australopithecus
Active Member
People ask me why I'm vaugely misanthropic. I should link them to this thread.
http://www.answersingenesis.com
So how about all those christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, pagan scientists then? Ken Miller for example. Christian and evolutionary biologist who testified against creationism and intelligent design in court? Is he mocking religion by discrediting genesis?
As an ex-christian, and a rather devout one at that, I feel extremely qualified in pointing out when and where relgion and the religious are being morons. No, you said atheist scientists. Now, which one of those words do you think would make people outspoken about religion. 'Atheist' or 'scientist'? You can't say scientists mock religion when what you mean is certain individuals might who just happen to be scientists. It's dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Personal experiences aren't proof.
Theories require evidence and there is no evidence to support any religious cliam of the supernatural, ergo, there are no religious theories.
Religion is based on faith, not science. Theology is not a science, religous claims cannot be tested, evidenced, observed and most importantly, falsified. Theology has never been and never will be a science. It doesn't fulfill the criteria.
No, theology is the study of subject of theism. It is not a science because science depends on being able to falsify things. How do you falsify supernatural claims?
When exactly has religion pissed on science?
http://www.answersingenesis.com
That is absolutely absurb. Even atheist scientists talk rubbish about religion! Instead of respect, they mock it.Examples?
So how about all those christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, pagan scientists then? Ken Miller for example. Christian and evolutionary biologist who testified against creationism and intelligent design in court? Is he mocking religion by discrediting genesis?
You see, you are not putting my words in the context again! I said that EVEN Scientists could talk rubbish just as much as religious people. I don't want to descredit science but I am at the same time a defender of religion.Richard dawkins is an example of a typical atheist scientist (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5459138). He thinks that he has got the universal knowledge, the unique knowledge but luckily science doesn't depend on him to progress. People who try to prove a point by attacking a sphere that they don't comprehend are led to chaos.
As an ex-christian, and a rather devout one at that, I feel extremely qualified in pointing out when and where relgion and the religious are being morons. No, you said atheist scientists. Now, which one of those words do you think would make people outspoken about religion. 'Atheist' or 'scientist'? You can't say scientists mock religion when what you mean is certain individuals might who just happen to be scientists. It's dishonest to suggest otherwise.
No, it is not dishonest because only a portion of scientists (who most of the time are atheist) don't admit religion and worse make as if it is moron! Again, I don't like generalisation - this is pretty dangerous! Everywhere you will have good and bad god followers but you should not judge the religion according to them.
Religion is vast and again very intrinsic. To me, it is based on a belief and worship of a god and its principles. It contains a whole set of stories, experiences, prayers and poems which reflect a pattern of God's dealings with a line of people that he got in touch with. Through these patterns, we can then come to know how God makes himself known. Religion becomes then a belief shared amongst its supporters because it has been testimoned by prophecies. Those who believe, feel their god as it belongs to their heart, to their mind, to their psyche which enable them to communicate with him in many ways. It is a force, not a matter. For instance, for the christians, they refer to the bible when making moral decisions because they believe that God speaks through the bible and the bible records what jesus taught about behaviour. It defines a right way of conduct which is meant to protect us against evil - against our sins - in order to help us to have a better judgement of what is good and bad through its words of wisdom.
Like infinitely small atoms, God is invisible to the eye but so visible to our mind and conscience. It is unproven by theorems but proven by our personal experience.
Personal experiences aren't proof.
yes but theories are! and religion is not only personal experience is also principles and theories
Theories require evidence and there is no evidence to support any religious cliam of the supernatural, ergo, there are no religious theories.
religion is based on theology science not on ghosts.
Religion is based on faith, not science. Theology is not a science, religous claims cannot be tested, evidenced, observed and most importantly, falsified. Theology has never been and never will be a science. It doesn't fulfill the criteria.
theology" is "the science of things divine".
No, theology is the study of subject of theism. It is not a science because science depends on being able to falsify things. How do you falsify supernatural claims?