(January 11, 2019 at 7:16 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 11, 2019 at 6:57 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I, I, I  All you, huh?

You.... "God exists"

Me, "Fine, show me your independent worldwide majority accepted independent peer review Nobel Prize in "god theory" .... That proves you magically picked the correct deity. Trust me, if you do that, the world will beat a path to your door.

Sure, I don't have a "Nobel Prize" as you put it, but happy to discuss it with you in a civil manner. Fair?

(January 11, 2019 at 7:29 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 11, 2019 at 7:16 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You.... "God exists"

Me, "Fine, show me your independent worldwide majority accepted independent peer review Nobel Prize in "god theory" .... That proves you magically picked the correct deity. Trust me, if you do that, the world will beat a path to your door.

Sure, I don't have a "Nobel Prize" as you put it, but happy to discuss it with you in a civil manner. Fair?

When I call for your arrest or death, then you can rightfully call me "uncivil". But you not liking my bluntness and cutting to the chase, and refusal to wade down your Yellow Brick Road, does not mean I want you dead. It just means I think your logic sucks.

You have no evidence. I am being very fair to you. I would have the same response if you were claiming Allah, or Yahweh, or Vishnu.... ect ect ect....

We do however, as a species, have plenty of evidence of dead religions and dead gods nobody believes in today. 

This is not for me an issue of human rights. It is strictly a matter of evidence. 

I love my late mother. She passed away in 2017. She was a lifetime Catholic, I am a former Catholic. That is a woman who never let me sink. Put me through college, bought me a house. She didn't throw me out of the house when I told her I no longer believed. But, if she kept on repeating every day, repeatedly, and truly believed it, "The Chicago Cubs beat the Philadelphia Eagles in the NHL Stanley Cup", yes, it would irritate me to the point of wanting to object to that logic. 

I love my species POTENTIAL for things like compassion and empathy and discovery and logic. POTENTIAL, does not default to always. 

If you are looking for human rights, I got your back. But if you are looking for a pat on the back while using logic I don't agree with, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I

Only 12 of them. Not bad.

When you figure out it's not all about you, then we can discuss logic.

Regardless, sorry to hear about your mom passing. Wish your family the best in that, and was wonderful of her to help you so much.

(January 11, 2019 at 9:02 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I

Only 12 of them. Not bad.

When you figure out it's not all about you, then we can discuss logic.

Regardless, sorry to hear about your mom passing.  Wish your family the best in that, and was wonderful of her to help you so much.

Wow, for someone claiming a deity who has to be the center of attention always, that takes nerve for you to claim it is all about me.

No, it is not all about me. The universe was doing fine 4 billion years ago and 13.8 billion years ago prior to my birth, and it will continue on fine after I die. No, it is not all about me. It is about evidence and logic.

(January 11, 2019 at 9:09 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 11, 2019 at 9:02 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I

Only 12 of them. Not bad.

When you figure out it's not all about you, then we can discuss logic.

Regardless, sorry to hear about your mom passing.  Wish your family the best in that, and was wonderful of her to help you so much.

Wow, for someone claiming a deity who has to be the center of attention always, that takes nerve for you to claim it is all about me.

No, it is not all about me. The universe was doing fine 4 billion years ago and 13.8 billion years ago prior to my birth, and it will continue on fine after I die. No, it is not all about me. It is about evidence and logic.

When did I make that claim?  Again, you're asserting me as a source for something I didn't say. 

What evidence?  What logic are you implying?  You insist on these things without demonstrating them.  Not saying you can't demonstrate them, but it's useless for someone to run around in circles claiming logic and evidence without sharing what they've got.  But hey, if you don't want to share, no problem.  Not trying to force you to.

(January 11, 2019 at 9:16 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 11, 2019 at 9:09 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Wow, for someone claiming a deity who has to be the center of attention always, that takes nerve for you to claim it is all about me.

No, it is not all about me. The universe was doing fine 4 billion years ago and 13.8 billion years ago prior to my birth, and it will continue on fine after I die. No, it is not all about me. It is about evidence and logic.

When did I make that claim?  Again, you're asserting me as a source for something I didn't say. 

What evidence?  What logic are you implying?  You insist on these things without demonstrating them.  Not saying you can't demonstrate them, but it's useless for someone to run around in circles claiming logic and evidence without sharing what they've got.  But hey, if you don't want to share, no problem.  Not trying to force you to.

Um no, theists make claims without demonstrating them.

Science works regardless of personal beliefs. It is why both you and I are using computers and why we are both on the internet right now. It is why planes can fly over Iran and Australia and China and America. It is why flu vaccines work on Christians and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus.

Religious people can and do accept science all over the world, but only and up until it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

Revelations

(January 11, 2019 at 9:53 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 11, 2019 at 9:16 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: When did I make that claim?  Again, you're asserting me as a source for something I didn't say. 

What evidence?  What logic are you implying?  You insist on these things without demonstrating them.  Not saying you can't demonstrate them, but it's useless for someone to run around in circles claiming logic and evidence without sharing what they've got.  But hey, if you don't want to share, no problem.  Not trying to force you to.

Um no, theists make claims without demonstrating them.

Science works regardless of personal beliefs. It is why both you and I are using computers and why we are both on the internet right now. It is why planes can fly over Iran and Australia and China and America. It is why flu vaccines work on Christians and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus.

Religious people can and do accept science all over the world, but only and up until it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

- What theists?  What do you even want demonstrated?

- Science is inclusive of personal beliefs.  When you get that, you'll be once step closer to understanding what science is and isn't.  Tis why we have various branches of "science."

- What "science" are you suggesting is leading to this conflict?  If you feel like something is being rejected due to unfair bias, then feel free to put it out there so we can examine it "scientifically."  If something in empirically proven, then it shouldn't be hard to determine which side to lean towards.

(January 12, 2019 at 12:44 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 11, 2019 at 9:53 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Um no, theists make claims without demonstrating them.

Science works regardless of personal beliefs. It is why both you and I are using computers and why we are both on the internet right now. It is why planes can fly over Iran and Australia and China and America. It is why flu vaccines work on Christians and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus.

Religious people can and do accept science all over the world, but only and up until it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

- What theists?  What do you even want demonstrated?

- Science is inclusive of personal beliefs.  When you get that, you'll be once step closer to understanding what science is and isn't.  Tis why we have various branches of "science."

- What "science" are you suggesting is leading to this conflict?  If you feel like something is being rejected due to unfair bias, then feel free to put it out there so we can examine it "scientifically."  If something in empirically proven, then it shouldn't be hard to determine which side to lean towards.

No, scientific method is a tool, scientists are people using the tool, like you use a hammer to build a deck(field), house(field), but the hammer is the same.. Scientists are bound by that tool to leave their personal bias out of the lab. You can argue that they don't always do that, and that would be correct. But the tool of scientific method is to weed out personal bias to insure that none of your data, formulas or conclusions get corrupted.

Scientific method is the tool, the  scientist is the person is using the tool. If that person wants accurate data, they most certainly have to be willing to accept when they are wrong.

(January 12, 2019 at 2:12 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 12, 2019 at 12:44 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: - What theists?  What do you even want demonstrated?

- Science is inclusive of personal beliefs.  When you get that, you'll be once step closer to understanding what science is and isn't.  Tis why we have various branches of "science."

- What "science" are you suggesting is leading to this conflict?  If you feel like something is being rejected due to unfair bias, then feel free to put it out there so we can examine it "scientifically."  If something in empirically proven, then it shouldn't be hard to determine which side to lean towards.

No, scientific method is a tool, scientists are people using the tool, like you use a hammer to build a deck(field), house(field), but the hammer is the same.. Scientists are bound by that tool to leave their personal bias out of the lab. You can argue that they don't always do that, and that would be correct. But the tool of scientific method is to weed out personal bias to insure that none of your data, formulas or conclusions get corrupted.

Scientific method is the tool, the  scientist is the person is using the tool. If that person wants accurate data, they most certainly have to be willing to accept when they are wrong.

It's a tool developed by a Christian and based on Christian philosophy to establish empiricism.

I figure at this point you're either say "NOOOOO" or your head will explode.  Either way it will still be true.