SHEEPEOPLE

[Davian]

And so does 7+ billion other people. So?

Come join us.

Even a fictional character as I have pointed out is evidence of a real person or character.

You really think your straw man address the point I made?

It does, it is about the terribly weak evidence you present here for your "God".

 

[Smidlee]

Come join us.


It does, it is about the terribly weak evidence you present here for your "God".

I never stated it's the best evidence. The best evidence is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

[Davian]

I never stated it's the best evidence.

Standards

• Davian
• Jun 1, 2015

The best evidence is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

[ScottA]

Really, do you have anything of significance?

Just children's stories, allegories and such. It works for many...except for those who were never allowed to play as a child, sadly.

 

[Davian]

Just children's stories, allegories and such.

Here, in a sciences forum? Perhaps you would have better luck in the Exploring Christianity forum.

It works for many...except for those who were never allowed to play as a child, sadly.

Batteries low again? That accuracy of that thing is really poor.

 

[Loudmouth]

I just did. Again, it is because science can only detect those things produced within the natural realm (the product, not the source), because it can't see beyond its own realm.

Christians make claims that the supernatural produces effects in the natural world. That puts the supernatural squarely into the realm of science. They claim that there is evidence for separate creation, a young created Earth, and a recent global flood. The miracles described in the Bible would be easily detected by science. What you claim is clearly false.

Demonstrate? If I demonstrate something where I am, you cannot see it...because you are not here. I am.

If I was there, could you demonstrate it? Describe it for me?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, the universe is God-centric, with a human benefit, a gift really.

So the universe is a gift to humans? Again, that is human-centric.

 

[Michael]

Look, it's a mermaid on Mars! Or is that Bigfoot?

Still ridiculing pattern recognition as a part of science are you? How predictable. You've misrepresented the scientific method from day one, so why should you start representing it accurately now?

 

[Michael]

Atheism is a theological position on the existence of deities.

Ok.

Why must you always conflate them with astrophysicists,

I don't. I just note that atheists tend to misrepresent the scientific method as an *empirical* method, and astrophysics happens to blow that claim right out of the water.

or imply that mainstream cosmology is incompatible with beliefs in gods, even the Christian God?

Since I don't believe that cosmology is incompatible with the concept of God (nor did Einstein) , I don't imply any such thing.

 

[Michael]

Godchecker lists over 4000 individual gods, goddesses and spirits from around the world:

Apparently you've never learned the meaning of the term 'monotheism'. The term implies there is but one God, and many *religions*. You willfully misrepresent a 'religion' as a 'god'.

 

[Michael]

"Reject" implies intent. Believe is not conscious choice.

False. Both rejection of an idea and "belief" in an idea are conscious choices.

What I am skeptical of is the reasons provided (or not provided) for why one should believe in such things.

Which makes it a conscious choice, and a subjective one at that.

 

[Davian]

Still ridiculing pattern recognition as a part of science are you? How predictable.

No, just your silly application of it.

You've misrepresented the scientific method from day one, so why should you start representing it accurately now?

 

[Davian]

Ok.


I don't. I just note that atheists tend to misrepresent the scientific method <snip>

You did it right there.

Since I don't believe that cosmology is incompatible with the concept of God (nor did Einstein)

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism.

Add that to your signature.

, I don't imply any such thing.

You do each time to use the word "atheist" in relation with astrophysics, or anything else that is not specifically on the theological position on the existence of deities.

 

[Davian]

Apparently you've never learned the meaning of the term 'monotheism'. The term implies there is but one God, and many *religions*. You willfully misrepresent a 'religion' as a 'god'.

Ultimately, what is the difference?

 

[Michael]

No, just your silly application of it.

There is nothing silly about noting that our universe contains features, mass layouts and functional similarities to living and intelligent organisms. Your personal reaction is the silly part.

 

[Davian]

False. Both rejection of an idea and "belief" in an idea are conscious choices.



Which makes it a conscious choice, and a subjective one at that.

Cool. For the next three days, decide to completely accept modern cosmology, and that gods are simply characters in books. then switch back, if you can. Let me know when this happens.

 

[Michael]

Ultimately, what is the difference?

The difference is intellectual honesty. There are various opinions about the current President of the US, but the variations in belief do not demonstrate the existence of multiple individuals.

 

[Michael]

You did it right there.

Nope. You did that when you demanded an ability to falsify all concepts of God. No such requirement exists in science.

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism.

Add that to your signature.

Why? From the concept of a Jesuit priest, I'd be an 'atheist' too!

I might consider adding this one however:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

You do each time to use the word "atheist" in relation with astrophysics, or anything else that is not specifically on the theological position on the existence of deities.

No, I'm simply noting where you impose an obvious double standard. You impose an "empirical" standard toward the topic of God, not a "scientific" standard.

 

[Davian]

There is nothing silly about noting that our universe contains features, mass layouts and functional similarities to living and intelligent organisms.

Considering it to be of scientific significance is.

Your personal reaction is the silly part.

My reaction is only an echo of that of the bulk of the scientific community. Convince them, and get back to me.

 

[Davian]

The difference is intellectual honesty. There are various opinions about the current President of the US, but the variations in belief do not demonstrate the existence of multiple individuals.

To be intellectually honest, one would have to admit there are no gods, in the context of a proper sciences forum. They are only hypothetical. All we have to work with are religions.