With the ever increasing overwhelming amount of Scientific knowledge that we humans now possess, I personally think it's only a matter of time before Religion is almost completley gone, forgotten if you will. What do I mean by completely gone? I'm talking about most of the worlds population not believing in god nor Religious beliefs due to the unquestionable Scientific evidence for the origins of life and the inner workings of the Universe.
Of course Religion will in some way always be around as it's human nature for such a thing to beleive in such a thing in the first place, i.e on a very basic level, Religion is essentially an attempt at explaning the origins of life and how we all got here in the first place. But, in 100 years time when children are educated, they will have the free will to decide for themseleves whether, Science, which tries it's best to answer difficult questions backed up by astounding amounts of research and hard evidence to prove or disprove big questions, or, old texts (the bible and other scripts) which basically say's, there's a man in the sky, he made the earth, he made us and everything we know.
Which of these 2 explantions will our free-thinking children pick?
I leave this question open to anyone to answer. It's a very interesting topic I think and I'm not against Religion in anyway, I respect to the fullest what people choose to think and beleive in, that's the greatness of free-will and free-choice. But I'm interested to know what others think!
Scientific knowledge and religion as we know it will dies out simultaneously...
Their benefit to man will not e realised unless they both die.
If they were to persist continually, it will be detrimental to the man.
I have a feeling that science and religion will both be around as vibrant as ever. There is more to religion than the man in the sky, creator thing and despite all the advances which have been and will be made in science, mysteries will remain. There is more to reality than what meets the brain.
Far from "unquestionable Scientific evidence for the origins of life", Science has no idea regarding this. Science has many theories about how life developed, once established. Science has no clue what first animated matter or caused sentience. Science wants to infer it has an answer, just as Darwin did by even implying so in his title: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." If because of that title, you read Darwin's book looking for an answer as to literal origin of the first species, you will be sadly disappointed. Neither answer I mentioned will be found in science, so yes, religion will still be here for as long as we are.
Religion is essentially an attempt at explaning the origins of life and how we all got here in the first place.
It wasn't to the Hebrews when they were captive in Egypt. You can say today what you think it is all about, but you omit the distant past in your calculations. You see, All other religions have gods over this and that of creation, ruling it and controlling nature. But this is not and was not the slant of the hebrew nation, they were just looking for a way out of bondage, which they got and a whole lot more. The God of the bible created and rules over nature, true, but that is not his sole purpose, God is concerned about sin majorly. The hebrew attitude was not oh God make it rain for us or give us a good harvest as many other nations sacrificed to their god of the crops or rain, or the nile or whatever in hopes of appeasing their gods and therefore a good season. The God of the bible said, sin not and you will prosper and your land.
Science, which tries it's best to answer difficult questions backed up by astounding amounts of research and hard evidence to prove or disprove big questions
Science cannot do more than theorize and a theory is not a fact. Hence no facts no concrete evidence and still unanswered questions. Science does try its best to answer difficult questions which are already answered in the bible. Science always goes to the brink of God but never admits God, for example, an apple will fall from a tree and hit the ground and thats what we call gravity but it doesn't explain why gravity is there, how it got there, Science can only explain how it works and what will happen according to certain observable laws. Laws which state what will happen if a and b = c but they never explain anything outside of that formula. Sure the big bang happened but what caused the big bang is just speculation or theory but there is no fact or why it would happen this way. It is not an incredible amount of genius to unmake or reverse engineer something that already exists. Then answers are there to be examined. The bible promotes examination. Our position in the galaxy begs observation. Science is merely a big reader with no real conclusions. Darwin has a nice, but flawed theory. Light was thought to move in particles until another tool showed that it moved in waves.
Which of these 2 explanations will our free-thinking children pick?
is open to debate and probably a lot of inference. Everyone dabbles in some form of occult practice, everyone wonders about the heavens, everyone looks up and around and is amazed. Sometimes all it takes is someone discovering that science, lies. Not intentionally, but everyone is lead to believe that science is precise and exact, when it comes to math, yes, when it comes to answering some of the big questions the best it gets is theories. Too shorten this for brevity sake, everyone has an innate yearning to wonders about stuff, what happens after death, whats the purpose for my life, why am i here.. etc. If the negative atheist answer which is for no reason, you have no purpose and in the end you will just be buried, doesn't suffice them, they will look to other sources.
So really, since this planets history records that people looked for a god then as they do now, it is probable to expect humankind will still wonder for a good many many years to come.
So the Biblical writers that never heard of an atom, thought the earth was flat, and had no idea where the sun went every evening had all the answers, huh? You need to look up the word "theory".
From the subject "Theory" in Wikipedia
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions
Sorry, but there is no evidence of the Hebrews being held captive in Egypt and being freed from bondage as described in Exodus.
Gravity and evolution are both theories and facts.
That is entirely false. The Bible does not have answers to difficult questions that science has answered.
The Bible does not explain why gravity is there or how it got there.
The Bible has no such explanations, hence science rules over the Bible.
That is a fallacy.
The Bible offers no such explanations, either.
Sorry, but the Bible does no promote examination or offer explanations of galaxies, evolution or light.
Thinking children pick science.
A false statement based on ignorance of how science works.
Science does not answer philosophical questions, but it can tell you what happens after death.
I love how these forums turn into arguments and name calling, but the reality is if any of us are wrong or right, it doesn't matter because we will all be dead in 100 years. So I say have faith or no faith, whatever floats your boat. I choose to and it really isn't wrong because in the end we all believe what we want to believe and your belief or lack there of affects me none and my belief is the same for you.
So you think science will fill in the huge gaps in the evolutionary theories and present irrefutable evidence within a hundred years then?
Even if science did fill in all the gaps in evolutionary theories and present such irrefutable evidence it would make no difference to those who have faith in the existence of God. When backed into a corner they will define God as a transcendent being so scientific evidence doesn't enter into it. No self-respecting believer will dirty their hands in getting involved in scientific debate. Yes, religion will always be alive and kicking.
You should have looked behind *my couch Laurence.
That raises an interesting theological question. If he exists how big is he?
Well, the bible says He uses the earth as His footstool and can measure the universe with the palm of His hand, yet His spirit fills the heart of a man... the size of a fist. God is vast in minute areas.
Boy, that's some sofa you have there.
Did you check those measurements in relation to the objects referenced? A palm of a hand that could measure the universe, would be infinitely disproportionate to a foot using the earth for a stool.
Maybe it's me. I just don't understand these spatial calculations.
I didn't check the calculations... my rocket ships in the shop.
This disproportionate dimensions stuff is all very interesting. But if God exists is he an immanent or transcendent being?
Ok love, Ill bite.
God Himself is not of this realm, but Jesus is the embodiment of God... Jesus became present... where as the power of God is transcendent of time and space. I don't know if that answered the question as you asked it, but I hope so.
Apparently he can be anything that believers want him to be, as long as there is a need to worship something. Contradiction are always ignored or explain away, sometimes in the most absurd fashions.
It's not just you, it's an analogy that cannot be taken seriously.
Literally, not seriously. Im sure you accidentally chose the inappropriate word there.
No, naturally it cannot be taken literally, but the colourful comparison, whatever it is meant to mean, breaks down because of the discrepancies in the dimensions. For that reason it shouldn't be taken seriously, it's nonsense as is most of the Bible.
What you are describing is called the "warring camps hypothesis."
The idea that religion and scientific development are at odds and mutually exclusive has been discredited. No academic who is serious maintains that is the case.
I would recommend this for more: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour … x?cid=4691
The rate at which people choose to be non-believers is increasing. Even if it weren't, doing the math would show that most of globe will have given up on religions in about 300 years.
You're most certainly right, but I would add that the growth of non-believers increasing is exponential, not linear, therefore 300 years would be reduced futher
Christianity has stayed at 33% of the world's population which is the same as it was in 1910, so I don't think much will change in the next 100 years. Catholicism alone has grown to 1.3 billion. Add on that Islam is growing at 25%and I don't think the next 100 years will be much different.
The biggest change has been from China which has the highest amount of atheists and the highest population, but they are making an effort to curb the population by limiting the number of children per family to one.
Another factor is that atheists are able to clearly define what they are because they now understand what it is they believe, which some people say means the rate of atheists is not changing, only the ones that now admit they are is changing.
All in all, I don't think something so drastic will happen as religion ending.
Except christianity and muslim. Muslim will continue until i occupies all the land its sets its feet upon and christianity will continue because the God experience is real.
it's funny - all of the other religions claim that their "god experience" is real too. Of course, they're automatically wrong because, well, they disagree with you.
Oh...and the name of the actual religion is Islam. Not Muslim.
Sorry dude, but your "God experience" is no more real than the Allah experience.
nice inference. I like how you can just be dishonest at a whim. You have no idea what my God experience is like or how real it is, but it nice how you lay claim to knowing. I suggest you follow castlespalomas retirement plan because you are really getting nowhere here as posts like the above clearly show.
Knowing the details of your tribal rituals and medieval practices is irrelevant to the validity of God experiences, whether a Pentecostal, Shiite or Voodoo Witch Doctor. They are equally laughable.
Personal insults are also irrelevant and laughable.
Ya and what is truth to you lol also laughable and irrevalent obviously.
When speaking about something you clearly do not anything about you always want to come across as all knowing.. Thanks for more dishonesty. Really troubled get a forum you can try to be honest in.
Btw, my christianity is not made up of rituals in that you are wrong again and as far as medieval practices what prompts you to claim that i am doing anything like that? What you say is clearly the biggest joke of all.
I think religion will always be around because even though science teaches us about the physical world, religion fills the spirituality that science is void of.
As far as statistics, they all vary depending on what answer the pollster leans toward. From what I can gather, the world is 2.5% atheist, which is the only group completely void of a belief in a god (Buddists can lean either way and some polls count agnostics, but they aren't really committed either way). As far as ones that attend religious services, that number is surely dropping.
Science has given us unquestionale evidence for the origins of life, evolution. We know that everything that walks, flies, and swims on this planet today originated from single celled organisms that evolved slowly over millions of years results in the life we see today. Religion's feeble attempt at explaining the origins of life is stupendously primative and quite frankly embarrassingly pathetic. It's only a matter of time before our faith in god and religious beliefs is completely shattered.
Are you saying science does have a clue about how matter was first animated? Why it was animated? What order was it animated? Why something decided to reproduce? How did it decide? What is sentience? How and why did that begin? Where did the blueprints come from considering the most complex thing in nature is much more complex than man's grandest acheivements? Was no blue print required meaning the fruits of our best minds are far outpaced by chance? How much does an idea weigh?
Why is everything we care about intangible if the only reality is material? Love, empathy, passion, justice, truth, reason, fear, security etc? That list of things science can't touch, is a long one. Why are we here? Science has no answers to our most compelling questions about our existence and since none of them are material, it never will. Religion will be here until it does.
You answered nothing in your posts, just more references to your belief system. Truthfully, yours is a religion, but no need to open that can of worms as it is being argued in another thread already.
Are more people turning a deaf ear to all the questions science will never answer in order to tell themselves they know more than they do? Sure. Until everyone drinks that kool-aide and is okay with not knowing all those things, there will be religion as people realize science comes up empty, and look elsewhere for those answers.
"I don't know" is a perfectly fair answer to have in the areas that science has not definitively decided yet. In fact, it's a much more honest answer than claiming ultimate knowledge and inserting a god (only one of thousands) into the gaps as you see fit.
Before the age of science, god was the cause of practically everything. Lightning and thunder were gods. Natural disasters were gods. Gradually, as science found a way to explain these phenomenons, we all began accepting these explanations and phasing god out of the process. You don't still think that Zeus throws lightning bolts, do you? You accept that they're scientific and natural processes. What makes you think that knowledge and understanding of the natural world will not continue? It has up till this point, and I don't see that it will ever just stop and say "okay, we can't explain anymore. It must be god".
Again, science has never touched those questions that mean the most to us and motivate us. Unless you can carve off a pound of compassion, there is no reason to believe it ever will. Materialism, which is all science knows, is and will remain irrelavant to those questions.
not true. To say that as fact again betrays your ignorance of science and the scientific process.
May I paraphrase that as "Nuh-uh, dummy"? That also answers nothing. Science remains ignorant regarding the things I listed.
okay....I went out of my way to try to not be insulting. You clearly don't know much about science or evolution. Evolution is the reason that we have empathy and compassion. It's helpful towards survival. There is no "blueprint" that everything was created from, and there's no reason to claim that there is.
Mankind's existence is a microsecond compared to the millions of years that evolution had to allow things to develop. I imagine that's the reason that we have not "created" things comparable to the complexity found in nature. We're not there yet.
Although you continually cite your background and accomplishments to validate your positions, I personally have not gone there. In lieu of answering the difficult questions, you and others continually paint me as ignorant of science and evolution because I do not agree with you. You point me to some website or resource which also does not answer the questions, but at least you have deferred. I am not interested in listing my complete resume for you, but since you keep insisting I am ignorant of science I would, as a summary, like to mention I have over 20 years experience as a dialysis nurse. Again, neither you nor the sites you have directed me to, have any answers to the questions I posed earlier in this thread. Science never will.
This makes no sense. Empathy and compassion may be beneficial to the overall survival of a species, (that is quite debatable), but evolution speaks to individual survival not group survival. How does compassion and empathy benefit the individual who sacrifices and perhaps endangers itself to provide it? If you do choose to argue the group benefit is relevant in evolution then you must explain it within that dynamic which raises even more questions than it would answer. Besides, science can't account for sentience or thought in the first place, let alone reason, or any other ethereal aspect, all of which are essential in developing empathy, compassion, or any other emotion.
Admittedly "blueprint" is woefully inadequate to describe the complexity of DNA, but I still think it is applicable to try and bring it down to our simple level. Science would consider an organized series of sounds from outer space to be proof of intelligent life and SETI continually listens hoping to hear it, but the same scientists dismiss DNA as a happy accident requiring no intelligent design. Ludicrous.
Once upon a time, or millions of years, is a convenient way to imply plausibility to ridiculous propositions. Given enough time, anything is possible, right? Wrong, because you don't get millions of years. For life to begin you need to create, organize and animate the building blocks of life, many of which are interdependent, requiring both to come into existence and function simultaneously, delicately balance them into an organism and include a way, let alone a reason, for that organism to reproduce. This all must be done within the functional lifetime of the shortest lived necessary component. We can argue about whether that window would be days or years, but it certainly is not "millions of years" or even a decade. Millions if not billions of tiny improvements, each also "happy accidents" that turn out to be beneficial must also occur in order for the organism to "evolve". Each must benefit the organism immediately, or it would not enhance survival and therefore not survive to next level. Even after all that, science has no explanation for the spark or essence of life, or source of the raw material. This is just a superficial overview of the myriad of "gaps", (since that is a word atheists seem to like to use), that cannot be bridged. You can't logically escape that there had to be a designer and creator.
Our successes and failures are catalogued, and we learn and build upon them through intelligent analysis. Without that intelligence, which the rest of creation does not possess, we would accomplish nothing beyond basic existence, no matter how many years we had. Yet you believe random chance with no intelligence would create the miraculous things we see, study, try to emulate and exploit, given enough time. Even then, you still have no answer to how it all got started or where anything came from. Science is far from the end all it is purported to be.
Berean - being a dialysis nurse does not make you a microbiologist who is up to date on all of the ins and outs of evolution, nor do you claim to be - and from your post, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about it. i'm not trying to be rude here - I'm just stating a fact. I've provided you one link in all of the time that we've communicated and I dare say that if you went to that link you did NOT read very much of it - it does address these questions, and it does so rather brilliantly. I won't bother listing it again, however, because you clearly aren't interested in finding out. You just want to dig your heels in and say over and over again that science can't know or won't know and do nothing to expand your knowledge of the topic as a whole.
Evolution DOES address group survival and empathy and compassion are integral parts of evolution. think about it. If we had no empathy or compassion for the screaming, helpless baby, we would not feel the need to feed it and it would starve and die. It's because of our empathy and compassion that we care for our young who are helpless and continue the survival of our species.
You may believe that the earth is 6000 years old, but every bit of evidence we have disagrees with you. And again, evolution does not address the origins of life. It addresses the evolution of life once it was already present. I have not studied abiogenesis in depth, and cannot really speak to how it works or why. Honestly, it doesn't interest me very much, but evolution does. You do understand that we have observed evolution in action, right? It's been tested in a lab and reproduced. Science has done its best to falsify it, and it has not been done. "creation scientists" have tried to debunk it, but more and more of them are recognizing that evolution is true - they just claim that the thing that set it all off was god instead. Evolution doesn't say that monkeys turned into a human being one day. It does say, however, that species gradually change over time until speciation occurs - and the fact that happens is undeniable - even for you. It says that we have a common ancestor - not that we used to be chimpanzees (with whom we share 98% of our dna incidentally)
I get the feeling that you're implying (if not downright suggesting) that science's "agenda" has been covering up or denying the existence they've found for god and that's absurd. If there had been any evidence whatsoever then it would be worldwide knowledge. There are institutions out there that have real, genuine money on the line for anyone who can demonstrate anything supernatural that can be demonstrated and proven. No one has succeeded. To jump to the conclusion of god without any evidence or to insert god into the gaps at will is nothing more than an argument from ignorance or incredulity in the face of the real evidence that exists. Just because you do not understand it does not mean that the people that study these things for a living do not understand it. It really is that simple. If I said that dialysis didn't work because I couldn't find any evidence in my limitted understanding that made it beneficial, you would know that to be blatantly untrue because you've studied it and it's your JOB. That doesn't make me right, just because I disagree with you. It makes me ill-informed.
You may believe that the earth is 6000 years old, but every bit of evidence we have disagrees with you.
Researchers conducted a battery of scientific tests, including radiocarbon dating to determine the skeleton's age. They found the skeleton belonged to a man aged between his late 20s and late 30s who died between 1455 and 1540. King Richard 3 was 32 when he died in 1485.
Imagine the accuracy over thousands of years
Carbon dating isn't very accurate for determining something over a period of a few hundred years considering the carbon-14 isotope has a half-life of 5730 years.
Of course, when we look at what happens over hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of years, carbon dating can be shown to have fairly good accuracy.
That is nothing more than an argument from incredulity since it's obvious you are unaware of what 'all science knows.'
Yes I think it will, but Islam will be the larger religion. Traditional Christianity is in decline and it does not hold its people in the same level of fear of free thinking as Islam appears to.
JMcFarland put it perfectly in answer to the questions that science apparently can't explain - "Evolution is the reason we have empathy and compassion" exactly, evolution gave us this in the first place, evolution has resulted in such complex mammals (us) that we are able to have such emotions. In terms of why this has to be, it's simply not a question. We don't have to explain why evolution occured, it just did because that's how the laws of physics works. Somewhere at some point during the universe, life will happen because the laws of physics and mathematics and probability says life will occure. It just so happens that that place is here, on earth. And before we humans had answers to such questions, we had no other choice but to believe in some sort of supernatural being that governs what we do, when we do it and how we do it. It's just not true, it can't possibly be true, how can it be true?
Science is the never ending process of attempting to explain what we don't already know, and often, we unravel bigger questions, that's the beauty of science.
Please see my responses directly to Julie regarding this.
Why is definitely a question, and to many it is THE question. It just happens to be one science has no hope of answering and therefore has no choice but to dismiss.
Hiding behind the great adaptability engineered into life by God, calling that "evolution" and then trying to say one kind of creature can turn into another because of the president set by that adaptability, defines the shell game that is "evolution". The former definition, speaking to that adaptability is very real, the latter is just a desired dream of those presumably hoping against hope that there is no creator to be accountable to. So not only is science unable to answer why, it cannot show how, or even for that matter prove that "evolution" on that level ever did, does or will occur.
No, the laws of physics, mathematics and probability do not say life will occur. In fact all those laws do is manage the material world. Who is the lawgiver? Science has no answer. Where did the laws come from? No answer. Why these laws? No answer. We know the laws do govern everything but how? Again, no answer. Where do these laws derive their authority? No answer.
We don't have the answers you claim we have so the questions still linger.
Science, by your definition, would consider that we don't have answers to the questions I posted earlier in this thread, and would look to the supernatural. How you say? There must be evidence of the supernatural for science to apply. Agreed, it is not demonstrable and repeatable, so perhaps it must be outside the purview of science, but still, for those wanting answers, you have data available collected from the most intricate sensors ever devised. Thousands of years of data in fact. Scientists, atheists, evolutionists, et al, dismiss as delusional the accounts of those who report spiritual experiences and / or relationships with God. Considering most of the world always has and still does believe in God, this would mean in all of human history only this small, arrogant group escapes delusion. Logic does not dictate dismissing this vast resource of data. So why does it go ignored? Because nobody can make God perform tricks on command to show as proof? Because emotionally some don't want it to be true? Because they don't want accountability to a creator and can't even consider the data for fear of where it might lead? Because they want there to be nothing greater than man? Because they have other gods that they call nature, a force or whatever? I am sure there are many motives and reasons. What are yours?
Maybe scientific knowledge will strengthen peoples' belief. Many people already believe that science and God go hand in hand. Science reveals God's creation.
There is no doubt that religious belief declines as societies become more developed and more advanced, and as scientific knowledge increases. This trend has been firmly in place since the 1400s in Europe.
However, will religion ever completely disappear? That is very hard to say. Religion is born out of ignorance (primarily), so to answer that we must ask if ignorance will ever disappear. I think we all know the answer to that question.
What may be more likely than a wholesale disappearance, is religion eventually shrinking into a general spiritualism, a very basic and very limited supernatural concept.
That is what we are seeing, in addition to a significant rise in atheism/ agnosticism, in the modern industrialized democracies. Many people are leaving organized religion, but still believe in some kind of "life force" along the lines of Buddhism or Taoism.
As for the 100 years, unfortunately it is highly unlikely that religion will be totally gone by that time. Perhaps in the most developed countries like the US or Western Europe (it is already basically gone among the native population in Europe). But as long as there are poor, underdeveloped societies populated by people with difficult lives, religion will have a home.
Modern industrialized societies can be very advanced and their denizens very civilized. But then you have the Taliban, the Wahabbis, and the occasional cult. To say nothing of the traditional tribal religions of Africa or Asia.
Just a thought to throw into the pot. Surely science wouldn't claim to prove anything, if it did then it couldn't be taken seriously. Scientific observation can produce more and more evidence that a given theory is increasingly likely or probable but once it is 'proven' it becomes a necessary truth and therefore has no empirical relevance. 2 + 2 = 4 may be an irrefutable truth but it is precisely that which means it has no empirical value. Therefore the function of science is to make an empirical proposition more and more likely but once that proposition cannot be falsified then it becomes worthless. Religion, on the other hand, deals only in propositions that cannot be disproved, notably 'God exists'. Such claims, therefore, are fine in a theological context and come in pretty handy if you consider there's a cosmic superman but your ideas have no place in our observable environment.
exactly... in "our observable environment" and this is exactly what jesus said and it is very true. Do you think people are involved with God because they have no, albeit, christian evidence? Do you think people who are christians do not believe that God exists or that they merely go on some words of a book? Christianity is a marvelous thing, done right, the evidence of invisible proof is undeniable.
Behaviors that appears to be superstitious, or the belief in superstition is inevitable. We are programmed that way. The best thing that we can do is educate ourselves and contradict with our drive to become superstitious.
I agree, 100 years time nobody will believe in a god, ghosts, the afterlife and everything like that. The only thing is life will be a lot grimmer knowing that when we did we just die.
Will marriage become a thing of the past?
Why would atheists believe in marriage...
It is something people do in church before God to join their spirits into one through love.
Are you saying that atheists do not understand marriage or that their marriages are somehow invalid because they didn't include God when they decided to commit themselves to love their partner for the rest of their lives?
I am saying with no religion, the likelihood of official marriages will decrease.
Co-habitation would rule the day. In Early Greece there was no official marriage ceremony, just mutual consent. Eventually getting married in front of friends and family was recommended rather than just going into the hills privately, having sex, and then proclaiming the union.
There have been believers from the beginning of time. Do you realize how short 100 years is? There will always be a remnant of ppl with faith.
And there are Christians who are well versed in science, math and astronomy and would gladly discuss the subjects at great lengths. My husband is one. Me, not so much.
A Christan who tries to reconcile scientific evidence with God's existence must therefore concede that God is immanent. If he is immanent then we can, in theory, 'discover' him without relying on blind faith. A bit like an alchemist seeking the knowledge of how to turn base mentals into gold. Could he really be here somewhere? A game of cosmic hide and seek? Surely that isn't what God's about.
I've just looked behind the sofa, he's not there.
You two have a lot in common... you should chat. Ill get out of your way.
Anyway, back to the original question. There won't be anyone left in 100 years time as there will always be volatile N Korean and Iranian lunatics ever likely to get out of the wrong side of bed and finish us all off. But if there are any survivors let's hope they are pagans, the only people who seek peace and harmony and have respect for themselves, each other and most of all the natural world around them.
by Phocas Vincent18 months ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys,...
by Titen-Sxull7 months ago
Today when we talk about the heart as the seat of emotion we do so metaphorically. Human beings learned long ago that the brain is where emotions, memories and thoughts are contained. However we still have the...
by daeemomin7 years ago
CONGRATULATING AN ATHEISTNormally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are...
by Kathryn L Hill2 years ago
Is Natural Selection in Evolution the result of happenstance?Are the Laws of Nature directed in an arbitrary way?Was the Big Bang a random accident?Was Hydrogen created out of Nothing?Were the first copied pairs of DNA...
by Sean Thomas Gartland4 years ago
If you have any evidence please present it.
by thirdmillenium17 months ago
It is quite understandable for the rationals to pity the believers for their purported ignorance and obstinate adherence to their religious beliefs. They think they know the truth which may well be the case. What I do...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.