Some thougts on religion while visiting China.

No


i aint here to dig up your blaspheme

it is upon existence, go over your trails and ask for forgiveness from them you lied too

screw me nor ask me to point out your dirty feet

 

Well, then...I am at a loss as to how I lied and I have no recourse to discover it.


Or....I could just assume that if you don't like what you see you label a person a liar so that you don't have to deal with it intellectually.



I think the latter is likely.

 

that sounds puuurdy irresponsible!

ie... if you cared you would look it up your dam self

but you know better

ie....andyou like christianity perhaps because you dont have to be responsible for your actions........... because someone else supposedly die(s) for your sins


no honor there

 

Ah. Well, people who know me will tell you I'm not the quickest of cats on the best of days!

 

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this.

 

Thanks--not going to. It's the message board addiction that gets my zzzs from me.

 

No, reason and faith are not opposites. Though they are not the same. And one does not exclude the other.

Faith is the way the believer come into salvation. He believes. He believes because God has opened his eyes to see that Jesus is the Saviour. He has the testimony of other believers and the Bible that it is true. His reason is fully operative. But it is reason based on his new spiritual life and not based on scientific proofs or evidence.

Quantrill

 

Well, Quant its even easier than that. When 'science' says it does not understand what faith is?

Its called a hypothesis. Its looking out there and seeing what is likely to have caused whatever the problem set is.

Faith in a religious sense is BOTH science and faith.

Atheism, as we see, is neither.

 

Well, then I guess the dictionary is wrong. YMMV.

 

Good point. Maybe thats why scientists view our faith as they do. Because they know how unreliable their hypothesis are. They can't know the concrete assuredness of our faith.

Quantrill

 

I guess so.

Quantrill

 

I really think it's just you--you know--reading a definition that is not really there by missing the finer nuances of language.

 

I'm sorry, but the definitions could not be more clear. Perhaps it is you who are "reading definitions not there" adding nuances that don't exist to justify what you know to be the abandonment of reason.

 

Again, the Chistian does not abondon reason. He has faith which opens his reasoning to another realm. And here we do exercise reason and logic.


Quantrill

 

Whst part of the definitions do you think are opposites making them the "antithesis."

 

And so "they" don't deal with faith. It's that easy. Science cannot deal with faith. Not "because they know how unreliable their hypothesis are" but because it can't deal with faith. It's impossible. Period.

It is always the religious who asserts that science somehow deals with his faith, never the scientist, - except in the case, of course, where the scientist is religious and deals with faith from that perspective. Like Michael Behe, for example, who's arranged it so beautifully for himself that he has become his own victim.

 

No, its not that easy. Science should not deal in faith. It should only be the study of the natural world recognizing it can't make any detrmination concerning the supernatural.

But then, scientists come along and do exercise faith. They teach evolution as a fact. Which it is not. That is their faith.

They teach that creation by God is wrong which is their faith. They can't know.

They constantly ask for proof of God from the Christian. They exercise faith that science can or should prove God.

Quantrill

 

If science should not deal in faith then you should not try to infer that science deals with faith. It is only by your own assertion that science deals with faith that you can say it deals with faith.

No, that is your faith.

Here is how it works: If you tell me something that you claim pertains to the natural world and I don't understand how then you will be asked to support it.

It doesn't matter if it's about alleles of a fruit fly or the talking abilities of snakes. It doesn't matter if it's about low pressure systems or a flood that covers all mountain tops and rips open gorges like Gran Canyon in five minutes. It doesn't matter if it's about homeothermistry of a tyranosaurus or that it walks with humans.

As long as you claim these things by the same standards that we understand anything pertaining to the natural world by, I will ask you to provide the evidence needed by that very standard.

 

Uh? No, its because Scientists deal in faith.

No, that is the faith of Science.

I have no problem with Science saying they have no evidence of God creating the earth.

Quantrill

 

Evidently you understand something about science that Einstein did not, since he found it inconceivable that one could be a genuine scientist withOUT faith.

 

Every time you assert that science deals with faith, you're trying to force science to deal with your faith. You're only dragging yourself by the nose, Quantrill.

 

Oh no, not the Einstein quote mining!!

 

I assert science deals with faith beacause science deals with faith.

Quantrill

 

Yet it can't "make any determination concerning the supernatural".

So it doesn't.

 

Hey, I can't help that he had different ideas about faith than you do, or that his pronouncements regarding the relationship of science to faith are immensely more credible than yours.