Atheists are not deem trustworthy by religious people

[sandorski]

Originally Posted by DixyCrat

If you're walking with God then there is a spirit of caring that dwells within you; The love that you show is something that goes beyond what game-theory models predict regarding altruism. This other-loving mindset teaches you a lot about yourself and how you interact with others when not dwelling within such a spirit.

It is also the only appropriate way to engage scripture, because biblical hermeneutics is something that allows you to pull just about whatever you want out of a black-hole of meaning. Without a heart set toward ethical answer-ability you will pull from the bible the other-hurting/self-serving that you bring to it.

This has EVERYTHING to do with hate for homosexuals and justifying war: If the folks that read the teachings of Jesus were in the Spirit then they wouldn't conclude hate-filled and murderous things when they read what Jesus said.

Those people are as convinced of being "in the Spirit" as you and are perplexed as to how you can claim being "in the Spirit" at all. Being "in the Spirit" is really just stating Opinion then adding an Appeal to Authority to it.

[Pray To Jesus]

Originally Posted by RampantAndroid

What you mean to say is "that doesn't make sense so....GOD WILLED IT!"

/facepalm

That's not what I said. I said that it makes sense to me because of the Holy Spirit.

Bible also says exactly that.

1 Corinthians 2:6-16

6 But we speak wisdom among the mature, though not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are brought to nothing.
7 But we speak God's wisdom as a mystery, which has been hidden, which God foreordained from eternity for our glory.
8 Which none of the rulers of this age understood; for if they had known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,
9 But as it is written:

"Things which no eye has seen, nor ear heard,

Nor conceived in the heart of man,

How much God has prepared for those who love Him."

10 But1 God has revealed these things to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man, except the spirit of a man that is within him? So also, no one comprehends the things of God, except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit of God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God.
13 Which things we also speak, not in words taught of human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things with spiritual things.
14 But a natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God2; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But, on the one hand, the spiritual man judges all things3, while on the other, he is judged by no one.
16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, who will instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

[RampantAndroid]

Quote the bible all you like, it's a bunch of fiction combined with a few facts from history. I'll go online and read about Xanadu. Err, I me Xenu. Equally as real and believable.

You're as bad as my mother...people like you cannot be reasoned with because, clearly the bible is right and no evidence showing that it lied or gets things wrong is just people trying to tempt you or something.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by RampantAndroid

Quote the bible all you like, it's a bunch of fiction combined with a few facts from history.

Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a world history book covering say... the 1100's for instance, more believable than Biblical history?


Based on your post, the Bible has some practical and historical merit.

EDIT: I recall you saying you went to a Catholic Church or something while young. Sorry, but I thing you've been lied to. Shucks, don't blame the Bible though, it didn't lie to you. Your priests did. Blame them.

Just saying,...

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a world history book covering say... the 1100's for instance, more believable than Biblical history?

For the same reasons we don't believe that Homer's Iliad is history - it describes events that appear inconsistent with reality.

Based on your post, the Bible has some practical and historical merit.

It has some, sure. If I told you I caught a 300lb trout in the creek down by the old oak tree, however, the existence of the oak doesn't prove that the fish ever existed.

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a world history book covering say... the 1100's for instance, more believable than Biblical history?


Based on your post, the Bible has some practical and historical merit.

Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a fictional history book covering say... Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter for instance, less believable than Biblical history?


Based on your post, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has some practical and historical merit.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by Cerpin Taxt

For the same reasons we don't believe that Homer's Iliad is history - it describes events that appear inconsistent with reality.

Without injecting old-mind sets, it probably was out of the realm of reality that the earth was flat. And I am pretty sure those guys thought they were at the pinnacle of scientific reasoning as we think we are, with unlimited potential, which I agree with.

I say that to say this, it would behoove us not to simply dismiss something that has yet been observed or what seems un-observable.

EDIT: Are you rejecting the notion that someday science could cure sickness or old-age? For what I've read, though it seem nearly impossible, it's a well accepted possibility someday.

Correct me if I am wrong here, Taxt, but isn't the whole basis of science to do what was undo-able? See what's unseeable. Discover the undiscoverable?

It has some, sure. If I told you I caught 300lb trout in the creek down by the old oak tree, however, the existence of the oak doesn't prove that the fish ever existed.

No, it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to find out. If you go fish the creek, you may see one.

But honestly, it makes some hard or impossible to believe claims. I think we say it's "not reality" is because we can't replicate it. Just because I can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by AnonymouseUser

Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a fictional history book covering say... Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter for instance, less believable than Biblical history?


Based on your post, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has some practical and historical merit.

Hey. I read that and it does. I love vamps!!!

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by AnonymouseUser

Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a fictional history book covering say... Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter for instance, less believable than Biblical history?


Based on your post, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has some practical and historical merit.

too add, this is typical of a person who didn't get what he wanted or expected out of religion. Some blame lies with them, true, but also shovel some of that back into your own pile of rubbish.

[pelov]

[Pulsar]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Without injecting old-mind sets, it probably was out of the realm of reality that the earth was flat. And I am pretty sure those guys thought they were at the pinnacle of scientific reasoning as we think we are, with unlimited potential, which I agree with.

I say that to say this, it would behoove us not to simply dismiss something that has yet been observed or what seems un-observable.

EDIT: Are you rejecting the notion that someday science could cure sickness or old-age? For what I've read, though it seem nearly impossible, it's a well accepted possibility someday.

Correct me if I am wrong here, Taxt, but isn't the whole basis of science to do what was undo-able? See what's unseeable. Discover the undiscoverable?

No, it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to find out. If you go fish the creek, you may see one.

But honestly, it makes some hard or impossible to believe claims. I think we say it's "not reality" is because we can't replicate it. Just because I can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done.

Science has nothing to do with 'doing the un-doable'. There is every reason to believe that science will cure sickness and possibly old age. Science has already made incredible strides in curing other illnesses. That is called evidence. Scientific evidence. There are facts that lead us to believe that we will continue to make strides and may eventually wipe out illness.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no factual background, no provable tests, that there is a god. You keep suggesting we keep an open mind. Yet if I keep an open mind and believe that I'm going to start pooping pink unicorns tomorrow, that doesn't make it true. There is an exactly equal number of facts supporting God.

There is no provable evidence to support God's existence. No repeatable tests. That is the entire non-rational basis of the existence of God. More specifically, the argument that you have to take God 'on faith' is circular and self sustaining.

This is the forth or fifth time you've tried to re-define what science is. You really need to look up the Scientific process and understand it.

Science and God are incompatible. Science is the antithesis of faith, and no amount of word-smithing can change that. The "Theory of God" fails every single scientific test you can throw at it. Prayer fails. Miracles fail. On and on.

To sum this all up: true scientists don't think about God, because there is absolutely no reason to think about something that is absolutely untestable or unprovable. It has nothing to do with keeping an open mind.

[RampantAndroid]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Just a thought...

What makes (in your eyes) something written in a world history book covering say... the 1100's for instance, more believable than Biblical history?


Based on your post, the Bible has some practical and historical merit.

EDIT: I recall you saying you went to a Catholic Church or something while young. Sorry, but I thing you've been lied to. Shucks, don't blame the Bible though, it didn't lie to you. Your priests did. Blame them.

Just saying,...

Been lied to? wth? I read the entire god forsaken piece of crap bible. You are either a real lunatic, or a really good troll.

The bible has very little merit. The walls of Jericho - they'd been rebuilt numerous times, they didn't fall just ONE time. There's evidence of a flood, but zero evidence of an ark. I believe in things like history books because they cite sources. Sources like texts from the time, paintings, ruins found. We understand things like the various forms of Egyptian language, script and Hieroglyph - because of the Rosetta Stone. There's so much out there to find and understand from writings of the time. Much of what we know of the Roman empire is from writers of the time. Just go read up on Nero for example to find all the references. Much of history is based on hard evidence. This changes as new evidence surfaces at times, but regardless it's hard evidence.

The bible is based loosely on things that happened in certain time periods, but nothing supports the walls of Jericho coming down because an army marched around it, everything supports earthquakes. I'll say it again: religion is based on faith, which is believing without evidence. If you doubt me, I'll cite the bible. Again.

Originally Posted by pelov

Troll troll troll your boat....

[RampantAndroid]

Originally Posted by Pulsar

Science has nothing to do with 'doing the un-doable'. There is every reason to believe that science will cure sickness and possibly old age. Science has already made incredible strides in curing other illnesses. That is called evidence. Scientific evidence.

That situation is entirely different than stating there is a god. There is no provable evidence. No repeatable tests. That is the entire non-rational basis of the existence of God. More specifically, the argument that you have to take God 'on faith' is circular and self sustaining.

This is the forth or fifth time you've tried to re-define what science is. You really need to look up the Scientific process and understand it.

Science and God are incompatible. Science is the antithesis of faith, and no amount of word-smithing can change that. The "Theory of God" fails every single scientific test you can throw at it. Prayer fails. Miracles fail. On and on.

This - science is about advancing our understanding and using that new understanding to create new stuff, or as a basis for further questions and answers. It has NOTHING to do with the "un-doable" beyond the fact that showing someone from 200 years ago the ability to take a pill and have a headache go away would seem like magic.

[amish]

"15 But, on the one hand, the spiritual man judges all things3, while on the other, he is judged by no one."

whatever happened to "judge not, lest ye be judged."

it just seems like a total hypocrisy.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by Pulsar

Science has nothing to do with 'doing the un-doable'. There is every reason to believe that science will cure sickness and possibly old age. Science has already made incredible strides in curing other illnesses. That is called evidence. Scientific evidence. There are facts that lead us to believe that we will continue to make strides and may eventually wipe out illness.

Absence of Evidence isn't evidence of absence. True, the evidence we have does indeed give us faith in what science can do.

I guess it depends on how you look at it as well. However, I see evidence, in great amounts, that science will be used to destroy in great magnitude. Should I use this evidence to argue that the misuse of science (generally speaking) will ultimately result in the destruction of our race as humans? Many non-religious people believe this. I for one, don't. I can make a valid argument for that.

Evidence doesn't hold as much weight as what we choose to accept/reject. Giving just one side of science is convenient, and disillusional

On the other hand, there is absolutely no factual background, no provable tests, that there is a god. You keep suggesting we keep an open mind. Yet if I keep an open mind and believe that I'm going to start pooping pink unicorns tomorrow, that doesn't make it true. There is an exactly equal number of facts supporting God.

So you say...

[RampantAndroid]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Absence of Evidence isn't evidence of absence.

And I circle back to this whole nonsense of "you must believe without seeing." This is why you can't argue with Religious nuts. No matter what you show, they must believe because god said so.

Originally Posted by Rob M.

So you say...

Then provide evidence, or go sit in the corner and be quiet and accept that you believe in ghosts.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by RampantAndroid

And I circle back to this whole nonsense of "you must believe without seeing." This is why you can't argue with Religious nuts. No matter what you show, they must believe because god said so.

So, can you see the future? No, but do you believe in the future science gives you? Yes.

So, you believe without seeing, right?

Then provide evidence, or go sit in the corner and be quiet and accept that you believe in ghosts.

I will, if you'll consider it.

What do ya say?

[Mr. Pedantic]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Absence of Evidence isn't evidence of absence. True, the evidence we have does indeed give us faith in what science can do.

I guess it depends on how you look at it as well. However, I see evidence, in great amounts, that science will be used to destroy in great magnitude. Should I use this evidence to argue that the misuse of science (generally speaking) will ultimately result in the destruction of our race as humans? Many non-religious people believe this. I for one, don't. I can make a valid argument for that.

Evidence doesn't hold as much weight as what we choose to accept/reject. Giving just one side of science is convenient, and disillusional

Actually, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The strength of said evidence just depends on how well you've been looking.

[amish]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

I guess it depends on how you look at it as well. However, I see evidence, in great amounts, that science will be used to destroy in great magnitude

I wonder how many died in the name of science verse the vast amount of people that have died in the name of any religion.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by amish

I wonder how many died in the name of science verse the vast amount of people that have died in the name of any religion.

Nice way to twist my words. I didn't say " in the name of science". I said due to the misuse of science.

Both numbers are astronomical.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

Actually, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The strength of said evidence just depends on how well you've been looking.

Hmmmm... I see.

[RampantAndroid]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

So, can you see the future? No, but do you believe in the future science gives you? Yes.

So, you believe without seeing, right?

I believe in a trend. It's that simple. In the last 100 years we went from punch cards being used in the census to computers that can do billions of floating point math operations per second. We went from amputating legs to treating wounds and preventing gangrene, and when needed creating prostheses. We came to understand a lot about cancer and can treat it. We can image a baby in the wound. We went from Goddard suggesting that man might set foot on the moon in the 1910s and being laughed at (by the Smithsonian among many!) to the Smithsonian displaying equipment used to go to the moon, and sending a probe to the outer reaches of the solar system.

I can keep going, but my point is quite simply, I can extrapolate that within a period of time, we will need a new way to make CPUs because the limit of the size of the transistor is the size of the electron, in basic terms. I can extrapolate that we will continue to advance, and so forth. You however...just quote bible verses from what I've seen.

Originally Posted by Rob M.

I will, if you'll consider it.

What do ya say?

I'd LOVE to consider it. Let's go.

[RampantAndroid]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

Nice way to twist my words. I didn't say " in the name of science". I said due to the misuse of science.

Both numbers are astronomical.

Misuse of science? I'm sorry, but we didn't need to invent the nuke to kill tons of people. We were able to butcher plenty of people using sticks and stones. I don't get what your point is here. People will kill each other, just the human condition.

[DixyCrat]

Originally Posted by sandorski

Those people are as convinced of being "in the Spirit" as you and are perplexed as to how you can claim being "in the Spirit" at all. Being "in the Spirit" is really just stating Opinion then adding an Appeal to Authority to it.

I can see why you think that way and I can't tell you that flowers smell better than farts because folks that sniff asses will say their having a great time!

I appeal to your ability to reason out a difference between methane and perfume; but I can't prove a subjective social-cognition if you don't want to engage in my word-game.

Shit, I can't prove that you aren't the only being in all of existence and the rest of life is just your projection while you die of a hallucination.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by RampantAndroid

I believe in a trend. It's that simple. In the last 100 years we went from punch cards being used in the census to computers that can do billions of floating point math operations per second. We went from amputating legs to treating wounds and preventing gangrene, and when needed creating prostheses. We came to understand a lot about cancer and can treat it. We can image a baby in the wound. We went from Goddard suggesting that man might set foot on the moon in the 1910s and being laughed at (by the Smithsonian among many!) to the Smithsonian displaying equipment used to go to the moon, and sending a probe to the outer reaches of the solar system.

I can keep going, but my point is quite simply, I can extrapolate that within a period of time, we will need a new way to make CPUs because the limit of the size of the transistor is the size of the electron, in basic terms. I can extrapolate that we will continue to advance, and so forth. You however...just quote bible verses from what I've seen.



I'd LOVE to consider it. Let's go.

You're acting like I am saying science is a bad thing. I don't recall saying that. In fact, you can read back and we can squash all that. Heck, I benefit from science every single day of my life and then some. I am in debt to these people!

It would be foolish to say that.

Misuse of science? I'm sorry, but we didn't need to invent the nuke to kill tons of people. We were able to butcher plenty of people using sticks and stones. I don't get what your point is here. People will kill each other, just the human condition. ]

You don't get what my point is because you don't want to get what my point is. You're obviously intelligent enough to.

So, using a computer and a network connection to steal people's credit card information isn't the misusing of science? That's not what it was designed for, yet that's how it's used sometimes. This is my point. We misuse science because we choose to. Doesn't have much to do with the "human condition" as you're excusing.

Sticks and stones paled in comparison to more convenient and broad ways to kill, such as the inventing of nuclear weapons borne from the "human ingenuity" you so proudly championed a page ago. Sure, it's the human condition, but we can't use that as an excuse all the time. We have choices.

Keep living in your bubble thinking science is perfect and infallible and it can only be used to do good. I wish I could accept such a fantasy....

You also have a ridiculously opposite extreme thinking, as far as I have read, that religion can only be used bad.

Typical of scientific pandering and anti-religious bigotry all in one.