TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Creation of the earth, parting a sea, feeding 5,000, healing the blind, lepers, deaf, raising the dead - these are all in contradiction od science.

---

That's why they are called miracles. They are well documented and miracles continue to occur in every generation.

---

That you call them miracles does make them historical reality but miracles for 1st century disciples' eyes and ears were real.

---

Serious questions:

Where is God? Look at any human being, loving relationship, just, loving act
How long has He existed? How old is the universe?

---

---

Waco: Look at any human being, loving relationship, just, loving act

I agree, consider a parent counseling their pregnant daughter not to kill her unborn child,

That is love, and love of Life pleases God.

But the woman who enters an abortion clinic turns her back on God, and on protecting Life.

---

I'm not pro abortion, but you can't say that about the God of the OT. That god is characterized as formulating a method for a disgruntled husband to entreat God to cause a miscarriage - Numbers 5. That's not a method for protecting life, not to mention all of the God sponsored attrocities against living women and children in the OT. The god of the OT is not pro-life.

---

Very twisty way you avoid the context of those accounts.

By your thinking, Cain killed Abel and so God must support murder.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views.

---

Boyle, Lavoisier, Euler, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Compton, Riemann, LeMaitre, Townes, Gibbs, Gauss, Walton, J J Thomson, Kelvin, Cantor, Babbage, Heisenberg, Davy, and others disagree with you. If you know anything at all about the history of science and mathematics, you will recognize those names. They range from the Enlightenment period to the 20th century.

You make it clear you think Christians are idiots, and that's fine; I've had atheists tell me that before when they found out I was a Christian and they are entitled to their opinion of me. But don't lie and say "especially eminent scientists" are not Christians when even a cursory glance at the history of science show your claim is false. I met numerous very intelligent professors and students at Baylor who were committed Christians, some who were not raised in the faith as children. While I have met a few thoughtful and intelligent atheists, I have also met a lot more village atheists whose only argument is to say the phrase "sky daddy" like it is a deep concept and think it is a slam dunk argument. Talked to one who actually denied that logic was a necessary part of philosophical arguments in order to preserve the status of his "sky daddy" stand-alone phrase as an 'argument.' There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking.

---

Atheist always attack the Wrong God. TS always goes after his projection of what he thinks is God. He never responds to inquiries about as God as the spiritual non all powerful god. God as love wedded to science's debunking of a supernatural God of an old theism long since dead results in the reality of God. The reality of God is different that believing amply in the existence of God. The reality of God amongest as love invites a response to God in the existential moment. The arguments over the existence of God results a back and forth that is really, shall I say, nonsensical.
TS simply argues with an old theism that died as a result of the Enlightenment and the eminent scientists contributed A sounder philosophy underlying theology. The church and disciples, should celebrate science's busting up of the old supernatural theism.

TexasScientist said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

It depends upon your definition of fine tuned. We're a part of fine tuned carbon based life, albeit imperfectly, fine tuned to survive on this particular planet. Fine tuned through evolution. It would be a miracle and surprising to find carbon based life in a universe incapable of supporting carbon based life. If God really wanted to create a miracle, he could if put man on Jupiter.

---

I'm referring to the several cosmological constants that appear to be fine-tuned. I would have assumed a scientist would have looked into this long ago.

TexasScientist said:

---

October 13, 1917 is another Catholic attempt to persuade followers with the lore of miracles. There is no objective evidence of a miracle occurring there, or any tent revival. All of these pseudo miracles have explanations. In this particular case, not everyone observed the same thing, or anything miraculous. There are natural explanations for those that did claim to see differing things. A miracle has no natural explanation. Show me someone who was documented clinically dead, embalmed, and crawled out of their crypt and is walking around today. Show me documented objective proof of someone who regrew an amputated arm or leg. Those would be miracles. Show me documented objective proof of someone who was decapitated, and had their head restored and is alive walking around today.

---

With respect to Fatima, many non-believers and skeptics witnessed the events that day.

I could list young man that was brought back to life by Saint Don Bosco. I could list the young girl born with no pupils that got her sight at the age of 7 (who is still alive today) after she was healed by Saint Padre Pio. I could list the 70 miracles at healing waters of Lourdes, France that the Church has had verified by a panel of doctors and scientist who are not Catholic and some are atheists. You will not accept these miracles.

You will not even accept the UNIVERSE as a miracle. You've mentioned particles popping in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum. But that is NOT nothing. This is simply science of the gaps.

Unfortunately, your lack of humility, and dare I say, arrogance, will not allow you to truly entertain the possibility of God. That is not science. A scientist would truly test all possible proofs.

---

Quote:

---

I'm referring to the several cosmological constants that appear to be fine-tuned. I would have assumed a scientist would have looked into this long ago.

---

I would assume you would have known that it is the cosmological constants that allow for the plausibility of a spontaneous universe.

Quote:

---

With respect to Fatima, many non-believers and skeptics witnessed the events that day.

I could list young man that was brought back to life by Saint Don Bosco. I could list the young girl born with no pupils that got her sight at the age of 7 (who is still alive today) after she was healed by Saint Padre Pio. I could list the 70 miracles at healing waters of Lourdes, France that the Church has had verified by a panel of doctors and scientist who are not Catholic and some are atheists. You will not accept these miracles.

You will not even accept the UNIVERSE as a miracle. You've mentioned particles popping in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum. But that is NOT nothing. This is simply science of the gaps.

Unfortunately, your lack of humility, and dare I say, arrogance, will not allow you to truly entertain the possibility of God. That is not science. A scientist would truly test all possible proofs.

---

There were many who were present that did not see anything unusual. Nobody has shown that anything witnessed that day was a miracle.

Assertions of miracles by the Catholic Church are not much different than Peter Popoff's and Benny Hinn's assertions. A miracle by definition is a supernatural event, inexplicable by natural or scientific laws. It has to be a product of supernatural agency. None of those meet that criteria. Why didn't Saint Padre Pio restore an amputated arm, or decapitated head?

There is no such thing a science of the gaps is a creationist poorly considered rebuttal attempt. Rather, your idea of accepting what is unknown about the universe as a miracle is a god of the gaps concept. That gap has been shrinking by scientific discovery since religion began. Consider that your definition of nothing, may not exist in a quantum vacuum.

It's not lack of humility or arrogance. Rather, it's facing and accepting the evidence of reality that changed my views, and will not allow me to entertain the possibility of any god, especially any god that was contrived by any human devised religion.

---

John A.T. Robinson talks of the "God of Gaps" filling in where science has not caught. That gap keeps closing. and for most of secular people the gap is gone. I believe the overwhelming Biblical witness is "God is love."
I am not sure why but you never respond to my thoughts, I agree with of all of your understanding of science and God but can you respond to the spiritual (not super natural, the spiritual of a different order).

---

It depends upon your definition of spiritual. I don't believe in a spiritual component to the human, or any other animal in the context of something supernatural. I don't really have an objection of using the term 'spirit' or 'soul' as another way to refer to the mind, will and emotions, which are all physical processes of the human organism. I don't particularly like using the term in a secular context, because it can be confusing since those terms have an underlying historical religious undertone. I believe the mind, will, and emotions play a huge factor in the religious 'spiritual' experience. That same 'spiritual' or euphoric experience is not exclusive to religion, but can also be experienced in a humanist context, to the same degree and manner as in a religious context. From an altruistic, and humanist sense, I think embracing the idea of applying the 'Golden Rule' as a moral pillar in personal and cultural moral interactions can produce a rewarding 'spiritual' experience.

---

I'll get back to you. I am very tired now after my the Holy Landon. There is irony in there somewhere. It was a spiritual experience not euphoric but deeply moving that touches my faith (faith should be an ongoing verb).

Waco1947 said:

---

Atheist always attack the Wrong God. TS always goes after his projection of what he thinks is God. He never responds to inquiries about as God as the spiritual non all powerful god. God as love wedded to science's debunking of a supernatural God of an old theism long since dead results in the reality of God. The reality of God is different that believing amply in the existence of God. The reality of God amongest as love invites a response to God in the existential moment. The arguments over the existence of God results a back and forth that is really, shall I say, nonsensical.
TS simply argues with an old theism that died as a result of the Enlightenment and the eminent scientists contributed A sounder philosophy underlying theology. The church and disciples, should celebrate science's busting up of the old supernatural theism.

---

This could literally be an article in the Babylon Bee.

"Atheist has better understanding of God than wayward preacher."

Dude, you can't see the irony here! He has a better grasp on God than you. YOUR notion of God is illogical and overly simplistic.

Waco: "It was a spiritual experience not euphoric but deeply moving that touches my faith (faith should be an ongoing verb)."

That statement is amazingly wrong. To such a degree that your last sentence is false by definition. If something 'touches my faith', then 'faith' would definitively be a noun, it cannot be a verb as used there.

Definition, connotation, syntax, context and grammatical structure are all vital to communication, Waco. I don't care what your first language is, those rules will still apply.

Waco1947 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views.

---

Boyle, Lavoisier, Euler, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Compton, Riemann, LeMaitre, Townes, Gibbs, Gauss, Walton, J J Thomson, Kelvin, Cantor, Babbage, Heisenberg, Davy, and others disagree with you. If you know anything at all about the history of science and mathematics, you will recognize those names. They range from the Enlightenment period to the 20th century.

You make it clear you think Christians are idiots, and that's fine; I've had atheists tell me that before when they found out I was a Christian and they are entitled to their opinion of me. But don't lie and say "especially eminent scientists" are not Christians when even a cursory glance at the history of science show your claim is false. I met numerous very intelligent professors and students at Baylor who were committed Christians, some who were not raised in the faith as children. While I have met a few thoughtful and intelligent atheists, I have also met a lot more village atheists whose only argument is to say the phrase "sky daddy" like it is a deep concept and think it is a slam dunk argument. Talked to one who actually denied that logic was a necessary part of philosophical arguments in order to preserve the status of his "sky daddy" stand-alone phrase as an 'argument.' There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking.

---

Atheist always attack the Wrong God. TS always goes after his projection of what he thinks is God. He never responds to inquiries about as God as the spiritual non all powerful god. God as love wedded to science's debunking of a supernatural God of an old theism long since dead results in the reality of God. The reality of God is different that believing amply in the existence of God. The reality of God amongest as love invites a response to God in the existential moment. The arguments over the existence of God results a back and forth that is really, shall I say, nonsensical.
TS simply argues with an old theism that died as a result of the Enlightenment and the eminent scientists contributed A sounder philosophy underlying theology. The church and disciples, should celebrate science's busting up of the old supernatural theism.

---

The "theology" of atheists is is the the theology of the old theism. A tiresome fight that sadly is simply a merry go round.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

joseywales said:

---

A Woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, no one is turning a back to God because you don't even know of there is a personal God. Why people hang on to belief systems created when people were totally uneducated about the world and how it works and how we got here and where we stand in perspective to the whole universe. There is no way a belief system like Christianity or Muslim etc could be created in today's environment of richness of knowledge.

Those human beings that created their belief systems based on their worldly experience and the religion beliefs that came before them. They are all culturally created systems not God made. I agree there seems to be a higher power that may have put all this in motion however as I have said before all of man's religions fall so ridiculously short of a God who could have created the universe.

It is hard to overcome brainwashing started at young ages. RELIGION has thrive on teaching brains these absurd superstitious beliefs like the p
romise of eternal life and a god watching over and protecting you each and every moment of your life. There is overwhelimg evidence today that none of that is true and most likely when you die you die like all the ancestors mankind came from did.

Sin is a man-made idea that helped control the masses and created guilt so churches had power to punish, burn and eliminate any belief system that differed from their own. There was never an Adam and eve and like the rest
Of the so called man in God's form from the other various belief systems, Jesus was just a man.

---

Congratulations, you might have just broken the sicem365 record for the most nonsense written in a single post. Previously held by JB Katz, I think. TXScience and Waco47 were very close contenders.

---

Not near the nonsense of a man made imaginary friend.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

joseywales said:

---

A Woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, no one is turning a back to God because you don't even know of there is a personal God. Why people hang on to belief systems created when people were totally uneducated about the world and how it works and how we got here and where we stand in perspective to the whole universe. There is no way a belief system like Christianity or Muslim etc could be created in today's environment of richness of knowledge.

Those human beings that created their belief systems based on their worldly experience and the religion beliefs that came before them. They are all culturally created systems not God made. I agree there seems to be a higher power that may have put all this in motion however as I have said before all of man's religions fall so ridiculously short of a God who could have created the universe.

It is hard to overcome brainwashing started at young ages. RELIGION has thrive on teaching brains these absurd superstitious beliefs like the p
romise of eternal life and a god watching over and protecting you each and every moment of your life. There is overwhelimg evidence today that none of that is true and most likely when you die you die like all the ancestors mankind came from did.

Sin is a man-made idea that helped control the masses and created guilt so churches had power to punish, burn and eliminate any belief system that differed from their own. There was never an Adam and eve and like the rest
Of the so called man in God's form from the other various belief systems, Jesus was just a man.

---

Congratulations, you might have just broken the sicem365 record for the most nonsense written in a single post. Previously held by JB Katz, I think. TXScience and Waco47 were very close contenders.

---

Not near the nonsense of a man made imaginary friend.

---

I have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. I hope, TexasScientist, that you too can find joy in your life.

joseywales said:

---

That is kind and reasonable response. Refreshing even.

My opnion is people will believe what they are taught to believe and will refuse to open their minds to anything that threats their belief system, this is a natural flight or fight response of Human behavior. It was difficult for me to overcome the same as I was a Christian believer for o er 35 years.

However when faced with insurmountable facts, discoveries and logic , I personally finally realized how absurd all regions were including mine.

If you were to present a flat earth believer with the sailing ship th
at disappears over the horizon very gradually to prove the earth is curved, and explain to him that if the earth were flat it would tip over quickly once more than halfway over, he would not belive it. His beliefs are too grounded to be changed by objective factual information. This is exactly what happens with a believer, you cant convince anyone to chamge t heir belief system with facts. This has been shown throughout history as science has disproven religious beliefs, from the earth being the center of the solar system to we came from two people and created sin in a garden.

Recently I spoke with a catholic believer about a time his priest told his congregation (after it was discovered that there were all types of human beings that came from the same ancient ancestor,, includimg homo sapiens and Neanderthals), That God made homosapiens different and put a soul into us ,unlike the other human species. Well that satisfied everyone for years until again science revealed with objective facts by that over 90 percent of us have Neanderthal DNA and one or two other human trees in our being.

There very may be a such a something as a God who started all this 300 billion galaxies, however any of the religions created thousands of years ago in times of superstion and no way to verify any facts is just propaganda for religious purposes..
.
I finally saw the light and if mankind survives long enough we will finally be able to live in a world without superstition.

---

I'd hope so, but I don't think mankind will survive that long.

Waco1947 said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views.

---

Boyle, Lavoisier, Euler, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Compton, Riemann, LeMaitre, Townes, Gibbs, Gauss, Walton, J J Thomson, Kelvin, Cantor, Babbage, Heisenberg, Davy, and others disagree with you. If you know anything at all about the history of science and mathematics, you will recognize those names. They range from the Enlightenment period to the 20th century.

You make it clear you think Christians are idiots, and that's fine; I've had atheists tell me that before when they found out I was a Christian and they are entitled to their opinion of me. But don't lie and say "especially eminent scientists" are not Christians when even a cursory glance at the history of science show your claim is false. I met numerous very intelligent professors and students at Baylor who were committed Christians, some who were not raised in the faith as children. While I have met a few thoughtful and intelligent atheists, I have also met a lot more village atheists whose only argument is to say the phrase "sky daddy" like it is a deep concept and think it is a slam dunk argument. Talked to one who actually denied that logic was a necessary part of philosophical arguments in order to preserve the status of his "sky daddy" stand-alone phrase as an 'argument.' There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking.

---

Atheist always attack the Wrong God. TS always goes after his projection of what he thinks is God. He never responds to inquiries about as God as the spiritual non all powerful god. God as love wedded to science's debunking of a supernatural God of an old theism long since dead results in the reality of God. The reality of God is different that believing amply in the existence of God. The reality of God amongest as love invites a response to God in the existential moment. The arguments over the existence of God results a back and forth that is really, shall I say, nonsensical.
TS simply argues with an old theism that died as a result of the Enlightenment and the eminent scientists contributed A sounder philosophy underlying theology. The church and disciples, should celebrate science's busting up of the old supernatural theism.

---

A "spiritual non all powerful god" would appear to be an exercise in pointlessness. Why would anyone worship such a god?

Waco1947 says: "God as love wedded to science's debunking of a supernatural God of an old theism long since dead results in the reality of God."

I have read through this sentence a dozen times, but am wholly unable to discern any meaning whatsoever.

While the Bible in fact says that God is love (1 John 4:8), this is immediately followed by:

**In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. **

However, God sending His Son to be the propitiation of our sins is the very "old theism" which Waco1947 rejects, leaving his argument - once again - entirely without scriptural support.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

---

Do I recall you stating that both you and your son are vegetarians? Did you indoctrinate him?

Did you make your child brush his teeth, wash his face, go to bed at a reasonable hour, and eat his veggies?

Parents teach their kids the right things to do. If you want to label that as "indoctrination", more power to you. I do find it interesting that you use these types of loaded terms when discussing this issue.

---

You're trying to twist my words into something I didn't say or believe. I don't have a problem teaching a child right from wrong, or things that promote their general health and welfare, so long as they are taught to think critically for themselves, and to objectively evaluate and question all sources, including parental, cultural, political, institutional, and religious.

Not all parents teach their kids the right things to do. The courts are full of examples around the country, which only represent a small fraction of the total picture.

---

Do you think it's objective, critical thinking to insist that "made in God's image" must only mean that we are comprised of the same molecules as God?

Or does this sound like a bitter, biased person with an agenda?

---

SciGuy gets something in his head and refuses to let it go. He argued for days about 2 accounts of creation in Genesis even after he was repeatedly told 1 was poetry and the other was not.

He doesn't want to let go of what he thinks is a valid point even after the alleged validity is proven wrong.

---

It's two different accounts. Your explanation is a way to rationalize and try to harmonize two separate accounts clearly written by primitive people who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun - both of which are at odds with what we know to be true.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Creation of the earth, parting a sea, feeding 5,000, healing the blind, lepers, deaf, raising the dead - these are all in contradiction od science.

---

That's why they are called miracles. They are well documented and miracles continue to occur in every generation.

---

That you call them miracles does make them historical reality but miracles for 1st century disciples' eyes and ears were real.

---

Serious questions:

Where is God? Look at any human being, loving relationship, just, loving act
How long has He existed? How old is the universe?

---

---

Waco: Look at any human being, loving relationship, just, loving act

I agree, consider a parent counseling their pregnant daughter not to kill her unborn child,

That is love, and love of Life pleases God.

But the woman who enters an abortion clinic turns her back on God, and on protecting Life.

---

I'm not pro abortion, but you can't say that about the God of the OT. That god is characterized as formulating a method for a disgruntled husband to entreat God to cause a miscarriage - Numbers 5. That's not a method for protecting life, not to mention all of the God sponsored attrocities against living women and children in the OT. The god of the OT is not pro-life.

---

Very twisty way you avoid the context of those accounts.

By your thinking, Cain killed Abel and so God must support murder.

---

No, that's your way of trying to twist what I said, which is plainly worded straight out of the OT.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Creation of the earth, parting a sea, feeding 5,000, healing the blind, lepers, deaf, raising the dead - these are all in contradiction od science.

---

That's why they are called miracles. They are well documented and miracles continue to occur in every generation.

---

That you call them miracles does make them historical reality but miracles for 1st century disciples' eyes and ears were real.

---

Serious questions:

Where is God? Look at any human being, loving relationship, just, loving act
How long has He existed? How old is the universe?

---

---

Waco: Look at any human being, loving relationship, just, loving act

I agree, consider a parent counseling their pregnant daughter not to kill her unborn child,

That is love, and love of Life pleases God.

But the woman who enters an abortion clinic turns her back on God, and on protecting Life.

---

I'm not pro abortion, but you can't say that about the God of the OT. That god is characterized as formulating a method for a disgruntled husband to entreat God to cause a miscarriage - Numbers 5. That's not a method for protecting life, not to mention all of the God sponsored attrocities against living women and children in the OT. The god of the OT is not pro-life.

---

Very twisty way you avoid the context of those accounts.

By your thinking, Cain killed Abel and so God must support murder.

---

No, that's your way of trying to twist what I said, which is plainly worded straight out of the OT.

---

<chuckles>

No, you keep displaying a poor grasp of Scripture, which is not surprising since you have no interest in it, but ... no.

Every argument you have posted was refuted long ago.

You certainly are free to believe as you choose, but the idea that you have accomplished anything beyond establishing that you are a curmudgeon at heart is laughable.

I sincerely hope you can find joy and hope in this holiday season, TexasScientist.

joseywales said:

---

So you use the questioned source to say it is a historical document? The gospel authors are unknown and written 40 to 100 years later that the so called historical events happen. The new testament was not officially cannonized untll 370 ad. 100 of years later after the events
The Bible is so obviously a book put together for a certain belief system by men who had an agenda to proliferate their beliefs on to other people
It is no different than other religious books for other belief systems. Written for religious purposes by men. If indeed there was a personal God who wanted to communicate with his creations, don't you think based on what we know about how complex life is and how amazing the 300 billions galaxies are, that he would have chosen a more intelligent way of communicating himself to mankind. Instead we have different cultures making up their own belief systems based on their experience and history.

---

As I recall it wasn't finally resolved until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. That's a lot time for human deliberation to decide what's an idea from God from what isn't. There were quite a few books, some more so than others that circulated around, some of which almost made it into canon i.e. the gospel of James, and Thomas among others. Some that got in, almost didn't. Clearly men had to make the decision what would be scripture, since their god failed to plainly or was unable to tell them. The OT cannon is a whole other story of man made fabrication.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

joseywales said:

---

Well I would say it is hard for most people to overcome a belief system. I just realized all man's religion was invented by man and had nothing to do with a higher power. If people could easily change their belief system religion would be gone because they would be able to accept the obvious facts that we know today.

---

There are many who look at these "obvious facts" and come to a very different conclusion than you did, and become believers in Christianity.

Looking at your previous long post, it's notable that it was edited SEVEN times, yet there are still many misspellings and grammatical errors. Might it be possible that, in likewise fashion, you went back and "edited" your original belief system to what it is now, yet it is still in error?

---

I like your editing analogy. Science edits what we believe to be true about the universe, refining and improving our knowledge to the point that the realm for superstitious belief and mythology is ever shrinking.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'm referring to the several cosmological constants that appear to be fine-tuned. I would have assumed a scientist would have looked into this long ago.

---

I would assume you would have known that it is the cosmological constants that allow for the plausibility of a spontaneous universe.

---

The implausibility of the universe arising with the specific set of 26+ universal constants that are each exquisitely set to a unfathomably precise value that allows for life in our universe is SO, SO great, even virtually impossible, that it led some of the world's most eminent scientists to consider that a mind might be behind the universe.

These eminent scientists are far, far, far more intelligent and knowledgeable than you. You either don't know what you're talking about and are just blowing smoke just to save face, or you think you are smarter than these scientists, which is a complete joke.

---

Wouldn't it be surprising to find ourselves living in a universe impossible for life? That would be a miracle. Clearly this universe was not created or designed for the purpose of life. In spite of the hostility to carbon based life, there are a few places where carbon based life can exist. If you wanted to create a universe for the purpose of life, some of the constants could and would be 'fine tuned' to be even better suited for life than those we observe - yielding a universe even more conducive to carbon based life forms. Life has evolved or fine tuned itself to thrive in a temporary permissive yet overall hostile environment.

Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views. Ken Ham's organizations are not made up of "eminent" scientists. There are a few "eminent" scientists seeking to capitalize on the gullible religious. Those truly eminent few, who want to believe in or allow for the possibility of a higher power, such as Francis Collins, actually believe in evolution, because they know it to be true. I'm not aware of any eminent scientists who are literal believers in the the creation stories. Those few who do allow for a higher power are not conceding that power to be the Canaanite god Yahweh, much less the reinvented Christian version. Rather, they simply allow for what they may believe to be a possibility. Rather, it is religious apologists who seek to boot strap and twist that allowance into their version of god, seeking to create scientific illusion by wrapping their primitive mythology in a pseudo scientific cloak.

---

All points that have already been defeated....you are truly a broken record who is resistant to truth and understanding.

Shouldn't you be checking to see if the real RG III is made up of bronze, since the statue made in his image is made of bronze too?

---

You sound like Putin. Pronouncing victory when there is none.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

.

---

You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.

---

Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?

---

Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?

---

When you make a dumb argument and lose, the answer is not to double down with another dumb argument. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

---

And you think the idea of a man being made in the image of an imaginary god on the lore of primitive people is not dumb?

---

There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.

---

You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.

---

Today, we know so much more that points to God, so we have so much less of an excuse.

---

To borrow a phrase: the arc of scientific discovery (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) bends toward the knowledge of reality, and away from the primitive ignorance of "a god must have done it."

---

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

---

Yes!

---

Very magnanimous of you to concede.

---

Agreeing is not conceding.

---

I was trying to let you be right for once. You screwed that up too.

---

Nice try, but concession would not make me right. I was trying to let us both agree on something. LOL

---

Concession is the only way you'd be right for once. All your arguments fail. Everything you post is full of one-dimensional, narrow-minded, logically fallacious, ridiculously biased, non sequitur and hateful thinking. You've been defeated over and over again, but you keep coming back with failed, recycled arguments. "Made in God's image" can ONLY mean we are comprised of the same molecules as God? This stupidity is intentional. What kind of dialogue can anyone really have with you? You are just a troll who doesn't care about embarrassing himself. And that's just sad. I am convinced you are not truly an atheist. You are just bitter towards God.

---

Quote:

---

Everything you post is full of one-dimensional, narrow-minded, logically fallacious, ridiculously biased, non sequitur and hateful thinking.

---

That is a very good definition of religious mythology (along with the rest of what you wrote).

The rest of your comments reveal who is posting the hateful remarks. Read what you are saying, if you think I'm one with whom it is difficult to dialogue.

---

I'm not the one who resorts to ridiculously stupid non sequitur to further my points.

If I'm being hateful, it's hate of dishonesty and intentional stupidity, the hallmarks of your comments.

---

I'm afraid you just described your version of Christianity. Think about it.

Coke Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I have read the case for Jesus (as well as the Case for Christ and the Case for the resurrection lol). Which argument(s) did you personally find the most convincing?

---

First, kudos to you for legitimately trying. Not many would go to that level of effort in their search.

I feel the best evidence of the faith is the fact that it started and spread despite attempts to crush it. It grew and flourished with nearly 300 years of (on-again and off-again) persecution.

Nearly all historians (Christians, Jewish, Muslim, and even atheists) will agree that a rabbi name Yeshua lived 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, had a great following and was executed for treason.

Having said that, when prophets preached in those times, after their death, their followers quickly abandoned their beliefs.

With Jesus crucifixion, his Way didn't end with him, it spread even though many of his followers were also tortured and executed. Christianity spread in the heart of the pagan Rome during the persecutions under Nero, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Diocletian, Constantius and others.

As Tertullian stated, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."

This was done with peace, not a sword (like Islam.)

---

If surviving trial, tribulation and persecution is your standard for belief, then you should be a Jew. They have a far larger claim to persecution, much of which is at the hands of Christians.

Jesus was a Jew. He taught his beliefs within the confines of Judaism. The early Christians, led by Peter and James and Thomas, remained Jews and taught Christians to follow the law. Their version of Christianity was an offshoot sect of Judaism for Jews. Paul, who never met Jesus, came along later teaching a different version of Christianity, which caught hold in Rome and became the dominant version of many differing beliefs.

Christians have used the sword against Islam, and Christians through their zeal have been known to make martyrs of other Christians.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

---

Do I recall you stating that both you and your son are vegetarians? Did you indoctrinate him?

Did you make your child brush his teeth, wash his face, go to bed at a reasonable hour, and eat his veggies?

Parents teach their kids the right things to do. If you want to label that as "indoctrination", more power to you. I do find it interesting that you use these types of loaded terms when discussing this issue.

---

You're trying to twist my words into something I didn't say or believe. I don't have a problem teaching a child right from wrong, or things that promote their general health and welfare, so long as they are taught to think critically for themselves, and to objectively evaluate and question all sources, including parental, cultural, political, institutional, and religious.

Not all parents teach their kids the right things to do. The courts are full of examples around the country, which only represent a small fraction of the total picture.

---

Do you think it's objective, critical thinking to insist that "made in God's image" must only mean that we are comprised of the same molecules as God?

Or does this sound like a bitter, biased person with an agenda?

---

No, it's pointing out the absurdity of making such a religious claim. What does it mean to be made in his image? It can mean anything you want it to mean. It is an example of another meaningless biblical claim. But if you put it in the context of the time it was written, and the primitive mind beliefs of those who first asserted such a claim, you'd have to consider that they literally believed what they said. They likely believed Yahweh had a physical body that he dwelled in somewhere up in the sky. It was pretty common for primitive people to believe such things about their gods. Surely, you have to recognize that such beliefs call into question all of what they believed. It's for that reason that the whole idea of apologetics has arisen, in order to explain away, rationalize, harmonize and reinterpret primitive beliefs in an effort to make them compatible with what we know is true about the universe, and the acceptable morals and culture of the present.

---

False. The ancient Israelites believed Yahweh was spiritual, not physical, though He could take on physical form if He needed to. In fact, they were strictly forbidden to think of Yahweh as a physical being. Deuteronomy 4:12-18: "You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice....Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth."

---

The faithful are the ones who claim man is made in his image. Yet they believe he can take the form of man, and speak in a man's voice, and they even believe man is spiritual. In reality it is the other way around, where God is made in man's imagination of man's image. The Bible and Christianity had to be put together by man, because god is man made and could not deliver a Devine book by his own hand for dissemination. Instead it is written by men.

If you track the nature of the OT god and compare that nature to the NT god and compare their teachings, clearly they are separate entities.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

joseywales said:

---

A Woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, no one is turning a back to God because you don't even know of there is a personal God. Why people hang on to belief systems created when people were totally uneducated about the world and how it works and how we got here and where we stand in perspective to the whole universe. There is no way a belief system like Christianity or Muslim etc could be created in today's environment of richness of knowledge.

Those human beings that created their belief systems based on their worldly experience and the religion beliefs that came before them. They are all culturally created systems not God made. I agree there seems to be a higher power that may have put all this in motion however as I have said before all of man's religions fall so ridiculously short of a God who could have created the universe.

It is hard to overcome brainwashing started at young ages. RELIGION has thrive on teaching brains these absurd superstitious beliefs like the p
romise of eternal life and a god watching over and protecting you each and every moment of your life. There is overwhelimg evidence today that none of that is true and most likely when you die you die like all the ancestors mankind came from did.

Sin is a man-made idea that helped control the masses and created guilt so churches had power to punish, burn and eliminate any belief system that differed from their own. There was never an Adam and eve and like the rest
Of the so called man in God's form from the other various belief systems, Jesus was just a man.

---

Congratulations, you might have just broken the sicem365 record for the most nonsense written in a single post. Previously held by JB Katz, I think. TXScience and Waco47 were very close contenders.

---

Not near the nonsense of a man made imaginary friend.

---

I have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. I hope, TexasScientist, that you too can find joy in your life.

---

Thank you, but I don't have to find joy. I already have it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Creation of the earth, parting a sea, feeding 5,000, healing the blind, lepers, deaf, raising the dead - these are all in contradiction od science.

---

That's why they are called miracles. They are well documented and miracles continue to occur in every generation.

---

That you call them miracles does make them historical reality but miracles for 1st century disciples' eyes and ears were real.

---

Serious questions:

Where is God? Look at any human being, loving relationship, just, loving act
How long has He existed? How old is the universe?

---

---

Waco: Look at any human being, loving relationship, just, loving act

I agree, consider a parent counseling their pregnant daughter not to kill her unborn child,

That is love, and love of Life pleases God.

But the woman who enters an abortion clinic turns her back on God, and on protecting Life.

---

I'm not pro abortion, but you can't say that about the God of the OT. That god is characterized as formulating a method for a disgruntled husband to entreat God to cause a miscarriage - Numbers 5. That's not a method for protecting life, not to mention all of the God sponsored attrocities against living women and children in the OT. The god of the OT is not pro-life.

---

Very twisty way you avoid the context of those accounts.

By your thinking, Cain killed Abel and so God must support murder.

---

No, that's your way of trying to twist what I said, which is plainly worded straight out of the OT.

---

<chuckles>

No, you keep displaying a poor grasp of Scripture, which is not surprising since you have no interest in it, but ... no.

Every argument you have posted was refuted long ago.

You certainly are free to believe as you choose, but the idea that you have accomplished anything beyond establishing that you are a curmudgeon at heart is laughable.

I sincerely hope you can find joy and hope in this holiday season, TexasScientist.

---

Your pronouncements of defeat don't equal defeat. It's as hollow as Trump pronouncing victory.

Belief in an imaginary friend, I find to be more laughable.

I don't need to find what I already have, but thanks.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views.

---

Boyle, Lavoisier, Euler, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Compton, Riemann, LeMaitre, Townes, Gibbs, Gauss, Walton, J J Thomson, Kelvin, Cantor, Babbage, Heisenberg, Davy, and others disagree with you. If you know anything at all about the history of science and mathematics, you will recognize those names. They range from the Enlightenment period to the 20th century.

You make it clear you think Christians are idiots, and that's fine; I've had atheists tell me that before when they found out I was a Christian and they are entitled to their opinion of me. But don't lie and say "especially eminent scientists" are not Christians when even a cursory glance at the history of science show your claim is false. I met numerous very intelligent professors and students at Baylor who were committed Christians, some who were not raised in the faith as children. While I have met a few thoughtful and intelligent atheists, I have also met a lot more village atheists whose only argument is to say the phrase "sky daddy" like it is a deep concept and think it is a slam dunk argument. Talked to one who actually denied that logic was a necessary part of philosophical arguments in order to preserve the status of his "sky daddy" stand-alone phrase as an 'argument.' There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking.

---

Those were eminent scientists who made scientific advances in their day. Many, as enlightened as they were, were still ignorant by today's knowledge. Most eminent scientists living today do not believe in the god of the OT, NT, and Koran, nor any other man made religion.

Imaginary friend is a better description. Your experience at Baylor is irrelevant to reality, and what we know to be compatible with science.

TexasScientist said:

---

As I recall it wasn't finally resolved until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. That's a lot time for human deliberation to decide what's an idea from God from what isn't. There were quite a few books, some more so than others that circulated around, some of which almost made it into canon i.e. the gospel of James, and Thomas among others. Some that got in, almost didn't. Clearly men had to make the decision what would be scripture, since their god failed to plainly or was unable to tell them. The OT cannon is a whole other story of man made fabrication.

---

You are misunderstanding the situation to fit your narrative.

The canon of 73 books was culminated in in 382 as the Council of Rome. Affirmed again in Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). It was solemnly defined in Trent (1546) when Martin Luther and other Protestant leaders removed 7 books of the deuterocanon during the Protestant rebellion.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.

---

Do I recall you stating that both you and your son are vegetarians? Did you indoctrinate him?

Did you make your child brush his teeth, wash his face, go to bed at a reasonable hour, and eat his veggies?

Parents teach their kids the right things to do. If you want to label that as "indoctrination", more power to you. I do find it interesting that you use these types of loaded terms when discussing this issue.

---

You're trying to twist my words into something I didn't say or believe. I don't have a problem teaching a child right from wrong, or things that promote their general health and welfare, so long as they are taught to think critically for themselves, and to objectively evaluate and question all sources, including parental, cultural, political, institutional, and religious.

Not all parents teach their kids the right things to do. The courts are full of examples around the country, which only represent a small fraction of the total picture.

---

Do you think it's objective, critical thinking to insist that "made in God's image" must only mean that we are comprised of the same molecules as God?

Or does this sound like a bitter, biased person with an agenda?

---

No, it's pointing out the absurdity of making such a religious claim. What does it mean to be made in his image? It can mean anything you want it to mean. It is an example of another meaningless biblical claim. But if you put it in the context of the time it was written, and the primitive mind beliefs of those who first asserted such a claim, you'd have to consider that they literally believed what they said. They likely believed Yahweh had a physical body that he dwelled in somewhere up in the sky. It was pretty common for primitive people to believe such things about their gods. Surely, you have to recognize that such beliefs call into question all of what they believed. It's for that reason that the whole idea of apologetics has arisen, in order to explain away, rationalize, harmonize and reinterpret primitive beliefs in an effort to make them compatible with what we know is true about the universe, and the acceptable morals and culture of the present.

---

False. The ancient Israelites believed Yahweh was spiritual, not physical, though He could take on physical form if He needed to. In fact, they were strictly forbidden to think of Yahweh as a physical being. Deuteronomy 4:12-18: "You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice....Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth."

---

The faithful are the ones who claim man is made in his image. Yet they believe he can take the form of man, and speak in a man's voice, and they even believe man is spiritual. In reality it is the other way around, where God is made in man's imagination of man's image. The Bible and Christianity had to be put together by man, because god is man made and could not deliver a Devine book by his own hand for dissemination. Instead it is written by men.

If you track the nature of the OT god and compare that nature to the NT god and compare their teachings, clearly they are separate entities.

---

Obviously, you failed to read to the end of the book (Revelation). The same OT God is going to have His day of judgement. You also apparently failed to understand what the NT was all about - God temporarily witholding His judgement for a time of grace, where He throws a lifeline to all those who want to escape that terrible Day. When we get to the end, I'll bet you won't be thinking that they were clearly separate entities.

TexasScientist said:

---

Those were eminent scientists who made scientific advances in their day. Many, as enlightened as they were, were still ignorant by today's knowledge. Most eminent scientists living today do not believe in the god of the OT, NT, and Koran, nor any other man made religion.

Imaginary friend is a better description. Your experience at Baylor is irrelevant to reality, and what we know to be compatible with science.

---

Dude, you continue to "move the goal post" each time someone refutes your comment.

I'll propose a few ...

Dr. Stacy Trasancos - PhD in Chemistry BEFORE converting to Catholicism.
Fr. Stanley Jaki (Died 2009)- Brilliant theologian and physicist that was named one of five Catholic scientists "that shaped our understanding of the world" by Aleteia. (Others were Copernicus, Mendel, Mercallie, and Lemaitre-3. Fr. Georges Lemaitre, S.J. (1894-1966)
The Father of the Big Bang Theory)
Fr. Robert Spitzer - Physicist and theologian

TexasScientist said:

---

Jesus was a Jew. He taught his beliefs within the confines of Judaism. The early Christians, led by Peter and James and Thomas, remained Jews and taught Christians to follow the law. Their version of Christianity was an offshoot sect of Judaism for Jews. Paul, who never met Jesus, came along later teaching a different version of Christianity, which caught hold in Rome and became the dominant version of many differing beliefs.

---

Once again, many half truths in here. Peter and Paul spread the same message, but to different peoples. Peter ended his ministry in Rome when he was crucified in Rome under (most likely) Nero. That's why his bones were found there.

TexasScientist said:

---

Christians have used the sword against Islam, and Christians through their zeal have been known to make martyrs of other Christians.

---

Never said that Christians didn't shed the blood of Muslims. I said that Islam spread thru violence. Christianity spread thru peace.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

joseywales said:

---

A Woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, no one is turning a back to God because you don't even know of there is a personal God. Why people hang on to belief systems created when people were totally uneducated about the world and how it works and how we got here and where we stand in perspective to the whole universe. There is no way a belief system like Christianity or Muslim etc could be created in today's environment of richness of knowledge.

Those human beings that created their belief systems based on their worldly experience and the religion beliefs that came before them. They are all culturally created systems not God made. I agree there seems to be a higher power that may have put all this in motion however as I have said before all of man's religions fall so ridiculously short of a God who could have created the universe.

It is hard to overcome brainwashing started at young ages. RELIGION has thrive on teaching brains these absurd superstitious beliefs like the p
romise of eternal life and a god watching over and protecting you each and every moment of your life. There is overwhelimg evidence today that none of that is true and most likely when you die you die like all the ancestors mankind came from did.

Sin is a man-made idea that helped control the masses and created guilt so churches had power to punish, burn and eliminate any belief system that differed from their own. There was never an Adam and eve and like the rest
Of the so called man in God's form from the other various belief systems, Jesus was just a man.

---

Congratulations, you might have just broken the sicem365 record for the most nonsense written in a single post. Previously held by JB Katz, I think. TXScience and Waco47 were very close contenders.

---

Not near the nonsense of a man made imaginary friend.

---

I have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. I hope, TexasScientist, that you too can find joy in your life.

---

Thank you, but I don't have to find joy. I already have it.

---

Odd. I don't see it in your posts.

TexasScientist said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views.

---

Boyle, Lavoisier, Euler, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Compton, Riemann, LeMaitre, Townes, Gibbs, Gauss, Walton, J J Thomson, Kelvin, Cantor, Babbage, Heisenberg, Davy, and others disagree with you. If you know anything at all about the history of science and mathematics, you will recognize those names. They range from the Enlightenment period to the 20th century.

You make it clear you think Christians are idiots, and that's fine; I've had atheists tell me that before when they found out I was a Christian and they are entitled to their opinion of me. But don't lie and say "especially eminent scientists" are not Christians when even a cursory glance at the history of science show your claim is false. I met numerous very intelligent professors and students at Baylor who were committed Christians, some who were not raised in the faith as children. While I have met a few thoughtful and intelligent atheists, I have also met a lot more village atheists whose only argument is to say the phrase "sky daddy" like it is a deep concept and think it is a slam dunk argument. Talked to one who actually denied that logic was a necessary part of philosophical arguments in order to preserve the status of his "sky daddy" stand-alone phrase as an 'argument.' There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking.

---

Those were eminent scientists who made scientific advances in their day. Many, as enlightened as they were, were still ignorant by today's knowledge. Most eminent scientists living today do not believe in the god of the OT, NT, and Koran, nor any other man made religion.

Imaginary friend is a better description. Your experience at Baylor is irrelevant to reality, and what we know to be compatible with science.

---

You didn't qualify it as "today's" eminent scientists. You made a universal claim and now you are backtracking. This last post really strikes me as an "In this moment, I am euphoric" meme post. You claim superiority to some of the greatest scientists because they were Christians. That is pretty hubristic. It's pretty laughable to say Heisenberg or Reimann were ignorant people compared to you. I also guess the 19th and 20th century scientists that were mentioned lived in the dark ages according to you?

My experience at Baylor was real, despite your claim that it was not. I met plenty of very intelligent and well-read people by the standards of "today's knowledge" who were committed Christians. I have met atheists who couldn't find the first page of a beginner's logic book. Your denial of that reality does not make it so, and it's very strange to say that my empirical encounters with these people is "not compatible with science." That doesn't even make sense.

There is a lot more to what science is, historically, epistemologically, and metaphysically, than you seem to be aware of. The fusion of mathematics and experimental methods generated out of Descartes' (another Christian) philosophy doesn't entail anything about the world other than that there is an isomorphism between mathematics (an idealistic non-empirical field that lies outside the field of science) and experimental science that can be used to study the material aspect of the world. To make a metaphysics out of this form of science, over and above just being a practitioner of science, brings a whole set of problems along with it. I still haven't found a scientist, for example, who has completely answered Hume's arguments about the problem of causal necessity, and scientists who aren't averse to investigating the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of science are grappling with the problems of what constitutes scientific truth. Even in mathematics there has been a logical breakdown in the goal of truth-completeness in the early 20th century. Science is not the absolute that has the "truth" locked down you make it out to be either in regard to content or method. You would benefit from reading works on the philosophy of science to break you out of your scientism ideology. The scientific world is a lot richer and puzzling than you think it is.

I'll say it again - There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking. Your denial of the truth of that statement is irrelevant to the reality of its truth. The fact you stick by the "sky daddy" phrase (even if you dress it up as "imaginary friend") shows your position is ultimately rhetorical and not rationally based.

TexasScientist said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views.

---

Boyle, Lavoisier, Euler, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Compton, Riemann, LeMaitre, Townes, Gibbs, Gauss, Walton, J J Thomson, Kelvin, Cantor, Babbage, Heisenberg, Davy, and others disagree with you. If you know anything at all about the history of science and mathematics, you will recognize those names. They range from the Enlightenment period to the 20th century.

You make it clear you think Christians are idiots, and that's fine; I've had atheists tell me that before when they found out I was a Christian and they are entitled to their opinion of me. But don't lie and say "especially eminent scientists" are not Christians when even a cursory glance at the history of science show your claim is false. I met numerous very intelligent professors and students at Baylor who were committed Christians, some who were not raised in the faith as children. While I have met a few thoughtful and intelligent atheists, I have also met a lot more village atheists whose only argument is to say the phrase "sky daddy" like it is a deep concept and think it is a slam dunk argument. Talked to one who actually denied that logic was a necessary part of philosophical arguments in order to preserve the status of his "sky daddy" stand-alone phrase as an 'argument.' There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking.

---

Those were eminent scientists who made scientific advances in their day. Many, as enlightened as they were, were still ignorant by today's knowledge. Most eminent scientists living today do not believe in the god of the OT, NT, and Koran, nor any other man made religion.

Imaginary friend is a better description. Your experience at Baylor is irrelevant to reality, and what we know to be compatible with science.

---

"Your experience…is irrelevant to reality." - A scientist?

BearlySpeaking said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views.

---

Boyle, Lavoisier, Euler, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Compton, Riemann, LeMaitre, Townes, Gibbs, Gauss, Walton, J J Thomson, Kelvin, Cantor, Babbage, Heisenberg, Davy, and others disagree with you. If you know anything at all about the history of science and mathematics, you will recognize those names. They range from the Enlightenment period to the 20th century.

You make it clear you think Christians are idiots, and that's fine; I've had atheists tell me that before when they found out I was a Christian and they are entitled to their opinion of me. But don't lie and say "especially eminent scientists" are not Christians when even a cursory glance at the history of science show your claim is false. I met numerous very intelligent professors and students at Baylor who were committed Christians, some who were not raised in the faith as children. While I have met a few thoughtful and intelligent atheists, I have also met a lot more village atheists whose only argument is to say the phrase "sky daddy" like it is a deep concept and think it is a slam dunk argument. Talked to one who actually denied that logic was a necessary part of philosophical arguments in order to preserve the status of his "sky daddy" stand-alone phrase as an 'argument.' There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking.

---

Those were eminent scientists who made scientific advances in their day. Many, as enlightened as they were, were still ignorant by today's knowledge. Most eminent scientists living today do not believe in the god of the OT, NT, and Koran, nor any other man made religion.

Imaginary friend is a better description. Your experience at Baylor is irrelevant to reality, and what we know to be compatible with science.

---

You didn't qualify it as "today's" eminent scientists. You made a universal claim and now you are backtracking. This last post really strikes me as an "In this moment, I am euphoric" meme post. You claim superiority to some of the greatest scientists because they were Christians. That is pretty hubristic. It's pretty laughable to say Heisenberg or Reimann were ignorant people compared to you. I also guess the 19th and 20th century scientists that were mentioned lived in the dark ages according to you?

My experience at Baylor was real, despite your claim that it was not. I met plenty of very intelligent and well-read people by the standards of "today's knowledge" who were committed Christians. I have met atheists who couldn't find the first page of a beginner's logic book. Your denial of that reality does not make it so, and it's very strange to say that my empirical encounters with these people is "not compatible with science." That doesn't even make sense.

There is a lot more to what science is, historically, epistemologically, and metaphysically, than you seem to be aware of. The fusion of mathematics and experimental methods generated out of Descartes philosophy doesn't entail anything about the world other than that there is an isomorphism between mathematics (an idealistic non-empirical field that lies outside the field of science) and experimental science that can be used to study the material aspect of the world. To make a metaphysics out of this form of science, over and above just being a practitioner of science, brings a whole set of problems along with it. I still haven't found a scientist, for example, who has completely answered Hume's arguments about the problem of causal necessity, and scientists who aren't averse to investigating the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of science are grappling with the problems of what constitutes scientific truth. Even in mathematics there has been a logical breakdown in the goal of truth-completeness in the early 20th century. Science is not the absolute that has the "truth" locked down you make it out to be either in regard to content or method. You would benefit from reading works on the philosophy of science to break you out of your scientism ideology. The scientific world is a lot richer and puzzling than you think it is.

I'll say it again - There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking. Your denial of the truth of that statement is irrelevant to the reality of its truth. The fact you stick by the "sky daddy" phrase (even if you dress it up as "imaginary friend") shows your position is ultimately rhetorical and not rationally based.

---

In regards to your first paragraph, any collection of SciGuy's post will demonstrate a lack of humility.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Those were eminent scientists who made scientific advances in their day. Many, as enlightened as they were, were still ignorant by today's knowledge. Most eminent scientists living today do not believe in the god of the OT, NT, and Koran, nor any other man made religion.

Imaginary friend is a better description. Your experience at Baylor is irrelevant to reality, and what we know to be compatible with science.

---

Dude, you continue to "move the goal post" each time someone refutes your comment.

I'll propose a few ...

Dr. Stacy Trasancos - PhD in Chemistry BEFORE converting to Catholicism.
Fr. Stanley Jaki (Died 2009)- Brilliant theologian and physicist that was named one of five Catholic scientists "that shaped our understanding of the world" by Aleteia. (Others were Copernicus, Mendel, Mercallie, and Lemaitre-3. Fr. Georges Lemaitre, S.J. (1894-1966)
The Father of the Big Bang Theory)
Fr. Robert Spitzer - Physicist and theologian

---

And…..? One can be intelligent, and yet ignorant. If they had the benefit of the knowledge we have today, they may have held a different belief. The more we learn of this universe, the less need there is for a god.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

joseywales said:

---

A Woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, no one is turning a back to God because you don't even know of there is a personal God. Why people hang on to belief systems created when people were totally uneducated about the world and how it works and how we got here and where we stand in perspective to the whole universe. There is no way a belief system like Christianity or Muslim etc could be created in today's environment of richness of knowledge.

Those human beings that created their belief systems based on their worldly experience and the religion beliefs that came before them. They are all culturally created systems not God made. I agree there seems to be a higher power that may have put all this in motion however as I have said before all of man's religions fall so ridiculously short of a God who could have created the universe.

It is hard to overcome brainwashing started at young ages. RELIGION has thrive on teaching brains these absurd superstitious beliefs like the p
romise of eternal life and a god watching over and protecting you each and every moment of your life. There is overwhelimg evidence today that none of that is true and most likely when you die you die like all the ancestors mankind came from did.

Sin is a man-made idea that helped control the masses and created guilt so churches had power to punish, burn and eliminate any belief system that differed from their own. There was never an Adam and eve and like the rest
Of the so called man in God's form from the other various belief systems, Jesus was just a man.

---

Congratulations, you might have just broken the sicem365 record for the most nonsense written in a single post. Previously held by JB Katz, I think. TXScience and Waco47 were very close contenders.

---

Not near the nonsense of a man made imaginary friend.

---

I have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. I hope, TexasScientist, that you too can find joy in your life.

---

Thank you, but I don't have to find joy. I already have it.

---

Odd. I don't see it in your posts.

---

I wonder if that has anything to do with your posts?

BearlySpeaking said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views.

---

Boyle, Lavoisier, Euler, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Compton, Riemann, LeMaitre, Townes, Gibbs, Gauss, Walton, J J Thomson, Kelvin, Cantor, Babbage, Heisenberg, Davy, and others disagree with you. If you know anything at all about the history of science and mathematics, you will recognize those names. They range from the Enlightenment period to the 20th century.

You make it clear you think Christians are idiots, and that's fine; I've had atheists tell me that before when they found out I was a Christian and they are entitled to their opinion of me. But don't lie and say "especially eminent scientists" are not Christians when even a cursory glance at the history of science show your claim is false. I met numerous very intelligent professors and students at Baylor who were committed Christians, some who were not raised in the faith as children. While I have met a few thoughtful and intelligent atheists, I have also met a lot more village atheists whose only argument is to say the phrase "sky daddy" like it is a deep concept and think it is a slam dunk argument. Talked to one who actually denied that logic was a necessary part of philosophical arguments in order to preserve the status of his "sky daddy" stand-alone phrase as an 'argument.' There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking.

---

Those were eminent scientists who made scientific advances in their day. Many, as enlightened as they were, were still ignorant by today's knowledge. Most eminent scientists living today do not believe in the god of the OT, NT, and Koran, nor any other man made religion.

Imaginary friend is a better description. Your experience at Baylor is irrelevant to reality, and what we know to be compatible with science.

---

You didn't qualify it as "today's" eminent scientists. You made a universal claim and now you are backtracking. This last post really strikes me as an "In this moment, I am euphoric" meme post. You claim superiority to some of the greatest scientists because they were Christians. That is pretty hubristic. It's pretty laughable to say Heisenberg or Reimann were ignorant people compared to you. I also guess the 19th and 20th century scientists that were mentioned lived in the dark ages according to you?

My experience at Baylor was real, despite your claim that it was not. I met plenty of very intelligent and well-read people by the standards of "today's knowledge" who were committed Christians. I have met atheists who couldn't find the first page of a beginner's logic book. Your denial of that reality does not make it so, and it's very strange to say that my empirical encounters with these people is "not compatible with science." That doesn't even make sense.

There is a lot more to what science is, historically, epistemologically, and metaphysically, than you seem to be aware of. The fusion of mathematics and experimental methods generated out of Descartes' (another Christian) philosophy doesn't entail anything about the world other than that there is an isomorphism between mathematics (an idealistic non-empirical field that lies outside the field of science) and experimental science that can be used to study the material aspect of the world. To make a metaphysics out of this form of science, over and above just being a practitioner of science, brings a whole set of problems along with it. I still haven't found a scientist, for example, who has completely answered Hume's arguments about the problem of causal necessity, and scientists who aren't averse to investigating the epistemological and metaphysical foundations of science are grappling with the problems of what constitutes scientific truth. Even in mathematics there has been a logical breakdown in the goal of truth-completeness in the early 20th century. Science is not the absolute that has the "truth" locked down you make it out to be either in regard to content or method. You would benefit from reading works on the philosophy of science to break you out of your scientism ideology. The scientific world is a lot richer and puzzling than you think it is.

I'll say it again - There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking. Your denial of the truth of that statement is irrelevant to the reality of its truth. The fact you stick by the "sky daddy" phrase (even if you dress it up as "imaginary friend") shows your position is ultimately rhetorical and not rationally based.

---

I'm using the term your brought up. It's all about context. Science is how we unlock truth from the shackles of ignorance and cultural beliefs. Isn't it remarkable, in spite of it's historical origins and the prejudices of those origins, that science has been able to reveal what we know of the universe today. We'll know even more in the future.

Imaginary friend is not rhetorical. All monotheistic religions are predicated upon an imaginary being.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views.

---

Boyle, Lavoisier, Euler, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Compton, Riemann, LeMaitre, Townes, Gibbs, Gauss, Walton, J J Thomson, Kelvin, Cantor, Babbage, Heisenberg, Davy, and others disagree with you. If you know anything at all about the history of science and mathematics, you will recognize those names. They range from the Enlightenment period to the 20th century.

You make it clear you think Christians are idiots, and that's fine; I've had atheists tell me that before when they found out I was a Christian and they are entitled to their opinion of me. But don't lie and say "especially eminent scientists" are not Christians when even a cursory glance at the history of science show your claim is false. I met numerous very intelligent professors and students at Baylor who were committed Christians, some who were not raised in the faith as children. While I have met a few thoughtful and intelligent atheists, I have also met a lot more village atheists whose only argument is to say the phrase "sky daddy" like it is a deep concept and think it is a slam dunk argument. Talked to one who actually denied that logic was a necessary part of philosophical arguments in order to preserve the status of his "sky daddy" stand-alone phrase as an 'argument.' There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking.

---

Those were eminent scientists who made scientific advances in their day. Many, as enlightened as they were, were still ignorant by today's knowledge. Most eminent scientists living today do not believe in the god of the OT, NT, and Koran, nor any other man made religion.

Imaginary friend is a better description. Your experience at Baylor is irrelevant to reality, and what we know to be compatible with science.

---

"Your experience…is irrelevant to reality." - A scientist?

---

What you think you learned at Baylor has no bearing on the truth of reality.