NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a Christian and I really understand atheist's point of view. I was a philosophical antheist and laughed at belivers but some EXPERIENCES can show you what mystical union with God is about. When youlook at full moon, what do you see? An endless wasteland? Mankind's next soil to place few flags? I see a powerful energy source that moves our oceans, create legends and make such a beautiful scene for a perfect date! I understand what SPIRITUAL (that which is in our souls) message it gives. There are arts that explore reality no worse then science. Listen to one of greatest scientific minds of our era.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Besides that, many of top scientists do belive in God. Lets face it - SPIRITUALITY and religion aren't about political views - it's like likes/dislikes. You feel this or not. Because you don't FEEL something, doesn't mean that it don't exist. When INSTITUTIONS make politics doesn't mean that there is no good alternative for scientific perception of our world. Shamans see spirits of a tree, scientists see mechanistic construction. Still both percive increadible, beautiful and stunning unity of our universe. Both can transcendent your perceptions. I know that I sound idealistic but damn! You don't know everything about man's world - do you? Stop this worthless fight! Science isn't a contradiction to religion. It's only another point of view! Get it? Who uses Bible for political fight is only a loonatic. That's it! Why there are so many threads about atheism vs. religion? I know both sides. Do you know Yin-Yang? Black and white? Think why this symbol looks like that. Damn! I doubt that anyone made it to this line... I've said what I think and that's my final word in this discussion! If you don't get it than it's your problem... Damn. Are you bored or what? Bless the beer - I got drunk so I don't take responsibility for another Great Trolling War! Enough is enough. PEACE :) I'm stupid - don't even mention it! :headbang:

*snip*

After skimming, I'd just like to say...Just because you DO feel something, doesn't make it real. But yeah, there was probably a deeper message in there.

I think there are alot of atheism vs. religion threads (based on results of my poll) because, while alot of the religious types have no problem with christianity (3:1 ratio), atheists are more likely to have a negative view of religious (38:31). There are also more atheists on these forums than religious. I'll admit: my poll as it is is skewed since I didn't include a middle ground per say, but I think i'll do that tomorrow. Since Atheists are more likely to have a negative view of those who are indeed theists, and the religious are somewhat apt to defend themselves against attacks by the Atheists, there will be alot of conflict between the two. Thats my peliminary analysis.

For a look at the atheist:christian ratio, consult my Religious Census.

Just because he was Einstein doesn't make him right.

Llewdor, permission to add that statement to my signature? *grins*

I'm a Christian and I really understand atheist's point of view. I was a philosophical antheist and laughed at belivers but some EXPERIENCES can show you what mystical union with God is about. When youlook at full moon, what do you see? An endless wasteland? Mankind's next soil to place few flags? I see a powerful energy source that moves our oceans, create legends and make such a beautiful scene for a perfect date!

The moon's arid enviornment, possible colonial existance, gravitational pull and emotional appeal can all exist fully in the absence of a god. That there is a moon in the sky does not demonstrate anything more than at one point a big piece of rock smacked into another piece of rock and launched a third piece of rock up into the sky.

Einstein had a pretty neat view of God though. His was a God of Perspective; a being of abstraction who was brought into existence by those who think about it. Certainly not Christian, by any stretch, he had a notion of spirituality as a neat way of seeing things rather than some divine truth in itself (beyond its definition) that I think is worth a look at.

Science is not an "alternative viewpoint" on anything, and saying so does a disservice to what science is.

What it is is the process of observation, hypothesizing, and experimenting. Science doesn't care if god made gravity, scientists only care about how it works. Scientists don't really care about whether trees have souls, they care about the biological methodogy. Science can not be "another" view of something because it is not a view of anything, it is simply a process designed to answer the fundamental questions of why and how.

Certainly not Christian

Why would Einstein have a christian view of god? The man was, as history has quite obviously recorded, jewish.

Why would Einstein have a christian view of god? The man was, as history has quite obviously recorded, jewish.
It was in reference to the OP, who referred to himself as Christian and used Einstein's arguments in support for his stance.

I'm a Christian *snip*

You are taking a sentence and trying to claim the thoughts of a super complex man?

You might want to find paper where that line was pulled. Many times when you read the whole paragraph; the authors meaning changes.

The comment is questionable at best for an endorsement of organized Religion.

He also said:

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God.

— Quoted in the New York Times obituary April 19, 1955

Ahh something on the net.


http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/freethink.html

You don't need to be religious to wonder at the beauty of the world. There seems to be a feeling amongst the religious that atheists only look at the world in scientific terms. That we see everything as equations and complex theories. I would be surprised if the great majority of atheists had not a scientific bone in their body. We are just as capable of appreciating the wonders that are around us (being spiritual if you like). We just don't see the need to attribute them to a supernatural being.

Science can not be "another" view of something because it is not a view of anything, it is simply a process designed to answer the fundamental questions of why and how.
I say that it doesn't answer the most difficult of all questions - about death. Our origin. Our purpose. Our meaning. Our life. That's all. What is astonishing in nature that we ARE its part. I talk about unio mystica. I talk about samadhi. I talk about being ONE with cosmos. Besides science doesn't even try to answer all questions. Methotodology excludes anything that cannot be experimentaly proven. I could you tell hundreds of stories that defy any explanation and yet, I experienced them. You wouldn't even belive me. Mates... For me it's "be there, done that, got the scars". So what right do you have to negate my experiences? There are two ways of exploring our world. analys through contemplation and intelect or synthesis through intuition and meditation. "There are things on heaven and earth..." blah, blah. It's pointless. Mystical union with God is so intense experience that they will for all time remain speechless. Thick Holy Books where writen to express this same Force (I like to percive Him as a movie director) and all failed. Ehh... Why I'm doing this? You just don't get it? THERE is an alternative for cold, mathematical machine! It's the Living Light that so many call God.

Llanarc: I know we are egocentrist and therefore anthropocentrist. But we are NOT the center of universe.

For a look at the atheist:christian ratio, consult my Religious Census.

Atheists are a minority in the world. The largest religions are Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. For some reason these boards attract a lot of atheists.

Why does this seem like a religion VS science thread?

People need to realise that because some atheists refer to science in their arguements against god/s does not mean we 'worship' science. Science is not an alternative belief system to religions.

Truthiness. The OP is just pointless truthiness.

Llanarc: I know we are egocentrist and therefore anthropocentrist. But we are NOT the center of universe.

Actually Religion introduces that quality.

Science would chance it's stance the moment we run into or another race shows itself.

Let me put it this way: UNIVERSE itself is the absolute being compared to tiny homo sapiens! Even living ecosystem of our Planet is superior towards our little egocentric and week bodies.

Let me put it this way: The UNIVERSE itself is the absolute being compared to tiny homo sapiens! Even the living ecosystem of our Planet is superior towards our little egocentric and week bodies.

The ecosystem is not a life form. Look at the word, ecosystem. Nor is the universe. The universe is mostly nothing.

The nice magenta definite articles are mine.

i don't know what you are talking about war.
Usually the Christian people start the war. Atheists are perfectly fine with other people believing in other religions. They just laugh at your religions and gods and beliefs.
I have a hard time believing you were an Atheist also. Unless you had some sort of sign to show you that you should believe, atheists almost never convert.
And the end of your post kind of made me rethink if i should have taken any of it seriously.
BTW, im Agnostic myself.

Why does this seem like a religion VS science thread?

People need to realise that because some atheists refer to science in their arguements against god/s does not mean we 'worship' science. Science is not an alternative belief system to religions.
Thank you.

It's also stupid to say that religion is the antithesis of science. If there really is a divine creator (be it a Brahman-esque "world soul" or the traditional Christian "king of the world" or somewhere in between or something totally different), then how do we know that evolution wasn't this creator's idea (the word "idea" being used in human terms, as something this powerful probably doesn't think at all like we do)?

I say that it doesn't answer the most difficult of all questions - about death. Our origin. Our purpose. Our meaning. Our life. That's all. What is astonishing in nature that we ARE its part. I talk about unio mystica. I talk about samadhi. I talk about being ONE with cosmos. Besides science doesn't even try to answer all questions. Methotodology excludes anything that cannot be experimentaly proven. I could you tell hundreds of stories that defy any explanation and yet, I experienced them. You wouldn't even belive me. Mates... For me it's "be there, done that, got the scars". So what right do you have to negate my experiences? There are two ways of exploring our world. analys through contemplation and intelect or synthesis through intuition and meditation. "There are things on heaven and earth..." blah, blah. It's pointless. Mystical union with God is so intense experience that they will for all time remain speechless. Thick Holy Books where writen to express this same Force (I like to percive Him as a movie director) and all failed. Ehh... Why I'm doing this? You just don't get it? THERE is an alternative for cold, mathematical machine! It's the Living Light that so many call God.

Llanarc: I know we are egocentrist and therefore anthropocentrist. But we are NOT the center of universe.

Either you believe in god or exist in a "cold, mathematical machine"? How silly....

Many agnostics/atheists like myself are prefectly capable of being humbled and awed by the magnificance and beauty of life, the universe, and everything.

We just don't see the need for god to be involved in it. In fact, IMO, the concept of god takes a bit of the awe out of it. I am far more impressed by the magnificence that evolved from chaos from chance, time, and biollions of years of biological, and comictological evolution than simply saying "god did it".

We just don't see the need for god to be involved in it. In fact, IMO, the concept of god takes a bit of the awe out of it. I am far more impressed by the magnificence that evolved from chaos from chance, time, and biollions of years of biological, and comictological evolution than simply saying "god did it".

Why do atheists always portray belief in God as a need? A lot of Christians don't have a "need" to involve God, but believe in Him and love Him, and so they want to involve Him.

And a lot of atheists I've met have a desperate need to discount God at every possible turn.

You don't believe in God, that's fine. But don't portay it is an enlightened escape from some flawed need.

Why do atheists always portray belief in God as a need? A lot of Christians don't have a "need" to involve God, but believe in Him and love Him, and so they want to involve Him.

And a lot of atheists I've met have a desperate need to discount God at every possible turn.

You don't believe in God, that's fine. But don't portay it is an enlightened escape from some flawed need.

Why do a lot of christians feel the need to define a lack of faith as anything more than a lack of faith?

The original premise was that life is more than "cold mathematics". To which I agree.

What I DISAGREE with is that, to escape that cold mathematic shell, one must accept the beauty and awe of the universe as "god's creation". If you feel that belief in god brings you closer to being one with "his creation" then fine, but please don't presume I, or others like me, are otherwise incapable of feeling a similar sense of awe and beauty of the universe without accepting it as any one beings particular creation.

Not believing in god does not doom you to a life of "cold math", it simply means you disbelieve in god, and we are still capable of appreciating the beauty and wonder of existance for what WE think it is, and I'm sure a great number of us, including myself, take a bit of offense to the idea that someow we're missing out on the beauty and wonder that is life because we don't believe that a god had anything particularly to do with it.

In that sense, we do not NEED to believe in god to appreciate the beauty of existance, and I take some umbrage at the suggestion that we do.

Llewdor, permission to add that statement to my signature? *grins*

Go right ahead.

The original premise was that life is more than "cold mathematics". To which I agree.

I don't. Life is cold mathematics.

additionally, from my perspective, I think the percentage of atheists that go around trying to convice others there are no gods is significantly less than the number of religious people who feel the need to go around convincing others that there is.

There's no such thing as an "atheist priest" or an "atheist church" that exists upon the premise of preaching no god, there is no such thing as a professional group of atheists that travel the world trying to convert others into non belief. Most atheists and agnostics simply....are.

HOWEVER, what many of us ARE troubled by is what appears to be the constant assault from the religiously minded that somehow a faith in god is required for a fulfilled life.

So in that aspect, I don't claim to speak for anyone, and nor do I state that faith is anything more or less than faith. Just for me personally, no I do not NEED god to have a fulfilling life. Perhaps you do. I do not. Implying anything beyond the simple statement of "I do not need god to be fulfilled" is foolish, as that's not what I said.

It's not belief or spirituality I have a problem with, it's those who believe lies despite all the evidence to the contrary, then try to force others into whatever behavior patterns they think are "universal" in an effort to validate their own lies.

I don't. Life is cold mathematics.

Personally I believe life is cold pizza.

It's not belief or spirituality I have a problem with, it's those who believe lies despite all the evidence to the contrary, then try to force others into whatever behavior patterns they think are "universal" in an effort to validate their own lies.

Which side do you believe are the liars? Those that claim there is no god, or those that believe there is?

Personally I believe life is cold pizza.

No no no!

Warm pizza and cold beer!

You don't need to be religious to wonder at the beauty of the world. There seems to be a feeling amongst the religious that atheists only look at the world in scientific terms. That we see everything as equations and complex theories. I would be surprised if the great majority of atheists had not a scientific bone in their body. We are just as capable of appreciating the wonders that are around us (being spiritual if you like). We just don't see the need to attribute them to a supernatural being.


I agree with this. And, I'd like to add, complex theories, equations and logic have a strange beauty all of their own.

No no no!

Warm pizza and cold beer!

heathen!

Ye shall be purged....

Allow me to jump in, this is my first post here (woo) so bear with me.

The entire religion question is completely unnessisary. Being an Atheist myself, I automatically abstain from suppourting any religious anything, indirectly causing myself to do things to contradict anthing religious I encounter. This comes across as an attack against religion, so be it. Anything a zian says contradicting atheisim I find an attack against atheisim. What both sides fail to recognise is that there are two sides (well, theres lots more, but zianisim and athiesim are the two extremes). We should take into account the fact that thats the way it is, and eventually the other side will come to its senses and realize that there isn't anything beyond the nerve impulses in our brains and the matter they're composed of (if zian, please adapt your own version). I'm no nihlist as it may seem though. Exsistance may have more to it. But I have more proof that there isn't than zians do that there is. Now if youre something like a buddist or something, I cant make much of an argument because you aren't making an argument against me. Why can't zians be like that?

When it comes to the entire evolution question, I don't mind beliving in creationisim, I'll just believe that gods a monkey.

Zian...?

good lord!

some people are religious... and some people aren't... go figure.

I don't see what science has to do with it. Scientists disagree with each other half the time. Science is not an organised religion, it is a method.

Buddhists are actually required to examine the physical world from a scientific perspective.

This whole debate is way to binary. The term Atheist simply means that someone doesn't believe in god. It doesn't even start to describe what a person does believe in.

Philosophical Taoism, Theravada Buddhism & Jainism are all Atheist religions.

To say that Atheists are somehow missing out on the spiritual side of life is no different to saying "people who don't drink coffee don't know what caffiene is".

They just get their awe from somewhere else - you don't need mythology to experience spirituality.

Also I believe Einstein was a Deist/Pantheist.

He wasn't religiously Jewish though he was ethnically Jewish

Good Allah!

I couldn't agree with you more.

I think Zian is a corruption of Xtian which is a childish way of saying Christian

zians just a quick easy understandable way to say "someone who believes in the holy land". And yes, it is a bastardization of xtian.

zians just a quick easy understandable way to say "someone who believes in the holy land". And yes, it is a bastardization of xtian.

except that the closest would be "zion" or, perhaps in a general sense "zionist", no "zian"

yeah, zion, zian, xtian, all that shighte, it doesn't much matter to me, it all refers to the same thing.

No, some of them refer to completely different things and the others refer to nothing.

yeah, zion, zian, xtian, all that shighte, it doesn't much matter to me, it all refers to the same thing.

Except...it doesn't.

"xtian" is a verion of "christian" which means generally, those that proscribe to the general tenants and faith of christianity

"zion" is a term for the "holy land", either the literal nation of israel, or the more philosophical concept.

"zionist" is someone who promotes the idea of the existance of the philosophical holy land, a home for the jewish people, and/or the nation state of Israel.

"christian" is a person, or a faith, "zion" is a place. The terms "xtian" and "zion" do not inherently have anything to do with each other, other than that some christians are also zionists.

"zian" means absolutly nothing.

not to mention faiths like Hinduism which are certainly religions with solidified beliefs, practices, and dogma, which have nothing to do with christianity and don't really care much about the concept or location of zion.

Ok, point taken...

I was being a bit ignorant, my apoligies. I'll be sure to pray and ease my soul. Terminology isn't my specialty.

Oh, and I never implied that Hinduisim was zian (I appoligize for using the term, but its what I use, and it makes sense), I regonise that Hinduisim and other polytheist religions usually were developed seprately from one another. I actually like polythesisim. Its nice to have choices. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-religious, its just all of the current religions arent any fun or interesting.

Oh, and I never implied that Hinduisim was zian (I appoligize for using the term, but its what I use, and it makes sense), I regonise that Hinduisim and other polytheist religions usually were developed seprately from one another. I actually like polythesisim. Its nice to have choices. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-religious, its just all of the current religions arent any fun or interesting.

Whether religions are fun and interesting doesnt matter to me. The beliefs are just as untrue. sadly people tend to believe what they like the sound of rather than what makes logical sense. Like people who believe in heaven but not hell. thats just fucked up. the evidence for heaven is pretty sparse, basically just a book. by denying hell they are saying that not everything in the book is true, yet still believe something totally ridiculous even though they dont believe other stuff from the same source. its insane. thank God we abandoned religion in this country.

Which side do you believe are the liars? Those that claim there is no god, or those that believe there is?
Right church, wrong pew. Those who hold beliefs obviously at odds with reality ( a literal interpretation of Genesis springs to mind ) are lying not only to others but to themselves. Those who say "belief is stupid" are lying to themselves about the obvious deep human urge toward spirituality.

Neither religion nor atheism has a corner on the market for lies.

To say that Atheists are somehow missing out on the spiritual side of life is no different to saying "people who don't drink coffee don't know what caffiene is".

They just get their awe from somewhere else - you don't need mythology to experience spirituality.

You certainly don't. All a person needs is a little marijuana.
I experienced a lot of awe and spirituality in the days when I was high on pot.

Hmm..I agree that religious people and atheists need to respect each other and just leave each other alone to their own beliefs.

But...

Are you saying, faith is purely a matter of perspective?

Also, are you implying that atheist only see cold-hard reality, whereas seeing something for it's potential is strictly a matter of having faith? I see something for it's potential, I'm very idealistic, and I'm atheist.

I think there are alot of atheism vs. religion threads (based on results of my poll) because, while alot of the religious types have no problem with christianity (3:1 ratio), atheists are more likely to have a negative view of religious (38:31). There are also more atheists on these forums than religious. I'll admit: my poll as it is is skewed since I didn't include a middle ground per say, but I think i'll do that tomorrow. Since Atheists are more likely to have a negative view of those who are indeed theists, and the religious are somewhat apt to defend themselves against attacks by the Atheists, there will be alot of conflict between the two. Thats my peliminary analysis.
Our negitive view usualy comes from personal experiences (personaly) as well as having to live with religious people constantly trying to restrict our rights based on their un-provable beliefs

You use your religion to justify treating me un-equaly I am sure as hell going to do my damned best to beat that base of support apart.

The ecosystem is not a life form. Look at the word, ecosystem. Nor is the universe. The universe is mostly nothing.

The nice magenta definite articles are mine.
Living things are all systems. The particles that make up the human body are mostly vacuum. Why should either of those two properties imply that something is not a form of life?

Our negitive view usualy comes from personal experiences (personaly) as well as having to live with religious people constantly trying to restrict our rights based on their un-provable beliefs

You use your religion to justify treating me un-equaly I am sure as hell going to do my damned best to beat that base of support apart.

In fairness, did he/she personally do this, or are you referring to religious people in general? Many religious people, myself included, do not engage in or condone that sort of discrimination.

In fairness, did he/she personally do this, or are you referring to religious people in general? Many religious people, myself included, do not engage in or condone that sort of discrimination.
In general

And you are right many do not ... and many of us athiest try to make it clear that you have every right to believe what you do.

BUT when we are trying to pick apart the perpetrators reasoning and that reasoning turns out to be christianity, in picking that apart we end up offending the reasonable christians as well as the not so reasonable ones.

But there is no way to really pervent such collateral damage

I understand what you're saying and largely agree.

But, I don't think you should say "you" when directly addressing someone who may not be remotely guilty of what you're talking about. That's all.

I have after many years of study decided that I tend to lean agnostic to atheist and yet feel that I am a very spiritual person. I find beauty every day and love life to it’s fullest.
I was raised to choose my own religion; my mother did not think that it was a choice that should be made lightly or by anyone else including her.
I have studied and practiced many of the mainstream religions and their sects. I have come to realize that organized religion tends to spread conflict and ignorance more often than not. (I want to clarify organized religion as the churches themselves, not the religious premise they preach.) I have found that many of the preachers ect, pick and choose what they want their religion will say and ignore the rest, they also seem to be very uninformed about the other religions that they denounce.
I have found organized religion tends to close people off from each other. All religions have basic principles of peace and love but are used to hate. If anything I think that spirituality should be a very personal quite thing.

Einstein was a genius and an idiot at the same time.


Yes, some scientists do believe in God. Which just goes to show that nobody's perfect.

I'm of the opinion that people who want to be hateful or intolerant are going to find justification for it in whatever belief system they adopt.

I'm of the opinion that people who want to be hateful or intolerant are going to find justification for it in whatever belief system they adopt.

Gotta love the human race...:headbang:

Personally, I think this is all a matter of misunderstanding, or refusal to do so. Can I believe in the Christian God without being Christian? Believe it or not, I can. I don't read the bible, I don't take what the bible has to say literally, but that doesn't mean that I can believe it what it has to say. Does the fact that contradictions exist mean God isn't real? No. The book isn't perfect; it was written by man, and man is imperfect. For every person who says that God's existance is unreasonable or impossible, PLEASE explain how everything got here. Explain what's outside of the boundaries of the universe. The truth of the matter is that we cannot see past 3 billion lightyears in any direction, and calculations say that our universe is 14 billion years old. There is so much that we don't know, so much that we cannot see, and so much that science cannot tell us. So unless you have the wisdow and knowledge of everything in the universe, I find it rather arrogant to completely disregard the possibility of a god.

Why does the answer have to as simple or complicated as "God created it all"?
There are many things we don’t know, that’s life, lets learn and explore. If your faith answers those questions, good for you, if that’s not enough for the rest of us, that’s fine too. Both answers are good.

Einstein on religion: “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description… If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.”

Einstein on religion: “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description… If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.”
A religion that avoids dogmata is not a religion; it is an idea.

Personally, I think this is all a matter of misunderstanding, or refusal to do so. Can I believe in the Christian God without being Christian? Believe it or not, I can. I don't read the bible, I don't take what the bible has to say literally, but that doesn't mean that I can believe it what it has to say. Does the fact that contradictions exist mean God isn't real? No. The book isn't perfect; it was written by man, and man is imperfect. For every person who says that God's existance is unreasonable or impossible, PLEASE explain how everything got here. Explain what's outside of the boundaries of the universe. The truth of the matter is that we cannot see past 3 billion lightyears in any direction, and calculations say that our universe is 14 billion years old. There is so much that we don't know, so much that we cannot see, and so much that science cannot tell us. So unless you have the wisdow and knowledge of everything in the universe, I find it rather arrogant to completely disregard the possibility of a god.

Ah, the god of the gaps. I would have thought people would have got tired of that after a few millenia.

Why does the answer have to as simple or complicated as "God created it all"?
Nature is God's greatest masterpiece. Why cannot we explore process of creation? Still we can see the majestic beauty that is BEYOND our understanding. What was before time? What happens after death? When new concepts of time are appearing like mushrooms after a rain - why are you so hateful towards belivers? Maybe you just don't "get it". I got it and "converted" although I hate institutions, dogmatism and stupidity (like hating homosexuals)!

Science is not an "alternative viewpoint" on anything, and saying so does a disservice to what science is.

What it is is the process of observation, hypothesizing, and experimenting. Science doesn't care if god made gravity, scientists only care about how it works. Scientists don't really care about whether trees have souls, they care about the biological methodogy. Science can not be "another" view of something because it is not a view of anything, it is simply a process designed to answer the fundamental questions of why and how.

Science deals with the hows not on the whys.

Asking questions to which one doesn't want an answer (mainly because false questions are purely rhetorical) is the basis of religious sentiment.

Science deals with the hows not on the whys.
Stop saying that. Everyone does, and it's blatently wrong. Science includes temporal causality, which is exactly the "why" of everything that ever is, was and shall be.

So unless you have the wisdow and knowledge of everything in the universe, I find it rather arrogant to completely disregard the possibility of a god.

Then you open the doors to bad science. You can't explain, God must of done it.

Science doesn't talk about God since it can't prove or disprove involvment.

How do you test for God?

If you come up with one, then you will go down in history and change the foundations of science.....

That's only bad science if you try and claim that it's science.

Why does the answer have to as simple or complicated as "God created it all"?
Nature is God's greatest masterpiece. Why cannot we explore process of creation? Still we can see the majestic beauty that is BEYOND our understanding. What was before time? What happens after death? When new concepts of time are appearing like mushrooms after a rain - why are you so hateful towards belivers? Maybe you just don't "get it". I got it and "converted" although I hate institutions, dogmatism and stupidity (like hating homosexuals)!

My message was
Why does the answer have to as simple or complicated as "God created it all"?
There are many things we don’t know, that’s life, lets learn and explore. If your faith answers those questions, good for you, if that’s not enough for the rest of us, that’s fine too. Both answers are good.


If your going to quote me than quote me, not edit me! I said that both answers are good. If you explore these questions due to your faith, and I explore them due to scientific curiosity, are either of us wrong? I agree with both sides, as long as you explore and learn. Where was I "hateful"?

If your going to quote me than quote me, not edit me! I said that both answers are good. If you explore these questions due to your faith, and I explore them due to scientific curiosity, are either of us wrong? I agree with both sides, as long as you explore and learn. Where was I "hateful"?
Damn, I even didn't aimed at you in the first place ;) I treat it like "I've to say it!" thread. Sorry. Beside this it's my last post about religion. Those who laugh at others because they see world from other perspective are authoritarian at their heart. Those who KNOW don't speak (I don't know, so I speak :P).
PEACE!