Do You Believe in Science?

[(Q)]

Do you believe that science is responsible for discoveries in nature and the development of technologies?

Or, do you believe gods are guiding people to make discoveries and develop technologies?

[cosmictraveler]

You could actually say it could have happened both ways because many scientists were religious during their lifetimes.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I believe science is responsible as far as we can say anything is responsible for anything.
I don't believe there's something unknown involved & I don't believe there's not something unknown involved.
Maybe there are gods guiding scientists or giving a little push or pull. Maybe aliens influence them. Maybe the ghosts of past scientists. Maybe ESP.
Maybe it's the controller(s) of this simulation we're living in.

[Nasor]

Since most of our discoveries about nature and technology weren't made until after science was developed, I would say it was probably the science. Yes, many scientists are religious, but there have been religious people around forever. They didn't start discovering things on the massive scale that we see today until science came along.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Why would gods play it out so long giving us so little science then decide to give us so much?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Do you believe that science is responsible for discoveries in nature and the development of technologies?

Or, do you believe gods are guiding people to make discoveries and develop technologies?

A conundrum of sorts. If I was theist then I have to believe God is just doing things His way and not to question it.

Hey Q, God saw fit to give me the flu this weekend. Should I be getting to an influenza research lab so the scientists there can go to work on me? ;)

I think I now realize why little kids are stricken with many of the horrible diseases God usually reserves for adulthood. All in the name of science....perhaps that is why religion detests science so. But if theists are blaming science for mankind's ills then maybe they should go after God who is initiating all this.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Why would gods play it out so long giving us so little science then decide to give us so much?

Do you think that if God had given us the knowledge we seek in the beginning then the world would be a better place? Ancient man was no different than us. Why saddle us with a fairy tale when we could have had the real nuts?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

LOL I don't know. Maybe we would've destroyed Earth sooner or had a nuclear war.
Maybe we would've wiped out disease by now. Maybe by now people wouldn't have to bust their asses, break their backs & stress so much just to feed, clothe, house themselves & family.
But if someone's significantly influencing us, I have to wonder. The way things have happened seems to me what humans would do to their artificial simulation.
Of course, I don't claim to know what gods would or wouldn't do.

[OilIsMastery]

Do you believe that science is responsible for discoveries in nature and the development of technologies?
Partly science and partly accident. I believe God wrote all of the laws of science and nature.

[snake river rufus]

I'll follow the evidence- science

[inzomnia]

Do you believe that science is responsible for discoveries in nature and the development of technologies?

Or, do you believe gods are guiding people to make discoveries and develop technologies?

Who are responsible for whatever things in this world? People.. nature.. god (if
you believe in one or some...).

Science is responsible for discoveries and development of technologies.. but it
is also responsible for war (atomic bomb, nuclear, whatever)..

Religion is responsible in creating peace or controlling bad things in some
region (social control e.g. prostitution).. it is also responsible in creating
war...

Everything has its good and bad side.. depends on the user. It's not the gun
that kill, but the man who pull the trigger.

[JDawg]

How is this even a serious question? Is this just an idiot filter, or something? If so, good call.

Obviously, science advances technology, develops medicine, discovers exotic and beautiful things about ourselves, this world, and the universe that we would have never known without it. As a matter of fact, we know what comes from viewing a world without the benefit of science: Religion.

[(Q)]

Why would gods play it out so long giving us so little science then decide to give us so much?

Good question. Why would he? Further, why would he move us to scientific discoveries that contradict his alleged words?

[(Q)]

But if theists are blaming science for mankind's ills then maybe they should go after God who is initiating all this.

The hypocrisy of religion and theists, perhaps? Or, they'd just blame it on gods arch enemy, Beelzeboob.

[(Q)]

Partly science and partly accident. I believe God wrote all of the laws of science and nature.

Then, by your own words, it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with gods. Which is it?

[(Q)]

It's not the gun
that kill, but the man who pull the trigger.

Then, you contradicted yourself.

Science is a process, hence it can't be responsible for something, as you just stated.

[(Q)]

How is this even a serious question? Is this just an idiot filter, or something? If so, good call.

Obviously, science advances technology, develops medicine, discovers exotic and beautiful things about ourselves, this world, and the universe that we would have never known without it. As a matter of fact, we know what comes from viewing a world without the benefit of science: Religion.

It's a serious question because if theists don't believe in science, but instead believe their gods are in control, then theists have a lot of questions to answer in regards to what science has discovered in light of religion.

[OilIsMastery]

Then, by your own words, it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with gods. Which is it?
God is a condition of science.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." -- Psalm 19:1

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/56538main_HUDF_330.jpg

[snake river rufus]

Quoting the bible, what an excellent (and accurate) reference work.

[Simon Anders]

I see no reason to choose between them. Do I believe that scientific methods can lead to useful technology and knowledge about the world? Yes. Do I believe in God? Yes.

[SkinWalker]

God is a condition of science.


I would take it further and say gods are conditions of several sciences: psychology, anthropology, sociology, ...

[Simon Anders]

I would take it further and say gods are conditions of several sciences: psychology, anthropology, sociology, ...I find both of your uses of 'condition' odd. But I suspect yours was more ironic.

[JDawg]

I see no reason to choose between them. Do I believe that scientific methods can lead to useful technology and knowledge about the world? Yes. Do I believe in God? Yes.

There is very good reason to choose between them. When you have an ultra-religious President, such as we have now, scientific endeavor needs to be protected from his or her belief system. He viewed funding stem cell research as a moral decision...and to me, that should have qualified him for life in prison.

But this is nothing new. Scientific advancement has always been threatened by religious authority.

[CheskiChips]

There is very good reason to choose between them. When you have an ultra-religious President, such as we have now, scientific endeavor needs to be protected from his or her belief system. He viewed funding stem cell research as a moral decision...and to me, that should have qualified him for life in prison.

But this is nothing new. Scientific advancement has always been threatened by religious authority.

Then how about you either learn about science or religion? As it is you just give opinions after having mastered neither.

[OilIsMastery]

Scientific advancement has always been threatened by religious authority.
If my theories were as weak and flimsy as some so-called "scientific" theories I would feel threatened by religion as well.

[JDawg]

Then how about you either learn about science or religion? As it is you just give opinions after having mastered neither.

I'm sorry, did you want to contribute anything useful to the conversation, or did you just want to stalk me? The second one? Thought so.

[CheskiChips]

I'm sorry, did you want to contribute anything useful to the conversation, or did you just want to stalk me? The second one? Thought so.

Don't flatter yourself.

Science and religion are at ends with each other if you understand either. But you can't agree with the driving philosophy of both simultaneously, you have to choose one.

I've personally chosen religion over science; mostly because science isn't behavioural ideology, whereas religion is.

[JDawg]

Don't flatter yourself.

Science and religion are at ends with each other if you understand either. But you can't agree with the driving philosophy of both simultaneously, you have to choose one.

I've personally chosen religion over science; mostly because science isn't behavioural ideology, whereas religion is.

And what about the "philosophy" of science can't you dig? The learning part? The exploring? What about science doesn't jive with your faith? Ohhh...the part about Earth being 4 billion years old, right? Or is it evolution?

As for me, I pick science, because I don't need an old book to tell me how to behave.

[CheskiChips]

And what about the "philosophy" of science can't you dig? The learning part? The exploring? What about science doesn't jive with your faith? Ohhh...the part about Earth being 4 billion years old, right? Or is it evolution?

As for me, I pick science, because I don't need an old book to tell me how to behave.

The philosophy I disagree with is; We need to recreate the world to be hospitable opposed to changing our actions to allow the world to be hospitable. I don't care how old the Earth is, or how it evolved. However; I am aware of the fundamental principals of both.

[Simon Anders]

There is very good reason to choose between them. When you have an ultra-religious President, such as we have now, scientific endeavor needs to be protected from his or her belief system. I don't like Bush, to put it mildly. I don't need to make the choice I mentioned above to be against him or his policies.

He viewed funding stem cell research as a moral decision...and to me, that should have qualified him for life in prison. He was just playing up to the religious fanatics. He's a pragmatist. An effective one from his perspective and those he fronts. Unfortunately.

And while I don't have concerns about stem cell research, I do have moral and practical problems with certain possible and current scientific 'advances'. Take much of gene modification technologies. There is also a moral out there that says if we can, we should, especially if there are profits involved. This morality functions like a religion - albeit generally a godless one. I do not see the huge difference in this last point.

[Norsefire]

Do you believe that science is responsible for discoveries in nature and the development of technologies?

Or, do you believe gods are guiding people to make discoveries and develop technologies?

There's no way of knowing. Anything that may indeed be the work of a god, we would interpret only as nature.

The problem is, we can figure out how something works, but not really understand the forces behind it; without understanding why. Not a philosophical "why", but instead a sort of "why does all of this produce this and what leads it to produce this? Why is it as it is?"


Regardless, if we're discussing the values of science and religion, they are each valuable in their own way. Science, in improving quality of life and human knowledge, and religion, in the social system.


Simon:
Of course, morals play a decision. In everything, especially society and government.

Science without ethics and morals might result in a lot of progress, but it will also result in alot of cruelty. The Nazis, for instance.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

God is a condition of science.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." -- Psalm 19:1


Diseases great & small (Do I need to list them all?), mental illness, mental retardation, drug addicts, 2 headed babies, babies with vestigial tails, babies with ambiguous genitalia, crack babies, attacks on humans by animals, humans' apathetic or malicious attitudes toward animals, man's inhumanity to man, rape, false accusations of rape, child molesters & other child abusers, drunk drivers, diarhea, farting, bad body odor, wars, falling bridges, unmitigated greed, animals' need to kill to survive, short lives full of misery, inherently human problematic sexual desires, tortuous deterioration of the body in old age, xenophobia, fear, foolishness, stupidity, enormous natural difficulty getting out into the heavens to explore, trillions of unanswered prayers, religious books that contradict each other, religious books that contradict themselves, religious books that claim things which we know are not so, hate, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, etc, etc, etc declare the glory of god & proclaim the work of his hands.

If my theories were as weak and flimsy as some so-called "scientific" theories I would feel threatened by religion as well.

I have huge problems with some "science" theories but you still have a puffed up strawman there. If we accept that some are flimsy, that says nothing of most science theories & discoveries or the scientific method. Humans aren't perfect. Scientists have flaws. Yet science is the only method that does work. Faith is ridiculous. Religion is nonsense. The Holy Babble is the most horribly cruel book I've read. Nearly all religious claims have been proven false.

Simon:
Of course, morals play a decision. In everything, especially society and government.
Science without ethics and morals might result in a lot of progress, but it will also result in alot of cruelty. The Nazis, for instance.

Religion & morals are trillions of light years apart.
Religion without ethics and morals will also result in a lot of cruelty.

[OilIsMastery]

Diseases great & small (Do I need to list them all?), mental illness, mental retardation, drug addicts, 2 headed babies, babies with vestigial tails, babies with ambiguous genitalia, crack babies, attacks on humans by animals, humans' apathetic or malicious attitudes toward animals, man's inhumanity to man, rape, false accusations of rape, child molesters & other child abusers, drunk drivers, diarhea, farting, bad body odor, wars, falling bridges, unmitigated greed, animals' need to kill to survive, short lives full of misery, inherently human problematic sexual desires, tortuous deterioration of the body in old age, xenophobia, fear, foolishness, stupidity, enormous natural difficulty getting out into the heavens to explore, trillions of unanswered prayers, religious books that contradict each other, religious books that contradict themselves, religious books that claim things which we know are not so, hate, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, etc, etc, etc declare the glory of god & proclaim the work of his hands.
Well you can thank Satan for that. And if it wasn't for those things you wouldn't know what good is.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Well you can thank Satan for that.

The usual weakminded desperate copout.

And if it wasn't for those things you wouldn't know what good is.

Bullshit

[Roman]

Do You Believe in Science?

With all of my brain!

[Simon Anders]

Simon:
Of course, morals play a decision. In everything, especially society and government.

Science without ethics and morals might result in a lot of progress, but it will also result in alot of cruelty. The Nazis, for instance. Good point. And thus I think experimenting on prisoners is not ethical.

[S.A.M.]

Science is a tool. Every worker believes in his tools.

[Simon Anders]

Science is a tool. Every worker believes in his tools.Used to be the smith could work in the house next to the carpenter.

[(Q)]

I see no reason to choose between them. Do I believe that scientific methods can lead to useful technology and knowledge about the world? Yes. Do I believe in God? Yes.

Then, what happens when science discovers that which contradicts your beliefs?

[Simon Anders]

Then, what happens when science discovers that which contradicts your beliefs?I'll let you know when it comes up.

[Simon Anders]

or, rather, if.....

[(Q)]

I've personally chosen religion over science; mostly because science isn't behavioural ideology, whereas religion is.

Ah, then you're a hypocrite? You must be if you're using a computer, an internet connection. Why aren't you living in a cave with your religion? Why do you benefit from science, yet shun it?

[(Q)]

I'll let you know when it comes up.

It already has, on many occasions.

[Simon Anders]

It already has, on many occasions.For example?

[(Q)]

Scripture says the earth is flat.

The earth is flat: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Matthew 4:8 (Jesus is on a mountain so high he can see "all the kingdoms of the world," which is possible on a flat earth, impossible on a spherical earth.)

The earth is flat and square or rectangular (i.e.,has four corners);
"And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth . . . " Revelation 7:1

". . . and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Isaiah 11:12

The earth is flat and circular: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth . . . " Isaiah 40:22

[Simon Anders]

Scripture says the earth is flat.

Well, if I become a Christian or Jew (especially, given the context, a literalist or fundamentalist one), I'll definitely post about my process of reconciling my beliefs with scientific descriptions of the shape of the world.

[(Q)]

Well, if I become a Christian or Jew (especially, given the context, a literalist or fundamentalist one), I'll definitely post about my process of reconciling my beliefs with scientific descriptions of the shape of the world.

Then, why did you ask for an example?

[OilIsMastery]

A more interesting question would be to ask scientists if they believe in metaphysics and philosophy.

[JDawg]

And while I don't have concerns about stem cell research, I do have moral and practical problems with certain possible and current scientific 'advances'. Take much of gene modification technologies. There is also a moral out there that says if we can, we should, especially if there are profits involved. This morality functions like a religion - albeit generally a godless one. I do not see the huge difference in this last point.

But again, that is not science alone. The dangerous kind that develops nuclear weaponry and biological weapons is science driven by government.

I do not personally have a problem with the development of anything. It is going to be developed somewhere, at some time, so why try to curb it in your own backyard?

[Simon Anders]

Then, why did you ask for an example?
Q,
do you really not see how you messed up by assuming things?

You assume that since I believe in God some of my beliefs must be in conflict with scientific theories.

This surprises me. I don't know how you know this about me. So I ask for an example. IOW why is Q so sure?

Then you come back with quotes from Jewish scripture assuming, I guess, that I am either Jewish or Christian and fundamentalist.

I point out that I am none of these things.

YOu made a claim. I asked for an example. Your example was not a good one.

[Simon Anders]

But again, that is not science alone. The dangerous kind that develops nuclear weaponry and biological weapons is science driven by government. Science is never alone. IOW there is what I would call a relgions out there (tends to be godless) that says if we can do something we should, especially if it makes money. This is rarely seen as a religion - by atheists - because their is no God in it. To me this is beside the point. The point is we have an irrational belief - or more neutrally an intuitive one - that is having huge effects on the world.

I do not personally have a problem with the development of anything. It is going to be developed somewhere, at some time, so why try to curb it in your own backyard? Safety, moral concerns....and with gene modification, my backyard, is everybody's.

[(Q)]

You assume that since I believe in God some of my beliefs must be in conflict with scientific theories.

So, let's hear your version of a god so we can find appropriate examples of conflict?

[Norsefire]

Good point. And thus I think experimenting on prisoners is not ethical.

Q, I'll go ahead and give you my version: influential intelligence.

Any conflictions there? No? Exactly.


Simon, I'd agree with you if you said "experimenting on innocent people"...but remember we're talking about criminals, not actual people. The experiments mean that the criminals can repay society for their crimes and benefit us in the knowledge gained and perhaps even save lives.

[Simon Anders]

So, let's hear your version of a god so we can find appropriate examples of conflict? Oh, come on Q. You must know of scientists who believe in God. Deists, pantheists, non-fundamentalists of a wide variety of stripes, as a few examples off the top of my head, find nothing in science to say their God cannot exist.

Why does belief in God necessitate that one must not believe in Science?
What is contradicted automatically by being a theist?
Guess what, nothing.

[Simon Anders]

Oh, I see now. You're being a dickhead because I technically stated they were your beliefs and you decided to use that loophole, so you could be a dickhead. :)
Here's the context.

I write (in a thread about our personal beliefs, ie. do we believe in science)

Originally Posted by Simon Anders
I see no reason to choose between them. Do I believe that scientific methods can lead to useful technology and knowledge about the world? Yes. Do I believe in God? Yes.
”
You quote that and say....
Then, what happens when science discovers that which contradicts your beliefs?
which is a reasonable question and one that everyone, including non-theists must look at...
I say I will let you know when and then correct to if that happens.

Then you say it already has.

What, did you think I was answering FOR ALL THEISTS or something?

What made you think I was answering for more than just myself? Which would be very strange given the wide variety of religious beliefs out there.

So take your dickhead and shove it up your ass. There was no need to call me that.

[Medicine*Woman]

God is a condition of science.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." -- Psalm 19:1

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/56538main_HUDF_330.jpg
*************
M*W: Exactly!

[Medicine*Woman]

I would take it further and say gods are conditions of several sciences: psychology, anthropology, sociology, ...
*************
M*W: I would also include astrophysics, astro-theology, and astrology.

[JDawg]

Science is never alone. IOW there is what I would call a relgions out there (tends to be godless) that says if we can do something we should, especially if it makes money. This is rarely seen as a religion - by atheists - because their is no God in it. To me this is beside the point. The point is we have an irrational belief - or more neutrally an intuitive one - that is having huge effects on the world.

Safety, moral concerns....and with gene modification, my backyard, is everybody's.

But whose morals are we talking about? What are they driven by? Society or religion? I'm sorry, but I don't believe science should be bound to a moral code. Too much is to be gained to be held to some sort of antiquated moral standard. Look at what has happened with stem cell research. Do you agree with Bush's ruling on that? To allow your "morals" to prevent the research of potential cures for debilitating diseases?

It must be an archetype of the religious to want to peg any practice or philosophy that is not their own as "religion", but it isn't. Science is not a religion, nor are the scientists who study it and work with it. There may be different philosophies, but there are no religions. It's such a weak argument, and I think it's beneath you.

[Simon Anders]

But whose morals are we talking about? Democratically arrived at morals - not that I would necessarily agree with whatever was voted on. We have limitations on scientific reserach all over the place. Restrictions on how animals can be used and humans. Restrictions on how the experiments affect the environment. Liscencing, inspections, prohibitions. What are they driven by? Society or religion? these are impossible to separate. But non-religious people have moral concerns also when it comes to science.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe science should be bound to a moral code. Oh, I am sure you do. The Nazis use of prisoners for experiments. Don't you want the FDA to restrict and carefully control drug trials. How about experiments that affect nature?

Too much is to be gained to be held to some sort of antiquated moral standard. Well, some old moral standards are good ones.

Look at what has happened with stem cell research. Do you agree with Bush's ruling on that? No, I answered that elsewhere, I think in a response in a post to you.

To allow your "morals" to prevent the research of potential cures for debilitating diseases? Our morals.

It must be an archetype of the religious to want to peg any practice or philosophy that is not their own as "religion", but it isn't. Science is not a religion, nor are the scientists who study it and work with it. There may be different philosophies, but there are no religions. It's such a weak argument, and I think it's beneath you. I never said it was. I did point out that it is, now, generally controlled by the profit motive. IOW experiments are done and technology is introduced because it will make someone money, even if the risks are, what I would call immoral. That is what I meant by science is not alone. There are always people and worse companies involved and their morals affected how a neutral methodology and its products are being used.

I think atheists have this idea that if you take away religion you take away unnecessary morals and irrationality and people will be nice to each other. I see absolutely no evidence of this. Science right now is being used by a variety of people/groups with a variety of moral codes. Some theist, some not. As far as I can tell almost everyone thinks there should be restrictions, except certain maniacs and certain corporations who think - and notice it is a moral stance - if it can be done it SHOULD be done.

[(Q)]

Oh, come on Q. You must know of scientists who believe in God.

They are few and far between, and they obviously do not use critical thinking.

Deists, pantheists, non-fundamentalists of a wide variety of stripes, as a few examples off the top of my head, find nothing in science to say their God cannot exist.

They are clearly deluded.

Why does belief in God necessitate that one must not believe in Science?

It doesn't. Why do those theists constantly berate science while taking advantage of everything science has to offer?

What is contradicted automatically by being a theist?
Guess what, nothing.

It is contradicted by critical thinking.

[Gustav]

pfft
the only critical thought employed here is by mr anders

[Simon Anders]

They are few and far between, and they obviously do not use critical thinking. You should let their employers know this, their work is probably misleading them.


They are clearly deluded.I suspect you are confusing a lack of evidence with a contradiction. I also assume you don't know what a deist is.

It doesn't. Why do those theists constantly berate science while taking advantage of everything science has to offer? I would guess that the phenomenon is much more complicated than you'd like to notice. For one thing if people who 'like science' - IOW scientists, but especially groupies of scientists - confuse lack of evidence with contradiction, there's a problem. For another I would assume that some theists would find it offputting that they are all assumed to be fundamentalists and monotheists. And last for now fregarding confusions amongst scientists, but again primarily their groupies...the confusion between science as a methodology which has produced knowledge and is at a certain point in its history AND science as metaphysics and ontology AT SOME FINAL STAGE of knowledge. Science does not give the kind of foundation for speculation about the liklihood of certain phenomena hitherto not supported via empirical methods, but also not contradicted by them, that many groupies seem to think it does. Couple this with a confusion between a lack of proof AND contradiction and you get a lot of science groupies making pronouncements about the non-existence of certain things. If these groupies were more aware of the history of science they would be more cautious, and essentially more scientific, and avoid making these pronouncements.

I am quite sure some are also pinheads who cannot see the hypocrisy that you are focused on.

It is contradicted by critical thinking. Well, as I am sure you would agree
saying it does not make it so.

Please show me the line of reasoning and or evidence.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Human inquisitiveness and thirst for knowledge is responsible, philosophy and science are key fctors in advancing tech, I do not see how religion plays a part in tech advancements it hinders it sometimes. Like genetic eng and cloning is hindered by religious ethics.

But if god does exist which I think he does, then without god there would be no science. To be honest I don't see why god would ahve a problem with science, I think god would encourage it 100%, maybe he wants us to figure out everything ourselves to see if we can one day.

Religion is mostly stupid.


peace.

[(Q)]

pfft
the only critical thought employed here is by mr anders

That would be an insult coming from you.

[(Q)]

You should let their employers know this, their work is probably misleading them.

How is it misleading them?

I suspect you are confusing a lack of evidence with a contradiction. I also assume you don't know what a deist is.

Yes, I do.

I would guess that the phenomenon is much more complicated than you'd like to notice. For one thing if people who 'like science' - IOW scientists, but especially groupies of scientists - confuse lack of evidence with contradiction, there's a problem.

Groupies? What does that have to do with anything?

For another I would assume that some theists would find it offputting that they are all assumed to be fundamentalists and monotheists.

Those would be the hypocrites.

And last for now fregarding confusions amongst scientists, but again primarily their groupies...the confusion between science as a methodology which has produced knowledge and is at a certain point in its history AND science as metaphysics and ontology AT SOME FINAL STAGE of knowledge. Science does not give the kind of foundation for speculation about the liklihood of certain phenomena hitherto not supported via empirical methods, but also not contradicted by them, that many groupies seem to think it does. Couple this with a confusion between a lack of proof AND contradiction and you get a lot of science groupies making pronouncements about the non-existence of certain things. If these groupies were more aware of the history of science they would be more cautious, and essentially more scientific, and avoid making these pronouncements.

Again, what do groupies have to do with anything?

Please show me the line of reasoning and or evidence.

Ok, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Gustav]

Ok, but I have no idea what you're talking about.


coming from you
entirely expected

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Simon --- I think atheists have this idea that if you take away religion you take away unnecessary morals and irrationality and people will be nice to each other. I see absolutely no evidence of this.

Stranger======= I think antiNazis, antiKKKs, antiTalibans & antiAlQuedas have this idea that if you take away these things you take away unnecessary morals and irrationality and people will be nice to each other. I see absolutely no evidence of this.

[swarm]

Simon I think atheists have this idea that if you take away religion you take away unnecessary morals and irrationality and people will be nice to each other.

Where did you pick up this weird idea? Atheists are usually realists about life.

By and far the atheists I've known are concerned with removing a key source of irrational and superstitious thought. They cleave to the truth and theism is frankly not he least bit true.

Some of them would like to not have a repeat of the xtian dark ages and the islamic dark ages (1400s-to current). But usually simply being rational is sufficient. Well that and the enjoyment of watching irrational people make fools of themselves. Its nice to be able to point out how absurd and ludicrous the theist position is without having to worry about being burned to death.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I guess being burned to death isn't much of a worry now but society still often treats atheists unfairly & even cruelly punishes them.

[(Q)]

coming from you
entirely expected

Sorry, I don't speak nor understand gibberish. Please enlighten us.

[JDawg]

I guess being burned to death isn't much of a worry now but society still often treats atheists unfairly & even cruelly punishes them.

That's true. Considering that faith is considered a virtue, then not having faith would mean you are short a virtue...to think that a guy like John McCain (not endorsing him here, just sayin') would have to invoke the name of God, and pretend to be religious, after spending his entire career fighting against the religious Right...it sucks to see someone surrender their own beliefs to run for office.

[Carico]

Do you believe that science is responsible for discoveries in nature and the development of technologies?

Or, do you believe gods are guiding people to make discoveries and develop technologies?

The bible says that God controls people's lives. So I'll have to go with that since the track record of scientists isn't too good. ;)

[Medicine*Woman]

The bible says that God controls people's lives. So I'll have to go with that since the track record of scientists isn't too good. ;)
*************
M*W: It's pretty clear that you are being controlled by your religion.

Do you live in a cave or something? Maybe you should consider doing some extra-biblical reading. You might learn something.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

The bible says that God controls people's lives. So I'll have to go with that since the track record of scientists isn't too good. ;)

The track record of science is enormously better than the track record of religion.
If 20% of science theories are wrong, that says nothing for your baseless beliefs.

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to preach to animals?

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

Do you believe that science is responsible for discoveries in nature and the development of technologies?

That is like asking if I believe Usain Bolts legs were responsible for the way he simply devastated his opponents in the olympic 100 and 200 meter event. Obviously they played an integral role, but were no soley responsible for his success. Science is like the legs in this instance, it can help (if used properly) bring about a desired situation, by the process of understanding objective knowledge, but it is not the reason why we are alive, or why we are conscious, nor can it shed any real light (by its nature) on why these things are.

Or, do you believe gods are guiding people to make discoveries and develop technologies?

If gods do exist, and people have desires, then it could be possible that gods could help people who are prepared, to get what they want, including fame and fortune. It all boils down to belief, and as such discussions will only be about whether one believes in gods or not, and will not yield anything of value.

jan.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

The bible says that God controls people's lives. So I'll have to go with that since the track record of scientists isn't too good. ;)

God controls people's lives then punishes them.

[(Q)]

The bible says that God controls people's lives. So I'll have to go with that since the track record of scientists isn't too good.

That includes murderers and rapists, too?

If the track record of scientists isn't too good, why are you not living in a cave?

[(Q)]

nor can it shed any real light (by its nature) on why these things are.

Yes Jan, you seek the why while we seek the how. Unfortunately, for you, the why will always be whatever your ignorance can muster as you refuse to understand the how.

gods could help people who are prepared, to get what they want, including fame and fortune. It all boils down to belief, and as such discussions will only be about whether one believes in gods or not, and will not yield anything of value.

No Jan, the discussions will always be "how" did your god do such things, a discussion you'll be unable to participate. :)

[JDawg]

That's the problem with such radicals as Carico; they've never even read a science magazine, let alone a textbook. And yet they think they have the knowledge to step in here and argue about science. It boggles the mind.

[Simon Anders]

Ok, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
Let's focus this then....
How are the beliefs of a non-fundamentalist Christian contradicted by science, for example?

[(Q)]

Let's focus this then....
How are the beliefs of a non-fundamentalist Christian contradicted by science, for example?

Ok, but first, let's discuss what exactly a 'non-fundamentalist Christian' is defined, as that could be part and parcel to the premise; hypocrisy.

What is a 'non-fundamentalist Christian'?

[JDawg]

I would assume that is a Christian not a part of the Evangelical cults.

[Simon Anders]

Ok, but first, let's discuss what exactly a 'non-fundamentalist Christian' is defined, as that could be part and parcel to the premise; hypocrisy.

What is a 'non-fundamentalist Christian'?An example: He feels a deep connection with God when he prays and feels God's presence. He was in a lot of emotional pain in his twenties and began to pray. He found inspiration in the Bible, especially those portions of the New Testament directly referring to Jesus. He does not take everything in the bible literally, but he does believe that Jesus lived and had great insight into God and reading the parts about him help him feel closer to God. He suffers much less emotionally and, according to people who know him, both well and professionally, he seems much more together since he became Christian. He believes he will be united with God after death.

What beliefs does he have that are contradicted by science?

[Simon Anders]

Where did you pick up this weird idea? Atheists are usually realists about life. I picked the 'weird' idea up from the behavior of many atheists here who seem to think religion is the root of much of the evil in history and that we would be less violent without it. This case is made here frequently despite references to the behavior of communists and the dearth of evidence that humans will somehow stop being violent, oppressive, etc., without a belief in God. When it is pointed out that most people have been religious throughout history so any violence was likely to be perpetuated by religious people and that religion offered a good way to manipulate people, but further that other ways of manipulating people seem just as effective, so their is no evidence that we will become less violent without religion, I cannot remember a single atheist here saying, Hm, that might be right.

By and far the atheists I've known are concerned with removing a key source of irrational and superstitious thought. They cleave to the truth and theism is frankly not he least bit true. So you believe there is no God.

Some of them would like to not have a repeat of the xtian dark ages and the islamic dark ages (1400s-to current). But usually simply being rational is sufficient. Well that and the enjoyment of watching irrational people make fools of themselves. Its nice to be able to point out how absurd and ludicrous the theist position is without having to worry about being burned to death. Yes, that is nice. I've never been a fan of the fundamentalist monotheisms myself.

[(Q)]

An example: He feels a deep connection with God when he prays and feels God's presence. He was in a lot of emotional pain in his twenties and began to pray. He found inspiration in the Bible, especially those portions of the New Testament directly referring to Jesus. He does not take everything in the bible literally, but he does believe that Jesus lived and had great insight into God and reading the parts about him help him feel closer to God. He suffers much less emotionally and, according to people who know him, both well and professionally, he seems much more together since he became Christian. He believes he will be united with God after death.

What beliefs does he have that are contradicted by science?

Thank you. You just described the hypocrisy of many theists who purport they are of a religion, but instead, pick and choose from religions that which they feel they want to believe. He isn't a Christian, he's made up his own fantasies based on what he wants to believe and has created his own false hopes to make himself feel better.

So, when you can actually describe and offer a Christian, I'll be happy to demonstrate yet more hypocrisies. All you've offered is someone who has created their own fantasy.

[Simon Anders]

Thank you. You just described the hypocrisy of many theists who purport they are of a religion, but instead, pick and choose from religions that which they feel they want to believe. He isn't a Christian, he's made up his own fantasies based on what he wants to believe and has created his own false hopes to make himself feel better.

So, when you can actually describe and offer a Christian, I'll be happy to demonstrate yet more hypocrisies.
I just described a theist. And a real one. If you cannot show how his beliefs are contradicted by science, just admit it.
(you do realize how silly it is for you, Q, to take the authority position in relation to who is and who is not a 'real' Christian, don't you? But that is a side issue. The fact remains that one can be a theist and in no way have one's belief's contradicted by science.)

[darksidZz]

Anyone voting for god shoot yourselves now =P

[swarm]

Simon Anders
despite references to the behavior of communists

Communism doesn't do away with religion. It seeks to replace it with a religion of the state in order to grab the absolute obedience religion demands.

their is no evidence that we will become less violent without religion, I cannot remember a single atheist here saying

Well let me help you out. Some people like to kill and it ain't changing any time soon. I just would like to see more honesty about why they are killing so that the stupid at least know why they are dying for no good reason.

So you believe there is no God.

Belief has nothing to do with existencial questions. I don't believe in rocks. I don't believe in unicorns. I have evidence for rocks and not for unicorns or gods.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

A Christian is someone who believes in, supports, follows & lives by the Christian Bible.

[(Q)]

I just described a theist. And a real one. If you cannot show how his beliefs are contradicted by science, just admit it.

Patience, we'll get to that. Where's the fire?

(you do realize how silly it is for you, Q, to take the authority position in relation to who is and who is not a 'real' Christian, don't you? But that is a side issue.

Wouldn't a "real" Christian follow his religion as outlined in scriptures? Are there any people who actually do? If they did, they'd be labeled as fundamentalists, right? They follow their religion, they obey their god's command.

And, isn't that what every Christian is supposed to do in order to quantify themselves as a Christian? Are they not supposed to follow their religion and obey their gods commands, word for word, just like the fundamentalists?

Or, is Christianity the picking and choosing of selective bits and pieces that conform to ones worldview? In other words, the god is tailored to fit the person instead of the other way round.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Oh goodness. Let's try this, shall we. I consider myself a christian. Q considers himself an atheist, as does stranger. So, since I am not an atheist, I will define it for them. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existance of a deity, and who enjoys anal masturbation. Now that we have that sorted out. Do I believ in Science? sure. Until somthing proves it wrong, I'll probably accept every half-baked scientific theory that comes my way, as long as I subjectively like it and want to agree with it. Someone suggested that wind was caused by undetectable flying woolly mammoths. Sounds good to me! Anyone care to disprove it?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

It's not a matter of me defining it. That's the definition.

[JDawg]

Notice that stranger did not rebuke Ham's "anal masturbation" claim...:D

[Simon Anders]

Patience, we'll get to that. Where's the fire?
Oh, I am sure you can understand a little distrust.

Wouldn't a "real" Christian follow his religion as outlined in scriptures? Are there any people who actually do? If they did, they'd be labeled as fundamentalists, right? They follow their religion, they obey their god's command.

And, isn't that what every Christian is supposed to do in order to quantify themselves as a Christian? Are they not supposed to follow their religion and obey their gods commands, word for word, just like the fundamentalists?

Or, is Christianity the picking and choosing of selective bits and pieces that conform to ones worldview? In other words, the god is tailored to fit the person instead of the other way round.

I am quite sure there a good many Christians who share your anal views of religion and how to adhere to it, but I am quite sure you know that Christians are a varied group, as other other religious groups, let alone the wider variety of theists out there. 'Supposed to' according to whom, is always an issue. Many reverends and pastors and cogregations and Christians would disagree with your disincluding such a person, and they live this out. Sorry if I do not take your interpretation as the definitive one. There are quite a good many theists who consider their texts metaphorical (in places or in general) and/or affected/distorted by the psychologies and cultures of those who wrote them. Nevertheless they find them helpful or consider them divinely inspired rather than perfect and literal in all accounts. It makes your assertion much easier to work with if these people did not exist or if you were somehow 'the' authority on what a theist or a Christian, etc., really must be. But this is not the case.

And though there is, of course, no fire, I will assume you, at the very least, cannot show how such a theist has his beliefs contradicted by science until you can show otherwise.

[Simon Anders]

It's not a matter of me defining it. That's the definition.What's the definition? No one has defined Christian here. It would be odd, as Hamstatic has delightfully - and me rather more prosaically - pointed out if Q or you somehow were the authorities on what a Christian is, let alone a theist. People like the man I described are members of congregations and are 'out' with their beliefs. Next you'll be telling Hindus which versions of their myths their must adhere to, how Buddhists should meditate to be proper Buddhists and Jews whether they must believe in an afterlife or not to be true believers.

Care to weigh on whether the Sufis are truly practitioners of Islam or should be viewed as a sect?

[JDawg]

What's the definition? No one has defined Christian here. It would be odd, as Hamstatic has delightfully - and me rather more prosaically - pointed out if Q or you somehow were the authorities on what a Christian is, let alone a theist. People like the man I described are members of congregations and are 'out' with their beliefs. Next you'll be telling Hindus which versions of their myths their must adhere to, how Buddhists should meditate to be proper Buddhists and Jews whether they must believe in an afterlife or not to be true believers.

Care to weigh on whether the Sufis are truly practitioners of Islam or should be viewed as a sect?

Why do you have no problem telling an atheist how he or she must feel, yet not a Christian?

[(Q)]

I am quite sure there a good many Christians who share your anal views of religion and how to adhere to it, but I am quite sure you know that Christians are a varied group, as other other religious groups, let alone the wider variety of theists out there.

Of course I am, it demonstrates clearly the nonexistence of a single god, which each religion purports. It also demonstrates the hypocrisy of those theists.

'Supposed to' according to whom

According to scriptures, which is supposed to be the word of god, hence it is commanded by the god. I can't believe you don't know that.

Many reverends and pastors and cogregations and Christians would disagree with your disincluding such a person, and they live this out.

Yes, they are hypocrites, all of them, that's the point.

Sorry if I do not take your interpretation as the definitive one. There are quite a good many theists who consider their texts metaphorical (in places or in general) and/or affected/distorted by the psychologies and cultures of those who wrote them.

In other words, they don't take the existence of their god seriously? They are hypocrites?

Nevertheless they find them helpful or consider them divinely inspired rather than perfect and literal in all accounts. It makes your assertion much easier to work with if these people did not exist or if you were somehow 'the' authority on what a theist or a Christian, etc., really must be. But this is not the case.

Clearly, subterfuge is key in Christianity.

And though there is, of course, no fire, I will assume you, at the very least, cannot show how such a theist has his beliefs contradicted by science until you can show otherwise.

You haven't made a case for the Christian, yet. You've instead demonstrated my point of the hypocrisy of those who claim to be Christians, when they are simply theists who tailor a religion to suit their own personal agendas.

[(Q)]

What's the definition? No one has defined Christian here. It would be odd, as Hamstatic has delightfully - and me rather more prosaically - pointed out if Q or you somehow were the authorities on what a Christian is, let alone a theist.

The god of Christianity is the authority, is he not? The god of Christianity defines a Christian.

[Simon Anders]

The god of Christianity is the authority, is he not? The god of Christianity defines a Christian.I can see why it serves you purpose to keep focusing on this issue. If you plan to deal with the issue of whether a theist must have his beliefs contradicted by science, you can PM me.

As far as this distraction....

are you really unaware that large numbers of Christians to not consider the Bible the perfect rendition of God's thoughts and rules and truths?

It seems in your universe the word 'fundamentalist' is simply redundant, since anyone who is not a fundamentalist or literalist is not an adherent of the religion.

This is not the universe I live in.

In any case. Feel free to back up your assertion that any theist must have beliefs that are contradicted by science or drop it or admit you can't.

I have lost interest in your avoidance games.

[Simon Anders]

Of course I am, it demonstrates clearly the nonexistence of a single god, which each religion purports. Now you are being even more silly. Differences of opinion amongst people do not demonstrate the nonexistence of single God. Differences of opinion amongst people do not demonstrate the non-existence of anything except consensus around that issue. I am sure you are smart enough, with a second look, to see the implications such 'logic' would have even on your own existence as a single person.

According to scriptures, which is supposed to be the word of god, hence it is commanded by the god. I can't believe you don't know that. You are clearly not an expert in Christianity. I can't believe you do not know that. But this is mere distraction.

Take out my reference to the Bible, Christ and Christianity.

A man feels the presence of God when he prays. It has made him feel better. He believes he will be united with God after death.

And grow up. On some level you know you are just playing lawyer and have no case.

[JDawg]

A man feels the presence of God when he prays. It has made him feel better. He believes he will be united with God after death.

That does not imply that there is a god. That simply indicates that the person praying really believes in their god.

[Simon Anders]

That does not imply that there is a god. That simply indicates that the person praying really believes in their god.
JDawg,
Q has asserted that if you believe in God, you must believe in things that are contradicted by science. I do not think this is the case. Do you?

It is in that context I use that example. (as always, I must make it clear that I am not presenting these arguments as evidence or proof of God. I do get tired of saying it, but there it is. Maybe I will make it a permanent footer to my posts.)

He's smug and evasive and on this issue wrong even if you think he is 'on the right team'.

[JDawg]

JDawg,
Q has asserted that if you believe in God, you must believe in things that are contradicted by science. I do not think this is the case. Do you?

The same thing can be said of MynameisDan, who says that evolution is contradictory to science...why are you not over there giving him What For?

Anyway, to answer your question...no, god is not contradicted by science. However, there are fundamentals within the Bible (which is the god I'm sure he was referring to) that simply do not stand up under the microscope of modern science. So if you had to lean one way or the other based on the scientific evidence, you'd have to lean towards the Christian God not being real. Or at least not being how he is portrayed by the Bible.

Also, we call God "He". The fact that the lone omnipotent, and by all accounts celebate, being in the history of everything would have a sex...it doesn't add up.

It is in that context I use that example. (as always, I must make it clear that I am not presenting these arguments as evidence or proof of God. I do get tired of saying it, but there it is. Maybe I will make it a permanent footer to my posts.)

The reason I took it that way is for the reason I stated above: You only get on the atheist. You say that atheists here make these outrageous claims, but the truth is that far more theists make far more outrageous claims. You're a learned dude, from what I can tell, so why aren't you telling them how wrong they are?

You silence speaks volumes.

[/quote]He's smug and evasive and on this issue wrong even if you think he is 'on the right team'.[/QUOTE]

Well, according to what we know about the claims made in the Bible...he is on the right team. Evasive, maybe. But it's your choice to debate him. Nobody's forcing you.

[(Q)]

Now you are being even more silly. Differences of opinion amongst people do not demonstrate the nonexistence of single God. Differences of opinion amongst people do not demonstrate the non-existence of anything except consensus around that issue. I am sure you are smart enough, with a second look, to see the implications such 'logic' would have even on your own existence as a single person.

If there were one god, we'd all know about it, and agree with the one, single message one god would reveal. There would be no differences of opinion.

You are clearly not an expert in Christianity. I can't believe you do not know that. But this is mere distraction.

Appeal to authority.

Take out my reference to the Bible, Christ and Christianity.

Isn't that convenient of you to move the goalposts.

A man feels the presence of God when he prays. It has made him feel better. He believes he will be united with God after death.

Clearly, you are but a child believing in delusions and fairy tales. Grow up.

[(Q)]

He's smug and evasive and on this issue wrong even if you think he is 'on the right team'.

YOU are the one who is being evasive. You keep moving the goalposts because you refuse to accept the fact that people who purport to follow a religion do no such thing, that they are hypocrites, much like yourself.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

What's the definition? No one has defined Christian here. It would be odd, as Hamstatic has delightfully - and me rather more prosaically - pointed out if Q or you somehow were the authorities on what a Christian is, let alone a theist. People like the man I described are members of congregations and are 'out' with their beliefs. Next you'll be telling Hindus which versions of their myths their must adhere to, how Buddhists should meditate to be proper Buddhists and Jews whether they must believe in an afterlife or not to be true believers.

Care to weigh on whether the Sufis are truly practitioners of Islam or should be viewed as a sect?

The definition is concluded the same way any such word is defined. Muslims follow & live by the Koran. Mormons follow & live by the Mormon bibles. The Art Preservation Society tries to preserve art.
Nothing else makes any damn sense.
The Holy Babble is clearly against homosexuals. It states clearly they should be killed. It is absurd for homosexuals to claim to be Christian. If they absolutely must believe in some god, it is not the god of the christian bible & they should call it & them something else.
I feel the presence of something I can't explain when I masturbate. THERE IS A GOD!
I am an expert in Christianity. You, Simon, obviously are not.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

What is most astounding in all of this is how well versed in the bible Q and Stranger are. I'm not that big a fan of hitler, thus I don't generally read things about him. Weird that you two would seek out that which is such an affront to you. Is it like homophobes secretly being homosexual? You are so against christianity because you secretly want to be a christian?

[(Q)]

What is most astounding in all of this is how well versed in the bible Q and Stranger are.

That's one of the primary differences between us and theists, theists never do their homework. Theists make light of the atrocities and contradictions of their religions while we bring those nasty bits to the forefront to demonstrate the hypocrisy of worshiping cruel and immoral gods.

[Simon Anders]

YOU are the one who is being evasive. You keep moving the goalposts because you refuse to accept the fact that people who purport to follow a religion do no such thing, that they are hypocrites, much like yourself.
I move the goalposts because to keep you from distracting on the issue.

I mention a person with certain beliefs.
You say that they, as Christians, must have these other beliefs and then 'show' they are hypocrites.
I spend some time pointing out how ridiculous this is, that you shall judge what a real christian is, get no acknowledgement for from you, so I shift to easier ground.

a theist who is not a Christian, who feels close to God when he prays and feels he will be united with God when he dies.

No contradictions with Science.

[(Q)]

You are so against christianity because you secretly want to be a christian?

If I did, it would be a simple matter of conducting some medieval ritual like someone sprinkling water over my head and muttering the relative prose.

However, that is the point exactly. Is that all it takes to be a Christian?

I would suspect that one must live by the literal word of their god, unequivocally and unfettered. If you don't, you go to hell. Clearly, the vast majority of Christians are hell bound and they would be lying if they denied it.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

You have to understand, ham, I am afraid of christianity. That's why I go on the attack all the time. It's also why I only partially quote anybody and respond to whatever piece of their post pleases me. I'm just too much of an embarrassing mental midget to think things through fully. I am an example of bigotry in it's lowest form.

Come now, Q. Don't be so hard on yourself. God loves you, buddy!:)

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Q-it takes less than that. No water. Just belief. Christ's death absolves us of all sin. He wants us to do our best to be good people, but that's about it. Jesus was pretty mum on the whole homosexual issue, actually.

[(Q)]

I move the goalposts because to keep you from distracting on the issue.

No, you move the goalposts because you assume that if someone sprinkles a little water on your head and says the magic words, *poof* you're a Christian.

I mention a person with certain beliefs.
You say that they, as Christians, must have these other beliefs and then 'show' they are hypocrites.
I spend some time pointing out how ridiculous this is, that you shall judge what a real christian is

So, now you have to fabricate lies to make your point? I clearly stated that it is entirely up to the god in question who would dictate what their followers will do, and if they don't, they shall endure gods wrath.

a theist who is not a Christian, who feels close to God when he prays and feels he will be united with God when he dies.

No contradictions with Science.

So, what religion exactly is your theist, or has he fabricated his own version of delusion?

[Simon Anders]

The definition is concluded the same way any such word is defined. Muslims follow & live by the Koran. Mormons follow & live by the Mormon bibles. The Art Preservation Society tries to preserve art.
Nothing else makes any damn sense.
The Holy Babble is clearly against homosexuals. It states clearly they should be killed. It is absurd for homosexuals to claim to be Christian. If they absolutely must believe in some god, it is not the god of the christian bible & they should call it & them something else.
I feel the presence of something I can't explain when I masturbate. THERE IS A GOD!
I am an expert in Christianity. You, Simon, obviously are not.
there are so many errors of logic in the above and reference to my position I don't know where to start.
A Christian is someone who believes that Christ is a special case and can help them be good and find peace, etc. It includes people who believe the Bibles every word is the word of God, but is not restricted to them.

noun 7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

I AM SO FUCKING TIRED OF THIS ERROR ON YOUR PART.

I never, ever anywhere in Sciforums, have said that someone's experience of God proves there is a God. But somehow atheists like you have such blinders on that you cannot understand any nuance in argument.

This is just bullshit misreading and misunderstanding of context on your part.

I feel the presence of something I can't explain when I masturbate. THERE IS A GOD!

When I gave Q the example of a believer I WAS NOT MAKING THE CASE THAT HIS EXPERIENCE OF GOD OR THINKING HE IS EXPERIENCING GOD WHILE PRAYING IS PROOF OF GOD.

I was giving him as an example of someone whose beliefs are not contradicted by science.

Read that a couple of times. If you cannot understand the distinction, there is no point in going further.

You are assuming that the point I am making is to prove that God exists. No. My participation in this thread has been to prove that atheists here are incorrect about certain things. Phlogistan about the words 'atheism' and 'atheist', Q about his assertion that belief in God means believing that some scientific theory is false, etc.

You have such a clear image in your head about what a theist must be doing that you cannot notice what I am doing despite repeated assertions on my part. IOW you are hallucinating.

[(Q)]

Originally Posted by (Q)
You have to understand, ham, I am afraid of christianity. That's why I go on the attack all the time. It's also why I only partially quote anybody and respond to whatever piece of their post pleases me. I'm just too much of an embarrassing mental midget to think things through fully. I am an example of bigotry in it's lowest form.

Come now, Q. Don't be so hard on yourself. God loves you, buddy!:)

I used to defend you Ham and from time to time helped you out. Why would you make up something like that?

[Simon Anders]

No, you move the goalposts because you assume that if someone sprinkles a little water on your head and says the magic words, *poof* you're a Christian. Ah, so now you are mind reader. And hallucinating. And also still claiming to be the one who decides who is a Christian and who is not.

So, what religion exactly is your theist, or has he fabricated his own version of delusion? He has come to it himself.

[(Q)]

Q-it takes less than that. No water. Just belief. Christ's death absolves us of all sin. He wants us to do our best to be good people, but that's about it. Jesus was pretty mum on the whole homosexual issue, actually.

Who cares? Do you follow the bible to the letter? No? Then, you're going to hell like the rest of us. Case closed.

Atheists do their best and are good people, yet your cult would have us swinging by a rope, at the very least. So, don't feed us your bullshit about it's "just belief."

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Originally Posted by (Q)
You have to understand, ham, I am afraid of christianity. That's why I go on the attack all the time. It's also why I only partially quote anybody and respond to whatever piece of their post pleases me. I'm just too much of an embarrassing mental midget to think things through fully. I am an example of bigotry in it's lowest form.



I used to defend you Ham and from time to time helped you out. Why would you make up something like that?

Come on, puddin. 's okay. I don't recall you defending me, though. Nor helping me out. Perhaps any such memories have been erased by your constant near random quotations of things other people say. You quote it, pick some you want to refute, then post it on up there. You have driven me to cursing on more than one occasion doing this, so, turnabout is fair play, right?:rolleyes:

[(Q)]

And also still claiming to be the one who decides who is a Christian and who is not.

Since, you are going to lie about what I said, I see no reason to continue. And, if that is your set of beliefs, then you have some serious problems, pal.

[(Q)]

Come on, puddin. 's okay. I don't recall you defending me, though. Nor helping me out. You have driven me to cursing on more than one occasion doing this, so, turnabout is fair play, right?

I criticized your cult but defended you, personally. So, you can fuck off, now.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Who cares? Do you follow the bible to the letter? No? Then, you're going to hell like the rest of us. Case closed.

Atheists do their best and are good people, yet your cult would have us swinging by a rope, at the very least. So, don't feed us your bullshit about it's "just belief."

Interesting. Let's try something. I say that religious belief is subjective and speculative, thus my belief is not your belief, thus I believe that I am not going to hell, and I'm hopeful that God in the final judgement will allow some extra credit. You believe... well... something different. You don't believe in God, but you do believe that people should not believe in God, and that you are right in calling down their beliefs. Q, you, along with stranger, are some of the only evangelical fundamentalist atheists I have ever met.

[(Q)]

You are assuming that the point I am making is to prove that God exists. No. My participation in this thread has been to prove that atheists here are incorrect about certain things.

Too bad you have to resort to lying to make your point, though.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Too bad you have to resort to lying to make your point, though.


Wah! He's lyin!

kettle, meet pot. pot, why are you calling him black?

[(Q)]

Interesting. Let's try something. I say that religious belief is subjective and speculative, thus my belief is not your belief, thus I believe that I am not going to hell, and I'm hopeful that God in the final judgement will allow some extra credit.

Utter hypocrisy and delusion on your part. Extra credit, indeed.

You believe... well... something different. You don't believe in God, but you do believe that people should not believe in God, and that you are right in calling down their beliefs. Q, you, along with stranger, are some of the only evangelical fundamentalist atheists I have ever met.

Yet, you and Simon have to resort to fabrications and lies to argue your beliefs. Neither of you has an ounce of ethics in your deluded brains.

[(Q)]

Wah! He's lyin!

kettle, meet pot. pot, why are you calling him black?

Point out exactly where I lied. If not, tafftard.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I apologize Q. I'm just too lazy to do that kind of homework. I would like to point out you like to use absolutes in your statements. Never, and always make quick liars out of their users. Is a tafftard some kind of pie?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Please. Tell me where I have resorted to fabrication or lie that you have not, Q? Oh I'm sorry. I must believe what you say I must believe to be a christian. If I am a christian and believe what you say I must I am wrong and deluded. If I believe I am a christian and do not believe what you say I must, I am lying and deluded too, right? Nice box you make there, the only exit is to declare atheism. Too bad I don't find you worthy of belief. Guess I'll just kick the walls down. :)

[Simon Anders]

Since, you are going to lie about what I said, I see no reason to continue.

here is where you started deciding who is a Christian and who is not. They 'purport' they are of a religion and 'pick and choose'.

Thank you. You just described the hypocrisy of many theists who purport they are of a religion, but instead, pick and choose from religions that which they feel they want to believe. He isn't a Christian, he's made up his own fantasies based on what he wants to believe and has created his own false hopes to make himself feel better.

I did not lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply forgot and do not really understand the position you are taking.

[Simon Anders]

and here
Wouldn't a "real" Christian follow his religion as outlined in scriptures? Are there any people who actually do? If they did, they'd be labeled as fundamentalists, right? They follow their religion, they obey their god's command.

And, isn't that what every Christian is supposed to do in order to quantify themselves as a Christian? Are they not supposed to follow their religion and obey their gods commands, word for word, just like the fundamentalists?

Or, is Christianity the picking and choosing of selective bits and pieces that conform to ones worldview? In other words, the god is tailored to fit the person instead of the other way round. the problem of logic in this last bolded portion is dealt with in the other thread.

[Simon Anders]

So, now you have to fabricate lies to make your point? I clearly stated that it is entirely up to the god in question who would dictate what their followers will do, and if they don't, they shall endure gods wrath.
I can see where you do not understand that you are taking the authority position because you are assuming that the Bible must be taken literally since it is God's word, using the same problematic tautology that fundamentalists use. If one does not take the Bible literally, then one does not have to take the Bible as authority, especially on all points. Which in fact is the case with many Christians who focus on the Gospels and even there do not take every word as exactly as God or Jesus said or wants.

So I can see where you think I am falsely accusing you are claiming authority. But that is because you are taking the fundamentalists side in the Christian world and assuming that that is the only position there is. Why would you side with the fundamentalists?

[Simon Anders]

Please. Tell me where I have resorted to fabrication or lie that you have not, Q? Oh I'm sorry. I must believe what you say I must believe to be a christian. If I am a christian and believe what you say I must I am wrong and deluded. If I believe I am a christian and do not believe what you say I must, I am lying and deluded too, right? Nice box you make there, the only exit is to declare atheism. Too bad I don't find you worthy of belief. Guess I'll just kick the walls down. :)
Are you a Christian Ham?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Yep. I'm not a very 'good' one. I believe I am one, though.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I'm a Christian.

[draqon]

God is essentially everything and science is a tool to discover almost everything...because God cannot be discovered, because God was never lost/forgotten...God makes us all including the ways we discover this world through science.

[draqon]

I'm a Christian.

I'm a Buddhist, nice to meet you.

[JDawg]

What is most astounding in all of this is how well versed in the bible Q and Stranger are. I'm not that big a fan of hitler, thus I don't generally read things about him. Weird that you two would seek out that which is such an affront to you. Is it like homophobes secretly being homosexual? You are so against christianity because you secretly want to be a christian?

Like Q said, he does what a theist never does, which is study up on the material before forming an opinion. You know how you don't know jack shit about evolution but decide it's evil and impossible anyway? Yeah, he likes to make sure he knows what he's talking about before he, like you and yours, gets made to look like a fool.

[S.A.M.]

Like you decided Mohammed is not a real person? :rolleyes:

[(Q)]

I apologize Q. I'm just too lazy to do that kind of homework.

Then, how are we supposed to take you seriously when you make claims of your religion without knowing a damn thing about it?

[(Q)]

here is where you started deciding who is a Christian and who is not. They 'purport' they are of a religion and 'pick and choose'.

You're still not listening. I don't make up the rules, your gods do that for you, hence THEY are the ones you need to obey, not me. If you don't obey your gods, you go to hell. It's really that simple.

If you make up your own religion, then that is a fantasy you've contrived.

[Simon Anders]

You're still not listening. I don't make up the rules, your gods do that for you, hence THEY are the ones you need to obey, not me. If you don't obey your gods, you go to hell. It's really that simple.

If you make up your own religion, then that is a fantasy you've contrived.
You're still not listening. If the people in question do not take the Bible as the direct word of God and as the literal truth then they are not bound in the way you are saying.
I have made this clear both within this thread and the thread especially focusing on your fundamentalism.

You have still not dealt the other theist I presented you with. And you have not admitted that I had good foundation for saying the you are presenting yourself as an authority figure in relation to Christians - see quotes of your above. You are saying that a Christian must take the Bible literally and in no way can they decide that any portion was unduly influenced by the writers culture or personality or failure to understand.

You, an atheist, are taking the position that only fundamentalists/literalists are Christians.

[JDawg]

Like you decided Mohammed is not a real person? :rolleyes:

You like to roll your eyes a lot, but you don't both to read posts before you do it. You are the epitome of ignorance.

The truth is, as is plain to anyone who had read my posts, that I don't know if Mohammed was real or not. The only assertion I've made is that Mohammed did not need to be real.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

JDawg, if you look back on my postings, you'll find that I'm all for evolution, pick your epithets more carefully in the future, JDawg-san.

Q-I just don't believe it. There's no talking to you. How am I supposed to have a conversation with you when you deliberatly take a statement out of context. Scroll up, you imbecile.

[JDawg]

JDawg, if you look back on my postings, you'll find that I'm all for evolution, pick your epithets more carefully in the future, JDawg-san.


My bad, Hammy.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

No problemo.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Too bad you have to resort to lying to make your point, though.

Wah! He's lyin!

kettle, meet pot. pot, why are you calling him black?

Point out exactly where I lied. If not, tafftard.

I apologize Q. I'm just too lazy to do that kind of homework. I would like to point out you like to use absolutes in your statements. Never, and always make quick liars out of their users. Is a tafftard some kind of pie?

Then, how are we supposed to take you seriously when you make claims of your religion without knowing a damn thing about it?

Interesting. Q-if you go back a page, you'll find these word for word. Taking someone deliberately out of context is not lying?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

As for my religion, I am intimately aware of my religion, it guides what I do, sometimes I fail to do what I imagine Jesus would have had me do, but he has forgiven my transgressions. I apologize for not being a better witness, but sometimes your desperate attempts at refutation annoy me.

[(Q)]

You're still not listening. If the people in question do not take the Bible as the direct word of God and as the literal truth then they are not bound in the way you are saying.

Of course they are bound, it states so in the bible:

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

You are saying that a Christian must take the Bible literally and in no way can they decide that any portion was unduly influenced by the writers culture or personality or failure to understand.

That is irrelevant. The bible is the word of god, and you are commanded to obey by your god. This is incontrovertible.

You, an atheist, are taking the position that only fundamentalists/literalists are Christians.

You can call them whatever you want, but it is only those who follow the bible to the letter who will be granted salvation and a place beside their god, the rest will fry. This is written in the bible, blasphemer! :D

[(Q)]

As for my religion, I am intimately aware of my religion, it guides what I do, sometimes I fail to do what I imagine Jesus would have had me do, but he has forgiven my transgressions.

Ah yes, the hypocrisy of forgiveness. What a farce. You do whatever you want and are "forgiven" for your transgressions. All a mass murdering despot has to do is recant on his deathbed, and all is forgiven. Forgiven, indeed.

I apologize for not being a better witness, but sometimes your desperate attempts at refutation annoy me.

They annoy you because you find yourself constantly having to contradict yourself.

[Simon Anders]

Q,
OK. You do not have integrity.
You use the same foolish tautology the fundamentalists do because it suits your purposes.
This is neither rational nor valid.
You accuse me of lying about you and I find direct obvious quotes backing up what I claimed. No admission on your part.
You are like the fundamentalists you claim to fear.
You are transparent.
You cannot back up your claim.
You are on my ignore list.

[(Q)]

Q,
OK. You do not have integrity.
You use the same foolish tautology the fundamentalists do because it suits your purposes.
This is neither rational nor valid.
You accuse me of lying about you and I find direct obvious quotes backing up what I claimed. No admission on your part.
You are like the fundamentalists you claim to fear.
You are transparent.
You cannot back up your claim.
You are on my ignore list.

:runaway:

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Q, I wonder. Do you believe the things you say, or are you just trying to "stir the pot". I have never used ignore before, but you are under scrutiny. The things you say do not even attempt to be accurate anymore. Are you on some kind of sadly mentally incapacitating medication? To irritate Simon because of your obvious dishonesty to that point takes alot. I was thinking dude wouldn't say piss if you pissed on him. I guess you managed though. I'm not sure if there's a 'way to go' to be had. This is kind of like being around someone that has obviously shit themselves, but no one is close enough relation wise to point it out. Let me point it out, Q. You are really found wanting. It's a chore to talk to you because of your infantile capacity. Your arguments today have been exactly what I'd expect of a derisive preteen with a lexicon handy. You've lost your edge, maybe it's time to step back and rehone it, man.

[S.A.M.]

Hey don't be so hard on (Q), he's usually not so distracted.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I know, thus, I'm asking about his medical status. He's really off his game.

[(Q)]

Q, I wonder. Do you believe the things you say, or are you just trying to "stir the pot". I have never used ignore before, but you are under scrutiny. The things you say do not even attempt to be accurate anymore. Are you on some kind of sadly mentally incapacitating medication? To irritate Simon because of your obvious dishonesty to that point takes alot. I was thinking dude wouldn't say piss if you pissed on him. I guess you managed though. I'm not sure if there's a 'way to go' to be had. This is kind of like being around someone that has obviously shit themselves, but no one is close enough relation wise to point it out. Let me point it out, Q. You are really found wanting. It's a chore to talk to you because of your infantile capacity. Your arguments today have been exactly what I'd expect of a derisive preteen with a lexicon handy. You've lost your edge, maybe it's time to step back and rehone it, man.

Coming from someone who is mentally unstable, deluded by their cults doctrines and sits around all day doing fuck all, I would accept that as a compliment. :)

Get back on your meds, ham.

[S.A.M.]

(Q) thats unbelievably low. wtf is the matter with you? :mad:

Don't worry Sam, I mean Ham, I shall defend you

/trips

[Mr. Hamtastic]

ok Q, you win. "what's this button do?"

[Mr. Hamtastic]

wow, that button is tough to find.

<hugs Q> I know, I must have really struck a nerve buddy. I didn't mean to upset you so much. Once I find this button, maybe you should ignore me for a while, too, eh? A little cooling off period for us might be a good thing.

[Saquist]

Do you believe that science is responsible for discoveries in nature and the development of technologies?

Or, do you believe gods are guiding people to make discoveries and develop technologies?

Science according to it's definition in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice

Therefor it's not responsible for for anything. Humans are resposible for the discoveries and technological developments.

Secondly, belief is weakness of confidence in knowledge. It propperly describes the lack of information that manifest it'self in so many people in a supposedly knowledgeable societies.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Saquist-science def-I agree-humans are responsible for science-I agree belief is weakness of confidence in knowledge? hold on there Jethro. Before I leap to conclusions, could you expand on this some?