Liverpool FC Forum

[JoeTerp]

I am not sure if you can even say most. Certainly a very large percentage, if not most of the the christians in the bible take a very literal interpretation of the bible.

EVEN if you take it the old testament stories at metaphors, there is still a whole lot of LAW in there that is totally amoral. If you don't think the 10 commandments came from Mt. Sinai, then where did they come from? did somebody make them up? or you believe that god really at least talked to somebody.

and then you have to believe in everything in the new testament actually happened or at least the real important stuff like someone rising from the dead and then ascending into heaven (where exactly?  did he just keep going into space like a radio wave?)  Most theologians say things like heaven is not a physical place in the universe but more of a state of mind or something.

Then there is the whole corruption of every church ever, but "religion" is pure. WTF  can everyone just make up their own "rules" for what Jesus means to them.

Religious moderation makes less sense than religious fundamentalism.

[LFC2007]

Well there are (and have been) many, many different Christian interpretations (hence the number of denominations) - that's just a fact, and most of these interpretations don't take the bible simply to be the word of god as if he whispered it in someone's ear, but rather as an expression of his will. There are obviously some elements that are more explicit than implicit, and here you could use the ten commandments as an example.

But, I'm not going to debate the validity of those beliefs, simply because you can't. I'm merely making the point that interpretations of the Christian bible vary considerably and that in most cases, the religious beliefs held by a scientist shouldn't impinge upon their professional work. Those whose religious views are in direct conflict with their scientific work to such an extent that their faith will always take precedent regardless of their scientific findings, I agree couldn't be taken seriously in the scientific community (e.g. creationists). Principles to live by don't rely on proof.

[kalos]

Joe Terp said:

I don't think you can consider youself a serious scientist if you believe in God, it flies in the face of what it means to be a scientist and the scientific method


Evolution flies in the face of the scientific method as well. The 4th step in scientific method is
do an experiment to test your hypothesis.

Since noone can prodcue life form non-living matter to test the notion that this happened at some point; evolution is a matter of faith as much, if not more, than religion is.

[JoeTerp]

I don't think you understand the theory of evolution

[Sabre]

I don't think you can consider youself a serious scientist if you believe in God, it flies in the face of what it means to be a scientist and the scientific method

Bóllocks. If they give us a theorem to prove, and I prove it mathematically and you don't, I'll be the good scientist. And you won't.

I don't think you can consider yourself a good scientist if you think the scientist beliefs are important to be a scientist. . A scientist must prove his stuff, not claim his beliefs. Your beliefs when you're a scientist are as important as the club you support, it's nothing to do with it.

[aCe']

[Judge]

didnt a guy named Bruno a few hundred years ago dared to say that the earth went around the sun, and he was burned at the stake, and he reckonede life was on other planets??

[SouthCoastShankly]

I don't think you understand the theory of evolution

Agreed Evolution is both theory and fact by scientific definition.

Also many would be surprised that Darwin was a religious man. David Attenborough also has said he believes in god. Richard Dawkins is a staunch atheist yet he still accepts the stance that some think it is valid that there was God who used Evolution as his method of creation, fundamentally not taking the account of Genesis literally.

It is only of recent that it seems popular that you have to make a binary choice, I.e. Evolution or Literal creation, but many theologians and writers alike now prefer a compromised stance.

[LFC2007]

Darwin was religious for a time but there's a lot to suggest he had his doubts, particularly toward the end of his life. David Attenborough isn't religious and never has been, although it is certainly true to say that he doesn't believe evolution to be incompatible with a belief in a god. Dawkins doesn't see the idea that the Christian God created the laws of physics as being compatible with evolution, he just doesn't consider it as threatening/annoying/ridiculous as the creationist stance.

[shanklygates]

...

[JoeTerp]

Christian Side Hug

[heimdall]

I don't think you can consider youself a serious scientist if you believe in God, it flies in the face of what it means to be a scientist and the scientific method

hmm so I suppose Einstein wasn't a "real scientist" then.

[JoeTerp]

he didn't believe in God

[heimdall]

he didn't believe in God

Yes he did, not in dogma but he certainly believed in a higher being/consciousness type of thing.

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma 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 as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.

Also check out http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-....ogy.htm

[account deleted by request]

Einstein :- ""Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."   "God does not play dice, although he is quite interested in Dundalks last man standing "