"Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

[truthpaste]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

Sludge doesn’t need any help with this one.

He’s slam dunked you every time.

‘God’ hasn’t ‘told us’ anything. There is no God or gods.

The two of you are speaking different languages. It is two distant circles, not a venn diagram. There is no point of contact. Give it up and let’s all have a break. Please.

When you have something to add then add it, the fact that you are shipwrecked on the same vessel as Sludge with no evidence for your chosen world view isn't my fault. Your passions obviously lie elsewhere as your posts indicate. I don't go arguing politics with you and others and neither do your thoughts on that subject bother me, so why does this subject bother you?

[jeepster]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

Can anyone help Sludge out?

Why does Science trump all that God has told us re life, the universe and everything?

Because it not from a book of fictious stories.
That you think is true.
You are going to be so dissapointed on your death bed when you realiase there is nothing after.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

So you want me to go to the trouble of getting you all the key information without you making any attempt to have a normal adult conversation? Why do you think you can present science as having all the answers and I present the wisdom of God as having the answer to everything (that matters), yet you feel you don't have to answer one question and I have to answer all your questions?

I do not want you to gather things so we can have a conversation

I have provided simple evidence of scientific facts

Now I would like you to provide evidence that God is here and with us in the present .......he's omnipresent and omnipotent according to Christians

We can deal with past evidence and the future such as the afterlife later

But the first bridge to cross is for you to provide evidence that God exists

Quotes from the Bible are not evidence

[truthpaste]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

Because it not from a book of fictious stories.
That you think is true.
You are going to be so dissapointed on your death bed when you realiase there is nothing after.

That is a bizzare comment!
And even if your baseless assessment is correct:-

1. Why would I be disappointed on my death bed
BEFORE I died?

2. How could I be disappointed AFTER death
if there is nothing? (as you and so many others are hoping).

Also, you can't prove the Bible to be untrue and how do you know your literature is true?

[jon1959]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

When you have something to add then add it, the fact that you are shipwrecked on the same vessel as Sludge with no evidence for your chosen world view isn't my fault. Your passions obviously lie elsewhere as your posts indicate. I don't go arguing politics with you and others and neither do your thoughts on that subject bother me, so why does this subject bother you?

I don't think I'm bothered at all.

You asked if anyone could help Sludge out - and I replied to say he doesn't need help (not on this subject anyway: when it comes to coalition governments or heavy metal he clearly needs a lot of help).

But you (with a little bit of help from Gofer - who adopts a very different approach even if he shares some of your core beliefs) have carpet bombed the Alt Board in the past 8 months with your religion, or faith, or ministry, or whatever you call it.

It is hard to avoid - and hijacks endless threads. You want a reaction, but when you get one you complain that the reaction doesn't conform to your reference points or language. Tough.

I remember discussions around faith on this board many years ago - but they were not so strident and swivel eyed. As a side issue or as a philosophical conversation they can be interesting.

I said in the past that I rejected Christianity aged 12 as part of the Congregationalist Church membership process (most others in my group became Church members after a summer of discussions led by the minister). My Gran was a denominational tourist in Cardiff (Congregationalist to Methodist to Baptist) and we had endless conversations about her faith and what I had just read in the Communist Manifesto! Most of my family considered themselves as non-conformist Christians, but gave little thought to it - they just liked the social familiarity of people, place and ritual.

My dad was a deep thinker who was very active in the Church until he died - but was hostile to organised religion, regarded himself as a Christian but didn't (I think) believe in God or the Devil, heaven or hell. He used what he saw as 'Christs's teachings' as a moral code for life on earth now. We argued about politics and religion all my life - and enjoyed the argument. He was part of a group who called themselves 'The Heretics' and were always at odds with the minister. One of their close friends and a church member was Professor John Davies who was deputy to Bernard Lovell at Jodrell Bank Observatory. He led discussion groups at the church on relativity, space/time and black holes! I think (as an astronomer) he shared my dad's world view. I have also been influenced by Jewish and Islamic friends over the years - many of whom have a cultural affinity to their inherited religion but few accept the religious side.

We live in a corner of northern Europe with a cultural legacy of 16 centuries or more of Christianity that was all pervasive up to a couple of generations ago, and exposure more recently to other faiths and cultures. Of course it is part of us and part of our lives. But we don't have to accept the baggage that comes from an accident of birth - of time, of place and of circumstances. We can think for ourselves and adopt our own questions and standards of evidence, using our lifetime of experience to decide if we need a supernatural answer to those questions, or can use our best understanding of science and nature to reach conclusions. I go with the latter. Nothing else makes sense to me.

That is all I have to add.

[Wales-Bales]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

I thought this thread was going to be about Dr Fauci admitting the 6 foot social distancing rule was a load of made-up bollux. Anyway, please carry on :thumbup:

[truthpaste]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

I do not want you to gather things so we can have a conversation

I have provided simple evidence of scientific facts

Now I would like you to provide evidence that God is here and with us in the present .......he's omnipresent and omnipotent according to Christians

We can deal with past evidence and the future such as the afterlife later

But the first bridge to cross is for you to provide evidence that God exists

Quotes from the Bible are not evidence

This conversation has been created to allow you a platform to explain WHY science trumps God's explanation of everything. So far you have offered the evidence such as drinking washing up liquid is scientifically proven to be a bad idea??

Also what you've ignored is that the bits of science that have persuaded you that God may not be the Creator of all things that are complete guesswork! Which is why scientists have wasted over $13 billion (so far) on CERN, with an annual ongoing cost of $5.5 billion a year!

Furthermore the idea of evolution has no solid (observable) evidence unlike your fire/ paper, drinking soap or any other proven fact!

So without you offering one shred of proven evidence for the origin of the universe or the origin of mankind, you put your faith in certain scientists that have sold you their guesswork, yet you turn on God (and anyone who would dare to believe Him) who'se written evidence has been proven true time and time again via history, *archaeology (see below) and many other sciences.

* The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible

[Baloo]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

If the Bible contains wisdom it’s just one of many potential sources.

Sam Harris’s Waking Up App for example is packed full of ancient and modern insights into how to live a good life. With no religious beliefs required.

I’d suggest people just use what’s helpful for them.

[Hilts]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

I believe its certainly not ok to sell your Daughter into slavery. Definitely dont need science for that one.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

If the Bible contains wisdom it’s just one of many potential sources.

Sam Harris’s Waking Up App for example is packed full of ancient and modern insights into how to live a good life. With no religious beliefs required.

I’d suggest people just use what’s helpful for them.

Sam Harris letters to a Christian Nation great read

[truthpaste]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

I don't think I'm bothered at all.

You asked if anyone could help Sludge out - and I replied to say he doesn't need help (not on this subject anyway: when it comes to coalition governments or heavy metal he clearly needs a lot of help).

But you (with a little bit of help from Gofer - who adopts a very different approach even if he shares some of your core beliefs) have carpet bombed the Alt Board in the past 8 months with your religion, or faith, or ministry, or whatever you call it.

It is hard to avoid - and hijacks endless threads. You want a reaction, but when you get one you complain that the reaction doesn't conform to your reference points or language. Tough.

I remember discussions around faith on this board many years ago - but they were not so strident and swivel eyed. As a side issue or as a philosophical conversation they can be interesting.

I said in the past that I rejected Christianity aged 12 as part of the Congregationalist Church membership process (most others in my group became Church members after a summer of discussions led by the minister). My Gran was a denominational tourist in Cardiff (Congregationalist to Methodist to Baptist) and we had endless conversations about her faith and what I had just read in the Communist Manifesto! Most of my family considered themselves as non-conformist Christians, but gave little thought to it - they just liked the social familiarity of people, place and ritual.

My dad was a deep thinker who was very active in the Church until he died - but was hostile to organised religion, regarded himself as a Christian but didn't (I think) believe in God or the Devil, heaven or hell. He used what he saw as 'Christs's teachings' as a moral code for life on earth now. We argued about politics and religion all my life - and enjoyed the argument. He was part of a group who called themselves 'The Heretics' and were always at odds with the minister. One of their close friends and a church member was Professor John Davies who was deputy to Bernard Lovell at Jodrell Bank Observatory. He led discussion groups at the church on relativity, space/time and black holes! I think (as an astronomer) he shared my dad's world view. I have also been influenced by Jewish and Islamic friends over the years - many of whom have a cultural affinity to their inherited religion but few accept the religious side.

We live in a corner of northern Europe with a cultural legacy of 16 centuries or more of Christianity that was all pervasive up to a couple of generations ago, and exposure more recently to other faiths and cultures. Of course it is part of us and part of our lives. But we don't have to accept the baggage that comes from an accident of birth - of time, of place and of circumstances. We can think for ourselves and adopt our own questions and standards of evidence, using our lifetime of experience to decide if we need a supernatural answer to those questions, or can use our best understanding of science and nature to reach conclusions. I go with the latter. Nothing else makes sense to me.

That is all I have to add.

Thanks for the history and detail, your anger and indignation now makes a lot more sense. In the course of my work over a number of decades, it's interesting that it isn't the agnostic atheists that have the biggest problems with God's Word but those that have either been exposed to the religious attempts at Christianity or have had close friends or relatives that have been peppered with such ideas.

You see the agnostic atheist who hasn't been given the confusing picture of the 'modern' take on Christainity starts with something close to a blank sheet rather than a picture that doesn't make sense at all. So because they have bypassed all the man-made religion and are presented with the Bible itself, I have always found them to be open, reasonable and rarely inflamed on the subject; in many cases they often (as time goes by) ask for more and more information which they are happy to consider and often come back for further dialogue/ correspondance.

Now I'm not saying that they all conclude that God is real or right on all things, but in most cases they attain a deep respect for the Scriptures that they never had before, see that it contains history and science that is timeless and in no need of correction or updates.

In contrast, for most religion infected individuals, someone like me will post the investigations of *Strobel or McDowell, who were both nostril flaring atheists and proud of it, and the skeptics here are too nervous/ preoccupied or apathetic to give them the time of day. But you see such a lack of engagement wouldn't produce a quality newspaper article, or make a respected journalist; I'm sure you get that. Anyway thanks for sharing the detail of your family and that history, that is very much appreciated. The key reason I am sharing mainly what I do, is because I firmly believe we are all eternal beings (housed currently in these crumbling bodies), and we all need to prepare for what will be the vast majority of our existance. You may not want people like Gofer and myself to care for the eternal plight of individuals, but we just do.

* In the above clip Strobel talks about why he wrote the Book "Is God Real?" because his researchers told him that on average 200 times per second, people around the planet are typing that question (or similar) into search engines.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

[QUOTE=truthpaste;5513339]Thanks for the history and detail, your anger and indignation now makes a lot more sense. In the course of my work over a number of decades, it's interesting that it isn't the agnostic atheists that have the biggest problems with God's Word but those that have either been exposed to the religious attempts at Christianity or have had close friends or relatives that have been peppered with such ideas.

You see the agnostic atheist who hasn't been given the confusing picture of the 'modern' take on Christainity starts with something close to a blank sheet rather than a picture that doesn't make sense at all. So because they have bypassed all the man-made religion and are presented with the Bible itself, I have always found them to be open, reasonable and rarely inflamed on the subject; in many cases they often (as time goes by) ask for more and more information which they are happy to consider and often come back for further dialogue/ correspondance.

Now I'm not saying that they all conclude that God is real or right on all things, but in most cases they attain a deep respect for the Scriptures that they never had before, see that it contains history and science that is timeless and in no need of correction or updates.

In contrast, for most religion infected individuals, someone like me will post the investigations of *Strobel or McDowell, who were both nostril flaring atheists and proud of it, and the skeptics here are too nervous/ preoccupied or apathetic to give them the time of day. But you see such a lack of engagement wouldn't produce a quality newspaper article, or make a respected journalist; I'm sure you get that. Anyway thanks for sharing the detail of your family and that history, that is very much appreciated. The key reason I am sharing mainly what I do, is because I firmly believe we are all eternal beings (housed currently in these crumbling bodies), and we all need to prepare for what will be the vast majority of our existance. You may not want people like Gofer and myself to care for the eternal plight of individuals, but we just do.

* In the above clip Strobel talks about why he wrote the Book "Is God Real?" because his researchers told him that on average 200 times per second, people around the planet are typing that question (or similar) into search

Evidence

I don't want in my opinion type stuff

Or a 6 minute clip of someone analysing something said 2000 years ago in a book

Evidence

Not hearsay

[truthpaste]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

[QUOTE=SLUDGE FACTORY;5513343]

Thanks for the history and detail, your anger and indignation now makes a lot more sense. In the course of my work over a number of decades, it's interesting that it isn't the agnostic atheists that have the biggest problems with God's Word but those that have either been exposed to the religious attempts at Christianity or have had close friends or relatives that have been peppered with such ideas.

You see the agnostic atheist who hasn't been given the confusing picture of the 'modern' take on Christainity starts with something close to a blank sheet rather than a picture that doesn't make sense at all. So because they have bypassed all the man-made religion and are presented with the Bible itself, I have always found them to be open, reasonable and rarely inflamed on the subject; in many cases they often (as time goes by) ask for more and more information which they are happy to consider and often come back for further dialogue/ correspondance.

Now I'm not saying that they all conclude that God is real or right on all things, but in most cases they attain a deep respect for the Scriptures that they never had before, see that it contains history and science that is timeless and in no need of correction or updates.

In contrast, for most religion infected individuals, someone like me will post the investigations of *Strobel or McDowell, who were both nostril flaring atheists and proud of it, and the skeptics here are too nervous/ preoccupied or apathetic to give them the time of day. But you see such a lack of engagement wouldn't produce a quality newspaper article, or make a respected journalist; I'm sure you get that. Anyway thanks for sharing the detail of your family and that history, that is very much appreciated. The key reason I am sharing mainly what I do, is because I firmly believe we are all eternal beings (housed currently in these crumbling bodies), and we all need to prepare for what will be the vast majority of our existance. You may not want people like Gofer and myself to care for the eternal plight of individuals, but we just do.

* In the above clip Strobel talks about why he wrote the Book "Is God Real?" because his researchers told him that on average 200 times per second, people around the planet are typing that question (or similar) into search

Evidence

I don't want in my opinion type stuff

Or a 6 minute clip of someone analysing something said 2000 years ago in a book

Evidence

Not hearsay

Both these guys were far more angry and indignant than you about the claims of the Bible and both of them set out to trash it's claims.
Neither of them wanted a drive-thru look at the subject (like you have appeared to want up to this point) but a detailed investigation. Now if you are equally serious then you will do likewise, Strobel took two years away from his job as an award winning journalist to look at every aspect of the Resurrection, from the evidence inside and outside the Bible, I don't expect you to do 2 whole years; so how about 2 hours to watch the movie which INCLUDES the evidence that you claim you wish to examine?

Are YOU serious about this? We shall see.

Your call > His problem with Christianity and his thorough investigation.

[Gofer Blue]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

I don't think I'm bothered at all.

You asked if anyone could help Sludge out - and I replied to say he doesn't need help (not on this subject anyway: when it comes to coalition governments or heavy metal he clearly needs a lot of help).

But you (with a little bit of help from Gofer - who adopts a very different approach even if he shares some of your core beliefs) have carpet bombed the Alt Board in the past 8 months with your religion, or faith, or ministry, or whatever you call it.

It is hard to avoid - and hijacks endless threads. You want a reaction, but when you get one you complain that the reaction doesn't conform to your reference points or language. Tough.

I remember discussions around faith on this board many years ago - but they were not so strident and swivel eyed. As a side issue or as a philosophical conversation they can be interesting.

I said in the past that I rejected Christianity aged 12 as part of the Congregationalist Church membership process (most others in my group became Church members after a summer of discussions led by the minister). My Gran was a denominational tourist in Cardiff (Congregationalist to Methodist to Baptist) and we had endless conversations about her faith and what I had just read in the Communist Manifesto! Most of my family considered themselves as non-conformist Christians, but gave little thought to it - they just liked the social familiarity of people, place and ritual.

My dad was a deep thinker who was very active in the Church until he died - but was hostile to organised religion, regarded himself as a Christian but didn't (I think) believe in God or the Devil, heaven or hell. He used what he saw as 'Christs's teachings' as a moral code for life on earth now. We argued about politics and religion all my life - and enjoyed the argument. He was part of a group who called themselves 'The Heretics' and were always at odds with the minister. One of their close friends and a church member was Professor John Davies who was deputy to Bernard Lovell at Jodrell Bank Observatory. He led discussion groups at the church on relativity, space/time and black holes! I think (as an astronomer) he shared my dad's world view. I have also been influenced by Jewish and Islamic friends over the years - many of whom have a cultural affinity to their inherited religion but few accept the religious side.

We live in a corner of northern Europe with a cultural legacy of 16 centuries or more of Christianity that was all pervasive up to a couple of generations ago, and exposure more recently to other faiths and cultures. Of course it is part of us and part of our lives. But we don't have to accept the baggage that comes from an accident of birth - of time, of place and of circumstances. We can think for ourselves and adopt our own questions and standards of evidence, using our lifetime of experience to decide if we need a supernatural answer to those questions, or can use our best understanding of science and nature to reach conclusions. I go with the latter. Nothing else makes sense to me.

That is all I have to add.

Thanks for your post. A very interesting read. I can empathise with your Dad's position to some extent as were it not for Jesus I would have found it very difficult to believe in God.

[+ the native hipster]

Re: "Science is not perfect but it trumps faith and belief all the time" - true or false?

question , why are we so opposed to Christianity but celebrate the influx of muslim fanatics ?