Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to WHY RELIGIOUS SCIENCE AND REASON JUST CAN NOT WORK
Make2short
There have been great floods across the Earth since dawn of time. That does not mean a single one of them is the flood of the Bible. And there is no proof the WHOLE Earth was ever flooded at the same time since the formation of the continents. I can promise you such a finding would not be possible from just the Black Sea.
But such facts are over looked by those who wish to start from the point of view that the Bible is going to be right.
You can not over look such facts and claim you have proof. Every time I have ever seen a 'Christian Scientist' (Sorry, but the term itself is practically a joke) present some kind of findings to back up a Biblical idea, I have seen a great amount of facts and logic left out. If you ignore facts and knowledge in order to force your findings to go in a certain direction, then you are lying and I believe that is a no-no.
All those who use reason to figure things out have proven to me to be more open minded than those who do not. Most of them have actually been religious as then slowly saw the flaws and illogic and so on and started looking for a better explanation.
posted by
kooka_lives
on July 13, 2005 at 3:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Rationalists aren't always reasonable.
William Ryan and Walter Pitman, used both the flood stories of Gilgamesh and the Bible as guides to investigate the Black Sea. They found evidence that there was a flood that covered the whole earth. Too often scientists automatically assume that these stories are false without investigating them. Although there are Christian scholars whose beliefs in absolutes blinds them, rationalists are also blinded by their preconceptions. There is no reason why an all powerful God couldn't and wouldn't occasionally act outside of the normal realm of the natural laws.
Whenever your close your mind to the possibility of an idea, you stop being a genuine scientist.
posted by
Make2short
on July 13, 2005 at 9:06 AM
| link to this | reply
Wordwizard
A core energy, maybe, but it does not need any kind of intelligence. We can very clearly see that life itself function by bodies just doing what is need with no intelligence involved in it. The universe itself should be able to function in the same manner. Actually the universe makes more sense without an intelligence behind it. Are bodies do not need an intelligence for them to live, just the basic hormones and other regulating agents.
Now you must also realize I am not trying to disprove God here, just point out that God can not be all-powerful or infinite. God has to have limits. By this logic God most likely is the 'hormones' of the universe and is a regulating agent that goes around and insure things are developing as needed. That idea makes a whole lot more sense than any given Biblical concept of God.
posted by
kooka_lives
on July 11, 2005 at 3:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Actually...
I look at what is, what exists, and figure out how it works. It is not possible for the Universe to be without there being a core intelligence and energy. Regardless of whether that core energy/intelligence has an identity, or is a massive impersonal force, or whether they attach other beliefs to it, that is what people commonly refer to as 'God'. So, your logic proves that there is no God; my logic proves there.
posted by
Wordwizard
on July 11, 2005 at 7:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Hemlocker
I have no real issue with people saying it is their faith or belief. I do hold issue when they claim to be using science and are clearly not doing so. If you start with the idea of saying 'There is God and that God is all-powerful, how do I prove this?' And over look anything and everything that disagrees with you as just being wrong, that is not science. Don't claim it to be science. Believers generally follow such logic though. They start from the point that their beliefs are 100% correct and so only the facts that back up their beliefs are correct as well, all other are 'tools of Satan' made to cause disharmony. In real science you can not throw away or over look facts that you do not like. You can not ignore reasoning and logic just because it goes against what you believe. In science you have to be ready to be proven wrong about what you believe.
If a person wishes to ever prove me wrong they need to get beyond the ideas of 'It is my faith' and show me some real reasoning and logic that says I am wrong.
I really do hold nothing against people who believe and have faith in higher powers. I honestly understand the need some people have for such things and have personally known a guy who needed to be 'reborn' in order to get his life together and find himself. Although this is the guy who helped me learn I was an atheist as he tried to convert me. We are still friends and keep in contact with each other. He is a great person and I will always consider him a friend. But if we ever get going about religion and such, we have issues.
posted by
kooka_lives
on July 10, 2005 at 7:58 PM
| link to this | reply
mary x
I took the idea of what all-powerful means and would have to be and then form there all the flaws just became as obvious as it gets. I was not looking to prove that there could be nothing all-powerful, it is just that all logic pulled me in that direction and I have yet to see anything to makes sense that goes against the reasoning I followed. I was just looking at the idea with what would be needed for such a thing to be valid. I started off with just a simple look at what all-powerful would have to be and logic and reason from there said it could not be. I was not trying to prove it one way or the other when I started my examination of the concept. I did not say 'an all-powerful being is impossible, how do I prove this'. I just proved it by looking at the concept of all-powerful with logic and reasoning without trying to go in one direction or the other. I just let it flow and saw where logic was headed with the concept.
posted by
kooka_lives
on July 10, 2005 at 7:49 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka
science requires observable evidence and can be proven. Belief in God does not and cannot. I have no problem with religious people, unless their religion behaves like an army of occupation. Hemlocker
posted by
Hemlocker
on July 10, 2005 at 7:34 PM
| link to this | reply
"Reverend" Kooka,
Would you care to elaborate on this, because as many times as you repeat yourself, it still seems convoluted and self-contradictory:
I took the notion of ‘all-powerful’ and just looked at it and figured out how it would work and then the flaws showed themselves.
posted by
Blanche.
on July 10, 2005 at 3:03 PM
| link to this | reply