Religion and Science are not inherently opposites

No Barbarians didn't learn to talk with animals, God knew how and when it was important for an animal to say something so that people would listen he allowed them to be heard. Once again we don't know the How right now but it doesn't mean that we never will.

As for Jesus I fail to see any mention in any of the passages of the scriptures where he mistreated any woman or treated them less than he treated anyone else. I am sure that if anyone was pro-woman it was Jesus. However, I am sure that at the time he had a lot more important things to do like saving everyone, (yes that includes women) through his atonement. And teaching an otherwise backward society to think forward. Let alone trying to get that society to accept women as being important.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry but I mentioned before that faith is not the opposite of Fact you may read my first post for reference

- - - Updated - - -

How so?

 

Obviously the Bible belongs in the fiction section. An interesting read, but not the truth. And after the arc landed in Turkey, the North American mountain lions SWAM across the Atlantic, and the kangaroos magically FLEW to Australia.
So next time I take a ship across the Atlantic I'll be sure to warn the captain to make sure he doesn't hit any swimming mountain lions on the way, and I'll tell my next pilot to be sure to look out for flying kangaroos.

I give my children a book about talking animals too, but the author is Dr. Seuss., not Moses.

 

So, like I said before, you have to weasel out of this inconvenient claim because it's demonstrably false.

 

Would it have been great help to the world if Jesus had taken 5 seconds out of his busy schedule of cursing fig trees and cursing 3 entire cities to hell to utter two little words: "No slavery"? I KNOW what Gorn would say, but what are your thoughts on this?

 

I'm not aware of that story....is that Tolkien, or C.S. Lewis? Mother Goose? It sounds a little too wacky for a Tolkien story, but I could be wrong. Wait - are you in a state that just legalized marijuana?

 

A scientist deals with that which is of time, and the material universe, in what can be measured. Religion deals in the timeless, that which lies outside of time and the material universe. So, neither the scientist nor the priest can offer up proof of anything when it comes to the timeless, the immeasurable.

We don't ask science to measure the immeasurable, nor do we ask them to research into the timeless. Yet we will ask the priest to do just that. LOL.

And so, it is the position of science to remain in the realm of matter, space, time, the measurable. And it is the position of the priest to talk about the timeless and the immeasurable. Of course one can ask how can the priest say anything about the timeless and the immeasurable? And I think traditionally anything that is said about the timeless and the immeasurable has been drawn from thinking, in time, in the measurable, about those things discovered in altered states of consciousness, like meditation, when thought is silent, and in certain psychedelic plants that manifest a totally different reality than ordinary consciousness.

So, is there a way of knowledge, that is not of the measurable? Many religions would say yes. Most religions began their life with these experienced states of human consciousness. But in trying to explain, to transfer what is almost impossible to explain, the trouble began. Sooner or later these things were codified, thought out, and an organized religion arose. But there was probably most of it lost, in explaining, or trying to communicate what cannot be communicated. And then man creatively added to what was said by the shamans, and it was influenced heavily by the meme of the culture, by the language, and age old stories transmitted orally were incorporated into the religious tradition. The more that was added, the more absurd it became. I think that pretty much explains how religion came to be. It was world's apart from the original altered states of consciousness that revealed something that man would call god. Although many of the Amerindian cultures concentrated upon the religious experience as the core of the religion, unlike the monotheistic religions of the middle east.

 

Really!?! Considering the differentiation of the species from that time we know that there were less animals then than there are now. If you knew all the laws of physics perfectly I'm sure that there's one that would allow such a feat. once again I am not arguing the fact that the claims are miraculous but they certainly aren't impossible.

 

I fail to see how this is weaseling out of anything. If I was attempting to get out of something I'd avoid the subject altogether. I am presenting you with information you can deny it all you want but in the end there must only be one truth.

 

Read the following post and you will either see it or you will not.

You start with the conclusion that God does exists then you look for evidence of His existence... ergo you are starting with a conclusion.

Those who speak for God speak from a position of ignorance.

 

Chances are he did but when the emperor Constantine decided that he wanted to unify his kingdom with religion he probably took it out of the accepted doctrine.

 

I understand now what you're saying. Sometimes it's important to work back from a conclusion to find evidence of something you missed. And I do not pretend to speak for God. I assume that you are not religious or I could regale you with a plethora of quotes that shows how things line up perfectly for one conclusion, however, I do not know all things and do accept that in my personal interpretation I may be wrong but I have yet to see an instance where that is the case. (and I mean in my initial hypothesis that God must be a scientist)

 

Truth is a subjective state of mind. The truth is that green is my favorite color does not mean that it is the truth for all. What is the difference between the truth and a fact? Are they synonymous? Is your truth any more accurate than the truth of a Sikh? If so why?

 

Clearly, from your posts, you believe that magic is real.
One has to believe that magic is real to be a religious person.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe they also took out the (likely) parts that they found Jesus in a mental ward, as in mental wards you can also find plenty of people, like Jesus, who believe that they are basically "god".

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, god was so ignorant that he thought the universe was created in 6 days.

- - - Updated - - -

So obviously you are saying that the bible is not reliable in its accuracy. We can agree on that.

 

I'm sorry I should've been more explicit. There can only be one universal truth, For example: If I, being human, step off a building on a planet where gravity is a factor I must be pulled towards the center of the gravitational pull. This doesn't mean that you will go down if you have a method of staying up but no matter who you are you will be pulled towards the center of gravity. That is truth not opinion.

 

Robini said...

That is also what the materialistic science of evolution does as well. They begin with an assumptive conclusion that matter is the ground, and consciousness a by product, that is, matter creates it. Then they assume that a cosmic intelligence does not exist, and they then look for evidence that this is factual, that chance, randomness and probability, is the principle, and the only principle involved in the rise of life and its evolution.

If the hard science of physics had insisted upon pure materialistic explanations, and understanding, of the atomic level of reality, we would still be trying to make Newtonian physics make sense and predictions at the quantum level. Which of course, it could not do. And so a new science arose, which has made more proven predictions than Newtonian physics ever did. And much of modern high tech is based upon a new understanding, that was not within the realm of classical materialistic physics.

Yet biology is so dogmatic in its materialism, that there is no chance for a new science to arise right now, within the biological fields. For they insist upon staying within the realm of materialism, for to leave it would risk their hard set ideas of intelligence of some sort not being needed. They have closed themselves within a box, and if someone comes along, another scientist, like Sheldrake or Lipton, and tries to open up the box, they are discredited, and called purveyoers of woo woo. LOL. No place for fields in the biological science, but of course that will change going into the future. For chances are, if fields are involved at the smallest level, then fields are also involved in the biological sciences. But they are self limiting themselves, for too many are driven by atheism, to the point that they will not consider anything but randomness, chance, probability. The psychology of biologists is a tremendous factor in that soft science. But it wasn't for the hard science of physics.

 

The ignorance is strong with this one, ignore him I shall. I refuse to rehash old ideas again I've already responded to the "Magic" question in previous posts you may reference them if you like.

- - - Updated - - -

We can also agree on the fact that most science is not reliable in it's accuracy if that's how you want to throw it.

 

Well one is willing to change as new, better, more advanced evidence comes to light....but one hasn't changed its texts in centuries, and refuses to do so.

 

In other words, Jesus' Jedi Mind Tricks don't work on a Modern Secular Humanist as easily as they work on someone with less logical abilities.

 

Idaho? Hell no! We just got to liquor stores open on Sunday a couple years ago!

 

That is incorrect there are many religions that believe in modern communication with God. The truth will never change no matter how much popular ideas want them to but the fact that we get better understanding of why things are the way they are is definitely something that happens more and more every day.

 

Hehe. I just can't picture a rational person like YOU living near Hayden Lake with those crazy fundies. You are an island of reason in a sea of insanity.

 

Please quit embarrassing yourself and insulting the rest of us with your "scientific" drivel. For any of your fairytales to be true, you have to suspend and/or change the laws of chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy and so on. So spare us the bull(*)(*)(*)(*), please. Keep your religion where it belongs, but certainly away from the scientific fields.

 

They are too immoral to even remove parts that say to kill gays! They. Are. Sick.

- - - Updated - - -

In the first century AD.

 

Indeed... including that the truth may be that there is no God and all us theists are only fooling ourselves.

 

The Bible makes a claim that rabbits chew their cud. They don't. So this is a demonstrably false claim made by religion. The weaseling out part comes in trying to say that the Bible doesn't actually claim that, but that it was meant as being analogous to cows chewing cud.