Why?
2007-12-29 10:29:56 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
..or Why not?
2007-12-29 10:30:50 · update #1
by this definition of science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
2007-12-29 10:33:54 · update #2
No, religious belief is a spiritual belief , science is based on physical proof
2007-12-29 10:38:23 · answer #1 · answered by Nancy 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Why are you puzzled? Do you no longer very own a dictionary or do you lack the mind to appreciate what you study there? AGNOSTIC – would not have faith something could be understand approximately or proved a pair of god. for this reason they'd nevertheless have faith a god exists. This description needless to say suits dissimilar Christians!!! ATHEIST - somebody who would not have faith in a God – any God – no longer in basic terms the Christian one. yet that does no longer mean they do no longer carry reliable ethical or non secular ideals! they'd carry on with any faith that would not have a god and there are dissimilar those!! FUNDAMENTALIST one that believes the Bible is quite genuine and could be observed precisely. Which makes them an ideologue! IDEOLOGY an concept this is fake or held for the incorrect motives yet is assumed with such conviction as to be irrefutable. PAGAN - A follower or believer in any non Christian group or faith. HEATHEN - is a Christian description of somebody with none faith. NIHILIST - is one that rejects all authority and institutions. I have confidence you presently understand that that the guy who beleives there is not any god is an atheist!!! With those definitions you could flow directly to look for a greater awareness!!!!!
2016-12-18 11:34:03 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science cannot make any representation or hypothesis regarding the existence or nature of God, because there is no evidence to work with either way.
2007-12-29 10:35:15 · answer #3 · answered by dukefenton 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. If I could come to the conlusion on the existence of God by using the scientific method, or by having faith, I'd go with science.
2007-12-29 10:43:10 · answer #4 · answered by Alex H 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It practically controls it, b/c science is the main thing that proves things, while religions are basically beliefs in things that we don't know for sure exist. Science makes religion seem illogical, but religion makes science seem evil.
2007-12-29 10:33:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I used to be agnostic. It was in a science class that I realized that there is GOD. I love science, I love God. The two do not conflict. I cherish both in my life.
2007-12-29 10:45:45 · answer #6 · answered by PROBLEM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I couldn't quiet grip the concept of "loving" something that wasn't tangible, yet he would strike you down for your sins.
So how can you love something that you're also supposed to fear?
I'm more of a facts then fiction type of person. So I'd have to say that geography and chemistry made more sense than an old book of stories.
2007-12-29 10:38:32 · answer #7 · answered by Ella 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Science is the reason i don't believe in a god. I don't think that any diety would provide concrete evidence against claims that he makes in the bible/torah/koran.
2007-12-29 10:34:16 · answer #8 · answered by Reid G 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is insufficient empirical evidence to support the hypothesis of a god or gods.
2007-12-29 10:46:49 · answer #9 · answered by What? Me Worry? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not really. Why? Because there are lots of other reasons why I have no belief.
2007-12-29 10:41:17 · answer #10 · answered by punch 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋