Discussions about Carico's God

[Carico]

Science is biased towards the non-supernatural since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist.

What's supernatural is making claims that no one in the past or present has witnessed or documented. They're called fantasies. So a half-man, half-ape is supernatural.

[spidergoat]

But the fossils do exist.

Your accusation that scientists are involved in eliminating God or the Bible's role in the study of history is ridiculous. Many scientists are very religious. My father is a scientist, and many of his associates go to church. I don't understand it, but there it is. As an atheist, I depend on knowing the history of religion in order to show just how damaging it's effects have been on the human search for knowledge. Galileo was one famous victim, but it continues to this day when religious nuts deny evolution.

[lightgigantic]

Science is biased towards the non-supernatural since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. Science is not inherently opposed to the idea of the supernatural.

Given that science popularly works exclusively in the language of empiricism, what "supernatural" things do you suppose it could locate it?

[Carico]

Given that science popularly works exclusively in the language of empiricism, what "supernatural" things do you suppose it could locate it?

It's interesting how afraid scientists are of the bible. One would think they'd love the chance to refute it. But they don't. They're scared to death of God's word. After all, you guys allow myths on this board in the sci-fi category. So not allowing that the bible here, you obviously don't believe the bible is a myth.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Carico, you seem like the friendly, humorous sidekick to adstar. I'm christian, and it amuses me when a christian pops up who wants to smack around non-believers. Mocking won't work, threatening won't work, even having actual discussion won't work. Pearls to the swine, buddy.

[swarm]

spidergoat Science is biased towards the non-supernatural since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. Science is not inherently opposed to the idea of the supernatural.

Sort of, but let me help clarify.

Science as a discipline strives not to be biased for or against anything, though science is done by people and people have difficulty getting past their bias.

All science cares about is can it be observed? can it be measured? can questions be proposed about it that can be disproved? can these be shared, replicated and verified publicly? That's it at the core.

"Natural" or "supernatural" is not a question for science. Those are metaphysical claims. Metaphysical claims, by definition, are about things which cannot be observed.

[swarm]

Carico: It's interesting how afraid scientists are of the bible. One would think they'd love the chance to refute it.

That's because its not actually that interesting or fearsome. You like to pretend its some great thing, but its just a tired collection of myths and so most can't be bothered. Also because it is so rife with error the task is some what daunting. But luckily there are people with lot's of time on their hands.

Start here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...y/errancy.html

But of course you won't read any of it, which is the other reason people usually don't bother. Your type is impervious to fact and reason.

[scorpius]

It won't do any good to ask what the bible says on this forum because quoting the bible is considered preaching. So all this forum proves is that scientists aren't interested in looking at all sides of an issue, only one side. Of course that's not scientific because it's biased. So you guys have proven me correct that science is not about being objective, but about trying to prove God wrong. That's not hard to do if you try to eliminate any reference to God in the bible or in history. But the only problem is, you can't change history any more than you can take away the words in the bible. So all you're doing is trying to re-make reality (which is actually called psychosis) by pretending they don't exist and making up your own history. That of course proves nothing except fear and bias. So you've proven that the methods of scientists are unscientific. So thanks.

spare us the straw men arguments,its just silly..

the reason why you cant use the bible to prove your god

its circular reasoning fallacy:

stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)

it doesnt work

[scorpius]

Sorry but Jesus is God incarnate.

naw thats just a MYTH..

So since you have to make up your own history to deny that Jesus is who he said he was,

whatever he said is still only HEARSAY..not acceptable in todays society

then that imaginary history is the degree to which you have to go to deny God.

and why do YOU deny all the other gods

www.godchecker.com

So you are in error because God has shown himself to people,

yes up on the mountain with no one around...hmmm sounds like bullshyt to me

not only in the form of Jesus Christ,

Jesus never said He was god!

btw why would God need to sacrifice Himself to Himself to fix the Sin which He created in the first place..is he and idiot?

but by the awesome miracle of creation which you also deny. So sorry, but denial isn't a valid refutation.

so refute Allah the Great for us then!

[CutsieMarie89]

*************
M*W: No, because he didn't exist.

*************
M*W: How do you know the people of Jesus's alleged day called him that?

*************
M*W: God is a metaphor for the sun. Jesus is a metaphor for the sun, too, as well as for the planet Venus which "rises up" and sits at the right hand of the Sun.

*************
M*W: That's what the myth says, but his "followers" were sun worshippers (i.e. Sol Invictus and company).

His "trial" is a metaphor for the sun's "death" and being placed in the "tomb." The "tomb" is a dark place and represents the dying sun. Then, of course, there is the resurrection of the sun when it rises again. A new moon rises with the sun as does Venus, and that is the metaphor for the resurrection. The NT is just a glorified version of an astrological calendar.

Hey I was just taking the story at face value, from the King James Version of the Bible. You can tack on whatever theories you want. That was mine.

[shaman_]

Sorry, but I'm a Skinwalker fan from back in the day, and I just gotta say...

WOW! Skin kicked his ass! Carico even tried the "I bet you've never been to Israel" thing...whoops!

I find it amusing when a newcomer preaching religion, ufos or psuedoarcheology tells skinwalker to "go do some reasearch".

[one_raven]

Whi I do believe that Jesus existed (and started a thread about it, which I was very disaapointed that very few of the Jesus deniers bothered to post in: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85618)...

Sorry but Jesus is God incarnate. So since you have to make up your own history to deny that Jesus is who he said he was, then that imaginary history is the degree to which you have to go to deny God. So you are in error because God has shown himself to people, not only in the form of Jesus Christ, but by the awesome miracle of creation which you also deny. So sorry, but denial isn't a valid refutation.

...I defy you to show me where Jesus said he was God incarnate.

You claim that Jesus said he was God incarnate, then say others are in denial??
Chapter and Verse, please.
When did he say this?
Quote him.

[Medicine*Woman]

It's interesting how afraid scientists are of the bible. One would think they'd love the chance to refute it. But they don't. They're scared to death of God's word. After all, you guys allow myths on this board in the sci-fi category. So not allowing that the bible here, you obviously don't believe the bible is a myth.

*************
M*W: I asked you to answer a question earlier today. You as yet have not, and I am still waiting. Either you don't know the answer or your religion is false. Which is it?

I asked you to tell us what language did god speak. So far, no christian on this forum has been able to answer this question. Seeing as how you think you have all the answers, please answer this one now.

[nova900]

It's not science that attempts to prove god wrong, or scientists that are trying to wage war on god. It is militant Atheists who use the name of science to say things like "god does not exist".

.

I suppose a lot of the militant attitude comes from atheists who have had others attempt to force religion upon them in their lives. I don't like the very bitter attitude in some atheists either but I believe I can see where and how it came about.
I believe God exists based on my own intuition and what I feel is suggesive evidence for God based on things like NDEs and such but I would be too rigid in my mindset if I could not keep open the possibility that there is no God.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

It won't do any good to ask what the bible says on this forum because quoting the bible is considered preaching. So all this forum proves is that scientists aren't interested in looking at all sides of an issue, only one side. Of course that's not scientific because it's biased. So you guys have proven me correct that science is not about being objective, but about trying to prove God wrong. That's not hard to do if you try to eliminate any reference to God in the bible or in history. But the only problem is, you can't change history any more than you can take away the words in the bible. So all you're doing is trying to re-make reality (which is actually called psychosis) by pretending they don't exist and making up your own history. That of course proves nothing except fear and bias. So you've proven that the methods of scientists are unscientific. So thanks.

I think you're allowed to quote the bible to make a point. Did a moderator tell you otherwise?
I asked you repeatedly for a scripture reference & you won't give it.
I asked you a question, repeatedly, related to another scripture but you won't answer it.

What's supernatural is making claims that no one in the past or present has witnessed or documented. They're called fantasies. So a half-man, half-ape is supernatural.

If 20% of what scientists claim isn't true, that does nothing for your case.

It's interesting how afraid scientists are of the bible. One would think they'd love the chance to refute it. But they don't. They're scared to death of God's word. After all, you guys allow myths on this board in the sci-fi category. So not allowing that the bible here, you obviously don't believe the bible is a myth.

Carico, you seem like the friendly, humorous sidekick to adstar. I'm christian, and it amuses me when a christian pops up who wants to smack around non-believers. Mocking won't work, threatening won't work, even having actual discussion won't work. Pearls to the swine, buddy.

It's not science that attempts to prove god wrong, or scientists that are trying to wage war on god. It is militant Atheists who use the name of science to say things like "god does not exist".
The true scientific thing to say regarding god would be along the lines of "God might exist, he might not exist, but we have no proof either way"
Don't get confused and think militant Atheists speak for the entire scientific community becuse they do not. No self respecting scientist would spend that much of his valuable time arguing over and over the same points about god's existence when an agnostic standpoint can be taken. Obviously we have not come up with anything new to add to the god debate since 1500 years ago, we are still going over and over the same exact debates that philosophers were using hundreds if not thousands of years previous.
You have preachy asshole religious people trying to force god down peoples necks, Vs stupid ass militant atheists who masturbate over a poster of Richard Dawkins. slugging it out over a played out debate that neither side can win.
God may exist, he may not exist there is no proof that he does exist, there is always the possibility that he does exist. Anything other than those 2 statements are your own personal opinions and you can all shove them up your ass.
peace.

Absurd blathering.

Your type is impervious to fact and reason.

I'm stealing that!

======I don't know whether gods exist but I know the god of the KJVHoly Babble doesn't any more than there can be a square triangle.
========If NDEs are valid, that says nothing of whether there's a god.

[nova900]

========If NDEs are valid, that says nothing of whether there's a god.

If they are valid and not simply a dream taking place in the dying mind, it says everything about God.That's what NDEs are all about..not an afterlife that has no God.

[Carico]

But the fossils do exist.

Again, since there's not a picture of the common ancestor, or any transitional species on a fossil, then interpreting fossils is as subjective as imagining what images leaves on a tree represent. Hitler once said; "People are so stupid. It's not hard to fool the public." And of all people, he should know. It's the samewith anyone who reads a science book. They automatically believe anything scientists say because they have letters after their names. So Hitler's right; it's not hard to fool the public, especially when they look to certain humans as infallible gods as they did to Hitler and they do to scientists. And that's why people who are easily duped never question the methods of scientists even when their methods are as unscientific looking at a dead body and making up a story about it.

[Carico]

Given that science popularly works exclusively in the language of empiricism, what "supernatural" things do you suppose it could locate it?

Then that belongs in the category of science fiction. But since Christ's words and deeds were witnessed and recorded, that belongs in the category of history. So the first thing you need to understand is the difference between science and science fiction. Science fiction is about what could happen in reality. Science is about what does happen in reality. So research the history of Israel. Only then will you be on your way to distinguishing between the real and the imaginary.

[Steve100]

Again, since there's not a picture of the common ancestor, or any transitional species on a fossil, then interpreting fossils is as subjective as imagining what images leaves on a tree represent. Hitler once said; "People are so stupid. It's not hard to fool the public." And of all people, he should know. It's the samewith anyone who reads a science book. They automatically believe anything scientists say because they have letters after their names. So Hitler's right; it's not hard to fool the public, especially when they look to certain humans as infallible gods as they did to Hitler and they do to scientists. And that's why people who are easily duped never question the methods of scientists even when their methods are as unscientific looking at a dead body and making up a story about it.

So is it better to believe a book with no evidence than it is to believe a scientist who can throw as much evidence at you as you like (in your case probably none, as you wouldn't want to be proved wrong on anything an old story book told you)?

[ggazoo]

Carico,

As a fellow Christian, I think you're taking the wrong approach here. Take a look at this, and you may be better prepared the next time you post a thread:

http://www.ex-atheist.com/games-skeptics-play.html

Good luck.