I asked this question, not to disparage them but due to these facts:\n1. Some of the great inventors were deeply religious--like Newton, etc.\n\n2. The greatest lawyers--like Black--were deeply religious people.\n\n3. The Atheists could come up only with Darwin and Marx? What did these guys accomplish?
205208
A question sprung up in your head and you decided to post it on here, that's great, but before you decide to act like you know what you're talking about, you should do some thorough research. For example, in your additional comments, you mention that only humans are capable to love and to be loved.\n\nLet me answer by this: Did you know that there's one species of eagles, called mountain eagle if I remember correctly, that chooses a partner for life?\n\nNow go look on the net for more species that have the same characteristic and who knows, you might stumble across the answers to what you posed.\n\nGood luck & good reading!\n\nP.S.  You should adopt an ostrich as a pet...
86626
Ok. I will take a stab at this one, but a few more details might be helpful if you have specific scientific evidence you wish to be included in with my answer.\n\nFrancis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgement of God, the present could not adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry. \n\nToday's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that "truth" exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God's intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility. \n\nTruth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man's interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation. \n\nThe reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way: \n\nThe bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum. \nThe God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27) \nWould this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us? \nBelief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealing with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.\n\nThere is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientifi
318304
Yep, I know this. Although, just to be certain Benjamin Franklin is one of those guys in history who can be somewhat of an enigma on matters of religion. He went to dozens of churches and other religious groups in the colonies, including meeting with deists. He was a member of a church, too, in Philadelphia, yet because he was socializing at other religious groups meetings, well he didn't attend as often as most of those who went there. \n\nThomas Jefferson even went through the New Testament and took out all the stories of "miracles" that could not be scientifically proven. It's called the Jefferson Bible today and you can still purchase it.\n\nAnd the Constitution only religious line is "In the year of our Lord". The Declaration of Independence mentions Creator, etc, but never really tries to imply that they are directly refering to Christianity. They were very clever founders. And oddly the great many who go around claiming that America was founded as a Christian nation are often from denominations or groups that for the first part of our nation's history advocated a seperation of church and state...why? because they were being persecuted by the larger majority denominations of Christianity who saw them as a threat and wanted to put a stop to them. If it wasn't for our founder's wise vision...many of these groups would have disappeared, their religion (even though a denomination of Christianity) declare heretical and outlawed and practitioneers thrown in jail. No wonder they fought so hard for public opinion to favor the seperation of church and state!
283985
I am not quite sure what you are getting at here, you start with one question and end with a second one.  Frankly, I am not sure that I understand the first question.\n\nFirst let me start by saying that when we try to make scientific facts line up with the writings in Genesis, there are discrepancies.\n\nThe nature of time is somewhat poorly understood, to say the least.  The statements made by both Hawkins and Einstein are attempts to explain the nature of time.  Granted that these two men are among the most brilliant men ever, but they are still men.\n\nWe should take each version of the creation of the universe and keep asking "Where did that come from?" or "How?"\n\nWe would eventually ask the creationist: "Where did God come from?"  or, "How did God do that?"  The answer to each of these questions is "We don't know."\n\nSimilarly, we would eventually ask the evolutionist: "Where did the matter for the Big Bang come from?" or "How did matter form into the elements that we know?"  The answer for these questions is "We don't know."\n\nSo both the evolutionist and the creationist are stuck with the answer "We don't know." or even "God (or the matter) just always was there."  Does that mean that neither one is right?  No.  Does it mean that both are right?  No, again.  Each view requires some amount of faith.\n\nNow, about science being wrong.  Yes, Yes, Yes!  Science can afford to be wrong and often is.  The whole premise of science is that we come up with a theory, test it and make adjustments when we are wrong.  We often learn more by being wrong than by being right.
548993
It also could have been someone being a prick.  There was one question about how people could be stupid enough to believe in evolution.  I posted an answer that stated that I personnally felt that God created life by making a single-celled organism that evolved into people.  It was reported as violationing Terms and everything.
546655
People like my Mom think that either 1) scientists are mistaken or 2) there's a giant conspiracy that all of the scientists are in on to try to disprove God.  It's ridiculous if you ask me, and I'm a Christian who totally supports the notion of evolution.  One doesn't exclude the other, but watch, all of the Christians who have never studied evolution and merely taken their pastor's word will give me a thumbs down.
16909
Wow.  There is a staggering amount of ignorance exhibited in this thread.\n\nEvolution can be taught as science because it actually *is* science. Intelligent Design/Creationism is merely a faith based leap to "God did it!" Science is about observing, modelling, and predicting the universe around us.  Creationism is closing your eyes to the world and explaining everything by magic.\n\nHere's part of an answer I posted in another thread that addresses many of the same questions raised and misinformation spewed by some of the responses\nabove:\n\n---------\nThe trouble with most Creationists- scratch that. ONE of the troubles with most Creationists is that they seldom actually argue against evolution as it really is, but against straw-man charicatures of evolution. Rather than actually educating themselves about the subject they ask inane questions like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and then pat themselves on the back thinking they've scored points rather than revealing their ignorance about the subject. And then the choir they are preaching to nod their heads and agree.\n\nHere's a few simple things to remember:\n\n1. Evolution is NOT the study of how life began.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins\n\n2. Evolution does NOT say man came from monkeys.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/\n\n3. There will be no "intermediary forms" if by that you expect to see a half-this/half-that critter, nor does evolution say there should be.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm\n\n4. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith. Plenty of scientists believe in both God and evolution. It is only incompatible with the literalist view of Genesis espoused by young earth creationists. Of course, these folks' views run counter to geology, physics, paleontology, archeology, and astronomy as well.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html\n\n\n5. While there is vigorous debate about some of the mechanisms and features of evolution, there is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution is real. OF COURSE you will find some cranks out there on the fringe who will fight against evolution (most making a tidy living giving talks to fundamentalist religious groups), just like there are historians who insist the Holocaust didn't occur. Every large enough group will have it's nutballs.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/\nhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html\n\n\n6. Yes, speciation has been observed.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\n\n7. "Theory" means something entirely different in scientific language than in colloquial use. In science, a theory is a well-tested model of how things work, not "just a guess."\nhttp://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm\n\n8. Evolution is not guided solely by random chance.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html\n\nI personally don't care if somebody wants to believe that God, Allah, or the Tooth Fairy created the universe. What does bother me are those people who argue against a "cartoon" view of evolution because they feel that it threatens their faith, or because they are too lazy to learn what evolution is before choosing to try and smear it.\nSource(s):\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm\n----------------------\n\n\nFollowup:  Ummm.... You DO understand that Darwin was *ages* ago, and that the field of evolution has advanced light years beyond his notions right?  Darwin's ideas were formed in the 1830s-1850s, and he was unaware of genetics, radiometric dating, protein synthesis, plate tectonics, and a host of ot
383783
If we'd invented God recently he would probably be a bit more tech savvy. Since people are hanging onto the God invented a few thousand years ago he's a little behind the times. Writing on stone tablets was probably cutting edge stuff back then. Funny question!
246610
An interesting point you make, and it is, indeed, true. During the scientific revolution, most of the scientists that participated in it were Christians. Isaac Newton, for example, had believed that his discoveries concerning light and universal gravitation had to do with God. Many scientists were Christians, and did not perceive science as simply an endeavour in which one attempts to legitimately answer a question. Many of these scientists were those who had viewed science as a way of understanding the mind of God. It was thought by many of these prominent scientists (Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, and many others) that, if one were to better understand the universe through science, they could see God in all creations and discoveries. In fact, during the scientific revolution, one scientist said that "Science is thinking God's thought's after him." This quote really embodies the basic reason for scientists' devotion to science during the revolution. God was the driving force for many of the scientists, along with interest and the spirit of inquiry.
578083
hey, a lot of people did it. \nrecently too. \nthe dude who invented the mormon religion, and even more recently, scientology.\n\njust do it.
223480
Science? Don't you know about Aviccena, Averroes or Al-Kwarizmi? Al-Gabr? The Muslim civilisation was way more advanced than Europeans during the Islamic golden age. Where do you think Algebra(Al-Gabr) or Algorithm(Al-Khwarizmi) started? Where did you think chemistry(Al-Kamiyya) evolved? You are ignorant for not knowing most pious Muslims accept the Big Bang theory, other than other religions. Abnu Sina's book Al-Qanun fi Tibb was translated by Christians as "Aviccena's Canon of Medicine". Muslims even provided diagrams of circulatory and digestive systems way before the crusades.We were the ones who used anesthesia first. We discovered boric acid. We layed down the foundations of Chemistry. Our past architects evolved dome usage in acoustics in architechture. Muslims built the Taj Mahal. Now you're saying Islam restricts science. We were, and will be, more advanced in science and Mathematics. Without past Muslims, there will be no "New Knowledge". The (currently)second tallest towers are in a Muslim country(Malaysia), much taller the Empire State Building. Another Muslim country(UAE) is planning to build the tallest, engulfing your buildings.
564311
Because of Christianity we had 1000 years of very slow technological and academic progress.\n\nWith isolated exceptions (the scrappy Irish monks preserving ancient texts in their wind-swept monasteries), religion is the enemy of science, thought, education, and enlightenment.  It seeks to TELL people what to think.  That's no way to achieve progress.\n\nIt also tells people to think really, really stupid things.  That's why there's all these people who question evolution and think the world is 6000 years old.  \n\nWithout religion, we'd have much less reason to have bigotry, war, and suppression of thought and progress.  Religion needs to die for the species to really advance.\n\nIt's time we started believing in reality.\n\nAnd, by the way, Galileo was ABSOLUTELY NOT a priest.  He was a professor of geometry, mechanics, and astronomy at the University of Padua.
102420
I am sorry to not be able to offer better company. If it is of any relief, I did meet one guy a long time ago who was a true atheist. His belief was that mankind would be better off the sooner they realized that a higher power was neither existant nor necessary. I was intrigued to find someone of such a like and opinion. Although I do not agree, I did respect his thoughts and beliefs. Unfortunately, the rest of the class overheard and went off on him. I had to apologize for it was not my intention when I first asked. So, no, you're not alone.
414819
Yes Marx was on to something but some of his ideas were a little far fetched.\n\nalso Darwin's views have been twisted to be racist. he did not write the origin of species to relate to people. the man is talking about animals.
426468
okay ...now where is your list of believers huh???\n\nchristopher columbus, abraham lincoln, galileo, issac newton, and on and on.\n\n\nbiased flawed reasoning...yet once again. no i have found just the opposite. when i put too much faith in my finite mortal flawed self...my achievments are limited.\n\nfaith in God is the greatest weapon ever.\n\nbut i am guessing yo don't even understand what i mean.
121039
1.  Ancient people, having no technical knowledge of a thing, would revert to the simplest answer to expalin it.  They were also much more religous than today's society and more readily accepted religous explanations for "evil."\n2.  I don't think this needs an answer...except...do you believe what you see?\n3.  See #2.
7236
i read your blog and nothing anyone can tell you here could be more satisfying than your theory.  you're going to get people either just saying one or the other, or explaining to you what the big bang is or why god is important.  the way you integrated everything in your head is good, and you should be happier with that than any answer from either side anyone may give you.  i agree, except my opinions lean more toward the science side because of my classes in biology and such.  i like where you said god got bored, that's a good way of looking at it.  i think even after the big bang, he played less of a role as people think, like maybe he guided along evolution or something, created that first spark of life and plays with mutations here and there, little experiments.  You'd probably have to take more bio courses to realize how much evidence there actually is for evolution and how smoothly it goes and stuff, but for now, your idea will work better than anyone from either side.\n\noh, as far as your latest blog thing, you would get stuck in the center of the earth, not go all the way through and pop out the other side, because gravity is measured from the center of an object..  Gravity would decrease as you went down, until you got to the center, where you would be weightless, but you wouldn't be able to 'fall' back up, because you would be pulled to the center again.  Everyone on all parts of the earth experience gravity to the same degree.