There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[SkepticThinker]

So, tell me, who is a militant atheist accountable to.

Every human being on the planet, be they Christians, atheists, Muslims, whatever, are accountable to everyone else, and to themselves.

If he is rude and obnoxious what code of practice makes him feel guilty.

Human nature for starters, like the ability to experience empathy, for one. Causing harm to other people usually results in guilty feelings because most of us are able to place ourselves in someone else's shoes and imagine how it would make them feel.

Or the fact that when you’re rude and obnoxious to someone else, they’re usually rude and obnoxious in return, which isn’t something people usually enjoy. Treat others as you would like to be treated and all that.

The reason I personally try not to be rude and obnoxious has to do with the fact that it isn’t the way I want to represent myself and the fact that it might be harmful to other people. I don’t want to be remembered that way. I don't want to hurt anyone. Also, like I said above, I don’t appreciate other people treating me badly.

If he brakes the law he is accountable to the state but that does not mean that he will feels guilt for what he has done, no, it is usually anger with himself for getting caught.

You speak as if atheists are aliens from another planet or something. They’re human, like you are. The only humans who don’t feel remorse or guilt or empathy are psychopaths and/or sociopaths. They make up a very small percentage of the population. You are describing sociopaths and psychopaths here, not atheists or militant atheists.

How you think you know what atheists are thinking is beyond me.

If an atheist tells lies on here, and they do, there is no reason for them to feel guilt, whereas, a Christian would need to recognise the sin, make restitution and then repent. We have a higher being to be accountable to.

There are many reasons for every living person to feel guilt for lying. Christians certainly do not have the market cornered on honesty. See Ken Hamm and Kent Hovind for examples.

From your odd viewpoint, the only people capable of being honest or feeling guilt or any other human emotion (apparently) are Christians, which is just demonstrably false. One doesn’t need to believe in some god in the sky in order to experience natural human feelings.

Most atheists recognise that there is a objective morality which most of us recognise and adhere to, however, the militant atheist will insult and berate you on first contact and not care less.

Some do, some don’t.

I really think you need to re-read your OP if you feel the need to accuse others of unprovoked insults on first contact. Or look in a mirror.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You defined Militant Atheists as those who try to wipe religion off the face of the earth. At what point have I indicated the need or desire to wipe religion off the face of the Earth?

Shall I go get that post and copy it here for you again?

Now, I am called a Militant Atheist because, why? Oh, I said something you didn't like? Something you perceived as a threat, maybe. Now, I am a "militant Atheist", even though it does not fit your former definition of "Militant Atheist".

That's called "goal post shifting". You set the standard of what a "Militant Atheist" is, then you change it.

Your former topic? I'll play.

In order for an object or thing to fit any criteria whatsoever as "evidence" or "scientific theory", it must meet certain criteria. It must be Observable, Testable, Repeatable and Falsifiable; and it must form a predictive model of reality.

Now, this is not "Atheist Brainwashing". This is the same criteria used by legitimate scientists, including those who happen to be Christian, including Isaac Newton.

So, let's put God to the test on this. And for sake of argument, we will proceed on the supposition that we both believe he exists.

OBSERVABLE: We can't see God. We can't measure him or see his hand moving the planets about the heavens. He is unobservable by a third party.
TESTABLE: God does what he wants, when he wants, how he wants and if he wants. "God works in mysterious ways"; And, it is expressly stated in the Bible that "Though shalt not tempt the Lord Thy God". Thus, it is impossible to set up experiments to determine his existence; and to do so, in and of itself, should be considered a "sin" anyway.
REPEATABLE: We should both agree that God will not stand up and do tricks for mankind. As stated above, he acts according to his own will; thus, should he perform for us under "Testable", there is no way to coerce or convince him to "Repeat" any given experiment, even if we prayed and asked nicely. The God of the Bible does not work like that.
FALSIFIABLE: This means, basically, that there must be a way to prove the claim wrong. In this case, the claim is, "God exists". As is presented herein, as he falls outside of known spacetime and beyond the realm of science, there is no way to scientifically prove that God does not exist.

PREDICTIVE MODEL OF REALITY: God fails this, as well. In determining a predictive model of reality, one must be able to say, "If Condition A exists, God will do That." As we can not predict what, when, if God will do, then there is no "predictive model of reality".

The culmination of these scientific principles put into place, with favorable results indicating that A exists (God, Gravity, Germs, Cells, you name it) constitutes a "body of knowledge"; which is the true scientific definition of "Theory".

Therefore, the "God" concept falls completely outside of the realm of science; and because God falls outside of the realm of science, he can be neither proven True or False by use of the scientific method.

Thus, to state, "There is plenty of evidence that God exists" is incredibly wrong.

To state, "I can prove to anyone not subjected to Atheist 'brainwashing' that God exists" is a false statement. Anyone who understands the scientific method and uses it in intellectual and academic honesty must concede that God can not be proven scientific, either True or False, because the very nature of "God" falls outside the realm.

Can you convince someone that God exists? Possibly. Can you convince everyone that God exists? Absolutely not! But, convince is very different than prove.

The other fallacy in your claim in your OP is this: If someone has not been subjected to "Atheist Brainwashing", which I must interpret to mean "Atheist Idea", then that person is already a Theist at most; a Deist at least. So therefore, your claim is that you can convince someone who already believes in God that there is a God ......

It is my opinion that if something can not be proven, it is irrational to believe in that "something". And it goes beyond God; it also includes Bigfoot, Loch Ness and the Man in the Moon. But, I also understand that freedom of thought, speech, belief and religion are necessary freedoms for a free society. So, if you wish to believe in something without evidence; provided it is not harmful; then so be it.

To believe in something in spite of evidence is a whole 'nother matter. This goes back to your "Atheists are immoral" claim; which has been beat to death. For anyone to maintain a belief in a given thing in spite of evidence suggests to me that they are ill and need help. Maintaining that belief and propagating that belief marginalizes and spreads distrust and fear of those who hold to Atheism, not based on that atheist's character or behavior, but based solely on your belief which lacks convincing evidence. (One judge's opinion is exactly that; an Opinion. Rising crime rates may have a multitude of factors; Fear, Frustration, the Economy; Or, maybe just the fact that 1000 new laws have been passed in a short period of time causing people to become criminals who weren't the day before because something they were doing was suddenly against the law! Thus, more evidence is required for your claim).

To maintain harmful irrational beliefs is where I start drawing swords. To believe that atheists are immoral and propagate that belief has the effect of harming your fellow man; to maintain that Sandy Hook was a hoax and propagate that myth is harmful as the fanaticism in this provably wrong allegation has caused our fellow man to be afraid to come out of their homes and adds more pain to those who have suffered great loss; to maintain a belief in the Illuminati with their sinister agendas spreads fear and insecurity, thus causing harm; I could go on, but hopefully you get my gist and understand where I am coming from.

 

[outhouse]

In my opinion, you have no desire to enter into constructive debate on the forum, you just insult posters.

bring something constructive to the table, if you really want to debate.

I have only mirrored your approach, and each person is here on their own merit.

Nothing you write is ever backed up with solid evidence and it is all to obvious that what you do say, you have read from other atheists

I hav ebeen the only one to source anything in this thread. You brought WLC but he is not a credible historian or scietist. He caries no credibility.

You have supplied faith, and faith alone.

You use key words and phrases that are used my atheists who like to agitate Christians.

Your way to defensive for someone who is obviously on the attack here.

 

[Serenity7855]

Every human being on the planet, be they Christians, atheists, Muslims, whatever, are accountable to everyone else, and to themselves.

True

Human nature for starters, like the ability to experience empathy, for one. Causing harm to other people usually results in guilty feelings because most of us are able to place ourselves in someone else's shoes and imagine how it would make them feel.

That is true for the majority of people on this planet, however, there are groups of people who feel no remorse or guilt for their actions. There is a small minority of Atheists, who seem to seek out these forums, who fall into that category. They are militant atheists. Atheists that are obsessed about removing religion from our world and instilling their own moral standards that do not comp, y with God's Commandments.

Or the fact that when you’re rude and obnoxious to someone else, they’re usually rude and obnoxious in return, which isn’t something people usually enjoy. Treat others as you would like to be treated and all that.

The first sentence is spot on. It is the explanation for my hostility. I look at it like if someone is rude to me then just because I am a Christian does not mean that I cannot retaliate. I know that the Scriptures say we should turn the other cheek, but I am a sinner, I do not always choose the right. I usually never insult other posters until they draw first blood. I need to go through the thread to see if I have attacked anybody before being attacked. I do not believe that I have. You must also remember that if someone speaks politely to you, with decorum and honestly, it is almost impossible not to do the same.

The reason I personally try not to be rude and obnoxious has to do with the fact that it isn’t the way I want to represent myself and the fact that it might be harmful to other people. I don’t want to be remembered that way. I don't want to hurt anyone. Also, like I said above, I don’t appreciate other people treating me badly.

No, you are not rude and obnoxious. If only all posters emulated you we would have some brilliant debates. I could learn a great deal and enjoy being challenged about my religion. I do not class you a militant.

You speak as if atheists are aliens from another planet or something. They’re human, like you are. The only humans who don’t feel remorse or guilt or empathy are psychopaths and/or sociopaths. They make up a very small percentage of the population. You are describing sociopaths and psychopaths here, not atheists or militant atheists.

That is not my intentions, my axe to grind is with militant atheists. My daughter is a mental health consultant. She has told me that sociopaths and psychopaths are like onions, having many layers. We all suffer with it, from the most insignificant symptoms to requiring sectioning. I have debated with some real narcissistic psychopaths on these forums who are genuinely without empathy or compassion. I can categorically state that every one of them were militant atheists. They are far a few between, it is true, but you have to be vigilant and test the water before you dive in. I look for personal attacks instead of debating the topic. It is usually an indicator.

How you think you know what atheists are thinking is beyond me.

A great deal of experience

There are many reasons for every living person to feel guilt for lying. Christians certainly do not have the market cornered on honesty. See Ken Hamm and Kent Hovind for examples.

Agreed

From your odd viewpoint, the only people capable of being honest or feeling guilt or any other human emotion (apparently) are Christians, which is just demonstrably false. One doesn’t need to believe in some god in the sky in order to experience natural human feelings.

Not true. You have only witness my real opinions right here. I have experience in many other field.

Some do, some don’t.

Most do

I really think you need to re-read your OP if you feel the need to accuse others of unprovoked insults on first contact. Or look in a mirror.

I have and I maintain my stance that I have not unduly insulted atheists.

 

[outhouse]

I have and I maintain my stance that I have not unduly insulted atheists.

Then you have comprehensive issues, being you wrote the OP.

 

[Serenity7855]

You defined Militant Atheists as those who try to wipe religion off the face of the earth. At what point have I indicated the need or desire to wipe religion off the face of the Earth?

Shall I go get that post and copy it here for you again?

No, I don't. That is just one off their traits there are many more.

Now, I am called a Militant Atheist because, why? Oh, I said something you didn't like? Something you perceived as a threat, maybe. Now, I am a "militant Atheist", even though it does not fit your former definition of "Militant Atheist".

Because you insulted my person rather then attacking my beliefs and opinions. If you had done that I would have no complaint.

That's called "goal post shifting". You set the standard of what a "Militant Atheist" is, then you change it.

No it isn't because it is not true.

Your former topic? I'll play.

In order for an object or thing to fit any criteria whatsoever as "evidence" or "scientific theory", it must meet certain criteria. It must be Observable, Testable, Repeatable and Falsifiable; and it must form a predictive model of reality.

Now, this is not "Atheist Brainwashing". This is the same criteria used by legitimate scientists, including those who happen to be Christian, including Isaac Newton.

So, let's put God to the test on this. And for sake of argument, we will proceed on the supposition that we both believe he exists.

OBSERVABLE: We can't see God. We can't measure him or see his hand moving the planets about the heavens. He is unobservable by a third party.
TESTABLE: God does what he wants, when he wants, how he wants and if he wants. "God works in mysterious ways"; And, it is expressly stated in the Bible that "Though shalt not tempt the Lord Thy God". Thus, it is impossible to set up experiments to determine his existence; and to do so, in and of itself, should be considered a "sin" anyway.
REPEATABLE: We should both agree that God will not stand up and do tricks for mankind. As stated above, he acts according to his own will; thus, should he perform for us under "Testable", there is no way to coerce or convince him to "Repeat" any given experiment, even if we prayed and asked nicely. The God of the Bible does not work like that.
FALSIFIABLE: This means, basically, that there must be a way to prove the claim wrong. In this case, the claim is, "God exists". As is presented herein, as he falls outside of known spacetime and beyond the realm of science, there is no way to scientifically prove that God does not exist.

PREDICTIVE MODEL OF REALITY: God fails this, as well. In determining a predictive model of reality, one must be able to say, "If Condition A exists, God will do That." As we can not predict what, when, if God will do, then there is no "predictive model of reality".

The culmination of these scientific principles put into place, with favorable results indicating that A exists (God, Gravity, Germs, Cells, you name it) constitutes a "body of knowledge"; which is the true scientific definition of "Theory".

Therefore, the "God" concept falls completely outside of the realm of science; and because God falls outside of the realm of science, he can be neither proven True or False by use of the scientific method.

Thus, to state, "There is plenty of evidence that God exists" is incredibly wrong.

To state, "I can prove to anyone not subjected to Atheist 'brainwashing' that God exists" is a false statement. Anyone who understands the scientific method and uses it in intellectual and academic honesty must concede that God can not be proven scientific, either True or False, because the very nature of "God" falls outside the realm.

Can you convince someone that God exists? Possibly. Can you convince everyone that God exists? Absolutely not! But, convince is very different than prove.

The other fallacy in your claim in your OP is this: If someone has not been subjected to "Atheist Brainwashing", which I must interpret to mean "Atheist Idea", then that person is already a Theist at most; a Deist at least. So therefore, your claim is that you can convince someone who already believes in God that there is a God ......

It is my opinion that if something can not be proven, it is irrational to believe in that "something". And it goes beyond God; it also includes Bigfoot, Loch Ness and the Man in the Moon. But, I also understand that freedom of thought, speech, belief and religion are necessary freedoms for a free society. So, if you wish to believe in something without evidence; provided it is not harmful; then so be it.

To believe in something in spite of evidence is a whole 'nother matter. This goes back to your "Atheists are immoral" claim; which has been beat to death. For anyone to maintain a belief in a given thing in spite of evidence suggests to me that they are ill and need help. Maintaining that belief and propagating that belief marginalizes and spreads distrust and fear of those who hold to Atheism, not based on that atheist's character or behavior, but based solely on your belief which lacks convincing evidence. (One judge's opinion is exactly that; an Opinion. Rising crime rates may have a multitude of factors; Fear, Frustration, the Economy; Or, maybe just the fact that 1000 new laws have been passed in a short period of time causing people to become criminals who weren't the day before because something they were doing was suddenly against the law! Thus, more evidence is required for your claim).

To maintain harmful irrational beliefs is where I start drawing swords. To believe that atheists are immoral and propagate that belief has the effect of harming your fellow man; to maintain that Sandy Hook was a hoax and propagate that myth is harmful as the fanaticism in this provably wrong allegation has caused our fellow man to be afraid to come out of their homes and adds more pain to those who have suffered great loss; to maintain a belief in the Illuminati with their sinister agendas spreads fear and insecurity, thus causing harm; I could go on, but hopefully you get my gist and understand where I am coming from.

I do not believe that science will ever prove the existence of a God, science is not about proof. , There are to many constraints in the scientific method to allow that. But evidence does not have to relate to science. I have a striking pain in my for evidenced by the nail that is sticking out of it. That statement is unrelated to science. The universe came into existence. What caused it, could it be a God. The last sentence here excludes it from the scientific method.

 

[outhouse]

So, let's put God to the test on this

Why?

You cannot prove he exist outside mythology.

I can show how "he" was created, I can show how he evolved from two previous deities, and was compiled into one after 622 BC.

I can prove without a doubt the historical inaccuracies of the OT and NT leaving the books with little historical credibility in many places.

I can also show the authors of the text, used mythology and rhetoric in creating their works


Have you ever thought this is a matter of education, and those that refuse it?

 

[Quintessence]

*** STAFF REMINDER ***

Please remember the following:​

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

8. Preaching/Proselytizing
The forums are not to be used for converting others to your own faith, against any faith, or recruiting people to join one's party, institution, or cause. This includes placing links or copied material from elsewhere intended for this purpose. Posts of this nature will be edited or removed and are subject to moderation.

11. Subverting/Undermining the forum Mission
The purpose of the forum is to provide a civil, informative, respectful and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate. Posts while debating and discussing different beliefs must be done in the spirit of productivity. If a person's main goal is to undermine a set of beliefs by creating unproductive posts/threads/responses to others, etc, then they will be edited or removed and subject to moderation.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

....

That is true for the majority of people on this planet, however, there are groups of people who feel no remorse or guilt for their actions. There is a small minority of Atheists, who seem to seek out these forums, who fall into that category. They are militant atheists. Atheists that are obsessed about removing religion from our world and instilling their own moral standards that do not comp, y with God's Commandments. .......

After all the bellyaching, I "stay on topic" and he flat out ignores me ... LoL .... :areyoucra

 

[Serenity7855]

After all the bellyaching, I "stay on topic" and he flat out ignores me ... LoL .... :areyoucra

I am sorry to disappoint. We had a bit of a family crisis that took me away from the computer. I had already started the reply so, in haste, I ended it abruptly. I will try to answer it properly today.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Thank you. I guess a "calm down, there, NewGuy" is in order.

I hope your family crisis resolves well and does so quickly.

 

[McBell]

I have said it before but I will say it again for you, I welcome disagreement on my beliefs.

Your ignoring posts indicates you are flat out lying....

 

[McBell]

In my opinion, you have no desire to enter into constructive debate on the forum, you just insult posters. Nothing you write is ever backed up with solid evidence and it is all to obvious that what you do say, you have read from other atheists. It is not your opinion. How do I know that. You use key words and phrases that are used my atheists who like to agitate Christians.

Wait, so you ignore his posts because you confuse them with your own?

 

[YmirGF]

No, not atheists but militant atheists. I have had enough incursions with militant atheists to know what they are all about. I did not say they were immoral, those are word you are putting in my mouth. I said that they lack accountability.

What this, somewhat militant atheist, gets from your words is that it is quite possibly your approach that invites, nay begs, such so-called attacks. In a very real sense, you are bringing such interactions on yourself due to your somewhat over-the-top rhetoric.

Aside from this, I am a bit puzzled as to why you would say militant atheists lack accountability. How so, to whom and to what standards? Sorry, but the idea is a tad odd.

 

[Magic Man]

I do not believe that science will ever prove the existence of a God, science is not about proof.

I agree science will never prove that, because there is no god to prove.

But evidence does not have to relate to science. I have a striking pain in my for evidenced by the nail that is sticking out of it. That statement is unrelated to science.

No, it's not. If you have pain in your forehead from a nail sticking out of it, that's observable and testable. We can test the fact that the nail is there, and we can test your pain.

We all use the scientific method for almost everything in life, although not quite as rigorously as scientists generally do. If someone makes a claim that you find odd, you apply the scientific method in a basic way. You put the hypothesis to the test and try to collect evidence. You make predictions based on the hypothesis, and see whether they are true. If I say "Dragons are flying over a small French town right now", you'll either dismiss it as stupid, or if you want to take it seriously, you'll look for video or photos. You'll check for any stories. You'll say "If that's the case, there would be a lot of stories on the front pages of the internet. There are no stories at all". You'll then conclude my claim is false.

The universe came into existence. What caused it, could it be a God. The last sentence here excludes it from the scientific method.

No, it doesn't. If you want to believe it was God, go ahead. But the general idea is to support beliefs with evidence. There is no evidence for God, so your belief is not supported. Just saying "Well, I don't have to because science can't prove God" doesn't support your belief either.

 

[Serenity7855]

I agree science will never prove that, because there is no god to prove.

That is Good to hear. Perhaps you could show us 2.2 billion Christians the evidence that you have that corroborates that statement.

No, it's not. If you have pain in your forehead from a nail sticking out of it, that's observable and testable. We can test the fact that the nail is there, and we can test your pain.

That is the biggest problem with science. It has intrinsically involved itself into areas where it is unwelcome. To recognise that the nail that sticks out of your foot is responsible for the pain that you are feeling is not science, it is common sense. The problem is that it is science that is encroaching on religion. You rarely hear a Christian critiquing science but how often do you here atheist scientists telling us how stupid we must be for believing in God. Do the job that you are good at and Mind your own business. God is common sense. If it cannot be explained via naturalistic laws, then it requires supernatural laws to explain it. The most likely supernatural law is God. Science is not set up to give theories on the supernatural. Try excluding G for God in any mathematical model. It has no value, no units of measurement and no constants. It is impossible to use. But science does not give us the answer to all things. God can.

We all use the scientific method for almost everything in life, although not quite as rigorously as scientists generally do. If someone makes a claim that you find odd, you apply the scientific method in a basic way. You put the hypothesis to the test and try to collect evidence. You make predictions based on the hypothesis, and see whether they are true. If I say "Dragons are flying over a small French town right now", you'll either dismiss it as stupid, or if you want to take it seriously, you'll look for video or photos. You'll check for any stories. You'll say "If that's the case, there would be a lot of stories on the front pages of the internet. There are no stories at all". You'll then conclude my claim is false.

I love science. It has paid me very well, during my life and has brought a great deal of satisfaction to me, however, like most things that help the human race to live better lives, it can be had for good and evil. For instance, there are some very unscrupulous men within the pharmaceutical industry in the United States who put profit above human life. The other downside is that it oversteps it's usefulness and involves it self in areas where it is not needed, religion.

No, it doesn't. If you want to believe it was God, go ahead. But the general idea is to support beliefs with evidence. There is no evidence for God, so your belief is not supported. Just saying "Well, I don't have to because science can't prove God" doesn't support your belief either.

Thank you for giving me the permission to believe in God. Somehow I think that I would do it without permission. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Common sense dictates that God exists. A cursory investigation of the world we live in testifies of that. That there are a group of individuals, called atheists, who cannot see what is clear for Christians to see, is sad, but free agency has that affect on mankind. There are always exceptions to the rule. You cannot force people to believe, it has to come from within. Sadly, for Christians, we know their fate. We know what non-belief will bring so we instinctively try and give those people what we have. Unfortunately, there is a subgroup withing that group, called militant atheists, who take what you say to them and throw it back in your face. They are hostile in nature and find it necessary to try and remove religion from us. That is wrong, so I am objecting.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

That is the biggest problem with science. It has intrinsically involved itself into areas where it is unwelcome. To recognise that the nail that sticks out of your foot is responsible for the pain that you are feeling is not science, it is common sense. The problem is that it is science that is encroaching on religion. You rarely hear a Christian critiquing science but how often do you here atheist scientists telling us how stupid we must be for believing in God. Do the job that you are good at and Mind your own business. God is common sense. If it cannot be explained via naturalistic laws, then it requires supernatural laws to explain it. The most likely supernatural law is God. Science is not set up to give theories on the supernatural. Try excluding G for God in any mathematical model. It has no value, no units of measurement and no constants. It is impossible to use. But science does not give us the answer to all things. God can.

• Recognizing nails sticking out of foots have given vital information on Tetanus and the prevention and treatment of that ailment.
• Science follows the trail of evidence, wherever it leads, and does not ask permission of those it may offend before progressing.
• Many Christians do, indeed, encroach upon science, provide false and misleading information, and adamantly and vehemently attack it. (The Talk.Origins Archive: Creationist Web Sites)
• Beliefs have nothing to do with intelligence. Even the most intelligent can fall prey to distortions in thinking. Most serial killers are highly intelligent. Maybe you are misinterpreting their criticism as an attack on your intelligence.
• What we believed at one time could not be explained by natural laws, thus given supernatural causes, are now explained by natural laws.
• Science (well, real science, anyway) makes no attempt to explain the supernatural. Science seeks naturalistic explanations for observed objects, conditions and phenomenon.
• As soon as we place an unproven, undefinable (by scientific means) abstracts, such as "God" into science, then the equations (findings) of that scientific research has no value.

I love science. It has paid me very well, during my life and has brought a great deal of satisfaction to me, however, like most things that help the human race to live better lives, it can be had for good and evil. For instance, there are some very unscrupulous men within the pharmaceutical industry in the United States who put profit above human life. The other downside is that it oversteps it's usefulness and involves it selves areas where it is not needed, religion.

Maybe "religion" is where science needs to be most of all. Remember we have religious idiots denying their children medical care with the unrealistic expectation that God will heal them. Remember that Aztecs used to sacrifice their citizens, believing that if they didn't, the sun would stop moving. See here: 10 Most Chilling Stories of Modern Day Human Sacrifices - ODDEE

False beliefs -- especially harmful false beliefs -- need to be exposed and exterminated.

Thank you for giving me the permission to believe in God. Somehow I think that I would do it without permission. The absence of evidence is not absence of absence.

Not always. Sometimes, the absence of evidence is indeed the evidence of absence. Unless you wish for all to believe that Unicorns roam the earth ..... :bonk:

Common sense dictates that God exists. A cursory investigation of the world we live in testifies of that.

No it doesn't. :tsk:

That there are a group of individuals, called atheists, who cannot see what is clear for Christians to see, it is sad, but free agency has that affect on mankind. There are always exceptions to the rule. You cannot force people to believe, it has to come from within. Sadly, for Christians, we know their fate. We know what non-belief will bring so we instinctively try and give those people what we have. Unfortunately, there is an even subgroup withing that group, called militant atheists, who take what you say to them and throw it back in your face.

I believe in your compassion and accept that it is real. Ironically, while you are feeling compassion for us, many of us feel compassion for you for experiencing such uncomfortable emotions over something we do not believe to be true.

And, yes. We atheists are ruining everything. Even though ample evidence, ample statements have been presented to you otherwise, you will maintain your irrational belief simply because the atheist gets in your way. :banghead3

Your word, "militant atheist", no longer has any meaning to you as you use it however you want to use it. In fact, it is nothing more to me now than a word you use to try to insult others for disagreeing with you or, worse yet, having the audacity to express their beliefs when they don't agree with yours! :fight:

 

[Serenity7855]

• Recognizing nails sticking out of foots have given vital information on Tetanus and the prevention and treatment of that ailment.

• 
  
  I am talking about relating pain to a cause, not the scientific achievements in tetanus. You are splitting hairs
  
  

  [*]Science follows the trail of evidence, wherever it leads, and does not ask permission of those it may offend before progressing.

  
  Yes?
  
  

  [*]Many Christians do, indeed, encroach upon science, provide false and misleading information, and adamantly and vehemently attack it

  
  You obviously refer to creationists, the exception to the rule. I have no intentions of defending them, other then to say that they have the right to believe in whatever they want, as do I.
  
  
  

  [*]Beliefs have nothing to do with intelligence. Even the most intelligent can fall prey to distortions in thinking. Most serial killers are highly intelligent. Maybe you are misinterpreting their criticism as an attack on your intelligence.

  
  No, I am not.
  
  

  [*]What we believed at one time could not be explained by natural laws, thus given supernatural causes, are now explained by natural laws.

  
  No, that is not true. We have had our natural laws for centuries now. Everything in science has been determined using a set of well known laws. When we thought that the earth was flat we had those laws, when we thought that the atom was the smallest particle, we had those laws. We have known about the rapid expansion of the universe for a long time, but cannot devise a law that explains it. That inevitably makes it a supernatural event. That also includes abiogenesis, fine tuning, dark energy and matter, the Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson, to me, is the uncovering of an absolute miracle. It is fascinating beyond belief that such a small sub atomic particle can give mass to a universe. Would you like to explain that to me using natural laws? The more I study science the more I am convince that there is a master designer.
  
  
  

  [*]Science (well, real science, anyway) makes no attempt to explain the supernatural. Science seeks naturalistic explanations for observed objects, conditions and phenomenon.

  
  Yes?
  
  

  [*]As soon as we place an unproven, undefinable (by scientific means) abstracts, such as "God" into science, then the equations (findings) of that scientific research has no value.

Yes, that is what I have just written.

Maybe "religion" is where science needs to be most of all. Remember we have religious idiots denying their children medical care with the unrealistic expectation that God will heal them. Remember that Aztecs used to sacrifice their citizens, believing that if they didn't, the sun would stop moving. See here: 10 Most Chilling Stories of Modern Day Human Sacrifices - ODDEE

But that relates to faiths withing a religion. The Religion is Christianity the faith is JWs. Faiths are man made and there doctrines have been interpreted by man, without, may I add, permission from Jesus Christ. Of course groups like faiths should be monitored for there extreme views but don't palm their misinterpretations off on God. It is man, not God.

False beliefs -- especially harmful false beliefs -- need to be exposed and exterminated.

Yes?

Not always. Sometimes, the absence of evidence is indeed the evidence of absence. Unless you wish for all to believe that Unicorns roam the earth ..... :bonk:

Are you saying that unicorns did not roam the earth. Have you evidence to support that claim.

No it doesn't. :tsk:

Yes, it does

I believe in your compassion and accept that it is real. Ironically, while you are feeling compassion for us, many of us feel compassion for you for experiencing such uncomfortable emotions over something we do not believe to be true.

Why?

And, yes. We atheists are ruining everything. Even though ample evidence, ample statements have been presented to you otherwise, you will maintain your irrational belief simply because the atheist gets in your way. :banghead3

I am not sure what point you are making

Your word, "militant atheist", no longer has any meaning to you as you use it however you want to use it. In fact, it is nothing more to me now than a word you use to try to insult others for disagreeing with you or, worse yet, having the audacity to express their beliefs when they don't agree with yours! :fight:

I use the words "militant atheists" to identify a group of individual within another group of individuals. It is not intended to be insulting. Such a notion has never enter my mind, until now.

I think that I have made it crystal clear that I relish the criticism of my beliefs. I enjoy the challenge. It keeps me on the ball. If I didn't like my views being disagreed with then this is the very last place where you would find me. That, I believe, is common sense. You have not thought it through.

 

[ScuzManiac]

I am talking about relating pain to a cause, not the scientific achievements in tetanus. You are splitting hairs



Yes?



You obviously refer to creationists, the exception to the rule. I have no intentions of defending them, other then to say that they have the right to believe in whatever they want, as do I.




No, I am not.



No, that is not true. We have had our natural laws for centuries now. Everything in science has been determined using a set of well known laws. When we thought that the earth was flat we had those laws, when we thought that the atom was the smallest particle, we had those laws. We have known about the rapid expansion of the universe for a long time, but cannot devise a law that explains it. That inevitably makes it a supernatural event. That also includes abiogenesis, fine tuning, dark energy and matter, the Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson, to me, is the uncovering of an absolute miracle. It is fascinating beyond belief that such a small sub atomic particle can give mass to a universe. Would you like to explain that to me using natural laws? The more I study science the more I am convince that there is a master designer.




Yes?


[/LIST]

Yes, that is what I have just written.



But that relates to faiths withing a religion. The Religion is Christianity the faith is JWs. Faiths are man made and there doctrines have been interpreted by man, without, may I add, permission from Jesus Christ. Of course groups like faiths should be monitored for there extreme views but don't palm their misinterpretations off on God. It is man, not God.



Yes?



Are you saying that unicorns did not roam the earth. Have you evidence to support that claim.



Yes, it does



Why?



I am not sure what point you are making



I use the words "militant atheists" to identify a group of individual within another group of individuals. It is not intended to be insulting. Such a notion has never enter my mind, until now.

I think that I have made it crystal clear that I relish the criticism of my beliefs. I enjoy the challenge. It keeps me on the ball. If I didn't like my views being disagreed with then this is the very last place where you would find me. That, I believe, is common sense. You have not thought it through.

These are all arguments coming from someone that has a picture of white Jesus as their avatar. That ruins any credibility that you may once have had. Just saying.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I am talking about relating pain to a cause, not the scientific achievements in tetanus. You are splitting hairs

Your statement was that there were places where science didn't belong and used this as an example. I have demonstrated that science "poking its nose where it doesn't belong" had beneficial effects for all of mankind. In fact, we can take this further: Herbologists, upon whose work the healing arts were founded, were once condemned and punished (sometimes lethally) as witches because someone thought they shouldn't be poking their nose in there. Not to mention, the idea that "we have no business cutting into dead bodies to seek knowledge" was also condemned as "where we shouldn't be" and led to the advent of life saving practices. There is no place .... NO place ... where science doesn't belong.

No, that is not true. We have had our natural laws for centuries now. Everything in science has been determined using a set of well known laws. When we thought that the earth was flat we had those laws, when we thought that the atom was the smallest particle, we had those laws.

You understand that science doesn't "determine" anything, right? That they follow the trail of evidence to discover the natural laws in place?

We have known about the rapid expansion of the universe for a long time, but cannot devise a law that explains it. That inevitably makes it a supernatural event.

When mankind didn't understand volcanoes and earthquakes, they also conclude that the lack of explanation "invariable makes it a supernatural event". They were as wrong then as you are now.

That also includes abiogenesis, fine tuning, dark energy and matter, the Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson, to me, is the uncovering of an absolute miracle. It is fascinating beyond belief that such a small sub atomic particle can give mass to a universe. Would you like to explain that to me using natural laws? The more I study science the more I am convince that there is a master designer.

We can not explain something that we do not yet understands. The secrets of those laws in place have not yet been uncovered. "We don't know" doesn't mean "God did it".

But that relates to faiths withing a religion. The Religion is Christianity the faith is JWs. Faiths are man made and there doctrines have been interpreted by man, without, may I add, permission from Jesus Christ. Of course groups like faiths should be monitored for there extreme views but don't palm their misinterpretations off on God. It is man, not God.

Too bad there wasn't anyone monitoring the Inquisition. Too bad there wasn't anyone monitoring Salem. Ol' Isaac was lucky; Jephthah's daughter, not so much (read Judges Chapters 10-12; a human sacrifice in honor of God giving Jephthah victory over the Ammonites -- with permission from God!) If you think Christianity is innocent of human sacrifices, you are sorely and sadly mistaken.

Are you saying that unicorns did not roam the earth. Have you evidence to support that claim.

No. What I am saying is that believing in something without the evidence to support that said something is absurd, dangerous and deadly. What I am also saying is that because of irrational beliefs, religions have made it absolutely necessary for science to "encroach into their territory".