Why the divide between Science and Religion...

[michel]

Good, because you cannot even know who authored 2 Timothy. Oh, as a favor, if you insist on shouting, try to avoid shouting nonsense.

I'm not shouting ... it's called 'capitalizing' ... at least in English it is. And as far as who wrote 2 Timothy and Matthew: Paul and Matthew. These people had nothing to hide. Funny they were martyred for writing anonymously.

 

[michel]

Where did I claim that I was certain that God does not exist?

Oh, maybe the terms agnostic and non-theist gave you away.

 

[Cynic]

I'm not shouting ... it's called 'capitalizing' ... at least in English it is. And as far as who wrote 2 Timothy and Matthew: Paul and Matthew. These people had nothing to hide. Funny they were martyred for writing anonymously.

It is obvious that you arrive to your conclusions with only anecdotal obeservations and no evidence to support certainty. Most of your statements are inconsistent and incoherent, and I find it very difficult to take much of what you say seriously.

 

[michel]

Most of your statements are inconsistent and incoherent, and I find it very difficult to take much of what you say seriously.

Ooooo I think you've made that point quite clear by now.

 

[Cynic]

Oh, maybe the terms agnostic and non-theist gave you away.

Give me the name of an agnostic that believes in God.

 

[michel]

Give me the name of an agnostic that believes in God.

I believe ... by definition ... Agnostics are neutral.

 

[Cynic]

I believe ... by definition ... Agnostics are neutral.

But do they believe in God? And if a theist is someone who believes in God, what does that make me, basically?

I do not deny the existence of God, like an Atheist. I do not believe in God either, because there is no objective evidense lending such a belief credibility and certainty.

"b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism." -www.dictionary.com

 

[JerryL]

Being of 'no religion' I didn't focus on the differences, looking for fault in each religion, trying to validate one or the other. I, instead, saw amazing similarities. A pattern began to emerge. And where there is a consistant pattern, there is truth.

But truth of what? You assume that a similarity points back to a validity in the belief when all it really says is a common source. One possible source would be historic (that there was a real interaction at sime point and the memory of it has passed down), but I don't find that particularly supportable. Far more likely is that people are substantially similar. They have similar needs and wants and similar life-experiences. They are trying to answer the same questions and solve the same problems and there are only so many different ways they are prone to do it.

 

[JerryL]

I believe ... by definition ... Agnostics are neutral.

a- no or non
gnostic - truth

an agnostic does not believe that they knwo the truth about god. Some believe that the truth is unknown or unknowable, and others believe that they have simply not yet found it themselves.

 

[michel]

a- no or non
gnostic - truth

an agnostic does not believe that they knwo the truth about god. Some believe that the truth is unknown or unknowable, and others believe that they have simply not yet found it themselves.

And which camp are you in? Because you seem to "know" a lot about what my Bible shouldn't say, while all the time hinding behind a label of neutrality.

 

[Cynic]

a- no or non
gnostic - truth

an agnostic does not believe that they knwo the truth about god. Some believe that the truth is unknown or unknowable, and others believe that they have simply not yet found it themselves.

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

1. 
   adj.
   [*]Relating to or being an agnostic.
   [*]Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin).
   

-www.dictionary.com

 

[Cynic]

And which camp are you in? Because you seem to "know" a lot about what my Bible shouldn't say, while all the time hinding behind a label of neutrality.

There is no objective evidense proving that God does not exist, and there is no objective evidense proving that God does in fact exist. I am skeptical about the existence of God, but I do not believe in God like a theist, and I do not deny the existence of God like an atheist either.

But since I am skeptical and not commited to the belief in a God, why don't you tell me which camp I belong in?

Next, you have failed to show where the bible coincides with your so called "true science". No where in science does God come into play.

 

[michel]

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

1. 
   adj.
   [*]Relating to or being an agnostic.
   [*]Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin).
   

-www.dictionary.com

Yea, Jerry, I know what the dictionary says. It's confusing. Please tell me which camp YOU are in, since you seem to be an authority on what my Bible should or should not say.

Are YOU 1, 2, 3, or 6 above?

 

[michel]

There is no objective evidense proving that God does not exist, and there is no objective evidense proving that God does in fact exist. I am skeptical about the existence of God, but I do not believe in God like a theist, and I do not deny the existence of God like an atheist either.

So let me get this straight, then. You are skeptical about the existence of God. I am not, based on what I believe to be valid documentation. So since you are skeptical, that makes you an authority on how valid the verses in my Bible are???

 

[Cynic]

Yea, Jerry, I know what the dictionary says. It's confusing. Please tell me which camp YOU are in, since you seem to be an authority on what my Bible should or should not say.

Are YOU 1, 2, 3, or 6 above?

Why should I repeat myself when I've already made it clear? I am not an authority on what your bible should or should not say, but no where in science does God come into play. Your "true science" is not scientifical at all.

 

[michel]

Next, you have failed to show where the bible coincides with your so called "true science". No where in science does God come into play.

How can I, Jerry? Since you don't even claim science can prove it?

You don't form an opintion based on Scripture, and you don't form an opinion based on current science.

At least Athiests have an opinion.

 

[michel]

How can I, Jerry? Since you don't even claim science can prove it?

You don't form an opintion based on Scripture, and you don't form an opinion based on current science.

At least Athiests have an opinion.

Sorry, I meant Cynic, not "Jerry".

 

[Cynic]

So let me get this straight, then. You are skeptical about the existence of God. I am not, based on what I believe to be valid documentation. So since you are skeptical, that makes you an authority on how valid the verses in my Bible are???

And what makes you an authority to state that such versus are scientifical and coincide with science?

Colossians 1:17

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.​

Hebrews 1:3

Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;



​

​

 

[Cynic]

How can I, Jerry? Since you don't even claim science can prove it?

You don't form an opintion based on Scripture, and you don't form an opinion based on current science.

At least Athiests have an opinion.

I'm not going to re-explain myself. Is English your first langauge?

 

[michel]

"Believe in Jesus so you can have eternal life"
"Accept Jesus or go to hell"

I find such statement to be synonymous with briberies and threats in which acceptance is motivated only by self interest. This makes acceptance unreasonable.

Do you remember making this statement? And yet you're not an authority? So do you mind if some of us who have studied the Bible in its entirety and say that those statements were made out of LOVE and not BRIBERY get at least a little credit for knowing something?

If Cedar Point Amusement Park was handing out free tickets to anyone who would just come up and take one, would you be at the entrance shouting, "Bribery!"?