Pastor alarmed after Trump-loving congregants deride Jesus' teachings as 'weak'

[Arthur Brain]

You are right that science has no comment on anything outside of the observable, testable, and empirical.

However, mind-body dualism is testable. Theistic evolution is testable. They have been tested and demonstrated to be false.

Evolution is testable and confirmed. There's no such thing as "theistic evolution", it's simply evolution. That there are plenty who believe that God is behind the whole process of life doesn't invalidate it and nor should it lead to any cognitive dissonance for those that do in essence.

 

[Ella S.]

Evolution is testable and confirmed. There's no such thing as "theistic evolution", it's simply evolution. That there are plenty who believe that God is behind the whole process of life doesn't invalidate it and nor should it lead to any cognitive dissonance for those that do in essence.

The Theory of Evolution describes how causal, physical forces acting upon material organisms naturally selected for adaptive genes.

It incompatible with the the idea of an acausal, metaphysical force acting upon material organisms to supernatural select the genes that would lead to humans evolving. That is a position which specifically contradicts the naturalistic model supported by the Theory of Evolution.

One could say that God is behind the natural forces, maybe, but that is a different position from theistic evolution.

 

[Revoltingest]

Speaking to reporters after his surrender, Giuliani said, while laughing, that he was “very, very honored to be involved in this case because this case is a fight for our way of life”.

“This indictment is a travesty,” he continued. “It’s an attack on – not just me, not just President Trump … this is an attack on the American people. If this could happen to me, who is probably the most prolific prosecutor maybe in American history and the most effective mayor for sure, it can happen to you.”

So Rudy is fighting for "our way of life".
I say that his way of life, ie, attempting a coup to
overthrow a democratically elected President
should indeed change. It should be sanctioned
with severe legal consequences. Traitors like
him should rot in prison for life.

An attack on "the American people"?
Replace "American" with "treasonous", & he'd be right.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The Theory of Evolution describes how causal, physical forces acting upon material organisms naturally selected for adaptive genes.

It incompatible with the the idea of an acausal, metaphysical force acting upon material organisms to supernatural select the genes that would lead to humans evolving. That is a position which specifically contradicts the naturalistic model supported by the Theory of Evolution.

One could say that God is behind the natural forces, maybe, but that is a different position from theistic evolution.

Well, again, theists who accept evolution and teach it no less - and I know two - accept the science with no disconnect or dissonance with their belief in God. Both of them have baffled me on occasion when they go into the specifics of evolution and certain terminology and both are pissed off with the ignorance on the subject where it comes to the likes of far right fundamentalists and sometimes atheists alike. Not that you'd know it cos they have far more patience than I have...

 

[Arthur Brain]

So Rudy is fighting for "our way of life".
I say that his way of life, ie, attempting a coup to
overthrow a democratically elected President
should indeed change. It should be sanctioned
with severe legal consequences. Traitors like
him should rot in prison for life.

An attack on "the American people"?
Replace "American" with "treasonous", & he'd be right.

Oh, agreed in the main. A whole load of rotten rhetoric for a rotten excuse for a president who shouldn't have been anywhere near the oval office. Still, that's enough objective commentary from myself and now back to the studio...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are right that science has no comment on anything outside of the observable, testable, and empirical.

However, mind-body dualism is testable. Theistic evolution is testable. They have been tested and demonstrated to be false.

Nope. they are not testable. Science can neither prove nor disprove God.

 

[Ella S.]

Nope. they are not testable. Science can neither prove nor disprove God.

It depends on which model of God you are referring to. There are unfalsifiable and falsifiable concepts of God.

However, that is irrelevant. I am speaking only about theistic evolution and the survival of the mind after death, which are concepts that are currently falsified by science. Future data may contradict our current findings but that is where we are now.

If that contradicts your understanding of God, then, yes, science has falsified your God. It has not disproven your God, though, because proof is an aspect of logic and not science. Still, logic would dictate that we conclude such a God does not exist.

That is not contradicted by the insistence that science has nothing to say on the matter when it does and it has said quite a bit.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It depends on which model of God you are referring to. There are unfalsifiable and falsifiable concepts of God.

However, that is irrelevant. I am speaking only about theistic evolution and the survival of the mind after death, which are concepts that are currently falsified by science. Future data may contradict our current findings but that is where we are now.

If that contradicts your understanding of God, then, yes, science has falsified your God. It has not disproven your God, though, because proof is an aspect of logic and not science. Still, logic would dictate that we conclude such a God does not exist.

That is not contradicted by the insistence that science has nothing to say on the matter when it does and it has said quite a bit.

Since you are using "God" with a capital G, then you are referring to the monotheistic God. This deity is the Creator, not creation. Because he is not part of the known universe, he is beyond the purview of science.

 

[Ella S.]

Since you are using "God" with a capital G, then you are referring to the monotheistic God. This deity is the Creator, not creation. Because he is not part of the known universe, he is beyond the purview of science.

If God interacts with the known universe, then those interactions are within the purview of science and could point to his existence.

Any model of God that proposes that God has any effect on reality is therefore falsifiable. That was the basis for prayer studies which, by and large, found that petitionary prayers do not result in divine intervention.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If God interacts with the known universe, then those interactions are within the purview of science and could point to his existence.

Any model of God that proposes that God has any effect on reality is therefore falsifiable. That was the basis for prayer studies which, by and large, found that petitionary prayers do not result in divine intervention.

What makes you think God interacts with the known universe?

 

[1213]

All 6,000 years of it, am I right?

I don't know how long planet earth has existed.

 

[1213]

It is explicitly about slaves and that's not the only Bible passage that allows for skavery and the mistreatment of slaves. Amd it is explicitly saying it's ok to beat your slaves, even severely as lomg as the recover within a few days, because the slaves are the master's property.

Why are you making this look like it is only about slaves, when there the same is with all people. There is no rule against beating people commonly, unless one accepts it is against love your neighbor as yourself, in which case you could not bat even your slaves.

 

[1213]

Anything to avoid the evidence that's staring you right in the face.

What evidence you are talking about "Skeptic" "Thinker"?

 

[1213]

Who is being "forced" to do anything? Did someone come to your home and put a gun to your head until you bought an environmentally friendly stove?

Yeah, you can stop eating warm food...

It literally says it's okay to beat (non-Hebrew) slaves as long as they don't die within a few days.
And you say it doesn't say that. Okey dokey then. Can't beat that level of cognitive dissonance.

There is no where in the Bible words "it is ok to beat slaves". It is just your interpretation. And you could as well claim, Bible tells "it is ok to beat people". Why do you need lies?

 

[1213]

IYO, should you be free to kill anyone you want? Should you be free to go to a store and just take what you want? Should you be free to take food away from a baby who's starving?

Killing someone goes against that persons freedom, which is why it could not be accepted, if we want people to be free. Stealing from someones stuff goes also against that persons freedom, which is why not acceptable.

I could say, for me total free world would be ok. In that case, if someone kills someone, he should understand that as easily he will be killed. Or if person steals, same can be done to him as easily. It would limit such things very well. But, I could also
accept that people should be as free as possible, which means, they would be free, but not free to limit other persons freedom.

We live in a society that has rules, and if we just throw them out then all hell will likely break out.

I think it has already happened and governments really don't do anything to make matters better, nor can they prevent it. For example, by what I know, in Chicago guns are banned, but still people are murdered there constantly, more than in places with less strict rules. Rules don't really help, because people who do evil things don't care about them anyway. Most of the modern rules are only to harm decent people and to help criminals.

 

[1213]

Again, your opinion is supposed to mean something when data is objective?

Why do you think the data is objective? If people change the way they measure temperatures to get higher averages to promote climate change hoax, it is not objective.

Except your own right wing politics wants more consumerism so the economy stay strong.

You don't seem to know much about "my politics". I think people should reject consumerism, it makes them work unnecessarily. And it also is not good for anything else than for the politicians and their rich friends. I think it would be better, if people would only do as much as is necessary and rest of the time be on vacation.

If you start cutting back on buying then we could face a recession,

Exactly. And that is why we have for example climate change hoax, to increase trade and profits for the rich elite. If people would really care about environment, the solutions would be something else than produce and pollute more than ever before.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't know how long planet earth has existed.

Why not just pull a random number out and insist upon it? That's been your tactic so far.

 

[metis]

Killing someone goes against that persons freedom, which is why it could not be accepted, if we want people to be free. Stealing from someones stuff goes also against that persons freedom, which is why not acceptable.

I could say, for me total free world would be ok. In that case, if someone kills someone, he should understand that as easily he will be killed. Or if person steals, same can be done to him as easily. It would limit such things very well. But, I could also
accept that people should be as free as possible, which means, they would be free, but not free to limit other persons freedom.

I think it has already happened and governments really don't do anything to make matters better, nor can they prevent it. For example, by what I know, in Chicago guns are banned, but still people are murdered there constantly, more than in places with less strict rules. Rules don't really help, because people who do evil things don't care about them anyway. Most of the modern rules are only to harm decent people and to help criminals.

Not only don't you make hardly any sense with the above, but you also go against what Jesus actually taught and for some reason you can't see it. Laws accomplish literally nothing unless they're enforced, and no law can exist in a modern society unless taxes are collected to create government and law enforcement and judges and courts and jails and prisons, and...

Oh well, I'm done with this.

 

[F1fan]

Killing someone goes against that persons freedom, which is why it could not be accepted, if we want people to be free. Stealing from someones stuff goes also against that persons freedom, which is why not acceptable.

I could say, for me total free world would be ok. In that case, if someone kills someone, he should understand that as easily he will be killed. Or if person steals, same can be done to him as easily. It would limit such things very well. But, I could also
accept that people should be as free as possible, which means, they would be free, but not free to limit other persons freedom.

Basic social contract theory. No Gods needed.

The Bible says you can enslave others and kill your enemies, including women and children. It also teaches that the ends justify the means if you believe God allows your actions.

I think it has already happened and governments really don't do anything to make matters better, nor can they prevent it. For example, by what I know, in Chicago guns are banned, but still people are murdered there constantly, more than in places with less strict rules. Rules don't really help, because people who do evil things don't care about them anyway. Most of the modern rules are only to harm decent people and to help criminals.

That is because Chicago can't prevent people from bringing in guns from places where it is easy to get them. A national ban on guns and many decades of collecting guns will be needed. It won't happen. If you had a perfect lawn but all the neighborhood dogs come and poop on it, what culd you do? Stay up all night and protect the grass? That's not practical. You could put a fence up but that's expensive. Sometimes we have to accept that this is the world we created. And for you true believers, it's the world your God created.

Why do you think the data is objective?

Because that is what scientists do, they follow ethics. Your contempt for science only reveals your lack of ethics.

If people change the way they measure temperatures to get higher averages to promote climate change hoax, it is not objective.

See, false accusation. This tells me you are not an honorable person. Scientists can be trusted unlike you. This is why the far right is a threat to the planet. Christianity doesn't make the far right better, more honorable people, it gives them the excuse to believe what they want because they think God is on their side.

You don't seem to know much about "my politics".

If you are keeping things a secret how could any of us know?

I think people should reject consumerism, it makes them work unnecessarily.

Yet our economy, along with many other first world nations, rely on consumerism to help maintain social order. Life is expensive and economies need to move money around to as many people as possible to maintain employment. Work less? How about the wealthy corporarions pay higher wages?

And it also is not good for anything else than for the politicians and their rich friends. I think it would be better, if people would only do as much as is necessary and rest of the time be on vacation.

It's the world we created. I notice you state your complaints, but no workable solutions. Anyone can gripe, smart people gripe and offer solutions.

Exactly. And that is why we have for example climate change hoax, to increase trade and profits for the rich elite. If people would really care about environment, the solutions would be something else than produce and pollute more than ever before.

You insist climate change is a hoax and then advocate for the environment? Why bother? You either acknowledge that we pollute and it affects the environment and climate, or you don't. You can't have it both ways. It sounds like you just hate modernity and dream about life in simpler times, like when the life expectancy was under 50.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why are you making this look like it is only about slaves, when there the same is with all people. There is no rule against beating people commonly, unless one accepts it is against love your neighbor as yourself, in which case you could not bat even your slaves.

The Bible doesn't allow you to just beat anyone. Just certain types to beat, like slaves.
And love your neighbor as yourself has a lot of wiggle room. Especially with a bad theology that involves cursed people with marks like Cain and Ham. To many Chtistians that has meant black people are their descendants, and the descendants of certian Biblical figures are fair game for mistreatment per Biblical prophecy of who will walk all over who's descendants.