Atheistic Scientists Pushing Their Religion

[BL2KTN]

Really? Ok, try this one then:

Same author. Please cite the article within a peer-reviewed journal.

True. You're not even doing your *own* work in fact.

Unnecessary and snide - personal jabs without references are pointless.

I've already seen our primitive first attempts. I'm not all that impressed yet actually, certainly not enough to be the first human guinipig.

We obviously can't teleport humans. We can barely teleport atoms. Good grief...

Well, if in fact it was like that (bodies actually moving) I'd be 'ok' with that particular claim. That's just basic objects in motion staying in moation type of expansion. Unfortunately that's not their claim.

I started to ask if you then accept the acceleration of celestial bodies moving away from each other. Then I realized I don't care because as soon as you realize the implications, you'll jump ship without factual basis.

No, it's not supernatural because it shows up on Earth in a wide variety of forms. Whatever it is, it's natural and it's lab testable to the degree that we can test for things like self awareness even in other species.

You cannot lab test consciousness. You can lab test awareness, alertness, etc.

Space expansion is a supernatural claim because it cannot and does not happen anywhere near a lab on Earth (or anywhere else actually).

It occurs everywhere in the universe, including the Earth.

 

[Michael]

Still, as you say, a dud in the lab.

That depends on how you see it. If the lab and every part of the lab is part of God, it's really more of trying to isolate one unique and specific signal from everything else in the room. I'd say your assessment is accurate however in terms of what's been done and found thus far, but at least you have a way to do the real experiments to change that over time. It will of course take effort and funding.

"According to this thought, God is fundamentally uninvolved. The universe is like a wind-up toy, left to go on its own, while God attends to—whatever. Once formed, natural laws work without any continued intelligence or consciousness, the true mindless governors of an inert and dumb universe."

Why care about that kind of god?

I dunno. Apparently you stopped reading, and/or you didn't realize they were criticizing *non panentheists* with that particular commentary.

The primary difference between pantheism and panentheism is the notion in panentheism of God being *involved* in his creation.

 

[Michael]

I was quoting from the link provided by Michael, if that was not clear from the quotation marks and italics.

You apparently missed the whole point of that particular criticism aimed at *non* panentheistic leaning "Christians". The very next line is this:

But the truth is that science itself is shedding that view.

I completely agree with that assessment.

Michael.

Not for that strawman of a claim I'm not.

 

[TheReasoner]

Deccided to pop by after a fairly long hiatus. Then I spotted this thread...

 

[Kylie]

.
KTS, what about the Supernatural Events I have seen? One has been mentioned, the young child's deformed arm. Your statement above is meaningless, right?

.

Actually, your claims are meaningless until you can provide some corroborating evidence.

 

[Davian]

That depends on how you see it. If the lab and every part of the lab is part of God, it's really more of trying to isolate one unique and specific signal from everything else in the room. I'd say your assessment is accurate however in terms of what's been done and found thus far, but at least you have a way to do the real experiments to change that over time. It will of course take effort and funding.

Still, as you say, a dud in the lab.

I dunno. Apparently you stopped reading, and/or you didn't realize they were criticizing *non panentheists* with that particular commentary.

The primary difference between pantheism and panentheism is the notion in panentheism of God being *involved* in his creation.

Just a notion. You have no empirical evidence to show that this "God" is *involved* with "his" creation?

 

[Davian]

You apparently missed the whole point of that particular criticism aimed at *non* panentheistic leaning "Christians". The very next line is this:



I completely agree with that assessment.



Not for that strawman of a claim I'm not.

What do you mean by "strawman"? Is that a bad thing? Is it dishonest? Should one avoid the use of strawmen?

 

[Michael]

Still, as you say, a dud in the lab.

Hmmm. I suppose that actually depends on how you interpret the Orch-OR data.

Just a notion. You have no empirical evidence to show that this "God" is *involved* with "his" creation?

Sure I do. I have the testimony of humans since the beginning of recorded human civilization. I also have tangible evidence to support various aspect of EU/PC theory too.

 

[Michael]

What do you mean by "strawman"? Is that a bad thing? Is it dishonest? Should one avoid the use of strawmen?

I meant that I *was not* actually trying to claim that we live in an inert and and dumb universe as *you* were implying.

 

[Davian]

Hmmm. I suppose that actually depends on how you interpret the Orch-OR data.

Sure I do. I have the testimony of humans since the beginning of recorded human civilization.

Again, you have no empirical evidence to show that this "God" is *involved* with "his" creation?

 

[Davian]

I meant that I *was not* actually trying to claim that we live in an inert and and dumb universe as *you* were implying.

Are you now endorsing the use of strawmen?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I meant that I *was not* actually trying to claim that we live in an inert and and dumb universe as *you* were implying.

Something not having consciousness isn't the equivalent of it being "dumb".

 

[JGL53]

World without God in a science journal? This is yet one more example of the anti-theist, Darwinist religion of many scientists who demand God be taken out of one's worldview. And this is why the atheistic viewpoint of Darwinism is being taught in our schools, they're after your children with their atheistic gospel.

Here's a sample of their atheistic gospel: Losing our religion: Your guide to a godless future.

Sign in to read: Losing our religion: Your guide to a godless future - life - 30 April 2014 - New Scientist

The OP was meant as a joke, right?

Because otherwise, .........

 

[Michael]

Something not having consciousness isn't the equivalent of it being "dumb".

I believe that particular phrase started as a quote from the website which Dav cited, it wasn't actually my personal "lingo".

http://www.christianforums.com/t7819965-14/#post65553757

 

[Michael]

Are you now endorsing the use of strawmen?

???? No.

 

[Davian]

The OP was meant as a joke, right?

Because otherwise, .........

The entire article can be read here:

Losing our religion: Your guide to a godless future in General Forum

 

[Davian]

???? No.

Will you refrain from using strawman arguments in your posts?

 

[Michael]

Will you refrain from using strawman arguments in your posts?

Are you?

Are we having fun yet?

 

[Davian]

Will you refrain from using strawman arguments in your posts?

Are you?

Are we having fun yet?

I guess that was too much to ask for.

 

[Michael]

I guess that was too much to ask for.

What exactly did you expect? It's not like I'm going out of my way to use them, but I don't know of anyone who's not guilty of lighting a really good bonfire every now and again.