atheism doubled since 2001

Posted in the Christian Forum

Comments (Page 19)

Showing posts 361 - 380 of447
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“so tell me......”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#371
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word for it (of course you don't 'have' to), but as I mentioned in another thread, the only name I use here is "Job".
But...I can't claim that I've never wondered about some other posters being one and the same.
I had pondered the notion that 2 posters, one going by the name of "Atheist", the other "Highly Evolved" were one and the same. That's not a knock on either of them as they both seemed intelligent and witty. But their styles were fairly similar. It least that's how it appeared to me.
If you are referring to the poster affectionately known as big A from Canada then I can assure you that he only posted under one name. He is too straight forward a person to be messing about with several names here. He's a good guy and I count him as a friend.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
"As things currently stand, if you stick with science as your guide to whatís real, naturalism is the best bet about the nature of existence since thereís no evidence for anything supernatural. But naturalism is potentially falsifiable since we canít know for sure that all phenomena we encounter will fall to scientific explanation and thus be naturalized. We can't rule out the possibility that there might come a time when, for good evidential and conceptual reasons, we will divide reality into the natural and supernatural. Still, in the unlikely but conceivable event we encounter what we judge to be supernatural, we also canít rule out the possibility of eventual naturalization. Neither naturalists and supernaturalists can responsibly claim to know in advance, as inquiry proceeds, what existence must encompass, so they should have at least that much in common."
http://www.naturalism.org/Close_encounters.ht...
Which is why I sort of tossed out a question earlier suggesting a means of solving a 'problem'. A naturalist cannot be expected to know what a supernaturalist experiences. He doesn't walk in his shoes. And the supernaturalist doesn't walk in the shoes of the naturalist. A supernaturalist shouldn't expect the naturalist to see things his way, and vice versa.

In the area of science, the naturalist, in my opinion, would do well to respect the supernaturalist's (or the Christian's) view of creationism, since the naturalist cannot know for certain that the supernaturalist has 'not' encountered an intelligent designer/creator/God. And the existence of a 'real' God would/could change the landscape concerning 'evolution'. Just the very existence of God 'could' be a deciding factor on whether or not evolution (as presented by evolutionists) really took place as opposed to a God bringing us into existence via intelligent design presented in the book of Genesis.

It's when either of the 2 positions are mandated that the problems arise.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#373
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

angelinaUK wrote:
<quoted text>If you are referring to the poster affectionately known as big A from Canada then I can assure you that he only posted under one name. He is too straight forward a person to be messing about with several names here. He's a good guy and I count him as a friend.
Ok thanks. I didn't suspect anything devious though. They seemed to not be active at the same time (that I was aware of), and sometimes people like to change their user names, not as a means to fool people.

“so tell me......”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#374
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok thanks. I didn't suspect anything devious though. They seemed to not be active at the same time (that I was aware of), and sometimes people like to change their user names, not as a means to fool people.
That's OK. I have no idea what has happened to Highly but Big A has had a lot going on and I would think Topix is the last thing on his mind right now.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#375
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Well first off, I think it's noteworthy to emphasize that when God reveals Himself to any given individual, that doesn't mean that the individual knows 'everything'. And any attempt in suggesting that would be the fault of the individual.
To give an example of receiving a 'revealing' from God, but not "knowing all" (which can mean just thinking oneself higher than they should, not being the proverbial "know it all"), Peter received a divine revelation of who Christ 'is' which came 'directly' from God (the creator). Yet, at the point where Jesus made said statement concerning this revelation, Peter did not know, for instance, that salvation was not meant only for Jews. He obviously had a wrong perception concerning Christ's crucifixion. I'm sure we can say that there's a number of things he did not know....yet. What he 'did' know is what is 'important'.

2a. The whole idea of leaving revelation to certain 'qualified' individuals can go to either extremes. On one extreme, there are those who want an iconic saint to do all the interacting with God for them.

2b. The other extreme would be the one who thinks he has a sole pipeline to God, and/or doesn't need input from anyone else.

One can give respect to another by submitting to them as a spiritual leader (like a pastor), but even the lowliest person in the eyes of the world can have this relationship with the creator of the universe.
2a. My point was that at one time (a large stretch of time actually) these everyman scenarios were not supported by most of the Churches, be they Roman, Proty or other. The notion that God was always and incessantly talking to Believers was not supported.

To the point now we have people claiming to have real conversations with this God all the time, day and night, and that the claimants say that God does speak to them...all the time.

2b. Kinda like when Xtians say they read the Bible and concur with Xtian doctrine-dogma that took thousands of years to come to fruition.???? That they too can only conclude what took a lot of time and debate, etc to be concluded...?

You mean this sort of stuff...that the HS comes to each and every individual and imparts a few thousand years of Doctrinal wrangling to them personally...? Which of course is different for each sect...so the HS imparts different "reads" to different believers...on purpose...to muddy the waters on purpose...

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#376
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why I sort of tossed out a question earlier suggesting a means of solving a 'problem'. A naturalist cannot be expected to know what a supernaturalist experiences. He doesn't walk in his shoes. And the supernaturalist doesn't walk in the shoes of the naturalist. A supernaturalist shouldn't expect the naturalist to see things his way, and vice versa.
In the area of science, the naturalist, in my opinion, would do well to respect the supernaturalist's (or the Christian's) view of creationism, since the naturalist cannot know for certain that the supernaturalist has 'not' encountered an intelligent designer/creator/God. And the existence of a 'real' God would/could change the landscape concerning 'evolution'. Just the very existence of God 'could' be a deciding factor on whether or not evolution (as presented by evolutionists) really took place as opposed to a God bringing us into existence via intelligent design presented in the book of Genesis.
It's when either of the 2 positions are mandated that the problems arise.
I suggest you read the article linked to at the end of my post. I have included some snippets below.

"It is often said that the scientific enterprise is in the business of studying the natural world, the implication being that thereís some pre-established, pre-packaged thing out there called Nature that scientists get to study, after which there are other domains that scientists donít get to study and indeed arenít supposed to study.

In fact, the scientific enterprise is engaged in analyzing anything that comes along using its agreed-upon empirical methodologies, developed over the years as the most effective means to reduce subjective and cultural bias when modeling reality."

"..........Although the God-as-agent hypothesis hasnít yet panned out, this isnít because science is biased against the existence of God or the supernatural. If an observationally robust phenomenon comes along that, for good theoretical or explanatory reasons, forces us to conceptually divide reality into nature and something besides nature, then so be it. Weíd have stayed true to the scientific method, unrivaled in giving us reliable models of reality and for scientists in their professional capacity thatís what matters."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/06/09/1275...
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#377
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Which is why I sort of tossed out a question earlier suggesting a means of solving a 'problem'. A naturalist cannot be expected to know what a supernaturalist experiences. He doesn't walk in his shoes. And the supernaturalist doesn't walk in the shoes of the naturalist. A supernaturalist shouldn't expect the naturalist to see things his way, and vice versa.

2. In the area of science, the naturalist, in my opinion, would do well to respect the supernaturalist's (or the Christian's) view of creationism, since the naturalist cannot know for certain that the supernaturalist has 'not' encountered an intelligent designer/creator/God. And the existence of a 'real' God would/could change the landscape concerning 'evolution'.

3. Just the very existence of God 'could' be a deciding factor on whether or not evolution (as presented by evolutionists) really took place as opposed to a God bringing us into existence via intelligent design presented in the book of Genesis.
It's when either of the 2 positions are mandated that the problems arise.
1. First off your terms are specious, one term in particular..."super-natur alist".

No such thing exists. One would have to discover and prove supernaturalism in order to be an -ist.

Like these idiots who claim to be Big Foot hunters on these stupid TV shows...you're not an actual hunter of anything till you actually hunt one down and catch/kill one. Maybe call themselves a Hunter-in-waiting, or something like that...or a super-naturalist in waiting...as in waiting for someone to figure out a way to even find a way to the supernatural so to study it...

Your super-naturalist doesnt even have real shoes to walk in...they are like the Emperors new Clothes...believed in, but not proved to be real...

2. These "encounters" are again another way to play fast and loose with terms. For one, we have all those individuals who claim to be a true pipeline (to use your terms) to this God, and as such they claim to be have been told by Him, well the HS part of him, that everything in the Bible is the gods honest truth. From A&E thru the floods to the Book of Rev.

So are all these claimants Super-naturalists? Are we going to use the term to mean Believers now? Where we will use the term Naturalists to mean scientists, believers and not, or everyone who believes the naturalist explanations of the natural world...?

As for the landscape, why should Evolutionary Theory really change IF this Creator ONLY set the thing in motion...merely triggered it, like I or you would when we plant and water seeds...am I now involved in all the "decisions" of the growth cycle...?

Perhaps all this or any God did was plant the magic seeds and let things take their Natural course...???
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#378
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>

One can give respect to another by submitting to them as a spiritual leader (like a pastor), but even the lowliest person in the eyes of the world can have this relationship with the creator of the universe.
Well this is sort of a newer spin on the old themes, yes?

In reality it means anyone can pick up the Bible, read it and whatever they conclude it to mean is true due to their immediate personal relationship with this God.

One thing that fascinates me now about Xtianity and the neo-modern conversion process...there are no intermediate steps. One goes from lost to SAVED in a flash. Unfit to fit with a claim. Like an obese person making claims of being thinner now based on their projected future weight losses.

Just on a practical level as a Believer yourself, dont you think these instantaneous claims of Salvation, set in stone, sort of strike you as disingenuous? Sort of a cheapening of what should on some level take a little, maybe a lot of extra-curricular activity to achieve, that in reality no one in the Bible, not even Jesus said that one could be Saved (the Big Save, not a little save) in an instant, and that it was fully guaranteed by Heaven when someone makes the claim about themselves...?
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#379
Dec 27, 2012
 
angelinaUK wrote:
<quoted text>That's OK. I have no idea what has happened to Highly but Big A has had a lot going on and I would think Topix is the last thing on his mind right now.
I hope all is well with him.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#380
Dec 27, 2012
 
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
2a. My point was that at one time (a large stretch of time actually) these everyman scenarios were not supported by most of the Churches, be they Roman, Proty or other. The notion that God was always and incessantly talking to Believers was not supported.
To the point now we have people claiming to have real conversations with this God all the time, day and night, and that the claimants say that God does speak to them...all the time.
2b. Kinda like when Xtians say they read the Bible and concur with Xtian doctrine-dogma that took thousands of years to come to fruition.???? That they too can only conclude what took a lot of time and debate, etc to be concluded...?
You mean this sort of stuff...that the HS comes to each and every individual and imparts a few thousand years of Doctrinal wrangling to them personally...? Which of course is different for each sect...so the HS imparts different "reads" to different believers...on purpose...to muddy the waters on purpose...
2a. When we're talking about the very early church in Asia (Book of Acts onward), there's just not enough personal bios to gleam from with the common 'unknown' Christian. I don't think Paul stated anything that would suggest this "non-everyman" scenario. After a period of time, history 'does' reveal that Catholic and Protestant churches maintained this idea that only 'piety' could have communication with God. Christians at times were persecuted for suggesting such a thing as God interacting with commoners, peasants. The Bible itself was kept from the common man at given times in history.

2b. No, I don't think God purposely gives contradictory doctrinal interpretations to muddy the waters. Among Christ's disciples there were 'differences' in opinion. They all had the very same exact revelation of who Christ is, yet differed in opinions. How could this be? I would say that in some cases, God 'did' in fact speak to an individual who's testimony may not have been accepted. At least not immediately. In many cases, particularly today, ministers are giving their various interpretations based on study. They believe that the study they have done produces a case to make for things like the rapture happening before the tribulation, somewhere in the middle, afterward, whether speaking in tongues is for today or not, etc. We are allowed to use our brains. We also have the option of not allowing different belief/opinions divide us. Unfortunately, some have 'allowed' doctrinal differences to do just that.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#381
Dec 27, 2012
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. As far as the first two human beings, I don't think that's far-fetched in light of the "Mitochondrial Eve".
Then you had better study up on MA and who she was, etc.(Hint: the name is SARDONIC). It turns out MA is more proof AGAINST the idea of two first humans.

What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve....
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't hold to a dogmatic belief in the young earth, but I don't discard it either.
Any educated, thinking person SHOULD discard it. We know from MULTIPLE sources and measurements that the earth is 4.65 BILLION years old.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as a global flood, basically either it's possible or impossible.
Both IMPOSSIBLE and NEVER HAPPENED according to the vast geological evidence, etc. So says modern science.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
2. I know they don't. And quite frankly, that's at least a part of the problem. If God 'does' exist, particularly the God of the Bible, what effect, if any, would that have on their conclusions?
God's existence couldn't be a part of science and the scientific method unless such existence could be measured empirically. So we would probably still have the dichotomy between religion and science.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
If you found out today that the God of the Bible exists, you'd have to do some personal evaluations.
If I found out today, it would likely be because God had decided to become naturally-measureable for once.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think what people would 'naturally' think is relevant. What people would 'naturally' think is just what would cause people to believe in 'error'.
So people's innate knowledge and life experience that in real life dead people do not come back to life is irrelevant to whether nonbelievers should drop their skepticism and accept the resurrection stories?

Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#382
Dec 27, 2012
 
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest you read the article linked to at the end of my post. I have included some snippets below.
"It is often said that the scientific enterprise is in the business of studying the natural world, the implication being that thereís some pre-established, pre-packaged thing out there called Nature that scientists get to study, after which there are other domains that scientists donít get to study and indeed arenít supposed to study.
In fact, the scientific enterprise is engaged in analyzing anything that comes along using its agreed-upon empirical methodologies, developed over the years as the most effective means to reduce subjective and cultural bias when modeling reality."
"..........Although the God-as-agent hypothesis hasnít yet panned out, this isnít because science is biased against the existence of God or the supernatural. If an observationally robust phenomenon comes along that, for good theoretical or explanatory reasons, forces us to conceptually divide reality into nature and something besides nature, then so be it. Weíd have stayed true to the scientific method, unrivaled in giving us reliable models of reality and for scientists in their professional capacity thatís what matters."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/06/09/1275...
I read the whole article, and for starters I have a problem with this snippet:

"If, for example, someone were to come up with a robust God hypothesis that suggested observational tests to evaluate its validity, then rest assured, scientists would be hopping all over it ó what better way to the vaunted goal of scientific fame and glory than documenting the existence of God? Indeed, scientists have already applied their wares to testable hypotheses along these lines, such as whether intercessory prayer is effective, and have thus far come a cropper."

What I think many scientists are 'rejecting' is the conclusions drawn by creation 'scientists'. As an example, there are fully qualified scientists who make 'scientific' cases for the Genesis account of creation, including a young earth, and a global flood. The fact that gods are stomping their feet, or bowling to create sounds of thunder is a gimme. Trying to study 'intercessory prayer' would be another waste of time. Intercessory prayer is not a formula where one can study it's effectiveness. Since in practical terms, praying is making a request from an intelligent being, whether it's answered or not depends on the decision of the intelligent being. If the request is refused, does that mean prayer/requesting is ineffective?

The problem seems to be that creation scientists either test, study the possibility of immediate creation/young earth, global flood etc. because of their upbringing in Christianity, or they became a believer and faced with the challenge of Biblical creation and evolution, or they had a sincere desire to justify evolution (or at least remain neutral) and couldn't do it. So the problem is this "cross road" that is faced, and having to deal with a scientific community that does not want to deal with this "cross road".

Since the Bible is considered a myth, many seem to want to immediately dismiss creation scientists, and focus on what can be 'easily' dismissed as myth (gods stomping on the ground to produce thunderous noise, etc.).

So the point is, forget about trying to study things like intercessory prayer among non-scientists, and consider what actual scientists are maintaining concerning Biblical creation.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#383
Dec 27, 2012
 
That should read:

The fact that gods are "not" stomping their feet, or bowling to create sounds of thunder is a gimme..
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#384
Dec 27, 2012
 
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
1. First off your terms are specious, one term in particular..."super-natur alist".
No such thing exists. One would have to discover and prove supernaturalism in order to be an -ist.
Like these idiots who claim to be Big Foot hunters on these stupid TV shows...you're not an actual hunter of anything till you actually hunt one down and catch/kill one. Maybe call themselves a Hunter-in-waiting, or something like that...or a super-naturalist in waiting...as in waiting for someone to figure out a way to even find a way to the supernatural so to study it...
Your super-naturalist doesnt even have real shoes to walk in...they are like the Emperors new Clothes...believed in, but not proved to be real...

2. These "encounters" are again another way to play fast and loose with terms. For one, we have all those individuals who claim to be a true pipeline (to use your terms) to this God, and as such they claim to be have been told by Him, well the HS part of him, that everything in the Bible is the gods honest truth. From A&E thru the floods to the Book of Rev.
So are all these claimants Super-naturalists? Are we going to use the term to mean Believers now? Where we will use the term Naturalists to mean scientists, believers and not, or everyone who believes the naturalist explanations of the natural world...?
As for the landscape, why should Evolutionary Theory really change IF this Creator ONLY set the thing in motion...merely triggered it, like I or you would when we plant and water seeds...am I now involved in all the "decisions" of the growth cycle...?
Perhaps all this or any God did was plant the magic seeds and let things take their Natural course...???
1. I don't normally use the term 'supernaturalist', but used it mainly because it was used in one of Roland's posts.

2. I don't have any personal desire to relegate the word 'supernaturalist' to believers (as I don't normally use the word).

But as far as maintaining that God has specified that the Bible is 100% of God/God inspired, we 'are' allowed to use logic. Allowed to 'think'. One question to ask is, does what happened to the Apostle Peter, when told he recieved divine revelation from God, happen today among what we term "Christians"? If so, this means an 'absolute' divine revelation from God. If one believes that this happened to them, is there any reason to suggest that maybe the Bible is not the entire Word of God? If what happened to Peter and the apostles 'was' accurate, then can we trust the rest of what is stated in the Bible? Would verses like the one I mentioned, and John 3:16 be the only accurate portions? Or, if the majority is accurate, is it possible that maybe one of the books of the prophets, or one of the epistles shouldn't be there? That maybe one day we will find out that every book was inspired by God, except that 'one' somewhere in the OT that just snuck in there, but shouldn't be there, but God allowed it?

These are valid questions, but in my opinion, there's no reason to suggest that the Bible in it's 'entirety' is not, or has portions not inspired by God.

And that's my view of Creationism. There's no reason for me to suggest, as theistic evolutionists do,(at the risk of being a heretic) that God used evolution in our creation.

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#385
Dec 27, 2012
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the whole article, and for starters I have a problem with this snippet:
"If, for example, someone were to come up with a robust God hypothesis that suggested observational tests to evaluate its validity, then rest assured, scientists would be hopping all over it ó what better way to the vaunted goal of scientific fame and glory than documenting the existence of God? Indeed, scientists have already applied their wares to testable hypotheses along these lines, such as whether intercessory prayer is effective, and have thus far come a cropper."
What I think many scientists are 'rejecting' is the conclusions drawn by creation 'scientists'. As an example, there are fully qualified scientists who make 'scientific' cases for the Genesis account of creation, including a young earth, and a global flood. The fact that gods are stomping their feet, or bowling to create sounds of thunder is a gimme. Trying to study 'intercessory prayer' would be another waste of time. Intercessory prayer is not a formula where one can study it's effectiveness. Since in practical terms, praying is making a request from an intelligent being, whether it's answered or not depends on the decision of the intelligent being. If the request is refused, does that mean prayer/requesting is ineffective?
The problem seems to be that creation scientists either test, study the possibility of immediate creation/young earth, global flood etc. because of their upbringing in Christianity, or they became a believer and faced with the challenge of Biblical creation and evolution, or they had a sincere desire to justify evolution (or at least remain neutral) and couldn't do it. So the problem is this "cross road" that is faced, and having to deal with a scientific community that does not want to deal with this "cross road".
Since the Bible is considered a myth, many seem to want to immediately dismiss creation scientists, and focus on what can be 'easily' dismissed as myth (gods stomping on the ground to produce thunderous noise, etc.).
So the point is, forget about trying to study things like intercessory prayer among non-scientists, and consider what actual scientists are maintaining concerning Biblical creation.
Well another poster has already addressed a "young earth" and global flood. There is also this from the link I provided.

"The God-as-agent hypothesis is inherently a non-starter (thus far) because science requires any element of an acceptable explanation to have some evidential backing independent of its purported explanatory role. Absent that requirement, weíd be at liberty to claim the existence of some arbitrary process or entity that has the powers necessary to fill any explanatory gap ó how convenient! Saying that God intervenes in nature, without a clear specification of divine powers that can be observationally confirmed, is to posit an unexplained explainer, a mysterious causal operator. The scientific project is intent on dispelling mysteries, not appealing to them."
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#386
Dec 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Well this is sort of a newer spin on the old themes, yes?
In reality it means anyone can pick up the Bible, read it and whatever they conclude it to mean is true due to their immediate personal relationship with this God.
One thing that fascinates me now about Xtianity and the neo-modern conversion process...there are no intermediate steps. One goes from lost to SAVED in a flash. Unfit to fit with a claim. Like an obese person making claims of being thinner now based on their projected future weight losses.
Just on a practical level as a Believer yourself, dont you think these instantaneous claims of Salvation, set in stone, sort of strike you as disingenuous? Sort of a cheapening of what should on some level take a little, maybe a lot of extra-curricular activity to achieve, that in reality no one in the Bible, not even Jesus said that one could be Saved (the Big Save, not a little save) in an instant, and that it was fully guaranteed by Heaven when someone makes the claim about themselves...?
How instantaneous do you think the salvation was for the thief on the cross, who Jesus made very clear: "Today you will be with me in Paradise"? What may have been the thief's extra-curricular activity that gave him this apparent 'undeserved' "free-pass"? Or did he do something during that time (from verbal rejection to acceptance) that made him 'deserving'?

“so tell me......”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#387
Dec 27, 2012
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope all is well with him.
He's had a tough few months but is thankfully doing OK now.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#388
Dec 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the whole article, and for starters I have a problem with this snippet:
"If, for example, someone were to come up with a robust God hypothesis that suggested observational tests to evaluate its validity, then rest assured, scientists would be hopping all over it ó what better way to the vaunted goal of scientific fame and glory than documenting the existence of God? Indeed, scientists have already applied their wares to testable hypotheses along these lines, such as whether intercessory prayer is effective, and have thus far come a cropper."

2. What I think many scientists are 'rejecting' is the conclusions drawn by creation 'scientists'.

As an example, there are fully qualified scientists who make 'scientific' cases for the Genesis account of creation, including a young earth, and a global flood. The fact that gods are stomping their feet, or bowling to create sounds of thunder is a gimme. Trying to study 'intercessory prayer' would be another waste of time. Intercessory prayer is not a formula where one can study it's effectiveness. Since in practical terms, praying is making a request from an intelligent being, whether it's answered or not depends on the decision of the intelligent being. If the request is refused, does that mean prayer/requesting is ineffective?
The problem seems to be that creation scientists either test, study the possibility of immediate creation/young earth, global flood etc. because of their upbringing in Christianity, or they became a believer and faced with the challenge of Biblical creation and evolution, or they had a sincere desire to justify evolution (or at least remain neutral) and couldn't do it. So the problem is this "cross road" that is faced, and having to deal with a scientific community that does not want to deal with this "cross road".
Since the Bible is considered a myth, many seem to want to immediately dismiss creation scientists, and focus on what can be 'easily' dismissed as myth (gods stomping on the ground to produce thunderous noise, etc.).
So the point is, forget about trying to study things like intercessory prayer among non-scientists, and consider what actual scientists are maintaining concerning Biblical creation.
2. They are rejected because no Creationists can make any real claim outside of religious faith that a Creator was involved. The claim can be made, but it remains an article of faith, not science. If science is to remain true to the scientific method, it HAS to reject claims that can not be tested in any real way.

Creation "science" HAS to figure a way to find and test for creation and not just keep making the claim.

If they can prove a young earth - scientifically - they have to do it, and not just keep making claims that it is...

No matter how you try and finagle things, this wedging creationism into anything scientific is nothing but what Xtianity has been doing for centuries - forcing its POV where its not needed and in fact not welcome...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#389
Dec 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
What I think many scientists are 'rejecting' is the conclusions drawn by creation 'scientists'. As an example, there are fully qualified scientists who make 'scientific' cases for the Genesis account of creation, including a young earth, and a global flood.
No, that is not correct. Their cases may SEEM to be scientific to you and other Christians (which is very much the propaganda point of these Christian creationist institutes, etc.). But actually, their cases are Christian apologetics, using sciencey-sounding language.

They are so because they begin with the assumption (as conservative Christians) that the Bible story is literally true, then they see how they can try and shoehorn the vast scientific evidence into that mold. The vast majority of the evidence they cannot fit, so they just ignore or discard it.

In other words, a scientist goes wherever the evidence leads him (within the limits of the scientific method), while a creationist tries to uses bits and pieces of scientific evidence to 'prove' an a priori religious idea or belief.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#390
Dec 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
How instantaneous do you think the salvation was for the thief on the cross, who Jesus made very clear: "Today you will be with me in Paradise"? What may have been the thief's extra-curricular activity that gave him this apparent 'undeserved' "free-pass"? Or did he do something during that time (from verbal rejection to acceptance) that made him 'deserving'?
Damn, I wish I could lay bets on what replies will be...I knew you'd pull the thief on the cross card.

I think the thief is a wholly specious example. You're talking about direct - verifiable (as far as the story goes) contact with Jesus in the FLESH. As he walked the Earth. I would allow that Jesus in such circumstances could and did save people instantly.

What I'm talking about and I think you know this - is/are claims made post-Jesus on Earth. Made by the person about themselves, NOT by Jesus. Jesus can certainly make the claim as he's the one who can write the actual ticket.

This is not a new topic/question...can a Believer truly make a claim of absolute salvation about themselves...? IMO, no. As being saved - thru Faith - is not supported as a One-off action.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 361 - 380 of447
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

38 Users are viewing the Christian Forum right now

Search the Christian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 5 min paganbirdkeeper666 7,590
Dollarsbill Is Still Quick To Condemn 19 min Anonymous Girl 843
Stealing the Keys to Heaven (Dec '12) 32 min FSM 87,767
The Law HYPOCRITES 40 min Prince of Darkness 609
Christians: Is this a Bible contradiction? 43 min Prince of Darkness 53
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? 46 min Prince of Darkness 939
GOD TOLD ME This TODAY 52 min Prince of Darkness 124
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••