Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[ding]

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.

We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement

Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?

stay away from bing.

 

[WillReadmore]

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.

We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement

Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?

I would talk to them about how we can avoid seeing science and religion as being opposing forces.

Demanding that either side "prove" the other wrong is ludicrous. Neither is equipped for that. And, it is science that brings to us the truth of HOW things work in our natural world - while avoiding invading the religious realm of "why" that science can not address.

And, we have a critical need to know how things work. We can't continue to see the assault on science as not being harmful to human life, as not being destructive of our civilization.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.

We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement

Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?

"Good for you. Please quit indoctrinating children,"

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.

We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement

Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?

I would talk to them about how we can avoid seeing science and religion as being opposing forces.

Demanding that either side "prove" the other wrong is ludicrous. Neither is equipped for that. And, it is science that brings to us the truth of HOW things work in our natural world - while avoiding invading the religious realm of "why" that science can not address.

And, we have a critical need to know how things work. We can't continue to see the assault on science as not being harmful to human life, as not being destructive of our civilization.

Sorry, Will. This is where you, and I disagree. "Why?" is a meaningless question. Consider this. If your child has an appendicitis, do you want to sit around with a priest babbling on about why he got appendicitis, instead of, say, the Jackson kid down the street, or would you rather go to a doctor, who can explain how he got appendicitis, and how we are going to go about fixing it?

Why may be a fun thought experiment, but it, ultimately serves no practical purpose.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Neither of us has said that. You keep accusing us of that, and we keep pointing out that you're paranoid, and wrong.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This post was not directed at you. It was directed to RWS. Had I directed this post to you, I would have written that you actively seek to subordinate religion.

No, I don't. I don't need to subordinate religion. Religion is inherently self destructive. I don't need to do anything other than defend the Constitution, vigilantly prevent theocrats from suborning education with their religious indoctrination, and rational reason will do the work of destroying religion all. On. It's. Own.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

As I remember from our previous chat, that was not the case. Or are you softening your position on how it is necessary ridicule and condemn respect for people who believe in God? Because it sounds to me that you are saying one thing about religion and have conveniently forgotten your positions on how you interact with its adherents. There seems to be a disconnect between the two.

Because I find religionists, like yourself, ridiculous, and worthy of making isn't because I feel the need to "subordinate religion". It's just because you're ridiculous, and need to be mocked. Nope. I have always held the same position. I do not need to do anyting. Religionists will destroy themselves.

Then stop lying about not wanting to subordinate religion. Grow you a pair for God's sake. In case you hadn't noticed you got schooled. You suck at trying to make me look ridiculous.

In case you didn't notice, no, I didn't. You have spent this entire thread repeatedly making the same claim, and I have repeatedly demonstrated that your claim is inaccurate. Not only are you ridiculous, but you are incapable of recognising when your premises are wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.

We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement

Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?

Nothing if they ain't hurting anyone. I keep my atheism to myself other than with like minded people and usmb.

We aren't a Christian nation. If you think we should be then I want to have a national discussion. I think you'll find more non believers than you think

 

[WillReadmore]

Is God vs Satan - Final Battle how the world supposed to end?

"Was supposed to end"???

We have a very good idea what the future has in store for this universe.

But, that won't happen until a LONG long time after our planet no longer exists as a planet.

The planet will be just fine.

We need to go looking for god. Maybe that's what science needs to tell religious people to get them to go along with space exploration

Sort of like global warming?

Climatology should be of no religious interest - other than that we should be concerned about those who are experiencing hardship and should be motivated to help in any reasonable way we can.

 

[sealybobo]

And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.

Should I break that up into separate thoughts, ding? So it's easier to understand?

The people who fight the evils your religions represent, are the people you should be listening to.

Follow your own faith that gives you meaning, but realize the truth about the institutionalization of your religion. And don't follow the bad boys anymore...

That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.

Neither of us has said that. You keep accusing us of that, and we keep pointing out that you're paranoid, and wrong.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This post was not directed at you. It was directed to RWS. Had I directed this post to you, I would have written that you actively seek to subordinate religion.

No, I don't. I don't need to subordinate religion. Religion is inherently self destructive. I don't need to do anything other than defend the Constitution, vigilantly prevent theocrats from suborning education with their religious indoctrination, and rational reason will do the work of destroying religion all. On. It's. Own.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

As I remember from our previous chat, that was not the case. Or are you softening your position on how it is necessary ridicule and condemn respect for people who believe in God? Because it sounds to me that you are saying one thing about religion and have conveniently forgotten your positions on how you interact with its adherents. There seems to be a disconnect between the two.

I secretly look at the people at church and wonder how they have all convinced themselves but from the brainwashing repeating months of faith I don't think it has crossed many of their minds that God might be made up. Impossible right? No it isn't impossible. In fact it seems very probable.

We are sheep and this is just one way they control us.

But honestly it's an industry and I hate to see any industry go away. It provides a service people want. I'm torn on religion because I don't think it's good for us to be that gullible orr faithful.

But I don't want to force the knowledge on a society I like it that atheism is coming naturally

 

[WillReadmore]

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.

We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement

Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?

Nothing if they ain't hurting anyone. I keep my atheism to myself other than with like minded people and usmb.

We aren't a Christian nation. If you think we should be then I want to have a national discussion. I think you'll find more non believers than you think

True. I think a lot of people self identify or reasons that are at least somewhat social.

For one example: Pew research finds that 75% of Catholics claim they look to their own conscience to answer questions of morality, when offered other choices (their church, the Bible, the Pope).

So, really, what is it that makes them Catholic?

 

[sealybobo]

Is God vs Satan - Final Battle how the world supposed to end?

"Was supposed to end"???

We have a very good idea what the future has in store for this universe.

But, that won't happen until a LONG long time after our planet no longer exists as a planet.

The planet will be just fine.

We need to go looking for god. Maybe that's what science needs to tell religious people to get them to go along with space exploration

Sort of like global warming?

Climatology should be of no religious interest - other than that we should be concerned about those who are experiencing hardship and should be motivated to help in any reasonable way we can.

Religion shouldn't concern itself with polluting our planet?

 

[ding]

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.

We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement

Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?

"Good for you. Please quit indoctrinating children,"

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your type always did try to force your will onto others. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.

 

[ding]

This post was not directed at you. It was directed to RWS. Had I directed this post to you, I would have written that you actively seek to subordinate religion.

No, I don't. I don't need to subordinate religion. Religion is inherently self destructive. I don't need to do anything other than defend the Constitution, vigilantly prevent theocrats from suborning education with their religious indoctrination, and rational reason will do the work of destroying religion all. On. It's. Own.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

As I remember from our previous chat, that was not the case. Or are you softening your position on how it is necessary ridicule and condemn respect for people who believe in God? Because it sounds to me that you are saying one thing about religion and have conveniently forgotten your positions on how you interact with its adherents. There seems to be a disconnect between the two.

Because I find religionists, like yourself, ridiculous, and worthy of making isn't because I feel the need to "subordinate religion". It's just because you're ridiculous, and need to be mocked. Nope. I have always held the same position. I do not need to do anyting. Religionists will destroy themselves.

Then stop lying about not wanting to subordinate religion. Grow you a pair for God's sake. In case you hadn't noticed you got schooled. You suck at trying to make me look ridiculous.

In case you didn't notice, no, I didn't. You have spent this entire thread repeatedly making the same claim, and I have repeatedly demonstrated that your claim is inaccurate. Not only are you ridiculous, but you are incapable of recognising when your premises are wrong.

I think you need to face the fact that you are a militant atheist.

 

[ding]

That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.

Neither of us has said that. You keep accusing us of that, and we keep pointing out that you're paranoid, and wrong.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This post was not directed at you. It was directed to RWS. Had I directed this post to you, I would have written that you actively seek to subordinate religion.

No, I don't. I don't need to subordinate religion. Religion is inherently self destructive. I don't need to do anything other than defend the Constitution, vigilantly prevent theocrats from suborning education with their religious indoctrination, and rational reason will do the work of destroying religion all. On. It's. Own.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

As I remember from our previous chat, that was not the case. Or are you softening your position on how it is necessary ridicule and condemn respect for people who believe in God? Because it sounds to me that you are saying one thing about religion and have conveniently forgotten your positions on how you interact with its adherents. There seems to be a disconnect between the two.

I secretly look at the people at church and wonder how they have all convinced themselves but from the brainwashing repeating months of faith I don't think it has crossed many of their minds that God might be made up. Impossible right? No it isn't impossible. In fact it seems very probable.

We are sheep and this is just one way they control us.

But honestly it's an industry and I hate to see any industry go away. It provides a service people want. I'm torn on religion because I don't think it's good for us to be that gullible orr faithful.

But I don't want to force the knowledge on a society I like it that atheism is coming naturally

Is the irony lost on you?

 

[ding]

Is God vs Satan - Final Battle how the world supposed to end?

"Was supposed to end"???

We have a very good idea what the future has in store for this universe.

But, that won't happen until a LONG long time after our planet no longer exists as a planet.

The planet will be just fine.

We need to go looking for god. Maybe that's what science needs to tell religious people to get them to go along with space exploration

Sort of like global warming?

Climatology should be of no religious interest - other than that we should be concerned about those who are experiencing hardship and should be motivated to help in any reasonable way we can.

I was referring to the religious aspect of global warming and socialism.

 

[ding]

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.
is less
We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement

Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?

Nothing if they ain't hurting anyone. I keep my atheism to myself other than with like minded people and usmb.

We aren't a Christian nation. If you think we should be then I want to have a national discussion. I think you'll find more non believers than you think

I think that people who talk out of both sides of their face reap well deserved predictable surprises.

 

[Czernobog]

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.


No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.

We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement

Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?

"Good for you. Please quit indoctrinating children,"

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your type always did try to force your will onto others. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.

And, there it is. The last refuge of the theocrats. When they figure out that they are failing in their attempts to use the courts to legitimize their indoctination of children, they threaten violence. And you call me militant. I don't recall, even once, suggesting employing our "second amendment rights" to stop you from mentally abusing our children.

 

[ding]

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.

We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement

Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?

"Good for you. Please quit indoctrinating children,"

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your type always did try to force your will onto others. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.

And, there it is. The last refuge of the theocrats. When they figure out that they are failing in their attempts to use the courts to legitimize their indoctination of children, they threaten violence. And you call me militant. I don't recall, even once, suggesting employing our "second amendment rights" to stop you from mentally abusing our children.

No. I don't threaten violence. I thank God I can defend myself from yours. You're like a fucking nazi.

 

[sealybobo]

No, I don't. I don't need to subordinate religion. Religion is inherently self destructive. I don't need to do anything other than defend the Constitution, vigilantly prevent theocrats from suborning education with their religious indoctrination, and rational reason will do the work of destroying religion all. On. It's. Own.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

As I remember from our previous chat, that was not the case. Or are you softening your position on how it is necessary ridicule and condemn respect for people who believe in God? Because it sounds to me that you are saying one thing about religion and have conveniently forgotten your positions on how you interact with its adherents. There seems to be a disconnect between the two.

Because I find religionists, like yourself, ridiculous, and worthy of making isn't because I feel the need to "subordinate religion". It's just because you're ridiculous, and need to be mocked. Nope. I have always held the same position. I do not need to do anyting. Religionists will destroy themselves.

Then stop lying about not wanting to subordinate religion. Grow you a pair for God's sake. In case you hadn't noticed you got schooled. You suck at trying to make me look ridiculous.

In case you didn't notice, no, I didn't. You have spent this entire thread repeatedly making the same claim, and I have repeatedly demonstrated that your claim is inaccurate. Not only are you ridiculous, but you are incapable of recognising when your premises are wrong.

I think you need to face the fact that you are a militant atheist.

What's the worst he will do? Chop off your head or just passionately debate you?

 

[Czernobog]

We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.

We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement

Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?

"Good for you. Please quit indoctrinating children,"

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your type always did try to force your will onto others. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.

And, there it is. The last refuge of the theocrats. When they figure out that they are failing in their attempts to use the courts to legitimize their indoctination of children, they threaten violence. And you call me militant. I don't recall, even once, suggesting employing our "second amendment rights" to stop you from mentally abusing our children.

No. I don't threaten violence. I thank God I can defend myself from yours. You're like a fucking nazi.

I never threatened violence. The only one here who brought up using guns is you. You really should just admit that you are a militint religionist.