the science of creation

scot88

as my grandfather said, "people a lot smarter than you and i have believed in god"

catefrances

scot88 wrote:

as my grandfather said, "people a lot smarter than you and i have believed in god"

and good luck to them.


but you know, i don't think intelligence is a factor when it comes to faith.

scot88

catefrances wrote:

and good luck to them.


but you know, i don't think intelligence is a factor when it comes to faith.

i think he meant that people have pondered the topic of religion for far longer and more in depth than you or i ever possibly could, but reached the ultimate conclusion that there is a god.

catefrances

scot88 wrote:

i think he meant that people have pondered the topic of religion for far longer and more in depth than you or i ever possibly could, but reached the ultimate conclusion that there is a god.

and as i said, good luck to them.

deadnothingbetter

sicnevol wrote:

Indeed, but to go to College and study theology, is to study religion. If you were to just study god the class would be as follows.
and time.

see you next week for the Final.

yeah, that's probably true. but my brother who is now getting his master's in teaching (in fact, he's graduating in may) took a class about this certain topic. he said that it was actually very thought provoking and he really learned a lot more than going to a regular bible college.

Ahnimus

scot88 wrote:

as my grandfather said, "people a lot smarter than you and i have believed in god"

Even smarter people don't.

According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the UK Mensa Magazine in 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."[78] A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal God or afterlife was at an all time low among the members of the National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal God as compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[79]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Demographics

deadnothingbetter

Ahnimus wrote:

Even smarter people don't.

According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the UK Mensa Magazine in 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."[78] A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal God or afterlife was at an all time low among the members of the National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal God as compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[79]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Demographics

oh god this is such a typical discriminizing analysis. haha you are full of it ahnimus.

Ahnimus

deadnothingbetter wrote:

oh god this is such a typical discriminizing analysis. haha you are full of it ahnimus.

Ok, if that analysis is bullshit, then the Bible is bullshit.

As long as we are able to just call stuff bullshit all we please and dismiss it without critical analysis.

Oh and Mary was raped by her neighbour Ben Pandera.

And Easter is a pagan tradition, so is NSI/Winter Solstice/Christmas

Your version of the story is only dominant because people of your faith killed everyone else. Vile criminals!

History goes to the victors. But the truth is incontrovertible.

deadnothingbetter

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, if that analysis is bullshit, then the Bible is bullshit.

As long as we are able to just call stuff bullshit all we please and dismiss it without critical analysis.

Oh and Mary was raped by her neighbour Ben Pandera.

And Easter is a pagan tradition, so is NSI/Winter Solstice/Christmas

Your version of the story is only dominant because people of your faith killed everyone else. Vile criminals!

History goes to the victors. But the truth is incontrovertible.

hey, easy cupcake. i was only teasing you. just cause someone believes in something whether it be god or whatnot, doesn't make them stupid. are you honestly going to believe in that analysis? hahaha i am literally laughing here.

Kann

Ahnimus wrote:

As long as we are able to just call stuff bullshit all we please and dismiss it without critical analysis.

Well it looks like bs. The article doesn't say if there are any bias, and just by reading that part I can think of at least a dozen. So that article is actually bullshit, unless he really comes up with interesting arguments against the bias (which I didn't see).
You can't call things "truth" just because someone wrote it in wiki. If you want to fight God and religion with science go ahead and use solid facts and logic, or else you are also using your faith. Scientific facts aren't truths because someone said so.

Ahnimus

Kann wrote:

Well it looks like bs. The article doesn't say if there are any bias, and just by reading that part I can think of at least a dozen. So that article is actually bullshit, unless he really comes up with interesting arguments against the bias (which I didn't see).
You can't call things "truth" just because someone wrote it in wiki. If you want to fight God and religion with science go ahead and use solid facts and logic, or else you are also using your faith. Scientific facts aren't truths because someone said so.

The Bible looks like bullshit too. Ancient texts aren't truth because most people believe it.

Kann

Ahnimus wrote:

The Bible looks like bullshit too. Ancient texts aren't truth because most people believe it.

Obviously. But no one considers the bible as litteral proof (the genesis for example) except a fringe of fanatics. What I was stating is if you want to hold scientific facts and/or arguments against the bible/monotheist faith make sure that, at least, it is scientific.
You wanted a critical analysis, there it is. No survey is acceptable unless bias are controlled, they aren't mentionned, so the survey is unacceptable. Thus there is no proof of "an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence".

cornnifer

catefrances wrote:

. though quite honestly, if you made something as wonderous as the earth and all the rest, why oh why would you step aside and leave the children in charge? everyone knows what kids are like home alone without supervision.

Why do i give my chidren toys on therir birthday, when i know quite assuredly, they will soon break them? In fact, why did i, or anyone else for that matter, have children at all, knowing they would at times be naughty and disobey me?
None of these philosophical arguments against a theistic worldview hold water.

catefrances

cornnifer wrote:

Why do i give my chidren toys on therir birthday, when i know quite assuredly, they will soon break them? In fact, why did i, or anyone else for that matter, have children at all, knowing they would at times be naughty and disobey me?
None of these philosophical arguments against a theistic worldview hold water.

ooh cornnifer i was joking. note the big smilie.

pjfanatic4

Ahnimus wrote:

Are you willing to interpret it in such a way that it's all metaphorical, including Jesus Christ. The Sun of God, who walks on water, i.e. light reflecting on water, who's Light shall be seen by all, who was born on Dec 25, to the backdrop of the Constellation Virgo?

If it's not literal, then it's most likely best interpreted this way. Are you willing to do that?

No A,

It's not most likely interpreted your way. It's not black and white, there are not only two choices.

As others have stated, the collection of books that conform the Bible is very complex. It can be interpreted in many ways, thus the many denominations that fall under the Christian faith. Under the Catholic faith, the Bible is complemented by Tradition, those teachings that were handed down generation by generation from the start of the Church. For Catholics, the Bible is extremely important, but it isn't Sola Scriptura. I'm sure you know this already. There are other beliefs not written specifically in the Bible, but supported through the Bible.

Catholic priests go through 4 years of philosophy and 4 years of theology before they are ordained. It isn't easy to understand everything that is involved in the Catholic Faith, in fact, in can be overwhelming. That's why us catholics rely on our priests and up to the Pope for interpretations.

It goes back to the same issue, Faith. You won't be able to ever prove scientifically that God exists. And you'll never run out of man-thought explanations to debunk any faith.

cornnifer

catefrances wrote:

ooh cornnifer i was joking. note the big smilie.

i saw it. many people do adhere to such arguments though so couldn't help chiming in. No offense to you

chopitdown

Kann wrote:

You can't call things "truth" just because someone wrote it in wiki.

yeah, whatever

Gremmie95

catefrances wrote:

whilst we're on such a religious kick, here's a question to ponder.


does science contradict the Genesis account of creation?

Hence, in the late 1800's, namely in Wales, the conversation of the "Gap theory" came into play. Basically they were not disputing Genesis, just suggesting the time frame was over the course of millions of years, Needless to say, this did not go over well with most fundamental Christians.

Abookamongstthemany

I've read a theory somewhere about the Big Bang being triggered by the same chemical that creates love.

Ahnimus

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I've read a theory somewhere about the Big Bang being triggered by the same chemical that creates love.

Which one? Oxytocin, Vadopressin, Norepinephrine, etc..?