Sometimes it pays to be unreasonable and dogmatic, especially if "unreasonable" means believing God instead of men.I would say that it is unreasonable and dogmatic.
Upvote
0
Sometimes it pays to be unreasonable and dogmatic, especially if "unreasonable" means believing God instead of men.I would say that it is unreasonable and dogmatic.
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.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.
Test.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.
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.
Sometimes it pays to be unreasonable and dogmatic, especially if "unreasonable" means believing God instead of men.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Why are most scientists non-Christians then?Science is not the enemy of Christianity,
Why are most scientists non-Christians then?
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?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:
That's all just coincidental, is it?
- calling creation "poofing"
- calling miracles "magic"
- calling a child in the womb a "fetus"
- defining a martyr as someone who died knowing what he died for was a lie
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:
That's all just coincidental, is it?
- calling creation "poofing"
- calling miracles "magic"
- calling a child in the womb a "fetus"
- defining a martyr as someone who died knowing what he died for was a lie
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.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.
Well, I call it "myopic" because, let's face it, a telescope can only see so far.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.
You crack me up AV.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:
That's all just coincidental, is it?
- calling creation "poofing"
- calling miracles "magic"
- calling a child in the womb a "fetus"
- defining a martyr as someone who died knowing what he died for was a lie