TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.

But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.

---

I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.

---

then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.

---

We worship God, not Science.

Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.

---

Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?

---

You have just made the case for why science is limited.

---

No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.

---

If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.

Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.

---

Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.

Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.

---

Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.

---

You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?

---

You cannot assign value to life with the principles of science. Science is value-neutral.

---

You're jousting at the wind. Science is value neutral. However, one certainly can use the principles of science to determine value. IMO that is a much preferred way as opposed to assigning value from a culturally derived religion.

---

There are no moral values in a test tube. If you're seeing them, it's because you brought your own culturally derived values to the lab with you.

The failure to understand this is one of the most dangerous errors of modernity.

---

I think we have no argument here. This is what I have been saying. Morality is a cultural construct. That construct can be founded upon arbitrary religious imaginations of men, or it can be based upon evaluation of what is scientifically observed and testable to be conducive to the individual and collective well being of other sentient life forms. Regardless, morality is what culture and society determine to be moral. I would much rather morality be based upon what is conducive to the well being of others, than on the imagined edicts and traditions of a culture rooted in an institutionalized organization such as those in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic primitive traditions.

---

Sure, or it can be based on what's scientifically observed to be conducive to my well-being at the expense of yours. Or it can be based on what's scientifically observed to be conducive to the well-being of the state at the expense of the person. Or what's scientifically observed to be conducive to the the well-being of the master race at the expense of lesser races. If you really believe morality is nothing but what culture and society determine, it can be literally anything.

---

Or it can be what some religious leader says he received through divine revelation, such as a chosen master race ordered to slaughter men women and children and animals for the benefit of gaining their land. It can be anything a cleric or imam or religious institution determines. That's why it's better for morality to be evaluated scientifically in secular terms of human wellbeing, what is harmful, and equitable. Science is an impartial tool that can be used for the wellbeing of everyone. Western culture has in part followed this path, and to that end we have the most equitable society in the world. There is still a lot to be desired and improved upon.

---

Thanks for acknowledging that science is an impartial tool. That being so, will you also acknowledge that it can be used to the detriment as well as the benefit of humanity?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.

But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.

---

I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.

---

then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.

---

We worship God, not Science.

Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.

---

Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?

---

You have just made the case for why science is limited.

---

No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.

---

If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.

Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.

---

Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.

Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.

---

Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.

---

You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?

---

You cannot assign value to life with the principles of science. Science is value-neutral.

---

You're jousting at the wind. Science is value neutral. However, one certainly can use the principles of science to determine value. IMO that is a much preferred way as opposed to assigning value from a culturally derived religion.

---

There are no moral values in a test tube. If you're seeing them, it's because you brought your own culturally derived values to the lab with you.

The failure to understand this is one of the most dangerous errors of modernity.

---

I think we have no argument here. This is what I have been saying. Morality is a cultural construct. That construct can be founded upon arbitrary religious imaginations of men, or it can be based upon evaluation of what is scientifically observed and testable to be conducive to the individual and collective well being of other sentient life forms. Regardless, morality is what culture and society determine to be moral. I would much rather morality be based upon what is conducive to the well being of others, than on the imagined edicts and traditions of a culture rooted in an institutionalized organization such as those in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic primitive traditions.

---

Sure, or it can be based on what's scientifically observed to be conducive to my well-being at the expense of yours. Or it can be based on what's scientifically observed to be conducive to the well-being of the state at the expense of the person. Or what's scientifically observed to be conducive to the the well-being of the master race at the expense of lesser races. If you really believe morality is nothing but what culture and society determine, it can be literally anything.

---

Or it can be what some religious leader says he received through divine revelation, such as a chosen master race ordered to slaughter men women and children and animals for the benefit of gaining their land. It can be anything a cleric or imam or religious institution determines. That's why it's better for morality to be evaluated scientifically in secular terms of human wellbeing, what is harmful, and equitable. Science is an impartial tool that can be used for the wellbeing of everyone. Western culture has in part followed this path, and to that end we have the most equitable society in the world. There is still a lot to be desired and improved upon.

---

Scientific principles do not tell us that the wellbeing of everyone has value, nor that "equitable" is good. Morality cannot be determined by science because science does not address morality.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.

But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.

---

I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.

---

then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.

---

We worship God, not Science.

Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.

---

Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?

---

You have just made the case for why science is limited.

---

No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.

---

If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.

Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.

---

Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.

Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.

---

Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.

---

You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?

---

You cannot assign value to life with the principles of science. Science is value-neutral.

---

You're jousting at the wind. Science is value neutral. However, one certainly can use the principles of science to determine value. IMO that is a much preferred way as opposed to assigning value from a culturally derived religion.

---

There are no moral values in a test tube. If you're seeing them, it's because you brought your own culturally derived values to the lab with you.

The failure to understand this is one of the most dangerous errors of modernity.

---

I think we have no argument here. This is what I have been saying. Morality is a cultural construct. That construct can be founded upon arbitrary religious imaginations of men, or it can be based upon evaluation of what is scientifically observed and testable to be conducive to the individual and collective well being of other sentient life forms. Regardless, morality is what culture and society determine to be moral. I would much rather morality be based upon what is conducive to the well being of others, than on the imagined edicts and traditions of a culture rooted in an institutionalized organization such as those in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic primitive traditions.

---

Sure, or it can be based on what's scientifically observed to be conducive to my well-being at the expense of yours. Or it can be based on what's scientifically observed to be conducive to the well-being of the state at the expense of the person. Or what's scientifically observed to be conducive to the the well-being of the master race at the expense of lesser races. If you really believe morality is nothing but what culture and society determine, it can be literally anything.

---

Or it can be what some religious leader says he received through divine revelation, such as a chosen master race ordered to slaughter men women and children and animals for the benefit of gaining their land. It can be anything a cleric or imam or religious institution determines. That's why it's better for morality to be evaluated scientifically in secular terms of human wellbeing, what is harmful, and equitable. Science is an impartial tool that can be used for the wellbeing of everyone. Western culture has in part followed this path, and to that end we have the most equitable society in the world. There is still a lot to be desired and improved upon.

---

Seems to me value neutral science has nothing to say whatsoever re morality. Clearly, we can observe that certain behaviors benefit the proliferation of some species, but assigning any sort of value to that observation is strictly in the realm of morality which can only be derived from culture, not science.You are only making an assertion that human wellbeing is even desirable. Why is that so? Are we not merely random accidents of time and space devoid of any transcendent meaning trapped in the ultimate solipsism? I agree science can tell us about what is, but it cannot assign any value to those observations.

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Total BS. The Nazis killed a lot of ministers and priests, by the way, or is that an inconvenience for your bigotry?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Total BS. The Nazis killed a lot of ministers and priests, by the way, or is that an inconvenience for your bigotry?

---

I recognize that some priests were killed, but that was of no fault of the the Vatican which was essentially neutral during the war.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Total BS. The Nazis killed a lot of ministers and priests, by the way, or is that an inconvenience for your bigotry?

---

I recognize that some priests were killed, but that was of no fault of the the Vatican which was essentially neutral during the war.

---

Christianity is a lot more than the Pope or the Roman Catholics. But i recognize the stale bigotry of those who rely on spite rather than reason.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Total BS. The Nazis killed a lot of ministers and priests, by the way, or is that an inconvenience for your bigotry?

---

Who are you to say Hitler was wrong? He was just culturally defining morality like anyone else might in a meaningless, random universe.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Saying that Hitler's opposition to Christianity is "sketchy and a stretch" is massively ignorant.

TexasScientist said:

---

The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany.

---

This is EXTREMELY false. Pope Pius XII was regarded as a hero for his work to support Jews in Italy. He allowed many of them to live in the Vatican to protect them. The chief rabbi of Rome actually converted to Catholicism because he saw the compassion of the Pope.

Pius XII was actually ordered to be kidnapped and assassinated by Hitler, fortunately the person charged with that mission did not carry it out.

Finally, it wasn't until 1963 when an awful and fictitious play came out did the world narrative start to change about the Pius XII. Sadly the Church has been fighting this propaganda since that time.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Total BS. The Nazis killed a lot of ministers and priests, by the way, or is that an inconvenience for your bigotry?

---

Who are you to say Hitler was wrong? He was just culturally defining morality like anyone else might in a meaningless, random universe.

---

The "Christian" world appeased Hitler. Unfortunately, most of the world didn't seriously resist him until he attacked (or in our case the Japanese) their countries. Although we did lend some financial support before we entered the war. The point is, Christianity had very little to do with defeating or resisting Nazi Germany. Germany was a predominantly Christian country, with a large Catholic population. Christians served in the German military, and in the Nazi party. Outside of some local clergy and individuals, there was little to no organized resistance from Christian organizations. Gott Mit Uns was emblazoned on the German uniform belt buckles.

Today, the U. S. Christian community is blindly following another impulsive narcissist sociopath, in some ways analogous to how Christians in Germany followed their sociopath. Who would have thought the U. S. Christians would align themselves with a want to be strong man president, in appeasing and acquiescing to a murderous Russian dictator?

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany.

---

This is EXTREMELY false. Pope Pius XII was regarded as a hero for his work to support Jews in Italy. He allowed many of them to live in the Vatican to protect them. The chief rabbi of Rome actually converted to Catholicism because he saw the compassion of the Pope.

Pius XII was actually ordered to be kidnapped and assassinated by Hitler, fortunately the person charged with that mission did not carry it out.

Finally, it wasn't until 1963 when an awful and fictitious play came out did the world narrative start to change about the Pius XII. Sadly the Church has been fighting this propaganda since that time.

---

Dedicated historical research has exposed Pope Pius.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone. Their comments demonstrate that any misplaced dogma can seek to use science for its ends. It is Communist and Nazi dogma and ideology that drove Stalin and Hitler, not science in and of itself. We used science to defeat Germany and Japan.

"In fact, Hitler's real views on Christianity were so bizarre that they would actually be amusing in their imaginative eccentricity, if not for the fact that they were part of the worldview of a psychopath whose genocidal policies killed 11 million civilians and unleashed the bloodiest war in history. Weikart writes that Hitler, like his favorite philosopher, Nietzsche, disliked Christianity, but admired the figure of Jesus Christ. In Hitler's view, Jesus himself was a Roman or Greek (Hitler believed that the ancient Greeks and Romans were the precursors of the Nordic "master race") killed by the perfidious Jews." - The Catholic World Report

If it wasn't for the complacency and ambivalence, at best, of Christian Germans and Italians, there would not have been a Nazi or Fascist Germany and Italy. Christianity has no unique claim to historical virtue. In fact, its quite the opposite.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Total BS. The Nazis killed a lot of ministers and priests, by the way, or is that an inconvenience for your bigotry?

---

Who are you to say Hitler was wrong? He was just culturally defining morality like anyone else might in a meaningless, random universe.

---

The "Christian" world appeased Hitler. Unfortunately, most of the world didn't seriously resist him until he attacked (or in our case the Japanese) their countries. Although we did lend some financial support before we entered the war. The point is, Christianity had very little to do with defeating or resisting Nazi Germany. Germany was a predominantly Christian country, with a large Catholic population. Christians served in the German military, and in the Nazi party. Outside of some local clergy and individuals, there was little to no organized resistance from Christian organizations. Gott Mit Uns was emblazoned on the German uniform belt buckles.

Today, the U. S. Christian community is blindly following another impulsive narcissist sociopath, in some ways analogous to how Christians in Germany followed their sociopath. Who would have thought the U. S. Christians would align themselves with a want to be strong man president, in appeasing and acquiescing to a murderous Russian dictator?

---

The point is that you are an ignorant moron to say Hitler's opposition to Christianity was "sketchy and a stretch."

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.
George Bernard Shaw

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

When you declare "God is all power" or "The implied creator of the universe. You are making scientific statements and misusing science and it's basic principles, physics, chemistry and biology.
If you step in science"s world of problem solving, understanding the universe then you must use science to prove your claim.
And TXS and I say "You can't."
Science is not theology's forte.
Theology's forte is love, spiritual, grace, faith.
Science does play in that playground they go den hall to science hall

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

When you declare "God is all power" or "The implied creator of the universe. You are making scientific statements and misusing science and it's basic principles, physics, chemistry and biology.
If you step in science"s world of problem solving, understanding the universe then you must use science to prove your claim.
And TXS and I say "You can't."
Science is not theology's forte.
Theology's forte is love, spiritual, grace, faith.
Science does play in that playground they go den hall to science hall

---

If you want to keep repeating the same thing over and over, you'll keep getting the same response. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

Harm or wellbeing metrics.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

Harm or wellbeing metrics.

---

Whose well-being? Mine? Yours? The Aryan race's?

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Total BS. The Nazis killed a lot of ministers and priests, by the way, or is that an inconvenience for your bigotry?

---

Who are you to say Hitler was wrong? He was just culturally defining morality like anyone else might in a meaningless, random universe.

---

The "Christian" world appeased Hitler. Unfortunately, most of the world didn't seriously resist him until he attacked (or in our case the Japanese) their countries. Although we did lend some financial support before we entered the war. The point is, Christianity had very little to do with defeating or resisting Nazi Germany. Germany was a predominantly Christian country, with a large Catholic population. Christians served in the German military, and in the Nazi party. Outside of some local clergy and individuals, there was little to no organized resistance from Christian organizations. Gott Mit Uns was emblazoned on the German uniform belt buckles.

Today, the U. S. Christian community is blindly following another impulsive narcissist sociopath, in some ways analogous to how Christians in Germany followed their sociopath. Who would have thought the U. S. Christians would align themselves with a want to be strong man president, in appeasing and acquiescing to a murderous Russian dictator?

---

You still don't understand the basic reason Christians "would align themselves with a want to be strong man president". Nothing blind about it. It is you who are blind.

The Key concept is an old theism dead. God is real;.New theism based on faith, spirituality and our own existential sel is the basis for it.












thr kry

Waco: "Yes I will keep repeating the same thing over and over."

Because learning from your mistakes and growing a deeper understanding is something you apparently detest.

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes I will keep repeating the same thing over and over. All the years of them is their older years of no longer be your man and the 21st do you all her years and no longer sees the men and women in the 21st-century. I'm not sure why the text decide if he's arguing with you about the all clear so I would like to hear Texas ENT say something about a new the

---

Um, are you feeling ok? This is totally indecipherable.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Um, are you feeling ok? This is totally indecipherable.

---

I'm glad you asked. I thought I was the only one that couldn't comprehend it.

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes I will keep repeating the same thing over and over. All the years of them is their older years of no longer be your man and the 21st do you all her years and no longer sees the men and women in the 21st-century. I'm not sure why the text decide if he's arguing with you about the all clear so I would like to hear Texas ENT say something about a new the

---

Everything after the first sentence of this post appears to be random gibberish ...?

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes I will keep repeating the same thing over and over. All the years of them is their older years of no longer be your man and the 21st do you all her years and no longer sees the men and women in the 21st-century. I'm not sure why the text decide if he's arguing with you about the all clear so I would like to hear Texas ENT say something about a new the

---

Everything after the first sentence of this post appears to be random gibberish ...?

---

Can God change gravity? Say like Jesus walking water or throwing yourself off a building?

Waco1947 said:

---

The Key concept is an old theism dead. God is real;.New theism based on faith, spirituality and our own existential sel is the basis for it.












thr kry

---

You think that's a "new theism" but it really isn't. In fact, it has its roots in the Gnosticism of the late first or early second century.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes I will keep repeating the same thing over and over. All the years of them is their older years of no longer be your man and the 21st do you all her years and no longer sees the men and women in the 21st-century. I'm not sure why the text decide if he's arguing with you about the all clear so I would like to hear Texas ENT say something about a new the

---

Everything after the first sentence of this post appears to be random gibberish ...?

---

Can God change gravity? Say like Jesus walking water or throwing yourself off a building?

---

"Can He" and "will He" are two different things.

Besides, the Bible in which you profess to believe recounts how Jesus walked on the water.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes I will keep repeating the same thing over and over. All the years of them is their older years of no longer be your man and the 21st do you all her years and no longer sees the men and women in the 21st-century. I'm not sure why the text decide if he's arguing with you about the all clear so I would like to hear Texas ENT say something about a new the

---

Everything after the first sentence of this post appears to be random gibberish ...?

---

Can God change gravity? Say like Jesus walking water or throwing yourself off a building?

---

You are dealing with the One who created the universe.
He raised the dead.
Gravity?
Gravity is child's play.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL " No, they don't, because as you've been told at least a dozen times now, the Bible isn't a science textbook.

But while we're on that subject, how did your limited, non-supernatural god perform the supremely supernatural feat of raising a man from the dead?"
I have answered this question a dozen times. See I Corinthians 15. Paul is clear a bodily resurrection. God raised Jesus as Paul says - a body appropriate to resurrection.
I know I he Bible is not a science. I am arguing that is But - this is important so listen up - when you say God is all powerful meaning power over biology, physics, geology then you are making a scientific statement from the Bible. You cannot prove your all powerful belief by appealing to the Bible ad you say it's not a scientific textbook. Sooooo you must prove it then by using science. All powerful is a science statement. Now prove it scientifically.

---

I'll mention this again since you ignored it before. You can't say that a statement is scientific and also say that it's scientifically unprovable. Those two things don't go together.

---

then what is "all powerful?" Ontrol over science. It ain't my claim but yours. You can't defend it as science.

---

We worship God, not Science.

Prove Science is greater than God, since you worship a thing mad by man rather than the universe made by God.

---

Science is a method of gaining knowledge from facts, and truths of the physical and material world through methodical observation and experimentation. We have an abundance of empirical evidence for the physical and material world we live. Where is the empirical evidence for any god?

---

You have just made the case for why science is limited.

---

No, science is only limited by human capacity to understand and innovate. The absence of empirical evidence for any god, is pretty good evidence that there is none outside of mythology.

---

If science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, and God is neither physical nor material, then science is not a particularly good tool to understand God. It is limited.

Furthermore, if science is a means of understanding the physical and material world, science is virtually worthless when it comes to putting value on life or deciding how one should relate to others.

---

Science cannot evaluate that which does not exist.

Science is the only tool and way we have as sentient, cognizant beings to evaluate and assign value to life.

---

Science cannot evaluate all that may exist, nor is it the "only tool" we have to evaluate and assign value to life. As a tool, it is so poorly suited to assign value as to be virtually worthless. Once value is assigned, one might attempt to use science to argue about how that value is best served, but, as a tool for assigning value? Totally incapable.

---

You cannot assign value to life without using the principles of science. It's not possible otherwise. Science is the only way we can evaluate anything that exists. What other tool do you think we have?

---

You cannot assign value to life with the principles of science. Science is value-neutral.

---

You're jousting at the wind. Science is value neutral. However, one certainly can use the principles of science to determine value. IMO that is a much preferred way as opposed to assigning value from a culturally derived religion.

---

There are no moral values in a test tube. If you're seeing them, it's because you brought your own culturally derived values to the lab with you.

The failure to understand this is one of the most dangerous errors of modernity.

---

I think we have no argument here. This is what I have been saying. Morality is a cultural construct. That construct can be founded upon arbitrary religious imaginations of men, or it can be based upon evaluation of what is scientifically observed and testable to be conducive to the individual and collective well being of other sentient life forms. Regardless, morality is what culture and society determine to be moral. I would much rather morality be based upon what is conducive to the well being of others, than on the imagined edicts and traditions of a culture rooted in an institutionalized organization such as those in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic primitive traditions.

---

Sure, or it can be based on what's scientifically observed to be conducive to my well-being at the expense of yours. Or it can be based on what's scientifically observed to be conducive to the well-being of the state at the expense of the person. Or what's scientifically observed to be conducive to the the well-being of the master race at the expense of lesser races. If you really believe morality is nothing but what culture and society determine, it can be literally anything.

---

Or it can be what some religious leader says he received through divine revelation, such as a chosen master race ordered to slaughter men women and children and animals for the benefit of gaining their land. It can be anything a cleric or imam or religious institution determines. That's why it's better for morality to be evaluated scientifically in secular terms of human wellbeing, what is harmful, and equitable. Science is an impartial tool that can be used for the wellbeing of everyone. Western culture has in part followed this path, and to that end we have the most equitable society in the world. There is still a lot to be desired and improved upon.

---

Scientific principles do not tell us that the wellbeing of everyone has value, nor that "equitable" is good. Morality cannot be determined by science because science does not address morality.

---

Neither does religion. People ultimately make that determination. I would much rather it be made based upon scientific wellbeing of others, rather than what some religious entity. such as Islam, loosely defines and claims is moral based upon improvable divine revelation.