Perhaps, but not necessarily so. Pedophile priests who molested children were probably quite familiar with the bible and religious beliefs and teachings. However, it did not prevent them from being monsters. And their superiors, who caught wind of their conduct and its potential fallout had been quick to move those perps elsewhere, where they could begin anew. You'd think that these "superiors" would have exhibited better values and judgment. And then there are the televangelists who prey on the gullible and line their pockets with the welfare checks of the stupid poor and live like kings (although "robber barons" would be a more apt description). Those guys also seem to be familiar with religious teachings, but for some reason it didn't quite take, eh? My point is that there are good people in this world and there are bad people. I don't think that religion can claim a majority share of either, so I think it is fairly superfluous in that regard. Let's not kid ourselves. Most, if not all, people who claim to have had a supernatural encounter are either looking for attention (I once again refer you to televangelists, and even GWB who claimed that God told him to go into Iraq) or are mentally disturbed. At least that is how it has played out thus far. Be honest: if someone came up to you and claimed to have had a supernatural encounter, what would be the first thought to enter your mind?
It doesnt for me. People are always coming up with reasons people should part with their faith. The fact is, there's more to this universe, and the nature of life, than we will ever know in your life, you can fill your head with all the science you want, you're still not going to get all the answers. I'm not against science, many in my family have science degrees, including myself. But it's not a substitute for faith. My ancestors were good fairly down to earth people (German Catholics), and while not zeolously religious, their faith was an important part of them. Will I come up with a better idea than they had, before I go? I'll meet people who THINK they do, but deep down I know I wont. I followed these people into this life, I'll follow them out. If by chance they were wrong, I'll make the same mistake they did.
I agree with you to a point. The whole dark matter thing has always bothered me, becasue it's kind of extrapolated because their models don't work in certain areas. But, that said, I don't think any scientist believes the universe is steady state any more. If you look at just the radioactive elements in the universe alone, it rules out a steady state universe. You said you were a evolutionist, right? Well, there are puzzlers about evolution that no one can explain or the explanation seems unlikely, right? You've got punctuated equilibria, parallel evolution and a lot of things that seem to have nothing to do with natural selection. Yet it's clear from genetics that evolution did occur at least in large part. But would you throw out the entire theory of evolution just because you can't explain the Cambrian Explosion, for example? I think that's analagous to what you're doing here: throwing out the Big Bang because they are fine tuning their knowlegde of the universe. And, by the way, you won't hurt my feelings if you completely disagree with me...I'm simply a lay person who enjoys both science and faith...
Yes, there are many studies where good results were achieved when the cohort got the molecule in question from foods compared with the cohort that got the molecule from a supplement. It has left scientists many times scratching their head. And, by the way, the same thing with the Mediterranean Diet. Scientist don't know whether it's the Red Wine/Alcohol, Olive Oil, the nuts, the fruits/vegetables, the whole grains or what. They only know that all of them working together greatly improve mortality, heart disease, cancer rates, etc.
to the first part of your post, I can only say that in general the only people Jesus got really mad at were the religious hypocrits. And I never meant to imply that religion has a monopoly on nice people, etc. I just think it's going too far to say that one's worldview has no bearing on one's morals. Look at what happened in American in the 60's. Surely that was shaped by belief system(s)?
There is no scientific evidence of a personal God. If there were a personal God, there would be evidence of it. That there is no scientific evidence of a personal God does not mean that there cannot be some other impersonal force that does not act within the natural world. But belief in such a being/force would be a totally blind leap of faith. Science does not deal with blind leaps of faith, but rather in natural phenomena.
This is a truism. Similarily, the "reality" of this world puts the athiest in a potentially better position than a theist who believes our Father made it. For it is better that such a god be thought non-existant than what the other two alternatives imply, that is, that our Father is either insane or dead. God does not require belief. Certainly not by His Son. God is. Unbelief won't change that, and belief won't establish it. Belief is only temporarily required by those who have temporarily denied our Father's existence by the belief in this world. When this world is denied by disbelief, our Father will be known after He is remembered. Science tends to establish the "reality" of this world. Investment in it would establish our Father as insane, dead, or non-existent. Christian Science, now, that is perhaps worth investing in. Jesus
"There is no scientific evidence of a personal God. If there were a personal God, there would be evidence of it." Another fine example of an argument from ignorance... Let's paraphrase the above statement to show his silly and ridiculously illogical the above statement is, as it would be easy to imagine someone saying the statment below as little as 100 years ago: "There is no scientific evidence of cosmic rays. If there were cosmic rays, there would be evidence of it." Commonly in an Argument from Personal Incredulity or Argument from Ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of opinion which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if "obvious" is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view). [edit] Argument from ignorance The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form: * Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true. * Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
I know I will just hate myself in the morning but... you say this world (your thoughts) are an illusion and are to be denied. Then It follows, all your thoughts on what you call the Father are an illusion and are to be denied. What you think is to be "remembered", what you say God is or isn't, is all an illusion. Dude, don't you think you should rethink all the denial stuff? oops No you can't, makes no difference, its illusion. All this Hippy philosophy died in the 60's man. Oh now look, I knew it. You mentioned Christian Science , all of a sudden I feel so dirty.