The Politics/Religion/Conspiracies Deathmatch Thread

[plague]

"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen."
Matthew 28:18-20

"And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen."
Mark 16:15-20

"Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”
Luke 24:46-49

Wasn't that the final diner scene from Pulp Fiction?

[snake]

2. Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Planck, etc. These aren't just your alchemists
3. Seeing as, as I said they answer different questions are life, scientists personal religious views shouldn't affect their scientific development. I've seen a few videos about a guy interviewing science students at some American universities about why they deny their religion and their reasoning is hardly evidence-based

2, no, what i was saying joel was that the initial hypothesis (if you can call it that) was abandoned due to new discoveries. just because early founding scientists may have been motivated to discover how god's universe (in their eyes) works, their findings don't support this. again, if science and religion were compatible, wouldn't the religiosity of scientists be higher than that of lay folk? why is the reverse correlation found?

3, used to be that religion answered both the how and why. now it seems to be relegated to a handful of 'why' questions of little value. seems to be the magisteria of religion is shrinking by the day. how will it continue to stay relevant?

you say you've seen videos about a guy interviewing science students in america. so what? that guy doesn't happen to be named eric hovind, does he?

[snake]

Also, as far as the 'science is proof' angle is concerned. Every person I know who works in that profession admits that there is a lot of 'fact' based on probability/assumptions etc that are always up for reassessment and open to interpretation.
Jeez Louise when I was growing up the boffins were changing their minds every week on whether potatoes were good for you or not.

true, science is not dogmatic. people make careers out of overthrowing long-held and beloved theories. that is why science is so progressive - always challenging, always falsifying.

it is true that outise mathematics and logic, the term "proof" is not all that useful as nothing can ever be known with 100%certainty. it is important however not to relate this limitation as an admission of confusion or not understanding. theories such as atomic theory or evolution probably won't be overthrown. they're as good as fact as you could probably ever hope to get.

[snake]

Christians believe that not believing is the only non-forgivable sin

i'm still yet to get an answer to this. am i as an unbeliever a less moral person than a murderer who seeks forgiveness?

anyone can have a go at answering

[plague]

true, science is not dogmatic. people make careers out of overthrowing long-held and beloved theories. that is why science is so progressive - always challenging, always falsifying.

it is true that outise mathematics and logic, the term "proof" is not all that useful as nothing can ever be known with 100%certainty. it is important however not to relate this limitation as an admission of confusion or not understanding. theories such as atomic theory or evolution probably won't be overthrown. they're as good as fact as you could probably ever hope to get.

Totally agree.
Was just relating it to some others on here that religions have evolved with time as well as science.
And I think it's all a pointless argument as we'll never be able to disprove anything so people will go on down their own road.
this is why 9/11 truthers and the Westboro Baptist church will continue to exist.

[plague]

i'm still yet to get an answer to this. am i as an unbeliever a less moral person than a murderer who seeks forgiveness?

anyone can have a go at answering

My only guess is that when this was originally written 99% of people believed in God and the other 1% were too scared to admit it.

[snake]

the bible doesn't advocate the things you listed. I don't think you'll find Christians doing these types of things in the modern day in the name of God. Even if they did, they're craziness wouldn't be as a result in the belief in a God that opposes such things

my first thought were the terror acts on abortion clinics. seems there is much more in countries not on the radar of strayas media.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

[snake]

Totally agree.
Was just relating it to some others on here that religions have evolved with time as well as science.
And I think it's all a pointless argument as we'll never be able to disprove anything so people will go on down their own road.
this is why 9/11 truthers and the Westboro Baptist church will continue to exist.

minor techincal correction. disproving (falsifying) is how science progresses. it's best to think of it as a survival of the fittest of competing hypothesis. someone would say "if hypothesis A were true, then we should expect some reponse X when we do experiment Y" they then do the experiment. if X doesn't show up, they have to ask why? usually, hypothesis A is put on the scrap heap.

the difference is, you can never prove the non-existence of anything, because it isn't falsifiable. for instance, you probably think the blades on your mower cut your grass when you mow. you cant disprove the hypothesis that actually a series of invisible leprechauns ride the blades holding out a pair of scissors, which actually does the cutting. you can't disprove that there isnn't a teapot orbiting saturn etc. this is the unfalsifiable domain that god hides in.

[plague]

minor techincal correction. disproving (falsifying) is how science progresses. it's best to think of it as a survival of the fittest of competing hypothesis. someone would say "if hypothesis A were true, then we should expect some reponse X when we do experiment Y" they then do the experiment. if X doesn't show up, they have to ask why? usually, hypothesis A is put on the scrap heap.

the difference is, you can never prove the non-existence of anything, because it isn't falsifiable. for instance, you probably think the blades on your mower cut your grass when you mow. you cant disprove the hypothesis that actually a series of invisible leprechauns ride the blades holding out a pair of scissors, which actually does the cutting. you can't disprove that there isnn't a teapot orbiting saturn etc. this is the unfalsifiable domain that god hides in.

Yer.
That's what I ment.

[GazFish35]

Snake.

If a tree falls in the forrest and no-one is around, does it make a noise?

[q-money]

of course it ****en does m8

[GazFish35]

Urnot snake m8.

[The Dunster]

minor techincal correction. disproving (falsifying) is how science progresses. it's best to think of it as a survival of the fittest of competing hypothesis. someone would say "if hypothesis A were true, then we should expect some reponse X when we do experiment Y" they then do the experiment. if X doesn't show up, they have to ask why? usually, hypothesis A is put on the scrap heap.

the difference is, you can never prove the non-existence of anything, because it isn't falsifiable. for instance, you probably think the blades on your mower cut your grass when you mow. you cant disprove the hypothesis that actually a series of invisible leprechauns ride the blades holding out a pair of scissors, which actually does the cutting. you can't disprove that there isnn't a teapot orbiting saturn etc. this is the unfalsifiable domain that god hides in.

Karl Popper in da house.

[hawk]

falsify, prove, fittest, religious, scienentific, murder, highly probable.

Have ya hypotheses and words but follow this advice and we have a slightly better earth.

[Blackmac79]

Why are we conscious beings then?
Why do we do things beyond natural instinct?

[parksey]

Why are we conscious beings then?
Why do we do things beyond natural instinct?

because humans are the business

[joel31]

"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen."
Matthew 28:18-20

"And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen."
Mark 16:15-20

"Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”
Luke 24:46-49

If Christians believe that this is true and good news its worth telling people, especially those who haven't heard

But it shouldn't be forcing it peoples throats, which I agree this is sometimes not the case

[joel31]

i'm still yet to get an answer to this. am i as an unbeliever a less moral person than a murderer who seeks forgiveness?

anyone can have a go at answering

It isn't a matter of morality. Morality is relative to a persons belief, I'm not going to tell you whether you're moral or not moral.

But to God all sins are the same except denying him

[MFKS]

"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen."
Matthew 28:18-20

"And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen."
Mark 16:15-20

"Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”
Luke 24:46-49

As I said not my place to convince you. It is in a book read it and think about it and make your own mind up.

Thing is with my religion you have the choice to decide which way you want to go. Contrast that with another religion where you a forced into submitting to it with aggression force and hate and face death if you don't comply and believe.


Yet for some reason you atheists see Christianity as a bigger threat despite our tolerance to your views and the lack of tolerance from this other religion towards your views. Go figure the hypocrisy in that

[MFKS]

i'm still yet to get an answer to this. am i as an unbeliever a less moral person than a murderer who seeks forgiveness?

anyone can have a go at answering

Your up shit creek and the murderer is in.

You failed to believe he did