know you're also disagreeing with Bacon, Boyle, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Huygens, Faraday, Newton, Mendel, Descartes, Pascal, Joule, Kelvin, Huggins, and others.
These scientists believed that God created the universe with an underlying order, that He created humans with the ability to discover that order, and that by discovering that order, we could be better stewards of the earth. That belief led them to discover and/or develop ideas on the scientific method, gas laws, acids/bases and the litmus test, heliocentric solar system, planetary motion, pendulum motion, electricity, gravity, motion, calculus, genetics, developments in chemistry, differential mathematics, astrophysics, and more.
Surely their discoveries were not implausible because the discoverers were religious, and their faith informed their science. Surely these scientists were not irrational because of their belief in a rational creation. On the contrary, their belief caused them to explore, test, observe, research, and discover what they considered to be rational.
Anyway, as was said earlier - this has been hashed to death many times before, and will be many times in the future. Let's just respect each other's different opinion and get on to other things.
-
@rickw said:
@alan fraser said:
Cornel, the age of the earth has been verified in just about EVERY laboratory on earth. Maintaining that it is still a matter of debate is just ridiculous, You might as well try to argue that the earth is flat or there are fairies at the bottom of your garden.
A quick look at some historic science will show that the age of the earth has been changing faster than a TV at a channel-surfer's convention.
According to science:
In 1899, the earth was 100 million years old.
In 1905, the earth was 500 million years old.
Today, the earth is 4.6 billion years old.At that rate, the earth will age 109,057 years in the next 24 hours; one year from now, the earth will be 39.8 million years older than it is today.
Talk about dodgy numbers! Your assuming that their was a constant change in the age of the earth (the theorised ages, that is) which is wrong.
From my very brief reading around the subject it seems their is a pretty widespread consensus on 4.6 billion.
-
With respect, Rick. Much of that argument is specious. Certainly science has adjusted the estimated age of the earth backwards into history, just as it has adjusted the estimated emargence of the first hominids...but at no time has it ever claimed that the earth was only six thousand years old, by back-tracking generations through the Bible like Archbishop Ussher.
That's what science does...adjusts it's position in the light of newer and better evidence.
I'm not an atheist; and I'd hazard a guess that the Pope isn't either. Yet he has called this whole debate absurd. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/
Newton was deeply religious, but that didn't prevent him from believing that the established Church went seriously off-course at the Council of Nicea in 787...when much of this "Word of God" stuff was concocted.At the risk of repeating myself, mainstream Christianity doesn't have a problem with reconciling scientific knowledge with faith. That absurdity is the sole province of the eccentric fringes...which I'm sorry to say, the US seems to cultivate with relish...be it Creationists, conspiracy theorists or alien abductionists. I'm not saying the rest of the world doesn't have any, but in terms of sheer numbers the US is in a league of its own. In a similar way, it seems that only in America is a stance advocating science and reason automatically seen as being atheistic and anti-religious. I guess this is indicative of how much things have polarised over there.
How could Cornel insult anyone here? Cornel doesn't post anything other than passages from the Bible and exhortations to read it and understand the truth...which, as someone who has read it...cover to cover...several times...I find somewhat patronising.
-
@allen weitzman said:
Juan,
Please don't confuse one man's point of view with that of every man. This fellow, Dovid Krafchow, represents his point of view based on many things from the Torah, to Kabbalah to pseudo-scientific babbling. He is not a recognized authority within the Jewish Community...
AllenYes, Allen
I am sorry. I should of have pointed that it was only his point of view and not the Jewish´s one as I said.
Sorry again andShana tova
-
@rickw said:
I'd have to say that, given the evidence, Christianity is less evil/dangerous than atheism.
Why do a lot of religious people categorise those who don't believe as 'atheists'?
As if you get an automatic subscription to the atheist club when you don't recognise a god.In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
-
@kwistenbiebel said:
In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
true, even Mr Bush couldn't resist involving God into the Afganistan war.
unfortunately many religions are beeing abused by influential people to serve their course (oil). it is simply easier to justify something brutal as war, if you make all the people around you "believe", that it is the right and only way.concerning science: well I think believing in science has definitely something to do with faith. loads of scientific facts have been revised many times throughout history. so believing in science is quite brave, because you know that you may believe in a false trueth.
the discussion with the age of our planet (currently 4.5 billion years)... I like to think it that way:
if you are in a space shuttle, it is quite easy to figure out, that the earth is round. it is considerably harder though to come to that conclusion if you are standing on the surface of the earth. it may be easier in the mid of the Sahara than in Central London, but it is still difficult.
if we stood on a giant hill for example, we could not see the difference between the curving horizon beeing a hill or a shpere...
and the same, in my eyes, counts for the fact of earth beeing 4.5 years old. every evidence leads to that fact. but we only have a very small period of time that we can rely to where these questions have been explored. so we can't be entirely sure...
of course believing in religion is far more difficult, because you don't have any evidence at all.
this is one of the great things about men, I think; that we can construct complicated philosophical theories and religions - and we can decide ourselves to believe in one of them!I for example have developed my own personal "religion", a theory I can believe in, which is scientific enough to not interfere with physical laws and such, but gives me enough freedom to explain thinks that are out of science's grasp yet, and therefore gives me peace of mind, because I can believe in something (and thats what religion is for in the first place, isn't it?)
-
@kwistenbiebel said:
In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
Call it anyhow but how about communist Soviet Union?
-
@gaieus said:
@kwistenbiebel said:
In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
Call it anyhow but how about communist Soviet Union?
As you say yourself, they were called 'communists'.
The term 'communist' does not refer to being atheist in the first place.
Which war has ever been started in the name of 'atheism'? -
why should you wage a war for something you don't believe in?
or is it correct to say: "I believe in Atheism!"???
-
@Kwist:
THESE communists were institutionally and oicially atheists and they indeed called themselves atheists. So I name them in this case again.@Jakob:
Yes, it was almost like compulsory "religion".
And wars are not only fought for religious reaons but also for power (which has mostly been the case during the last couple of centuries). -
Yes, I see you point but in this particular case they did indeed hate believers just because they were believers. What is it then? It's simpl believing in not believing and that's what led them to do so.
-
Gaeius,
The point I wanted to make is that 'non-believing' doesn't automatically mean hating the people that do believe.
Just like not having a car doesn't mean you hate cars.....
-
Unfortunately, there is, and always has been, too much power wrapped up with any kind of movement....religious or dogmatically secular like Soviet Communism.
Those in power, whether clergy or the party elite all too often demonstrate a desire to make people think the same way that they do. Many are control freaks, which is why they are in the position they are in. It was true of Mohammed, it was true of Torquemada, it was true of David Koresh and it was certainly true of the Politburo.Although I thoroughly respect his science, it's also true of Richard Dawkins, who is as fanatical and dogmatic in his atheism as many of the religious figures he takes issue with. In the case of Creationists, they have it coming.
-
I do not neccessarily agree whole-heartedly with Richard Dawkins however I do think it is very important that religion is kept out of public discourse.
-
Solo,
- Calculation based on ‘half-life’ of radioactive isotopesis is criticized by many scientists, for a long time (we can see many comments on the Internet…).
For ‘short-lived’ cathegory, because the result is influenced by the sun and by the atmosphere, there are additional questions as age of sun, not-constant atmosphere, configuration (stable?!!) of our planet system, etc.
Unsignificant variation in time of isotopes can implicate another question: which progress is proper to be considered – arithmetic (linear), geometric (asymtotic), or...?!
Supplemental question: aren’t there possible natural factors that can affect ‘half-life’ process, even to increase (to enrich) isotopes?!
- Back to that video clip...., respective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQLD59fK_Iw
That film is an evident counterfeit!
Verify, please: calendars, astrology, names, locations, fashions, execution methods, narative manner, etc.
Beside that, no one till now, except Jesus Christ, was resurrected and remained alive forever.Cornel
-
@Cornel,
No bible quote this time to support all that?
I guess there is none that talks about 'half-life' and 'isotopesis', right? -
@alan fraser said:
Although I thoroughly respect his science, it's also true of Richard Dawkins, who is as fanatical and dogmatic in his atheism as many of the religious figures he takes issue with. In the case of Creationists, they have it coming.
Not true Alan. Richard Dawkins describes himself (in "The God Delusion" - if you haven't read it, I recommend it strongly) as agnostic - because he acknowledges that he cannot prove the non-existence of a god. True atheism is a belief system - as unsupportable by evidence as religious faith. However he also explains how there can be degrees of agnosticism - citing the 'teapot hypothesis' -and describes himself as being at the far end of that agnostic scale.
Crucially however - and this is the REALLY important point - he also says that should he be given genuine, testable proof of God's existence, he would instantly change his views. This is the key difference between an enlightened scientist and a blinkered 'believer' who would cling to his views in the face of all evidence.
Advertisement