Religion Cannot StandThe Scrutiny Of A Good Education

[logical4u]

LOL...at least me and satan read the thing. It could be in Greek and most of those who say they believe it wouldn't know the difference.

Don't get upset......we know you have lived a perfect life and that you will rise from the grave, meet the ghost floating on a cloud, fly off to paradise and live forever..................I'm a Jack and the Beanstalk man myself.

::snore:: "Christians don't agree with my interpretation of their sacred book, so that means they didn't read it!"

I'm sorry, were you attempting to be funny, or was this supposed to be a serious post and just inadvertently laughable?

I'm still waiting for your self-proclaimed brilliance to tackle something more substantial than "Christians are stupid, and I'M SMART BECAUSE I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN!" You're at . . . what? Fifteen, sixteen posts now saying the exact same thing and nothing else?

Any time you want to stop telling us you're brilliant and actually SHOW us, we'll certainly be willing to read it. Of course, we'll also then laugh and mock you relentlessly, but you're used to that, right?

I think people are tetched in the haid when they say they believe that stuff:

I have read the bible but now I read it with different eyes and perspective. It may SEEM like these verses are saying definitive things, but they are not. The word "hell" itself has been horribly misinterpreted and abused. So has "eternal"

That's what the church is saying lately. It's their new stance after preaching hundreds of millions if not billions of fire and brimstone sermons.

Folks need to think a little. The church body as a whole is opportunistic. For a thousand years they required infant baptism but when the public rejected the "born in sin" concept and began to stay away they ignored their previous position and avoided all the scripture it was based on. They get real interested when donations begin to falter.

For thousands of years the church hunted down, tortured and killed innocent young women for practicing witchcraft. Now that we all know there's no such thing as a witch they have shut up about it...the scripture is still there.

For more than 4000 years the church tolerated slavery and sometimes accomodated it. When one human owning another was no longer a fad or socially acceptable the church shut up about it and they never preach about it at all. All the scripture about slaves obeying their masters etc. is still in the bible but one never hears a formal word about it from the church.

Nothing is new about all this...the church is presently in the process of distancing itself from the flame and heat concept for one reason and one reason only...it doesn't work any more. Most people, regardless of what they say in public, are no longer "AFRAID" of god. They live their lives in the most convenient and comfortable way they can and somehow believe an hour and a half a week and a little of their money dropped into the collection plate is enough to be troubled by religious activity.

I've read and I understand the bible. It's message is two fold and what's happening in the modern society is that at least half of it is being ignored by both the church and it's members. Any negative scripture or any negative thoughts are basically ignored and in addition to that all the sermons which used to be hell fire and brimstone in nature are now carefully worded and slanted toward hell being the absence from god and his angels. Just another desperate ploy attempting to maintain attendance and donations.

While the church has amassed enormous wealth and more real property than any entity except the governments all over the world youngsters by the hundreds of millions have starved to death or suffer from malnutrition.

The church is failing. The statistics all over the world are mind boggling and even here in the "Christian Nation" the number of folks who claim no religious affiliation whatsoever has doubled in the last twenty years. The Internet will put the finishing touches on it. If all the Catholic Hispanic illegals had not been streaming across the border by the millions for the last 25 years the statistical reports would be even more dismal for American churches.[/QUOTE]




The word "hell" itself has been horribly misinterpreted and abused. So has "eternal"

That's what the church is saying lately. It's their new stance after preaching hundreds of millions if not billions of fire and brimstone sermons.


Hell is real. Some churches may not discuss it or give sermons on it, but it is real. I base that on my belief in Yeshua, the Savior and what He taught.

Folks need to think a little. The church body as a whole is opportunistic. For a thousand years they required infant baptism but when the public rejected the "born in sin" concept and began to stay away they ignored their previous position and avoided all the scripture it was based on. They get real interested when donations begin to falter.

"Religious" institutions are run by men, and as such are subject to the same weaknesses that men have (see fed gov't failings as example of human failings). "Most" Christians are baptized. Infant mortality is way down in this country and that may be the reason a lot of children are no longer baptized. They are given the opportunity to go to the Lord on their own. So much for "rejecting" baptism....

For thousands of years the church hunted down, tortured and killed innocent young women for practicing witchcraft. Now that we all know there's no such thing as a witch they have shut up about it...the scripture is still there.

WICCA is insulted that you do not believe "witches" are real. Do you have documentation for the people that were killed for witchcraft in the church, or are you including community murders along with your statement? The church still teaches against witchcraft (astrology, tarot cards, palm reading and similar channels to Satan). Maybe if you actually knew Christians, you would know this.

For more than 4000 years the church tolerated slavery and sometimes accomodated it. When one human owning another was no longer a fad or socially acceptable the church shut up about it and they never preach about it at all. All the scripture about slaves obeying their masters etc. is still in the bible but one never hears a formal word about it from the church.

Slavery was acceptable in Biblical times. It was a way to deal with those defeated in war (vs outright slaughter). Among Hebrews, it was a form of WELFARE (you libs should love that). If a person could not support themselves or their family, or something terrible happened, they would enslave themselves to another (there were specific laws for this and the time had a limit, so there was a chance for freedom). It was not until after the Savior, Yeshua came that "Christians" began to question the practice of slavery, and started working to eliminate it (if each Christian is a brother or sister, why would one have domination over another?). The passages on slavery are still in the Bible, and many churches still discuss them (slavery has different forms today: lender vs borrower/gov't overseer vs "assisted"). The church has formally spoken about slavery: In 1965 the Second Vatican Council declared without qualification that slavery was an "infamy" that dishonored the Creator and was a poison in society (Catholic Church and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), so I guess you are not as educated in Christianity, as you declare yourself to be.

Nothing is new about all this...the church is presently in the process of distancing itself from the flame and heat concept for one reason and one reason only...it doesn't work any more. Most people, regardless of what they say in public, are no longer "AFRAID" of god. They live their lives in the most convenient and comfortable way they can and somehow believe an hour and a half a week and a little of their money dropped into the collection plate is enough to be troubled by religious activity.

The "Good News" is about the "love" and "mercy" the Lord has for His people. With a more educated population, there is no reason to use terror to have them conform (vs some other religions). People can read the OT for themselves and know the power of the Lord. BTW, piety (fear of the Lord) is a GIFT from the Holy Spirit. I find it amusing that someone that has contempt and disgust of Christians, can tell us what we believe about how we spend our time at church or with the Lord. How do you know what "religious activity" each person is currently doing?

I've read and I understand the bible. It's message is two fold and what's happening in the modern society is that at least half of it is being ignored by both the church and it's members. Any negative scripture or any negative thoughts are basically ignored and in addition to that all the sermons which used to be hell fire and brimstone in nature are now carefully worded and slanted toward hell being the absence from god and his angels. Just another desperate ploy attempting to maintain attendance and donations.

The threat of the "absence from the Lord" was enough to drive the "fallen angels" into despair (they who had been in the presence of the Lord for eons). I imagine once you have been in His presence, that being forcibly removed from Him would be hell. There is a "theory" that the punishments in hell are to keep those there distracted from the absence of the Lord. Again, if you are not actively participating in "church" how do you know what the church and members are "ignoring". More arrogance on your part?

While the church has amassed enormous wealth and more real property than any entity except the governments all over the world youngsters by the hundreds of millions have starved to death or suffer from malnutrition.

Christianity is responsible for making the most productive and generous societies in the history of the world. The Christian community (world wide) support more charities, schools and hospitals than any gov't (world wide). Yet, instead of promoting this great vehicle for improvement in today's world, the missionaries, and Christians that support them are being persecuted and ridiculed by the "intellectuals" (wonder what their charities' names are). If the systems that work are being systematically targeted and eliminated with nothing to take the place, what do you think is going to happen to the poor, the persecuted, the weak?

The church is failing. The statistics all over the world are mind boggling and even here in the "Christian Nation" the number of folks who claim no religious affiliation whatsoever has doubled in the last twenty years. The Internet will put the finishing touches on it. If all the Catholic Hispanic illegals had not been streaming across the border by the millions for the last 25 years the statistical reports would be even more dismal for American churches.[/QUOTE]

All people are being taught by secular schools (that believe in their own religions of socialism/communism/islamism) that organized religion is "bad". This is like saying math class is "bad", you should discover math on your own. When people are "free" to exchange ideas and evidence, the best systems seem to win out. Christianity will revive. Those that are not "affiliated" with churches, still support some churches in one way or another. Those that are not "religious" are not having many children, and will breed (not) themselves out (along with their great intellects) of existence. I have asked many people to demonstrate what way of life is better than Christianity. I have yet to hear an "intelligent" answer.

 

[logical4u]

So, he's angry because he disagrees with you? That is your own projection. He was being factual. Ignorance breeds religion and faith. Sorry.

What do you have that is better, seriously? Faith in science (Hitler's doctors had this)? Faith in communism (how many millions did they slaughter to ensure no one spoke of "faith")? Faith in logic (you can convince yourself of anything, ask a serial killer)?

I love how you, bigoted, small minded people read some "intellectual's" book as their grasp on immortality based on their personal fantasy, and declare yourselves "educated". Please, start your own community without "Christians" and demonstrate, just how well "your" system works. If you don't have enough "faith" to do that, sit down and shut up. Talk to us when you have a "proven" better way.

Wait, you're name is "logical4U," yet you poke fun at logic itself, implying that logic is relative? How ironic. Nobody has faith in logic. We all use logic, numbnuts, sometimes to a lesser degree...

Sweden is something like %80 atheist. They have lower-crime rates and better education than we do. Go figure. Citing the same old "Stalin was an atheist!" argument is a total red herring, again, as is usual with theists, who seem to cozy up to logical fallacy like its their best buddy to get them around making actual valid and sound arguments.

You are suggesting that Sweden is a better place to live than the USA? Your are suggesting that their lifestyles of bowing to the gov't is better than accepting the Lord as a personal Savior?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Most people of religion are ignorant. That is demonstrable when they display their ignorance to scientific facts, and tout religious views when their basis for belief is faith, as defined (once again) by a LACK OF EVIDENCE. Don't give me your self-righteous bullshit and act like you are at all morally superior. You are not. You maintain a nice calm about you while voting to change this country into a fucking theocracy and turn the world into you'r own little play pen where only those that believe as you do exist. This is every christian's wet dream. You know how I know, because it says it in the fucking bible (John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father but through me), the koran... take your pick.

Most people are ignorant of some "scientific facts". Some one in medicine may not understand or know electricity. A person that crafts metal or construction materials may not know biology.

My faith (that would be a single person, not every Christian out there) is defined by being taught my religion by my parents' church, my own research on the Bible and how it was written, my personal discussions with people about the Bible, reading the Bible (I have not finished it), experiments, and personal experience (being attacked by dark forces and watching them run when the Lord's representatives show up). Then there is the whole Christian martyrs thing. If Christianity "was" a scam, why would so many people willingly die for that? Wouldn't it be easier to bow to another person and declare them a god (in their own mind), publicly, than be tortured or murdered for declaring that there is only One God, and He is the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and David? Come on, you are telling us how smart you are, why would people do that, if they did not "know" that the Savior was alive and well?

I do not believe "evolution" is "fact". I believe that animals and plants adapt, but I have seen no "evidence" that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the species on earth came from the same germ and "evolved" into thousands, and thousands of plants and animals. Evolution is a "belief", and it takes a lot more faith to believe that a germ miraclously appeared on earth, got busy and "evolved", complete with a "spiritual" dimension. But if that is what you "want" to believe, I will not attack you for "your" "beliefs".

Of course most people are ignorant to certain scientific facts. We are not all scientists. That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the situation where science is perceived to contradict scripture, so science is sometimes cast aside, to varying degrees. This is what I was describing. This can be seen when people deny evolution and consider it a belief, just as you did, implying that there is no evidence for this, when in fact, there is mountains. It is ironic that these people who claim this have zero evidence for their deity, or any revelation from that deity. Science does not require faith. It uses evidence.

Most of the people I know who think science contradicts scripture are atheists who haven't read the Bible. I don't deny evolution, but that does not change the fact that it is, by definition, a belief.

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
​

You really should stop posting, you look dumber every time.

 

[logical4u]

Matthew 7
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father"

Yes! The superficial acting job will not get you into heaven. Are you claiming that "you" know the will of His Father?

Luke 18
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven"

Again, this was to a man that was going thru the motions, but loved his money more than the Lord. Even a person with poor comprehension skills could see that from this story.

Matthew 19
24 "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"

Once again, this is referring to those that value their money over the Lord. No where does the Savior lecture people that are using "their" money to do good works. In fact when the woman buys oil and puts it on Him, the disciples start lecturing her, He interupts and tells them what she did was right. The were saying she should have given to the poor, but her money was spent for the Lord (His house, and His servants should be "adorned" appropriately: from Ezra).

Matthew 5
48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"

This is only achievable thru the "grace" of the Lord. We are sinful creatures, and do not have the "goodness" to do this on our own.

Matthew 6

5 “When you pray, do not be like those who only pretend to be holy. They love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners. They want to be seen by others. What I’m about to tell you is true. They have received their complete reward.

Again, it is what lies in the heart that concerns the Lord. This passage might be talking about liberals/democrats that publicly declare they "care" about the poor, but do little to change the policies that are increasing the number of poor, and the number of people that need "assistance". It is a fact that liberals/democrats are less generous with their "donations" than the conservatives.

6 “When you pray, go into your room. Close the door and pray to your Father, who can’t be seen. He will reward you. Your Father sees what is done secretly.

Open discussion is not prayer. Is this just another attempt to silence Christians?

7 “When you pray, do not keep talking on and on the way ungodly people do. They think they will be heard because they talk a lot.

Is this you, the "ungodly"?

8 Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need even before you ask him.

Again, the Lord is not interested in an entertaining show, He wants you to know Him in your heart, and follow Him from "love".

Very nicely done, but don't be surprised if they don't bother to respond. They really have no interest in actually DISCUSSING the Scriptures, because they might actually learn something about them, and that's not the goal. The goal is merely to USE the Scriptures, selectively quoted, to attack people.

Oh right. The bible is true because it says its true. I get it, now. When you quote the bible, its supposed to prove me wrong, even though I don't believe in the christian god, because there is no evidence for him, or any evidence the the bible was inspired by god. Interesting.

Your side did the Bible quotes (it is a manipulation method used by those that claim to be more knowledgeable than Christians). I was just translating for "your" side's misrepresentation of the Word.

The Lord will not be impressed that you do not believe in Him (read Job). I do not "need" to prove you wrong, just offer an alternative view. The Christian view is that we are an extremely small part of the universe that the Lord has taken to be very special to Him. In that, we are so much more than fellow animals and water bags, we are promised to live alongside Him! You view: everyone is stupid that doesn't believe as you do and ??????

 

[logical4u]

Most people of religion are ignorant. That is demonstrable when they display their ignorance to scientific facts, and tout religious views when their basis for belief is faith, as defined (once again) by a LACK OF EVIDENCE. Don't give me your self-righteous bullshit and act like you are at all morally superior. You are not. You maintain a nice calm about you while voting to change this country into a fucking theocracy and turn the world into you'r own little play pen where only those that believe as you do exist. This is every christian's wet dream. You know how I know, because it says it in the fucking bible (John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father but through me), the koran... take your pick.

Most people are ignorant of some "scientific facts". Some one in medicine may not understand or know electricity. A person that crafts metal or construction materials may not know biology.

My faith (that would be a single person, not every Christian out there) is defined by being taught my religion by my parents' church, my own research on the Bible and how it was written, my personal discussions with people about the Bible, reading the Bible (I have not finished it), experiments, and personal experience (being attacked by dark forces and watching them run when the Lord's representatives show up). Then there is the whole Christian martyrs thing. If Christianity "was" a scam, why would so many people willingly die for that? Wouldn't it be easier to bow to another person and declare them a god (in their own mind), publicly, than be tortured or murdered for declaring that there is only One God, and He is the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and David? Come on, you are telling us how smart you are, why would people do that, if they did not "know" that the Savior was alive and well?

I do not believe "evolution" is "fact". I believe that animals and plants adapt, but I have seen no "evidence" that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the species on earth came from the same germ and "evolved" into thousands, and thousands of plants and animals. Evolution is a "belief", and it takes a lot more faith to believe that a germ miraclously appeared on earth, got busy and "evolved", complete with a "spiritual" dimension. But if that is what you "want" to believe, I will not attack you for "your" "beliefs".

Of course most people are ignorant to certain scientific facts. We are not all scientists. That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the situation where science is perceived to contradict scripture, so science is sometimes cast aside, to varying degrees. This is what I was describing. This can be seen when people deny evolution and consider it a belief, just as you did, implying that there is no evidence for this, when in fact, there is mountains. It is ironic that these people who claim this have zero evidence for their deity, or any revelation from that deity. Science does not require faith. It uses evidence.

Science does not "contradict" Scripture. In many cases it proves it. Archeology uses Biblical references to authenticate their discoveries.

See, that is just it. You believe in "science". Christians believe in the one that made science, possible. He wrote the physical laws, and is the One that can break them, also. That power is not available to your average human.

 

[Cecilie1200]

give it a rest. You're the one being the ignorant bigot.

Nice try, Sparkles, but that whole "I'm rubber, you're glue" thing ain't flying here. We both know who's been proudly proclaiming his hatred in this thread.

I know you have me in a box, but... that's not where I am.

I know you think you're one thing, but your words reveal you as something else.

Seek therapy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They have therapy for this level of self-delusion.

Let's see if you can be honest for two seconds, rather than just parroting, "You're projecting! You're making assumptions about me!" My bet is that honesty is utterly beyond you at this point. Try to surprise me.

First, do you deny that you said this: "Ignorance breeds religion and faith." Those are your words, right?

Second, IF you admit that those are your words, what do they constitute, if not hatred of and bigotry toward religious people? By all means, share with us whatever rationalization plays through your mind when you say things like that you allow you to continue mistakenly believing you're a nice, fair, rational person who doesn't hate.

I skip to the most ignorant posts and just start responding.

I'm going to skip over you're polemicist points, and try and clear this up. I was being a "polemic" when I said "ignorance breeds religion." I admit that, although I happen to think there is a lot of truth to this, and this is backed statistically if you look at the number of those with faith in many countries across the world, and how that changes with the quality and style of education in those countries.

Oh?



Most other nations in the world are more culturally homogenous than the States. They are also less free, given to authoritarianism, totalitarianism or some form of democratic collectivism. The most religious country in the West is the freest and maintains the largest economy in the world. The decline in America's education system can be directly traced to lefty's stranglehold on it, particularly at the elementary and secondary levels. That's what's killin' us. Free up our education system and watch what happens. But we can't get there because the statists among us, the least religious, won't let go.



The two are not contradictory at all, at least as far as Christianity is concerned.



The fundamentalist perspective is not relevant to sound biblical hermeneutics.

This, at least partially, demonstrates this notion empirically and in concept. Not all those religious are fundamentalists, but still many disbelieve scientific claims on similar grounds.

A number of "scientific claims" are the stuff of scientism ultimately based on a metaphysical naturalism.

So, you get the trend we see and would expect. In places where education is not valued highly, there is greater religious and fundamentalist thought.

Hmm. That wasn't the view of the Reformationists or the Christians of the Enlightenment at all.

Odd. It's mostly conservatives (many of whom are Christians) and libertarians in this country who are trying to bring real reform to the education system precisely because the quality of education is so deplorable. It's the self-describe secularists among us who resist that reform.

Ever consider the possibility that it's the "religions" of scientism and collectivism that account for the decline of the West? Europe, for example, is in big trouble, and America, if parents don't take back the education system soon, is going to fad away as well.

You're talking logic to a bigot. That's like talking physics to a chimpanzee. He's just going to stare at you blankly, and then start throwing his feces at you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm going to skip over you're polemicist points, and try and clear this up. I was being a "polemic" when I said "ignorance breeds religion." I admit that, although I happen to think there is a lot of truth to this, and this is backed statistically if you look at the number of those with faith in many countries across the world, and how that changes with the quality and style of education in those countries.

Oh?



Most other nations in the world are more culturally homogenous than the States. They are also less free, given to authoritarianism, totalitarianism or some form of democratic collectivism. The most religious country in the West is the freest and maintains the largest economy in the world. The decline in America's education system can be directly traced to lefty's stranglehold on it, particularly at the elementary and secondary levels. That's what's killin' us. Free up our education system and watch what happens. But we can't get there because the statists among us, the least religious, won't let go.



The two are not contradictory at all, at least as far as Christianity is concerned.



The fundamentalist perspective is not relevant to sound biblical hermeneutics.



A number of "scientific claims" are the stuff of scientism ultimately based on a metaphysical naturalism.

So, you get the trend we see and would expect. In places where education is not valued highly, there is greater religious and fundamentalist thought.

Hmm. That wasn't the view of the Reformationists or the Christians of the Enlightenment at all.

Odd. It's mostly conservatives (many of whom are Christians) and libertarians in this country who are trying to bring real reform to the education system precisely because the quality of education is so deplorable. It's the self-describe secularists among us who resist that reform.

Ever consider the possibility that it's the "religions" of scientism and collectivism that account for the decline of the West? Europe, for example, is in big trouble, and America, if parents don't take back the education system soon, is going to fad away as well.

"Scientism"? yeah, you're done.

Oh, the shame of it all. Being declared "done" by a bigot. However will MD bear up under it all?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Matthew 7
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father"

Yes! The superficial acting job will not get you into heaven. Are you claiming that "you" know the will of His Father?

Luke 18
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven"

Again, this was to a man that was going thru the motions, but loved his money more than the Lord. Even a person with poor comprehension skills could see that from this story.

Matthew 19
24 "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"

Once again, this is referring to those that value their money over the Lord. No where does the Savior lecture people that are using "their" money to do good works. In fact when the woman buys oil and puts it on Him, the disciples start lecturing her, He interupts and tells them what she did was right. The were saying she should have given to the poor, but her money was spent for the Lord (His house, and His servants should be "adorned" appropriately: from Ezra).

Matthew 5
48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"

This is only achievable thru the "grace" of the Lord. We are sinful creatures, and do not have the "goodness" to do this on our own.

Matthew 6

5 “When you pray, do not be like those who only pretend to be holy. They love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners. They want to be seen by others. What I’m about to tell you is true. They have received their complete reward.

Again, it is what lies in the heart that concerns the Lord. This passage might be talking about liberals/democrats that publicly declare they "care" about the poor, but do little to change the policies that are increasing the number of poor, and the number of people that need "assistance". It is a fact that liberals/democrats are less generous with their "donations" than the conservatives.

6 “When you pray, go into your room. Close the door and pray to your Father, who can’t be seen. He will reward you. Your Father sees what is done secretly.

Open discussion is not prayer. Is this just another attempt to silence Christians?

7 “When you pray, do not keep talking on and on the way ungodly people do. They think they will be heard because they talk a lot.

Is this you, the "ungodly"?

8 Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need even before you ask him.

Again, the Lord is not interested in an entertaining show, He wants you to know Him in your heart, and follow Him from "love".

Very nicely done, but don't be surprised if they don't bother to respond. They really have no interest in actually DISCUSSING the Scriptures, because they might actually learn something about them, and that's not the goal. The goal is merely to USE the Scriptures, selectively quoted, to attack people.

Oh right. The bible is true because it says its true. I get it, now. When you quote the bible, its supposed to prove me wrong, even though I don't believe in the christian god, because there is no evidence for him, or any evidence the the bible was inspired by god. Interesting.

You know, I have no idea who you're talking to - I'm assuming the voices in your head, at this point - but would it be too much to ask that, when you quote my posts, your responses actually relate in some way to my posts? Where did I ever say, "The Bible is true because it says it's true"?

Furthermore, shitforbrains, I didn't quote the Bible in this instance. Logical did. And he didn't quote it to "prove you wrong". In fact, he didn't do it in relation to YOU at all. He was responding to Cammmpbell's post in which HE cited the Bible to prove HIS point. How would you propose that Logical prove Cammmpbell's interpretation of Biblical passages wrong without citing the Bible, hmmmm?

The only thing "interesting" about this is that you're obviously in serious need of meds, because you are only vaguely attached to reality at this point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

By the way, although our "educated" member, NewPolitics, apparently isn't "educated" enough to know it, "scientism" is a real word.

Scientism - an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

Yeah, but MD is "done" in NewPolitics' opinion for using it.

Sure am glad we have these amazingly "educated" people around to tell us what's what.

 

[newpolitics]

Very nicely done, but don't be surprised if they don't bother to respond. They really have no interest in actually DISCUSSING the Scriptures, because they might actually learn something about them, and that's not the goal. The goal is merely to USE the Scriptures, selectively quoted, to attack people.

Oh right. The bible is true because it says its true. I get it, now. When you quote the bible, its supposed to prove me wrong, even though I don't believe in the christian god, because there is no evidence for him, or any evidence the the bible was inspired by god. Interesting.

You know, I have no idea who you're talking to - I'm assuming the voices in your head, at this point - but would it be too much to ask that, when you quote my posts, your responses actually relate in some way to my posts? Where did I ever say, "The Bible is true because it says it's true"?

Furthermore, shitforbrains, I didn't quote the Bible in this instance. Logical did. And he didn't quote it to "prove you wrong". In fact, he didn't do it in relation to YOU at all. He was responding to Cammmpbell's post in which HE cited the Bible to prove HIS point. How would you propose that Logical prove Cammmpbell's interpretation of Biblical passages wrong without citing the Bible, hmmmm?

The only thing "interesting" about this is that you're obviously in serious need of meds, because you are only vaguely attached to reality at this point.

You don't have to say it explicitly. It's a little implicit when you quote entire bible verses. This ain't exactly bible study.

Why else would you post it, and then follow up with the garbage you did, "Very nicely done, but don't be surpised if they don't bother to respond..." Bla bla bla, yada yada yada.

For someone like you that talks so much shit and is such a hypocrite, you're lucky I'm a nice guy.

 

[Unkotare]

you're lucky I'm a nice guy.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"Scientism"? yeah, you're done.

LOL!

Let me remind you of an exchange we had recently on another thread. . . .

newpolitics:

No, they are not. That is simply how you see them. There is no logical support for perception and interpretation of physical phenomena as god-laced or as you put it, "god's fingerprints." This is only something people who already believe will see. Those who do not believe a god are not going to be convinced by the teleological argument. I wish believers would understand this, and stop presenting interpreted "facts" as if they are not subjective. They are completely subjective, informed by beliefs that already exist in the observer. Our beliefs form the basis for our perceptions. Therefore, one with a belief "god exists" might see god everywhere, all the time, and consider this as evidence. For someone that is not a believer already, it is NOT EVIDENCE!



M.D. Rawlings:

And I wish others were not so given to irrational outbursts of intellectual bigotry. Perhaps if some were not so blinded by their materialist biases they wouldn't fling baseless allegations, as if I didn't understand the variously distinct essences of theological, philosophical, mathematical and scientific proofs; as if, cutting to the chase, I didn't understand the metaphysics of science, its rules, its methodology, its object . . . as if you were stating something profound.

Really? Seriously?

Did the article on my blog read like it was written by a novice? Perhaps you should have read it before reacting to my post.

Talk about the presumptuousness of the subjective nancing about as an objectively self-evident axiom: "only . . . people who already believe will see ['God's fingerprints']", while "[t]hose who do not believe [in the existence of] a god are not going to be convinced."

Is this a scientific theory, a generalized postulate derived inductively from specific examples of observed phenomena? When is this theory of yours up for peer review?

Don't get in over your head with me.

A metaphoric allusion to the teleological perspective (which is not the same thing as suddenly, out of the blue, without qualification, positing a teleological argument!) is not formally or logically inappropriate. It presupposes that the reader is aware that religious conversion begins with ontological considerations and ultimately comes to the teleological perspective, which, by the way, is not imponderably subjective, but relationally subjective, a matter of shifting one's perspective.

Don't confuse my stuff with that of theistic laymen.

__________________________________


I've observed your stuff, mostly without comment. But let's get something straight right now, son.

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect. It's not even close. Your arrogance alone is enough to bring you down with one hand tied behind my back and the other in a cast. But that's not my style.

I prefer civility.

Anytime you wish to step into the Lair and comment, be my guest. You can start with this genius: Prukrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Then, you'll have a better idea as to who you're talking to before you go putting your foot in your mouth again.

There's plenty I don't know. You could fill the universe with that. Nevertheless, I'm a reasonably accomplished student of the history of ideas and events, and well-learned in logic, theology, philosophy and science, significantly better than the average bear.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

All science is theory..........

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

Evolution does not address our origins. Would you say that abiogenesis is a fact?

Also, if evolution is a fact, how has it been proven? It seems to me that it is still a theory.

Actually, Votto, FYI, all scientific asseverations are theories, and many are regarded to be "facts" as consistently validated constructs bearing predictive power. Thusly established, a scientific theory stands until part of it or all of it is falsified.

For example, evolution is an established theory. As the foundation of biology, it's an established scientific fact for all intents and purposes. Now, I don't personally believe it to be true at the macro level, but then I'm not a methodological naturalist. Abiogenesis on the other hand is an hypothesis, as the Pasteurian law (or theory) of biogenesis stands . . . unfalsified.

As for God, of course, He is not a scientific theory. LOL!

 

[newpolitics]

"Scientism"? yeah, you're done.

LOL!

Let me remind you of an exchange we had recently on another thread. . . .

newpolitics:

No, they are not. That is simply how you see them. There is no logical support for perception and interpretation of physical phenomena as god-laced or as you put it, "god's fingerprints." This is only something people who already believe will see. Those who do not believe a god are not going to be convinced by the teleological argument. I wish believers would understand this, and stop presenting interpreted "facts" as if they are not subjective. They are completely subjective, informed by beliefs that already exist in the observer. Our beliefs form the basis for our perceptions. Therefore, one with a belief "god exists" might see god everywhere, all the time, and consider this as evidence. For someone that is not a believer already, it is NOT EVIDENCE!



M.D. Rawlings:

And I wish others were not so given to irrational outbursts of intellectual bigotry. Perhaps if some were not so blinded by their materialist biases they wouldn't fling baseless allegations, as if I didn't understand the variously distinct essences of theological, philosophical, mathematical and scientific proofs; as if, cutting to the chase, I didn't understand the metaphysics of science, its rules, its methodology, its object . . . as if you were stating something profound.

Really? Seriously?

Did the article on my blog read like it was written by a novice? Perhaps you should have read it before reacting to my post.

Talk about the presumptuousness of the subjective nancing about as an objectively self-evident axiom: "only . . . people who already believe will see ['God's fingerprints']", while "[t]hose who do not believe [in the existence of] a god are not going to be convinced."

Is this a scientific theory, a generalized postulate derived inductively from specific examples of observed phenomena? When is this theory of yours up for peer review?

Don't get in over your head with me.

A metaphoric allusion to the teleological perspective (which is not the same thing as suddenly, out of the blue, without qualification, positing a teleological argument!) is not formally or logically inappropriate. It presupposes that the reader is aware that religious conversion begins with ontological considerations and ultimately comes to the teleological perspective, which, by the way, is not imponderably subjective, but relationally subjective, a matter of shifting one's perspective.

Don't confuse my stuff with that of theistic laymen.

__________________________________


I've observed your stuff, mostly without comment. But let's get something straight right now, son.

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect. It's not even close. Your arrogance alone is enough to bring you down with one hand tied behind my back and the other in a cast. But that's not my style.

I prefer civility.

Anytime you wish to step into the Lair and comment, be my guest. You can start with this genius: Prukrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Then, you'll have a better idea as to who you're talking to before you go putting your foot in your mouth again.

There's plenty I don't know. You could fill the universe with that. Nevertheless, I'm a reasonably accomplished student of the history of ideas and events, and well-learned in logic, theology, philosophy and science, significantly better than the average bear.

If you're going to call something like science "scientism," at least with respect to questions concerning our origin, knowing it is a pejorative term, I don't want to debate you. You want to disrespect me off the bat like that, then I have no use for you. I will step into your fucking lair all night, just to piss you off, if you are going to throw a word like that around. I don't give a shit about your credentials or your background or what you've studied. You demonstrated in one word that all of that means absolutely jack shit, at least to me. If you are going to disrespect a discipline like science so flippantly, I have no respect for what you think you know.

Lastly, don't EVER call me son, son.

 

[Unkotare]

If you're going to call something like science "scientism," at least with respect to questions concerning our origin, knowing it is a pejorative term, I don't want to debate you. You want to disrespect me off the bat like that, then I have no use for you. I will step into your fucking lair all night, just to piss you off, if you are going to throw a word like that around. I don't give a shit about your credentials or your background or what you've studied. You demonstrated in one word that all of that means absolutely jack shit, at least to me. If you are going to disrespect a discipline like science so flippantly, I have no respect for what you think you know.

Lastly, don't EVER call me son, son.

LOL


Is this how little geeks try to play 'tough guy'? Pretty funny.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh right. The bible is true because it says its true. I get it, now. When you quote the bible, its supposed to prove me wrong, even though I don't believe in the christian god, because there is no evidence for him, or any evidence the the bible was inspired by god. Interesting.

You know, I have no idea who you're talking to - I'm assuming the voices in your head, at this point - but would it be too much to ask that, when you quote my posts, your responses actually relate in some way to my posts? Where did I ever say, "The Bible is true because it says it's true"?

Furthermore, shitforbrains, I didn't quote the Bible in this instance. Logical did. And he didn't quote it to "prove you wrong". In fact, he didn't do it in relation to YOU at all. He was responding to Cammmpbell's post in which HE cited the Bible to prove HIS point. How would you propose that Logical prove Cammmpbell's interpretation of Biblical passages wrong without citing the Bible, hmmmm?

The only thing "interesting" about this is that you're obviously in serious need of meds, because you are only vaguely attached to reality at this point.

You don't have to say it explicitly. It's a little implicit when you quote entire bible verses. This ain't exactly bible study.

Yes, fucknut, if you're going to DARE to lecture me for saying it and try to justify your unhinged hatred of Christians based on it, I DO have to say it explicitly. I'll be damned if I want YOUR idiotic words in MY mouth.

Why else would you post it, and then follow up with the garbage you did, "Very nicely done, but don't be surpised if they don't bother to respond..." Bla bla bla, yada yada yada.

Let's see. Why would I post it? Because I was planning to talk about Logical's post, so it was common board courtesy to quote it, so everyone would know what I was referring to. Why would I say it was "nicely done"? Because I thought he did a good job of explaining the context of Cammmpbell's cherrypicked quotes, obviously.

Nothing about that even approaches "The Bible is true because it says it's true", you'll notice.

And, in fact, you and Cammmpbell DIDN'T bother to respond, either to Logical's post about Cammmpbell's quotes, or to the post I put up earlier about the same thing. You're much more interested in peddling your fantasy of Christians all being illiterate fools than you are with dealing with the reality of Christians being educated and ready to meet you head-on, aren't you, chickenshit?

For someone like you that talks so much shit and is such a hypocrite, you're lucky I'm a nice guy.

Unlike you, when I use the word "hypocrite", I can actually point to the places where you were hypocritical. That would be because to me, the word means something more than "a mean thing I can call people I don't like".

And I can't see how I'm "lucky" that you're a nice guy, since you aren't. You're a scummy, bigoted little lowlife, and everyone but you knows it. Your fond belief that you're a good person is a delusion that extends no farther than yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you're lucky I'm a nice guy.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It means he's desperately trying to wipe out the vision of how he really looks to other people that I provided him earlier.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"Scientism"? yeah, you're done.

LOL!

Let me remind you of an exchange we had recently on another thread. . . .

newpolitics:

No, they are not. That is simply how you see them. There is no logical support for perception and interpretation of physical phenomena as god-laced or as you put it, "god's fingerprints." This is only something people who already believe will see. Those who do not believe a god are not going to be convinced by the teleological argument. I wish believers would understand this, and stop presenting interpreted "facts" as if they are not subjective. They are completely subjective, informed by beliefs that already exist in the observer. Our beliefs form the basis for our perceptions. Therefore, one with a belief "god exists" might see god everywhere, all the time, and consider this as evidence. For someone that is not a believer already, it is NOT EVIDENCE!



M.D. Rawlings:

And I wish others were not so given to irrational outbursts of intellectual bigotry. Perhaps if some were not so blinded by their materialist biases they wouldn't fling baseless allegations, as if I didn't understand the variously distinct essences of theological, philosophical, mathematical and scientific proofs; as if, cutting to the chase, I didn't understand the metaphysics of science, its rules, its methodology, its object . . . as if you were stating something profound.

Really? Seriously?

Did the article on my blog read like it was written by a novice? Perhaps you should have read it before reacting to my post.

Talk about the presumptuousness of the subjective nancing about as an objectively self-evident axiom: "only . . . people who already believe will see ['God's fingerprints']", while "[t]hose who do not believe [in the existence of] a god are not going to be convinced."

Is this a scientific theory, a generalized postulate derived inductively from specific examples of observed phenomena? When is this theory of yours up for peer review?

Don't get in over your head with me.

A metaphoric allusion to the teleological perspective (which is not the same thing as suddenly, out of the blue, without qualification, positing a teleological argument!) is not formally or logically inappropriate. It presupposes that the reader is aware that religious conversion begins with ontological considerations and ultimately comes to the teleological perspective, which, by the way, is not imponderably subjective, but relationally subjective, a matter of shifting one's perspective.

Don't confuse my stuff with that of theistic laymen.

__________________________________


I've observed your stuff, mostly without comment. But let's get something straight right now, son.

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect. It's not even close. Your arrogance alone is enough to bring you down with one hand tied behind my back and the other in a cast. But that's not my style.

I prefer civility.

Anytime you wish to step into the Lair and comment, be my guest. You can start with this genius: Prukrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Then, you'll have a better idea as to who you're talking to before you go putting your foot in your mouth again.

There's plenty I don't know. You could fill the universe with that. Nevertheless, I'm a reasonably accomplished student of the history of ideas and events, and well-learned in logic, theology, philosophy and science, significantly better than the average bear.

If you're going to call something like science "scientism," at least with respect to questions concerning our origin, knowing it is a pejorative term, I don't want to debate you. You want to disrespect me off the bat like that, then I have no use for you. I will step into your fucking lair all night, just to piss you off, if you are going to throw a word like that around. I don't give a shit about your credentials or your background or what you've studied. You demonstrated in one word that all of that means absolutely jack shit, at least to me. If you are going to disrespect a discipline like science so flippantly, I have no respect for what you think you know.

Lastly, don't EVER call me son, son.

LOL!

Are you always this thin-skinned?

I'm much older than you. "Son" is not an insult.

That was an invitation to discuss, not fight.

Somehow or another, you took a term writ by me to be a personal insult directed at you and then thought to derisively dismiss me without really knowing what I had in mind.

Of course, scientism and science are not synonymous terms, just as methodological naturalism and mechanistic naturalism are not synonymous metaphysical presuppositions.

I'm a theist, not a materialist.

What's wrong with you?

Jeez, it's late for me. I'm normally in bed much earlier than this, but I had to fix some links on my blog.

Good night.

 

[newpolitics]

LOL!

Let me remind you of an exchange we had recently on another thread. . . .

newpolitics:

No, they are not. That is simply how you see them. There is no logical support for perception and interpretation of physical phenomena as god-laced or as you put it, "god's fingerprints." This is only something people who already believe will see. Those who do not believe a god are not going to be convinced by the teleological argument. I wish believers would understand this, and stop presenting interpreted "facts" as if they are not subjective. They are completely subjective, informed by beliefs that already exist in the observer. Our beliefs form the basis for our perceptions. Therefore, one with a belief "god exists" might see god everywhere, all the time, and consider this as evidence. For someone that is not a believer already, it is NOT EVIDENCE!



M.D. Rawlings:

And I wish others were not so given to irrational outbursts of intellectual bigotry. Perhaps if some were not so blinded by their materialist biases they wouldn't fling baseless allegations, as if I didn't understand the variously distinct essences of theological, philosophical, mathematical and scientific proofs; as if, cutting to the chase, I didn't understand the metaphysics of science, its rules, its methodology, its object . . . as if you were stating something profound.

Really? Seriously?

Did the article on my blog read like it was written by a novice? Perhaps you should have read it before reacting to my post.

Talk about the presumptuousness of the subjective nancing about as an objectively self-evident axiom: "only . . . people who already believe will see ['God's fingerprints']", while "[t]hose who do not believe [in the existence of] a god are not going to be convinced."

Is this a scientific theory, a generalized postulate derived inductively from specific examples of observed phenomena? When is this theory of yours up for peer review?

Don't get in over your head with me.

A metaphoric allusion to the teleological perspective (which is not the same thing as suddenly, out of the blue, without qualification, positing a teleological argument!) is not formally or logically inappropriate. It presupposes that the reader is aware that religious conversion begins with ontological considerations and ultimately comes to the teleological perspective, which, by the way, is not imponderably subjective, but relationally subjective, a matter of shifting one's perspective.

Don't confuse my stuff with that of theistic laymen.

__________________________________


I've observed your stuff, mostly without comment. But let's get something straight right now, son.

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect. It's not even close. Your arrogance alone is enough to bring you down with one hand tied behind my back and the other in a cast. But that's not my style.

I prefer civility.

Anytime you wish to step into the Lair and comment, be my guest. You can start with this genius: Prukrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Then, you'll have a better idea as to who you're talking to before you go putting your foot in your mouth again.

There's plenty I don't know. You could fill the universe with that. Nevertheless, I'm a reasonably accomplished student of the history of ideas and events, and well-learned in logic, theology, philosophy and science, significantly better than the average bear.

If you're going to call something like science "scientism," at least with respect to questions concerning our origin, knowing it is a pejorative term, I don't want to debate you. You want to disrespect me off the bat like that, then I have no use for you. I will step into your fucking lair all night, just to piss you off, if you are going to throw a word like that around. I don't give a shit about your credentials or your background or what you've studied. You demonstrated in one word that all of that means absolutely jack shit, at least to me. If you are going to disrespect a discipline like science so flippantly, I have no respect for what you think you know.

Lastly, don't EVER call me son, son.

LOL!

Are you always this thin-skinned?

I'm much older than you. "Son" is not an insult.

That was an invitation to discuss, not fight.

Somehow or another, you took a term writ by me to be a personal insult directed at you and then thought to derisively dismiss me without really knowing what I had in mind.

Of course, scientism and science are not synonymous terms, just as methodological naturalism and mechanistic naturalism are not synonymous metaphysical presuppositions.

I'm a theist, not a materialist.

What's wrong with you?

Jeez, it's late for me. I'm normally in bed much earlier than this, but I had to fix some links on my blog.

Good night.

First of all, I think you meant metaphysical naturalism, not mechanistic naturalism, which is what is contrasted against methodological naturalism.

I don't like when people call me son. Where I live, it carries a negative connotation or is used as means to demean.

I am pretty thin-skinned as a matter of fact. I am working on it. I fully admit that I am over-sensitive to criticism and is why I get so angry. I am simply trying to have a discussion, but some here like to put words in my mouth, and I am forced to defend something I don't believe. That pisses me off, and when I get pissed about this, I lose the ability to be rational and calm, and I become simply vengeful. I am working on this.