I’m a scientist and a christian, I don’t find the two incompatible at all.

As for the posters, one thing has always been true in life, it isn’t hard to find an idiot whatever they believe in. I don’t see any correlation between intellect and belief system. Speaking from a christian perspective that’s the point, there’s no qualifications for membership.

@Andrew – good comments.

Religious people are the ones with small egos who trust in a power greater than their own ! Not the other way around. Christianity is amongst the more saner and rational religions. If you do not believe it, try taking a hard look at the alternatives :-) I have personally studied and experienced various religions from my lifetime spent in Asia and India specifically. Without putting down any religion, let me say that i’m glad to be a Christian and at my role working on truly cutting / bleeding-edge technologies.

Praise the Lord !

Abraham Lincoln wasn’t anywhere near an atheist. It is true he didn’t attend organized religion but he was known as a very spiritual man who read the bible often. Furthermore, Andrew, the I don’t know how this all happened point of view is called agnostic.

I don’t think Darwin was an atheist to begin with, and after his daughter died he probably wished that his theory didn’t run contrary to biblical teachings.

Agnosticism is slightly more subtle than that. It doesn’t admit that it doesn’t know all this happened but suggests that how it all happened is unknowable…

As to being both a scientist and a Abrahamic theist, does one have to suspend belief in the evidence to acknowledge the existence of a deity in that case? If so, what’s the point in seeking scientific truth? If not, how does one reconcile the phenomenal age and size of the universe, our evolution from some kind of primordial soup, and the tiny position we occupy in that scheme with one’s religion?

Words such as mysterious and allegory are banned from any response ;-)

@John
Praise the Lord, brother, Imma let you finish, and then please explain following to me:
Your Christianity is monotheistic religion, right? Jesus is God, right? Jesus died! Then he was alive. Who or what resurrected Jesus? Was God alive while Jesus was dead? And wasn’t he not Jesus who was dead? Is Jesus zombie? Who was running this world while God was dead? Which one of them do you follow now? God or demigod, I mean, son of God? If your answer mentions Trinity anywhere, where in the Bible is the explanation of Trinity? I couldn’t find it, and need it for the reference. I also couldn’t find explanation of Holy Spirit. Please don’t take this wrong. I’m studying other religions, just like you.

” Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. ” Albert Einstein

Looks like Einstein wasn’t atheistic after all. You can keep the rest, because I don’t like them anyway.

Now, let’s compare apples to apples: Abe (an atheist) was internationally almost insignificant local politician that ironically got shot after he caused millions to die in a civil war. He could’ve been diplomatic instead of egoistic (typical atheist) “geenuse” and let someone else abolish slavery at a later point in time and without massive bloodshed and destruction. In comparison, Bush Jr (theist) did cause millions to die, but at least he managed to keep his arse out of the harms (shoe’s) way so far and on top of that, he managed diplomatically to abolish democracy in front of you “geenuses” with not one shot fired. So he comes pretty darn close to greatest “geenuse” president of all time.

I assumed the misspelling of geniuses as geenuses was meant to be ironic in that graphic…

I would just like to point out that Franklin was not an Atheist. Like many other sons of the Enlightenment at this time he was a Deist

First of all I’m not one to tell someone wants to believe in, I just find it hard to believe that people actually believe that “god” created everything. Impossible! Also out of the 600 some odd gods of all different civilizations and times, your god is the real one, bullsh*t! Finally, more bloodshed has occurred fighting over religion than anything else…..ever! I don’t care what you believe in, but it’s BS!

RELIGION KILLS!

It must take a genius to be a scientist and a Christian at the same time, especially as it is nearly impossible to be a Christian and a Christian at the same time. If you are an Orthodox Christian you cannot be a Roman Catholic Christian, unless you are a Maronite Christian. If you are a Unitarian Christian you cannot be a Trinitarian Christian. If you are a Roman Catholic Christian you MUST believe in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, the virginity of Jesus’ mother, the death on the cross and resurrection from the dead of Jesus. If you are a Protestant Christian you can skip the first two but must believe in the third.
How can one be a scientist believing only what can be demonstrated from evidence and at the same time believing all those things which are demonstrably false?

[quote=sympneology]How can one be a scientist believing only what can be demonstrated from evidence and at the same time believing all those things which are demonstrably false?[/quote]

It’s probably because a good scientist knows that most of these things you accept as “demonstrably false” can’t be demonstrated as false.

OK True Believer, give me a demonstration of turning communion wine into human blood or the wafer into human flesh. If you can’t then that claim is demonstrably false. OTOH if it can be demonstrated as true you are guilty of cannibalism. So which are you – a liar or a cannibal?

First of all, demonstrating something true and demonstrating it false are two different things. Some “geenuse” jumping of the cliff 2000 years ago would “demonstrate” that humans can’t fly. We didn’t have plains 2000 years ago, so please explain how can you prove that we won’t be able to transform wine into a human blood in next 2000 years with help of a technology that will be developed in the future? Maybe by using genetically engineered grapes to make blood plasma? Or with some sort of molecule reforming device? Anyway, it’s only possible to demonstrate it false if you are a “geenuse” and know everything, but then you would know of God’s existence as well. Common, admit, you are just another true believer like me. By the way, scientists already successfully grow human organs with help of pigs. Think about that while you are eating pork chops next time, cannibal.

The poit is, True Believer, that when the priest places the wafer on the tongue of the communicant and says, “The Body of Christ” or “Corpus Christi”, he is not telling the truth, is he? But the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation requires him to believe that the substance of the wafer of unleavened bread is miraculously transformed into the flesh of a man who died nearly two millennia ago, based on the claim in a book written aboiut 17 centuries ago that he said, “This is my body”. While Protestant Christians can rationalise this by saying the bread is only a symbolic representation of Christ’s body, the Catholic Christian has no such option, he MUST believe that what he can see and taste is bread is not bread but human flesh. If he does not believe this lie he will go to a mythical place called Hell after he dies. Another lie!
All the rhetoric about what might be possible with technology in the future cannot disguise the fact that religious doctrines are basically a tissue of lies, and forcing children to believe them before they are old enough to discern their mendacity is a serious form of child abuse that should have been outlawed centuries ago.

sympneology:”he MUST believe that what he can see and taste is bread is not bread but human flesh.”

I don’t think that’s entirely true, unless religion you are talking about is Cannibalism. If you check my first post, you may notice that I also got problems understanding Christianity and especially Catholicism, but this ritual actually makes sense to me. You may want to do some more research before your conclusion. In any case, rituals are manmade to symbolize something and to distinguish one religion from other, and are sometimes politically motivated. Discrediting one ritual of that particular religion won’t prove anything except for blunder in designing of the ritual, which is human error. It demonstrates nothing even if what you said was truth, because Christianity is not based on that ritual only. It is based on set of dogmas which (in my understanding) seem to contradict. That’s why I ask those questions from people who claim to understand them, but with no (satisfying) answer so far.

religion kills:”Impossible! Also out of the 600 some odd gods of all different civilizations and times, your god is the real one, bullsh*t!”

Actually, your reasoning is bullsh*t! People believing in those 600(?) gods won’t make them any more real. I’m sure you would agree with that. Same way, people not believing in existence of existing god won’t make it any less real. Both of these statements are facts. Whatever you say or do won’t change those facts. It’s your choice which view you prefer. Your preference won’t make any difference to reality. Besides, religion is idea and ideas are abstract and can’t kill. People with no tolerance, understanding, compassion, rationality, morality, … well, they actually kill others.

True Believer, “Besides, religion is idea and ideas are abstract and can’t kill. People with no tolerance, understanding, compassion, rationality, morality, … well, they actually kill others.”

This has strange echoes of, “Guns don’t kill, people kill, using guns.” You still don’t get it, do you? It is the wierd ideas drilled into peoples heads, usually when they are children, that cause them to be intolerant, etc. One of those ideas, and by far the most dangerous, is the idea that there is a “god” who approves of and condones any and all of the acts performed “in his name”. All the good works that people do “in his name” count for nothing because if they claim responsibility for them then they must also accept responsibility for all the crimes committed by people “in his name”, and they don’t.

The only true lord and savior is the flying spaghetti monster! Reach out and he will touch you with his noodlely appendage!!! He can save you all! He offers you the great invention of spell check which most browsers utilize for in-text entry…. accept this gift and use it!

sympneology:”This has strange echoes of, “Guns don’t kill, people kill, using guns.”

Are you seriously stupid enough to believe that if there were no guns, no one would get killed? What about swords? Or bare hands? Can’t they kill? How about cutting off everyone’s hands just in case? I mean, since getting rid of religion will stop people doing bad things, … Pure “geenuse”. If you want to drill someone’s head, you better be a brain surgeon.

Dustin:”He offers you the great invention of spell check which most browsers utilize for in-text entry…. accept this gift and use it!”

Only problem with spell check is that it’s missing “Arrogant egoistic bulls#it removal” button. I reckon that once they implement this button, all of atheist bloggs that are popping up lately will fit into two sentences. They will probably be saying something like: “I am just another sad by-product of this materialistic culture. My opinion is not based on any knowledge or reason, except the awareness of urge to keep my ego satisfied.” And if you are going to whinge about my English, then f*ck off, because I’m not going to put an effort of checking my grammar or spelling unless you put an effort as well in not writing just a bunch of meaningless drivel.

I love how the internet is full of people that make bold statements, but those statements are blatantly wrong. I cry knowing that when people make those bold statements, others won’t actually research anything about it, they will just swallow it and believe it.

Franklin wasn’t an athiest, Lincoln wasn’t an athiest, Einstein wasn’t an athiest, heck, Darwin wasn’t an athiest (in 1879 he wrote that “I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally … an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.”)

Some of these men weren’t all that keen on organized religion, some of them were obviously agnostic, and some of them were blatant Christians!

Stop believing every little meme thing you see on the internet people. Have an independent mind! Research things! Be adults!

What a charming “believer” you are…

Not nearly as charming as “you”.

Did I ask you to comment? No.

True Believer: “sympneology:”This has strange echoes of, “Guns don’t kill, people kill, using guns.”

“Are you seriously stupid enough to believe that if there were no guns, no one would get killed? What about swords? Or bare hands? Can’t they kill? How about cutting off everyone’s hands just in case? I mean, since getting rid of religion will stop people doing bad things, …”

Not as stupid as you, TB, if you think that my quotation of Charlton Heston represented my own position. That slogan of the American Rifle Association has been used to justify the prevention of any American administration doing anything to control the proliferation of firearms and reduce the shocking mortality rate it produces. Australia’s legislation controlling the possession of guns and knives has been very successful so far in achieving such a result, but of course taking away the weapons can only reduce the mortality, not eliminate it. People determined to kill will find a way, but it should not be made unnecessarily easy for them

So when you say, in effect, “ideas don’t kill, people kill, using ideas” you send a shiver down my spine. When religious leaders inculcate into their followers ideas like “crusade” or “jihad” they might as well be handling the guns or bombs themselves, since they are just as guilty as the ones who do the actual killing.

Just as getting rid of guns won’t stop people killing but only reduce the incidence of murder, so getting rid of religion won’t stop people from going to war but it would eliminate one of the principal justifications for war.

True Believer said: “We didn’t have plains 2000 years ago”

Yes, we did. Plains, mountains, hills and valleys.

You say God exists? Bring proof.

“Is religion truly important, is it better to be an atheist, live a good life, and not worry about whether or not there is an afterlife?”

- Well, first of all, it is surely also possible to be religious AND live a good life. Moreover I think that it is not only a question whether or not you believe in a – whatsoever – afterlife. Therefore I do not want to stress the discussion concerning the `eternal question` does God exist and if yes, where is the proof for his existence.

If we want to talk about advantages / disadvantages of being religious / atheist, then we have to look at the social, i.e. highly terrestrial and not heavenly, aspects of life and in which way these aspects are possibly influenced by a religious / atheist way of life.
Proclaiming that you rate everything just by `rational choice` and `rational tools` is only a pious hope, but unfortunately nothing more. We are highly guided by our feelings and emotions – consciously as well as unsconciously. For instance it is seemingly irrational to pray three, four, five times a day, as you could spend the praying-times to earn money, relax from work, and so on. Or it is seemingly irrational, too, to prefer wearing certain `warm` clothes in summer, than just wearing a t-shirt and shorts. And so on – you can easily imagine more examples.
The point – to make it very short – is that such religious behavious and bans (and of ycourse you can also add religious badges to the list) strengthen the community spirit of a religious group. Everybody knows that `his brother` resp. `his sister` makes the same `costs` to the community. They all have the same costly routine (“Costly signaling Theory”). Results (again: in short) are: 1) The trust and the bond between such religious persons is very high. 2) The possibility to be exploited by so-called freeloaders resp. free riders is on the other side low, as you do not have access to the group, without fulfilling the expected religious bans and behaviour.

Of course, atheist can also manage to build up such groups, but I doubt that they can be comparable to religious ones, as they lack one certain aspect: the fourth “B” after badges, bans and behaviour: `belief`(absolutely value-free)!
All in all, you do not have to agree to the belief of a religious group, but you should try to look at the social effects, which are occasionally caused by this belief.

Hey moderator(s) ! When did I consent to the rule that you could edit my posts?

You either let my posts through AS WRITTEN BY ME or you don’t post them, OK ?

By posting a comment on this blog you are effectively sending a “letter to the editor”. Abusive language and ad hominem attacks are not allowed on this site. If you did not wish for your comment to be edited as is standard practice in the media then you should not post comments.

If a god exists he created man as a creature capable of rational thought and reasoned discourse. Why then would he arrange it so there is not only no proof of his existence but a constantly growing list of things we now understand that were previously labeled as proof of god’s existence?

As a smaller part of that, many claim the world to be approx. 6000 years old. And if a god does exist that in entirely possible. It’s also just as possible that god created the world 10 min’s ago. But I digress, If God, in all his wisdom, did create the world 6000 years ago why did he create so much evidence for any thinking rational creature to conclude the earth is billions of years old?

Last but not least, why would we want to worship any being that lies to us in such a manner?

sympneology:”… if you think that my quotation of Charlton Heston represented my own position. ”
But then you say: “So when you say, in effect, “ideas don’t kill, people kill, using ideas” you send a shiver down my spine.” Well, make up your mind. In any case, there are no existing weapons, machines, tools, objects, anything, that are able to kill, start wars or similar completely on their own. They need user, a person to make decision. You watch too many movies. if you think otherwise. Gun is efficient offensive weapon but at the same time very effective defensive tool. Arms race started centuries ago and there’s no way back without erasing its all other products. Most of the technology you and me use are by-products of that same race. I don’t think you or anyone else would be ready to go that far back.

Max/9:”Yes, we did. Plains, mountains, hills and valleys.”
You didn’t have plains 2000 years ago, or auto-correction, because you can’t be that old, can you? You didn’t exist 2000 years ago, and now you made me suspicious with your dishonesty. Maybe you still don’t exist. Prove otherwise.

the religious human is the stupid human.

If anyone TRULY wants to know the truth about the bible wether it be validated or not needs to consider the times and area of it’s creation. One needs to know those cultures and their beliefs prior to the Hebrews…like the Sumerians, Babylonians and the canaanites.(to name a few) Their impressions and influences spawned the Hebrews ideals of theology. You’ll find it was BASED on ASTROLOGY. Problem is most people don’t understand how to detect it in the words of the bible. Starting in Genesis 1:14 we see that the Mazzaroth is described.The book of Job is the oldest book of the bible. Job 38:31-33 Describes the Mazzaroth. Look up the Cherubim and you find out it’s the “FIXED SIGN” of the Mazzaroth.(The lion,Ox,Man and the Eagle) This was also the SYMBOLS of the four tribal leaders of the 12 Tribes of Israel and also the Symbols of the Four Gospels. Jesus is just another Symbol of the SUN…Based on ASTROLOGY.