Religion is a hypothesis.

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by walter4, Nov 29, 2009.

  1. Theists. In all their splendor.
     
    #101     Dec 1, 2009
  2. Really? So a theist can't reserve his faith for his religion, and also practice logical and critical thinking to the world and within the rigid limits of science...

     
    #102     Dec 1, 2009
  3. "The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution
    Share this Articleby Henry Morris, Ph.D. "

    when the bible was written what was the mathematical possibility that a doctor would take a heart out on one man and put it in another?

    you think scientists should work with these people? how do you work with people looking for scientific truth when one side believes this:
    "if conclusions contradict the word of God, the conclusions are wrong no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."
     
    #103     Dec 1, 2009
  4. If previous scientific conclusions, like the sun revolving around the earth (early science) are rendered false by current science, then why would any reasonable man not think that any particular scientific truth of today may be rendered false by some future scientific discovery...

    Which would lead a reasonable man to never say he knows the truth on the basis of science, but rather that he believes...

     
    #104     Dec 1, 2009
  5. Oh, so logical, scientific thinking when it's convenient and whimsy when it's not? Sure. A theist can do as he pleases. And if he presents his more fanciful views to others, he can expect them to be scrutinized by the less whimsically inclined.
     
    #105     Dec 1, 2009
  6. best of both worlds, psychosis and sanity if you please when you please :D
     
    #106     Dec 1, 2009
  7. kut2k2

    kut2k2

    Bingo. The entire problem with ID is that it is classic God of the gaps: "This particular thing looks too complicated to understand, ergo God done it." With that mindset, there would be no such thing as scientific progress. Why bother trying to figure anything out, when somebody could always simply dismiss it with "God done it"?

    ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a cop-out; it's an excuse for a lazy so-called "biologist" to not try to figure out how life got here.

    Most of all, it still doesn't answer the question of the origins of life. Because it still doesn't explain where the I in the ID came from. It's a childish rationale to not think. I've learned to never trust people who tell me not to think. That always works to somebody else's advantage, not mine.

    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca
     
    #107     Dec 1, 2009
  8. What a marvelously novel approach, to consider new evidence as it actually presents itself with man's slowly increasing grasp of the universe. The key word, of course, being evidence.
     
    #108     Dec 1, 2009
  9. Bingo.
     
    #109     Dec 1, 2009
  10. It was 100% possible. Whether the guy lived or not was another story.:eek:
    I don't believe all ID types would say, damn the science if it proves me wrong. Me...I'm just seeking the truth and wherever it leads, it leads. And the truth as of today, 12.1.09 is that there isn't a soul on the planet that knows for sure whether God exists or not, except for the crazies, of which there are plenty on both sides of the argument.
     
    #110     Dec 1, 2009