Comments
1,621 - 1,640 of 2,167 Comments Last updated Nov 6, 2013
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2022
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. People compartmentalize all the time.
<quoted text>
Argument from authority. Not a single one of them is an expert in the field of proving God exists. What they say about God is just as valid as what anybody else says about God, because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF GOD'S EXISTENCE. Until you can define God and then demonstrate God's existence, there's nothing you've really got to say that means anything about God.
Like I said, it's irrational to accept a claim as true without any evidence to corroborate it.
Heck I couldn't define little green men but I wouldn't say they don't exist because I can't define them.

Obviously you mean you see no evidence. Reminds me of SCOTUS decisions. The majority believes the constitution says this, the minority believes the exact same wording says that.
Matter of fact, Richard Dawkins is certainly no expert in the field of theology either. There are errors in his book,The God Delusion, which we can attribute to shoddy research. Of course there are also a few passages that apparently were written simply to mislead.

I also agree that claiming God doesn't exist as the original poster wrote is irrational. If he had written in his opinion,that blah ,blah,blah,he sees no evidence for God's existence that isn't a problem. Saying God doesn't exist is a statement of fact which demands proof.

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge"
Ravi Zacharias

Ouch!
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2023
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
Note that NONE of the scientists you cite claim that your God exists, only that something MAY exist.
It's a far cry from believing that the universe MAY HAVE been created by an intelligent force to believing that that force got a human virgin pregnant and gave birth to himself, then died even though he couldn't be killed.
What you are claiming is they are theists but not my kind of theist. Perhaps, but they aren't atheists.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2024
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are claiming is they are theists but not my kind of theist. Perhaps, but they aren't atheists.
An atheist is simply anyone who isn't a theist.

Agnostics can be either theistic or atheistic.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2025
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
Note that NONE of the scientists you cite claim that your God exists, only that something MAY exist.
It's a far cry from believing that the universe MAY HAVE been created by an intelligent force to believing that that force got a human virgin pregnant and gave birth to himself, then died even though he couldn't be killed.
Of course he could be killed in his human form

Now to your claim. Werner Von Braun was a Lutheran. Fritz Schaeffer is listed as a Protestant Christian and the following relates to Tipler.

“I believe that we have to accept the implications of physical laws, whatever these implications are.“If they imply the existence of God, well then, God exists”
Frank Tipler,The Physics of Christianity (Doubleday 2007).

He adds:“From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion but an experimentally testable science.”

So the three scientists were/are Christians meaning they believe my God exists.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2026
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "opinion" is nothing more than you redefining terms to make your argument work. Your argument needs to work with demonstrable reality, not with your own personally made-up version of reality. Try again.
Even funnier is your opinion that Einstein was an atheist which was apparently refuted on numerous occasions by the man himself.
When Einstein said he did not believe in a "Personal God", the statement in no way excludes any god. In fact the use of the qualifier,'personal', is evidence of his affirmative belief in a God of some form. If someone said to you, blue dogs don't exist, would you then assume he meant all dogs don't exist? Of course not. It is the belief that dogs do exist which then requires the qualifier
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2027
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
An atheist is simply anyone who isn't a theist.
Agnostics can be either theistic or atheistic.
Yet all three of those scientists professed Christianity so the point you are trying to make is rather moot.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2028
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heck I couldn't define little green men but I wouldn't say they don't exist because I can't define them.
Obviously you mean you see no evidence. Reminds me of SCOTUS decisions. The majority believes the constitution says this, the minority believes the exact same wording says that.
Matter of fact, Richard Dawkins is certainly no expert in the field of theology either. There are errors in his book,The God Delusion, which we can attribute to shoddy research. Of course there are also a few passages that apparently were written simply to mislead.
I also agree that claiming God doesn't exist as the original poster wrote is irrational. If he had written in his opinion,that blah ,blah,blah,he sees no evidence for God's existence that isn't a problem. Saying God doesn't exist is a statement of fact which demands proof.
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge"
Ravi Zacharias
Ouch!
Not true at all. Here's why: if you define your God in such a way that the definition is a contradiction, then your God cannot exist.

You brought up little green men, so let's debate their existence as an exercise.

If you can't define them at all then you cannot state that they exist or even that you believe they exist. However, you began defining them when you called them "little" "green" "men."

If you claimed that some little green men are giants, then your claim would be false. Something cannot be little and gigantic at the same time to the same person, unless they were being compared to two different things. In that case, you don;t have a proper definition, you have a relative description.

If you claimed that some little green men are red, then your claim would be false. Something that is green cannot also be red, unless it is both colors. Do your little green men have large red stripes? Are they perennially drunk and so appear red because their faces are flush? If so, then your description is inaccurate and your definition is flawed.

If you claimed that some little green men are women then again your statement would be false, unless you were using the word "men" to denote "mankind", but little green men aren't a subset of mankind, so again your definition would be flawed.

Which brings us back to God. Either your definition of God is flawed (in which case your faith is based on a flawed definition, which means you're praying to the wrong God or praying for the wrong reasons) or your definition of God is self-contradicting (in which case your God cannot exist.)

If I claimed to have invented a five-sided square, would you believe me? Why or why not?

Can your God make a five-sided square? Why or why not?

The answer is of course not. God cannot make anything that contradicts itself. Thus he is not omniscient after all. He has limits. And therefore he isn't God, which means your God doesn't exist.

So here's where it stands: I cannot claim that NO gods exist, but if you claim YOUR God exists, and I can prove that your God's definition is contradictory, then I proved that your God is a five-sided square; an impossibility, by definition.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2029
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he could be killed in his human form
Now to your claim. Werner Von Braun was a Lutheran. Fritz Schaeffer is listed as a Protestant Christian and the following relates to Tipler.
“I believe that we have to accept the implications of physical laws, whatever these implications are.“If they imply the existence of God, well then, God exists”
Frank Tipler,The Physics of Christianity (Doubleday 2007).
He adds:“From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion but an experimentally testable science.”
So the three scientists were/are Christians meaning they believe my God exists.
If Jesus is God, and Jesus can be killed, then God can be killed.

Or conversely, if Jesus is God in human form then EVERY person is God in human form.

There isn't anything that Jesus could do that another human couldn't do.

Jesus could preach and impart wisdom to some (not all) people? So can human preachers and teachers.

Jesus could turn water into wine? Human scientists can turn wind into electricity.

Jesus could heal the sick? So can doctors.

Jesus could raise the dead? So could his disciples.

Jesus could feed a thousand people with one fish? So can humans - we have the ability to clone animals and create more of them.

Jesus' body could die? So can all humans' bodies.

Jesus' soul survived death? So do all human souls according to Christian theology.

There is no difference between Jesus and any other human being. If Jesus could die then he wasn't God, and if he was God in human form then so is every human being.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2030
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet all three of those scientists professed Christianity so the point you are trying to make is rather moot.
If they professed to believe that Jesus Christ was the only path to salvation, then they were theists.

My point is that, in general, present-day scientists are mostly agnostic or atheistic.

The more we learn about science, the less we believe the absurd story about the Christian God who impregnated a virgin and gave birth to himself.
little lamb

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2031
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
If they professed to believe that Jesus Christ was the only path to salvation, then they were theists.
My point is that, in general, present-day scientists are mostly agnostic or atheistic.
The more we learn about science, the less we believe the absurd story about the Christian God who impregnated a virgin and gave birth to himself.
Not true..false assumption...It was Christian monks that were the first to investigate the world around them, investigating the glory of god.....

Because in earlier times a son in a family either joined the army , or went on to study further, and he could only do it in the church environment , where his food was provided and housing so he was free to research..

atheists just came on the scene later trying to usurp the glory for themselves..trying desperately to make themselves feel important

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2035
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

little lamb wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true..false assumption...It was Christian monks that were the first to investigate the world around them, investigating the glory of god.....
Because in earlier times a son in a family either joined the army , or went on to study further, and he could only do it in the church environment , where his food was provided and housing so he was free to research..
atheists just came on the scene later trying to usurp the glory for themselves..trying desperately to make themselves feel important
I don't think you red my post, so I'll post it again:

"If they professed to believe that Jesus Christ was the only path to salvation, then they were theists. My point is that, in general, present-day scientists are mostly agnostic or atheistic.
The more we learn about science, the less we believe the absurd story about the Christian God who impregnated a virgin and gave birth to himself."

You're comparing Christian monks to present-day scientists. That's a false equivalency.

And your statement itself is flat out false - it wasn't Christian monks who were the first to investigate the world around them.

First of all, monks are secluded and hermetic. They rarely go out into the world.

More importantly, the ancient Egyptians thousands of years before Christ created medicine, dentistry, prosthetic devices, pharmacology, nutrition, surgical techniques, and agricultural techniques such as basin irrigation and horticulture.

As for atheists, we are the LEAST likely to be self-important. We don't believe that we're worth anything when we're dead.

Belief in the afterlife and a system that rewards people for clinging to the same beliefs is the height of human vanity.
little lamb

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2036
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HighlyEvolved wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you red my post, so I'll post it again:
"If they professed to believe that Jesus Christ was the only path to salvation, then they were theists. My point is that, in general, present-day scientists are mostly agnostic or atheistic.

.
That is not true..: Elaine Howard Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University; and a few years ago she published a book Science vs. Religion:

Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them.

She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious.

Many others are what she calls “spiritual entrepreneurs,”

…..only a small minority are hostile to religion

You can research it more yourself

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2037
Apr 29, 2013
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heck I couldn't define little green men but I wouldn't say they don't exist because I can't define them.
Obviously you mean you see no evidence. Reminds me of SCOTUS decisions. The majority believes the constitution says this, the minority believes the exact same wording says that.
Matter of fact, Richard Dawkins is certainly no expert in the field of theology either. There are errors in his book,The God Delusion, which we can attribute to shoddy research. Of course there are also a few passages that apparently were written simply to mislead.
I also agree that claiming God doesn't exist as the original poster wrote is irrational. If he had written in his opinion,that blah ,blah,blah,he sees no evidence for God's existence that isn't a problem. Saying God doesn't exist is a statement of fact which demands proof.
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge"
Ravi Zacharias
Ouch!
Atheism, in general, is the lack of belief in God or gods. All atheists lack this belief. Not all atheists claim there are no gods. Only gnostic atheists do that. Anybody who has not been convinced of the existence of deities is an atheist. In the absence of evidence to corroborate the claim, the only rational stance is rejection of the claim. If evidence only emerges after acceptance of the claim, you're saying that the evidence hinges upon being irrational. Rejection of a claim is not an assertion of the contrapositive. Do you know what that means?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2038
Apr 29, 2013
 
little lamb wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not true..: Elaine Howard Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University; and a few years ago she published a book Science vs. Religion:
Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them.
She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious.
Many others are what she calls “spiritual entrepreneurs,”
…..only a small minority are hostile to religion
You can research it more yourself
What do you mean by "hostile to religion?" Are you hostile to Zeus or leprechauns or unicorns?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2039
Apr 29, 2013
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even funnier is your opinion that Einstein was an atheist which was apparently refuted on numerous occasions by the man himself.
When Einstein said he did not believe in a "Personal God", the statement in no way excludes any god. In fact the use of the qualifier,'personal', is evidence of his affirmative belief in a God of some form. If someone said to you, blue dogs don't exist, would you then assume he meant all dogs don't exist? Of course not. It is the belief that dogs do exist which then requires the qualifier
Unless he had a belief in supernatural beings, he was an atheist. It doesn't mean he ever said or thought "no gods exist." It merely means "I haven't been convinced that any gods exist."

If there's a jar filled with jellybeans, the number of jellybeans in the jar must be even or odd. This is a fact, just like God exists or does not exist. If I claim the number of jellybeans in the jar is even, but I have no evidence to support my claim, should you accept that claim? No. You should accept my claim only if I have evidence to support it. Just like if you claim God exists, but you have no evidence to support your claim, should I accept that claim? No. I should only accept it if you have evidence. Now, does that mean you're saying the number of jellybeans is odd? No. It just means you're not accepting my claim about it being even. Just like if I don't accept your claim about God existing doesn't mean I'm saying God doesn't exist. I'm just not accepting your claim about God existing.

Do you understand this?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2040
Apr 29, 2013
 
little lamb wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true..false assumption...It was Christian monks that were the first to investigate the world around them, investigating the glory of god.....
Because in earlier times a son in a family either joined the army , or went on to study further, and he could only do it in the church environment , where his food was provided and housing so he was free to research..
atheists just came on the scene later trying to usurp the glory for themselves..trying desperately to make themselves feel important
Wow. That is completely absurd.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2041
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

little lamb wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not true..: Elaine Howard Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University; and a few years ago she published a book Science vs. Religion:
Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them.
She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious.
Many others are what she calls “spiritual entrepreneurs,”
…..only a small minority are hostile to religion
You can research it more yourself
Nearly 50% are religious, which means that n more than 50% are NOT religious, which means that, as I wrote, MOST scientists are not religious.

The problem isn't atheists or agnostics, the problem is religious people. They don't like or trust atheists, and that's why there are so many "closet atheists" - people who are secretly atheist but who pretend to be religious or spiritual, even going so far as to attend the churches that other members of their professional community attend.

"If religious people better understood the full range of atheistic practice - and the way that it interfaces with religion for some - they might be less likely to hold negative attitudes toward nonreligious scientists. The truth is that many atheist scientists have no desire to denigrate religion or religious people."

Elaine Howard Ecklund, Ph.D., "What Scientists Think About Religion"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-e...

There is one fact that is indisputable: 93% of the members of the National Academy of Scientists do not believe in a personal God.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file...
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2045
Apr 29, 2013
 
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being." - Albert Einstein (1936) Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2047
Apr 29, 2013
 
Fremont Rose wrote:
<quoted text>Did you mean "read". Your point is a lie. The point is only 38% of present day scientists do not believe there is a God or gods. Since, agnostics simply do not know, you can not include them, so that means that 62% of scientists do not adhere to atheism.
Did you mean "Since agnostics"?

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2048
Apr 29, 2013
 
Fremont Rose wrote:
<quoted text>Your desperation is overwhelming. You are trying to argue religion amongst what is primarily a secular group. If 25% were religious that would be major. In fact, more than 50% are religious and if we count agnostics who and look at those who deny there is a God or gods, then then number of scientists who are atheist shrink perhaps to 30%. Yes, it dropped 8% in the last few minutes,since the religious scientists numbers increased.
Please tell me the number of priests, preachers, popes, and ministers who are atheist and believe there is no God. You would be bragging and calling it a breakdown even if the numbers were 5%.
The problem has always been atheists, the agnostics admit to not knowing and regularly become religious, while the religious scientists keep the atheists nuts from manipulating data.
What is your weekly purpose in life, as an atheist?
What is your daily purpose in life as a non-Jew?

Apparently YOU are the desperate one.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

•••