Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

it's a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.

If this were true, we'd have never been able to launch a rocket into space. I don't believe Voyager has ever came down, it certainly went up though. So it's not a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.

You announce your limitations regarding science with every silly blunder you introduce.

This will get you started on definitions of theory and fact:

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Sorry but that's not a definition of theory and fact. That is explaining how evolution is considered a fact, but again... once a fact is established you rely on FAITH in the supposed fact that was established, there is no more science can do. Now, nas.edu should probably turn their website over to someone who comprehends this and stop trying to lobby for their faith. What they are trying to do is tap dance around the reason science calls things "theory" instead of "fact." If you read their explanation, you realize they say quite clearly that "scientific facts" are things that have been tested and observed so many times they "can be considered" facts. They do not state that science establishes a fact, but that a fact "can be considered" by humans evaluating the evidence. Once you've "considered something fact" then science is done, it can do no more. Science can only evaluate possibility, and if there is a fact established, all other possibility is gone.

 

[Boss]

Those without spiritual connection are often the misfits in society who push back against morality and attempt to live immorally. Take away God and society would crumble into immoral chaos.

Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.


Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.


truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.

.

Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.

 

[Hollie]

If this were true, we'd have never been able to launch a rocket into space. I don't believe Voyager has ever came down, it certainly went up though. So it's not a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.

You announce your limitations regarding science with every silly blunder you introduce.

This will get you started on definitions of theory and fact:

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Sorry but that's not a definition of theory and fact. That is explaining how evolution is considered a fact, but again... once a fact is established you rely on FAITH in the supposed fact that was established, there is no more science can do. Now, nas.edu should probably turn their website over to someone who comprehends this and stop trying to lobby for their faith. What they are trying to do is tap dance around the reason science calls things "theory" instead of "fact." If you read their explanation, you realize they say quite clearly that "scientific facts" are things that have been tested and observed so many times they "can be considered" facts. They do not state that science establishes a fact, but that a fact "can be considered" by humans evaluating the evidence. Once you've "considered something fact" then science is done, it can do no more. Science can only evaluate possibility, and if there is a fact established, all other possibility is gone.

You were obviously not paying attention. The article clearly describes the use of terms such as fact, theory and hypothesis in the context of scientific inquiry you are having such difficulty with.

Most people don't conclude gravity as merely a theory of science.

I was hoping you could give us a workable "Theory of The Gods" that could be tested and held to the same standards you hold science to. But how many times have you been told to do that only to demand that your gods have special exceptions because, well, they're the gods and special pleadings are required.

 

[Hollie]

Those without spiritual connection are often the misfits in society who push back against morality and attempt to live immorally. Take away God and society would crumble into immoral chaos.

Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.


Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.


truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.

.

Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.

Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.

We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.

BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".

 

[GISMYS]

Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.


Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.


truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.

.

Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.

Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.

We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.

BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".

YES!!! THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF FALSE gods but only ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD!!! NOW! WISE UP!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres producing human chromosome 2
De Grouchy J (August 1987). "Chromosome phylogenies of man, great apes, and Old World monkeys". Genetica 73 (1–2): 37–52. PMID 3333352.

In December 2003, a preliminary analysis of 7600 genes shared between the two genomes confirmed that certain genes such as the forkhead-box P2 transcription factor, which is involved in speech development, are different in the human lineage. Several genes involved in hearing were also found to have changed during human evolution, suggesting selection involving human language-related behavior

By comparing human and chimp genes to the genes of other mammals, it has been found that genes coding for transcription factors, such as forkhead-box P2 (FOXP2), have often evolved faster in the human relative to chimp; relatively small changes in these genes may account for the morphological differences between humans and chimps. A set of 348 transcription factor genes code for proteins with an average of about 50 percent more amino acid changes in the human lineage than in the chimp lineage.

The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B.

From now on ,please provide your source.

I am not talking about the supposed chromosome fusing from ape to human. I am talking about the Genome being mapped. They use to claim 1% to 2% genetic difference and it is now at a 4% difference. It could go higher because they also found that Junk Dna is no longer considered junk Dna, it has a function.

There ya go princess...

Chimp Genome Assembled; Draft Sequence Aligned With Human Genome -- ScienceDaily

Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals. For more on the scientific rationale for sequencing the chimp genome, go to: http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf. For more on comparative genomic analysis, go to: Background on Comparative Genomic Analysis.

Google...it's your friend.

You see, you were trying to suggest , that the genetic differences come from the difference in chromosomes contained in humans and chimps.

By your reasoning because the European hare,large bentwing bat and the Grevy's zebra have the same amount of chromosomes as humans so we must be closer related.

If you use google here provide the link because many have tried to pass their copy and paste as their own words.

 

[Mephisto]

From now on ,please provide your source.

I am not talking about the supposed chromosome fusing from ape to human. I am talking about the Genome being mapped. They use to claim 1% to 2% genetic difference and it is now at a 4% difference. It could go higher because they also found that Junk Dna is no longer considered junk Dna, it has a function.

There ya go princess...

Chimp Genome Assembled; Draft Sequence Aligned With Human Genome -- ScienceDaily

Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals. For more on the scientific rationale for sequencing the chimp genome, go to: http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf. For more on comparative genomic analysis, go to: Background on Comparative Genomic Analysis.

Google...it's your friend.

You see, you were trying to suggest , that the genetic differences come from the difference in chromosomes contained in humans and chimps.

By your reasoning because the European hare,large bentwing bat and the Grevy's zebra have the same amount of chromosomes as humans so we must be closer related.

If you use google here provide the link because many have tried to pass their copy and paste as their own words.

links to the study are quoted..read them if you want.

 

[HUGGY]

In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-12282-1.

But please...go on.

The instant you conclude something is proven fact... science ceases to be of any value or relevance. Science can only examine, ponder or investigate possibilities. It can't do a thing with a "concluded fact." Once a "concluded fact" has been established, there is no more science involved from that point onward. There can't be, there is nothing else science can ever do because all other possibility is eliminated and a fact has been determined. Once this "concluded fact" has become that, the thing you must rely on instead of science is called "faith." You must adhere to faith in your belief that [whatever] is indeed a fact.

Now "faith" is a fine thing to have, I think we all rely on faith, even when it comes to science. We faithfully depend on the properties of physics to work tomorrow as they did today and yesterday. We have faith that gravity will predictably function as well. It's justified for us to have this kind of faith because we have pretty good evidence to support our faith, but it still remains faith.

When we move to the spiritual from the physical we find that people have faith there as well. And again, their faith is based upon pretty good evidence from their perspective. You don't accept their evidence because it's spiritual and not physical, but that's why you can't have their same faith. However, their faith is no different than yours, it's just about a different thing.

So do you have faith that gravity work? Of course not it's a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.

I don;t accept their faith, because it's not a fact that can be proven by the science. Mainly because...a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, Religion is about as far from objective as you can get.

You just wait till somebody teaches their pet snake to talk. Then the shit is gonna hit the fan.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There ya go princess...

Chimp Genome Assembled; Draft Sequence Aligned With Human Genome -- ScienceDaily

Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals. For more on the scientific rationale for sequencing the chimp genome, go to: http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf. For more on comparative genomic analysis, go to: Background on Comparative Genomic Analysis.

Google...it's your friend.

You see, you were trying to suggest , that the genetic differences come from the difference in chromosomes contained in humans and chimps.

By your reasoning because the European hare,large bentwing bat and the Grevy's zebra have the same amount of chromosomes as humans so we must be closer related.

If you use google here provide the link because many have tried to pass their copy and paste as their own words.

links to the study are quoted..read them if you want.

I have read from their site that conducted the work. I have also read other scientists response to their findings.

You are arguing a one sided opinion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The instant you conclude something is proven fact... science ceases to be of any value or relevance. Science can only examine, ponder or investigate possibilities. It can't do a thing with a "concluded fact." Once a "concluded fact" has been established, there is no more science involved from that point onward. There can't be, there is nothing else science can ever do because all other possibility is eliminated and a fact has been determined. Once this "concluded fact" has become that, the thing you must rely on instead of science is called "faith." You must adhere to faith in your belief that [whatever] is indeed a fact.

Now "faith" is a fine thing to have, I think we all rely on faith, even when it comes to science. We faithfully depend on the properties of physics to work tomorrow as they did today and yesterday. We have faith that gravity will predictably function as well. It's justified for us to have this kind of faith because we have pretty good evidence to support our faith, but it still remains faith.

When we move to the spiritual from the physical we find that people have faith there as well. And again, their faith is based upon pretty good evidence from their perspective. You don't accept their evidence because it's spiritual and not physical, but that's why you can't have their same faith. However, their faith is no different than yours, it's just about a different thing.

So do you have faith that gravity work? Of course not it's a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.

I don;t accept their faith, because it's not a fact that can be proven by the science. Mainly because...a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, Religion is about as far from objective as you can get.

You just wait till somebody teaches their pet snake to talk. Then the shit is gonna hit the fan.

This is what keeps me returning

 

[sealybobo]

Just think about how uneducated people were 2000 years ago. They didn't even know what science was back then.

Yes, and isn't it fucking astonishing that humans, by-and-large, still believe in something greater than self?

Science has not disproved God, it can't disprove God. There are more humans believing in God on the planet today than anytime before in history. Per capita, the numbers are overwhelming, and they always have been... always will be. No civilization has ever managed to survive more than 50 years without spirituality.

Argument from ignorance. A common attempt to shift the burden of proof. The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

Why there is no god

 

[sealybobo]

Those without spiritual connection are often the misfits in society who push back against morality and attempt to live immorally. Take away God and society would crumble into immoral chaos.

Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.


Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.


truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.

.

Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.

I'm glad you said that. I was watching this jesus show late saturday night and the black woman dr./preacher was screaming out everything from be patient, take care of your kids, turn the other cheek, jesus said this, god said that, yelling and going in and out of speaking in tongues and I am convinced religion is one of the ways the rich keep the rest of us down. First of all, its a big business. The whole time the lady was talking about calling in and donating to them. So maybe we need it because without it what would all those preachers do for a living? Is that why we need it? Or is the the poor souls that are miserable who need something? Because I get that. There is a lot of community in churches. What would those people do without sunday gatherings? I don't know. Maybe they would start another club, like a science club.

I think we would probably be better off without it. Remember species whose members are predisposed to cooperate are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.

 

[sealybobo]

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.

 

[GISMYS]

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.

COUNT THE COST OF ALLOWING SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET=A RUINED LIFE OF SIN AND GUILT,DEATH AND HELL!!! But you are free to go for it!!!

 

[sealybobo]

Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true. I also don't think it is necessary. Smarter people won't put up with, for example, what the GOP did to the poor and middle class. But because the GOP has the anti gay and abortion voters locked down, they continue to give all the tax breaks to the rich, cut spending on the poor, defund ss and medicare which we are all going to need, all because people are religious/stupid.

The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists (OR GAYS) are generally more peaceful proves Boss incorrect.

 

[sealybobo]

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.

COUNT THE COST OF ALLOWING SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET=A RUINED LIFE OF SIN AND GUILT,DEATH AND HELL!!! But you are free to go for it!!!

I thought of you while watching that crazy religious show late Saturday. Do you like it that I thought about you late night while watching a crazy religious show? I won't tell you anymore. Use your imagination. They were speaking in tongues and praising jesus like they knew something. She just keep going and going and going and it was maddening. How do you buy into that? Sure every christian church is different but regardless of how stupid the preacher is acting, how do you buy into it? Do you talk to your fellow church goers about what we say to you? Do you point out to them that technically there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

My Catholic friend told his priest about the conversations we have. His priest basically said he could provide no proof, I would just have to have faith.

Well I do have faith that your religion is wrong. If there is a god, he aint saving anybody. It'd be like you caring about one Tardigrade. Do you? To them you probably seem like a god. The people who invented religion didn't even know about Tardigrades.

Oh yea, and I thought about how god didn't tell us how to come up with cures for diseases but instead if what religions arch enemy science that figured it out. Way to go science.

 

[GISMYS]

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.

COUNT THE COST OF ALLOWING SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET=A RUINED LIFE OF SIN AND GUILT,DEATH AND HELL!!! But you are free to go for it!!!

I thought of you while watching that crazy religious show late Saturday. Do you like it that I thought about you late night while watching a crazy religious show? I won't tell you anymore. Use your imagination. They were speaking in tongues and praising jesus like they knew something. She just keep going and going and going and it was maddening. How do you buy into that? Sure every christian church is different but regardless of how stupid the preacher is acting, how do you buy into it? Do you talk to your fellow church goers about what we say to you? Do you point out to them that technically there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

My Catholic friend told his priest about the conversations we have. His priest basically said he could provide no proof, I would just have to have faith.

Well I do have faith that your religion is wrong. If there is a god, he aint saving anybody. It'd be like you caring about one Tardigrade. Do you? To them you probably seem like a god. The people who invented religion didn't even know about Tardigrades.

Oh yea, and I thought about how god didn't tell us how to come up with cures for diseases but instead if what religions arch enemy science that figured it out. Way to go science.

HOW SAD TO SEE YOU ALLOW SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET!!! BUT YOUR CHOICE,JUST DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD!!! Think!

 

[sealybobo]

COUNT THE COST OF ALLOWING SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET=A RUINED LIFE OF SIN AND GUILT,DEATH AND HELL!!! But you are free to go for it!!!

I thought of you while watching that crazy religious show late Saturday. Do you like it that I thought about you late night while watching a crazy religious show? I won't tell you anymore. Use your imagination. They were speaking in tongues and praising jesus like they knew something. She just keep going and going and going and it was maddening. How do you buy into that? Sure every christian church is different but regardless of how stupid the preacher is acting, how do you buy into it? Do you talk to your fellow church goers about what we say to you? Do you point out to them that technically there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

My Catholic friend told his priest about the conversations we have. His priest basically said he could provide no proof, I would just have to have faith.

Well I do have faith that your religion is wrong. If there is a god, he aint saving anybody. It'd be like you caring about one Tardigrade. Do you? To them you probably seem like a god. The people who invented religion didn't even know about Tardigrades.

Oh yea, and I thought about how god didn't tell us how to come up with cures for diseases but instead if what religions arch enemy science that figured it out. Way to go science.

HOW SAD TO SEE YOU ALLOW SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET!!! BUT YOUR CHOICE,JUST DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD!!! Think!

Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.

 

[sealybobo]

Those without spiritual connection are often the misfits in society who push back against morality and attempt to live immorally. Take away God and society would crumble into immoral chaos.

Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.


Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.


truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.

.

Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.

But Christians think they can sin and still go to heaven and muslims think killing them for allah will get them a seat in heaven?

Also wanted to share this with you. I was watching another show about ancient Egypt and then it made me think, doesn’t anyone else find it interesting that during the same time god was talking to Moses, the ancestors of modern day jews and christians, the Greeks, Chinese, Egyptians and Pagans were all completely making up their religions? And I think even you admit that the old testament is not real, so isn't that flawed reasoning for you to say that just because human's all around 3000 bc made up god, that is proof that god must exist?

So we know exactly why/how/who and when religion was made up. The Egyptian’s religion, for example, was an effort to provide for the gods and gain their favor from famine and drought. Average life span was 22 years old. Death was all around them every day. Formal religious practice centered on the pharaoh. Although a human, the Pharaoh was believed to be descended from the gods. He acted as the intermediary between his people and the gods, and was obligated to sustain the gods through rituals and offerings so that they could maintain order in the universe. The state dedicated enormous resources to Egyptian rituals and to the construction of the temples.

But you want to say that because they made up god that is proof of god? That is ridiculous. When you look at exactly when/how/why/who invented gods, you see it is a tool that they used to control the masses and they continue to use it today. Wake up people.

 

[Boss]

You announce your limitations regarding science with every silly blunder you introduce.

This will get you started on definitions of theory and fact:

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Sorry but that's not a definition of theory and fact. That is explaining how evolution is considered a fact, but again... once a fact is established you rely on FAITH in the supposed fact that was established, there is no more science can do. Now, nas.edu should probably turn their website over to someone who comprehends this and stop trying to lobby for their faith. What they are trying to do is tap dance around the reason science calls things "theory" instead of "fact." If you read their explanation, you realize they say quite clearly that "scientific facts" are things that have been tested and observed so many times they "can be considered" facts. They do not state that science establishes a fact, but that a fact "can be considered" by humans evaluating the evidence. Once you've "considered something fact" then science is done, it can do no more. Science can only evaluate possibility, and if there is a fact established, all other possibility is gone.

You were obviously not paying attention. The article clearly describes the use of terms such as fact, theory and hypothesis in the context of scientific inquiry you are having such difficulty with.

Most people don't conclude gravity as merely a theory of science.

I was hoping you could give us a workable "Theory of The Gods" that could be tested and held to the same standards you hold science to. But how many times have you been told to do that only to demand that your gods have special exceptions because, well, they're the gods and special pleadings are required.

No, I paid attention and gave a rational response. The article is very misleading and shame on nas.edu for posting it. On the question of whether evolution is fact or theory, the article clearly states "both" and that is a dodge of the question, first off, and secondly, it's incorrect. Evolution is a theory, as is most everything in science. Once something is determined to be a fact, science can no longer examine it, there is nothing for science to do. Science can only explore possibility and predict probabilities, it can't do anything with a fact.

I can't give you a workable "theory of the Gods" because science can't evaluate that which is not physical in nature. No special pleading, it's just the limitations of science. I'm sorry if you are too ignorant to grasp that, I can't do anything about your incompetence.

Most people don't conclude gravity as merely a theory of science.

Well the debate isn't about what most people conclude, is it? If that's the case, we can settle the God issue real easy, most people conclude there is one. The question was, what does "science" conclude, and the appropriate answer is nothing. Even the laws of gravity are theory, as a matter of fact, we've recently discovered the laws of gravity do not necessarily always work as we believed. Dark matter has gravitational properties it shouldn't have, according to physics. If we've determined gravity is a fact, then dark matter contradicts a fact of reality, which it can't do.