So I base a large part of my life on scientific theories (or at least scientific theories being valid). Okay. And the problem with that is...? Ah no, you mistake me. I don't believe you're lying, I was talking more about the ability to prove intent, especially on an internet forum. (Which why I used the word "demonstrate" in relation to my intent). Not at all. As far as I'm concerned if you don't ask you can't find out others' perspectives. If you don't contest what you consider to be be incorrect then one or both parties end up with misconceptions and/ or misunderstandings. Thank you.
I'll be around just doing a job like you, I guess. In the debating, I'll be checking science's explanation providing a different answer than yours. :deal:
Not a problem, but science doesn't explain everything, I imagine this is the reason some folk like yourself spend time in philosophy forums etc. Agreed.
But science and religion are chalk and cheese. Unless we talk about evolution and ID. For example every educated person knows that the bible or even the BG aren't science books.
Not true, you only think so because you live in the UK, and we're fairly relaxed when it comes to religion. There are large numbers of (supposedly educated) people who believe absolutely that the bible is the one (and only) word on everything: creationists sincerely believe that the Earth was formed 6000 years ago for one thing.
Now you would like to throw me out of the religious debate. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I listen to the evidence science offers and then make my own conclusions. You do a dance saying lets make believe, so sweetly.
I did mention this is where the biggest conflict between science and organized religion seems to be. I don't think it's THAT important where we came from, it is much more important to see where we are heading.
Believers are trapped in a fact. If any one of them has more than an opinion when it comes to religion, then they are effectively telling God what to do.
Not quite: "belief" in science is based on evidence - objective evidence, not faith. And that spawns another conflict - the bible (and religion in general) claims to be able tell us where we're heading. And offers no evidence for that claim while making demands in order to be "saved".
I wish they were Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You mean by their pastors etc...?
It is still belief, and faith is not entirely absent, they have to have faith in each others ability. True.
No, only "faith" that the results are being reported as honestly as possible. I.e. trust in other humans. In science any experiment and set of results is open to independent reproduction (funding allowing of course). and verification. And there's the problem. We are supposed to behave in a certain way in order to be granted this "salvation" (or whatever) but no evidence is offered to show it's anything more than some long-lasting and widespread con-trick.
This is what I mean, but also there is a reliance on the ability of scientists hence the peer review procedure. Based on Jesus' example, would it be a bad way to act?
No. God or Gods are in charge of religion. Your opinion develops by reading the bible or Qu'ran. Some people could easily write a whole new addition to their holy book, because of their opinions increasing or adding to the written word. It all turns into speculation or gossip within religion. Because religion is antiquated. Kingdoms are going extinct I think.