SIGN UP

Why The Hostility Towards Believers?

Avatar Image
Theland | 05:21 Sun 05th Nov 2017 | Religion & Spirituality
80 Answers
Scientists who follow the evidence, and conclude that evolution and abiogenesis, and even the origin of the universe, required an intelligent designer, run the risk of losing their research funding, or even their jobs.
The prevailing attitude amongst the purse holders, is that only a materialistic view in science will be tolerated, regardless of the evidence.
Sadly it is the groups that shout loudest and remain in favour with the universities, who mould public opinion, and so the truth struggles to find a voice.
Do not fall for it. Think for yourself and read the bible for yourself. Check out Christian apologists, such as Chuck Missler on YouTube and give the evidence a fair hearing.
It is your future that is at stake.

Answers

61 to 80 of 80rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Gosh. I wonder if, after death, in those few seconds we know we are dead, whether we also know if we are in heaven or hell. Or neither.
Ladybirder, theres loads of youtube vids of people that have found themselves in *HELL* when they have died.
its not all light and forgiveness!

On the upside, Ive got rather a different take on the subject of near death experiences b4 the religious highjack it for their own...
Nailitt thank you. I don't know if I dare look.
It's nothing strange, lb. The brain carries on a while after the heart stops. It's just a difference in the definition of "death". If you were really dead, you would know nothing.
Yeah, go on have a look and scare urself!
Just type in youtube hell near death experience.

And then think, hang on a min, what other ways are there at looking at this?

And then if ur still stumped, get back to me ;-)
jim; // But I don't think that using Einstein in particular as an example is fair. "The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not," for example, shouldn't be taken as a literal acceptance that God exists -//

Max Jammer, a friend of Einstein and a professor of physics, in his book, Einstein & Religion, quotes him as saying; "There is harmony in the cosmos which I with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry, is they quote me to support their views" ........ "Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men" ........ " I want to know how God created the world".
There are many more quotes of him.
The ‘limited human mind’ bit of that^^^^
Is the answer. Faced with something we can’t yet comprehend, the temptation is to explain it all away with a creator theory.
If your mind is thinking 'Oh I'm dead' then you're not dead. IMO.
Zacs; //the temptation is to explain it all away with a creator theory. //
You obviously don't fall for all that ***, so may we have the benefit of your theory please?
Job 26, 7 is an interesting scripture. How was it known back then that the earth hung upon nothing?.
Depends on your definition of death clover! Death is not an event, its a process. Certain 'tests' might show that youre 'dead' but there are cells in your body which carry on living after 'science' has declared you dead. Begs the question, what is *you*?
Khandro, I’ve no idea. Minds immeasurably superior to mine haven’t come to any feasible conclusion. But......they’ve come to a damn site better conclusion than any religious reasoning.
God means different things to different people, so deciding whether or not such-and-such a person believes in God can be tricky because you don't know which God they mean.

In as much as I really care about what Einstein said about God, I certainly know that he rejected the idea of any religious God. If he saw the harmony in the Universe as the sign of a creator, then sure, fair enough, but it doesn't particularly sway me. Newton, too, believed in God (and spent almost as much time studying Revelation as he did gravity), but so what? Up until around the middle of the 19th Century, science and religion often walked hand-in-hand, because once the attitude of the Middle Ages was shaken off it was clear that neither necessarily had much to say about the other. Scientific study can be as well-motivated by a desire to understand the wonders of Creation as it is by just an idle curiosity.

Also there's a cultural aspect too. As and when religion and notions of God disappear, and then independently re-emerge because of scientific studies leaving room for no other conclusion, then you'll be able to persuade me that God exists in the minds of scientists because he *has* to, not merely because they think he does.
Khandro, Your posts are misleading. Einstein dismissed the notion that ‘God’ as we generally understand the concept was the creator.

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."
“ The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."

“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Jourdain, //…he had an 'experience' he told me about it. I also had a religious experience.//

Okay, but since you attribute those experiences to religion, both you and he assume you know the source – and that, I think, is a mistake simply because the God of the bible is not the God the church promotes. That one doesn’t exist in fact or fiction. I do, however, completely understand your enthusiasm for your community-orientated village. Believe it or not over the years I’ve raised a lot of money for our little 14th century church (shock horror!) – and the Rector – not that she understands a word I’m talking about when we discuss religion - is my very good friend. :o)
naomi, as usual, you wobble. // Einstein dismissed the notion that ‘God’ as we generally understand the concept was the creator.//
Of whom do you speak when you say "we"? see jim's opening paragraph above.
Einstein most certainly believed in God as the creator, but that does in no way mean that he believed in a personal God - the straw-man god which you keep dragging out in order to dismiss.

Khandro, where’s the wobble? Do you deny that ‘God’ as we generally understand the concept is the God of the Bible/Koran?

//Einstein most certainly believed in God as the creator//

Not so. The ‘incomprehensible universe’ was his idea of ‘God’ – perhaps a bigger concept than you can imagine - and he most certainly didn’t believe that any superpower handed human beings rules by which they must live.
Creators are born. God is the creation of a mind that exists with the capacity and potential to do so, while ignoring the means and process by which it came to be, actually exists and alone makes creativity possible.
Naomi at 08.34. I have no trouble in believing you. You are an honourable disputant.
Jourdain, thank you very much. I really appreciate that.

61 to 80 of 80rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Do you know the answer?

Why The Hostility Towards Believers?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.