Why do religious people beleive the author of the scripts but ?

[oldbadger]

Why do religious people believe the author of the scripts or books but then instantly disbeleive when somebody of modern times claims to be Gods messenger ?

Hi....
Sadly, millions of people DO believe in present day prophets and messengers.
Some folks make millions out of followers...........

 

[rational experiences]

A new old way.

If every state is before a human. Is. Exists as does exist or is existing then you are just a human.

First.

Then say something real.

Science was not real.

It was human chosen. Taught by humans for humans.

We only own ourselves the teaching.

Then men using science design.

Their design never existed first or before a machine.

Machine an artificial human manifested presence by magical alchemical manipulations.

A machine is artificial as creation did not create it.

Then humans puts any substance creative history owned and attacks it.

So you increase space.

You destroy what cold space supported as mass presence.

You then cause a human artificial occurrence.

In creation conversions in natural were massive.

In artificial the conversions small.

So small adds up until you meet the maker of conversions....the large or giant origin reaction.

Why our brother said science manifested a new state he termed artificial as natural law never owned his machine results.

Then natural law had an artificial event itself caused. By man. What he was not expecting. Was his teaching.

Why he told you god did it. Maths hadn't.

Yet to advise man he applied maths to the conjured event.

Maths in modern times hence says it is not science as it does not occur. Forty days of flooding rain. UFO mountain attacks.

Maths never equalled the causes as cause was already natural.

Is a non teaching of science. As science only teaches science. It does not teach non science.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is a scientific view of life after death that I am personally an expert on .

No your not.

 

[Valjean]

You must have had a radically different experience of the Church than me in general for you to hold that conclusion. I became religious via these things, testing ideas, and direct experience.

Or I don't base my conclusions on experiences in church....

So you have evidence that is observable, measurable, testable, and falsifiable, by anyone, anywhere; ie: hard, empirical evidence? If so, why aren't your conclusions universally acknowledged, like other conclusions based on this objective, empirical, 'scientific' evidence?

 

[Valjean]

So who said "Atheism is based on evidence"?

Read before responding to save your religious dogma. Understand what is said.

OK, perhaps I jumped to conclusions. You said: "But the truth is, that statement was made by an atheist, and has no evidence to it whatsoever," and I assumed you were connecting the atheism and lack of evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

So, again, why do you believe spirits, and how do you test them? I haven't noticed any consistent results.

Reliable testing, that yields consistent, objective, measurable, testable results, must be based on observable, empirical evidence. I'm not seeing that here.

 

[Valjean]

Lol. The scientific method was a philosophy championed by a "religious guy" mate. In fact, he was a religious scholar.

It is a method; an objective, empirical approach to evidence assessment.
Whoever started it, and whatever it began as, it's today the most productive methodology ever devised.

 

[Sheldon]

Well no , not really . In a sense maybe but that isn't accurate enough .

It doesn't determine our outcome because each and every person has Neurological Immunity and Neurological Security , this is the part of our Neurological Reference Frame that allows us to say no and think for ourselves , accessing preferred data .

Those are meaningless phrases you've made up though, and critical thinking skills are learned, just like woo woo superstitions, that religions indoctrinate children with, before they have a chance to develop any critical thinking skills.

 

[Sheldon]

There is a scientific view of life after death that I am personally an expert on .

No there isn't, Hitchens's razor slash....

 

[Sheldon]

Attachment to tradition and customs brought up in. People likely to accept a new messenger are those who are open minded to new ways.

What you're describing is gullibility, open minded simply means treating ideas without bias. Though of course one unevidenced claim is much like another I suppose.

 

[Clara Tea]

Why do religious people believe the author of the scripts or books but then instantly disbeleive when somebody of modern times claims to be Gods messenger ?

When the US attacked Iraq (against God's commandment not to in Revelation), God gave psychic prophecies to some of the most gifted psychics in the world. They met on the internet. God charged them with the mission to spread the word, not to attack Iraq.

But, one thing that God made clear, was that they were not allowed to tell others that they were messengers of God. To do so, would either get them ignored, or believed. If believed, people would think that they had special treatment by God, and may come to worship them. God wants all to worship him, not others.

People, today, have been so misled and disillusioned by liars that they have a hard time believing anything.

One reason to believe the psychics of God is that they bring no new message (just a repeat of the messages of Revelation, in case someone missed them).

I am sure that God knew that his psychics would be ignored, but he gave everyone that one last chance before beginning the process to end all life on earth (which began with the war in Iraq).

 

[Clara Tea]

What you're describing is gullibility, open minded simply means treating ideas without bias. Though of course one unevidenced claim is much like another I suppose.

Polytheists....belief in parrots.

Gullible....belief in sea gulls.

 

[Clara Tea]

Well actually I can demonstrate scientifically the possible existence of a God or diety because there is two real genuine miracles that I can't explain . If I can't explain the physics then I very much doubt anyone else can ever .

Theists often use the unexplained as proof of God. But what happens when science learns enough to explain?

 

[Valjean]

Psychics of God on the internet? That sounds like Q.

 

[Valjean]

Polytheists....belief in parrots.

Gullible....belief in sea gulls.

Pantheists: worshipers of pans?

 

[Clara Tea]

Space regardless of misguided infromation pre-existed any event of the creation and formation of matter . Space has a uniform value of nothing , 0 . In the beginning there was nothing !
Now if anyone can tell me the physics of how to create energy from nothing I'd like to hear this ?

The fact is , for energy to spontaneously appear , that would require a miracle as nothing doens't have the phyiscs to create something .

Even the big bang does not explain how the high dense state was formed , a scienitfic flop in my opinion .

I can reverse engineer a further two stages before the big bang but it still leads to a miracle .

It would help to imagine space occupying a giant chess board (call the metric....a grid). The metric is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating.

Presumably, the metric of space had no volume at all....it was a point (called a singularity), and no space existed prior to the big bang. That is, if you believe that all of the matter in the universe existed at a singularity. But I tend to believe that the universe always had some finite size, and was held from collapse by some unknown quantum force.

I believe this because of recent scientific research.

But, I also believe this because all of our laws of physics cease to exist in a singularity. That is, where there is no space, there is no velocity, an no acceleration, etc.

Though science doesn't yet have all of the answers, they do have a lot, and they should continue to find more. There is no point in saying that God is the answer to the missing information.

 

[rational experiences]

It would help to imagine space occupying a giant chess board (call the metric....a grid). The metric is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating.

Presumably, the metric of space had no volume at all....it was a point (called a singularity), and no space existed prior to the big bang. That is, if you believe that all of the matter in the universe existed at a singularity. But I tend to believe that the universe always had some finite size, and was held from collapse by some unknown quantum force.

I believe this because of recent scientific research.

But, I also believe this because all of our laws of physics cease to exist in a singularity. That is, where there is no space, there is no velocity, an no acceleration, etc.

Though science doesn't yet have all of the answers, they do have a lot, and they should continue to find more. There is no point in saying that God is the answer to the missing information.

Anyone would think a human created creation and control it by human laws.

Instead of just being a human living on a Planet first.

If a human never reacted a reaction by design of their thoughts. Built the design. Controlled again by their mind...
What would you believe?

The status a study of human behaviour as a theme personality possessed owned various topics of seen human changes. Studied with a human purpose.

The church resonance proved it was afraid of allowing changed behaviour humans entry into their healing building. Afraid it would transmit to their mind and body.

Hence they knew.

Who would you consciously become if suddenly your mind was transmitted back to by machine spatial conversions. Just inside your machine.

Would you suddenly believe in inventive reacting by your design that you suddenly owned laws held inside a machines reaction?

Would you become possessed yourself by the machine in your mind feedback!!

 

[Sheldon]

When the US attacked Iraq (against God's commandment not to in Revelation),

If I begged you would quote it for me?

God gave psychic prophecies to some of the most gifted psychics in the world.

I find that hard to believe.

They met on the internet.

Ok that I have no problem believing.

God charged them with the mission to spread the word, not to attack Iraq.

Another blinding success from a deity with limitless power and knowledge, trying to thwart the nefarious plans of one species of evolved apes.

But, one thing that God made clear, was that they were not allowed to tell others that they were messengers of God.

Cunning yet simple, well one of those anyone.

To do so, would either get them ignored, or believed.

Well with so many choices, probably best to eliminate a couple right off the bat.

If believed, people would think that they had special treatment by God, and may come to worship them. God wants all to worship him, not others.

Ah, glad that's been cleared up, with just 4 out of ten commandments reiterating god's inexplicably egotistical desire for the saccharine worship of its pets, we wouldn't any confusion.

People, today, have been so misled and disillusioned by liars that they have a hard time believing anything.

At the risk of an irony overload at this point, I don't believe that for a minute.

One reason to believe the psychics of God is that they bring no new message (just a repeat of the messages of Revelation, in case someone missed them).

How very cunning of them, just repeating the same old stuff, well well.

I am sure that God knew that his psychics would be ignored, but he gave everyone that one last chance before beginning the process to end all life on earth (which began with the war in Iraq).

One can only marvel at the omniscience whose fall back plan to his creation not going to plan??? Is to destroy it all, again.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart, whether that was meant as irony or not, I haven't laughed like that since my last prostate exam.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Anyone would think a human created creation and control it by human laws.

That would be because humans did create creation in written form .

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

No there isn't, Hitchens's razor slash....

If I have a scientific view and knowledge of life after death then there is and you are again incorrect .