Why would someone claim Jesus was hateful??im a skeptic but I can read books LOL I know the bible doesnt state nor potrays him as hateful

But "evil" is a rather subjective term in society. Consider the eugenics movements of the 19th century Europe and America - which led (unsuprisingly) to NAZI ideology and rhetoric in Germany. Many Europeans actually believed that "inferior" races were inherently "not good" (evil?). Many society leaders advocated that society should purge itself of criminals, "idiots," blacks, Jews, etc. because such people were not "as good" or "worthy" as the superior WASP folks who held dominance over Western civilization. Are "inferiors" evil? Were the WASP leaders pushing this propaganda "evil"? No. Neither side was/is evil. 19th century WASP eugenics leaders were just misguided folks who let their emotions get in the way of rational thought. Are thieves inherently evil? Victor Hugo (Les Miserables) would have argued that it was the flaws of society that created Jean valJean and the resultant trauma (and successes) to his epic struggle. What if a thief injures persons in the process (are his intentions evil?) Jean valJean just wanted some bread to feed himself and his poor children. How about a mass murderer? Is a mass murderer evil? Or insane? I argue that murder - that is the malicious destruction of another's life or spirit - is against the sanity of civilization. So in my view, if someone murders for no reason, they are acting against the "sane" mores society had instigated for the self-preservation of society. Mass murderers, in my view, are insane. I think it's a fair debate whether human beings can adjudicate "motive" and "responsibility" to a murderer, and then set the punishment as death itself. Most murderers are off kilter - either because of psychological trauma in their life, or due to biochemical imbalance or instability. Even when "average" people become enraged, I wonder whether a misfired neuron, additional epinephrine, or seratonin might push him/her to an action that "average" people would consider insane.

I have an example from my own city, Ulaanbaatar Mongolia. On Woman's Day (March of this year) some fellow drunkened himself up and in his intoxicated state, this man actually pummelled his wife/girlfriend to death. The TV news aired footage of the aftermath. The guy did not even know what he had done...

woha!!!! i just had a great idea!! maybe jesus wasnt rel he did do anything and maybe just maybe the bible is a way for a church to controllus for the mear fact humans need something to belive in...omg!!!!!! its brilliant

I just had a great idea too. I call it... grammar

wow sorry lol you get the idea

That cannot prove that these incidents occur due to lack of religious based rules. It could be the reason of over population as well. Granted, just not as provable, but I'm saying this to point out, if there could be other reasons why for an outcome, then what you assume makes the outcome, more than likely didn't make it. Stalin's secret police sounds like something that happens all the time. Where is the proof, that Stalin needed those police, because the people were reacting negatively due to lack of religion?



Not necessarily so, I don't believe that. One thing I believe more, that religion doesn't play a part of that.






Granted, but there is also the capacity to want to be loved, and to love in return. How many children have gone up to relatives and just hugged and were never told to do so?




Some actual historic example please?



Well, for one, this thread was dealing with the individual. Why each particular individual fears or feels threatnend by God, if he didn't exist. You posted that the individual does not like to be told what to do, by those who know what is best for them.



This is about the individual, who you think doesn't know what is best for them, and that you think Christians do. This is about the individual, who I see you assuming is not paying attention to those who you assume know better. My point is, it is assuming too much to think that they do. This is about the individual, and their fear that they are being controlled by those, who more than likely, wheter you like it or not, really don't know better.





My belief is, that the secular civilization is better, because it stems from more seeing basis than Christianity.



That is just it. I wouldn't! Even my beliefs may come into conflict, but in the end, because the laws are there, and their basis is provable, I will comply. My beliefs will help me deal with it, but a provable govenment body comes first!



I understand about the situations where the majority stands, but in the end, anything religiously based, and it will be wrong in my heart. You cannot prove that rule passed by God, actually was passed by God. When a rule was passed, because without it people were harmed, then that makes more sense. When a rule was passed, and by a living and sightable pressence that passed because of how they came to pass it, that makes a lot more sense.

It's like people saying 'Santa said so' and bonk you with a huge candy cane! Why get bonked in the name of a made up character??

God does not Bonk people , People bonk people.

God is not a Made up charictor either .

It is easier to blame God than thy self.

Sorry I know this has already been said.

God is The creator of every spirit in every universe.

What these spirits do withj their freewill is on them, not God, leaving God unacountable for Mans Choices.

Father and Mother of your eternal spirit , loves you, and your brother and sister even if you can't, "Unconditionally".

Your sin does not threaten God, and only hurts self and bro.

Father threatens no one, and those who feel threatned, know it is love, or a helping hand Giving you the oportunity to learn from The choices you make.

Some don't remember asking for tyhese experiences before their spirit came down incarnate.

It's a volunteer Job, Father only gave what you asked For, Good bad and ugly (EXPERIENCE)

Love Omnaka

I said elsewhere in this forum that I'm a Roman Catholic by upbringing and culture, a Deist by intellect, and a Buddhist/quantum mechanist by inclination. I'd like to add that I'm a secular humanist by political affiliation. But there is an inherent problem with secular government systems. A secular system assumes that the citizens (by and large) are rational, thinking beings. And clearly from the rhetoric exploding all over this forum, most people are not "rational, thinking beings" to the extent that Enlightenment philosophy and the scientific method defines rationalism. Secular society is inherently defined by a rationalism that opposes fundamentalist religious thought. So unless everyone in an ideal (and fictitious) secular society is educated (and intelligent enough) to follow advanced philosophy, mathematics, and natural science, AND is inclined to disallow the existence of "GOD" through faith, secular government will never exist. Or would we prefer totalitarianism ala Stalin. Stalin sought to disallow "GOD" when it was politically expedient, and then he embraced "GOD" to motivate the troops against Nazi Germany. We can't have it both ways. Either we must accept religion in a civil society, or we move toward some type of totalitarianism. Human society will never be perfected. (Or maybe we can pool our finances and purchase an island and set up our own system...)

Furthermore, how can you instruct a six year-old that theft is against the mores of their society? Or that generosity or "goodness" is in line with creating a better society? It's difficult to instruct children without some of the mythology in religion - even if it was that Santa Claus will bonk the child on the head if he misbehaves. In fact, most American parents bribe their children - if you don't behave, Santa Claus will not visit this year.

You better watch out, you better not cry
You better not pout, I'm telling you why...

Who said God isn't real?

People from the California started moving to Utah in droves. why because they liked the family orientation of the state.


But after they moved there they realized that the reason for most of this was the liqueur laws.


So now they want to change the laws to fit their needs. They can't because "the Mormons" control the state. Since the Mormons make up about 55% of the population the laws in the state should pro tray some of their beliefs. At least I think they should.





Not me.

who said santa wasn't real?

I do.
But I have no problem with people believing, I just don't like anyone trying to pass religion as science.

But it is ok to pass sscience off as religion.

God doesn't want to be linked to the creation of the universe. So when science is looking that link they can't find it.

Science doesn't pretend to be a religion.

I didn't say that. I said the aspect of belief in "GOD" through faith alone, as opposed to a reasoned approach through rationalism. I would never get in the way of a man or woman seeking God...

No, your right to some it is a religion.

Who and how?

No it is not. Science changes and advances and builds on its self and doesn't have a dogma. It is in no way a religion. Don't make such idiotic statements.

Sorry but when science is used to absolutely prove that there is no God then it becomes a religion. Not that it has ever absolutely proven that God does not exist. All it has been able to do is not be able to prove that he does exists. Which is what he wants.

I don’t agree with all the conclusions but I agree that the negation of free will removes the need for the solely vengeance part that appears in the criminal justice system. You still have incapacitation, rehabilitation and deterrence. It only takes out the purely vengeful determinations in sentencing. Let the rapist be raped and the killer be killed? Let them be incarcerated to protect the rest of us and locked up as a deterrent. Why engage in punishments if it has no future benefit – I don’t think if the focus is on pure vengeful punishment that it focuses enough attention on the preventative aspects.

Crimes that cause the most natural vengeance (and hence sentencing) aren’t always the ones that produce the worst future outcomes for people, both individual and as a whole. Societies do better if they focus on/put more money into deterrent and rehabilitation exercises as it lessens recidivism rates.

I don’t think that hatred is the source for all morality. We move away from pain and towards pleasure. People should promote goodness and deter wrongdoers, but in moving towards goodness you must take into account what in fact work best in bringing about a moral society.

Re the emotions – I think instituting hate/vengeance at a societal level is what the worry is about – not that we shouldn’t/don’t have these emotions they just should be channelled to produce the most good.

We still have moral duties just not absolute responsibility.

Ha don't worry about controlling your vengeance cause since I caused you to read the article you probably won't need to

How would that make it a religion? Don't be silly, since is about finding answers. If there is a question, science should seek to answer if it is possible to answer it. That is not religion, it is not a doctrine and it would still be subject to evidence.

But people on this very forum are using the fact that science can't prove God as proof that he doesn't exist. That is what makes it a religion.

No it does not. It is not a theological belief system.

I am not going to argue this point any more. I believe people are using science as a religion and you don't.

Ironically perhaps the best example of a state run on religious laws which embraced science but used a religious based framework for its ethical system was an islamic state. I think it was called the caliphate. It succeeded at a time when europe was being torn apart by religious and civil strife as part of the dark ages. Culture, science, and the arts were higher in that civilization than any other part of the world at the time.

Laws were rigidly enforced and to us were perhaps quite harsh, such as cutting off the hand of a thief. However women could walk the streets free of harrasment ,and crime was almost non existent

There was freedom of religious belief, although islam was the state religion. Even today, because islam has succesfully married with secular rulers much more successfully than christianitty has in the west, there are islamic states, where individuals are very safe and secure. They may not have all the individual freedoms a westerner expects as his birthright, but life is far safer and in most ways more civilized than in the great western democracies.

While i dont agree with everything daniel lost says, he has a valid point in comparing science with religion.

Just as many peole, who know little about formal religion, its theories and theocracies etc, take religion on board out of faith and believe in it implicitly, people do the same with science.

Increasingl,y few people have much knowledge at all about either the nature of science or about modern scientific discoveries. Like believers in religion, they accept the word of the experts, take most of science on faith and live by it ,despite not really undersatanding its basic principles or operating practices.

Blind faith in science has brought the world to just as much trouble as blind faith in religion. Peolpe should always question their belief systems and educate themselves about the princiles and practces underlying them, whether it be science or religion. Scientists are the new high priests . Their words are given value and worth, which may exceed their true value to individuals and to societies.

Look at it this way The most science can offer is physical things. Some of these thing, esp. in the medical and engineering areas may bring great benefits to people, but science does not propose to offfer, or atttempt to offer, the things of true human worth like; love, happiness, dignity, compassion empathy, kindness, justice etc.

Tthese are either ethical/philosophical or moral constructs, depending on your pov. Surely the experts/proponents in these areas, and those who can bring these benefits to people, should be just as highly regarded/honoured and listened to, as the scientists.

And surely teaching how to come to these emotions in practical ways and to put them into practice, should be just as important and compulsory a part of the education process for every child, as science is.

Blind faith in anything is wrong.

Unfortunately since farming allowed us to live sedentary lives, produce surplus food requirements and hence specialise into occupations, we have experts for everything. Yeah I have a certain type of faith that carpenters know more about carpentry, Doctors know how to treat my medical conditions and hairdressers know how to bleach my hair better than I do.

I'd say the systems we set up (accreditation of all sorts) justifies a certain amount of this 'faith'.

But I just can't see how it is the same sort of faith as faith in a supreme being/religious faith. A supreme being without evidence (aside from the personal) and the results of scientific tests just don't really have the same level/type of faith IMO. Prove me wrong lol.

But I agree people should be educated about science and how it works, what it can and can't do/prove.



I think that science can act as an adjunct to these things though. Tests reveal the over consumption of alcohol produces unhappiness blahdy blah blah blah. It can also reveal why we act like we do sometimes.

Yes wisdom about happiness, life, love and what produces happiness and what produces sorrow can reside in someone who knows little of the latest scientific tests. EQ people aren't necessarily strictly IQ people, but I think they are revered in society. Think Anthony Robbins/Oprah. They are more EQ oriented than IQ I would say - although I admit both of them use science to elucidate their points. I don't think religion has the monopoly on these ethical/eq issues. They are natural attributes of many.



Best part! Totally agree!

That is because you are just plain wrong and you have not made any worthwhile point to show any evidence of science as a religion.

This is an easy one. Christianty has always laid cliam that they are the one & true religion & has tried to stomp out all religion that have come before it & after it. In making such a cliam they have put themselves out there as a target & so people take shot at them I would think that any other religion that makes such claims would be in the same boat. Alot of Christians have this mentallity. (Believe what I believe do not ask questions worship as I do & tell others to believe as you do.) There is something wrong with that theory why the huge push to try to get others to believe? I can not buy into a religion that pushes so hard to converting others.





Two days untill Ironman!

It's an old believers trick ,trying to liken science to a relgion.because it then opens it up to the same type of criticism that religion gets about not having any proof


fullywired

Omnaka, why don't I know this stuff readily, when I haven't experienced it at all? If this is a foregone conclusion, then a person who grew up not going to church and not have owned a bible or read it at all, would have experienced it? I haven't, which is why I don't think I can understand in some posters who go off saying things like 'God told everybody' when I didn't get the word. So, how, Omnaka, how?



Your thoughts are very understandable, and I may have gotten a bit discombobulated while organizing my responses from Mr. Walker's posts. Next, I just anwer, no quotes from a post like that. Sorry Mr. Walker, it's not your words, but I should have given up trying to make hide or tail or your answers and mine.

Although, I am not trying to dispell the belief, and make it look false or not, but that I was trying to dispell how it was so readily said that Stalin's atheist govenment was bad because of being atheist. You are right, in a sense, you have to have one or the other govenment. I just think, that the repurcussions of any government will be the understandable effect. My main point to Mr. Walker, in which Omnaka totally did not understand, was that pointing out that a Christian knows what is best for the Atheist, and that is why an Atheist is afraid of God, or the one talking about God to them. It's the idea that a Christian knows what is best for an Atheist, that is what got me. No one knows what is best for a person, really! It's the assumption that a Christian knows what is best, all the time, and I'm sorry, I don't think so. I also do not think that what is best for everyone, is to be told about a certain religion! I got a bit disagreeable, seeing that line and thinking how assuming it was. That was what I was talking about.
The dang post got conflaguated. I'm sorry about that. *Looks Sheepish* ((Is there a *Look Sheepish* smiliey?!?!?))




I was hoping I didn't. If it looked it, I didn't mean it and am sorry. Like I said, I should have reworked Mr. Walker's post to me.






Don't make me bonk you with a hugh candy cane!!!!!


ACK! I could have used you as me writer!!!

I was hoping for some links and the example within it to show your example.

* Puts on Mod Hat *

Ahem. I've had to remove some posts from this thread. Please avoid discussing / making personal attacks on members.

Thanks in advance,

Tiggs
[Forum Mod Team]

* Takes off Mod Hat *

Your spirit which is eternal does know it, You are traped in a Body at the moment and dont have access to all the Knowledge or consciousness That your Spirit does.

It takes alot of walking alone, and searching, To know for sure.

It (God's unconditional love) is truly Written in every mans Heart..

One does not even need to know how to read to search for the answers about The father and Mother of our spirit.

No religion Comes close to the Love I have experienced Straight from God, This is why I align my self with No religion, and simply Call my belief Unconditional love, same as my Father and Mother's (God's)

Seek and you will find, I cant tell you how to seek, But Father Knows all dialects and what we are going through, so there is no set way to Pray, Or comune with Father Or Mother, The Holy Spirit, I find Just talking To them with sincerity Gets me Big results.

God bless you Sis.

Love Omnaka

You get this from what source? How is this a forgone for sure truth, and not just your very own heresay?



I'm sorry, this does not make one ounce of sense to me! If it is written in our heart, wouldn't we all be able to read it with no problem, at any time? I don't believe that.


And I'm sure no other will. That is you. As for me, it doesn't mean, I have to follow it, and I do not have to, if by chance I don't agree with you.


Of course you can't. Yet, you seem to tell me other things, I think you should not be able to. I can make that choice of doing my own seeking, thank you very much.



Of course, Omnaka, of course, but I really do not think you answered my question to you. In a sense, you did, but it doesn't make sense to me. Buuuuuuuuuuut, if this is a foregone conclusion, why is it, you have to tell, and not my spirit?? You see what I am getting at? I feel, if God told everyone, like some are so readily to say, and that it's everywhere that you and others are so readily to say, why do you and others have to lecture others, ie: me, about it? If it's been told, and in our hearts, then why don't we know it then and there? Why keep making the statements that it's there, and we're told, but then explain that we don't know how? Why should anyone have to translate and lecture about something that is so divine, so omnipresent, and so there all around, when they shouldn't have to, because it is so divine, so omnipresent, and so there all around, we all should already know!

I'm Not lecturing You , Iam Just sharing My experience with you, You asked me a Question, and I answered it as best I could with out condemning what You believe.
"You get this from what source? How is this a forgone for sure truth, and not just your very own heresay?"

I get it from Experience In the spirit world, talking with Father and watching , looking, Growing , and Loving,

It does not really matter if anyone believes me, It is my experience, Just sharing what I know, Believe me Or not, It's understandable If you dont.


Your q, was why and How, I answered truthfully From my own experience, I never said I think you should follow it, Just giving You another Idea to think about. we all Have our own Path to tread.

I meant no disrespect.

Love Omnaka

Mw indeed both religion and science do make knowledge claims ...Sceince is a body of knowledge that is held to be true or probably true..it has a set of methods for assessing soundness, which are but not limited to observation, control, expermentation. and self correction.....


Faith is also a method of arriving at a knowledge claims..faith uses simple belief, suspended disbelief or assumption.....Faith operates from the premise of assumption meaning something is generally beleived to be true ( not proven to be true) the assumed premise is based on the self appointed authority of the bible or set of creeds ( creed in latin means "I beleive") faith is based in hearsay and passed down knowledge.....basically stories written by men....


Reason takes us up to claims by the means of logic and argument as a method its more complicated but it leads to the same place a collection of knowledge claims that are sound or valid......

religion relys on faith alone and in that it can not be anything more than a beleif, not a truth or a fact..............

trying to erect fences between science and religion is reactionary and normative ...

Historical inquiry can't be normative ( giving directives or rules) it has to be descriptive, analytical and explainatory.....

IMO as a mother religion is of little to no use when it comes to helping a child understand the essence of ones emotional nature, in fact i think there is no better qualified teacher than a women , she gets this and understands that this is the ebb and flow of life, things come and go or this too shall pass........I also do not see merit in teaching peace and the practice of non violence as a life style or solving conflict with communication with the aid of religion for a few reason, the bible uses all forms of violence to solve conflict, it doesn't reflect the wisdom of what we now know and undertand in a modern culture and it defines and understands love in the context of conditions,the vested interest is in the longevity of the traditions using ritual and faith, its not really about what does it mean to be human and how do i live in the world at large..... any parent understands via being a parent that love for a child is without conditions( its what is required of us if we take this on , relgion or not one has to weigh very carefully anything even sacred bleiefs when it comes to a child there is no greater job or responsibilty IMO ...... for me a mehtod by its output must be observably sound and fit..... the bible has fallen way to short for my needs as a parent....... ........It tends to lean towards divisiveness, intolerance, persecution, hatred and separation alot....

we are moving towards a global unity this would not be the best guide to support and guide with this principle in mind...it reflects an exclusivist genre..IMO......ones example must emulate compassion and understanding and non violence for me as a parent....

i do find the bible to be a great work of literature and it does show how we use stories to convey principles wihich is commonly used for the young ...I also find the bible to be very interesting from a academic historical persepctive just not practical for everyday use...of course this is my posit one of thousands.....

Your post has made me understand my own belief system better--thanks, Imbeharry. I fear fundamentalists because they don't feel the need to transpose their intuitive feelings into the world of reason and fairness. They're scary in the same way that a deranged person raving in the street is scary.

I don't think religion needs to be that way. There's nothing more logical and fair than the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Fundies use religion as a carte blanche to be petty dictators.

There might come a day when we are on opposite sides of the divide, you welcoming the aliens, me suspecting them as something worse, but I can empathize with you 100% Omnaka. I have no doubt your experiences are valid. I also saw that you answered Watchful with this:



This of course would be my answer:



Either way I find it often sad and often humorous that they skeptics now and then attempt to get us to prove to them our experiences. Some people will just have to find out on their own timing. We certainly are not going to rush them or speed that up nor do we intend to all we can do is share our belief and yes....

Love Clovis

You might not be able to understand but religion for some does not rely on faith alone, I am sure there is dead faith religions, but for others it relys on experience.

It is also folly to think some of us do not welcome science or are wholly reactionary towards it. While this has been a continuing trend for centuries now there are some of us who see no need to pick between one or the other when both are useful and can be applied to our lives, not your life, but ours, the believers lives. I add the last part because I want to make it clear I do not wish to save you or convince you.

Your posts always seem shaded with the belief that academia and faith cannot coincide. There are many who again fall in both, within the realm of academia and who are adherents to one sort of faith or another.

The Bible for me is a living guide. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. Living in that it allows us, along with prayer, to connect to the Spirit. Not just something nice to say but a real and true experience. Sadly one that not everyone will ever have a chance in experiencing but that just the way things are I guess.

One bridge across the divide between religion and science would be to say "I know intuitively that God made the world. It's not a story about God. It's God's work right there in front of you- you have direct access. So by trying to understand the world you're admiring God. The world is incredibly logical because God made it incredibly logical. Observing the extreme balance and logic in nature gives us insight into the nature of God.

Dispensing with logic is a turning away from God.

Beautiful words BlueZone and so true.

I also believe that those who fear or abhor not religion itself but those who attempt to tell others how to live should get over it. All those who fear or abhor in this manner are simply rebelling to authority. In the end they are giving authority to someone else by rebelling. Why not just ignore them? If someone wishes to tell me how to live they are simply ignored. Why give them any of my energy be it in the form of fear or hatred or any other wasted negative energy? I can think of tons of others things to do with that energy and all positive. We are all adults in the world so I am not going to tell others how to live or even how to raise their children and can care less when others would do this.

I believe there are two types of people in this world. Those who go around hating things and those who go around loving things. Those two people do not hate or love the same things. I know this because I used to be a hater but meh its so self destructive to think everyone is out to get you or control you or that you have to even pay those people attention. Sure we all love and we all hate at times we are all human after all. It just seems some are addicted to one more than the other. Free yourself!

Would you mind giving an example of a Fundie who is a petty dictator?

I am sure there are some. But mostly this is just a stereotype. Most think stereotypes chain some into certain niches. Rather we are still free to grow and do as we please regardles of what stereotypes people place us in. Stereotypes do not chain those being typecasted but rather chain those who hold stereotypes. For all the typecasting they do they forget the play they are directors of are only one man plays in their mind. I would rather live in a real world and accept people for who they actually are and not who I think they maybe because of some label.

If it's all the same to you my brother, I would like an answer from someone. An example of a fundie who's a petty dictator. I'm still trying to understand the word fundie.

To me "petty dictator" means the person is so convinced that he's right that "the do unto others" philosophy has shut down. One extreme example would be those fundies from Kansas (Phelps?) who've decided that they absolutely know what God wants and God hates gays. So they go to the funeral of a kid whose died in Iraq and spoil the funeral by staging these vulger protests in front of thr grief-stricken parents. No rational person would do that because he would think, "If someone did that to me while I was burying a child it would traumatize me for life". The logic of the do unto others law would kick in. But with this Kansas sect, they're so convinced that they know what God wants that they've given themselves the right to be brutally cruel to the people around them. There's no common sense involved. The people just wave their favorite Book and say "We read it in here-- we can do anything we want".


Another example is suicide bombers in Iraq. The idea that "Those people are humans like me. They aren't even guilty politically. They're just random people" doesn't come up. It's all, "I understand God better than everyone else here and this is what God wants".

The Nazis were fundies too, though not religious fundies. They thought they were getting their commands from a god-figure and so they had a right to, for example, kill millions of Jews. Common sense and fairness were just... gone. Because they knew the truth. They didn't need to question it because it was true. They didn't have to evaluate their behavior because they were right and everyone else was wrong.

subjective experience clovis , or as quantum physics says the observed and the observer are the same thing...not to mention a exeprince can have more than one cause ...

I am aware that in the context of a faith based genre that ones subjective experince is considered truth, in the world of science it isn't, it has to be tested and proven...

one can't really put science and faith in the same context they deal with different areas, basically use different approaches to make knowledge claims...... can you use/ be both of course .... Most religious folks have e a great respect for science there is just no issue why create one.... ......

You have misunderstood my post and it was really directed at MW. even though i appreciate your taking the time to comment .......

Again your belief in science is not superior to someone's belief in God. I never said they have to be taken in the same context. They are two separate things and one is not superior to the other. You keep saying in the world of science that faith cannot be tested or proven. Do you think that is not an already known fact and accepted by most? I did not misunderstand your post. It is also understandable that you yourself believe that science is superior to faith. That is just your view though and every bit as subjective as you believe faith is. For most people they accept both for what they offer and do not necessarily believe one is superior to the other.

Until science can actually develop a scale that will be able to weigh both science and faith and then conclusively say one is superior to the other it will just remain subjective through and through. I do not think they can ever be scaled though for they are of different elements. Some though treat science as superior to everything else and they are nothing but fundamentalist.