Because the militant atheist regimes of the 20th century were so wonderful?I want to keep religion out of schools and government. That's why I care. However, the good news for many is that Christianity is declining in the US.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because the militant atheist regimes of the 20th century were so wonderful?I want to keep religion out of schools and government. That's why I care. However, the good news for many is that Christianity is declining in the US.
Then don't do it. Problem solved.Then it seems fruitless to petition God for your personal desires, so yes I don't understand religion.
I see why people call you a troll. You must have known I was only referring to your obsessive attempt to insert "cause and effect" into science. It is disingenuous that you now say "Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature" and deleting the phrase (i.e. cause and effect) .How exactly is saying, "Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature" mindless? How is saying that show a lack of intelligence or thought? I believe it was a thoughtful and an intelligent description of what science is.
If you ask me militant atheism is vacuous. It is mindless and thoughtless to condemn respect for others based on religious beliefs. Condemning respect for others based upon religious beliefs shows an incredible lack of intelligence.
First you said it was vacuous. Which you never showed how it was mindless, thoughtless or unintelligent. Now you are claiming it's disingenuous because I removed (i.e. cause and effect). And you think I'm the troll? I must be the most clever troll in the world to ensnare you into my troll trap. Did I bait you into this argument? Or did read something I wrote and then decided to troll me for it?I see why people call you a troll. You must have known I was only referring to your obsessive attempt to insert "cause and effect" into science. It is disingenuous that you now say "Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature" and deleting the phrase (i.e. cause and effect) .
First you said it was vacuous. Which you never showed how it was mindless, thoughtless or unintelligent. Now you are claiming it's disingenuous because I removed (i.e. cause and effect). And you think I'm the troll? I must be the most clever troll in the world to ensnare you into my troll trap. Did I bait you into this argument? Or did read something I wrote and then decided to troll me for it?
If you want to believe that cause and effect is unscientific, please be my guest. But I'm going to keep believing that this is a logical universe where every effect had a cause and that these relationships are repeatable.
Yep.Those who are obsessed with it as a useful tool are usually trying to extrapolate it to "first cause" and say they have proven god
Yep. I have certainly wasted my time. He can now take his toy and go play with it by himself. I thought he was a bit dense, but it seems he is both dense and a troll.Yep.
And they absolutely will not allow their favorite toy to be taken away from them.
So don't waste your time.
False. Evidence is objectively defined. When something can easily be explained many other ways, it is not evidence.Regarding the Big Bang as evidence for God is IMHO a matter of interpretation.
Yes evidence is objective but the interpretation, the attachment of meaning to the evidence is not it is subjective. Darwin himself is a superb example, he was one of the first to interpret observations of nature as a process "evolution" all of the evidence of nature was never interpreted that way before.False. Evidence is objectively defined. When something can easily be explained many other ways, it is not evidence.
I do say that observational data "evidence" often has multiple rational interpretations, I've never said it has infinite interpretations, that it can represent "anything".By your logic, anything at any time can rightfully be called evidence of anything else at all, via interpretation.
Oh, this was going well until your argument slipped back into ad-hominem, I expected this but had hoped I was wrong.While you may indeed be capable of performing and allowed to perform such specious acts, you cannot rightfully call it evidence by any good standard.
Is it evidence of anything? might it be evidence of multiple possible things?Is the existence of my toaster evidence that a god created a universe destined to create toasters? Of course not.
Evidence is something that plays a logical connective role in some explanation, some model. You cannot decouple evidence from interpretation.Just because I choose to call it evidence does not make it so. It just makes me dishonest and incorrect.