Can Science and Religion co exist?

• sleeper

  

  BoatShoes;1608287 wrote: Most people were raised believing in the same God as their parents and then they meet an atheist who says that is bullshit and in response, they rationalize after the fact that "Well, there must be a cause of the Universe...we'll call that cause God." And then, they just go on with their life thinking that their made up mythology is the manifestation of that God.
  
  Even if we accept the existence of a creator...there is no good reason to worship this creator, pray to this creator, pretend that the creator intervenes in the natural world or that any of the myths propagated by ignorant humans centuries ago in any way reflect the true nature of that creator.
  
  Even if belief in a creator were justified (a dubious proposition at best), it absolutely in no way suggests that we have any justified belief about the nature of that creator, any potential afterlife and so on and so forth.
  
  In other words...Christians can go ahead and deviate all they want about how there must be a creator/designer but that in no way justifies that there was a zombie who magically saves humans from eternal torture so long as the cognitive state of "belief" in the resurrection attaches to their cerebral cortex.

  This is basically what I've been trying to say for the past 50 posts or so. The rationalization, again, is simply incredible.
• cruiser_96

  

  What if an individual who believes in a theistic universe grew up in an atheistic household - both parents were/still are quite anti-theistic?
• BoatShoes

  cruiser_96;1608385 wrote:What if an individual who believes in a theistic universe grew up in an atheistic household - both parents were/still are quite anti-theistic?

  The exceptions that prove the general rule.
  
  And either way, you don't just believe in a theistic universe. You believe this:
  

  He is risen! Risen indeed!!!
  
  #EmptyTomb

  You have along way to go from the existence of some uncaused cause of the Universe to a God-Man on Earth (of all the planets in the Universe) that grants eternal punishment to human beings who don't believe in zombies.
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1608385 wrote:What if an individual who believes in a theistic universe grew up in an atheistic household - both parents were/still are quite anti-theistic?

  We call those folks retards.
• cruiser_96

  

  BoatShoes;1608388 wrote:The exceptions that prove the general rule.
  
  And either way, you don't just believe in a theistic universe. You believe this:
  
  
  
  You have along way to go from the existence of some uncaused cause of the Universe to a God-Man on Earth (of all the planets in the Universe) that grants eternal punishment to human beings who don't believe in zombies.

  He claimed to be God in the flesh - the very reason the Jews took up stones to kill Him. Either He was who He said He was, or He wasn't. Your choice.
  
  But make no mistake - my parents did NOT indoctrinate me with a belief in a theistic universe.
  
  One question: as I'm typing, I'm trying to think of ANY taught but of information that wouldn't be indoctrination from parents.
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1608403 wrote:He claimed to be God in the flesh - the very reason the Jews took up stones to kill Him. Either He was who He said He was, or He wasn't. Your choice.
  
  But make no mistake - my parents did NOT indoctrinate me with a belief in a theistic universe.
  
  One question: as I'm typing, I'm trying to think of ANY taught but of information that wouldn't be indoctrination from parents.

  First of all; LOL. Second of all, do you even know the meaning of indoctrination?
  
  "to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs"
• cruiser_96

  

  Yes, I do know the meaning. It is "to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs".
  
  But that's not what my parents did. And that's what you stated - "I just wish those who believe in a religious god would admit that they were indoctrinated into their belief system by their parents..." - That is a direct quote from you. And that was not my experience.
  
  I actually considered the alternative - nothing to something. And that is, oh, how you say... LOL.
  
  But if I have things correctly, if people do not agree with you, they are retarded. Ah, yes. So logical!
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1608407 wrote:Yes, I do know the meaning. It is "to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs".
  
  But that's not what my parents did. And that's what you stated - "I just wish those who believe in a religious god would admit that they were indoctrinated into their belief system by their parents..." - That is a direct quote from you. And that was not my experience.
  
  I actually considered the alternative - nothing to something. And that is, oh, how you say... LOL.
  
  But if I have things correctly, if people do not agree with you, they are retarded. Ah, yes. So logical!

  I'm glad that your parents did not indoctrinate but you are an exception to the rule and not the rule. Since you have been so honest and genuine in your discussion, please tell me why Christianity is the correct religion and why you chose this belief system over the thousands of other belief systems that currently exist. In your discussion, please be sure to detail your logical progression from an atheistic upbringing to a full fledged belief in Jesus Christ. I anxiously await your response.
• BoatShoes

  cruiser_96;1608403 wrote:He claimed to be God in the flesh - the very reason the Jews took up stones to kill Him. Either He was who He said He was, or He wasn't. Your choice.

  Muhammad claimed to be visited by the Angel Gabriel. Joseph Smith claimed Angels told him to go dig up a book of Golden Plates.
  
  Angels didn't appear to either of them and Jesus of Nazareth was not God in the Flesh.
  

  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins (1 Corinthians 15:17).

  Christ is not risen and your faith is worthless. It sucks. I wish there were a wonderful afterlife where we would all live in the glory of a loving God but it's simply wishful thinking.
  
  But, I will not go as far as Paul and say that what Christians do and have done is entirely worthless because the Resurrection is a myth.
  
  I think there is something worthwhile about all those people getting together in community and fellowship at church to try and figure out the meaning of life. Now, if only we as a society could ditch the fairy tales and find some way to get all those people together and find meaning in life in a more productive fashion.
• cruiser_96

  

  sleeper: One of, if not the, main issues is Jesus Christ. He claimed to be God in the flesh. Jews said (and still today, say) He wasn't. Muslims state he was a prophet in a line of many prophets. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons claim Jesus was/is a god. Again, either He was who He said He was, or He wasn't. If He was, then He was. If He wasn't, then I suppose, as BoatShoes pointed out, then we are all in the same boat, and what you state about picking one - or none - makes no difference.
  
  He was either a liar, knowing full well what He was stating was not true but stating it anyway; a lunatic, actually believing what He was saying to be true, even though it wasn't; or He was indeed who He said He was, the Lord. But to cast the person of Jesus Christ off as some non-person is analogous to stating Heinrich Bacon, John of Procida, Teresa of Calcutta or even Joseph Stalin were all great characters in stories written by very imaginative people.
  
  And as one point of note: Read Acts 7 and tell me how the money grab worked for Steven. Heck, tell me how the money grab worked for a number of those who were alive during the time of Christ, saw Him before and after His death, and went on to live out their lives. The quick rundown goes like this: stoned, beheaded, left on an island to rot, killed by the sword, and crucifixion, just to name a few. No fame, no money, no power - which is contrary to what we see - and you seem to express - when talking about religion. My point: What they were living out was not religion at all. * EDIT: I think this is why we agree on our disdain for "religion". I don't see these individuals as religious. I do not see the hypocrisy that religion brings with it. Again, I am not a fan of religion.
  
  BoatShoes: Of the individuals you mentioned - Muhammad and Joseph Smith... I would say our reasons for agreeing that angels did not meet with are vastly different. Yours is because (I'll assume) because angels don't exist. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.) My reason is because in both instances, they contradict what was already stated or lived out by those prior. These contradictions are similar to why I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. One of the first two commandments is thou shall have no other gods before Me. Who do they claim Jesus to be? A god!
  
  * edit
• sleeper

  

  SMH.
• Automatik

  

  
• pmoney25

  

  cruiser_96;1608414 wrote:sleeper: One of, if not the, main issues is Jesus Christ. He claimed to be God in the flesh. Jews said (and still today, say) He wasn't. Muslims state he was a prophet in a line of many prophets. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons claim Jesus was/is a god. Again, either He was who He said He was, or He wasn't. If He was, then He was. If He wasn't, then I suppose, as BoatShoes pointed out, then we are all in the same boat, and what you state about picking one - or none - makes no difference.
  
  He was either a liar, knowing full well what He was stating was not true but stating it anyway; a lunatic, actually believing what He was saying to be true, even though it wasn't; or He was indeed who He said He was, the Lord. But to cast the person of Jesus Christ off as some non-person is analogous to stating Heinrich Bacon, John of Procida, Teresa of Calcutta or even Joseph Stalin were all great characters in stories written by very imaginative people.
  
  And as one point of note: Read Acts 7 and tell me how the money grab worked for Steven. Heck, tell me how the money grab worked for a number of those who were alive during the time of Christ, saw Him before and after His death, and went on to live out their lives. The quick rundown goes like this: stoned, beheaded, left on an island to rot, killed by the sword, and crucifixion, just to name a few. No fame, no money, no power - which is contrary to what we see - and you seem to express - when talking about religion. My point: What they were living out was not religion at all. * EDIT: I think this is why we agree on our disdain for "religion". I don't see these individuals as religious. I do not see the hypocrisy that religion brings with it. Again, I am not a fan of religion.
  
  BoatShoes: Of the individuals you mentioned - Muhammad and Joseph Smith... I would say our reasons for agreeing that angels did not meet with are vastly different. Yours is because (I'll assume) because angels don't exist. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.) My reason is because in both instances, they contradict what was already stated or lived out by those prior. These contradictions are similar to why I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. One of the first two commandments is thou shall have no other gods before Me. Who do they claim Jesus to be? A god!
  
  * edit

  
• pmoney25

  

  On a serious note, I have always been more fascinated on the "why" aspect of existence vs. the "How". Not just with us as Humans but why any existence at all.
• Devils Advocate

  

  
• WebFire

  cruiser_96;1608414 wrote:sleeper: One of, if not the, main issues is Jesus Christ. He claimed to be God in the flesh. Jews said (and still today, say) He wasn't. Muslims state he was a prophet in a line of many prophets. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons claim Jesus was/is a god. Again, either He was who He said He was, or He wasn't. If He was, then He was. If He wasn't, then I suppose, as BoatShoes pointed out, then we are all in the same boat, and what you state about picking one - or none - makes no difference.
  
  He was either a liar, knowing full well what He was stating was not true but stating it anyway; a lunatic, actually believing what He was saying to be true, even though it wasn't; or He was indeed who He said He was, the Lord. But to cast the person of Jesus Christ off as some non-person is analogous to stating Heinrich Bacon, John of Procida, Teresa of Calcutta or even Joseph Stalin were all great characters in stories written by very imaginative people.
  

  So he was kind of like David Koresh? Except that we thought Koresh was crazy. Hmmmmm...
• cruiser_96

  

  List the miracles that accompanied DK's claims.
  
  Recall my statement: Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or The Lord.
  
  What did Jesus tell them to tell John who was in prison, and why did that matter? What was the significance?
• Heretic

  

  So, by these standards...
  
  According to some, the city of Troy was real and there were conflicts in the vicinity of its ruins, as noted by archaeologists. https://blog.oup.com/2013/05/trojan-war-fact-or-fiction/
  
  Therefore, the legendary Trojan War happened and Ares, Athena, Zeus, Hera, etc. were all involved.
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1608675 wrote:List the miracles that accompanied DK's claims.
  
  Recall my statement: Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or The Lord.
  
  What did Jesus tell them to tell John who was in prison, and why did that matter? What was the significance?

  You do know around the time of Jesus you had multiple prophets trying to proclaim themselves as a holy beings. They also had followers who would try to convince others of this fact and would have grandiose stories of lore detailing their miracles. No one is exactly sure why the story of Jesus still lives today but many think that he was simply the most influential of the prophets at the time(ie. had the most followers). I wouldn't say Jesus is Lord, that can never be nor will ever be proven, but he most certainly was a liar and probably a lunatic(or most appropriately a businessman).
  
  You do realize your entire beliefs are based solely on a book that was written by people who had a strong incentive to convince others that Jesus was Lord correct? The Bible isn't exactly an unbiased historical document, but rather propaganda by a charlatan. Sorry reality and facts get in the way some times.
• sleeper

  

  Heretic;1608677 wrote:So, by these standards...
  
  According to some, the city of Troy was real and there were conflicts in the vicinity of its ruins, as noted by archaeologists. https://blog.oup.com/2013/05/trojan-war-fact-or-fiction/
  
  Therefore, the legendary Trojan War happened and Ares, Athena, Zeus, Hera, etc. were all involved.

  No, come on now. It's absolutely crazy that a man could be half god half man and only die by being shot in a non-fatal area of the foot! We all know that the only way to kill a god is to have him hang for 3 days, rise again, and then VOLUNTEER to die so that others can go to his special happy place. You really need to read the bible, it explains how things actually happened.
• Heretic

  

  sleeper;1608681 wrote:You do know around the time of Jesus you had multiple prophets trying to proclaim themselves as a holy beings. They also had followers who would try to convince others of this fact and would have grandiose stories of lore detailing their miracles. No one is exactly sure why the story of Jesus still lives today but many think that he was simply the most influential of the prophets at the time(ie. had the most followers). I wouldn't say Jesus is Lord, that can never be nor will ever be proven, but he most certainly was a liar and probably a lunatic(or most appropriately a businessman).
  
  You do realize your entire beliefs are based solely on a book that was written by people who had a strong incentive to convince others that Jesus was Lord correct? The Bible isn't exactly an unbiased historical document, but rather propaganda by a charlatan. Sorry reality and facts get in the way some times.

  And the propaganda level at that time was through the roof. In college, one of the history electives I took was about the rise of Christianity. One of our books for that class was a history of the Roman empire from its beginnings up to when it took over from the previous Roman religion, written by one of the tons of "one name" writers then (not a big-name like Socrates or Plato, but a one-namer, nonetheless).
  
  The main thing I remember from that book was how the guy propped up emperors whom history considers weak, pitiful or other negative words (such as Claudius) for being tolerant or even accepting of Christianity; while meanwhile utterly ripping on guys like Diocletian, who were considered strong emperors who did a lot to improve aspects of the Empire, for persecuting Christians. To the degree of basically reveling in their deaths, often with graphic "vomiting worms and rotting from the insides" descriptions of their end.
  
  From the aspect of someone who's always had an interest in history, it was hilarious just how propagandized the literature was back then. About like elementary school history here, where you only focus on brave Europeans discovering and settling new lands that became America, while ignoring the wars and subjugation that was entwined with all the "heroic" parts.
• BoatShoes

  Heretic;1608687 wrote:And the propaganda level at that time was through the roof. In college, one of the history electives I took was about the rise of Christianity. One of our books for that class was a history of the Roman empire from its beginnings up to when it took over from the previous Roman religion, written by one of the tons of "one name" writers then (not a big-name like Socrates or Plato, but a one-namer, nonetheless).
  
  The main thing I remember from that book was how the guy propped up emperors whom history considers weak, pitiful or other negative words (such as Claudius) for being tolerant or even accepting of Christianity; while meanwhile utterly ripping on guys like Diocletian, who were considered strong emperors who did a lot to improve aspects of the Empire, for persecuting Christians. To the degree of basically reveling in their deaths, often with graphic "vomiting worms and rotting from the insides" descriptions of their end.
  
  From the aspect of someone who's always had an interest in history, it was hilarious just how propagandized the literature was back then. About like elementary school history here, where you only focus on brave Europeans discovering and settling new lands that became America, while ignoring the wars and subjugation that was entwined with all the "heroic" parts.

  Also, who knows what ever happens to Christianity of Constantine's mom wasn't a closeted Christian? The spread of Christianity is just the result of a coincidence of history. Constantine, ever the politician, claims to see a vision of the cross in the sky cementing his "divinely inspired" rule as the next emperor of the Rome. Thanks for the idea Mom! Genius.
  
  But no, no, no, it's the modern day geologists that are hopelessly biased and corrupt...not the rising general who was able to come up with a scheme for taking over Rome!
• BoatShoes

  In other words, Constantine the Great pulling a Crabtree is the reason we probably even ever heard about Christianity.
  
  [video=youtube;CQvFO9OEeDs][/video]
• HitsRus

  

  
• Heretic

  

  HitsRus;1608724 wrote:

  Being a church-goer?