There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

Your careful selection of a definition,

Not really a careful selection. I have the "Freedictionary" app on my tablet so just used what I had.

for which you haven’t supplied a source,

I did source it as a dictionary definition. I didn't link it as it is within most posters ability to use a search engine to find it, but, here it is, if you feel that I cannot be trusted to deliver the truth.

religion - definition of religion by The Free Dictionary

could be equally applied to my sport of motorcycle racing, or golf, or any hobby or interest carried on with an intensity or unbridled enthusiasm.

That is exactly right, however, it does nothing to undermine the initial claim that science is a living organism, a religion.

I don’t fall on my me knees to pray for more BHP and I don’t believe there is a Supreme time-keeper overlooking the circuit, and nor does my sport form my world view.

Neither does a research scientists but he does go through certain protocols, as praying is.

Also I cared for my late wife with zeal and a conscientious devotion on a principle of love and duty, but it was hardly religious in any respect.

The love of your soul partner is an integral part of religion.marriage is an institution

Genesis 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh

Well of course not!! Please read what I actually wrote, which was this: “…there is no necessary connection between atheism and science”. A necessary connection would mean X is a scientist, therefore X is an atheist.

Or X is a scientist, therefore, there is a 95% chance that he is an atheist. As soon as the concentration of scientists exceed 50% there is a necessary connection. One might not equal the other, but nobody said that it did, apart from you.

That may well be the case, but the argument concerns your claim that science is a religion.

Or maybe I said that science is like a religion a living organism but never mind.

Post 3180

Religion is not a person either. I never said that either of them were. You did. Science is a living organism with all that it requires. An organism that you worship and idolise.

Post 3177

Science is a religion like no other with a congregation that is unique. They, you, worship their own God with greater zeal and fevor then any theistic God that I know, and they keep their Commandments with greater adherence then mine. Science is a living organism with its own needs and desires. It needs to be worshipped, like the only true God, by a congregation that glorifies it's name and defends it's honour. Your God is, out of necessity, the polar opposite in character to that of the Christian God, however, a God it is and it's congregationalists are folk just like you.

“Some scientists are theists” we’ve agreed is a true statement, therefore it is self-contradictory to say that it is possible for scientist X to both believe and disbelieve in (for example), the Christian faith.

Are you trying to say that it is self contradictory for a scientist to be a member of Christianity and science. That is what this sounds like.

Oh for heaven’s sake please stop portraying yourself as a victim!

I am not portraying myself as a victim. I am portraying atheists as aggressors.

You are so very easily offended, and it’s almost a case of having to walk on egg shells half the time when I’m debating you.

I am never offended. My faith is sufficient that I see the whole story and know why there are aggressive atheists here. If you are walking on egg shells then how much more aggressive could you be. One single offensive remark is a unnecessary remark to make. It induces me to retaliate and before we know it we are in a full scale war. Do not start it then nobody will feel they have to finish it. It is called decorum.

Remember the forum adage: Attack the posts but not the posters.

Exactly.

Well, that explanation evidently works against you. If almost every belief amounts to a religion then you are beholding to several religions yourself, which means Christianity can have no ascendancy over the others.

It is not a religion but like a religion or a living organism. But your argument is still flawed. You are suggesting that two religions cannot be followed together. I would say that my personal religion is a mixture of many different belief systems. A religion is something like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Budism and Scientology. It is the combination of all denominations, cults and creeds.

Again you’re not saying much of anything. The argument I gave you is that scientists are quite rightly given respect and adulation for their work and achievements but they aren’t saints as per this popular dictionary.com definition: “A person who after death is formally recognised as having attained through holy deeds or behaviour and an exalted place in heaven and the right to veneration.” I’m breaking my own rule here never to refer to dictionary definitions as they cannot be offered as evidence, which this example certainly isn’t, but I think it can be allowed simply to distinguish the broad difference between the two camps.

You are taking my words far to literally. I was using the concept of saints to demonstrate reverence in those more knowledgeable then most who work in the same field, much like my own insignificance in comparison to St. Peter.

There is no science that can never be faulted, not the first and second laws of thermodynamics, not the principle of gravity or causation, not the periodic table or any other scientific fact. It is utterly absurd to speak of science as Omnipotent (omniscience is included in omnipotence), since it consists only of observation and predictions, which can never be demonstrated. So I wait with baited breath to hear about this scientific Christian truth that can never be faulted.

Then wait no longer. Browse through the many posts where atheists defend there scientific beliefs with fervency like they are set in stone. I said:

Read some of the post on here to see a science that can never be faulted by those who support it, especially when Christians critique it as they are thick because they believe in God. Science bears the same characteristics as God. Omnipotent and Omniscient. It hold all the keys to our chance existence and can demonstrate that our existence is a chance happening having no cause or reason. That we are massively more intelligent then our nearest counterpart in the animal Kingdom is by unmitigated coincidence.

But I haven’t given you a definition of the scientific method! Quite the opposite! What I said to you is that the scientific method is itself a contingent proposition and open to rejection or amendment.

You said ; The scientific method is itself a theory, and if something were discovered to improve upon or replace the theory then obviously that would become the new basis for science, and this is because every fact can be true or false.

So you’re saying that God and Christianity exist on the same basis as science, which is to say it can be true or false. Against that science provides evidence of what exists on the basis of induction, that is to say a high degree of probability recognised by theists and atheists alike. And the difference is that unlike God we know the world actually exists.

I am as sure that the world exists as I am that God exists. Neither is a perfect knowledge but is equally true. That you do not possess that knowledge is nobodies fault other then your own. 2.2 billion members of the human race claim to have that knowledge and live their lives accordingly. That you do not want it does not mean that God does not exist or that we are all deluded in our belief. It is your freedom to choose, you must allow others the same privilege, I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But I did not say that I was quoting anything. I said that I had "taken it from", that is, to abridge it in my own words, not a identical copy, so that I would not have to link it to a source that may reveal my identity. The fact is that you took an analogy from a highly respected scientist, who is a theist, and you have trashed it in your attempt to dishonestly discredit me. Another demonstration of how atheist have no moral accountability. You have made it clear that you do not recognise logic as much as you claim to. You critiqued the words of a Nobel Prize Winner. The arrogance that you must possess is astonishing.

You like dictionary definitions, right?


quotation

"a group of words taken from a text or speech and repeated by someone other than the original author or speaker"

quotation: definition of quotation in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)


As to the rest of the post, Nobel Prize winners are not unquestionable geniuses in every single aspect of life. They can be wrong about things like anyone else in the world. I'm not sure what you find so dishonest in disagreeing with something or someone you disagree with, no matter who they are. Isaac Newton was an extremely capable physicist and mathematician but his views on alchemy were pretty wacky. So if a person disagrees with him on the alchemy stuff, are they being dishonest, immoral and vengeful? Are they impugning his work in physics and math? Certainly not.

 

[Serenity7855]

The fact that you still won't reveal this unknown author you keep talking about speaks volumes about you, not about anyone else.

There's nothing dishonest or immoral in disagreeing with something, no matter who said it. I wonder why you think it is.

To be perfectly honest your opinion would only be relevant to me if I cared about what you think, I don't. If you do not wish to take my word for it, then I am not remotely bothered. The point I was making was entirely for my own benefit to recognise that these people are not posting an opposition of opinion but want to take away the freedom of men to worship how and what they wish and to do it in a malicious manner. I bet there have been many theists who have given you cause to think, but we would never know that. You like the art of contention not the expression of truth. I never allow any critique against my belief to phase me. Nothing you say will offend me or cause me to reconsider my core beliefs. No insult you vocalise will offend me in the slightest. I know who you are and who you serve without knowing it. It is better to give your way to a dog then be bitten by it.

 

[Sapiens]

To be perfectly honest your opinion would only be relevant to me if I cared about what you think, I don't. If you do not wish to take my word for it, then I am not remotely bothered. The point I was making was entirely for my own benefit to recognise that these people are not posting an opposition of opinion but want to take away the freedom of men to worship how and what they wish and to do it in a malicious manner. I bet there have been many theists who have given you cause to think, but we would never know that. You like the art of contention not the expression of truth. I never allow any critique against my belief to phase me. Nothing you say will offend me or cause me to reconsider my core beliefs. No insult you vocalise will offend me in the slightest. I know who you are and who you serve without knowing it. It is better to give your way to a dog then be bitten by it.

Nobody cares what you personally think, you're way to far gone. But what does matter are the thoughts of "our reading public,, the 47,000 views who did not post." They all now see you for what you are: one who makes unsubstantiated claims and then runs for the hills when called on them; A mealy mouthed liar and a hypocrite.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not really a careful selection. I have the "Freedictionary" app on my tablet so just used what I had.


I did source it as a dictionary definition. I didn't link it as it is within most posters ability to use a search engine to find it, but, here it is, if you feel that I cannot be trusted to deliver the truth.

religion - definition of religion by The Free Dictionary



That is exactly right, however, it does nothing to undermine the initial claim that science is a living organism, a religion.



Neither does a research scientists but he does go through certain protocols, as praying is.



The love of your soul partner is an integral part of religion.marriage is an institution

Genesis 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh



Or X is a scientist, therefore, there is a 95% chance that he is an atheist. As soon as the concentration of scientists exceed 50% there is a necessary connection. One might not equal the other, but nobody said that it did, apart from you.



Or maybe I said that science is like a religion a living organism but never mind.

Post 3180

Religion is not a person either. I never said that either of them were. You did. Science is a living organism with all that it requires. An organism that you worship and idolise.

Post 3177

Science is a religion like no other with a congregation that is unique. They, you, worship their own God with greater zeal and fevor then any theistic God that I know, and they keep their Commandments with greater adherence then mine. Science is a living organism with its own needs and desires. It needs to be worshipped, like the only true God, by a congregation that glorifies it's name and defends it's honour. Your God is, out of necessity, the polar opposite in character to that of the Christian God, however, a God it is and it's congregationalists are folk just like you.



Are you trying to say that it is self contradictory for a scientist to be a member of Christianity and science. That is what this sounds like.



I am not portraying myself as a victim. I am portraying atheists as aggressors.



I am never offended. My faith is sufficient that I see the whole story and know why there are aggressive atheists here. If you are walking on egg shells then how much more aggressive could you be. One single offensive remark is a unnecessary remark to make. It induces me to retaliate and before we know it we are in a full scale war. Do not start it then nobody will feel they have to finish it. It is called decorum.



Exactly.



It is not a religion but like a religion or a living organism. But your argument is still flawed. You are suggesting that two religions cannot be followed together. I would say that my personal religion is a mixture of many different belief systems. A religion is something like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Budism and Scientology. It is the combination of all denominations, cults and creeds.



You are taking my words far to literally. I was using the concept of saints to demonstrate reverence in those more knowledgeable then most who work in the same field, much like my own insignificance in comparison to St. Peter.





Then wait no longer. Browse through the many posts where atheists defend there scientific beliefs with fervency like they are set in stone. I said:

Read some of the post on here to see a science that can never be faulted by those who support it, especially when Christians critique it as they are thick because they believe in God. Science bears the same characteristics as God. Omnipotent and Omniscient. It hold all the keys to our chance existence and can demonstrate that our existence is a chance happening having no cause or reason. That we are massively more intelligent then our nearest counterpart in the animal Kingdom is by unmitigated coincidence.



You said ; The scientific method is itself a theory, and if something were discovered to improve upon or replace the theory then obviously that would become the new basis for science, and this is because every fact can be true or false.



I am as sure that the world exists as I am that God exists. Neither is a perfect knowledge but is equally true. That you do not possess that knowledge is nobodies fault other then your own. 2.2 billion members of the human race claim to have that knowledge and live their lives accordingly. That you do not want it does not mean that God does not exist or that we are all deluded in our belief. It is your freedom to choose, you must allow others the same privilege, I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Why did you pick the 4th definition in the list and run with it, if you were not carefully selecting a definition? Why not just use the first one?

 

[Serenity7855]

You like dictionary definitions, right?

No, not in particular. Where did I say that or insinuate it? Are you dishonestly putting words in my mouth. Shall I continue nit picking a triviality in the same way as you are nit picking a throw away remark in your attempt to demonstrate your intelligence.

quotation

"a group of words taken from a text or speech and repeated by someone other than the original author or speaker"

Not all definitions of "taken from" are the same. I have not taken a verbatim copy of this story I have written it in how I interpreted it. It was taken from the whole story and not from a identical quote. If you entered an identical quote in Google it would show the source if you entered my words taken from the story then you would not. You are being finicky over semantics, a over used technique used by aggressive atheists.

As to the rest of the post, Nobel Prize winners are not unquestionable geniuses in every single aspect of life. They can be wrong about things like anyone else in the world. I'm not sure what you find so dishonest in disagreeing with something or someone you disagree with, no matter who they are. Isaac Newton was an extremely capable physicist and mathematician but his views on alchemy were pretty wacky. So if a person disagrees with him on the alchemy stuff, are they being dishonest, immoral and vengeful? Are they impugning his work in physics and math? Certainly not.

A complete waste of time and energy. You do not know who the prize winning professor is and his line of expertise. The comparison between religions and science was made by him. I am the messenger of the message he wrote, that he wrote from his authority and knowledge in that field. He is not a professor in origami talking on physics, as you insinuate.

 

[Serenity7855]

Why did you pick the 4th definition in the list and run with it, if you were not carefully selecting a definition? Why not just use the first one?

Because the rest are not relevant to the argument.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To be perfectly honest your opinion would only be relevant to me if I cared about what you think, I don't. If you do not wish to take my word for it, then I am not remotely bothered. The point I was making was entirely for my own benefit to recognise that these people are not posting an opposition of opinion but want to take away the freedom of men to worship how and what they wish and to do it in a malicious manner. I bet there have been many theists who have given you cause to think, but we would never know that. You like the art of contention not the expression of truth. I never allow any critique against my belief to phase me. Nothing you say will offend me or cause me to reconsider my core beliefs. No insult you vocalise will offend me in the slightest. I know who you are and who you serve without knowing it. It is better to give your way to a dog then be bitten by it.

Instead of trying to psychoanalyze me (and doing a poor job of it), why not just provide a name, in the very least. How hard is that?

There's nothing here for anyone to take your word on. You've given basically no information.

People posting in opposition to what you had posted doesn't at all make the point that what they actually want to do is take away the freedom of men to worship how and what they wish. Can you explain how you think it does??

 

[Shad]

Because the rest are not relevant to the argument.

IE I am cherry picking what is relevant or not.

 

[Serenity7855]

Nobody cares what you personally think, you're way to far gone.

Sadam Hussein thought that he knew what his people thought. Like you, he was wrong, unless to can substantiate you claim.

But what does matter are the thoughts of "our reading public,, the 47,000 views who did not post." They all now see you for what you are: one who makes unsubstantiated claims and then runs for the hills when called on them; A mealy mouthed liar and a hypocrite.

Well, I had not considered that. What a very motivating thought to know that not only has my post been read by 47,000 people but so has yours. My experience and knowledge of people tell me that they will see you in a far worse light then they will me. It is your profile that is condemned far more then mine. Your ease of name calling and condescension, the manner in which you think you know better then Christians so persecute them, and your dishonesty in debating is obhorant to most upstanding members of the human race. You are a minority blight on our society that once extinguished will only make for a more civilised and empathetic world to live in. You are very proficient at being nasty, odious, malicious, disparaging, crass, provocative, hostile, plagiarising, vitriolic and duplicitous though. Hey, but that is just my opinion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, not in particular. Where did I say that or insinuate it? Are you dishonestly putting words in my mouth. Shall I continue nit picking a triviality in the same way as you are nit picking a throw away remark in your attempt to demonstrate your intelligence.

I gathered it from the fact that I've seen you post a lot of dictionary definitions. No more, no less. I'm not sure what you're getting all riled up about.

Not all definitions of "taken from" are the same. I have not taken a verbatim copy of this story I have written it in how I interpreted it. It was taken from the whole story and not from a identical quote. If you entered an identical quote in Google it would show the source if you entered my words taken from the story then you would not. You are being finicky over semantics, a over used technique used by aggressive atheists.

You're paraphrasing another individual. Don't you think it's respectful to that individual who took the time to put together an argument, to include that person's name, in the very least?

A complete waste of time and energy.

What is??

You do not know who the prize winning professor is and his line of expertise. The comparison between religions and science was made by him. I am the messenger of the message he wrote, that he wrote from his authority and knowledge in that field. He is not a professor in origami talking on physics, as you insinuate.

You could just provide the name and/or area of expertise, but that would be too easy I guess. Anyway, it's not necessary to pick apart the argument presented.

You completely missed the point so I guess it was a waste of time. The point being, that everybody doesn’t know everything about everything. Someone can actually be an extremely intelligent person and still get something wrong or construct a poor argument - even a Nobel Prize winner. Picking apart a poor argument isn’t a display of dishonesty or vengeance, as you seem to want to say. But it would be nice if you would explain why you think it is because I’d really like to know.

 

[SkepticThinker]

IE I am cherry picking what is relevant or not.

Bingo!

 

[outhouse]

His name changed with the factual definitions men keep changing.


The Abrahamic god as we know it, was factually born in Canaanite mythology.

Israelites were factually polytheistic.

Then two gods were factually fused together as one god, El and Yahweh.

Yahweh was later defined as the only god by a king. Political process.

So the early bible has two different names that were redacted into one god. Elohim was used to remove traces of El, and Elohims translation as well as El's translation changed due to these redactions so it would look like one god.


Then he name was refused to be spoken

then they called him lord


then they added jesus as a son


Then a court hearing redefined god again as the trinity.


Then islam redefined god



john smith redefined god



They are all wrong

 

[Sapiens]

Yack, yack, yack, the interminable whine.

What your missing is that while you made no case at all, basing all your arguments on bible quotes, I have made a clear and rational case based on scientific fact.

 

[suncowiam]

Serenity,

The only way I will believe in God's existence, is if I personally meet him.

I'm sure you've read about where Steven Hawkins stands. Although I'm an athiest and rsepect him a whole lot, he didn't provide any proof to why there is no God. Unfortunately, he is more of celebrity and the media usually showcases their opinions more. I do believe it's not fair that his opinion without data is being showcased.

This is just a celebrity referel, kind of like celebrities endorcing products through commercials.

 

[adi2d]

Serenity,

The only way I will believe in God's existence, is if I personally meet him.

I'm sure you've read about where Steven Hawkins stands. Although I'm an athiest and rsepect him a whole lot, he didn't provide any proof to why there is no God. Unfortunately, he is more of celebrity and the media usually showcases their opinions more. I do believe it's not fair that his opinion without data is being showcased.

This is just a celebrity referel, kind of like celebrities endorcing products through commercials.

Round and round we go. A non belief requires no proof.

 

[suncowiam]

Round and round we go. A non belief requires no proof.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I require proof if you you inferred that I said that I don't require proof.

 

[Serenity7855]

Serenity,

The only way I will believe in God's existence, is if I personally meet him.

I'm sure you've read about where Steven Hawkins stands. Although I'm an athiest and rsepect him a whole lot, he didn't provide any proof to why there is no God. Unfortunately, he is more of celebrity and the media usually showcases their opinions more. I do believe it's not fair that his opinion without data is being showcased.

This is just a celebrity referel, kind of like celebrities endorcing products through commercials.

Well, that is honest enough. It will never happen so I guess you will always be an atheist, which is fine as long as you do not turn into an obnoxious one, as many here are.

 

[adi2d]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I require proof if you you inferred that I said that I don't require proof.

If you reqoire proof I suggest a career in math or making alcohol

 

[outhouse]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I require proof if you you inferred that I said that I don't require proof.

He is saying people who imagine things, do not need proof they are imagining things.


What is sad is the denial of science and history by the faithful


Fanaticism and fundamentalism are modern mans enemies.