mirriam websters two cents

Noun 1. scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)



kind of makes religions scientific facts too,,,,but its all subjective I suppose,,,

Nice answer, and welcome to the Mingle2 Forums

Again, had I truly had free will regarding my congenital cranial blood vessel anomalies, I most CERTAINLY would have chosen to NOT have had them or the pain and suffering these biological errors caused.

As to the rest of your argument, if I, as an engineer, create something that nearly kills someone, you can bet *I* wouldn't get away with using the same excuse you're making for God.





Enh, if the Garden of Eden myth were real, it sure looks like humans were set up to fail. There's nothing inherently evil about simple curiosity-- in fact, it has served the species well. The Garden of Eden myth just doesn't hold water as anything but folklore (see: Women DO NOT HAVE a different number of ribs), and most apologists use it as a sort of Procrustean Bed calibrated to find human nature lacking and worthy of nothing but Authoritarian rule.

And who but prophets and priests step into the void to pick up the mantle of Authoritarians? Why those who know how to control the prophets and priests, rank oppportunists who are as adept at making sock puppets appear as fearsome as they are believable.

If religion were The Monolyth in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, I suspect the quote at the end would have been "My God, it's full of canards."

-Kerry O.

I appreciate that you said 'kind of' and 'its all subjective'. I apologize for misinterpreting your words, I'm not trying to make a straw man argument, I'm just bouncing off this to a slightly different claim - and I just want to be very clear that it doesn't even make sense to ask "Is religion a scientific fact?"

It might appear that we could argue, based on the definition above, that it is. This seems to happen a lot in these threads - someone quotes a very brief definition from a dictionary, plays loose with a wide and generic interpretation of words composing that definition, and then then (seemingly reasonably) concludes that the something which doesn't meet the definition, does.

One massively important factor not clearly specified in this definition is that not all observations qualify, by the nature of the observation, regardless of its acceptance/verification. Nor is it clarified to whom and by what criteria the observation is accepted.

I observed today that rice is yummy. This has been confirmed repeatedly and accepted as true. So its not my opinion, it is a scientific fact that rice is yummy.

No, these 'observations' must be precise, well defined, and verifiable/falsifiable.

Looking at the suggestion: "Religion is a scientific fact" - we can't even begin to evaluate this statement for accuracy because it doesn't make sense. "Religion" is not a specific observation.

Asking "Is 'religion' a scientific fact?' is like asking 'Is the sky a happy person?' The two object types on either side of the 'is' can't be reasonably compared not because of any incongruity of science and religion, but because of a more basic semantic problem.

I'm sure there are claims of a religious nature which might also qualify as scientific facts; but first they must be well formed.

Any suggestions here?


(again, MsHarmony - I realize you were not claiming anything contrary to the above - I'm just branching off from your post)

That has absolutely nothing to do with free will. FREE WILL, as in you can have any will you wish, as in you can do what you want to do. All free will means is that we aren't little robots, puppets, or anything of such. We control ourselves with our decisions.



It wasn't the curiosity that got us kicked out of the garden. We can wonder, ponder, think about, contemplate, anything we wish and it not be a sin. It was their physical action of disobeying God that got us kicked out of the garden.

There's that idea again "man is there to serve".

I posted a thread inquiring about that very thing and it was basically a dud.

Now it may be off topic - but maybe this thread need to have a different focus so I'm going to ask anyway.


What is 'to serve', who is to be served, in what way and why?

SURE, you are born in the heart of Africa, no plumbing, no refrigerator, mostly any cooking is over an open fire. No TV, very little if any 'media' exposure, and a bunch of American missionaries coming to your village telling you - if you don't like your life, change it - leave.

Sometimes knowledge of the world as it is cannot be related to scripture as one might interpret it. In THIS world it is necessary to understand that limitations and restrictions of individuals are more an accident of birth.

Furthermore in our current world situation there no amount of trying can correct that accident.

Unfortunately, for those who believe in a loving and just god, there is no accounting that would serve as justification for the allowance of such 'accidents' of birth.

Especially when there are people who would claim that they were put here TO SERVE, but instead they remain sheltered, fed, warm, and given needed medical attention, and still 'somehow' find $15.00 to spend on a lottery, or a $7.00 splurge on McDonalds, or $3.00 on a gallon of gas, so they don't have to walk a mile to church to deposti their remaing $1.00 to pay the pastor's way to a nice life.

"humans have choices"

But the question still remains - when did those choices begin? In other words, who would choose to be born physiological and biological imperfections. Who would choose to be born into poverty, already suffering it's effects at birth, low birth weight, underdevelopment, and more?

And what choice do they have but to remain in those states?

So when anyone here, is 'tempted' to sin - can it be said that the temptation is as great as those who I have described?

When anyone here, faces the most abject poverty of their life, can that person begin to equate their suffering to those who would consider 'our' poverty a life of luxery?

CHOICE is not equally distributed, and THAT is what others in this thread are trying to explain.

To suggest that 'choice' is the reason for the world today, is to lay blame on everyone who currently lives better than those whose 'choice' in live has been limited.

Therefore, accept responsibility and make the kind of CHOICE that only those who are better off, than others, can make - to SERVE as the instrument of equal opportunity.

But without the existing insects, animals, and all the sea creatures, our environment would be hostile to human life. Does it matter one bit whether such creatures have equal spiritual standing?

It seems to me THEY are living up to their 'responsibility' to maintain the echosystem that supports our life - so - are we really living up to our 'HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY' by continueing to destroy the environment that those creatures depend on for thier own existence?

Perhaps if people believed all those creatures had a soul/spirit, humans would be far more respectful of all creatures, of the environment, and of each other.

Of course and Christians are always saying what that reason is

"TO SERVE"

So what does that really mean?

It's time to come out of the coma and look at the real world, and if you are not able to, then your choice to do so has been taken from you.

If that is not a limit to free-will, I don't what is.

It's nice to appreciate what you have, and it's serves the ego well, to believe s/he is 'entitled' to what they have.

But when does effort equal to the reward for that effort.

Is it not more effort to hunt all day, only to be rewarded with a rabbit to feed your family than it is to leave a warm home, belly full, and sit at a desk all day and earn enough to by food for a week for your family.

Who do you think would appreciate a gold neclace - the desk worker or the hunter?

Who do you think would better appreciate the average American's thanksgiving dinner - the desk worker or the hunter?

In America an extra dollar is easily spent on a lottery ticket, while the hunter may have have to walk 10 miles or more to spend that dollar and it wouldn't be on a lottery ticket.

When does sharing someone elses poverty change the inequality of poverty throughout the world?

If people are not WILLING to share the poverty, then they are not willing to share what they do have.

Who do you think is a brighter light in your God's eyes, the desk worker who feels entitled to all s/he has or the hunter whose efforts are at least as great but only supply a rabbit?

Missionary work, I hear, is a good calling - for anyone interested I might suggest Sudan or any of that general region. If you want somthing a little more comfortable, try Uganda - I hear they are trying to pass legislation to make homosexuality a crime worthy of death (by stoning) though some suggest hanging.

Oh wait, forget Uganda the missionaries have already been there endorsing their approval of such attitudes.

"Ask and you shall receive" REALLY?

I thought that was about 'asking for forgiveness' so you can receive the kingdom of heaven.

And if someone asks God for rain becasue the river has dried up and it hasn't rained in months and the animals have left and the vegetation is sparse - and he doesn't send rain

BUT at the same time on another side of the world, someone laying in a well attended hospital bed, clean and warm and surrounded by well-fed family and friends is prayed over and that person survives.

which of those two things should be attributed to God?

So in one quote Jesus suggests that the poor will always exist - and I take it that many Christians see that as meaning they should simply better appreciate what they have for themselves.

And in the next quote Jesus is saying to give all you have to the poor.

But it seems to me, for all the Christians that exist in the world, should each of them be willing to SHARE the poverty, everyone would have sufficient - share the poverty and we all become equal.

But in the two quotes of Jesus, it is only one way or the other - where does he strike a balance? Or could it be that no such balance was ever intended.

Science has limitations - faith has different limitations but that's about all they have in common.

Science is one way of knowing some things
Faith is another way of knowing other things

They are otherwise unrelated.

Perhaps it's becasue they are unrelated that there is no reason why an individual can not accept the knowledge that either provides.

I think a capable and willing mind can easily accept both.

Personally, I think accepting faith alone as the only way of knowing anything, severely limits not only individual potential but also the potential of all humans.

That's a nice answer if every single individual ever really HAVE anything to be grateful for.

In other words, is life so important that we should grateful for food? Would not the pain of starvation be ended sooner if some were simply grateful for another day WITHOUT food, to hurry the process along?

And why are we grateful for terribly painful and invasive medical procedure that are meant to safe our lives at the age of 86, when all it usually accomplishes is a longer life with more pain and suffering?

In the end, why do we put so much effort into our own survival?

I personally feel that faith in anything other than what I can do is fatal. Religion is great for conformity, that,s why it became so promoted, the rulers liked obedience and adopted certain faiths as that nations standard. It,s no different today, even in America the bible is the standard, that works great for a corrupt ruling party. Though shall obey your master, pray for your rulers that they make good decisions. I just think it,s so feeble to pray to something and hope it will change a outcome, give me luck, etc. I have the ability to change my luck and my outcomes, I do that on a per moment basis with my thoughts. What I think about causes emotion, emotion causes action, a serious of actions causes destiny. I will say, there has to be some sort of energy or power we all share that,s greater than us, but yet in us. If you boiled down all the major religious books and literature, they speak of the same thing. They point to us, looking inward, church and religion point outward, statues, prayer beads, holy water, temples, rituals, etc. I understand why bad things happen, most people I know that are in a struggle ave a lot of worry and self doubt. They think about things they don,t want to happen, and because they spend majority of that time thinking those thoughts they receive a corresponding reality! I,m not knocking any ones faith, I found a ton of good from them all, hope I did not offend.

So my understanding is that Jeses was the perfect lamb because Jesus fulfilled what man NEVER could, 'The Law' of God.

Since man could Never fulfill God's Law, then only 'a human' who could accomplish it would be worthy of being a sacrificial offering.

As I understand it, the offering was made becasue God knew that no human could follow his laws, and in fact, all they did was twist the law to justify thier own actions while still holding others accountable to the law they could not, themseves maintain.

So the sacrifice was a ONE TIME - final sacrifice, with God's understanding that the law was useless and thus the law was abandoned. The only requirement after the sacrifice was to believe that God had mercy on humans for the conditions he had put upon them, and came in the flesh to be a MODEL of sacrifice.

Where then, is all the Christian sacrifice that was modeled for them, by Jesus?

In what way did Jesus SERVE God? In what way are humans to SERVE God?

I don,t personally believe in the scriptures, but if I did I would say that the sacrafice of Jesus was to allow those who believe to be one with god, or gods! I think the scriptures say that we become the children of god, which if we are children or the creator, we are in some degree creators too, like father like son.