Speechless

[Alex K]

Everyone has misconceptions and questionable dearly held beliefs, it's human. Pick your battles.

I agree. I suppose not everyone is interesting in hearing about string theory and quantum physics in everyday conversation.

I can certainly attest to that. You don't have to hesitate with me though

Not, that I would bring that up right away in a conversation, but I find not many X'ns know much about anything scientific.

I don't know, it really depends on the Christians. I don't think the average person knows much about anything scientific, Christian or not. I know several excellent physicists and astronomers who profess to be Christians. I think it's silly of them, but if they say so...

[FatAndFaithless]

Has purple said anything with any meaning at all similar to how words are actually used, or is he still defining whatever he wants to mean whatever he wants to maintain an air of superiority over both atheists and theists? Because so far in this thread he's said that he is not a theist, but is sure that a god exists. He's either completely disconnected from the english language or he's simply being dishonest.

[robvalue]

I guess he thinks theist means religious, which it doesn't (necessarily). Otherwise, I've no clue what he's on about.

[Czechlervitz30]

I agree. I suppose not everyone is interesting in hearing about string theory and quantum physics in everyday conversation.

I can certainly attest to that. You don't have to hesitate with me though

Not, that I would bring that up right away in a conversation, but I find not many X'ns know much about anything scientific.

I don't know, it really depends on the Christians. I don't think the average person knows much about anything scientific, Christian or not. I know several excellent physicists and astronomers who profess to be Christians. I think it's silly of them, but if they say so...

Agreed.

[madog]

You said as regards evolution you could show empirical evidence for the Gospels .... If you take out the claim that Jesus was the son of God the rest is just a story about a stone age preacher that did some tricks and got crucified

Are we now taking out any claims that are not directly empirical?  Are they removed from consideration all together?  I am following your lead on this, but I would caution against creating rules so strict, that little can hold up to them.I will hold you to it later. Under such conditions, I don't think that the fossil record will hold up as anything more than fancy rocks, and would be discounted as empirical evidence for evolution.

But back to the claim of the Gospel.   So.... I agree, that there is not direct empirical evidence that Jesus was the Son of God (unless you count what was heard during His baptism).  And that it is a circumstantial case, based on the empirical evidence, and His claims.  So then what we are left with, is the evidence gathered through the senses for the miracles that where done, that He was crucified, and resurrected.  You seem to keep leaving out that last part.... Why is that?

Look I made a statement "Natural selection, good or bad is based on empirical evidence" Why have you suddenly switched it to Evolution? Regardless of whether or not you believe in evolution or creationism this is an excepted fact .... this can be observed today in action.

Note: even many new earth creationists accept "natural selection" though some believe "far from being proof for evolution and against creationism, natural selection is quite a reasonable and “God-given” process whereby we observe a certain genotype (the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms) that has pre-existed and has gradually adapted to one particular environment."

Now you countered my statement with

"A bit of a change of topic, but ok...I'll bite.   The Gospel is based on empirical evidence as well."

The Gospel (message) was in short that God sent his only son to die for ours sins and was crucified ....

You said you had empirical evidence for the Gospel (message)? I wanted to know that empirical evidence ...

It appears you were just playing games with me 

[RoadRunner79]

Are we now taking out any claims that are not directly empirical?  Are they removed from consideration all together?  I am following your lead on this, but I would caution against creating rules so strict, that little can hold up to them.I will hold you to it later. Under such conditions, I don't think that the fossil record will hold up as anything more than fancy rocks, and would be discounted as empirical evidence for evolution.

But back to the claim of the Gospel.   So.... I agree, that there is not direct empirical evidence that Jesus was the Son of God (unless you count what was heard during His baptism).  And that it is a circumstantial case, based on the empirical evidence, and His claims.  So then what we are left with, is the evidence gathered through the senses for the miracles that where done, that He was crucified, and resurrected.  You seem to keep leaving out that last part.... Why is that?

Look I made a statement "Natural selection, good or bad is based on empirical evidence" Why have you suddenly switched it to Evolution? Regardless of whether or not you believe in evolution or creationism this is an excepted fact .... this can be observed today in action.

Note: even many new earth creationists accept "natural selection" though some believe "far from being proof for evolution and against creationism, natural selection is quite a reasonable and “God-given” process whereby we observe a certain genotype (the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms) that has pre-existed and has gradually adapted to one particular environment."

Now you countered my statement with

"A bit of a change of topic, but ok...I'll bite.   The Gospel is based on empirical evidence as well."

The Gospel (message) was in short that God sent his only son to die for ours sins and was crucified ....

You said you had empirical evidence for the Gospel (message)? I wanted to know that empirical evidence ...

It appears you were just playing games with me 

[Ravenshire]

He's the one atheist with heart of gold, apparently.

Unless he's murdering people right now, I guess.

Funny, I'm a lifelong atheist and I've never killed anyone. I've never even attacked anyone. I've delivered exactly one punch in my whole life.

The bitter truth is that total freedom can be abused much easier than fearful faith. Religious people lead a boring and bitter life. But there are many non believers in prisons compared to boring religious people.

Still talking out your ass, I see.

[RoadRunner79]

Look I made a statement "Natural selection, good or bad is based on empirical evidence" Why have you suddenly switched it to Evolution? Regardless of whether or not you believe in evolution or creationism this is an excepted fact .... this can be observed today in action.

Note: even many new earth creationists accept "natural selection" though some believe "far from being proof for evolution and against creationism, natural selection is quite a reasonable and “God-given” process whereby we observe a certain genotype (the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms) that has pre-existed and has gradually adapted to one particular environment."

Now you countered my statement with

"A bit of a change of topic, but ok...I'll bite.   The Gospel is based on empirical evidence as well."

The Gospel (message) was in short that God sent his only son to die for ours sins and was crucified ....

You said you had empirical evidence for the Gospel (message)? I wanted to know that empirical evidence ...

It appears you were just playing games with me 

Sorry, natural selection was mentioned, but I didn't notice the change. I would agree, that "natural selection" is fairly well supported.

[downbeatplumb]

Oh, so you can't respond to them with any credible sources? There's a fucking surprise.

Sorry. I have looked up statistics. Its possible for a prisoners to commit serious crimes and maybe dont even see it as a bad thing, while at the same time claiming being religious.

There is no way to test sincerety and sainity of prisoners, regarding claims about their religious beliefs.

Religion indocrinates people in to sacrifice of their resources for the common good and judgment day faith. It doesnt promote crime(except for Jihadis).

Religion promotes intolerance and in todays society that in some circumstances is a crime. It legitimizes things that are crimes up to and including killing and slavery. It is also silent on some issues that you would think it would take exception to like paedophilia. So you have a rosy view of religion that is simply not borne out by the facts.
If religion was nice religious fundamentalists would be the nicest people on the planet, instead they are universally evil close minded misogynists.

[Ravenshire]

So...you're a theist.  See how easy that was?

To me, atheism is materialism or wish to life comfortably. I wish for comfort.

Theist goes beyond comfort in to irrational realm of self-sacrifice. I dislike such idea.

It doesnt matter what you believe, because it doesnt require effort. To be called a theist, you have to live a very bitter lifestyle.

You know, words have meanings. Maybe you should look them up. It's impossible for people to have a reasonable conversation with you if you insist on using your own made up definitions.