It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Leonidas
Jarring
UxoriousMagnus
boncho
I'm going to stop here because there's too much information to cover in one post, and i don't want to "bore you" with scientific facts; that were written about, thousands of years ago.
Weird. I didn't see any of those.
Trying to prove christianity with science one day, trying to say science is all garbage the next. I just don't get the deal with christians. Science shouldn't threaten their position, but they are either trying to usurp it for their own means or claim it has no merit, for their own means…
so not true....I think Christians are just as interested in science as non-CHristians....but you are right....we do look for God in the science. So what? We believe in Him....why wouldn't we look for Him in science?
science is a religion from my point of view. Everything we know is a religion for that matter. Days of the week, to language, labels, cause and effect, and a reason.
Science and religion are anathema.
Science looks for mistakes to learn from them and improve, no matter where it takes them. Religion looks for mistakes to refute them, argue them and further confirm their truths.
Faith and belief, by definition doesnt need proof. Why Christians and others try and use science to prove a belief I shake my head.
Leonidas
Jarring
UxoriousMagnus
boncho
I'm going to stop here because there's too much information to cover in one post, and i don't want to "bore you" with scientific facts; that were written about, thousands of years ago.
Weird. I didn't see any of those.
Trying to prove christianity with science one day, trying to say science is all garbage the next. I just don't get the deal with christians. Science shouldn't threaten their position, but they are either trying to usurp it for their own means or claim it has no merit, for their own means…
so not true....I think Christians are just as interested in science as non-CHristians....but you are right....we do look for God in the science. So what? We believe in Him....why wouldn't we look for Him in science?
science is a religion from my point of view. Everything we know is a religion for that matter. Days of the week, to language, labels, cause and effect, and a reason.
Science and religion are anathema.
Science looks for mistakes to learn from them and improve, no matter where it takes them. Religion looks for mistakes to refute them, argue them and further confirm their truths.
Faith and belief, by definition doesnt need proof. Why Christians and others try and use science to prove a belief I shake my head.
Lingweenie
Jarring
Lingweenie
Jarring
reply to post by Lingweenie
And I didn't literally mean that people were stupid back then compared to today. Ignorant would have been a better word to use. But I do not say that in a degrading kind of way. As far as brain structure goes, the human brain has been basically the same for a long time now. They lacked the knowledge and advanced technology we have in modern life. Such as computers, telescopes, satellites, the whole nine yards. They had an understanding of some things. But they were left in the dark by many things as well. More than people today at least.
I think naive would be a better suited word. Ignorance assumes that they ignore information that is available to them. Naivety is to ignore information that is not available to them, and it's understandable.edit on 01/24/14 by Jarring because: (no reason given)
Yes you could also say naive in some instances I suppose. But the word ignorant isn't the rejection of information. It just the unknowing and unawareness of the information. Both words would actually be considered synonyms.
hmm, i suppose.
I just understand ignorance from it's root word ignore. I use terms like stupid, ignorance, and naivety separately. Like for me, none of them are necessarily bad. stupidity has to do with being overburdened by information to the point of inaction. naivety is to be without information due to lack of experience. ignorance is to ignore information out of naivety.
I can see how you would call them synonyms, but I find them both to have a specific meaning. It seems to me that people toss around words a lot without putting much thought into their meaning, and it's not just these words I'm speaking of.
how you define ignorance is how i define naivety.edit on 01/24/14 by Jarring because: (no reason given)
I agree that people usually associate those two words with stupidity, but that isn't the case. People often try to use those words as insults though.
And naive and ignorant are pretty similar, but they do have a small difference in their definitions.
A naive person is someone who lacks judgment, experience, or wisdom.
Ignorance on the other hand is just someone who is unaware or oblivious to information/knowledge.
They both are worded a bit differently, but the common descriptive words between the two are roughly the same also. Some more than others.
The way I see it, is that a naive or ignorant person usually doesn't know that they are being naive, or ignorant. But both may have an awareness of their unawareness, and do it deliberately.
I'll give an example.
I could say to someone "That is an ignorant thing to say." Or "That is a naive thing to say." But, that doesn't say that they are doing it knowingly. So you'd have to assume otherwise, unless it is stated that they did indeed to it on purpose.
You would have to say something like "That is willfully ignorant thing to say" Or "That is a purposely naive think to say." In this instance you would have to add a more illuminating word such as an adverb or adjective to really say that they are doing it out of awareness or knowing.
That's just the way that I make of it at least. A tad bit confusing, but it would seem like it would be using the words a little more properly.
pleasethink
Also, I love science and I believe that God exists. I mean I really love science. I hate that people seem to have this stereotype that is you believe in God you are some boob who just hates the crap out of science. It is something I love dearly, as it reveals things that I long to understand. I have referred to it in the past as like touching the face of God. I just won't support science that is not based upon its own millenniums of recognized scientific protocols. This stuff goes way back people.
Did you even read what I just said? I think not. Anyways, how in your educated opinion, would someone utilize the scientific process to read a book? Would one hypothesize that "This book is unfinished. I want to know what happens when I finish a book."
I wanted to know if God was real(hypothesis). I then looked through many books to find one that was up to snuff and had touched my heart as being both unexplainable as to the knowledge it possesses about the seen world, and also the unseen world.
So I guess you could say yes, I did use the scientific process to acknowledge that God does exist. Thank you for asking.
mahatche
UxoriousMagnus
Gryphon66
UxoriousMagnus
Rodinus
UxoriousMagnus
boncho
I'm going to stop here because there's too much information to cover in one post, and i don't want to "bore you" with scientific facts; that were written about, thousands of years ago.
Weird. I didn't see any of those.
Trying to prove christianity with science one day, trying to say science is all garbage the next. I just don't get the deal with christians. Science shouldn't threaten their position, but they are either trying to usurp it for their own means or claim it has no merit, for their own means…
so not true....I think Christians are just as interested in science as non-CHristians....but you are right....we do look for God in the science. So what? We believe in Him....why wouldn't we look for Him in science?
Religion is just a "WORD" invented by a couple of bored people around a camp fire one evening after a little too much mead or whatever substance they were smoking or snorting up their nostrils at the time (IMO)...
That simple 8 letter word has done SOOOO much damage to this planet and to the human mentality...
Science is the evolution of our species... full stop.
Kindest respects
Rodinus
not how the human brain works....can't sit around and come up with something completely new....like the idea of an all powerful God that created everything.
What? WHAT? Humans don't come up with something completely new? According to who what where or when? I look around at our technology, medicine, and general lifestyle ... and can only think that has to be one of the most out-of-touch-with-reality statements I've ever read.
Head of brain research at MIT .. Dr. Natapoff..... humans can't have come up with the idea of a God because our brains are not wired to conceive of completely new ideas. Our brains are wired to make better mouse traps.
Example: see a rock roll down the hill.....come up with the wheel. See a bird fly....come up with an airplane. See lightning bolts....come up with electricity. Once someone makes the jump from nature to "man-made"....then it keeps snow balling.
prove him wrong....I tried for years and couldn't come up with something that wasn't derived from something else and eventually comes back to nature.
Early superstitious people believe tornado where demons/angry spirits. Did a god come and tell them tornado where demons? Or did they just build a story for something they had no understanding of? Before we had these personal gods like the one found in the bible, people where worshiping the sun. They saw a big glowing thing in the sky, that they didn't understand, but it seemed pretty important to them, and they built stories around it. The sun never spoke to them, and your idea of god didn't exist at the time. People where building stories before ideas of your god existed.
pleasethink
reply to post by AfterInfinity
www.sciencebuddies.org...
I made it simple for you cause you seem to be having trouble.
boncho
I'm going to stop here because there's too much information to cover in one post, and i don't want to "bore you" with scientific facts; that were written about, thousands of years ago.
Weird. I didn't see any of those.
Trying to prove christianity with science one day, trying to say science is all garbage the next. I just don't get the deal with christians. Science shouldn't threaten their position, but they are either trying to usurp it for their own means or claim it has no merit, for their own means…
pleasethink
reply to post by SuperFrog
Also, Richard Dawkins himself has come forward to say that there is probable evidence of intelligent design. Of course he still denies God. But just wanted to point that out.
Jarring
I think for the sake of the thread, it would help if people would not try to discredit the religion.
If you have an argument, it would be best if it applied to the scientific or historical facts within the Bible.
Jarring
lol, i said it was immoral to test God, you can guess where that went.