The new Christian Forum

[dennishoddy]

Back to the original topic...
Thinking on it, I'd like a debate den where nothing is off limits with the exception of extreme personal attacks more than a Christian or non-Christian circlejerk area.

The original topic was about a Christian forum.

 

[Incrediblerod]

Here are three things I've learned from this thread.
1 - Atheists profess their nonbelief more than Christians profess their belief.
2 - Christians would like to talk about their faith without all the smarmy attacks.
3 - Atheists don't want their perceived moral shortcomings pointed out.
I said perceived.

 

[donner]

Here are three things I've learned from this thread.
1 - Atheists profess their nonbelief more than Christians profess their belief.
2 - Christians would like to talk about their faith without all the smarmy attacks.
3 - Atheists don't want their perceived moral shortcomings pointed out.
I said perceived.

pretty sure no. 3 goes for both sides.

 

[TerryMiller]

You completely misunderstand what science is and what scientists do.
Yet, you speak as if you know of these things, as if you were a scientist....

Science does not seek to disprove GOD. As a matter of fact Science CANNOT prove or disprove the existence of GOD, because science deals only with the natural world. The natural world exists of things you can measure, manipulate, see, etc. etc.

Whereas GOD is not a natural being. It is SUPERNATURAL..... Hence cannot be measured, or manipulated.... THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE FAITH IN GOD... because you can't actually show facts that there is a god.

Where as Evolution can be measured ( we can measure genetic change in a population over time)!
Therefore believing in evolution is not faith based.... it is fact based.

Welcome to the natural world.

You are 100% correct.... you are jaded.

Stop believing that science is going to find the ultimate answer to every natural thing... start believing that science is the practice of trying to understand the natural world.

Scientists draw conclusions while fully aware that their data and studies are limited. There is no perfect experiment.... It is the general public that fails to understand the limitations of science. They believe that scientists find "the answer" to complex problems/phenomena, and then feel cheated when "the answer" changes due to new data or technology.

Nothing personal taken, so no need to apologize. I simply like asking questions, and you've given me answers that I already agreed with, such as that of science trying to understand the ways and whys of the natural world. (Who knows, maybe I'm provoking the non-believers to simply think about things. I've certainly had to think about them myself.)

As for evolution, I'm in the camp that evolutionary processes just may be God's way of creating things. Over the years, how many cases have we seen of reports that "someone" has found an entirely new species of insect or animal? Thus, why shouldn't a scientist not also think outside the box and wonder if those new species were new creations of God?

 

[TerryMiller]

I'm not talking around it..... I'm just trying to explain what laws of science really entail, and it's more difficult because you have a seemingly lower fundamental understanding of science. Here's a link that will simplify what I'm saying.

http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/why-isnt-evolution-considered-law

What you don't understand about Strobel is the level of bias and emotion. I don't require you to read Dawkins or even "believe" what he says. However, there has to be an acknowledgement of significant reference and logical application of proven phenomenon in lieu of ..... "I interviewed a few scientists." It's a glorified media report in book form that you just happen to agree with. More power to you.


In terms of you being jaded towards science because of eggs and global warming, then you are a puppet of the media. You see the media cherry picks segments of scientific studies and applies sensationalism to generate revenue or create an agenda. Unless you have been reading scientific journals for years, you're getting an interpretation of what was actually written or conducted. If you are really curious as to what scientist have said about eggs or global warming, then read the actual work.... not what MSM says. Finally, shouldn't we leave the science to the scientists and religion to the religious? If you feel differently then you might want to look at a little history. Such as how christians responded to Galileo's findings back in the day.

This is a misguided, and in some cases completely wrong, view of what science is/does, and how it works. It appears you don't have a grasp on the very basics of science, let alone anything complex that you're trying to deal with here. I don't mean that as a personal attack. Unfortunately our society doesn't value the learning and teaching of science, and in many cases are taught wrongly about science (e.g., in many churches or religions), and so it's often left up to individuals to seek out that information. A majority of our nation's high school students graduate high school totally ignorant about science, it's methods, and other various important aspects. How many adults do you know that can explain the basics of science (correctly), explain the basic methods that science uses, and explain how to discern science from pseudoscience?

Lighten up, Guys. I'm simply asking questions and no one has answered whether science still recognized Hypothesis, Theory, and Law. I don't know how many times that I've been told that "such and such" is "fact," but they never call it a law.

And to assume that I have no grasp of the basics of science is really stretching to pigeon-hole me. So, kindly try to not be so condescending of others.

It's beginning to get nasty in this thread, so I think I'll just leave.

 

[Billybob]

I'm definitely interested in the opinions of other religions.

Any interest in other Christian opinions? Ever heard of the Nag Hammadi Library?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library

 

[Billybob]

Aside from arguing between belief and disbelief since Judges are sentencing people to church or Bible study and at least one Court Clerk is involved in legal issues over refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples should further discussion of church/state be a separate topic in the Christian forum?

 

[YukonGlocker]

Lighten up, Guys. I'm simply asking questions and no one has answered whether science still recognized Hypothesis, Theory, and Law. I don't know how many times that I've been told that "such and such" is "fact," but they never call it a law.

And to assume that I have no grasp of the basics of science is really stretching to pigeon-hole me. So, kindly try to not be so condescending of others.

It's beginning to get nasty in this thread, so I think I'll just leave.

I apologize if something came across as offensive. I did state "I don't mean that as a personal attack." But, to be fair, I don't think you were "simply asking questions". You made specific claims about science, and the legitimacy of those claims do deserve the same criticism and skepticism that defines science itself. There's a great deal of variance in how the terms "hypothesis", "theory", "law", and "fact" are used and defined, so it's quite difficult to discuss those without clarification (which I'm assuming is one big reason why people haven't responded to that). I don't understand what you mean by "whether science still recognizes" these terms. And, what do these terms mean to you (which is critical information if we are to have a discussion about them)?

 

[JD8]

Here are three things I've learned from this thread.
1 - Atheists profess their nonbelief more than Christians profess their belief.
2 - Christians would like to talk about their faith without all the smarmy attacks.
3 - Atheists don't want their perceived moral shortcomings pointed out.
I said perceived.

1) If christians are so quiet about their religion then why are many requesting their own forum? Evidence of christians professing their beliefs is rampant throughout society, and on this board. More power to them.

2) If they talk about their religion in public then someone might relay a bit of reality and history. That's just how voicing an opinion in public goes.

3) christians don't want their actual moral shortcomings pointed out.

I said actual.

 

[JD8]

Lighten up, Guys. I'm simply asking questions and no one has answered whether science still recognized Hypothesis, Theory, and Law. I don't know how many times that I've been told that "such and such" is "fact," but they never call it a law.

And to assume that I have no grasp of the basics of science is really stretching to pigeon-hole me. So, kindly try to not be so condescending of others.

It's beginning to get nasty in this thread, so I think I'll just leave.

Nobody is trying to "pigeon hole" you and I answered your question completely and THEN backed it up with a link saying the EXACT same thing. If you refuse to acknowledge or understand what was said then I don't see how any of that is getting "nasty." Let's be honest, you thought you had a "gotcha" moment with your whole "theory/law progression" and you didn't know how to react then it got blown out of the water. It wasn't a simple question that you were asking, if you believe so, then you need to review your initial comments concerning the matter.

It honestly just seems that what has been said greatly compromises a criticism of yours and you have no response but to act like you were attacked and walk away.