Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
You're seeing the picture to short. It would not exclude religion as a whole. You can still believe in God while practicing science.
Everyone makes mistakes. Btw, I was talking about 'blind belief in religion'.
You're seeing the picture to short. It would not exclude religion as a whole. You can still believe in God while practicing science.
But then you have to chose which parts of religion you accept, and which parts you reject. Religion is certainly never completely right.
But then you have to chose which parts of religion you accept, and which parts you reject. Religion is certainly never completely right.
You can still believe in God while practicing science.
You should say: You can still believe in God while practicing SOME science.
You should say: You can still believe in God while practicing SOME science.
Btw, I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I don't believe in God. But I can understand others that do. I know some of my fellow friends that like to become spiritual doctors.
That's just to laugh at. You can practice 100% science and still believe in God. Science doesn't prove God does not exist, as it can not be proven.
But I can understand others that do.
Well, that's my point, I can't, I really can't. I have friends myself who are religious, and I've always said that I'll always respect their choice, but I've also said I'll never understand their choice.
Well, that's my point, I can't, I really can't. I have friends myself who are religious, and I've always said that I'll always respect their choice, but I've also said I'll never understand their choice.
That's just to laugh at. You can practice 100% science and still believe in God. Science doesn't prove God does not exist, as it can not be proven.
If someone believes in a God how can he/she truly think outside the box with the limitations of his/her believe?
If someone believes in a God how can he/she truly think outside the box with the limitations of his/her believe?
The Bible should not be seen as a history book, but more as a guidence book. There are many that believe in God but don't believe he created the world.
(edited)
(edited)
And that's the problem of believe in a religion, the free interpretation. That's how all fundamentalism can be justified.
Fundamentalism is mostly based on direct interpretation of one sentence or some sentences.
Fundamentalism is not a problem of religion, it is a problem of humans.
If there would be no religion, humans would find something else to fight and die for.
You talk about human nature now :)
Fundamentalism is not a problem of religion, it is a problem of humans.
If there would be no religion, humans would find something else to fight and die for.
You talk about human nature now :)
I don't think you realize how many people accept the Bible, or other books of the single-god religions, as the only truth. And not only the single-god religions but many other religions. But we are talking about the Bible now so I use that as example. The free interpretation makes it possible some people can be ok scientists, but many can't because of the limitations. Take Genesis and explain evolution and the Big Bang in a scientific way for example if the Bible is right.
If someone believes in a God how can he/she truly think outside the box with the limitations of his/her believe?
By rejecting religion as a source of eternal truth. Religion is to many a source of moral codes. That does not conflict with science and is precisely why Einstein advocated religion next to science. Pure science is without morals, amoral if you will. Research and application without morality is pure evil. Which isn't to say religion should provide said moral guidance, of course. (Any set of moral codes which fits within our idea of right and wrong will do.)
Ask Wybo if you want someone with a good head on his shoulders. He is religious and scientific.