Should science be only for atheists

Because some of the parents do not want their kids taught to be Christians in school. It should be a personal matter for the family.
Teaching about is fine, but teaching them to partake in rituals and prayer is wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The subject was public prayer.

Don't know about the goo news, but I believe the best way to teach is by example. Or as James said, "Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just because I don't accept that your argument is valid doesn't mean I am not listening to you. Your argument just isn't convincing, because it presupposes that God exists in the first place. If you can't prove the supposition that your argument is based on, why should I accept it?

See above.

Again, they are using the accepted definition.

Unless you can prove that God is real, there is no compelling reason to stop using the word to describe him. It's absurd that I even need to point that out.

I can indeed conceptualize it. I have even accepted it in the past. Just like most other theists I have encountered, you believe that a genuine exploration of such matters can only result in one outcome. You're wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This would mean, for example, that until 1897, the electron was a supernatural entity, and then it became a natural entity ...

 

Well, if God exists within and is subject to the natural laws of physical reality, then maybe science will uncover him one day, just like it uncovered the electron.

 

Science is for anyone who is open to all possibilities. Self-labels are for the individual.

But we do not have the right to stop them trying to convince us. We just have to beat the rubbish back down. I think science is winning the metaphorical battle.

 

there isn't a true scientist alive that will state "there is no god".

 

Google "no true scotsman".

 

exactly

 

This is already a secular society in which religion can be freely expressed. The purpose of limiting public endorsement of religion in the public sphere is obvious, to keep the government out of advocating for a particular religion or no religion. Secularism was invented by the religious more than 200 years ago in order to keep religion free.

 

Theists have no proof of a god. They only have an archive of written man-made litany. They are "stupid". They cannot even take on an examination of the CMB for perceived hints of intelligent structure (example: dark flow). Theists cannot be taken seriously by anyone with more than the cursory intellect level. In this respect, the "stupid majority" has no advantage. A majority of garbage is just a bigger pile.

 

To be honest, there are

Some Christians who are more intelligent than Atheists.
Some Christians who are more intelligent than Agnostics.

Some Atheists that are more intelligent than Christians.
Some Atheists that are more intelligent than Agnostics.

Some Agnostics that are more intelligent than Atheists.
Some Agnostics that are more intelligent than Christians.

To say one view-point is more intelligent than another is illogical.

 

To say all viewpoints are logical is illogical?

 

Or is it? Think about it for a second.

I was pretty much stating that you can say your viewpoint is superior, but there is always a contradiction.

Example:

1) If you know nothing, you know nothing.

2) But if you know nothing, you know everything about nothing.

Example 2:

1) If you know everything, you know everything.

2) But if you know everything, you know nothing about everything.

 

I am a theist . you are an atheist , now how do you know that you are more intelligent then I am , Do you have any scientific evidence , have you run a test to compare us , if not then you are a charlatan .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry, not buying this.

My previous post was simply a question. Not meant to suggest what you are thinking, only probe.

I think I have had enough here. Out.

 

I think your misunderstanding what I meant, but okay.

 

Was this supposed to be joke? my bad lol.

 

You assume that a greater intellect has a sympathetic human interest in helping lower intellects to learn new concepts, faster, than they would, were they denied that greater intellect's input.

 

Friend I am a moron I really don't understand to what are you referring