God sacrificed his only son to absolve our sins???

Post Reply New Topic

Science Millions of people put their trust and their money in homeopathy. Science says it's utter nonsense. Fortune tellers, tarot card readers and mediums also make a killing. Science says they're frauds. People spend their hard-earned bucks on healing crystals and little copper pyramids and magnets and anti-aging cream. Science says it's all bull. But nobody listens.

People want to be lied to, cheated and defrauded. They desperately want something to believe in, something that provides them with simple answers, the promise of fast results, and the illusion of a little more control over their lives. Well, it's their money. The world really is built on lies, countless people make a decent living by lying to their customers and followers and disciples, and nobody wants to listen to the educated people who actually know what they're talking about. People prefer to live in a world full of magic and angels and snake oil.

One of the infinitely many things wrong with Christianity is the Ten Commandments. Not having any other gods besides the "God" and not using God's name in vain are more important to "God" than not murdering another human being. This is silly. If this "God" is real, then I want no part of him. Can anyone say "large ego" or "insecure with his position as the most powerful being." Not even children believe this nonsense without it being pounded into their heads.

Keet, you have a deeper understanding of the bible, I still think what you believe is complete nonsense but at least you have a more complex way to explain the story. However most believers fully accept the basic story. God sent his ONLY son to his greatest creation, had him preach for a few years, then choose not to intervene when the local populace tortured and murdered him.

They then believe that by refusing to protect his son God performs the ultimate blood sacrifice to Humanity and thereby absolves us of our sins. Up tp this point the story is all well and good (as long as you accept the notion of meaningful blood sacrifice). But the ressurection negates the massive sacrifice that god made for us. Its a bit like giving all your money to charity, claiming all the kudos for such a wonderful gesture, then going to their bank and taking it all back. It just doe not stack up.

I don't think this story is all well up to that point at all. Humans made God angry. In order to forgive us, he had humans torture and brutally kill him. If I was mad at you for eating my favorite apple that I told you not to eat (even though a talking snake that I created to trick you told you so) and then I said, years later, "I'm ready to forgive you for your horrible sin." And then I say "All that you have to do is beat me, mock me, put a crown of thorns on my head whip me, torture, force me to carry a cross up a hill, than leave me there to die." How dumb is that? If my father got mad at someone for something trivial and then told that person he would forgive them if they did what they did to Jesus to me, they would think he was insane and rightly so. Even if there were no talking snakes...

Umm plenty of religious people where scienctist umm Like Charles Darwin who was a christian not a atheist. And science can explain things but then another theory is created then other so many theory on a lot of things some of disprooven some are not.

That does not matter one bit whether a scientist is religious or not. Theism is not what guides the methodology he or she uses to make scientific discoveries. Furthermore the fact that theories change or are thrown out is one of the best things about science. It is the search for truth. It is the height of ignorance to criticize scientific method for not having total consensus on every matter like religion. The unmoving and uninspired nature of religion is the antithesis of discovery and knowledge. It feeds on ignorance

Charles Darwin the man who wrote the book on "Origion of Species" Was a religious person sure it does not matter that he was. And I know theism is not what gudied him he was being secular Charles Darwin would not let his Faith interfear with his sciencentific reseacher. Nor do I as I have stated I like to keep them seperate I have my faith which is apart of me but I do not blindly follow it as others do but I still believe in God. And most of my close friends in school where non theists it seems to me that most non theists think all people who are religious follow their faith blindly or that they are consumed by it this isnt true at all when it comes to proestants but is correct when it comes to Catholics who are anti-science.

^Darwin was probably an agnostic or an atheist by the time he died, though at one point, when he was young, he had the intent to go into the clergy. There are other scientists you can cite as believers - Isaac Newton being a big one from history, and Francis Collins in the present time. It's not terribly unusual for mathematicians to be believers, and physicists can be as well; biologists tend to be the scientists least likely to be believers in any religion.

Thank you for saying this the main reason I broght up religious people being invovled in science was because a lot of fellow church goers to not believe that you can be religious and a scienitist of any kind at the same time when that is nonsense.

Of course you can be a both religious and a scientist, but that doesn't mean that religion has any place in science. Scientific researchers who happen to be religious don't use their religion to find empirical truths about the universe that we live in. And of course it depends on what kind of religion we're talking about. Creationist beliefs, for example, are utterly incompatible with scientific fields such as biology or cosmology.

Btw, people with an academic degree are a lot less likely to be religious than the general population. Link: "Higher IQ turns academics into atheists". (Personally, I think it's a matter of education, particularly education in the natural sciences, rather than IQ).

CrazyCatLord is absolutely correct about creationism, and for that matter dogma in general; such things tend to fall pretty quickly with increasing education and thought. When our minds balk at some new theory (a la Einstein, who was pantheistically spiritual but not religious, balking over Bohr's theories), we prevent ourselves not only from seeing possibilities but from seeing what is actually there.

didn't a lot of humans die several times before that???

i can think of other occasions like noah and the flood...

I am willing to bet good money that few if any believing scientists take the scriptures of their individual religions literally.

ruveyn

I agree the story is rather absurd, I find the whole notion of theism absurd, that is not my point. I am trying to understand how people can believe stories which have glaring inconsistencies and downright contraditions.

I think crazycatlord summed it up very succinctly "They desperately want something to believe in, something that provides them with simple answers, the promise of fast results, and the illusion of a little more control over their lives". It just disappoints me that they cant make up stories with a greater degree of plausibility.