Why does Satan work for God?

[Trialbyfire]

Oh, even better. My life has been enriched because I believe in the Easter Bunny. It gives out free eggs, chocolates and gifts and never receives. It has taught me the gift of giving. I also like the fact that it has soft fur. When I was a kid, I used to have a rabbit fur coat. I wonder if the Easter Bunny gave it to me?

[Moai]

However, we are Judged by a Higher Court. Men are merely peers on your level. Sure, you may not adhere or even believe in our, "Higher Court".....so why do you insist on being on the jury?

 

I am on the jury because morality is a human construct, and I am human. As you have pointed out, we humans are of limited capacity. If there is a higher court, we'll I find out, but in the meantime we should use what faculties we have to determine what is right and what is wrong.

 

I still haven't seen any proof from you that the Bible contradicts itself, or that ANY of it is false......

 

The creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 contradict, and both are demonstrably false.

 

The Tower of babel is false.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever for the Hebrews being held as slaves in Egypt.

 

Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

 

Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

 

Was Joseph's father Jacob or Heli?

 

There are many more, of course.

[disgracian]

JamesM: I'm not a Tibetan Buddhist, in fact if commitment was anything to go by I'm not really a very good Buddhist at all, and I don't believe in the mystical side of it at all. I'd say I follow the philosophy only that isn't quite so, it's more that my own views on morality, life and death, and philosophy coincide with Buddhism.

 

Hope that clears things up.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

And why? Because as smart as we may think we are, we can't explain it all. There's too much to absorb.......we are too limited to understand.

So the answer to any unexplainable question is simply "Goddidit" afterall.

 

Cheers,

D.

[shadowofman]

Many more is an understatement.

 

The subjective opinions/beliefs of individuals are easy to question, but the answer is always a subjective "proof". Not proof at all by the way. Just because you had some crazy dream, or a horrible life experience that you narrowly escaped doesn't mean that you have proof.

Dumbo had no proof of the pink elephants, only subjective experience. This means nothing to anyone else other than you. This is why lonleybird's arguements are so frustratingly horrible.

 

Another good question in the vain of the OP.

Why does God require a blood sacrifice to forgive? Why can't he just forgive? Why did something have to die?

Why are women expected to kill pigeons after mentrating?

After creating this rule, why did he change the game?

Why make a son, through nefarious means, only to have him die, to forgive people, when he could have just forgiven?

 

For people who seem to know all the answers, I'd be interested in explaining the reasoning behind all of this. This concept of divinity is flawed because it was a creation of man. They call it holy because it holds no water.

[Ocean-Blue]

lonelybird,

Keep up the emotional appeal because it is one of atheism's great weaknesses. It has nothing to offer in that field other than sex and drugs.

 

 

Some people say they want sound logic to believe or adopt a religion. I seriously doubt logic led them to atheism, and I seriously doubt logic will lead them to religion.

 

Why use logic if it isn't really an issue? Maybe it gives them the option to make the rules so they can get the outcome they want. Trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced is kind of pointless. Maybe they like taking a few swings or calling themselves winners.

 

 

I am tired of all of this talk about "What does religion offer?" My question is "What does atheism offer?" Athiesm offers nothing. In fact, it only promises death. Why would anyone adopt such a bleak, and meaningless belief system?

 

Interesting how you chose to label all those who've expressed dissent in this thread as "atheist".

[shadowofman]

I am tired of all of this talk about "What does religion offer?" My question is "What does atheism offer?" Athiesm offers nothing. In fact, it only promises death. Why would anyone adopt such a bleak, and meaningless belief system?

Why would anyone adopt a chearful belief system if it's not true. Even if, by some stretch of the imagination, it could, possibly, be true, why would you believe it in spite of all the evidence against it?

And why choose one impossibility over other equally impossiblities.

One more time..........

Atheism offers nothing because atheism is not a belief system. It is a lack of belief. It is skepticism in regards to religion. Atheism is like off on your TV. You wouldn't call that channel. All people are born atheist, and have to be taught to believe in something.

Atheism doesn't offer death. Death is a part of life. To suggest that one can or will live forever is insane. A substituted reality. Wishfull thinking.

A protest against real distress. Truth is not always fun or fair or glorious.

 

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation."

Marx

[Ocean-Blue]

It's important to KNOW one's audience. If you're not talking to the choir, a little more than "cause I feel that way" would help your position.

 

Emotions are fine. It's when you use emotional reasoning to back up your belief in God (when engaging in healthy debate) that it becomes a bit...silly.

[quankanne]

fellow believers won't raise uncomfortable questions that you cannot answer, and you can all pretend to believe that you understand them and that they make sense.

 

trying to explain the reason for my belief is very hard to do when one chooses to place impediments in the way of open dialogue … and here, the impediment is your staunch disbelief, which refuses to allow that some way, somehow, faith works for others even as it doesn’t work for you.

 

for the record, fellow believers DO raise uncomfortable questions that make one seriously consider and search for the right words that’ll edify the one asking those questions. Like the Eucharist or infant baptism. Or Jesus being born of a virgin.

 

atheism denies the fantasy of eternal afterlives and instead focuses on the here and now. Religions typically devalue this life by claiming its only purpose is to grease your way into heaven. You don't have to do anything for anyone, just hold the right dogmatic beliefs and you're in. Atheism is all about making the most of the time you have, making it all the more important to live and love and do what you can for your fellow man while you're still alive. Then you can rest for all eternity having passed on your genes and your values to the next generation. I couldn't think of anything better.

 

I’m sure atheism does all those things, but so does faith. It’s not that we’re chasing after a spiritual carrot dangling off a pole held by God’s hands, but that we are inspired by our belief in Him to strive to be better people than we are. And I’m not sure how that “devalues” life when our fellow humans are benefitting from our acts of love and goodwill ...

 

faith also encourages us to make the most of the time we have, because we understand that to love God is to love one another, not be solely focused on self. And in any book, that ought to be a good thing!

[blind_otter]

Shall people embrace Hans Christian Andersen Fairy Tales, making it their reality, if it helps them through life? What about imaginary friends?

 

If it helps them through life, then yes. Life is hard enough as it is without making it more difficult and burdensome. :/

[IrishCarBomb]

Shall people embrace Hans Christian Andersen Fairy Tales, making it their reality, if it helps them through life? What about imaginary friends?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

[disgracian]

trying to explain the reason for my belief is very hard to do when one chooses to place impediments in the way of open dialogue … and here, the impediment is your staunch disbelief, which refuses to allow that some way, somehow, faith works for others even as it doesn’t work for you.

I have two serious problems with this:

1. I do acknowledge that faith "works" for others, I just don't know how (which is why I'm asking here). I think my intentions have been misinterpreted here, simply because I'm being stubborn and not accepting any wishy-washy non-answers.
   
2. Even if (1) were not the case, then my staunch disbelief is not by choice (but actually a sincerely held disbelief) and as such I'm not choosing to place this impediment anywhere.
   

I don't wish to place any restrictions on dialog, in fact I'm trying to do the opposite even if that means continuing to ask questions even after you think you've explained everything.

 

As for the rest of your post, what you were addressing was intended for somebody else who made very specific claims about atheism being meaningless and bleak.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moose]

but in the meantime we should use what faculties we have to determine what is right and what is wrong.

So am I just lazy or to stupid to figure it out on my own? Because the Bible is clear about what is right and what is wrong and It's a pretty obtainable resource ya know....

The creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 contradict, and both are demonstrably false.

Another OLD arguement....I'm going to assume you're meaning the order in which man and beast were created? Simple....Genesis 1 one gives an account of creation chronologically. Genesis 2 does not. Another point to make about this so called, "contradiction", is that the word, "Make" or "Create", (banah) is used in Genesis 1 the word, "appoint" is used in Genesis 2 (asah) proving that they do not cancel each other out.

 

Now if you're talking about archeological evidence, you're simply trusting one book over another, since, (I'm assuming), you are not an archeologist. So, why is mine wrong, and yours right?

The Tower of babel is false.

How do you come to that conclusion? Archeological again?

There is no evidence whatsoever for the Hebrews being held as slaves in Egypt.

Sure there is, it's right there in Exodus.....oh wait....you don't subscribe to something written that far back......how about something more recent?:

"Through the wealth of data uncovered by historical and archaeological research, we are able to measure the Bible’s historical accuracy. In every case where its claims can be thus tested, the Bible proves to be accurate and reliable."

- Jack Cottrell, The Authority of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 48-49.

 

There's a great article by Randall Price here:

 

http://www.imja.com/Archeology.html

Was Joseph's father Jacob or Heli?

Ummm.....both.

 

Matthew tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

 

Heli was Joseph's Father-in-law.

So the answer to any unexplainable question is simply "Goddidit" afterall.

Not neccessarily. I'm sure that everything in the universe can be explained. But since it came from God, only He knows all of the answers.

[quankanne]

I have two serious problems with this:

 

1. I do acknowledge that faith "works" for others, I just don't know how (which is why I'm asking here). I think my intentions have been misinterpreted here, simply because I'm being stubborn and not accepting any wishy-washy non-answers.

2. Even if (1) were not the case, then my staunch disbelief is not by choice (but actually a sincerely held disbelief) and as such I'm not choosing to place this impediment anywhere.

 

1. I think maybe no matter how eloquent or heartfelt we are when speaking of our faith, because there is no linear logic applicable to spirituality, what we share will always be "wishy-washy non-answers." Logic cannot comprehend emotion, and spirituality is more often a case of personal emotion.

 

2. Your staunch disbelief IS a choice, because you reject any other beliefs that don't equate to what you embrace, so therefore it tends to be an impediment when it comes to talk of spirituality; you are unable to accept that what is, is. In all fairness, the same can be said about a staunch believer who is considering a staunch non-believer's viewpoint – it just doesn't make sense.

 

my sister's grandchild came up with a granny monniker from out of nowhere: Not "grandma" or "abuelita" or anything known in our family, but "Mamu." Where the hell she got that name, I don't know, but that's now my sister's name. When Rachel got old enough to explain why "Mamu," she very firmly said, "Because it is." While the name doesn't make any sense to us, to Rachel it's understood. It has a specific value. It's real.

 

my faith (and I daresay that of many others) is like that: While it may not make sense to others looking for a "real" (read: logical) explanation, we just know that it is. And we're comfortable embracing that leap of faith, because it has specific value to us.

[Trialbyfire]

If it helps them through life, then yes. Life is hard enough as it is without making it more difficult and burdensome. :/

My response was intended to offset the assertions of FleshNBones, that atheism provides only emptiness. If so, then religion only provides a Never-Never land fantasy for Peter Pan types. They usually put people away or on meds, when they have imaginary friends and family...

 

I'm not a true atheist but I can easily understand why people would have issues with believing in God, the Holy Trinity, all of it. There is no real scientific proof that any of it exists.

[Moai]

So am I just lazy or to stupid to figure it out on my own? Because the Bible is clear about what is right and what is wrong and It's a pretty obtainable resource ya know....

 

I don't think that you are lazy or stupid. I have never gotten the impression that you consider atheists, agnostics, or even those with different faiths immoral or living bleak lives, as the other poster seems to.

 

Everyone decides for themselves what is moral and what isn't. It's just that your faith leads you to accept morality as described in the Bible in many cases. That isn't a bad thing necessarily (although it can be). There is just as much chance that someone without faith can make irrational choices as well.

 

Another OLD arguement....

 

And a good one!

 

I'm going to assume you're meaning the order in which man and beast were created? Simple....Genesis 1 one gives an account of creation chronologically. Genesis 2 does not. Another point to make about this so called, "contradiction", is that the word, "Make" or "Create", (banah) is used in Genesis 1 the word, "appoint" is used in Genesis 2 (asah) proving that they do not cancel each other out.

 

That is an ad hoc explanation. If what you claim is so, the book itself would be more specific, no? I have also read apologetics that claim the two stories come from two different sources, namely one is from a priestly source, and one is from a Yahwist source.

 

Also, why do I need to know which Hebrew word was used in order to get past this contradiction? If all I have is a Bible in English, I'll never know what you post above, right?

 

Now if you're talking about archeological evidence, you're simply trusting one book over another, since, (I'm assuming), you are not an archeologist.

 

There is no evidence that Genesis is true. There are mountains of it for the current scientific model. I am not an archaeologist, but I do read what they write.

 

So, why is mine wrong, and yours right?

 

Evidence.

 

How do you come to that conclusion? Archeological again?

 

Yep. There isn't any, for one thing, and for another it is silly. Considering that it is impossible to build a tower to Heaven, as we can't see it with any telescope yet devised, you'd think that god would know that and wouldn't waste his time thwarting such an effort.

 

Not only that, we have built buildings far taller than could have been achieved by Nimrod, and they are standing up quite well. These buildings were erected long after man's language was confused, so ask yourself if god's plan worked in this instance.

 

Lastly, considering that the space program was successful in sending men to the moon after the confusion of language and that god did not intervene to stop it is also telling.

 

Sure there is, it's right there in Exodus.....oh wait....you don't subscribe to something written that far back......how about something more recent?:- Jack Cottrell, The Authority of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 48-49.

 

I would if there were evidence for it. The Bible isn't wrong about everything (there is a place called Egypt, and there is a place called Israel, etc.) but it isn't right about everything, and again there is no evidence to support Hebrew enslavement in Israel. Zero. We have a great deal of information about Egypt, their history, and even their daily lives and yet they do not mention Hebrews at all.

 

Here is what Farrell Till found:

 

"The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha’s inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha’s inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites."

 

And:

 

"Other archaeological discoveries haven’t just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua’s conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, “utterly destroyed all the inhabitants,” and made it a “heap forever” (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua."

 

There's a great article by Randall Price here:

 

http://www.imja.com/Archeology.html

 

I'll check it out.

 

 

Ummm.....both.

 

Matthew tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke is told wholly from Mary's point of view. Heli was Joseph's father-in-law.

 

That doesn't wash. The text specifically says that both Heli and Jacob are Joseph's father. It doesn't say anything about fathers-in-law. Neither mentions Mary's genealogy, and as Jews do not recognize birthright through the mother (as St. Jerome said in ad 400 or so) so even if they had traced her lineage it would be of no value.

 

The explanation you have provided was discredited about 1400 years ago. Care to try again?

 

Not neccessarily. I'm sure that everything in the universe can be explained. But since it came from God, only He knows all of the answers.

 

If god existed, that would be true.

[JamesM]

 

That is an ad hoc explanation. If what you claim is so, the book itself would be more specific, no? I have also read apologetics that claim the two stories come from two different sources, namely one is from a priestly source, and one is from a Yahwist source.

 

Also, why do I need to know which Hebrew word was used in order to get past this contradiction? If all I have is a Bible in English, I'll never know what you post above, right?

 

 

 

 

I am not interested in starting a lengthy debate as I don't have the time, but this one statement caught my eyes as I had seen something about this recently. While I am more inclined to believe that many supposed contradictions are not an invalidation of the Bible but rather have an unknown explanation, let me refer you to this link which nicely gives the different explanations used for this seeming discrepancy.

 

I will copy the portion that summarizes the accepted view by this person. Notice that the grammar/punctuation may have been translated incorrectly. (BTW, his name is not Billy Bob...it is Jim Loucks. )

 

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/mt1-1.html

 

4. There is such a view. Like the third proposed solution, this

fourth view understands the genealogy in Luke really to be Mary's,

but for different reasons. Here Heli is understood to be the

progenitor of Mary, not of Joseph. Joseph is not properly part

of the genealogy, and is mentioned only parenthetically,

Luke 3:23 should then read "Jesus ... was the son (so it was

thought, of Joseph) of Heli." The support for this view is

impressive.

 

As for Biblical archeology, there is a lot that supports the Bible, but some finds have introduced new questions. Randall Price has written a number of good books in that area.

[Moai]

I am not interested in starting a lengthy debate as I don't have the time, but this one statement caught my eyes as I had seen something about this recently. While I am more inclined to believe that many supposed contradictions are not an invalidation of the Bible but rather have an unknown explanation, let me refer you to this link which nicely gives the different explanations used for this seeming discrepancy.

 

I will copy the portion that summarizes the accepted view by this person. Notice that the grammar/punctuation may have been translated incorrectly. (BTW, his name is not Billy Bob...it is Jim Loucks. )

 

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/mt1-1.html

 

I checked out your link. Cool how he brings numerology in at the end.

 

Imagine how much time men have spent to argue away this contradiction, and yet it is still here. If the authors of the Bible were inspired, and the Bible is the Word of God, why does anything have to be explained like this in the first place?

 

As for Biblical archeology, there is a lot that supports the Bible, but some finds have introduced new questions. Randall Price has written a number of good books in that area.

 

And for some things there is no evidence at all.

[FleshNBones]

Congratulations on being able to answer your own rhetorical question without listening to what atheists have to say, or even apparently taking the time to learn anything about what you're slagging off.

A plaque would do nicely.

 

To give you something to ponder, atheism denies the fantasy of eternal afterlives and instead focuses on the here and now.

Christians do think about the things that go on in everyday life. People who don't plan or prepare for the future are usually doomed to failure.

Religions typically devalue this life by claiming its only purpose is to grease your way into heaven.

So you don't think abortion or euthanasia devalues life.

You don't have to do anything for anyone, just hold the right dogmatic beliefs and you're in.

There are a number of Christian charaties, and there is missionary work. Priests and other religious order members (the good ones) take a vow of poverty and dedicate their lives to God's service. Everybody has a duty to fulfil.

Most of what comes from athiests is talk.

Atheism is all about making the most of the time you have, making it all the more important to live and love and do what you can for your fellow man while you're still alive.

I understand making the most of your time with sexcapades and party party party.

Why would an athiest do anything for his fellow man? Bragging rights? Strip aways his fellow man's dignity? You know, eventually get something from him.

 

Before Christianity, the weak and lowly had little or no value. Homer shared this view, and that can be seen in the Trojan war. He never had a problem sending thousands of men to their deaths so that one important guy can get his wife back. The Roman colliseum.

 

The only ethic I see in athiesm is the status quo. You are free to do whatever you can get away with. That could be part of the appeal.

Then you can rest for all eternity having passed on your genes and your values to the next generation.

Scientifically speaking, humanity will become extinct one day. Why delay the inevitable?

I couldn't think of anything better.

How about a future? Hope? Purpose?

[FleshNBones]

Why would anyone adopt a chearful belief system if it's not true. Even if, by some stretch of the imagination, it could, possibly, be true, why would you believe it in spite of all the evidence against it?

And why choose one impossibility over other equally impossiblities.

Do you believe in the reality of imaginary time?

Some of the things coming from modern day scientists is about as far fetched as the existence of God. In many cases, the evidence just isn't there, but that doesn't make the claims any less relevant. Sometimes, the evidence is beyond our grasp.

 

You haven't given me convincing evidence.

Why would anyone adopt a bleak belief system if it's not true?

[Moai]

Christians do think about the things that go on in everyday life. People who don't plan or prepare for the future are usually doomed to failure.

 

Why do you plan for the future? Isn't Jesus coming back any second? Why are you worried about global warming at all?

 

So you don't think abortion or euthanasia devalues life.

 

Not necessarily, no.

 

There are a number of Christian charaties, and there is missionary work. Priests and other religious order members (the good ones) take a vow of poverty and dedicate their lives to God's service. Everybody has a duty to fulfil.

Most of what comes from athiests is talk.

 

Nope. Sweden, the most atheistic country on Earth, gives more to charity than any other nation on Earth. Next are Luxembourg, Norway, The Netherlands, and Denmark. The last three are also amongst the most atheistic on Earth. The USA, one of the most religious nations, is listed 21st. Here's a link: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs

 

You ignore the great number of atheists who slave away in science labs figuring out how to make your life better.

 

I understand making the most of your time with sexcapades and party party party.

 

Why not? This is the only life we have, why live it in denial of pleasure? Why do you hate fun so much? One can have a healthy sex life, enjoy the company of others and let their hair down AND help others, you know.

 

Do you spend all your time when not at work flogging yourself? Or feeding people? How many starving people do you think the price of your computer would feed? Or the new wing on your church?

 

Why would an athiest do anything for his fellow man? Bragging rights? Strip aways his fellow man's dignity? You know, eventually get something from him.

 

Atheists do things for others because they want people to do things for them. Same as you. You just seem to need to fear hell in order to do it.

 

Before Christianity, the weak and lowly had little or no value. Homer shared this view, and that can be seen in the Trojan war. He never had a problem sending thousands of men to their deaths so that one important guy can get his wife back. The Roman colliseum.

 

This is just stupid. Ever hear of the Children's Crusade? Or the Inquisition? The idea of individual rights we have now arose from secularism, not Christianity. Read the history of your own religion.

 

The only ethic I see in athiesm is the status quo. You are free to do whatever you can get away with.

 

Nope. All atheism means is the lack of belief in a deity. There are no other thoughts that, by definition, follow that. I personally think that anyone should do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

 

Do you agree? Or do you think that you should be able to control the behavior of other people because you know better?

 

That could be part of the appeal.

 

Atheism is value neutral. it is neither appealing or repulsive. It is just the denial of supernatural superbeings. That is it. What is appealing for you about not believing in Zeus?

 

Scientifically speaking, humanity will become extinct one day. Why delay the inevitable?

How about a future? Hope? Purpose?

 

Because we are here now. I have a niece and nephew, and I'd like them to have a world to grow up in, for one thing.

[FleshNBones]

Nope. Sweden, the most atheistic country on Earth, gives more to charity than any other nation on Earth. Next are Luxembourg, Norway, The Netherlands, and Denmark. The last three are also amongst the most atheistic on Earth. The USA, one of the most religious nations, is listed 21st. Here's a link: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...hartsandGraphs

You are a real disappointment. Be sure to read the fine print next time.

While Adelman admits that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still says that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public—but especially in private—giving”. Hence these numbers and claims may be taken with caution, but even then, these are high numbers.

Do they factor in our use of military forces for disaster relief in foreign countries? No.

You ignore the great number of atheists who slave away in science labs figuring out how to make your life better.

Well paid intellectual labor is not charity.

Engineers work to make life better. Scientists only poke and prod (dull stuff).

Do you agree? Or do you think that you should be able to control the behavior of other people because you know better?

We already do it through our prison system.

Because we are here now. I have a niece and nephew, and I'd like them to have a world to grow up in, for one thing.

Scientifically speaking, how many will reach adulthood?

 

Bleh... I'm done for the next few days.

[shadowofman]

Do you believe in the reality of imaginary time?

Some of the things coming from modern day scientists is about as far fetched as the existence of God. In many cases, the evidence just isn't there, but that doesn't make the claims any less relevant. Sometimes, the evidence is beyond our grasp.

You haven't given me convincing evidence.

Why would anyone adopt a bleak belief system if it's not true?

 

I wholeheartedly trust the observational power of the scientific method. It is superior to any form explaination. It is reasonable and logical. It has done more to create a greater understanding of reality than any other method throughout all time. That being said, we must be careful to seperate psuedoscience.

You reference a physics problem (something I am not very educated in).

But I do understand that physics is a hotly debated field because we are so close to a greater understanding of energy/matter. Two competeing theories, quantum and relativity, are not working with each other. A combined theory still is not come to light.

Some hypothesis are pretty far out there concepts. Multiverses, wormholes, blackholes, etc. They don't become science until they can be tested. Until someone actully observes another dimention, or travels light years away in the blink of an eye.

The difference between hypothesis and theory is the same as the difference between faith and evidence. You can hypothesize that magic exists, but evidence is required to effect objective truth.

All this being said, quantum theory works in the numbers. Math is a form of evidence, but it's not enough. Don't suggest that science is making all these far out claims and is therefore as flawed as faith.

Science is an attempt to actually uncover objective truth.

Faith is a daughter of hope and fear as they say.

[DutchGuy]

Nope. Sweden, the most atheistic country on Earth, gives more to charity than any other nation on Earth. Next are Luxembourg, Norway, The Netherlands, and Denmark. The last three are also amongst the most atheistic on Earth. The USA, one of the most religious nations, is listed 21st. Here's a link: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs

 

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?channel_id=1&story_id=15529

[Moai]

You are a real disappointment. Be sure to read the fine print next time.

 

Perhaps you should. Most of the monies described as "charity" weren't remittance dollars, but were private investment. While I think enlightened self-interest is a good thing, you imply that something is only charity when nothing is expected in return--which to me also includes pity as an antecedent.

 

Further, much of the money sent by "Americans" is actually that of foreign-born workers sending money back to their families. I quote, "Drezner suggests that Adelman is not necessarily incorrect in her core thesis that Americans are generous, but “lumping remittances in with charity flows exaggerates the generosity of Americans as a people."

 

Also, "[however]if you do not count foreign remittances then it matches the numbers that the research institute, the Center for Global Development, uses in their rankings."

 

Do they factor in our use of military forces for disaster relief in foreign countries? No.

That is lumped under "government aid", obviously. And the US gives 13 cents a day in government aid, and another 5 cents a day in private aid. Norway gives $1.02 a day in public aid and 24 cents a day in private aid. These numbers are per person.

 

Did you read the fine print yourself?

 

Well paid intellectual labor is not charity.

So? Aid with conditions isn't charity, either.

 

Engineers work to make life better. Scientists only poke and prod (dull stuff).

You may think its dull, but thankfully not everyone does. And engineers use things like new polymers, developed by scientists, in their work.

 

I am certainly glad that the men who are working on childhood leukemia don't think that it is dull.

 

You don't have polio or small pox thanks to that "dull stuff" you describe. Or the measles. Or mumps. Or diptheria. Or typhoid.

 

You make my point for me here, actually. Science gives you so many benefits that you take them for granted, and are so effective you don't even realize that it is happening.

 

The men working on alternate fuel sources are using science. The men designing new, energy efficient buildings are using science.

 

Or do you think that they pray about such things and get the answers they are looking for?

 

We already do it through our prison system.

No, we don't, we punish them in our prison system. There is probably more crime in prison than outside.

 

And while we certainly have definitions of crime (that which hurts another person) everything else is up for grabs. And why shouldn't it be? You mentioned that partying all the time is a bad thing, but if it doesn't hurt anyone else why do you care?

 

Scientifically speaking, how many will reach adulthood?

Both will statistically. So that would equal "two".

 

Bleh... I'm done for the next few days.

Suit yourself.