God's Ways

[Job8]

I would say that it is unreasonable and dogmatic.

Sometimes it pays to be unreasonable and dogmatic, especially if "unreasonable" means believing God instead of men.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Indeed, and on top people often find this insistence offensive. It can be frustrating at times.


Yes, that´s a problem.
However, if you spend some time in these forums you will notice that there´s hardly any self-professed atheist around who claims "there is no God".
So, for all practical intents and purposes, I think we can put that definition to rest.

i will try to stop the font nonsense in the future, but i may slip up from time to time. Keep forgetting to close my font tags and change the colour back. Try a test response to this comment and see if it works. Thanks.

 

[quatona]

i will try to stop the font nonsense in the future, but i may slip up from time to time. Keep forgetting to close my font tags and change the colour back. Try a test response to this comment and see if it works. Thanks.

Test.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, take a deep breath and read the second sentence of the post that you have partially quoted. Nobody has claimed you were an atheist. i can read the faith categories under the user name.

I AM AN ATHEIST. I don't think you read what I wrote.

Atheism simple means you don't believe in deities, just like I don't believe in Bigfoot. At the same time, I also don't rule out the possibility that Bigfoot exists, and would be convinced that Bigfoot exists if someone produced evidence for Bigfoot. Same applies to deities.

Atheism does not require a belief that deities don't exist. It is simply a lack of a positive belief in deities.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sometimes it pays to be unreasonable and dogmatic, especially if "unreasonable" means believing God instead of men.

The problem is that it is only man who is making the claims, writing the words, or speaking the claims.

 

[SkyWriting]

All you creationists out there, you should be able to see where this is going and why no Scientist goes along with your supernatural dreck. You can see where this is going to end, and none of your whining or denial will stop it.

I guess ye has thy facts wrong.

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

 

[SkyWriting]

God's unfalsifiable ways?

Isn't that unscientific?

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

 

[VirOptimus]

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Well yes, of course scientists can be religious.

Science and religion is in no way at odds as long as you dont try to mix the two because when you do, you get bad theology and bad science.

 

[Extraneous]

How true. For thousands of years the phenomena observed by humans had entirely supernatural explanations.

- How does it rain?
- Why are there seasons?
- Why are there tides?
- What causes lightning?
- What causes sickness?

And a thousand others. All were explained by the supernatural. As Man's understanding increased, it was seen that the supernatural was an incorrect and useless explanation for these phenomena. You can see a trajectory here. Every single supernatural phenomena ever understood was found to be not supernatural. Every single one. Why would any Scientist cling to the useless explanation that the supernatural is involved in ANY phenomena which is not currently well understood?

All you creationists out there, you should be able to see where this is going and why no Scientist goes along with your supernatural dreck. You can see where this is going to end, and none of your whining or denial will stop it.

When we die, what will be hoping in? Science can not help us then. Our hope for eternal life is all that is left when we die. That's where God comes in. THe bible doesn't teach that lightening is supernatural. I read the bible and never got that impression. In the bible, lightening is most likely symbolic in meaning rather than supernatural.

 

[Jimmy D]

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

I wonder how many of those are YECs though?

Rational wiki has a list of Creationist scientists (from ICR, DI, CMI and AIG) there are about 150 of them that have qualifications in the relevant areas (there are 400 or 500 of them but a lot are engineers, mathematicians etc). Only seven of those have actually published scientific papers, none of which appear to be concerned with creationism (at a cursory look). For a vague comparison, that's almost as many creation scientists as the amount of students who enter Oxford University to study the biological sciences each year.

Seriously, you Creationists need to wake up and smell reality, there are many fine scientists who are devout Christians. Science is not the enemy of Christianity, just the foolish views of a fundamentalist minority who have been indoctrinated into a simplistic, literal reading of the old testament.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is not the enemy of Christianity,

Why are most scientists non-Christians then?

 

[VirOptimus]

Why are most scientists non-Christians then?

Firstly, correlation does not imply casuality.

Secondly, because most humans arent christians so it would be very strange if they where.

 

[AV1611VET]

Firstly, correlation does not imply casuality.

Secondly, because most humans arent christians so it would be very strange if they where.

Do you think it's just coincidental that scientists and those who adhere to the scientific method not only are good at challenging Christians on their beliefs, but are good at ridiculing them?

Even changing the terminology in the Bible into sterile, non-sacred terms?

Examples:

1. calling creation "poofing"
   
2. calling miracles "magic"
3. calling a child in the womb a "fetus"
4. defining a martyr as someone who died knowing what he died for was a lie

That's all just coincidental, is it?

 

[VirOptimus]

Do you think it's just coincidental that scientists and those who adhere to the scientific method not only are good at challenging Christians on their beliefs, but are good at ridiculing them?

Even changing the terminology in the Bible into sterile, non-sacred terms?

Examples:

1. calling creation "poofing"
   
2. calling miracles "magic"
3. calling a child in the womb a "fetus"
4. defining a martyr as someone who died knowing what he died for was a lie

That's all just coincidental, is it?

You really need to both grow a thicker skin and learn to debate honestly. You also didnt really adress my post.

 

[Jimmy D]

Do you think it's just coincidental that scientists and those who adhere to the scientific method not only are good at challenging Christians on their beliefs, but are good at ridiculing them?

Even changing the terminology in the Bible into sterile, non-sacred terms?

Examples:

1. calling creation "poofing"
   
2. calling miracles "magic"
3. calling a child in the womb a "fetus"
4. defining a martyr as someone who died knowing what he died for was a lie

That's all just coincidental, is it?

'Poofing' and 'magic' are not scientific terms, they're terms used by atheists to mock Christians, so they're irrelevant to what's been said.

How is calling an unborn child a fetus derogatory or non-sacred? It is what it is. I call a young tree a sapling and a young child a baby is that non-sacred? They're nouns, that's all.

Has anyone ever said a Martyr died knowing that their cause was a lie? That would be a stupid thing to say. Besides, what has that got to do with science?

Maybe you didn't read what I said, because none of what you've written addresses it -

Seriously, you Creationists need to wake up and smell reality, there are many fine scientists who are devout Christians. Science is not the enemy of Christianity, just the foolish views of a fundamentalist minority.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seriously, you Creationists need to wake up and smell reality,

Speaking of reality, Jimmy, there's science's myopic reality-in-a-box; then there's the Bible's reality, which encompasses a much larger reality that what science can ever come up with in a journal.

 

[Jimmy D]

That's fine AV, I agree! (apart from slipping the derogatory 'myopic' in ) They are two separate things which is why I find it strange that anyone feels the need to dilute one with the other.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Speaking of reality, Jimmy, there's science's myopic reality-in-a-box; then there's the Bible's reality, which encompasses a much larger reality that what science can ever come up with in a journal.

How many things do you have to make up in order to make the Bible's "reality" work?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's fine AV, I agree! (apart from slipping the derogatory 'myopic' in ) They are two separate things which is why I find it strange that anyone feels the need to dilute one with the other.

Well, I call it "myopic" because, let's face it, a telescope can only see so far.

Same for a microscope.

It's not like science has 20/20 vision.

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you think it's just coincidental that scientists and those who adhere to the scientific method not only are good at challenging Christians on their beliefs, but are good at ridiculing them?

Even changing the terminology in the Bible into sterile, non-sacred terms?

Examples:

1. calling creation "poofing"
   
2. calling miracles "magic"
3. calling a child in the womb a "fetus"
4. defining a martyr as someone who died knowing what he died for was a lie

That's all just coincidental, is it?

You crack me up AV.