Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,238
- Reactions
- 8,485
I put my faith in a God that has the power to save my soul, that saved me from my sins. That I'l spend eternity in heaven with him.
... I don't know much about matter replicating as you have previouly posted but does it do this with non-living matter?
.....But why would you want to ignore facts that we have discovered about the universe we live in?.......
More than likely due to the potential to threaten their belief system. More than a few red faces in the Church when the tenet that Sun revolved around the Earth was proved false and so it goes.
More than likely due to the potential to threaten their belief system. More than a few red faces in the Church when the tenet that Sun revolved around the Earth was proved false and so it goes.
Who cares what a cardinal says?
That is one man's opinion.
Who cares what the Catholic Church says?
That is one church's opinion.
I don't agree with the Catholic Church.
I don't agree with the cardinals or the pope.
People, this is only one group's "opinion" on the bible and worldview.
This opinion isn't what the bible actually says.
Or what Jesus says.
Posting an article about a cardinal is stupid.
It means nothing.
You could easily post what a homeless man believes about evolution.
People, this is only one group's "opinion" on the bible and worldview.
This opinion isn't what the bible actually says.
.
That sure sounds like an opinion to me!The bible is just the opinion of the people that wrote it, combined with the people who translated it mixed with the opinions of each person who interprets it.
You have to admit you are really stretching the definition though, In common usage I don't think that many people would assume that when you used the word "worship" you were just talking about something you hold dear.
I still think you are muddying the water by insisting on these alternate definitions when it is clear that they do not represent what the people in the discussion are trying to describe.
Some words can have up to 7 meanings listed, but when your involved in a conversation you have to keep to the context the person is using, as I explained its useless to bring out the meaning of gay as happy when it is clear the person is talking about same sex relationships.
So if I am talking about religious faith, being faith that something is true despite the evidence against it or believing something without evidence, It is different to me describing a blind man having faith in his guide dog.
Faith to the religious person is believing without evidence.
faith to the blind man is reasonable expectations based on evidence and earned trust.
the religious people say, "I don't need evidence because I have faith"
the blindman would say. "I have faith in my dog because I have been shown evidence he knows what to do"
Throughout this discourse I have not distorted any English words (i.e. religion, faith and worship) beyond their literal definition and I object to any suggestion to the contrary.
Those choosing to limit such definitions to a theistic context have only themselves to blame when their arguments backfire!
Even if such words were to be limited to a theistic context, such limitation would not invalidate any of the parallels that I've highlighted!
By the way, thankyou for providing me yet another fine example of one of your purportedly "non-existent" parallels!
Can you see how resorting to accusations of "straw man argument" creation and dishonesty is comparable with an accusation of heresy?
Actually we weren't only discussing theistic religions! We were also discussing the religion of science!
I could just as easily have substituted terms such as "belief","system of belief" and "honour" throughout this discourse. However, the dictionary definitions of faith, religion and worship are able to be used in a wholistic context.
I've already given ample justification for my use of these words in a wholistic context, and yet, despite alerting you to the fact that the validity of the parallels described was never contingent on my choice of terminology, you continue to insist on arguing semantics rather than offering direct challenges to the actual issues I've raised!
Do you really think the threat to belief systems goes one way? How absurd. Many scientists have already made a conclusion by taking god out of the equation and are desperately scrambling with unscientific answers to defend their doctrine.
The science is good. The science is accurate. But the conclusions are filled with all sorts of crazy assumptions based on a preconceived conclusion that there is no god.
Let me see if I understand what you're saying here!In the fields of astro physics, astronomy etc I understand that the complex models and theories of motion etc are improved by some assumptions of as yet undiscovered particles/bodies/types of matter etc. It has occurred in the past that such things are discovered having only had a theoretical status for many years. If a better explanation comes to light then good science would ditch the old
(now discredited) and examine the new.
Are you saying that this is not scientific and that the science would be improved by using the god variable (G?) where things are not quite gelling?
How would this work in practice?
Science does not exist to prove or disprove the existence of God.
+1To all the gentlemen here:
You cannot come full circle again and again and
pretend you are not going round and around and around in circles.
Science does not exist to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Tell that to Richard Dawkins
Tell that to Richard Dawkins
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?