Christian trigger words

[Brian37]

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.

Um no!

The argument that "my religion" started it all as far as science is one that is made by apologists of every religion. But you only spend time arguing with atheists.

Our species ability to make discoveries is evolutionary, not one based on an invisible sky hero.

If you ask a Muslim who started modern science, they will point to their contributors. If you as a Jew, same thing. If you ask Buddhists, same thing, if you as Hindus, same thing.

FYI there are species of primates depending on species that use sticks to draw termites out of mounds. 

Humans were building and inventing things long before Christianity existed.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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.

Um no!

The argument that "my religion" started it all as far as science is one that is made by apologists of every religion. But you only spend time arguing with atheists.

Our species ability to make discoveries is evolutionary, not one based on an invisible sky hero.

If you ask a Muslim who started modern science, they will point to their contributors. If you as a Jew, same thing. If you ask Buddhists, same thing, if you as Hindus, same thing.

FYI there are species of primates depending on species that use sticks to draw termites out of mounds. 

Humans were building and inventing things long before Christianity existed.

The "scientific method" is what we are talking about.

"The scientific method" and "science" are two related, but different things.  As such, the scientific method is one avenue for establishing science, but it's not the only method.  Regardless, it would be considered the gold standard today.

To put this in perspective, it uses inductive reasoning, as opposed to deductive reasoning which can also be used to form conclusions.

[LadyForCamus]

What is evidence?  Have you heard of the evidence hierarchy?

I know what it is, but would be N/A here unless you're suggesting he did a study.  Plus the scope of what he suggested would be not only difficult to study but to conclude, so even if he did the grade would be at the lowest level, but the controls alone would be nearly impossible since it would need to represent the scope of mankind throughout history.

I think Brian is being hyperbolic for the sake of brevity.  He can correct me, if I'm wrong, ofc. If you want little personal spiel, it goes something like this:

I have been on these forums for upwards of four years now, and I have never been presented with a positive case for the existence of god that wasn't either logically fallacious, or didn't misrepresent science in some fashion, or both.  Unlike many of my cohorts here, atheism is not my preferred position.  I would prefer that there be "something else", or something "more", beyond death.  The fact is, no one has ever made a convincing case to me.  No one has ever made a convincing case for the existence of the supernatural.  No one has ever been able to give me a sound, positive description of what the supernatural is.  So, I withhold belief until such a case is presented.

[Brian37]

Um no!

The argument that "my religion" started it all as far as science is one that is made by apologists of every religion. But you only spend time arguing with atheists.

Our species ability to make discoveries is evolutionary, not one based on an invisible sky hero.

If you ask a Muslim who started modern science, they will point to their contributors. If you as a Jew, same thing. If you ask Buddhists, same thing, if you as Hindus, same thing.

FYI there are species of primates depending on species that use sticks to draw termites out of mounds. 

Humans were building and inventing things long before Christianity existed.

The "scientific method" is what we are talking about.

"The scientific method" and "science" are two related, but different things.  As such, the scientific method is one avenue for establishing science, but it's not the only method.  Regardless, it would be considered the gold standard today.

To put this in perspective, it uses inductive reasoning, as opposed to deductive reasoning which can also be used to form conclusions.

I don't care. 

Whatever label in our species history, made a discovery, does not mean an invisible sky hero by any name is real.

Newton got physics right, but also for some time postulated Alchemy.

Now go debate some Arabs for a change, ask them they will claim they invented Algebra so therefor Allah is real.

Evolution led humans to seek patterns. But just because we get some things right, does not mean we get everything right.

Allah is not a real god because algebra exists.

Magic babies do not exist because Newton got physics right.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I know what it is, but would be N/A here unless you're suggesting he did a study.  Plus the scope of what he suggested would be not only difficult to study but to conclude, so even if he did the grade would be at the lowest level, but the controls alone would be nearly impossible since it would need to represent the scope of mankind throughout history.

I think Brian is being hyperbolic for the sake of brevity.  He can correct me, if I'm wrong, ofc. If you want little personal spiel, it goes something like this:

I have been on these forums for upwards of four years now, and I have never been presented with a positive case for the existence of god that wasn't either logically fallacious, or didn't misrepresent science in some fashion, or both.  Unlike many of my cohorts here, atheism is not my preferred position.  I would prefer that there be "something else", or something "more", beyond death.  The fact is, no one has ever made a convincing case to me.  No one has ever made a convincing case for the existence of the supernatural.  No one has ever been able to give me a sound, positive description of what the supernatural is.  So, I withhold belief until such a case is presented.

You have always been fair and you seem kind, so hopefully I can provide the same back to you.

It's not about what everybody else can prove or what others can show you.  It's about you seeking regardless of your own personal biases.  I can show you a million things and claim they are evidence, but until you experience God, you will have a reason to say that's not good enough, because that's not God.  If our own human determination was the root problem, then how can we assume ourselves to be the solution?  Seek the source by the source and its assumed attributes.  That doesn't mean others can't assist you along the way, but as much as someone can be helpful, they can also be hurtful.  Even if someone means well, they can give you misinformation.

If I wanted to find you (hypothetically), I would need to assume you have an identity, I would need to be willing to seek, I would need to know what attributes you have to recognize you, and no matter who anybody else says you are or where they say you are, I will only have found you when I matched you with what I know to be you.  At that point, I will have accomplished my mission and you can hit me with a purse or a brick, or even shake my hand, but the latter is always preferred.

[Brian37]

I think Brian is being hyperbolic for the sake of brevity.  He can correct me, if I'm wrong, ofc. If you want little personal spiel, it goes something like this:

I have been on these forums for upwards of four years now, and I have never been presented with a positive case for the existence of god that wasn't either logically fallacious, or didn't misrepresent science in some fashion, or both.  Unlike many of my cohorts here, atheism is not my preferred position.  I would prefer that there be "something else", or something "more", beyond death.  The fact is, no one has ever made a convincing case to me.  No one has ever made a convincing case for the existence of the supernatural.  No one has ever been able to give me a sound, positive description of what the supernatural is.  So, I withhold belief until such a case is presented.

You have always been fair and you seem kind, so hopefully I can provide the same back to you.

It's not about what everybody else can prove or what others can show you.  It's about you seeking regardless of your own personal biases.  I can show you a million things and claim they are evidence, but until you experience God, you will have a reason to say that's not good enough, because that's not God.  If our own human determination was the root problem, then how can we assume ourselves to be the solution?  Seek the source by the source and its assumed attributes.  That doesn't mean others can't assist you along the way, but as much as someone can be helpful, they can also be hurtful.  Even if someone means well, they can give you misinformation.

If I wanted to find you (hypothetically), I would need to assume you have an identity, I would need to be willing to seek, I would need to know what attributes you have to recognize you, and no matter who anybody else says you are or where they say you are, I will only have found you when I matched you with what I know to be you.  At that point, I will have accomplished my mission and you can hit me with a purse or a brick, or even shake my hand, but the latter is always preferred.

Lady, you are correct. I have been at this with countless theists since 01. I have no desire to wade down a Yellow Brick Road. Not, just  with Christians, but anyone including, Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists. They may be the nicest people in the world outside the subject of religion. But once you accept the age of our species, our planet, our universe, it is hard to swallow old mythology of any kind.

It frightens most humans to think of themselves as finite. It shouldn't, but it does. I can value human rights, but I don't think any human should fear the consideration that what they once thought was fact was mere myth. If our species never questioned social norms, our species never would have left the caves.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist, whom wrote his own bible stripping it of all the fantastic claims. But, even with him, I would have argued, why the need for even that? And this is a guy who said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason, than to that of blindfolded fear."

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You have always been fair and you seem kind, so hopefully I can provide the same back to you.

It's not about what everybody else can prove or what others can show you.  It's about you seeking regardless of your own personal biases.  I can show you a million things and claim they are evidence, but until you experience God, you will have a reason to say that's not good enough, because that's not God.  If our own human determination was the root problem, then how can we assume ourselves to be the solution?  Seek the source by the source and its assumed attributes.  That doesn't mean others can't assist you along the way, but as much as someone can be helpful, they can also be hurtful.  Even if someone means well, they can give you misinformation.

If I wanted to find you (hypothetically), I would need to assume you have an identity, I would need to be willing to seek, I would need to know what attributes you have to recognize you, and no matter who anybody else says you are or where they say you are, I will only have found you when I matched you with what I know to be you.  At that point, I will have accomplished my mission and you can hit me with a purse or a brick, or even shake my hand, but the latter is always preferred.

Lady, you are correct. I have been at this with countless theists since 01. I have no desire to wade down a Yellow Brick Road. Not, just  with Christians, but anyone including, Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists. They may be the nicest people in the world outside the subject of religion. But once you accept the age of our species, our planet, our universe, it is hard to swallow old mythology of any kind.

It frightens most humans to think of themselves as finite. It shouldn't, but it does. I can value human rights, but I don't think any human should fear the consideration that what they once thought was fact was mere myth. If our species never questioned social norms, our species never would have left the caves.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist, whom wrote his own bible stripping it of all the fantastic claims. But, even with him, I would have argued, why the need for even that? And this is a guy who said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason, than to that of blindfolded fear."

I,I,I,I,I

How can you be rational when it's all about you?  If you are always the source, then your own bias will limit your ability to be rational.  You gotta look inward and outward so as to interpret the whole picture.  If something is rational, equally so it should be reflected inward and outward.

[Brian37]

Lady, you are correct. I have been at this with countless theists since 01. I have no desire to wade down a Yellow Brick Road. Not, just  with Christians, but anyone including, Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists. They may be the nicest people in the world outside the subject of religion. But once you accept the age of our species, our planet, our universe, it is hard to swallow old mythology of any kind.

It frightens most humans to think of themselves as finite. It shouldn't, but it does. I can value human rights, but I don't think any human should fear the consideration that what they once thought was fact was mere myth. If our species never questioned social norms, our species never would have left the caves.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist, whom wrote his own bible stripping it of all the fantastic claims. But, even with him, I would have argued, why the need for even that? And this is a guy who said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason, than to that of blindfolded fear."

I,I,I,I,I

How can you be rational when it's all about you?  If you are always the source, then your own bias will limit your ability to be rational.  You gotta look inward and outward so as to interpret the whole picture.  If something is rational, equally so it should be reflected inward and outward.

It isn't all about me. The universe was around long before humans, so please do yourself a favor, stop repeating this crappy argument.


You are getting upset because someone told you our species isn't the center of the universe. Well guess what, Santa was a story your parents sold you.

It isn't going to kill you to accept you are finite. You can still live a good life, be non violent, value human rights, without assigning it to magic.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I,I,I,I,I

How can you be rational when it's all about you?  If you are always the source, then your own bias will limit your ability to be rational.  You gotta look inward and outward so as to interpret the whole picture.  If something is rational, equally so it should be reflected inward and outward.

It isn't all about me. The universe was around long before humans, so please do yourself a favor, stop repeating this crappy argument.


You are getting upset because someone told you our species isn't the center of the universe. Well guess what, Santa was a story your parents sold you.

It isn't going to kill you to accept you are finite. You can still live a good life, be non violent, value human rights, without assigning it to magic.

I'm not upset.  Again, you're interpreting things then insisting your perception is true.  In reality, I'm just relaxing with my dogs.  Not upset about anything.  Aside from that, it's just a bunch of silliness coming from you and maybe a chuckle or two after hearing about your self-proclaimed rationale and bravado.

[Brian37]

It isn't all about me. The universe was around long before humans, so please do yourself a favor, stop repeating this crappy argument.


You are getting upset because someone told you our species isn't the center of the universe. Well guess what, Santa was a story your parents sold you.

It isn't going to kill you to accept you are finite. You can still live a good life, be non violent, value human rights, without assigning it to magic.

I'm not upset.  Again, you're interpreting things then insisting your perception is true.  In reality, I'm just relaxing with my dogs.  Not upset about anything.  Aside from that, it's just a bunch of silliness coming from you and maybe a chuckle or two after hearing about your self-proclaimed rationale and bravado.

I don't care if you are with your dogs or not.

You are still upset that someone came along and said "that is not true".

If you truly believe a baby can be born without a second set of DNA and grows up with super powers and ends up dying only to survive rigor mortis, what do you want me to say? The only thing I can say is, it never happened.

Just like Thor does not make lightening, and Poseidon does not cause hurricanes.