Christians can accept evolution. There's nothing wrong with this theory. It becomes problematic for a Christian to say that God didn't create life because it evolved on its own. This is not scientific evolution, just another philosophy.
What folks do need to stop doing though, is act as if religion is to science what chaos is to order, or what cold is to warmth. The two don't need to cancel eachother out. They never have. Even Descarted uttered the theory that the universe adheres to rules of physics without denouncing the possibility of a god.
I agree. Not every theist believes science is "the devil." Science is simply a method of understanding the nature around us - it isn't a philosophy. When people hijack science to disprove philosophy, they engage in philosophy themselves... and as such, it is no longer science.
We have to prove to you that there is no afterlife? You're the one making the claim, you prove it. If you can't then I have the right to say that your belief is stupid.
You certainly do have the right to say someone else's beliefs are stupid, whether I can prove something or not. That doesn't mean doing so is the right thing to do, or at least the considerate thing to do.
As far as Occam's Razor and Russel's Teapot goes, sure the burden of proof is mine, but then I'm not making any attempt to prove anything. Belief necessitates going beyond empirical rationality... but that doesn't necessarily mean belief is irrational. My beliefs, or rather my philosophy, creates a perception of reality that is consistent and without self-contradiction. I can't say the same for atheism, which attempts to avoid the question of existence entirely by saying, "it just is," or "it hasn't been figured out yet." You simply can't "figure out" existence though - it will always extend beyond empirical perception. That's why a reality which is consistent requires conclusive philosophy.
I'll say it again - I don't claim to know what Reality is. It's just my perception... you can believe what you want and I won't call it "stupid."
@Eiviyn: We agree, then. Like I said, I don't know - I only speak from my perspective. Belief and knowledge are two completely different things that many confuse all-too easily.
Also, Zolden, people will still be mortal because they will still be able to die. There is always a chance that an accident can happen to you, so when that's stretched out to infinity, eventual death becomes a certainty.
Friend, I'm pretty sure almost every reply, even the ones by atheists, have been worded in such a way as to impart the impression that the poster "knows the answer." I find it curious that you target my post specifically with such a response.
To clear the water, though, I don't know the answer. I'm only speaking from my perspective... this is what I've come to accept as Truth. I could word it differently if it would make you more comfortable, but I'm not sure that would be necessary.
And finally, there is no verifiable evidence that there is no life after death either since you can't prove a negative, so I'm not sure why you think it's OK to tell me I have no right to claim knowledge of "Truth" and subsequently attempt to espouse your own "Truth." I'm not trying to cause a conflict here, but can you at least see the contradiction?
Are we immortal? Yes and no. Our bodies can die, yet they are permanently bound to our souls until death. In that sense, we are both mortal in flesh and immortal in soul. This creates an interesting conflict for someone who believes in the immortal soul: In one sense, our ignorant humanity writhes with ambition to accomplish as much as possible before our bodily death, as if it's all we have... and yet our bodies can sense the eternal span of the soul, even if it's only a subconscious whisper, which allows us to do things like love and self-sacrifice. That's why even someone who doesn't believe in God has these capacities, even though God is the author of love and self-sacrifice. In our humanity, both of these things make absolutely no sense: loving and self-sacrifice accomplish nothing according to our ambition, and in fact can cause backsliding or suffering.
The most interesting thing of all is that when we consider an interesting, meaningful life, it includes things like worldly accomplishments, yet almost always has to include something about love and self-sacrifice as well. So to answer your question, even a strict atheist has the ability to love and sacrifice himself, even if he doesn't know why he does it or where it comes from, therefore a fully meaningful life can be achieved. This implies that even an atheist can find himself in heaven when he dies... of that I'm not certain. I suppose it depends on whether you think acting in a loving, self-sacrificing way is belief in God in the most basic of forms or not. And, of course, it all depends on God's mercy.
I would say that a truly interesting and meaningful life always results in an eternal, heavenly life.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@SoulFilcher: Go
Christians can accept evolution. There's nothing wrong with this theory. It becomes problematic for a Christian to say that God didn't create life because it evolved on its own. This is not scientific evolution, just another philosophy.
I agree. Not every theist believes science is "the devil." Science is simply a method of understanding the nature around us - it isn't a philosophy. When people hijack science to disprove philosophy, they engage in philosophy themselves... and as such, it is no longer science.
You certainly do have the right to say someone else's beliefs are stupid, whether I can prove something or not. That doesn't mean doing so is the right thing to do, or at least the considerate thing to do.
As far as Occam's Razor and Russel's Teapot goes, sure the burden of proof is mine, but then I'm not making any attempt to prove anything. Belief necessitates going beyond empirical rationality... but that doesn't necessarily mean belief is irrational. My beliefs, or rather my philosophy, creates a perception of reality that is consistent and without self-contradiction. I can't say the same for atheism, which attempts to avoid the question of existence entirely by saying, "it just is," or "it hasn't been figured out yet." You simply can't "figure out" existence though - it will always extend beyond empirical perception. That's why a reality which is consistent requires conclusive philosophy.
I'll say it again - I don't claim to know what Reality is. It's just my perception... you can believe what you want and I won't call it "stupid."
@Eiviyn: We agree, then. Like I said, I don't know - I only speak from my perspective. Belief and knowledge are two completely different things that many confuse all-too easily.
Also, Zolden, people will still be mortal because they will still be able to die. There is always a chance that an accident can happen to you, so when that's stretched out to infinity, eventual death becomes a certainty.
Friend, I'm pretty sure almost every reply, even the ones by atheists, have been worded in such a way as to impart the impression that the poster "knows the answer." I find it curious that you target my post specifically with such a response.
To clear the water, though, I don't know the answer. I'm only speaking from my perspective... this is what I've come to accept as Truth. I could word it differently if it would make you more comfortable, but I'm not sure that would be necessary.
And finally, there is no verifiable evidence that there is no life after death either since you can't prove a negative, so I'm not sure why you think it's OK to tell me I have no right to claim knowledge of "Truth" and subsequently attempt to espouse your own "Truth." I'm not trying to cause a conflict here, but can you at least see the contradiction?
Are we immortal? Yes and no. Our bodies can die, yet they are permanently bound to our souls until death. In that sense, we are both mortal in flesh and immortal in soul. This creates an interesting conflict for someone who believes in the immortal soul: In one sense, our ignorant humanity writhes with ambition to accomplish as much as possible before our bodily death, as if it's all we have... and yet our bodies can sense the eternal span of the soul, even if it's only a subconscious whisper, which allows us to do things like love and self-sacrifice. That's why even someone who doesn't believe in God has these capacities, even though God is the author of love and self-sacrifice. In our humanity, both of these things make absolutely no sense: loving and self-sacrifice accomplish nothing according to our ambition, and in fact can cause backsliding or suffering.
The most interesting thing of all is that when we consider an interesting, meaningful life, it includes things like worldly accomplishments, yet almost always has to include something about love and self-sacrifice as well. So to answer your question, even a strict atheist has the ability to love and sacrifice himself, even if he doesn't know why he does it or where it comes from, therefore a fully meaningful life can be achieved. This implies that even an atheist can find himself in heaven when he dies... of that I'm not certain. I suppose it depends on whether you think acting in a loving, self-sacrificing way is belief in God in the most basic of forms or not. And, of course, it all depends on God's mercy.
I would say that a truly interesting and meaningful life always results in an eternal, heavenly life.