| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Do you have a scriptural reference?
I need a context.
Obviously not all convulsions are caused by demons, but when Jesus and his apostles expelled demons sometimes the demon threw the person they possessed into convulsions.
Mark 9:25-27 (New King James Version)
25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it,
Makes me think of the Gong Show Episode where the guy won when he did an impression of a slice of bacon in a frying pan turned on High.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh9YBw8nnXg
Very good misleading statement!
I'm sure glad that I research science more than you do the Bible.
"STONING
Under the Law, a wrongdoer deserving capital punishment usually was pelted to death with stones. (Le 20:2) This was to
The prospect of being the executioner made a person think searchingly in giving evidence and doubtless was a deterrent to false testimony, which, if discovered, would cost the lying witness his own life.
And all the laws in the land today cannot be twisted about, either.
Makes for a nice story, nice and tidy even-looks good-on paper... too bad reality works differently.
The problem with the bible is that it has been edited and edited and mistranslated and mishandled over and over by the some of most vile people that have ever walked the planet.
Kinda difficult to look at it as anything other than extremely flawed and compromised, at best. At the least, the other 90% of the useful papers have been left on the cutting room floor (and purposely destroyed) as they don't agree with the push from the world's oldest corporation.
God, Israel's King, Statute Giver, and Judge could read hearts.
Not too many in judicial systems today have this ability.
Also, God can restore life, again not too many humans around have this ability.
Lin
If I have found sufficient evidence for me to believe the Bible is the word of a God that has the power to create the universe, I would be a fool to think he does not have the ability to keep humans from changing the message contained therein.
The vile people that you mention did not obey the laws and commands contained in the Bible, they only claimed to be God's agents. If the Bible were solely the work of man (40 writers over 3500 years) there would not be the harmony of theme and much of the advice given on how to live life would produce bad results. If everyone on earth lived by the counsel contained in the Bible how much better would things be? M. Gandhi said that if people lived by the words of the sermon on the mount (an approx. 30 min. talk by Jesus) that the whole worlds problems would be solved.
Lin
Only partially.
What about the creationist view that God created the world and all its animals in six days?
They're joking right?
There YOU are. He may have the ABILITY but he has shown no desire to use it.
The foolish part is believing he will prevent anything.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/day
Check out #5 (hint "day" does not always mean 24 hrs.)
Just in case you are unaware the Bible was not written in English, sometimes the best word available is used in translating.
This is basic stuff, no sense going around in circles, hopefully we all have better things to do.
Lin
You are just like the Jews in the 1st century, they expected Jesus to fulfill their desires instead of taking the time to find out why things took place as they did.
You want God to fit your definition of what he should be.
Examine the issues brought up by Satan in the garden of Eden.
God was a bad ruler, he had no right to tell humans what was good and bad, he lied to them (he told them they would die if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad- Satan told them if they ate from it they would become like God deciding for themselves what was good and bad).
It takes time to settle these issues, remember all God's ways are justice.
Instead of viewing God as uncaring think about the pain he has endured from seeing the sufferings of his creation here on earth. Do you think that once the issues are solved to the point of meeting his standards of righteousness and justice he will wait one second longer to act and end all suffering?
Lin
Quite the opposite. It is you who believe the all mighty is going to look after your desires not me.
deleted for unkind comment
Later,
Lin
Interesting observation. Sometimes I have to come down a few levels so that others don't get lost on what I'm saying. (see above for a ref)
I believe in creation.
I also have thinking ability.
A "day" marks a period of time, a beginning and an end to a specific accomplishment.
Why does it have to be precise, again something you desire, not something needed.
I'm done replying to your nonsensical posts (because you are just too smart for me).
Goodbye,
Lin
And there you have it. What else would one expect from a belief system that is only backed up by that very same belief system and can't survive any kind of scrutiny. Where logic is rendered nonsensical and belief is rendered logical.
.... As the intellectual underclass marches off into the sunset (still safe in their beliefs) ....
Half admitting that I'm right, and half making up a retroactive justification. Looks like I've got ya! Here's a specific example:
"Luke 9:37-42 (New International Version) 37The next day, when they came down from the mountain, a large crowd met him. 38A man in the crowd called out, "Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child. 39A spirit seizes him and he suddenly screams; it throws him into convulsions so that he foams at the mouth. It scarcely ever leaves him and is destroying him. 40I begged your disciples to drive it out, but they could not."
41"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you and put up with you? Bring your son here." 42Even while the boy was coming, the demon threw him to the ground in a convulsion. But Jesus rebuked the evil spirit, healed the boy and gave him back to his father."
DUDE, that's epilepsy! After an episode of a minute or two, with or without Jesus, the convulsion stops! (it comes again later, of course)
Granted, the logic, precision and mathematical beauty of the universe suggests there is a higher power that made it come into being.
However, that's as far as it goes. Believing that this higher power cares for and looks after each and every individual is not supported by the facts. If people are as sheep to the "divine", the divine is the worst sheep herder imaginable. Any "good" shepherd will protect his flock from harm. Some intervention from time to time is necessary for the good of the flock. This is not happening now nor has it ever happened. The standard religious line about man having free will doesn't explain the apparent abandonment the human "flock" continues to endure.
We are supposed to worship an all powerful, all knowing, all seeing deity with no proof this being exists or cares for any individual. One instance of indisputable proof would end this and other discussions. The existence of the universe is not proof of a "good" Sheppard, nor is the resurrection "story". Citing either or both of them as proof is circular religious "logic".
That's the beauty of religion. There is no requirements other than to believe. But forcing the teaching of Darwin in public schools? It makes has much sense as teaching God created heaven and earth in public schools. Neither have ample evidence but only Darwin is required to be scientifically proven. In other words, Darwin is not the tree either side should be barking up on what to teach in public schools. Neither should be taught in public schools for two different reasons. First, separation of church and state and second, there is no evidence Darwin is correct. There is much evidence in the fossil record Darwin is right as there is evidence in the universe that God exists. Except believers do need to prove to anyone that God exists. His existence is absolute and without question based on faith and experience. Whatever that might be.
C'mon, what's your problem with Darwin? It's commonly accepted by the scientific community. According to those in the know there is plenty of evidence in fossil records that support evolution and natural selection. Not liking the evidence won't make it go away.
Creation "science" supporters claim that Carbon 14 dating doesn't work or is inaccurate. Radioactive decay is a simple fact. The rate it occurs in a given substance can be easily calculated. If this were not true then atomic bombs wouldn't work. The ability to calculate radioactive decay comes from the same physics that allows atomic explosions. You can't have one without the other. The math for one complements the other.
It's kind of like when the "Church" was saying the Earth was flat. Any sailor knew that wasn't so because you always see the top of the mast first when another ship is approaching.
Believe what you want. Darwin and his theory aren't going away.
Why does it have to be 100% one way or the other?
Matthew 4:23-24 (New King James Version)
23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people. 24 Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them.
In this instance Jesus expelled a demon and cured the boy of epilepsy. Jesus healed people with all kinds of infirmities, if it was all a shame he would not have impacted history as he did. Do you know of any record of his opponents in the first or second century using his "false" healing against him? Many tried to discredit him in other ways, but if he told someone they were cured and the next day they were the same as before this would have been used against him and he would not have had such an impact on peoples lives.
Lin
Again the issues raised in Genesis 3:1-5 concerning universal sovereignty have to be settled. This would take time and means that the offspring of Adam would suffer the consequences of his sin. Please read Job chapters 1 and 2 for more insight on the issues raised by Satan concerning servants of God.
God does not force anyone to serve him, he only shepherds those that search for him and willingly obey him. Even so God still provides for all humans. As an example the earth can provide enough food for everyone, human governments and people are to blame for the lack of proper distribution.
Sure he has the power to resolve all the problems on earth, but because there is a legal issue involved he has to wait until all matters are resolved beyond question and then he will act.
Revelation 21:3-4 (New King James Version)
3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying,
There are also some in the know among the scientific community that don't accept evolution as proven.
Better check some more facts about Carbon 14 dating, there are a few things that can affect the accuracy.
Necessary Assumptions
(1)
There is no evidence in the fossil record that supports Darwin. Like you stated, "it is commonly accepted". The life of Jesus is also commonly accepted. There is historic and scientific evidence that Jesus lived. There is historic and scientific evidence that Darwin lived. There is no connection in the fossil record that Darwin and Jesus originated from apes or whatever is the current fad of our evolution according to Darwinistas. There is nothing wrong with Darwin as long as his theory is the equivalent of secular gospel. Public schools are forced to teach it as a result of civil actions by the ACLU in their drive to get religion completely out of government. I wouldn't mind if they taught Darwin as a theory to be argued upon but they teach it as absolute fact with nothing scientific to stand on. It makes sense therefore it is true? You wouldn't let the reviewers of the magazine get away with something like that so what is the free pass for Darwin all about. Also, comparing Darwin to religion is moot. Religion should not be taught in public school. Darwin should be taught as a theory. No different than black holes. We know more about the existence of black holes in the universe based on physics than we know about Darwin's Theory of Evolution based on the historical record buried beneath the Earth's crust. Thus far nothing has been found. We cannot prove Darwin through physics. It has to find physical evidence. And enough physical evidence to make it so.
As for religion, it isn't a science. Just because the ACLU says "Evolution" must be taught in public school doesn't make it so. We have to ask ourselves who benefits from Darwin being forced taught and spoon fed in public schools. The ACLU certainly benefits from it. Teaching it as gospel in public schools doesn't benefit the students. It is generally accepted that it is gospel. Therefore, it must be true. Thus, there is no atmosphere to empirically test possible evidence for or against. The last place I want to learn about Darwin would be in a public school. Darwin passes all the tests except for one tiny little thing. Nobody has found anything in the fossil record. I keep driving this over and over again. There is nothing in the fossil record. We formulate our opinions of Darwin based simply on the written word and mostly from the media that benefit various people, places, and things. Mark Twain said it best about believing everything you read with asking yourself who benifits...
Face the facts. Most people get their information on Darwin and religion from the media. The media they want to read, watch, or listen. Nobody seems to want to argue against Darwin. The just "commonly accept it." That should be your first clue.
At least religion has its place in our Constitution. An intelligent person could care care less if I go to Mass every week. That I go to confession every ten years or so. It's my constitutional right. No religion of any kind should be taught in public school. Why do we have to use Darwin as the scapegoat? It's a dead end. Unless you believe what you want to believe. Darwin was a scientist. Bring him back from the dead and tell him we haven't found anything yet because nobody is really looking for it. We all know Darwin would not accept that as an excuse, which it is in fact. Why? Because we commonly accept it. Darwin's proof is in the excuse. Nice.
" Darwin should be taught as a theory."
It is. It's called "The Theory of Evolution" and aside from massive amounts of evidence not just from the Earth's crust, far more is supported by current, provable genetic science and genome sequencing.
Almost everyone misunderstands Darwin's theory because they make it seem like it can happen quickly and in a linear fashion. Not so at all. It happens almost infinitely slowly and in a rather chaotic and diffuse manner. Current apes will not eventually become human. Duh! Nor did we just show up one day human and our grand parents were ape. We're talking millions of years and with absurdly small changes happening. Same for all species. Or... does six days and a day of rest sound more reasonable? I guess the fact that all mammals share 99% of the same genes is just luck? If it were a God who planned it all out, why would every aspect of the observable universe be so rational and discernible and then a few major parts be based on fairy tale magic?
The other strange conclusion folks make is that the idea of evolution discounts the existence of God, of any sort of divine purpose. Why? Could not all these billions of years of striving and evolving be for the express purpose of becoming closer to the divine aspects of the universe?
Lin,
Although it should be obvious, you seem to be unaware of a fallacy you keep falling into. You may believe the Bible but you can't cite it to prove itself. Understand? I could quote you the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita or etc, but if you don't already "believe" them, the quotes won't be compelling to you - nor should they. Do you see that using the Bible as a reference is useless to someone who hasn't already bought into it? If I say, it is written that JimBob Pickle is the Creator of God, and it's absolutely true because the Book of Pickle says so in Chapter 2, it would be fallacious, circular reasoning? You see?
Why does God hate amputees?
Jesus, and Oral Roberts, and Pat Robertson, and lots of others calling themselves "faith healers" claim to "heal" people of cancer, arthritis, stomachaches, etc. So: God can cure diseases that are not visible to the eye - and He can cure only diseases that are known to naturally go into remission sometimes, regardless of prayer - but He has never, ever healed an amputee and caused their leg to grow back. Why?
(all religions have faith healers and miracles - you can see them on YouTube- so this question works for all)
Because...
Jesus was a sailor
As he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
That only drowning men could see him
He said "All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them"
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky was open
Foresaken, almost human
He sank beneath his wisdom like a stone.
If you believe a book is fiction than why do you make up hypothetical questions? First, off there is no answer to either of your questions. There is no proof that God hates amputees. God doesn't heal amputees. And there is mention in the Bible. I'll give you a clue. Jesus was there and somebody got their ear cut off. Now, what do you think Jesus did? Their is no requirement to answer questions on what God does or does not do. Why does God allow war to exist? Why does God allow you to exist? We can ask these questions all day long and get the same answer of why there is no evidence in the fossil record that Darwin was correct.
Also, Jesus does address amputees and the handicap in general in the Bible. I'll give you another clue. Jesus speaks in the form a parable, which is common during Biblical times, about the importance of accepting being handicapped. The parable suggests that losing a limb is not imporatant. We all have to go through trials in tribulations through life. In fact, we all have to suffer death.
Agnostics, athiests, and the like fail to understand that to a Christian God is more concerned with your soul than your temporary body. In fact, I don't believe God spontaneously heals people. There have been cases of unexplained cases of healthiness against all odds though the science dictated that the person should have died. Even doctors can't explain these occasional so-called miracles. You don't see such miracles happening with Darwin. There is no evidence that the turtle grew legs and a shell to become a turtle after being something else like a turtle with no legs and no shell.
I leave this with a couple of questions of my own. Why does God allow the majority to be plain old everyday stupid people? Why doesn't God strike down upon BillB a little bit of common sense and let people enjoy freedom of religion?
P.S.
I have a feeling that BillB's hard on for religion has more to do with how Christians vote than whether or not God exists. But he has the right to believe in what he wants. He fails to understand that people have the freedom of religion. BillB can't share in our constitutional rights.
Many people, such as myself, think Michael Jackson was a pointless freak. Many people love him because of his talent and what he accomplished professionally. Many people despise him because of his countless allegations and just being plain weird and spending his fortune away. But God loves Michael Jackson. God never did heal Michael's physical and mental needs. But that is not proof that God hated Michael Jackson. Michael was a self induced handicapped person. His temporary body is nothing more than a lump of shit right now. I believe Michael sits in Heaven a humble soul though a part of me believes he should burn in Hell. Are going to condemn me now about my double standard of being a Christian? Because I can answer that quite easily. I'm no monument to Christianity.
But I have a secular right to believe in God. Get that out of the Constitution. And as such I do allow my faith to play a role when I vote no different than many of the architects of our Constitution. That is what scares people like BillB. Lump all Christians into fundamentalists. Create the poor Christian into some sort of monster. The fact remains that people will vote based on their faith. Americans have been doing just that since the founding of our nation. Live with it.
If you don't believe that Darwin was right so be it. If you believe there is no proof so be it.
The fact that there is overwhelming evidence in support of Darwin and that most real scientists and researchers support Darwin seems to have escaped you.
The only "researchers and scientists" who dispute Darwin are creationists. They have an agenda to follow.
Making the "facts" fit preconceived beliefs is not science. It's nothing more than wishful thinking. That's what "creation science" is.
We have several pages of people stating Darwin is fact. But not one page of evidence to show for it. A lot of talk is all. Why? Because there is no evidence. Just a lot of talk.
As for religion. It isn't a science. The only requirement is that you believe. If you don't believe than you don't need to participate. Religion, Christianity, the Bible is not science. It is not subject to the scientific method like Darwin. There is no creationist science. There is the science of evolution taught in public schools based on preconceived secular beliefs.
People supporting Darwin in this thread sound just like the Christian fundamentalists they have a major hard-on against.
The truth is out there. Look for yourself. You mind is made up and no amount of proof will satisfy you.
My mind is not made up. Just asking for the evidence. Something nobody is able to produce. Instead, it is the same old deflection back to the Bible, which isn't science.
I hate to burst you bubble but you did it again. The first paragraph is false and you only believe it because it fits your preconceived argument against creationism. If you have a "constant growing mountain of evidence" than why the op/ed instead of one little piece of physical evidence?
What I find interesting is your excuse is on a wordpress canned blog site and to really pull the wool over my eyes there is not one single citation in the whole opinion/editorial. What you did was just post somebody's opinion that isn't even participating in this thread. You can type and think for yourself?
Again, the double edged sword of Darwin and you've become the next one to fall on that sword. Darwin is science. A theory is to be empirically tested to prove whether or not it is false or true. You don't get a one way trip on scientific theory. In fact, and I'll write it again, Darwin's theory is really just an hypothesis. I suggest you go back to the fundamentals of science. Especially the scientific method. Did you not read the part about people getting what they know about Darwin from the media? Go back and read the quote by Mark Twain. He's talking about you. And not in the first sentence.
I think that it is also time to state that Darwin wrote six editions of The Origin of Species in his lifetime. Why? Because people kept hounding him about the lack of geological record to support his theory. Darwin puts it into a better perspective....
He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory.
-- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1872
What Darwin is referring to is the argument of his time that the fossil record was too imperfect to prove. Since his time the geological formations are found to be extremely reliable. There has been enough advancement in the study of of the earth fossil record since Darwin's time and yet there is no improvement to Darwin's theory. We find all sorts of specimens in the fossil record. And yet nothing that Darwin could of used.
A few of you are just a bad as the fundamentalist Christians you attack. You use the same methods to prove your points no different than the enemy. If fundamentalist Christians are so ass backwards than what is up with you idiots using the same methods based on the same amount of evidence. The only difference I see is that the fundamentalist Christian doesn't have to prove anything scientific. You're arguing in the same manner fundamentalist Christians use on something you believe is fiction. It doesn't make logical sense. Surely, as intelligent people you can muster a better argument to what amounts to people claiming that Harry Potter is real. The only thing you can pull out of your ass is the same methodology that you condemn in some dark dingy corner of the religious clauses chiseled in the 1st Amendment. That surely Charles Darwin was correct? And that's it? Darwin isn't religion. Stop acting like it is and pay up.
"Freedom of belief and freedom of worship", doesn't apply to Darwin. But it does apply to God and man's free-will. Darwin doesn't get a free-will pass. What he gets is an "F" in any given private school where creative thinking may be applied and encouraged. We already know he gets and "A" in public school. Lawyers made that decision. And we all just believe anything a lawyer would argue in a court of law.
Not false. All the theories of science are just that, theories:
Astronomy: Big Bang Theory
Biology: Cell theory
It is false. All theories are to be empirically tested to prove whether they are false or true. Darwin is no different. There is no record to support Darwin in the fossil record. Until we can link physical evidence Darwin, like you stated, is just a theory (hypothesis). Darwin himself stated as such. So, yes you're correct in a sense. Darwin is not a matter of fact. I'm a little troubled that you would back yourself into such a corner.
You misunderstand the role of science. Science is in the business of trying to understand how things work. It is not searching for truth.
Once a hypothesis has been given enough evidence it becomes an accepted working theory and can then be used to help understand related phenomenon.
For example: recent studies have determined that certain strains of bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. The best way to understand this is with the theory of evolution specifically natural selection.
So, is it natural selection or is it creationism? Does it matter weather one or the other is true? What matters is that we understand what is happening so that we can take steps to deal with the issue. In this case evolution theory can help us and creationism cannot.
Which would you rather have your doctor rely on when he is making a treatment choice for you?
Science is not searching for truth? Why do you fail completely in the first sentence of every post you make? Nevertheless, based on your own assumption Darwin shouldn't be forced to be taught in public school. At the very least it should be taught as an afterthought. Basically, this is your position on anything scientific. So, "the problem with science is that it is based" not on truths but "how things work". That makes no logical sense. Show me something indicating how Darwin works. Like a turtle with no legs or a shell evolving in a turtle with legs and a shell. Like I have stated several times. Darwin is so antiquated that it should be considered an hypothesis. There has been no breakthrough on the theory. It is failing the same argument 150 years later. The argument hasn't changed. Only the excuse that Darwin must be correct. You cited natural selection as an excuse to support Darwin's theory. What do you think Darwin's Theory is? It is the theory of natural selection. Natural selection is the key element in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. So, I'll point that one out for a start. "Point me in the right direction" that Darwin's natural selection is proof of Darwin's natural selection. Next time, try thinking and typing for yourself rather pasting and cutting bullshit off the Internet. You do have a library in your town? Some other moron in this thread mentioned that Darwin is correct because there are books in the library.
At this point I'll go back to my first assertion: Creationists are in the process of creating an intellectual underclass for themselves, they are evolving into retards.
You above all other posters to this thread typify this. You are the one that clearly misunderstands science and consistently ignores the facts and spouts the same tired old religious dogma. It is exactly folks like you that, if given the chance, would lead us back into the dark ages.
I for one am glad you are nothing but a dollboy pretending to be human troll.
No. So lets turn this around for a minute and see who's assertions are correct.
I gave you a mountain of scientific theories and I contend that not one of them is searching for truth. (except Theory of truth)
Show me where this contention is incorrect.
Actually it makes perfect sense to non-retards.
This is so simple a child could understand it. (i do)
Science is a quest for knowledge.
Religion is quest for truth.
If you confuse them you confuse yourself (as you clearly have).
The key to science is to make TESTABLE hypotheses, test them, and observe the results.
If an idea can not be falsified (i.e. you can not propose a direct or indirect test) then you can't make the idea scientific. (Yes, we could argue about String Theory here, as well as some other ideas that have some scietific backing but that may not rise to the level of accepted theory.)
Evolution is a scientific theory. It can be tested, it has been tested, and it has been absolutely, incontrovertably verified by direct observation. It's hard to be more scientific than that.
Creationism is not only NOT falsifiable, a mountain of evidence against it is available, even though the theory is not falsifiable. This puts creationism of the usual sort, at least, at the bottom of the heap.
Tautological creationism, which is the idea that at some point, any point, we were created to appear to have history, etc, like we came into existance via evoltion and abiogensis (two different things), but that we were created, basically, with the creator intending to decive us, is not falsifiable, but at least accepts the existance of evidence.
Tautological creationism of the "god kicked the starter, and it all ran down hill from there" is also non-falsifiable and non-testable, but in that case, you have to accept evolution as "gods way of working".
"intellegent design" is just a ridiculous, contrary-to-evidence attempt to maliciously, dishonestly insert totally insane-fundie-religion into the science curriculum. It is a direct, intentional attempt at treason, it is an attempt to usurp the Constitution of the USA, and is in any part completely dishonest and evil.
The various "gaps" arguments are also dishonest at their core, when a transition fossil is found, the dishonest arguers for creationism then create two "gaps" one on either side, in a bald, intentional exercise of a slippery slope.
Creationism, in a completely uneducated person, is understandable, because the person has not been exposed to the evidence.
A person strongly espousing creationism of any sort, one who claims to be informed, is either not informed, or is simply attempting to pass off religion as science.
As to "religion is a quest for truth", sorry, no, religion is many things, most of them involving some kind of supernatural involvement, some of them having a philosophical component as well, or in place of supernatural mythology. Religion is adherence to dogma, to the words of other human beings who have put the deity or entity of their choice's words ahead of their own ability to reason.
Religion requires BELIEF.
Science requires EVIDENCE.
One can believe and still be a scientist, of course, but one's religious belief is not scientific, UNLESS THE CLAIMS ARE TESTABLE AND FALSIFIABLE.
And to date, nothing calling itself a religion has come forth with testable and falsifiable claims that are not rapidly falsified.
N.B. It is important to understand the difference between falsified and falsifiable. One means "shown wrong", the other means "there must be some way to test this hypothesis that could give a negative answer IF it is wrong".
Religion, by and large, does not change, it is dogma, set in stone, supported by belief.
Science, faced with new evidence, changes. Sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly, but it does in fact change.
Fair enough. Forget about religion.
Philosophy is the search for truth.
So science cannot be the search for truth and religion cannot be the search for knowledge. Again, knocking yourself out of water with the absolutely asinine statements. But you're just a kid.
Pages