http://atheistforums.org/thread-17987-page-5.html

Sooooo you guys want to help me wrap my mind around morality? I need enlightenment.

Basically, atheists only pretend at it. Or have subjective morality, which is the same as having none at all, or 'sheep mode'. :p

Pot meet kettle fr0d0

(March 31, 2013 at 5:21 am)missluckie26 Wrote: Sooooo you guys want to help me wrap my mind around morality? I need enlightenment.

All morals are subjective. The only question being who you crib all or most of yours from.

(March 31, 2013 at 6:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Basically, atheists only pretend at it. Or have subjective morality, which is the same as having none at all, or 'sheep mode'. :p

Whilst I reject this notion, I still say it's better than getting morals from a God... Or the bible.

(March 17, 2013 at 6:57 pm)sarcasticface Wrote: Hello.

I'm in the process of finding out what I believe. I still go to a Christian church even though I don't believe in the bible anymore. So today the pastor was saying how science and the bible go hand in hand, but science hasn't yet caught up with the bible. When I heard him say this I could hardly wait to get home and find out what you guys had to say.

I don't know anything about science, so I would love to get suggestions on videos, articles, blogs, or books about how religion and science go together OR how they DON'T go together. I just want to do my research. Do science and other religions (besides Christianity) match up? Science and the Quran?

Please share. I am but a sponge ready to soak up your knowledge.

I have no knowledge of God....and there is a lack of any evidence about God that means anything to a thinking being......
religious people need the comfort of these fairy tales.........it's time humanity grew up...and equated religion with ' faries at the bottom of the garden'.

(March 31, 2013 at 8:02 am)pazy Wrote: I have no knowledge of God....and there is a lack of any evidence about God that means us people need the comfort of these fairy tales.........it's time humanity grew up...and equated religion with ' faries at the bottom of the garden'.

Humanity already 'grew up' and became willfully ignorant. Take a look around.

(March 17, 2013 at 6:57 pm)sarcasticface Wrote: Hello.

I'm in the process of finding out what I believe. I still go to a Christian church even though I don't believe in the bible anymore. So today the pastor was saying how science and the bible go hand in hand, but science hasn't yet caught up with the bible. When I heard him say this I could hardly wait to get home and find out what you guys had to say.

I don't know anything about science, so I would love to get suggestions on videos, articles, blogs, or books about how religion and science go together OR how they DON'T go together. I just want to do my research. Do science and other religions (besides Christianity) match up? Science and the Quran?

Please share. I am but a sponge ready to soak up your knowledge.

There is not much at all on what is generally called the philosophy of science and calling it that annoys me to no end. (physicist and EE)

Science has an absolute requirement for physical evidence that religion cannot produce. Testimony is not physical evidence. Real testimony as in court is required to be about physical evidence. Physical evidence is what can be given an exhibit number.

Therefore the two are incompatible and despite wishful thinkers cannot be reconciled in fact.

* Also magic is magic even if you call it a miracle.
* As all holy books are essentially anonymous you have no idea of the good character, if any, of the author.
* The first written copy of the Koran was released a century after Mohamed died. Thus we cannot tell an original transcript as claimed from a creation a century in the making.

See Made in Alexandria The Origin of the Yahweh Cult by Matt Giwer, © 2011, 2012 for a list of many more things we do not know about holy book claims. Although directed towards the Old Testament it applies to the NT and the Koran.

---

(March 17, 2013 at 8:32 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Science does not disprove Christianity.

In fact proof of a negative, aka disproof, is impossible therefore you are making a correct but deliberately misleading statement.

Quote:There is no scientific evidence anywhere that even remotely comes close to challenging any of the central tenets of Christian doctrine. Some science challenges a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Are you claiming science supports burning bushes, Red Sea parting, talking asses, angels, prophecy and dozens of other magic tricks which you would call miracles?

Quote:Science began as a mostly Christian enterprise, now it is partially secular.

Science as in astronomy goes back to Babylon. Its expansion to addressing just about everything was done by Greeks of the pagan persuasion. Christians destroyed the schools in which science was taught along with the teachers. Until scientists were able to safely break away from Christian constraints (1823 England blasphemy conviction in England which Darwin feared for himself decades later) there was religious objection to just about everything. And that objection was backed by the reality of civil punishment. Look into the biographies of the early scientists and notice they moved around a lot. An honest bio will give the reason as driven out of town by threat of punishment and in a few cases of actual physical eviction.

I thought Christians were not supposed to lie?

Quote:Many, many scientists believe in God. Many of the greatest scientists in history have believed in God.

If you wish to invoke a fallacious appeal to authority you do not get to pick and choose which scientists believe what. You buy the whole hog or nothing. And when you "cleverly" insert a generic god reference for Christianity you are deliberately attempting to mislead. When you use upper case G for God you are deliberately attempting to mislead by implying the belief is in the currently popular version of the Christian god. If you go down a Who's Who in science these days this appeal to authority means it is the Old Testament god not the New Testament god. It is the one of wrath and punishment and hundreds of idiot laws not the one fronted by Christians.

Quote:All of the major universities started as Christian universities and still are Christian to a large degree. 55% of scientists believe in God.

The earliest known were the gymnasia founded by the pagan Greeks which were particular targets for Christian destruction. The next group of "universities" were by Islam. For Christians they grew out of divinity schools by accident.

Quote:http://biologos.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...in_science

Wikipedia is a high school level website. We are not high school students.

(March 17, 2013 at 10:18 pm)jstrodel Wrote: ...
But people have been interpreting Genesis non-literally for thousands of years. Your are presupposing that Genesis actually teaches a Young Earth. There are actually two stories in Genesis, Adam's name means simply man and there are other textual clues that say that that Genesis could be understood non-literally. You want Genesis to teach a Young Earth so you can say that science disproves Christianity, but you don't care about the many people such as the 48% of seminary professors that accept evolutionary theory and don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
...

Rather as miracles are magic and therefore impossible none of the books of the OT pass the giggle test long before invoking science. The reality that everyone learns while growing up and learning fairy tales are just that says they are all fantasy.

"Miracles are magic therefore impossible" is this supposed to be an argument? It is not self evident that magic is impossible. You are using psuedo-logic terminology.

---

You havn't disproved the existence of miracles and you won't. You assume that everything must be scientifically proven for it to be true, but you don't argue this, you assume it.

Babylonian astronomy is nothing like modern science, which trces back to Christian Europe. You are pulling anything you can to ignore the obvious roots that science has in Europe and America.

There is nothing wrong with using wikipedia as a source the way that I did, and the list of thinkers it mentions are real. You can find their biographies elsewhere.


It is not fallacious to mention the fact that many, probably most scientists in history believed in some form of God, including some of the most important ones. Obviously that does not prove the existence of God, but in your black and white world, everything either gives absolute proof of something, or it is a fallacy. This is how atheists think, everything is black and white.

If you don't think it is significant that there have been millions of scientists who do not believe the scientific method conflicts with miracles, you are just a dishonest, proud person and there is really no reason to reason with you. If you can't see the difference between providing a piece of evidence and making a formal argument, you are brainwashed by psuedo-intellectual atheist propaganda.