Originally Posted by terjw
Atheist, agnostic whatever. To make my own position clear:
- I no longer believe in a personal God and saviour although I used to.
- I think when you are dead that's it.
- I do not claim I'm right and others with their personal beliefs are wrong. I have no wish to impose my view on anyone else.
- I do have respect for other people's religious convictions.
- I've not looked into other religions apart from Christianity and have no desire to do so.
As far as an omnipresent impersonal creator - I'm open-minded on this. Science cannot disprove the existence of God. If you ask what or who started the big-bang, the answer you'll get from a physicist is that it is a meanigless question because time and space did not exist before the big-bang. And if there's no time - it is meaningless to put a question about "before
the big band". I suspect most people find that answer unsatisfactory. To be told that their question is meaningless as an answer usually riles most people up.
As for the last part,you've surely deduced that many leaders in the scientific community would prefer to completely discredit,as intellectual manure,any sort of theistic beliefs on the formation of the universe.In a forensic sense,they've become NO different than the RCC leaders from centuries ago who looked to silence any dissent on their doctrines or discussions of our world.An honest scientist will admit that they barely have the first damned clue on the formation of the universe...but they can't admit that publicly or else it might undermine the blind trust many folks have about the proclamations of self-professed experts...and the self-appointed leaders would lose great sway.
A perfect example is my sister who is a brilliant young gal with a doctorate in bio-chemistry from Johns Hopkins University.She sees MICRO-evolution on a constant basis in her work;however,she acknowledges the glaring flaw in genetic evolutionary theory that results from the fact that genomes contain a blocker that prevent mutations from being passed on to the direct offspring.Those mutations CAN re-surface as a recessive gene in a later generation but,obviously,the above reality seriously undermines the mathematical probability model for diehard evolutionists.When I pointed that out to my sis,her response was,'Well...they have OTHER evidence
'.When I asked her to cite solid examples of such evidence,she couldn't do it: As a scientist,she's naturally inclined to believe claims of 'proof' from other members of the community,even though she hasn't done ANY research in some of those other fields,and I was exactly the same when I was younger whenever I heard the words,"scientists have proven".
What's hilarious is how the RCC now dopily follows along with the evolutionists who despise them--probably because they're afraid of looking like inbred,village-dwelling religious simpletons,and they'd hate to hurt the 'Holy Mother Church's' p.r. image
...and yet they actually have some validation for being skeptical...the irony,huh
?......Now aye REALLY have to get going or else my jealous Mexican gf will fear that I'm fooling around
Propaganda Director for the Olympic Slam Queen
aboard SS Dementieva
Ste. Kim, we didn't have you for long enough, but we appreciate what you gave us
2015, the year when we develop the technology to extract our petroleum deposits in the Gulf of Mexico and become a world power