Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

To Catholic poster: suggest you enjoy your Catholic religion and not try to convince others of how wonderful it it.

It's not working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To Catholic poster: suggest you enjoy your Catholic religion and not try to convince others of how wonderful it it.

It's not working.

I am pp and not Catholic. Whether people like Catholics or not, to suggest that Catholic people have to “compartmentalize” their faith to be scientists or inventors is ridiculous and false.

Trying to convince everyone here that Catholics are ignorant pedophiles seems like a lovely hobby, but not for me.

[Anonymous]

Geoffrey Lloyd’s Science in Ancient Civilizations states there have been exactly seven civilizations that pursued objective, scientific knowledge in human history. One of those civilizations, Christian Europe, was able to create the sustainable modern science, including data and methods, that contemporary scientists use today.

The world’s successful university systems came from the monastic model first developed by European Benedictine monks in the 4th century.

Roger Bacon was a 13th-century English priest, philosopher, scientist, logician and Franciscan friar who emphasized the study of nature through empirical observation.

Without the Catholic Church, science would have peeked its scrawny head out of some hole, and then scampered back into it like it did the previous six times in the ancient world. -United Methodist scientist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Geoffrey Lloyd’s Science in Ancient Civilizations states there have been exactly seven civilizations that pursued objective, scientific knowledge in human history. One of those civilizations, Christian Europe, was able to create the sustainable modern science, including data and methods, that contemporary scientists use today.

The world’s successful university systems came from the monastic model first developed by European Benedictine monks in the 4th century.

Roger Bacon was a 13th-century English priest, philosopher, scientist, logician and Franciscan friar who emphasized the study of nature through empirical observation.

Without the Catholic Church, science would have peeked its scrawny head out of some hole, and then scampered back into it like it did the previous six times in the ancient world. -United Methodist scientist

That's all well and good, but if you believe Jesus was born of a virgin and ascended bodily into heaven and walked on water, and there is a hereafter that you can only get into by believing in Jesus -- then you can't possibly accept the scientific method and you have majorly compartmentalized!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geoffrey Lloyd’s Science in Ancient Civilizations states there have been exactly seven civilizations that pursued objective, scientific knowledge in human history. One of those civilizations, Christian Europe, was able to create the sustainable modern science, including data and methods, that contemporary scientists use today.

The world’s successful university systems came from the monastic model first developed by European Benedictine monks in the 4th century.

Roger Bacon was a 13th-century English priest, philosopher, scientist, logician and Franciscan friar who emphasized the study of nature through empirical observation.

Without the Catholic Church, science would have peeked its scrawny head out of some hole, and then scampered back into it like it did the previous six times in the ancient world. -United Methodist scientist

That's all well and good, but if you believe Jesus was born of a virgin and ascended bodily into heaven and walked on water, and there is a hereafter that you can only get into by believing in Jesus -- then you can't possibly accept the scientific method and you have majorly compartmentalized!

One way to distinguish between science and religion is that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns the supernatural world and its relationship to the natural. No compartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ten Catholic scientists and inventors everyone should know

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/07/21/ten-catholic-scientists-and-inventors/

Lol, this list includes Galileo, whose science got him imprisoned by the catholic church, who rejected heliocentrism as extra-biblical and insisted the earth was the center of the solar system (and the universe) despite the evidence.

Your post make the opposite point of the one you intended.

No, Catholics are historically among the greatest in the fields of science and invention.

Despite the teaching and acts of their church and church leaders.

Exactly. Imagine how much more they could have done if not hindered by the close-mindedness of the church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geoffrey Lloyd’s Science in Ancient Civilizations states there have been exactly seven civilizations that pursued objective, scientific knowledge in human history. One of those civilizations, Christian Europe, was able to create the sustainable modern science, including data and methods, that contemporary scientists use today.

The world’s successful university systems came from the monastic model first developed by European Benedictine monks in the 4th century.

Roger Bacon was a 13th-century English priest, philosopher, scientist, logician and Franciscan friar who emphasized the study of nature through empirical observation.

Without the Catholic Church, science would have peeked its scrawny head out of some hole, and then scampered back into it like it did the previous six times in the ancient world. -United Methodist scientist

That's all well and good, but if you believe Jesus was born of a virgin and ascended bodily into heaven and walked on water, and there is a hereafter that you can only get into by believing in Jesus -- then you can't possibly accept the scientific method and you have majorly compartmentalized!

One way to distinguish between science and religion is that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns the supernatural world and its relationship to the natural. No compartments.

Except there is no supernatural world, unless you are a religious believer. So, yes, you have compartmentalized - which is simply an explanation -- not a sin or a judgment.

There are plenty of people - especially in the liberal Protestant religions (like United Methodist) - who accept both science and the supernatural.

Certainly Roman Catholics do. Evolution is taught in Catholic high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geoffrey Lloyd’s Science in Ancient Civilizations states there have been exactly seven civilizations that pursued objective, scientific knowledge in human history. One of those civilizations, Christian Europe, was able to create the sustainable modern science, including data and methods, that contemporary scientists use today.

The world’s successful university systems came from the monastic model first developed by European Benedictine monks in the 4th century.

Roger Bacon was a 13th-century English priest, philosopher, scientist, logician and Franciscan friar who emphasized the study of nature through empirical observation.

Without the Catholic Church, science would have peeked its scrawny head out of some hole, and then scampered back into it like it did the previous six times in the ancient world. -United Methodist scientist

That's all well and good, but if you believe Jesus was born of a virgin and ascended bodily into heaven and walked on water, and there is a hereafter that you can only get into by believing in Jesus -- then you can't possibly accept the scientific method and you have majorly compartmentalized!

One way to distinguish between science and religion is that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns the supernatural world and its relationship to the natural. No compartments.

What is this "supernatural world" you speak of? Once you can demonstrate that exists, then we can address the odd "its relationship to the natural" thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To Catholic poster: suggest you enjoy your Catholic religion and not try to convince others of how wonderful it it.

It's not working.

I am pp and not Catholic. Whether people like Catholics or not, to suggest that Catholic people have to “compartmentalize” their faith to be scientists or inventors is ridiculous and false.

Trying to convince everyone here that Catholics are ignorant pedophiles seems like a lovely hobby, but not for me.

I don't see where anyone here, but you, mentioned Catholics as ignorant pedophiles. It's certainly not related to compartmentalizing their faith.

This thread, which was started years ago, has mainly been very respectful of religion, which is evident if you read from the beginning. There are only a few posts that are insulting to religion. Many seem to be about people who tried to believe and just couldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geoffrey Lloyd’s Science in Ancient Civilizations states there have been exactly seven civilizations that pursued objective, scientific knowledge in human history. One of those civilizations, Christian Europe, was able to create the sustainable modern science, including data and methods, that contemporary scientists use today.

The world’s successful university systems came from the monastic model first developed by European Benedictine monks in the 4th century.

Roger Bacon was a 13th-century English priest, philosopher, scientist, logician and Franciscan friar who emphasized the study of nature through empirical observation.

Without the Catholic Church, science would have peeked its scrawny head out of some hole, and then scampered back into it like it did the previous six times in the ancient world. -United Methodist scientist

That's all well and good, but if you believe Jesus was born of a virgin and ascended bodily into heaven and walked on water, and there is a hereafter that you can only get into by believing in Jesus -- then you can't possibly accept the scientific method and you have majorly compartmentalized!

One way to distinguish between science and religion is that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns the supernatural world and its relationship to the natural. No compartments.

What is this "supernatural world" you speak of? Once you can demonstrate that exists, then we can address the odd "its relationship to the natural" thing.

If you don’t personally believe in a supernatural world, that’s ok. But not everyone thinks like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geoffrey Lloyd’s Science in Ancient Civilizations states there have been exactly seven civilizations that pursued objective, scientific knowledge in human history. One of those civilizations, Christian Europe, was able to create the sustainable modern science, including data and methods, that contemporary scientists use today.

The world’s successful university systems came from the monastic model first developed by European Benedictine monks in the 4th century.

Roger Bacon was a 13th-century English priest, philosopher, scientist, logician and Franciscan friar who emphasized the study of nature through empirical observation.

Without the Catholic Church, science would have peeked its scrawny head out of some hole, and then scampered back into it like it did the previous six times in the ancient world. -United Methodist scientist

That's all well and good, but if you believe Jesus was born of a virgin and ascended bodily into heaven and walked on water, and there is a hereafter that you can only get into by believing in Jesus -- then you can't possibly accept the scientific method and you have majorly compartmentalized!

One way to distinguish between science and religion is that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns the supernatural world and its relationship to the natural. No compartments.

What is this "supernatural world" you speak of? Once you can demonstrate that exists, then we can address the odd "its relationship to the natural" thing.

If you don’t personally believe in a supernatural world, that’s ok. But not everyone thinks like you.

I asked what it is. I didn't ask you to think like me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geoffrey Lloyd’s Science in Ancient Civilizations states there have been exactly seven civilizations that pursued objective, scientific knowledge in human history. One of those civilizations, Christian Europe, was able to create the sustainable modern science, including data and methods, that contemporary scientists use today.

The world’s successful university systems came from the monastic model first developed by European Benedictine monks in the 4th century.

Roger Bacon was a 13th-century English priest, philosopher, scientist, logician and Franciscan friar who emphasized the study of nature through empirical observation.

Without the Catholic Church, science would have peeked its scrawny head out of some hole, and then scampered back into it like it did the previous six times in the ancient world. -United Methodist scientist

That's all well and good, but if you believe Jesus was born of a virgin and ascended bodily into heaven and walked on water, and there is a hereafter that you can only get into by believing in Jesus -- then you can't possibly accept the scientific method and you have majorly compartmentalized!

One way to distinguish between science and religion is that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns the supernatural world and its relationship to the natural. No compartments.

What is this "supernatural world" you speak of? Once you can demonstrate that exists, then we can address the odd "its relationship to the natural" thing.

If you don’t personally believe in a supernatural world, that’s ok. But not everyone thinks like you.

I asked what it is. I didn't ask you to think like me.

If you don’t know what it is, how do you know it doesn’t exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geoffrey Lloyd’s Science in Ancient Civilizations states there have been exactly seven civilizations that pursued objective, scientific knowledge in human history. One of those civilizations, Christian Europe, was able to create the sustainable modern science, including data and methods, that contemporary scientists use today.

The world’s successful university systems came from the monastic model first developed by European Benedictine monks in the 4th century.

Roger Bacon was a 13th-century English priest, philosopher, scientist, logician and Franciscan friar who emphasized the study of nature through empirical observation.

Without the Catholic Church, science would have peeked its scrawny head out of some hole, and then scampered back into it like it did the previous six times in the ancient world. -United Methodist scientist

That's all well and good, but if you believe Jesus was born of a virgin and ascended bodily into heaven and walked on water, and there is a hereafter that you can only get into by believing in Jesus -- then you can't possibly accept the scientific method and you have majorly compartmentalized!

One way to distinguish between science and religion is that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns the supernatural world and its relationship to the natural. No compartments.

What is this "supernatural world" you speak of? Once you can demonstrate that exists, then we can address the odd "its relationship to the natural" thing.

If you don’t personally believe in a supernatural world, that’s ok. But not everyone thinks like you.

I asked what it is. I didn't ask you to think like me.

If you don’t know what it is, how do you know it doesn’t exist?

If you know what the supernatural world is, please demonstrate that it exists.

[Anonymous]

There is no God. God is made up by man to bring order to society. Religion is all made up and a carry over from ancient times when people were less evolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geoffrey Lloyd’s Science in Ancient Civilizations states there have been exactly seven civilizations that pursued objective, scientific knowledge in human history. One of those civilizations, Christian Europe, was able to create the sustainable modern science, including data and methods, that contemporary scientists use today.

The world’s successful university systems came from the monastic model first developed by European Benedictine monks in the 4th century.

Roger Bacon was a 13th-century English priest, philosopher, scientist, logician and Franciscan friar who emphasized the study of nature through empirical observation.

Without the Catholic Church, science would have peeked its scrawny head out of some hole, and then scampered back into it like it did the previous six times in the ancient world. -United Methodist scientist

That's all well and good, but if you believe Jesus was born of a virgin and ascended bodily into heaven and walked on water, and there is a hereafter that you can only get into by believing in Jesus -- then you can't possibly accept the scientific method and you have majorly compartmentalized!

One way to distinguish between science and religion is that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns the supernatural world and its relationship to the natural. No compartments.

What is this "supernatural world" you speak of? Once you can demonstrate that exists, then we can address the odd "its relationship to the natural" thing.

If you don’t personally believe in a supernatural world, that’s ok. But not everyone thinks like you.

I asked what it is. I didn't ask you to think like me.

If you don’t know what it is, how do you know it doesn’t exist?

PP here. I did not claim it did not exist. You claimed it did, so I asked what it was, first.