That is a tricky one. Again, in the context of laws. Laws are regional. They are dependent upon WHERE one is. For instance, in some places, it is illegal to spank your kids, but in other places it is not.

In that sense, so is sin. Sin is a type of regional law. If one is in, for instance, "God's" service or family, sin is a word for the laws in that place. For those who believes we are all there, than that law applies to all of us. For those who don't, they don't believe the laws apply to them. The tricky thing with sin is that the application of it is not revealed until this life is done.

Originally, a clever person, for example the chemist Boyle, had an idea. That idea was tested to see if it appeared to be universally true. As far as he could see, it was true. Then other scientists, maybe some who thought he was probably wrong, also tested his idea and again it was proved to be right. Eventually, his idea (or 'thesis') became accepted by everyone as being 'right' and the thesis therefore became a law. Thus we have Boyle's Law. If at any time someone can prove that to be wrong, there will be great discussion, mostly about why so many people have believed in the past that Boyle was right.

Today, replace 'a clever person' with a dedicated team of people working together. In fact there are likely to be dedicated teams in different places, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Europeans and the Americans might well each have a team trying to be the first to make the same new discovery. When one team has done it, the others will likely find the same result - or maybe not and the research will continue until all are finally agreed.

What science proves it therefore many things, each scientist (in the past) and each team (today) working on their project. Proof means that scientists with the relevant experience all agree.

It's not that simple, because Einstein's relativity shows that Newton's laws of motion are not totally correct for every situation. They're fine for apples falling from trees, but not good enough to describe very large objects like galaxies or very small objects like atoms - things that Newton didn't know about in his day.

Yes, I agree, scientists are people who do the best they can in the light of the knowledge of the day. My criticism of the church was of their reaction to the scientific discovery that the earth is not the centre of everything. It took HUNDREDS of years for the church to admit that the scientists had made a new and exciting discovery and pardon Copernicus for excommunicating him. They should have simply said, "Oh, OK, that's interesting" but instead they reacted with fury at the daring suggestion that the teachings of the church were wrong and excommunicated the scientist who made the discovery. Why was the church so keen to tell it how it is (how they saw it) and be so angry with anyone who discovered an interesting thing about the world we live in?

No, I am not one of those people people who believe that we have a choice, science or religion. There are some well known scientists who are Christians and many more in the past who were Muslim scholars. My point is that science is the continual discovery of new facts about our world and the stars around us, while religion is an optional belief system and quite separate from scientific research.

These days I don't think religions tell us that scientists are 'wrong' they seem to accept the results discovered by scientists, which is as it should be.

When I say religion is optional, I mean simply that some people follow one of the many religions that exist, and of course obey their set of rules (or not in some cases) while others have no beliefs of that sort. Humanists like me follow the rules of the land. And of course, they are different in your country from mine, indeed different in some of your US states to other states. No need to make that obvious point, all I was saying is that we elect representatives to make the rules for us and then obey them (or not). We're lucky that we can do that, in countries run by a dictator, just that one person decides what the rules are and the punishments are usualy very severe if any are broken. We're lucky that we can have this discussion, in some countries, there is an official religion and people who do not belong are punished - aethists and humanists have been put to death in some countries because they don't believe in the official religion. Of course, that's not really 'religion' as practised in our two countries. In those countries, religion is not optional.

I never said science is all knowing. Nothing is all knowing. Like Newtons' Laws of motion, science is the best we can do at any one time. As time goes by new research come up with new things, some of which 'update' earlier thinking.

Yes, of course, if you're a believer, you believe, and if not, you don't!

I agree with you, both science and religion exist together, it is not a choice of one or the other. Science isn't 'right', it is no more than the best we can do at the moment. Having said that, it's good enough for everyday things like cars and TV sets, as well as exciting things like sending people to the moon. None of those things could have happened a few hundred years ago before we had the understanding we have today. When Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, someone said it was such a wonderful thing he could imagine there would one day be one in every town, even every village, perhaps! What would he have made of my ability to use my cellphone to talk with someone else on their cellphone living in any country anywhere in this world? I doubt he would have believed that could be possible. In the time of Shakespeare, it was widely believed that the human body could not physically travel at more than 60 miles per hour as it would fall apart! Science slowly gets to the truth and will probably never get the full way.

Religion on the other hand is a belief in some sort of deity (depending on the religion) which has miraculous powers and loves us all, yet allows ten thousand people to die in a tsunami. From the scientific viewpoint, religion is a collection of myths and fairytales, no better than astrology and has no credibility.

Each to their own!

of course. to each their own. I do believe religion only requires a belief in a deity, and the miraculous power, all loving, and allowing tsunamis are more personal projections, to be fair. Not all deities have the same qualities.

As a Christian, God is all loving and JUST and created mortal life which has an end or 'death'. I love my children, but I am just with them in teaching them choice and consequence as well. I dont shield them from consequences, but let them learn from them.

As a Christian. I believe God allows free will. He 'allows' us to die a mortal death in many ways, most of our own (mankind in general, not the deceased in specific) doing and choice. He also 'allows' us everlasting life beyond this one, which also is predicated on our free will and choice.

From the scientific viewpoint, I would think much of history and many biologies and auto biologies might be considered 'myth and fairytale' if enough years pass where they cannot have earthly sensory 'scientific' proof of its validity. Of course, that does not make it so, only what 'scientists' believe, but cannot prove, nor disprove.

I enjoy being able to have open communication about religion in a religion thread. I do wonder, if we should have a secular thread as well? Perhaps believers could chime in on why they don't understand that others don't believe? I am not being facetious, it is a genuine thought after hearing so many non believers claiming believers try to control or force their beliefs. I wonder if it is a human thing to want to discuss these gray areas, regardless of faith or faithlessness. Non believers question the rationale of believers, and believers do the same in return.

Our brains are incredibly complicated and I heard a recent suggestion that we understand far less about them than we had thought. An interesting - and controversial - topic is free will. When you are driving your car, you will do the 'best' thing you can to get to your destination. If you hit someone else because you weren't looking, it could be said that the brain was doing the best thing given all the information it had. If you weren't looking an important piece of information was missing. Take that a great deal further and I wonder if it is possible that in fact we don't have free will at all? I know that Christians, and possibly other faiths, will argue that we do because God gave that to us. But God isn't someone like the POTUS who lives at the end of a phone line and you can call her to ask what we should do about something, of if she has, or has not, given us free will. To say that we have been 'given' free will is part of the whole belief myth. From a scientific viewpoint, we might have free will and we might not. Maybe our brains are very complex computers and like computers we will always do the thing that has the greatest chance of survival, and that even includes deciding whether to go shopping or visiting friends. Just a thought and I know believers will not like it!

Not sure what you mean by much of history can be considered myth or fairy tale. If you mean that we didn't have video recorders hundreds of years ago, then I completely agree. Nobody knows for certain exactly what happened - and that of course includes the events of about 2000 years ago. Imagine what people would think in 2000 years from now if there was very little left of our existing civilisation. They would probably get very much the wrong idea of how we lived our lives today.

However, scientists are people who are not certain. They do the research and come to the conclusion that this or that very likely happened. When someone else does similar research and gets a different answer a debate starts and other scientists join in. In some cases the debates continue, in others, agreement has been reached and that is what science is. I get sad when I see people who have total faith in something which has no proof whatsoever, just myths and fairy tales - back to the flat earth people again!

Scientists are not 'believers' in the way that followers of one of the world faiths are believers, of something that has no proof and no evidence. Scientists think only that "this is possible" or "this is quite likely" or eventually "this is true as far as we can tell with today's knowledge". Scientists never ever have that certainly that some faith believers do.

I am not one of those secular people who think that believers try to force or control their beliefs. For me the word 'belief' means "I think it is so on the basis of what I have seen". Thus it would be impossible for me to change my belief about anything unless and until I see compelling evidence that my current beliefs are wrong. Politically, for example, if the party I don't support come out with some new ideas that seem better than the party I do support, I might change my mind at the next election, because I will then 'believe' that a different party might have a better answer than the party I previously voted for.

It is the trying to force belief that happens in some countries where you can be punished by death if you have a different belief to the 'offical' one of that country. Often it is a Muslim belief and if you are Christian or aetheist you could be killed if the authorities find out.

The Catholic denomination of the Christian religion is the one that likes to 'control' its members. Many women will insist on equal rights, yet when they go to church they meekly accept that it is only men who can become priests. I was once friendly with a convent of nuns who were quietly fed up with the male domination of their Catholicism, yet were not able to do anything about it, the system is totally locked down against any change.

Indeed, I just cannot understand why anyone would believe in this mythical God creature, who isn't an old man with a long beard living in the sky (which possibly suits small children) but what is the definition of God for adults? An influence? A being from another planet, or universe? If she does exist why would that make any difference to me and what do in my life?

To convert me back to Catholicism (yes, I was born one because my Mother was and went to that sort of school till I was 18) you would first need to prove to me that God actually does exist, and then convince me that her existence does, or should, make a difference to my existence. Same applies to any other religion. I just can't see the point of it all myself!

Interesting perspectives.

As an Adult, God is life. He is the creator of life. He is the designer of life. He is not from any planet or universe, because He came before the planets and the universe. It makes a difference, speaking for myself, in the way it makes a difference to have a mother and father. It is the knowledge of what came before and the guidance of love that help build a foundation upon which to stand and live life upon.

as I said before, for me, 'proof' exists all around me of the intelligence of creation and design. But what constitutes 'proof' for some is not what is required of others. I do not have to have proof come in a package of scientific experimentation and study. Some things I believe without that tangible proof. I have never taken a dna test to ensure my mother and father were my mother and father. They could have been imposters only pretending to be. But I have enough proof to believe otherwise, what may be considered 'consequential' more than 'scientific', but proof enough for me.

And even if I had never seen them, nor met them, and been orphaned, if I had heard the stories about them over and from many over time, I would believe they were my parents. And even if we lived in a time where humans could be successfully cloned, and I had heard over time and many times about my mother and father, I would believe they existed and that I was not a clone. Maybe I would be right, or maybe I wouldnt, but that would not be predicated on if I believed it. the truth would be the truth, regardless of my beliefs, and sometimes beliefs match the truth, others not.

First off, if any Atheists read this and find statements incompatible with your belief, know that I am not meaning to contradict your spirituality. I respect and to an extent understand your beliefs. Disclaimer over.


God created reality and uses the environment to communicate with us. God also created imagination. How is God not real when She created reality as well as imagination. The Holy Spirit is something one experiences in their life. God identifies Himself as “I am who I am.” If anyone wants to define it some other way go for it. Christianity is able to describe important matters that math and science cannot describe. In most places it is the most well established tool for doing this, and people generally have an intuitive understanding of the conceptualization of truth. It is an open minded and useable language.

What saved me from killing myself, when I was doubting the purpose of life, was at college where I crossed paths with a kind, old mountain man who handed me a pocket-size New Testament. I said “Cool, thanks,” it being evident from the tone of my voice that that was going to be the first time I had ever read it. He had a glow in his eye knowing he just made a difference in someone’s life.

Is sex before marriage a sin? For Christians and those of similar mindset, it is a sin, unless the mutual physical belonging is entirely “supposed;” but who wants to do that.

Well handfasting before the Lord as you witnessed once upon a Time considered an actual marriage where is when the law recognizes living as man and wife and accepting one another as man and wife as legal marriage. Therefore, handfasting is legal which means if you live without marriage but marry each other it's is legal. The only thing that Jesus did state in the Bible was give into the Lord that which belongs to the Lord. Give into Caesar that which is Caesar's or basically we must follow the laws. I do not think the marriage license is necessary in itself to cause sin but ending the marriage before 7 years. I was with my husband living as husband and wife for 17 years. We had children together and we're faithful to one another. He started using drugs after starting a job with a company that went out of town it essentially ended our marriage as drugs became more important to him.

Honestly many scientist actually believe in a higher power than themselves. As discussed everything by concise and perfect design could only have been created by something or someone to be so well balanced for even life to exist.

If God is, as I believe, nothing more than the creation of man (literally, no women involved) then most of what you say is meaningless.

You have no proof that your parents are truly who they say they are. You have instead a massive amount of circumstantial evidence and a great deal of trust in their word. That would not stand up in law. If it became necessary to 'prove' to a court of law that those people are truly you parents, you would need to have that DNA test. Obviously in nomral life it is not necessary. I too have massive evidence that my parents are indeed who they say they are and like you, there is no need for scientific evidence. But my 'belief' would not stand up in a law court if 'proof' were ever needed. I too would need to have that DNA test if that should ever become necessary.

Sometimes beliefs match the truth, as you say. In the case of parents our beliefs do match the truth, but there is not sufficient proof of that. No problem, as we don't need that proof. Other times beliefs, such as in some form of God do not match the truth. There is a scientist here in the UK who claims he can 'prove' there is no such thing as God. I'm not talking about "If there is a God, how can he let so many people die?" that is not scientific. I don't myself understand how you would prove that something doesn't exist! Easy enough to prove that something does exist. I exist. If you want 'proof' of that in case I am a sophisticated computer program, come to England, I'll give you my address and buy you a meal when you get here. You'll see I match my picture here and will remember our conversations. That is probably sufficient proof that I exist, but for the purposes of our conversation, such proof is not required.

hi

and that is the nature of belief, to not always be 'scientifically' proven. It is no more silly to me to believe God exists than to believe our parents are our parents. Just as I came from somewhere, so did EVERYTHING else that lives and dies. I may be a chip in a matrix, when all is said and done, who is only PROGRAMMED to believe I am human. But barring 'scientific' proof of either my procreation or my creation, I believe I came from the man and woman calling themselves mom and dad. And I believe all things with a birth and death came from a higher power/intelligence I call God.

Has anyone every heard of the idea;

The universe only exists to fill my perception. Once I "die", it would serve no purpose. It would be incomplete without me. You have nothing to worry about because you do not perceive the "universe" in the same way I do. What you consider "thoughts" and "observations" are merely programs that you follow to create a richer world experience for me.

If you consider the fact that the only 'world'/'universe' you actually know is the one in which you always exist, nothing can be 'proven' beyond some degree of belief.

"When I die, the flying monkeys will be released"
If I believe this is true, there is no way you can prove it one way or the other because once I die, I no longer have a 'view' and the flying monkeys can't be released until I die.

When I wake up in the morning, I see the world according to Tom.
All thru the day, I experience only the world according to Tom.
The only reality that actually exists is the reality I experience.
If I see my beliefs as reality, they are reality.

There are around 7.7 BILLION realities right now.
Each has its own beliefs and its own truths.
No matter how hard one might try, you can NEVER see from behind someone else's eyes. You might 'think' you can but you can't.

If someone asked me to prove I exist my response would be; "Why? I know I exist. Why should I have to prove that to you?"

If someone asks me to prove God exists, my response is; "Why? I know God exists. Why should I have to prove it to you. It's my God, not yours?"

I agree with your completely - in some ways I really think we are saying the same thing. 'Belief' is something you are convinced is 'true' without needing the scientific proof that a court would need if that belief was challenged. It might or might not be factually true, but you are sure it is. As with your parents and mine and also your belief in a God. I am totally convinced that if there was any doubt about my real parents a DNA test would prove me right. Same for you.

Where we differ is in our belief where God is concerned. You believe there is a God and don't feel you need any proof for that belief. I believe the God idea was created by man. Before God was 'invented' a couple of thousand years ago, there were Muslims who believe in a similar concept they call Allah. Before them, nobody believed in any form of God because the idea had not yet been invented!

If you wanted to prove to me that your parents really are your parents you could get a DNA test. It's quite simple and the result would show that your belief is upheld.

What test, simple or not, could you devise to prove to me that God really does exist? There are no such tests, if there were, nobody in the world would be disbelievers like me. Yet, religious people always evade that question. They say things like proof is not needed. My mother used to say that you only have to look at the flowers to be convinced only a God could create such beauty. Sorry, Mum, but that is not scientific proof. In my world view, we are what we are. What you see is what you get. We have evolved from the Big Bang to where we are today and will no doubt continue to evolve for the next five billion years, at which time our sun will go supernova and if there is any life on earth it will have moved to live elsewhere, or perish.

I live a scientific life and believe that we are learning about ourselves as we evolve. If for some reason I had doubts about my parents, we have the science to do a DNA test to settle the matter. That is simply not possible for a believe in God. One day, I'm sure scientists will discover an explanation for the God idea. I think it will be a state of mind that is comforting for some people (like you) and not required for others (like me). Some Christians feel the need to try to convert others and I do wish I could explain to them that while their beliefs are fine for them, they are completely not needed for me. I don't need to be converted!

Here is where it gets muddled.
DNA tests are admissible in court.
However, those results are believed to actually represent the condition of reality that applies.
But, if you did not witness the actual test being performed, you are still basing fact on belief.
Even if you sat in the lab, watched a sample get taken from each donor and put into the machine so the information can be read as output, you are believing that this sequence of events take place and it means something.
If you don't believe DNA exists, the results are meaningless.
If you believe DNA exists but don't believe the methodology is accurate, the results are meaningless.
DNA tests are admissible in court because a majority of society believes they are accurate. What people fail to realize is there are results that are not accurate for one reason or another.
The fact that 'any' results could fail means people 'believe' the results presented are reality.
Reality is always reality whether a person considers it or not.

Belief does not 'cause' reality but reality can 'cause' belief.
Imagined reality is not actual reality.
You exist in reality. It exists whether you believe it or not.
Reality needs no reason, it just is.
Belief is how you deal with the reality in which you exist.
For the DNA test to have any significance, it must be believed.

People believe in a god, apparently there are many gods so I guess you decide which one to believe in and it’s usually based on where you live.

I also believe god is man made to control people. I have even been told that sex is only for procreation by some Christians. That would mean that after your child bearing years are over, no more sex for you. How ridiculous is that. That means that anyone unable to bear children should not have sex.

Sex outside of marriage is also a sin. Again, that’s a ridiculous expectation. Many religions condemn homosexuality which is so wrong. Love is love and should be accepted no matter who it is. Religion treats women as second class citizens. That’s also a load of crap.

Many gods, many religions and everyone thinks theirs is the right one. But none of them treat all people equally. There is a lot of killing based on religious beliefs.

Humans were not created, they evolved. Some animals continue to evolve. Elephants are now being born without tusks. This will Eliminate the killing of elephants for their tusks.

It boggles my mind how people can be so easily fooled and controlled.

I agree with most of what you wrote but belief in God is not the same as belief in religon.
Religion is what is man-made to control people.
The God I believe exists, isn't concerned with how we conduct ourselves.
It offers no rewards and no punishments, for anything.
The idea of rewards and punishment is man-made to allow one person to have control over another.

I agree with most of what you wrote but belief in God is not the same as belief in religon.
Religion is what is man-made to control people.
The God I believe exists, isn't concerned with how we conduct ourselves.
It offers no rewards and no punishments, for anything.
The idea of rewards and punishment is man-made to allow one person to have control over another.


I agree that religion has evolved as a means of controlling people (especially for Muslims and Catholics). However, I do not share your belief that any sort of God actually 'exists' other than as a state of mind of the believer.

You probably missed where I stated what I think God is.
It was awhile ago and in a different thread.

I call it God for lack of a defining name or condition.
It has to do with true absolute zero, time and motion.

Essentially, something set the Universe in motion from a state of no motion.
Everything else came after, including any possible 'big bang' event.
Since nobody knows what that cause might be, it could be called God.
My understanding of God is much more than that.
It is what exists between the moments of time, between duration.

I don't know if it is intent or reactive.
If it is intent, it far exceeds my understanding.
If it is a reaction, I wonder what action could have happened to cause the reaction. Then I wonder what caused the initial action.

Without an understanding, God or no God is far beyond my ability to understand and that is God by certain definitions.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke
For all purposes of consideration that initial state change is magic.
I'm not saying it was caused by an advanced technology. I'm just saying it is magical and CAN be defined as God.

All the millions of years of billions of generations of animals doing it without a marriage licence can't be wrong.

Or maybe good god fearing folk are doing their god's work in making many of the animal species extinct for having ungodly sex; the filthy animals deserve to all die out if they don't go to church.