CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:267
Arguments:259
Total Votes:293
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Why is science SO anti-religious? (240)

Debate Creator

Joel_Mathews(2278) pic



Why is science SO anti-religious?

Add New Argument
3 points

Science is not "anti-religious." It is not comprised of some sort of evil cabal of men and women who deliberately set-out to disprove religious tenets, or dogma. Rather, science is a process which seeks to find truth. To discern facts. To explain things. How they work, and why they were originated.

It just seems to many religious people that science is against them because it is continually disproving some of their silly ideas. Like a young 6000 y.o Earth. Or a seven-day Creation, as put forth in Genesis. Science proves that trumpet blasts do not destroy fortress walls; Seas do not miraculously part in two sides so people can walk in between; and that itinerant carpenter/philosophers do not rise from the dead after three days. LOL.

Biology; Physics; and Anthropology disprove many of the Old Testament Myths. So the religious fundamentalists perceive science to be an aggressive enemy. When all it really is attempting to do is to explain how things work and rescue people from being psychologically imprisoned by groundless superstition and mythos.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Why aren't at least some animals like us in degree of difference?

Looks like the universe picked one animal on earth to Excell, while all others adapted at a different rate?

If you have several pots of the same original water temperature to boil on the same degree of heat measure, with the differences in the various pots noted as pot sizes and water levels?

Wouldn't you think with some math and measurements that all the pots would boil at the same rate relative to the size and water level without any notable degree of difference between them that can be explained by math and science equation determining the rate of boiling by the size of pot and water level?

But science ignores the degree of difference between man and the entire animal kingdom!!

Actually that's where science gets a 0 for logic!

Explain the degree of difference in man relative to the degree of difference in like creatures.

Then compare that degree to man.

It's not mathematical or scientific!!

It almost feels like Sesame Street logic. That basic!!

Which of these things is not like the other...?

Lion, Jaguar, Bob Cat, House Cat

Polar Bear, Brown Bear, Asian Bear, Sloth Bear

Moose, Caribou, Elk, Deer

Man, Ape

If we take this sampling all animals are relative in degree of difference.

Even the apes degree of difference is relative to the stages of difference all the way down the lists of animals to the house cat.

There are no jumps in degree of difference between any of the animals. They all are adaptive to their habitat and live by the instict needed for survival.

There are 0 a big fat ZERO that are anything near the degree of difference found 100 % through nature that comes close to a reasonable degree of difference stepping up to man.

Then even adaptation, all animals would adapt and improve at a similar degree of difference in improvements. Again it's the same when compared to all animals and then to man!

Here is an example chart of degree off difference, even for man, using the most basic man without any advancements

House Cat --

..........Bear ------

..........Lion ---------

...........Ape -------------

Basic Man -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...Adv Man ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

If God exists and every natural law established, could God have caused supernatural events also?

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

You - Science is not "anti-religious." It is not comprised of some sort of evil cabal of men and women who deliberately set-out to disprove religious tenets, or dogma. Rather, science is a process which seeks to find truth. To discern facts. To explain things. How they work, and why they were originated.

Me -I didnt say all scientists. But those who deny God, and who don't consider creation as an option. So then through science, they are ever dismissing questions they can't answer to eliminate a valid other option that completes the 1st of creation, the beginning. And let everyone decide for themselves. No matter what the beginning element is it came from somewhere. Now you have some negative charge against a possitive charge that started the 1st spark.

its never ending on scientific excuses to dismiss God as the Creator. You don't believe in God. SlapShot, can you explain the degree of difference to me then?

You -It just seems to many religious people that science is against them because it is continually disproving some of their silly ideas. Like a young 6000 y.o Earth. Or a seven-day Creation, as put forth in Genesis. Science proves that trumpet blasts do not destroy fortress walls; Seas do not miraculously part in two sides so people can walk in between; and that itinerant carpenter/philosophers do not rise from the dead after three days. LOL.

Me - Do you believe Jesus was a liar? Or that He didn't exist?

You - Biology; Physics; and Anthropology disprove many of the Old Testament Myths. So the religious fundamentalists perceive science to be an aggressive enemy. When all it really is attempting to do is to explain how things work and rescue people from being psychologically imprisoned by groundless superstition and mythos.

Me - Actually, the opposite is occurring, I think the Bible is actually confirming that science proves God exists to every point known that is natural in a natural law science, but denies the one who is powerful to do all they see in science, because He can work through science, but still isn't limited by it.

If you are open to the possibility, I will show you. But if you are not then showing you is futile.

I can show you the prophets knew things impossible to know. And I can show you details that show the Bible to be an amazing accurate book that gives both a practical in depth display of fundamental physical principals and also supernatural principals.

The supernatural principles are by faith, like walls of Jericho. But then there is a thread of detailed prophesy that has been fulfilled, and detailed prophesy that will be, and its become clearer and clearer as time is nearer.

So the 1st question is read my posts about the degree of difference and explain your thoughts.

And 2nd Did Jesus exist? And was He a liar?

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

You - Science is not "anti-religious." It is not comprised of some sort of evil cabal of men and women who deliberately set-out to disprove religious tenets, or dogma. Rather, science is a process which seeks to find truth. To discern facts. To explain things. How they work, and why they were originated.

Me -I didnt say all scientists. But those who deny God, and who don't consider creation as an option. So then through science, they are ever dismissing questions they can't answer to eliminate a valid other option that completes the 1st of creation, the beginning. And let everyone decide for themselves. No matter what the beginning element is it came from somewhere. Now you have some negative charge against a possitive charge that started the 1st spark.

its never ending on scientific excuses to dismiss God as the Creator. You don't believe in God. SlapShot, can you explain the degree of difference to me then?

You -It just seems to many religious people that science is against them because it is continually disproving some of their silly ideas. Like a young 6000 y.o Earth. Or a seven-day Creation, as put forth in Genesis. Science proves that trumpet blasts do not destroy fortress walls; Seas do not miraculously part in two sides so people can walk in between; and that itinerant carpenter/philosophers do not rise from the dead after three days. LOL.

Me - Do you believe Jesus was a liar? Or that He didn't exist?

You - Biology; Physics; and Anthropology disprove many of the Old Testament Myths. So the religious fundamentalists perceive science to be an aggressive enemy. When all it really is attempting to do is to explain how things work and rescue people from being psychologically imprisoned by groundless superstition and mythos.

Me - Actually, the opposite is occurring, I think the Bible is actually confirming that science proves God exists to every point known that is natural in a natural law science, but science denies the one who is powerful to do all they see in science, because He can work through science, but still isn't limited by it.

If you are open to the possibility, I will show you. But if you are not then showing you is futile.

I can show you the prophets knew things impossible to know. And I can show you details that show the Bible to be an amazing accurate book that gives both a practical in depth display of fundamental physical principals and also supernatural principals.

The supernatural principles are by faith, like walls of Jericho. But then there is a thread of detailed prophesy that has been fulfilled, and detailed prophesy that will be, and its become clearer and clearer as time is nearer.

So the 1st question is read my posts about the degree of difference and explain your thoughts.

And 2nd Did Jesus exist? And was He a liar?

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
0 points

You are religious. You are trying to make yourself to be the LOL god of yourself. Death is pulling you down to Hell in your sins and you think you are the LOL god. Your a big mouth fool, that's all you are. You need to get saved before you wake up in Hell.

SlapShot(2607) Disputed
1 point

What would it take to prove to you that I am right about everything I have ever said here on CB. And you are the deluded one. Living in a personal hell of your own making my squandering your life worshiping a god who does not exist?

I have posted link after link proving science. As well as links by many bible scholars that show how most of the bible is fallacy. I have shown that prayer does not work. I have shown that you have not one ounce of proof for your fantasy sky god.

Tell me what it would take for you to deny god's existence. And I will try to help.

It is you who needs saving, my psychotic friend.

Whoever did this to you, that is, indoctrinated you into your false beliefs, should be ashamed. I consider it cild abuse. A criminal act.

How old are you? Where do you live?

I am a 34 y.o. PhD Biology student, former college hockey player,. living in a suburb of Detroit with my girlfriend, who used to be a cheerleader at the University if Michigan where I played hockey.

I work p/t at my school in the lab, helping undergrad students. I also play drums in a Jazz band in the city. We get paid gigs a few times a month.

I own a 3-br house in Gross Point, a very nice upscale suburb of Detroit.

What about you?

What has your god, and your belief in him done for you?

I will be awaiting your replies. If you are man enough to give them.

Thanks.

Because religion often exists, in part, to explain things that are unexplained. Science often finds different explanations that are in conflict with the explanations of those particular religions.

SlapShot(2607) Disputed
3 points

Religion does not seek to "explain" anything. It simply creates its own dogma and mythos--much of which flies in the face or REAL scientific facts--and then criticizes anybody who does not agree with their beliefs. No matter how groundless or silly they may be.

The problem with religion is that it teaches people to be OK with not understanding the real world. How we got here, why we are here. How Evolution works. Instead it creates invisible sky gods to provide a reason for all this. Science uses what we call the Empirical Method to formulate its theories. That is, they observe, test, compare, and test again, all the while exchanging and learning from countless experiments. And THEN science offers the explanations of how or why something works.

Religion does NONE of this. It uses, rather, circular logic. Christians give us an example of this when they say, "It's true because my bible tells me so!" LOL.

But since pragmatic and logical science often disprove the possibility of some of the religious myths--like an Earth created in seven days--religious fundies often perceive Science to be an enemy.

When indeed their REAL enemy is logic anf common sense.

2 points

I agree with you, at least in some cases. But traditionally, religion has been used for both moral guidance and explanations of the natural world. The greek myths explained all sorts of natural phenomenon. The Torah and Bible explain how the world came to be. While all your points here are valid, and in some cases, tragic, that doesn't mean that religion isn't trying to explain things.

The problem with religion is that it teaches people to be OK with not understanding the real world.

I think this is a good point that you made, and just want to acknowledge that.

Science teaches the world to be ok with not understanding everything... right now. But they treat not knowing as exciting, and as an opportunity to learn more. Religion often treats not knowing as evidence that religion is valid.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

You are only trying to justify yourself to keep yourself out of Hell. You can't do it, but you keep on trying like a fool. You will be held accountable in judgement by Jesus Christ for everything you have ever said, thought, done, or imagined. Just wait and see if you want to find out the hard way.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Religion is man trying to justify himself, trying to prove he has the right to exist outside of Hell. Religion can say God is not there, and Hell is not there, thereby asserting the right to exist free from Hell. It's a false assertion for fools. An atheist is a fool.

Reality is that God loves you so much He took on a body for Himself as the Son of God, the gift of the Father, to die in your place so He can be just to pardon you in His resurrection. This is about JUSTICE...God's justice. We all deserve to die and burn in Hell, God loves us and gave Himself for us to buy us back from the punishment we have earned, He paid our price so we don't have to pay.

You say you are so stinking educated, but these things are easily understood by a child while you reject them and embrace your death hoping to un-exist and/or be free from Hell forever. Your hope of escaping yourself, of escaping God, is a fantasy and you will wake up in Hell if you don't wake up in Jesus Christ first. You did not emerge out of non-life like your fool idols teach you. God gives you life, and you are losing it in dying as a sinner who has turned against God.

God explains life, sin explains death, Jesus Christ explains forgiveness and redemption from the curse of death. Hell explains the existence of sinners. You are trying to avoid reality because it shows you are separated from God by your sin and deserve to die and burn in Hell. You need to get saved. I hope you do, but you won't, will you?

You don't have to believe the truth. You can believe you have the right to live when you don't or you would not be dying. You can believe you have the right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner and force God to prove you wrong if you want to.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Science does not contradict the Bible. Only the non-scientific beliefs of people, some of whom are professional scientists while they hold non-scientific beliefs and pretend their beliefs are reality when in reality they cannot be proved by science because science cannot disprove God. God created all things and to dispel Him by observing the things He created is in reality not possible. You can believe God is no there and be a fool if you want to.......and all the education and power the world can offer won't get you out of being a fool.

2 points

Science does not contradict the Bible.

Sure it does. There are hundreds of events described in the Bible that are not observable, testable, or repeatable.

SlapShot(2607) Disputed
2 points

wow--you are very easy to beat in a debate. to prove wrong. you give me very little competition here, which i find disappointing. I continually provide links that destroy your arguments. but you ignore them. typical head-in-the-sand religious zealot tactics.

you're gonna have to ramp-up your game several notches if you want to hang with me. I am the Way.

The Truth. The Light.

LOL.

here..try this. you say Science does not contradict that book of fairy tales you call a bible?

LOL. think again...... http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/ 08/top-seven-ways-christianity-is-debunked.html

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
0 points

Because you exist, you think you have the right to exist outside of Hell I guess. Why should you be allowed to exist outside of Hell? Can you give me one good reason why you should be allowed to exist outside of Hell? You can't, can you? Saying Hell is not real won't keep you out of it, will it?

Why is it so hard for fools to see they are being foolish? Who has you in the dark?

1 point

My existence does not qualify the existence of Hell. Your premise presumes Hell exists. That is my objection.

If you had never been taught of Hell, how would you know it exists? How would you convince someone who had never been taught of Hell that it exists?

2 points

Why is religion SO anti-science?

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Issued by President George Washington, at the request of Congress, on October 3, 1789

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and — Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go. Washington

Iulmi(251) Disputed
1 point

HOW COME therefore that religion is so determined in denying science?

I'm not saying all religious people, but most.

LIKE

Homosexuals are sick, THEY AREN'T

Creationism - WELL NO

There's no more creatures than us , We are special, God's only beings. (And I though you're supposed to be humble, ha)

And a lot of things more, through all our history. Killing scientists, refusing explications that are not theirs, killing freedom of thinking and expression, indoctrinating people. Do you want more?

Leave science alone. In fact, you can think as it doesn't exist, or just believe what it's convenient to you, as you want - but let the rest of the world evolve and do awesome things in peace. Please.

2 points

I believe it is the other way around: religion is anti-science. Religion has tried to explain all unexplained phenomena as supernatural. When science comes around and begins rationally explaining these phenomena, religion gets scared. Religions are usually intricate webs of lies with no support other than faith. When that faith turn out to be wrong, rather than accepting the falsity of that belief and question their faith, they decide to double down on that belief and call science "heresy", "blasphemy", or "just a theory." Then the scientist is usually burned at the stake or shot or car-bombed etc

1 point

Science isn't anti religious, not anti-anything really except maybe anti ignorance. The goal of science it to quantify in some way through repeatable experiments and observations the world around us. One who is anti religious may use science as explanations as to why they disagree with religions though. This is because science posits ideas that conflict with the claims of religion at times.

And this is why religions can be anti science sometimes. One is not very likely to change their beliefs if changing that belief would invalidate so much more they thought they knew, so instead people double down on their currently held beliefs. Religion has a long history of attacking the sciences, that is their intent is to undermine the sciences or stifle their claims.

I would say "Why is science SO anti-religious?" is a framing that is supposed to deter people from following or learning about science.

No claim from science is inherently meant to take down religion but to instead understand something we can observe.

2 points

Exactly.

Science is not so much "anti-religion" as it is anti-ignorance. I couldn't have said it better.

Science has not time for religion. It doesn't care. LOL. It only counter-attacks it when the religious zealots get in the way of true knowledge and logic with their fairy tales.

1 point

What you are referring to as "science" is a religion. You can't even see that you are following a belief system trying to deny God. It's all about justifying yourself. That's all your "science" religion is. It's an attempt to fool yourself into believing you have the right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner and God can't do anything to stop you from existing outside of Hell. It's dumb. When science sticks to facts and does not pretend that hypothesis and beliefs are established facts, then it's true science. False science inserts beliefs and is never able to reach the truth.

Science is anti-Christ when the scientists hate God. This is a brainwashed generation pumped up with pride through television and disinformation promoted through modern media and the public schools.

You do not have the right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner, and Hell will be your eternal abode as a sinner if you don't get saved from it. Thinking you have science to disprove God and prove it is not possible for you to go to Hell is foolishness.....no matter how much education is added to it, it's foolishness.

1 point

Religion is usually anti science. Science is directly observable, so it can't really be denied. Since religion tends to be anti science it is hard to believe in both.

Religion doesn't have to be anti science though. If religion embraces science you will find that science doesn't actually conflict with religion.

1 point

Religion is all about faith and the definition of faith is: "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof".

On the other hand, science is based on observation and proof obtained from scientific observations.

The two clearly contradict each other because one requires you to believe in something (religion) without proof (science) while the other requires you to make distinct observations (science) which the other has no upholding of (religion).

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

You are living by a misguided faith believing that you will not be punished in death and will not be held accountable in death for the wrongs you have done.

Your faith is telling you that you get off the hook in death...and you really don't know what you are talking about. I guess your just have to finalize your death and find out for yourself, won't you? You will have to be burning in Hell unable to escape before you believe it's real, won't you?

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

That's a pretty brainless definition of faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.....for example....

When you are typing a message here, you BELIEVE that when you are finished and hit "submit", the message will be posted in the forum. Faith is the action you are taking as you move toward your goal. You are acting in hope of reaching your goal. The proof of your faith is that you know others have posted, and you know you have posted before, so you believe that as you type your message will be posted again, though there is NO PROOF until it is actually posted. You still acted in faith believing the proof you expect makes the effort to be worth the time you put in as you typed in faith.

Jesus showed Himself alive after He was crucified and buried by "many infallible proofs". The empty tomb was one of the first proofs. The tomb was sealed with a Roman seal and guarded by Roman Soldiers who normally would have been put to death for failure of duty if the sealed tomb was opened. Their assignment was to prevent Jesus' disciples from taking away the body. It was important to the Jews that proof remained of Jesus's humanity by keeping His body entombed. It was not possible for death to hold Jesus, and after He came out of the tomb alive the soldiers who were supposed to be put to death for failure of duty were paid large sums of money to say the disciples had stolen the body while they slept....likely story when the tomb was sealed by a huge stone that was rolled down into a rut which held it against the door of the tomb. He was seen alive by over 500 at one time, ate with some, invited Thomas to put his fingers in the nail holes in His hand, and thrust his hand into the hole left by the Roman Spear when His body was hanging on the cross.......for forty days He visited with them, taught them, proved Himself exactly as He said before He was crucified, and then rose to heaven as they watched a cloud receive Him out of their sight. He will return. I know He's alive, I know He is God, I know my sins are forgiven and I'm going to heaven because God Himself paid for my sins with His blood and rose from the dead so I am forgiven, believing on Him has changed my life forever and it's not my life anymore, it's His life. I have eternal life and act in faith expecting fulfillment of God's promise which is eternal life through Jesus Christ. God cannot lie and has promised eternal life to me. I live by faith and act according to that faith.

Atheists live by faith believing they are exempt from Hell so it really does not matter what they do with their time. That's why Ernest Hemingway the famous atheist blew his brains out with a shotgun. He had enough of life's pains and figured he could escape his futility by killing himself. That's a stupid faith to live by, or to die by, or exist by, or whatever an atheist claims they are doing.

0 points

True, but science can not explain why. There is no evidence for the why. That's what religion can explain without interfering with science. Religion does not require you to accept everything on faith. You are allowed to understand how things work and still believe in your religion.

1 point

Actually, I think religion is Anti-science. Religion believes in a god making all things while science pretty much the opposite. So religious people probably are against science.

misfitz3(34) Disputed
2 points

I'm a some what religious person. I love god and stuff. I can tell you religious people are not anti-science. I love science we don't just believe that whatever god made everything we believe he gave us the knowledge of figuring these amazing things.

Kingly342(29) Clarified
1 point

You make such a logical argument...I never really realized that...You sir, deserve a thanks.

1 point

Well... I did notice science is pretty anti-religious. I believe its because scientist dont really think there is like a god. Like the big bang theory... The religious people think its like god and the 7 days and stuff like that. I guess scientist are to scared to believe there is something greater out there besides science, math, gravity, and mass etc.

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
0 points

What anti-God scientists are scared of is more than believing their is something greater than their own intellects. They are afraid they are not good enough for God...and I even venture to say they KNOW they are not good enough for God and by His holy nature they would be repelled away from Him when He is the only source of goodness. They are afraid they are going to lose everything in Hell, so they do everything they can to deny that God demands justice in everything they have ever said, done, or imagined.

The number of scientist who believe the Biblical account of God and Creation are small, but there are some who have accomplished great things in scientific discovery and invention, such as the man who invented the MRI machine which revolutionized modern medicine.

You answered the question of the OP accurately and very well. Good for you.

1 point

Because Science relies on hard, evidence based facts and not on faith. And also considering that in most places people have different religions, you'd definitely run into conflict. You can say "God created the world" in a science, but people would ask questions, and without any solid evidence can you really get people to believe you?

1 point

Issued by President George Washington, at the request of Congress, on October 3, 1789

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and — Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go. Washington

1 point

Science is not antireligious. Many people who love science also love God. I am one of them.

1 point

Science is trying to understand something and the knowledge it gains is a by-product of that procedure. Religion is just there, it does not look for something, it has a set or rules and that is it. It does not look for something or try to understand it.

1 point

True science is not anti religion.

True science is just science observing an anticipating answers to a final conclusion

Many scientist tend to be atheist because their personalities are analytical.

This science dismisses possibilities of anything that can't be proven in a petri dish. So scientist try to disprove the author and finisher of science, in order to prove an analytical conclusion, not because it is also a reasonable argument, but because proving God is not possible to their natural minds.

Yet they will explain hard evidence of God, by data that really isn't sound science.

Scripture says they exchange an image for an image.

Science has literally performed this scripture.

We are made in the image of God, but to the scientist who denies creation they change the image of God to an image of a creature, the ape!

Romans 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth

in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of

God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than

the Creator, who is blessed forever.

What would it be like if God didn't really exist?

What if there was no Maximality, no Maximum Greatness, no Maximum Potential, and no Maximum Excellence to give form to abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence?

Who then created abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence?

What are the biological building blocks found in petri dish of nature are considered the building blocks of abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence that we see various degrees?

If we are absent of a Creator, then what elements, cells, organisms or particles, and compounds were initially deposited into the earth at the beginning of our world's conception to form the building blocks for abstract qualities?

Or of conscience judgement?

Or of superior intelligence?

If there are specific cells or elements are used as building blocks which later evolved to human abstract qualities, conscience judgement, or superior intelligence then wouldn't it be a reasonable scientific expectation as well as a logical conclusion that these same building blocks should also easily be seen throughout all living mammals, and also naturally present within our complex natural environment?

Or at the very least a diverse samplings with a similar evolutionary outcome from using those same building blocks with

a relevant degrees of differences from man down to the lowest form of mammal?

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

We are made in the image of God, but to the scientist who denies creation they change the image of God to an image of a creature, the ape!

Here is why scientists are atheists. Retards (sorry, religious people) say that God wasn't smart enough to create evolution (science). When religious people reject science you have to reject religion in order to learn how God works.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

That's not true I actually confirmed God more through what is known in science.

It blows my mind how small science is to the God who created it all.

I don't think it's necessary for a person of faith to see science that way, and faith can be as basic as a true 7 day 24 hour understanding

Or embrace the complications of the universe and see the power of God through His design.

The bottom line really is to be like children, Jesus says we must be like children to enter His Kingdom.

Children simply believe! But children see the world many ways some see it as basic and just enjoy everything nature has to offer, and some learn the depth of the bug they found in the yard.

I am not very scientific, but the understanding I do have, offers another level of excitement in my faith. And I thank science for proving what I already knew, that God without a doubt exists!

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

God could have created the world and the universe any way He chose. Who am I to question God on why He chose to work 1 way over another?

All through the Bible Jesus and the prophets refer to planting, roots growing, deep, softening the ground, watering, cultivating ... etc.

If you look at Genesis, a comment Good made introducing His creation of man, is there is no one to cultivate it... so He made man, then went and planted an exclusive garden to the East and then placed man into it to care for it.

So we see an element of God's work ethics here.

The only plant I recall God speaking into being was the tree that grew quickly to shade Jonah, which God let wither and die in as quick a time.

So I think creation the way God did it was on purpose. And 1 light year day in Heaven well that's a likely day used.

Even in Genesis right after the Creation Days and He rested on the 7th day. Even after the author inspired by God wrote Day 1 Day 2

Day 3 ... Day 7 ... the author literally its written says "these are the generations of days" Why would Moses the likely author of Genesis say this..... after he clearly just finished calling them days?

Maybe because the author understood a day in Heaven, or a day in light years. And we see a few verses in the Old and New Testament that show at least some others understood this concept some.

Psalms 90: 4

For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday * when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3

8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

God could have created the world and the universe any way He chose. Who am I to question God on why He chose to work 1 way over another?

All through the Bible Jesus and the prophets refer to planting, roots growing, deep, softening the ground, watering, cultivating ... etc.

If you look at Genesis, a comment God made introducing His creation of man, is there is no one to cultivate it... so He made man, then went and planted an exclusive garden to the East and then placed man into it to care for it.

So we see an element of God's work ethics here.

Regarding plant life - The only plant I recall God speaking into being was the tree that grew quickly to shade Jonah, which God let wither and die in as quick a time. But God did speak creatures and man into existence. And we see even in science that creatures appeared spontaneously. Also remember Adam was placed in a garden East of Eden. He didn't enter the rest of the world till after he fell. The animals and life lived both in and out of the garden. And we don't have any idea how long Adam and Eve were in the garden.

So I think creation the way God did it was on purpose. And 1 light year day in Heaven well that's a likely day used.

Even in Genesis right after the Creation Days and He rested on the 7th day. Even after the author inspired by God wrote Day 1 Day 2

Day 3 ... Day 7 ... the author literally its written says "these are the generations of days" Why would Moses the likely author of Genesis say this..... after he clearly just finished calling them days?

Maybe because the author understood a day in Heaven, or a day in light years. And we see a few verses in the Old and New Testament that show at least some others understood this concept some.

Psalms 90: 4

For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday * when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3

8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

1 point

True science is not anti religion.

True science is just science observing an anticipating answers to a final conclusion

Many scientist tend to be atheist because their personalities are analytical.

This science dismisses possibilities of anything that can't be proven in a petri dish. So scientist try to disprove the author and finisher of science, in order to prove an analytical conclusion, not based on if it is also a reasonable argument, but because proving God in a petri dish is not possible to their natural minds. No matter what other details exist showing He does.

Yet they will explain hard evidence of God, by data that really isn't sound science.

Scripture says they exchange an image for an image.

Science has literally performed this scripture.

We are made in the image of God, but to the scientist who denies creation they change the image of God to an image of a creature, the ape!

Romans 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth

in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of

God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than

the Creator, who is blessed forever.

What would it be like if God didn't really exist?

What if there was no Maximality, no Maximum Greatness, no Maximum Potential, and no Maximum Excellence to give form to abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence?

Who then created abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence?

What are the biological building blocks found in petri dish of nature are considered the building blocks of abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence that we see various degrees?

If we are absent of a Creator, then what elements, cells, organisms or particles, and compounds were initially deposited into the earth at the beginning of our world's conception to form the building blocks for abstract qualities?

Or of conscience judgement?

Or of superior intelligence?

If there are specific cells or elements are used as building blocks which later evolved to human abstract qualities, conscience judgement, or superior intelligence then wouldn't it be a reasonable scientific expectation as well as a logical conclusion that these same building blocks should also easily be seen throughout all living mammals, and also naturally present within our complex natural environment?

Or at the very least a diverse samplings with a similar evolutionary outcome from using those same building blocks with

a relevant degrees of differences from man down to the lowest form of mammal?

1 point

True science is not anti religion.

True science is just science observing an anticipating answers to a final conclusion

Many scientist tend to be atheist because their personalities are analytical.

This science dismisses possibilities of anything that can't be proven in a petri dish. So scientist try to disprove the author and finisher of science, in order to prove an analytical conclusion, not based on if it is also a reasonable argument, but because proving God in a petri dish is not possible to their natural minds. No matter what other details exist showing He does.

Yet they will explain hard evidence of God, by data that really isn't sound science.

Scripture says they exchange an image for an image.

Science has literally performed this scripture.

We are made in the image of God, but to the scientist who denies creation they change the image of God to an image of a creature, the ape!

Romans 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth

in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of

God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than

the Creator, who is blessed forever.

???'s

What would it be like if God didn't really exist?

What if there was no Maximality, no Maximum Greatness, no Maximum Potential, and no Maximum Excellence to give form to abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence?

Who then created abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence?

What are the biological building blocks found in petri dish of nature are considered the building blocks of abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence that we see various degrees?

If we are absent of a Creator, then what elements, cells, organisms or particles, and compounds were initially deposited into the earth at the beginning of our world's conception to form the building blocks for abstract qualities?

Or of conscience judgement?

Or of superior intelligence?

If there are specific cells or elements are used as building blocks which later evolved to human abstract qualities, conscience judgement, or superior intelligence then wouldn't it be a reasonable scientific expectation as well as a logical conclusion that these same building blocks should also easily be seen throughout all living mammals, and also naturally present within our complex natural environment?

Or at the very least a diverse samplings with a similar evolutionary outcome from using those same building blocks with a relevant degrees of differences from man down to the lowest form of mammal?

1 point

Organisms would have to follow a logical sequence and intelligently place natural building blocks of biological substances of every level from basic instinct to conscience judgement to superior intellegence. And then not share any of those same cells spread throughout the entire world to use in the completion of any other species.

I'm not a rocket scientist but that sounds pretty unscientific!

Evolving creation in intelligent order requires intellegent assembly at the bare minimum.

What is the highest intelligent cell in existence? Because that must be the Maximality of Maximum Excellence. Find that cell, and we can build everthing we see in nature too.

And in just one of all creatures evolved, without at least coming close to at least 1 other, but more likely many another species that are comprable to the same comprable intelligence!

Building blocks of chaos produce intelligent design and those building blocks of conscience judgement should be profusely and liberally and at comparable degrees throughout all nature and visibly tangible in many creatures, and NOT exclusively only to the human quality, right?

What are the chemical compounds when broken down of fairness, truth and justice, of honor, or even dishonor?

Which molecules decide disgrace or lies, or even put standards of every degrees on crimes? What are the chemical compounds that establish a biological sequence needed for love and loyalty, hate, and betrayal?

Without any basis of standards derived from qualities of a Maximality, then why does conscience judgement in humanity house qualities beyond our basic biology?

Even if mental evolution leads to advanced science and technology of every kind as avanced intellect from biology evolves, what neurons in biology builds the basics of conscience judgement?

Do wolves hold court to decide if hunting practices are carried out according to an acceptable standards? Do gorillas vote for their leaders? Do lions decide on matters of justice and share their prey among the other prides out of compassion? Do bulls compete on the basis of charisma and likeability and appeal when mating? If all creatures are limited to basic natural instincts then why does conscience judgement exist at all?

So even if we have an intellectual Maximal Greatness, even that basically should dictate near equals in the same world from the same original building blocks. Where we incubated differently than a bear? Was the peri dish of nature that built man in a separate environment? If not then where are creatures equal to us in many ways, greater than us in some ways, and just below us in other ways?

Shouldn't all of creation have a relative degree of likeness in at least a likeness to our species? Don't we have gradual degrees of differences in like kinds in every species?

In nature we have many kinds found in the species of the cat family. from the house cat to the lion. But you don't only have the lion and the house cat.

And we have qualities of Maximality and Maximum Greatness?

There is no doubt there is a God, because these qualities plain and simply are not building blocks in every living thing, so they either don't exist in any living thing, or they potentially exist in every living thing. If they do not exist in every living thing, then the only logical conclusion is that Maximality exists, and has established qualities according to His own Maximality.

It is illogical to consider that even if complicated forms of life evolved from nothing but a spark of energy, came to being out of nothing, that only 1 form of all that life that came forth through that chaos would hold an exclusivity to conscience judgement in even the smallest of matters, let alone the broad matters of conscience judgement. This is absolute proof there is either dna or matter that can produce these qualities in humanity, and also outside of humanity. Other animals absolutely also must produce evidence of conscience judgement or there is no argument if there is a Maximality. The only argument that can follow that is not if there is a Maximality, but who is the Maximality!

If there is no basis for Conscience without a Maximality to define and establish a standard of conscience, then how does conscience judgement exist in the first place? And an even more disturbing question, is why and how then is it exclusive to ONLY 1 species?

So then why would conscience judgement exist among humanity, yet NOT exist in any other living thing produced in the same possible world togethet? Shouldn't we at least see many degrees of conscience judgement throughout nature that at least is comparable to conscience judgement found in humanity?

Wouldn't it make sense that if conscience judgement was evolved, that there would be further samplings of conscience judgement in the same possible world, living together?

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Organisms would have to follow a logical sequence and intelligently place natural building blocks of biological substances of every level from basic instinct to conscience judgement to superior intellegence.

We see this and this is what evolution describes. Score 1 for science.

And then not share any of those same cells spread throughout the entire world to use in the completion of any other species.

We don't see this, and this is what creation describes. Score 2 for science.

I'm not a rocket scientist but that sounds pretty unscientific!

Half of it sounds unscientific.

Evolving creation in intelligent order requires intellegent assembly at the bare minimum.

Bacteria have intelligence.

The rest of your argument is probable garbage. I couldn't read any more idiocy though.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Actually that's where science gets a 0 for logic!

Explain the degree of difference in man relative to the degree of difference in like creatures. Then compare that degree to man.

It's not mathematical or scientific!! It almost feels like Sesame Street logic. That basic!! Which of these things is not like the other...?

Lion, Jaguar, Bob Cat, House Cat

Polar Bear, Brown Bear, Asian Bear, Sloth Bear

Moose, Caribou, Elk, Deer

Man, Ape

If we take this sampling all animals are relative in degree of difference.

Even the apes degree of difference is relative to the stages of difference all the way down the lists of animals to the house cat.

There are no jumps in degree of difference between any of the animals. They all are adaptive to their habitat and live by the instict needed for survival.

There are 0 a big fat ZERO that are anything near the degree of difference found 100 % through nature that comes close to a reasonable degree of difference stepping up to man.

Then even adaptation, all animals would adapt and improve at a similar degree of difference in improvements. Again it's the same when compared to all animals and then to man!

Here is an example chart of degree off difference, and for man I'm using the most basic man not any advancements

House Cat --

Bear --------

Lion -----------

Ape ------------------

Basic Man -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advanced Man -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Actually that's where science gets a 0 for logic!

Explain the degree of difference in man relative to the degree of difference in like creatures. Then compare that degree to man.

It's not mathematical or scientific!! It almost feels like Sesame Street logic. That basic!! Which of these things is not like the other...?

Lion, Jaguar, Bob Cat, House Cat

Polar Bear, Brown Bear, Asian Bear, Sloth Bear

Moose, Caribou, Elk, Deer

Man, Ape

If we take this sampling all animals are relative in degree of difference.

Even the apes degree of difference is relative to the stages of difference all the way down the lists of animals to the house cat.

There are no jumps in degree of difference between any of the animals. They all are adaptive to their habitat and live by the instict needed for survival.

There are 0 a big fat ZERO that are anything near the degree of difference found 100 % through nature that comes close to a reasonable degree of difference stepping up to man.

Then even adaptation, all animals would adapt and improve at a similar degree of difference in improvements. Again it's the same when compared to all animals and then to man!

Here is an example chart of degree off difference, and for man I'm using the most basic man not any advancements

House Cat --

Bear -------

Lion ----------

Ape --------------

Basic Man -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advanced Man -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Actually that's where science gets a 0 for logic!

Explain the degree of difference in man relative to the degree of difference in like creatures. Then compare that degree to man.

It's not mathematical or scientific!! It almost feels like Sesame Street logic. That basic!! Which of these things is not like the other...?

Lion, Jaguar, Bob Cat, House Cat

Polar Bear, Brown Bear, Asian Bear, Sloth Bear

Moose, Caribou, Elk, Deer

Man, Ape

If we take this sampling all animals are relative in degree of difference.

Even the apes degree of difference is relative to the stages of difference all the way down the lists of animals to the house cat.

There are no jumps in degree of difference between any of the animals. They all are adaptive to their habitat and live by the instict needed for survival.

There are 0 a big fat ZERO that are anything near the degree of difference found 100 % through nature that comes close to a reasonable degree of difference stepping up to man.

Then even adaptation, all animals would adapt and improve at a similar degree of difference in improvements. Again it's the same when compared to all animals and then to man!

Here is an example chart of degree off difference, and for man I'm using the most basic man not any advancements

House Cat --

..........Bear ------

..........Lion ---------

...........Ape -------------

Basic Man -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...Adv Man ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Reasonably answer question, with thought!

What would it be like if God didn't really exist?

What if there was no Maximality, no Maximum Greatness, no Maximum Potential, and no Maximum Excellence to give form to abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence?

Who then created abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence?

What are the biological building blocks found in petri dish of nature are considered the building blocks of abstract qualities, conscience judgement, and superior intelligence that we see various degrees?

If we are absent of a Creator, then what elements, cells, organisms or particles, and compounds were initially deposited into the earth at the beginning of our world's conception to form the building blocks for abstract qualities?

Or of conscience judgement?

Or of superior intelligence?

If there are specific cells or elements are used as building blocks which later evolved to human abstract qualities, conscience judgement, or superior intelligence then wouldn't it be a reasonable scientific expectation as well as a logical conclusion that these same building blocks should also easily be seen throughout all living mammals, and also naturally present within our complex natural environment?

Or at the very least a diverse samplings with a similar evolutionary outcome from using those same building blocks with a relevant degrees of differences from man down to the lowest form of mammal?

1 point

1 - Nothing exists if No-Maximality is exemplified

2 - Maximal greatness is possible only if Maximality is exemplified.

3 - Without Maximality, then Maximal Greatness is impossible!

4 - Since Maximality exists, ONLY those who are made in the image of Maximality can achieve the highest possible Maximum Greatness in the image of Maximality!

5 - Those who are made in the image of Maximality achieve Maximum Greatness by an ever present goal within themselves, and set before themselves ever reaching for their Maximum Greatness with standards reflective of the image of Maximality!

6 - The goal to achieve Maximum Greatness can never achieved if Maximality is altered by a lesser image of Maximality in any and every possible world!

7 - Maximum Greatness is achieved by reaching it's Maximum Potential in it's Maximum Purpose through achieving it's highest possible likeness to an unaltered image of Maximality.

1 point

Science is merely a process of making observations and theories. It is not anti religion.

Likewise mathematics is a process of analyzing numbers and measurements. If mathematics is used and it ultimately proves a numeric claim in the Bible is wrong it doesn't mean mathematics is anti religion. It just means that's one more part of your bogus religion empirically disproven.

0 points

Science is anti-religious because they are complete opposites. Science is about using evidence prove a truth and religion is about Faith which by definition is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Your definitions are twisted to reinforce your brainwashing.

Religion is what people do or believe in order to justify their existence outside of Hell. It is impossible to justify your existence outside of Hell as a sinner, and that is why we have atheism and so many other religions...even "science" which is more belief than observation and not really science, is a religion. All they do with it is try to justify their existence hoping to prove they have the right to exist outside of Hell. The science you are talking about is a religion based on beliefs more than on observation of facts. That stuff is not science, it's religious philosophy and it can never find the truth.

When people say things like "science is anti-religion", they are using cliché's without thinking about the meaning of things they are saying and/or believing. This garbage is pushed as "higher education" today, so you really don't have to know anything other than how to overuse a few cliché's.

dcb9242000(167) Disputed
1 point

Actually, according to Merriam Webster, religion is, " the belief in a god or in a group of gods". Science is not a religion. The only things scientists believe in are actual things that have proof of existence. Saying that objects fall at a rate of acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s is not a belief, it's a fact that can be proven. Saying that plants convert water, carbon dioxide, and light energy into glucose and oxygen is not a belief, it is also a fact that can be proven. Saying that there's a place called "Hell" that's full of fire where a fallen angel that causes all evil lives? That isn't proven and never will be proven. So relating science and religion isn't right. Religion is just a set of beliefs that people create to explain the things that they don't have enough knowledge to understand. You? You're scared of death. You don't understand it. That's why you try to convince yourself that there's something that happens to you after you die.

smilinbobs(435) Disputed
0 points

I'm not sure what you are talking about but science is about examining the world we live in and discovering the truths that exist. To be proven in science something must be able to be reproduced with a predictable outcome every time. That is not philosophy at all. Now religion relies on the words written by superstitious "Bronze Age" tribesman. Many aspects of the written word are too contradictory to be unable to exist. Which is the case in the Torah and the Bible. I am not familiar enough with the other religious writings to comment. If you have any specific examples of scientific fact that is not true I would love to hear it.

0 points

Religion is for people who are scared and cannot face the fact that there is nothing after death. It comes from our built-in desire to survive and exist eternally which just isn't possible whether is be in a physical world or a spiritual world. In my opinion, I still cannot believe that people in this day-and-age believe in things that were once established by our earliest ancestors as a way to explain their own existence. After such a long time I would have thought that people would start believing in things that have are supported by substantial evidence and not some airy-fairy load of crap that you cannot argue against because apparently there is always something to bolster up religion.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Reality is that you are hoping (a religious hope) you cease to exist in death and hoping there is no God because you don't want to be judged. You are on your way to Hell and going fast. Go ahead and prove me wrong if you can. The only way you can really do anything to get your proof is to finalize your countdown of time to zero and see if you cease to exist...and yes, that is exactly what you are doing if you do it the way Ernest Hemingway did it, or if you do it slowly by letting death take it's course slowly to pull you down. Ernest Hemingway did it powerfully, great mind of atheism that he was....blew his brains out thinking God does not care....what a fool, atheism is the religion of fools

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Yep, no Christian ever committed suicide. You really got us there.

dcb9242000(167) Disputed
1 point

Let's break down the word "atheism" here. "a-" means not, and "-theism" means religion. Therefore, "atheism" literally means "not religion". Therefore, calling atheism "the religion of fools" is incorrect, similar to just about everything else you've posted on this website.

dcb9242000(167) Clarified
1 point

It is false that it isn't possible to survive eternally. Theoretically, it could happen. There are a few examples of organisms that are considered biologically immortal. The hydra, for instance (not the Ancient Greek mythological Hydra), has the ability to perfectly replicate its single cell multiple times. These duplicate cells are not different organisms, but rather expansions of the original organism. As long as even one of these cells survives, it can duplicate, and the original cell lives on.

Other than that, you are right.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Are you a hydra? I'm sure hydra get eaten by other creatures and killed. All water would become filled with hydra and undrinkable if they are not dying.....but you are missing the point. Life is permanent, not temporary. Your time dying here is temporary, but you are permanent. God brought you into existence through Adam and Eve and you can't get out of it by saying He is not there.

You will survive eternally as you are, in Hell, as a sinner, or you will be changed to be fit for heaven as a saint. If you believe this or not, it does not change the fact that you will be in Hell, forever separated from God, if not in Heaven, reconciled to Him and purged of sin which is taking you down to Hell in your body of death.

To have eternal life means you cannot be killed. You can kill my body, but I have eternal life and I am going to heaven if my body returns to dust. Your will have your body in Hell. I will have a new body in heaven, a body like Jesus's resurrected body, with flesh and bones. You will have a body with flesh and bones in Hell. You will have sin in your body. Jesus took my sin on Himself when He died in my place, so I am forgiven by Him since I called out to God in Jesus' name to have mercy on me and I received Jesus as my Savior. He died for me while I was nothing but a sinner, took my sin to the grave and was buried, rose from the grave offering forgiveness to all who believe He did it for them and rose from the dead with power to forgive all who believe on Him. He is God, you can come to God the Father through Jesus, who is God the Son. He did it all for you, because there is no way for you to do it since you are a sinner.

A hydra's body can be killed. I believe that God will restore every living creature.....only man who God made in His own image will be lost because man's sin is what messed up creation so death has permeated all of creation. God will have what He intended from the beginning of creation....a people to enjoy forever in His Kingdom of Heaven. The KING OF ALL KINGS IS JESUS, He is my King, and I will joyfully serve Him who created me to live, and died to save me so I can live forever. I have eternal life, this is the gift of God, eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Jesus is the gift of God, you can receive Him and be saved and have eternal life. You probably won't, that's my guess. I think I'm right about that. You probably wont' believe on Jesus, will you?

If you won't believe on Jesus, like I think you won't, then you have to admit that I am right about this one thing...you won't believe on Him. I hope you prove me wrong on this point, but I think I am right. Sometimes, by a persons own words, you can be pretty sure that they will not believe what you are telling them...NEVER believe what you are telling them is true...and you won't believe, will you?

I'll try to remember not to ask you this again.

-1 points

You people are worshipping science as if it has the ability to make life emerge out of non-living things. Pseudo-science claims to be proving things that cannot be proved but rather have to be believed. Science which believes life emerged out of non-living things is not science; it's people trying to support their beliefs.

I took a few college biology classes, and as a hobby enjoy reading popular science and physics to see the new discoveries. They like to blur the lines between believing and knowing. It's amusing to see many of the "great" atheistic scientists find proofs that their beliefs are impossible, and then add some new speculation of other things that maybe they can believe to explain away the impossibilities which negate their beliefs as they attempt to deny that God created all things. "Parallel universes" is a great idea for inserting an infinite number of possibilities to add enough confusion to avoid hard evidences which make evolution impossible.

I'm not going to get into the mathematical and scientifically observable proofs that evolutionary beliefs cannot possibly happen anywhere or at any time. It's easy enough to find them on the web. People who want to believe God does not have the right to rule against them and leave them burning in Hell forever are going to do everything they can do deny reality and support their beliefs.

A lot of people just want to keep God out of their little mind box because He is holy and they are unholy, they have done wrong and He rules against their wrongs....and Stephen Hawkins is no mind compared to God....Hawkins is just a fool compared to God....no smarter than Richard Dawkins. The issue is moral.

Science is not the issue. The word "science" is misused by ungodly people as a smokescreen while they try to justify themselves with vain philosophies. That's all they are doing, trying to justify their own existence apart from God and God is not going to buy their reasons.

dcb9242000(167) Disputed
2 points

They like to blur the lines between believing and knowing.

And you don't? You have no proof of anything you say about how the world started.

"Science" doesn't have the ability to create life. It's just a natural occurrence. Atoms and molecules endlessly smash together everywhere, and occasionally, some of them react and form a new substance. It was inevitable that one day, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and phosphorous were going to react in just the right combination to form DNA, thus creating life.

Who is Stephen Hawkins? I don't think you're talking about the Australian Olympian rower, the Dean of the Faculty of Natural and Environmental Sciences & Professor of Natural Sciences in Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton, or the tax specialist...

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
0 points

You don't even see how you are blurring the line between what you know and what you believe, do you? That's what anti-God philosophy claiming to be based on science it all about, building a belief and using hypothesis to support it, then declaring it to be proved because you believe it.

It is very important for people like you to ignore history, ignore Jesus Christ, ignore His resurrection, and ignore his unending generations of people who know He is God who Created all things and became a man to redeem sinners from the curse of sin and death, to save them from Hell because He loves them. The faith of God is based on historical facts and the evidence of Him is in the artwork of His Creation. What you are fighting for is to justify yourself as a sinner without God and it's impossible to do so, you cannot justify your existence outside of the fire of Hell as a sinner and your time is running out before you find out that what I am telling you is the gospel truth, the good news from God that He is the Savior and is risen from the dead and is willing and able to save you from Hell if you will believe on Him.

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
0 points

Science does not have the ability to explain life. Life cannot be explained except by God, who created all things for His own pleasure and purpose. Science can observe materials and processes of living things, it cannot explain how living things became living things, it can only observe that they are living. To believe science explains life is nothing but a belief, and it is based on a person's desire to defy God. Plain and simple.

Hawkins is an educated fool no matter how you spell his name. I am not a fan of his, I have read some of his stuff as I have read many atheistic/agnostic physicists. When they go off in beliefs and use those beliefs as the guiding line of their philosophy, their science is fake because they use it to make false claims of things they cannot prove. That is not true science. True science does not require any philosophical belief system such as atheism or agnosticism. There are many scientist who are born again Christians like myself and who have made huge contributions to discovery and education. The simplistic mindlessness of cliché's such as "science is anti-religion" is a disservice of public education and too much television. We have a brainwashed and mind numbed generation who believes God can't tell them what to do or where to go.......blinded minds teaching blinded people and pretending to be intelligent, the blind leading the blind into the ditch, parading on thin ice which is melting over the fire of Hell.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Haha, you are so dumb.

1 point

You sir, are 100% correct. Most certainly 100% correct. MOST CERTAINLY.