Catholic Church admits Bible is BS

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Theories being taught as fact.

End of the day you cannot prove the big bang happened. You cannot prove life started in a primeval swamp. Science will and does impose its version of reality is correct and mine is not ergo science imposing itself upon me more than I do on it and those who have faith in it

Theories being taught as the best explanation that is understood at the time, backed up by observations and experiments.

The evidence gathered shows the high likelihood of the Big Bang having occurred, just like Evolution - again, that’s the difference between science and faith.

I bet you believe in Gravitational Theory (if not, feel free to step out a 3rd floor window)…

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

If I fail to account for your favoured scenario, it’s because in my experience, that scenario simply doesn’t exist - even in cases where parents think that’s what they’re doing.

Children always, always, absorb their parents’ ethical framework and worldview, even if parents actively avoid discussion of it, because children observe it in action every moment of every day, from birth. You simply cannot bring up a child without inculcating in that child your own view of human dignity, care for the environment and some sense of how you arrive at your value judgments.

I have made no distinction between active and passive atheism in the home because it makes no practical difference. You bring up your children with a certain ethical framework, whether or not at the same time you give them a critique of alternative ethical frameworks, regardless of whether those alternatives are based in religious faith. If you don’t recognise that you are doing this, you are doing your children a disservice.

Children are not simply miniature adults. They are immature, in the truest sense of the term, and their very nature requires they are taught, ideally by example as much as instruction, how to make sense of the world around them and how to relate to it, what their responsibilities are in it and what wider society owes them. Insisting on their ‘right to determine their own journey in their formative years’ sounds terribly progressive but is actual nuts, and a recipe only for poorly grounded young people who have been left to infer what’s right and wrong with minimal guidance. There’s a term for that: it’s “chaotic home environment” and its consequences are seldom good.

Children actively seek guidance about how to make sense of the world. It is a given in Western culture (and many others) that it is the parents’ responsibility to do this, with varying levels of support from extended family to and wider community, in accordance with family and cultural tradition - unless something has gone wrong and the child is in manifest danger. Only then does the State intervene. You offer your proposed alternative as seemingly morally superior, but it isn’t.

You are basing your argument on the premise that a faith-less (or rather a faith-neutral) upbringing cannot be one based on a moral and ethical framework. You cannot (or do not want to) to accept this is possible. That's fine, that is your right.

You equate a faith-neutral upbringing as "nuts" but as the saying goes "you would say that". I understand your inability to accept the premise since your faith demands you must not but this does not invalidate the argument and more importantly, invalidate the proposition i.e. every person has the right to determine their own world view and not have one imposed upon them.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

yet you are imposing your view on them

No, reality is imposing it’s views on them…

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, reality is imposing it’s views on them…

No, reality is a matter of perception so everyone imposes their own reality on themselves.

You may well be 100% secure in your beliefs in science but you could still be wrong just as easily I could in mine. Neither of us can prove it to the other.

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:44 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are basing your argument on the premise that a faith-less (or rather a faith-neutral) upbringing cannot be one based on a moral and ethical framework. You cannot (or do not want to) to accept this is possible. That's fine, that is your right.

You equate a faith-neutral upbringing as "nuts" but as the saying goes "you would say that". I understand your inability to accept the premise since your faith demands you must not but this does not invalidate the argument and more importantly, invalidate the proposition i.e. every person has the right to determine their own world view and not have one imposed upon them.

A faithless or faith neutral person will teach their belief in the fact there is no God same as a person of faith with teach their is one. Both are doing exactly the same thing

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

You cannot prove he didn't

Not trying to,i just have no proof that god exists, but i know science exists,so until i get verifiable proof of god i'll have to go with science.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Not trying to,i just have no proof that god exists, but i know science exists,so until i get verifiable proof of god i'll have to go with science.

I respect that and hope you respect my right to have my faith and express same as you have with science

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are basing your argument on the premise that a faith-less (or rather a faith-neutral) upbringing cannot be one based on a moral and ethical framework. You cannot (or do not want to) to accept this is possible. That's fine, that is your right.

You equate a faith-neutral upbringing as "nuts" but as the saying goes "you would say that". I understand your inability to accept the premise since your faith demands you must not but this does not invalidate the argument and more importantly, invalidate the proposition i.e. every person has the right to determine their own world view and not have one imposed upon them.

No, I am not. Quite the opposite in fact. I am basing my argument on the fact that everyone, always, inculcates their children in a moral framework whether it is religious or not and whether they are aware that’s what they’re doing or not. You are “imposing” your world view on your children from the day they are born (an interesting word from someone who repeatedly complains about the pejorative nature of other people’s posts).

Children do not pick up grey shades and moral dilemmas from their parents; they do not pick up lists of alternative ethical approaches; they learn what to *do* based firstly on what they observe their parents doing, and later on questioning their parents for detail.

Claiming that this does not happen is nuts. Claiming you can avoid doing it is nuts. And ultimately, claiming that children should not be brought up with a faith but should only be presented with a series of alternatives from which they might choose in adulthood is nuts, because it completely fails to understand the dynamics and the reality of family life and bringing up children.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

My Father is a physicist and he said to me that we understand the laws of physics pretty well here but as for the laws for the rest of the universe we really have no idea

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------



But science will have you think time began with the big bang. Yes, it is a human construct but forever in all directions space and time is pretty hard to fathom isn't it

A scientist can always question my faith and I can always question theirs with a "where did that come from"

I am not sure your father is up-to-date with the current science. Physicists have plenty of "ideas" about the laws that govern the Universe. Also, time is not a human construct per se, rather a dimension first postulated by empirical observation, then by written theory and latterly by peer reviewed experiments - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime for more information.

Of course, the kicker is that you can question a scientist and they can then show your their peer reviewed and evidence-based proof whereas, with faith, .. well you know the rest ...

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

No, reality is a matter of perception so everyone imposes their own reality on themselves.

You may well be 100% secure in your beliefs in science but you could still be wrong just as easily I could in mine. Neither of us can prove it to the other.

Science is the approach in which we understand the reality around us. It is not an alternative viewpoint on how we perceive that reality although it can become so when we reach the parts we do not yet understand, good scientists will make that clear.

As a result, there isn't as much conflict between science and religion as people make out. Science hasn't ruled out God, it hasn't ruled out an afterlife, it hasn't ruled out that there was a creator which started this all. There are only a few things that I can think of that have been ruled out such as the Earth being 6,000 years old. Most of the 'conflict' these days is an American culture war.

But what science can prove is not a matter of 'belief'. If we were to be wiped out only for a new intelligent civilisation to emerge later then the same principles of our world would be discovered again. The laws of physics would remain the same, they would discover we go around the sun, how gravity works, that you can't go faster than the speed of light, that viruses exist even though you cannot see them and so on.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

No, I am not. Quite the opposite in fact. I am basing my argument on the fact that everyone, always, inculcates their children in a moral framework whether it is religious or not and whether they are aware that’s what they’re doing or not. You are “imposing” your world view on your children from the day they are born (an interesting word from someone who repeatedly complains about the pejorative nature of other people’s posts).

Children do not pick up grey shades and moral dilemmas from their parents; they do not pick up lists of alternative ethical approaches; they learn what to *do* based firstly on what they observe their parents doing, and later on questioning their parents for detail.

Claiming that this does not happen is nuts. Claiming you can avoid doing it is nuts. And ultimately, claiming that children should not be brought up with a faith but should only be presented with a series of alternatives from which they might choose in adulthood is nuts, because it completely fails to understand the dynamics and the reality of family life and bringing up children.

I guess you need to believe this fiction but it does not make you right, far from it. "Imposing" as a verb is an accurate description of the practise I am commenting on, nothing pejorative about it at all. I suggest you look up the definition. Calling people "nuts" arguably is though ..

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Damien

Science is the approach in which we understand the reality around us. It is not an alternative viewpoint on how we perceive that reality although it can become so when we reach the parts we do not yet understand, good scientists will make that clear.

As a result, there isn't as much conflict between science and religion as people make out. Science hasn't ruled out God, it hasn't ruled out an afterlife, it hasn't ruled out that there was a creator which started this all. There are only a few things that I can think of that have been ruled out such as the Earth being 6,000 years old.

But what science can prove is not a matter of 'belief'. If we were to be wiped out only for a new intelligent civilisation to emerge later then the same principles of our world would be discovered again. The laws of physics would remain the same, they would discover we go around the sun, how gravity works, that you can't go faster than the speed of light, that viruses exist even though you cannot see them and so on.

arrr the goldilocks paradox. Everything just right anyone could have thought it was all made for us

you are right there is no conflict between science and religion there is conflict between people and their conflicting views and how they deal with that.

I have no issue with anyone elses belief. If a scientist knocked on my door and wanted to discuss their beliefs with me I would enjoy the conversation.

Sometimes when I knock someones door ( not happened since the pandemic ) I have often been greeted with anger and hostility. You have seen a taste of it here with the use of the word impose. I am not trying to force anything upon anyone. I am offering a message of hope and come with love in my heart. They can refuse to listen or say they are to busy and off I would trot onto the next door. I am not asking for money or trying to scam them just trying to be a friend.

My point from when I joined in on this topic when I said about the atheist imposing their view. I offer my view kindly they often offer theirs in anger or disdain

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

you are right there is no conflict between science and religion there is conflict between people and their conflicting views and how they deal with that

I think you will find there a lot of conflict between science and religion

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

I have no issue with anyone elses belief. If a scientist knocked on my door and wanted to discuss their beliefs with me I would enjoy the conversation

But why would they need to? They have no need to persuade you of anything.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Sometimes when I knock someones door ( not happened since the pandemic ) I have often been greeted with anger and hostility. You have seen a taste of it here with the use of the word impose. I am not trying to force anything upon anyone. I am offering a message of hope and come with love in my heart. They can refuse to listen or say they are to busy and off I would trot onto the next door. I am not asking for money or trying to scam them just trying to be a friend.

My point from when I joined in on this topic when I said about the atheist imposing their view. I offer my view kindly they often offer theirs in anger or disdain

But you are not " just trying to be a friend" are you? You have a specific mission to complete.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I think you will find there a lot of conflict between science and religion



But why would they need to? They have no need to persuade you of anything.



But you are not " just trying to be a friend" are you? You have a specific mission to complete.

Science and religion are not sentient so cannot be anything other than what they are

Just saying

Trying to find like hearted ones not trying to force anyone into anything. We in fact only let people become a witness after much study and then it is their choice. Many people think there is something more and just do not know what it is maybe it is God they are looking for

edit I have said what the specific mission is and that is to see the message of the kingdom preached in all corners of the world so the end can come. Matthew Chapter 24 verse 14

Originally Posted by ianch99

I guess you need to believe this fiction but it does not make you right, far from it. "Imposing" as a verb is an accurate description of the practise I am commenting on, nothing pejorative about it at all. I suggest you look up the definition. Calling people "nuts" arguably is though ..

I’m curious - as I indicated earlier, my view is based on broad experience. I’m a father and a friend of fathers and mothers, through family, neighbourhood and school connections. Throughout, you have offered your view without indicating whether you also are speaking from experience. Do you have children?

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

you are right there is no conflict between science and religion there is conflict between people and their conflicting views and how they deal with that.

I have no issue with anyone elses belief. If a scientist knocked on my door and wanted to discuss their beliefs with me I would enjoy the conversation.

Ok but you keep trying to position science as a belief when it isn't, it's a process.

There are scientists who have a religion and for a long time in human history most scientists (at least in the Western History I have knowledge of) were religious along with the rest of society. Science is not an alternative faith or religion.

Obviously, there are conflicts such as some in America trying to position creationism within the sciences or atheists who think it's their job to convert people away from their faith using science which is what I assume you're actually talking about. That doesn't make science a belief, even atheism isn't a belief.