(August 10, 2017 at 10:48 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

rjh4 is back Wrote:Oh yeah....using methodology proposed by Christians. It is nonsense for you to take the position that because one believes in God, science and the scientific method cannot be applied by them. And it is irrational to take the position that just because science provides naturalistic explanations of what we see and observe, that all can be explained that way.

It doesn't matter at all who developed the methodology, though I think you're giving the Greeks sort shrift.

It seems to be nonsense that you think that is Crossless2.0's position. I'm pretty sure he or she never claimed that theists can't apply the scientific method. On what do you base this accusation that this is his or her position?

The position is that if it can't be determined by observation, reason, and scientific methodology, it remains unknown. What is so irrational about that?

Sure theists can and do accept science, but where they go wrong is when they cherry pick or try to inject religion into a lab. In reality, scientific method is neutral, it is not there to prop up any religious sect or label or deity.

The theist when they admit they cannot inject religion into science will end up compartmentalizing pulling the "separate but equal" garbage.

The theist will accept science but only and up to the point it starts conflicting with their beliefs.

(August 10, 2017 at 12:00 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: To point out that the scientific method is not at odds with Christian principles.

Except that it can't be applied to the magic such as walking on water, turning water into wine, curing leprosy, casting out demons into pigs, rising the dead, transubstantiation, ................

(August 10, 2017 at 12:28 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(August 10, 2017 at 12:00 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: To point out that the scientific method is not at odds with Christian principles.

Except that it can't be applied to the magic such as walking on water, turning water into wine, curing leprosy, casting out demons into pigs, rising the dead, transubstantiation, ................

Yea but when we point that out they move it from the reality column to the metaphor column. Problem is the further back in time you go the more people took the bible literally. 

So instead, I like to aim my weapon right at the two most important stories that they cannot move to the metaphor column otherwise their entire religion becomes moot.

1. The birth mythology. It takes TWO sets of DNA to lead to a new baby, so that alone blows the birth myth out of the water.

2. The death mythology. If you were to murder someone in reality as the bible implies in the death myth, nobody comes back from that. Nobody survives rigor mortis. 

But yea sure, there are lots of bullshit claims in that book of myth he knows he cannot defend with science.

And the motifs of raising the dead and curing blindness were in polytheism long before Christianity in any case. Most people don't know or care to know the meaning of the Rx pharmacy symbol meaning. It was actually taken from the ancient Egyptian mythology of the healing god Thot spitting in the eye of Horus to cure his blindness. Thot is represented by the "R" with the arm of the "R" being the spit hitting they lower case "x" the eye of Horus.

---

(August 10, 2017 at 11:54 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ID has been pretty well discredited.

Not "pretty well" but "flat out downright discredited". ID is simply creationism revised because theists don't like their illusion destroyed.

(August 10, 2017 at 12:10 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Sure theists can and do accept science, but where they go wrong is when they cherry pick or try to inject religion into a lab. In reality, scientific method is neutral, it is not there to prop up any religious sect or label or deity.

Can you give me an example of what you mean here? Particularly with respect to injecting religion into a lab.

I agree that the scientific method is neutral.

(August 10, 2017 at 3:01 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 7:49 pm)Godscreated Wrote: Sure it would be irritating because I could disprove that statement as false, you on the other hand can't disprove God, period. Note the fact that I said I could disprove their statement, yet you will insist on the opposite from Christians. By your statement and my answer you should be willing to bring proof that God doesn't exist, instead you rely on a Dawkins statement. 


  My logic is sound, just because you have differences with it doesn't mean I'm wrong. I would never consider myself a martyr and it was you that brought up the "gang" terminology. I just showed how it was used here by some and it's okay if they continue, they only show the childish attitude they have in life. What they expose here is done in their lives, which is rather unfortunate. This site has so many tweeny weenies who have no idea about life that real adults here have a more difficult time in good conversation. If you think all this is pointed at you, you would be wrong and if some of it makes you uncomfortable about yourself then the shoe must fit.

GC

---

Hey gang member.

GC

Sup, That wasn't a response, In fact, it seems your still throwing a tantrum.

Have a blessed day. RAmen

 I'm not like some of the childish atheist here, I do not throw tantrums, that's the response of the gang. 

GC

(August 10, 2017 at 12:01 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 10, 2017 at 10:50 am)rjh4 is back Wrote: And how do we know whether any natural mechanisms would possibly work if we cannot show that those mechanism actually happen (repeatability)?

Why is it you do not hold your god to this same standard? Why should I entertain your "hypothesis" for a moment when you cannot even show that your god did it once, much less repeat it?

Also, I'm wondering how much you know about the historical sciences. Repeatability is not a requirement of a science, necessarily. Do you deny geology? Well, earthquakes and tectonic drift aren't repeatable. By this logic you should deny it its due respect. Ditto with astronomy.

I do not try to prove God scientifically and said it could not be done. Nor am I responsible for demonstrating that God did what He said He did.

Relative to historical sciences, I certainly understand there is a distinction to be made between the practical use of science (computers, drugs, etc.) and historical sciences. And I realize that any differences we would have probably would fall into the historical sciences area. I also agree with you that repeatability is not necessarily a requirement and your example is a good point. Clearly those are cases where the size and vastness cannot be repeated in the lab. That being said, if someone says that life can come from non-life via naturalistic mechanisms, I think it is fair to say "Well then show me that your mechanism works as you say." or provide a good explanation as to why it would be impossible to do in a lab. Now I am not talking about needing stars to form certain chemicals. Start with the chemicals in the lab and show it works.

You seem to be so skeptical of everything non-science, but pretty accepting of anything science puts forth. Why not be just as skeptical of some scientist who says that they have come up with a possible mechanism for producing life from non-life, unless they show it can be done or come up with some appropriate excuse, e.g., like your astronomy/geology example?

(August 10, 2017 at 2:00 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 10, 2017 at 12:10 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Sure theists can and do accept science, but where they go wrong is when they cherry pick or try to inject religion into a lab. In reality, scientific method is neutral, it is not there to prop up any religious sect or label or deity.

Can you give me an example of what you mean here? Particularly with respect to injecting religion into a lab.

I agree that the scientific method is neutral.

Cut the crap. You know damned well that is your end goal eventually. Otherwise you wouldn't be in this thread trying to argue science. 

RIGHT IT IS NEUTRAL, but don't hand me any fucking crap that your end goal isn't to plug the God of the bible in as the final answer to explain why we are here.

Your mistake is stupidly thinking I have not seen that bullshit tactic before.

You already lost by admitting the bible is not a science textbook. 

So try to do the intellectually mature thing and simply admit you got sold a myth.

(August 10, 2017 at 2:12 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Cut the crap. You know damned well that is your end goal eventually. Otherwise you wouldn't be in this thread trying to argue science. 

RIGHT IT IS NEUTRAL, but don't hand me any fucking crap that your end goal isn't to plug the God of the bible in as the final answer to explain why we are here.

Your mistake is stupidly thinking I have not seen that bullshit tactic before.

You already lost by admitting the bible is not a science textbook. 

So try to do the intellectually mature thing and simply admit you got sold a myth.

You do not know me personally, Brian, so quit trying to act like you do.

From other posts it is clear that you hate anyone generalizing about atheists but you seem to be willing to generalize about Christians.

I can talk all day about science, how far I think it can explain things, and question why others conclude something from the evidence we see, and never once mention God. If an atheist does that here they get kudos. But because I am a Christian, somehow that is bad for me to do because you think I just want to put a plug in for God.

Think what you want. And if you don't want to converse with me...stop reading my posts and responding to them. My feelings won't be hurt.

(August 10, 2017 at 2:52 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 10, 2017 at 2:12 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Cut the crap. You know damned well that is your end goal eventually. Otherwise you wouldn't be in this thread trying to argue science. 

RIGHT IT IS NEUTRAL, but don't hand me any fucking crap that your end goal isn't to plug the God of the bible in as the final answer to explain why we are here.

Your mistake is stupidly thinking I have not seen that bullshit tactic before.

You already lost by admitting the bible is not a science textbook. 

So try to do the intellectually mature thing and simply admit you got sold a myth.

You do not know me personally, Brian, so quit trying to act like you do.

From other posts it is clear that you hate anyone generalizing about atheists but you seem to be willing to generalize about Christians.

I can talk all day about science, how far I think it can explain things, and question why others conclude something from the evidence we see, and never once mention God. If an atheist does that here they get kudos. But because I am a Christian, somehow that is bad for me to do because you think I just want to put a plug in for God.

Think what you want. And if you don't want to converse with me...stop reading my posts and responding to them. My feelings won't be hurt.

Stop it, this is NOT ABOUT YOU..... That is the other thing your religion unfortunately feeds you, any criticism of it you falsely play victim.

No I do not know you that is correct. I have however over 16 years seen those same horrible chess moves made by other apologists.

Yes you can talk all day about science but in the end your goal is to plug in the God of the bible. 

ID is NOT SCIENCE, your God is not needed to explain how or why biological life exists.

Exploding stars explain why matter exists and thus atoms, and atoms make up biological life and that explains why life exists, because atoms exist.

I am sorry it bothers you that I am not swallowing your delusion, but that is your baggage, not mine.

(August 10, 2017 at 2:12 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 10, 2017 at 12:01 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Why is it you do not hold your god to this same standard? Why should I entertain your "hypothesis" for a moment when you cannot even show that your god did it once, much less repeat it?

Also, I'm wondering how much you know about the historical sciences. Repeatability is not a requirement of a science, necessarily. Do you deny geology? Well, earthquakes and tectonic drift aren't repeatable. By this logic you should deny it its due respect. Ditto with astronomy.

I do not try to prove God scientifically and said it could not be done. Nor am I responsible for demonstrating that God did what He said He did.

Relative to historical sciences, I certainly understand there is a distinction to be made between the practical use of science (computers, drugs, etc.) and historical sciences. And I realize that any differences we would have probably would fall into the historical sciences area. I also agree with you that repeatability is not necessarily a requirement and your example is a good point. Clearly those are cases where the size and vastness cannot be repeated in the lab. That being said, if someone says that life can come from non-life via naturalistic mechanisms, I think it is fair to say "Well then show me that your mechanism works as you say." or provide a good explanation as to why it would be impossible to do in a lab. Now I am not talking about needing stars to form certain chemicals. Start with the chemicals in the lab and show it works.

You seem to be so skeptical of everything non-science, but pretty accepting of anything science puts forth. Why not be just as skeptical of some scientist who says that they have come up with a possible mechanism for producing life from non-life, unless they show it can be done or come up with some appropriate excuse, e.g., like your astronomy/geology example?

Probably because the process, if it happened as hypothesized over a period longer than H. Sapiens has been around.

You don't know what I am and am not skeptical of, so I'd recommend you follow the advice you just gave Brian and quit pretending like you know me when in fact you don't.