How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[habsheaven]

which part seems to bother you? you mock us when we say anything about faith, why would it surprise you for religious people to say i don't know.


How am I wrong about science?

I have rarely heard a religious person say, "I don't know." I have heard religious people say a thousand times over, "It says so in the Bible, and the Bible is the TRUTH." That hardly sounds like, "I don't know."

Science is an on-going process in every field. There are millions of "advances" made. None of which claim to be "right" and absolute. Completely "wrong" hypothesis are few and far between.

[boba]

You just said that they were both using the same evidence. Now you say there is none? One of us is very confused.

We interpret the things we see in the world around us differently, ok?

[ensbergcollector]

I have rarely heard a religious person say, "I don't know." I have heard religious people say a thousand times over, "It says so in the Bible, and the Bible is the TRUTH." That hardly sounds like, "I don't know."

Science is an on-going process in every field. There are millions of "advances" made. None of which claim to be "right" and absolute. Completely "wrong" hypothesis are few and far between.

i guess we will have to be on different sides then.


religious people very often state that they take something on faith because they can't explain it otherwise. in other words, "i don't know"

science routinely states "if you don't agree with us, then you are an idiot." can you honestly look at science and tell me that science never claims to be right? come on man. Just because they protect themselves with the word theory doesn't mean they are not presenting it as fact. look at the billions if not trillions of dollars spent as a result of the theory of global warming. If that was not presented as fact the response would not have been the way it was. In order to justify their continued grants and praise science has to present itself as true. Not sure how you can claim otherwise.

[habsheaven]

i guess we will have to be on different sides then.


religious people very often state that they take something on faith because they can't explain it otherwise. in other words, "i don't know"

science routinely states "if you don't agree with us, then you are an idiot." can you honestly look at science and tell me that science never claims to be right? come on man. Just because they protect themselves with the word theory doesn't mean they are not presenting it as fact. look at the billions if not trillions of dollars spent as a result of the theory of global warming. If that was not presented as fact the response would not have been the way it was. In order to justify their continued grants and praise science has to present itself as true. Not sure how you can claim otherwise.

That is not, "I don't know." That is, "I believe what the Bible says despite my common sense that is telling me otherwise." When I claim; people could not have lived to be 900, a virgin cannot have a child, a man cannot walk on water, the Earth is older than 6,000 years, etc, etc, etc. I have yet to hear from a single christian, "You may be right, I don't know."

As for science, you are confusing scientists with science.

[pghin08]

We interpret the things we see in the world around us differently, ok?

Then how do you interpret fossils depicting early humans?

[ensbergcollector]

That is not, "I don't know." That is, "I believe what the Bible says despite my common sense that is telling me otherwise." When I claim; people could not have lived to be 900, a virgin cannot have a child, a man cannot walk on water, the Earth is older than 6,000 years, etc, etc, etc. I have yet to hear from a single christian, "You may be right, I don't know."

As for science, you are confusing scientists with science.

i know I say I don't know a lot when it comes to questions I can't answer. On a side note, I don't know that I could believe in a God that didn't do anything outside the realm of my "common sense." It would sadden me to live a life that says if I can understand it then it must not have happened.


not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean but it seems like you know exactly what I am talking about but don't want to admit it.

[habsheaven]

i know I say I don't know a lot when it comes to questions I can't answer. On a side note, I don't know that I could believe in a God that didn't do anything outside the realm of my "common sense." It would sadden me to live a life that says if I can't understand it then it must not have happened.


not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean but it seems like you know exactly what I am talking about but don't want to admit it.

I assume you meant to say can't. No one is asking you to deny everything you do not understand. And no one I know does this either. It is sad that so many people in this world believe words in a book that make claims they know must be untrue without the help of supernatural forces.

The last sentence means scientists are human, and as so are greedy. You cannot condemn the actual science because some scientists want to pad their wallets. ACTUAL science works.

[ensbergcollector]

I assume you meant to say can't. No one is asking you to deny everything you do not understand. And no one I know does this either. It is sad that so many people in this world believe words in a book that make claims they know must be untrue without the help of supernatural forces.

The last sentence means scientists are human, and as so are greedy. You cannot condemn the actual science because some scientists want to pad their wallets. ACTUAL science works.

but that seems to be exactly what you are doing. read all the threads on religion here. the sentiment from the non-religious is basically if you can't prove it using scientific methods then it didn't happen and you are an idiot for believing it.

[theonedru]

but that seems to be exactly what you are doing. read all the threads on religion here. the sentiment from the non-religious is basically if you can't prove it using scientific methods then it didn't happen and you are an idiot for believing it.

Science theory can be use to prove or substantiate many things even things that many people claim as folly like ghosts, spiritual entities, or even an afterlife. So why can it not viably be used to back up religious claims? You can't just yammer that things in the bible are true because they were written in a book. If that were the case then any book could lay claim to anything. Faith is fine, but sometimes you need something a little more concrete.

[shrewsbury]

we are dealing with the supernatural, you cannot say otherwise.

how this?

virgin impregnated by an act of god, baby is born, that is human and god, this person teaches us a new way about god, dies for our sins, rises from the dead, teaches more, then ascends to heaven.

and that's just the basics of the important stuff.

sounds esoteric, supernatural, unnatural, and defies anything we understand

but the issue is, science can't and will never be able to prove God or anything to do with him. no matter how hard you try to mix the two, it just won't work out in the end.

but there is a reason for this and it may be more common sense than most would think