Creation/evolution3

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Drich is trying to cram his religion into the evidence rather than looking at the evidence and seeing what is most likely.
What he is doing is the opposite of science.

Yup.

[robvalue]

He is doing ecneisc.

[downbeatplumb]

Hydron collider heello...

'Science' built this 100 billon dollar/euro crap fest on the idea that the little collider they had was not 'big enough' to see the particals they wanted to see. So on the 'faith' they had in what they found, they set out to build a bigger/better version. So fast forward 10/15 years what do we have? essentially what we had before.
The same particals the same understanding (Same evidence as before) just somehow more resolve that their faith in what they believe is true.
(I say faith because this partical still has not been documented.)

So tell me some more about how science is different than religion.

They built the collider because they couldn't take their ideas on faith. They needed to be tested and proved by the gathering of evidence.
If they had not found what they had theorized then they would have had to adjusted the theory or discarded it entirely. The polar opposite of religion which claims to have all the answers and no proof and if the evidence doesn't fit the religion then the evidence must be wrong.

You thinking religion is similar to religion is laughable.

Well I should have proof read that a bit more.

[watchamadoodle]

He claims to have discovered that following the Bible leads to measurable positive results in his life. That's similar to a child learning that grey skies mean rain. Also Drich claims that his methods will work for anybody. That's a little bit like making his results available for peer review. Of course if I can't confirm his results, I'm sure he will tell me that I need to keep trying ... over and over and over. He will never admit that his claims are bogus. (That's where I see the difference between science and faith.)

The problem is that his "peer review" relies on accepting his premises in order to validate his results.

I should hope the problems with such an approach are obvious.

Many of us here have tried Drich's recommendations in the theistic portions of our lives, only to find nothing. He will say that we found nothing because we stopped looking, which is simply another way of stating that faith is a requirement for believing. Amazing, isn't it?

If I've looked everywhere in the kitchen for my car keys, four times over, should I take a fifth look just in case they've popped up in the last three minutes? Why should a god which is alleged to permeate the entire universe be harder to find than a set of car keys? An omnipresent god should make the sun seem minor.

God will help you find those car keys. You just need to look in the right spot. A/S/K


Atheism will also help you find those car keys. You just need to look in the right spot.

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

[robvalue]

I think theists confirm their beliefs, rather than test them. I mean, any outcome is always acceptable continued proof of god. No matter what. Even their family all getting killed for no good reason. Even if all their prayers go unanswered, they will just accept that god knows best, or will assign causality to any vaguely similar events. God can't lose under these criteria, so it's not science. It's a pretense of testing, with a pre drawn conclusion, to make you feel better. Take almost any apologist book; that's exactly what they are for.

But then I'm the son of Satan so I suppose I would say that.

[Tonus]

You thinking religion is similar to religion is laughable.

Well I should have proof read that a bit more.

Considering the number of different religions and denominations, there's some truth to it as stated.

[Thumpalumpacus]

God can't lose under these criteria, so it's not science. It's a pretense of testing, with a pre drawn conclusion, to make you feel better.

Here in America, a commonly-heard apologetic is that God is not to be tested -- that that amounts to unfaithfulness -- and perhaps it does. But the beliefs I was programmed with as a youth positively forbade checking the results of prayer, meaning that there could be no reasonable assessment at all.

[Norman Humann]

Hey, isn't it about the Drich time of day?

Am I going to regret saying that?

[Drich]

I don't care if you personally have experienced "God", because I haven't.

That's the thing.. You can. I am nothing special. All I've done is take God up on his offer. That offer can be found in Luke 11. If you want to experience meet Him on His terms.

Let's take gravity on Earth as an example; I experience gravity all the time. I can test it, e.g. dropping something or simply not floating off the ground; others can test gravity as well. Can you apply the same to God? No, not everyone experiences "God" and they can "experience" different ones.

But, Gravity like God must be experienced on its own terms. If you were not exposed to the gravity of earth would gravity meet you on your terms? Or would you have to go where gravity is to experience it?

And I (insincerely) apologize that I didn't specify that the people mentioned were Christian (as opposed to when I said Catholic). I often accidently substitute one for the other.

Apology... Accepted captian needa.

Who are you to claim you know what God tends to think?

You too can know what God thinks as it is written down in the bible on a great number of different subjects. For those the parts where the bible is silent, God offers the Holy Spirit.

After eventually deciphering your ungrammatical post, I claim to the conclusion that you were trying to tell me that I did not do "XYZ" and you did, and that's why you're still Christian and I'm not.

indeed.

That's why I didn't find evidence, apparently.

Evidence is forged like steel is forged. Through fire and the anvil. When God placed you on the anvil and began to snap your understanding, you bailed and did not come back because the shape that was taking for was not consistant with what you thought God was.

It wasn't at *all* due to the fact that I actually questioned what people told me, and did my research. Once again, another baseless accusation. You are so full of hypocrisy, it's almost funny.

actuall what I have said here is exactly what happened. You all think you're all unique, but in truth you all (those who left the church) are all the same.
Your asking and 'evidence' Prooved to you that your version of God does not exist. Why? Because God did not support whatever expression of faith you had. But that is where you stopped. You concluded that because your out the gate version of God was proven wrong God could not exist in anyother way.

It may be that you personally find the Bible to be where you "Find God", but give me 5 minutes, and the Internet, and anyone can show you horrible parts of the Bible, which is filled with genocide, rape, oppression of minorities, etc.

so all genocide, rape, oppression is bad? What if I told you none of us would be here is not for these things? Our 'western' lifestyles have these things as a foundation.

A) I can't sincerely pray if I can't sincerely believe in what I'm praying to.

then at first don't. Just honestly seek, and see what comes up.

B) Are you trying to reconvert me? Seriously?

I am trying to provide you with accurate information so you can make a honest and informed desision... If you go back to God or if you don't you wouldn't be the first.

Drich, do you even look at the content of your own posts? You describe your own posts while trying to call mine lazy.

such as?
The above accusation is baseless meaning, you did not pride anything to support what you said. That makes this an ad hoc attack. Which is Another fallacy..

What you call red herrings is what others may call making a point.

you are free to make points so long as they have to do with the topic being discussed.
Otherwise making a point (off topic) is a red herring.

I never said it wasn't a movie. (The book is better, though.) So, are you saying God uses the "philosophy of breaking the will of an opponent to prevent him from coming back"? What happened to free will?

freewill is a greek philosophy and not actually found in the bible.

When people address points you make, that's not a red herring. The points you made, that I addressed, were off the OP.

follow the daisy chain back to its source. That is the red herring. For instance I did not start this thread talking about you or your faith. You introduced those things.

I'm not sure what you want me to repent from.

The simple fact is that your hypothesis is irrational, as it has no scientific evidence to prove it.

How do you know?[/quote]

---

Scientific method: using evidence and reason.

Any other method: making shit up.

Everyone uses the scientific method in almost everything they do, all the time. If you didn't you wouldn't be able to open a door, walk in a straight line, work out how much money you have, catch the bus... Etc etc. Imagine using "faith" for any of those things. It's just they revert to these "other methods" when they really want something to be true but there is no good reason to believe it actually is true.

The other methods are more flexible, you can prove literally anything you want. With no effort. Sadly, the results are worthless.

Ok then take the Big Bang and show me the sets of the scientific method in it.

---

Drich-
"What makes you think I am not a member of the empire?
The Only way to say their is no Empirical Evidence for God is to change the meaning of the word 'Empirical.' Because as it stands with merrium Webster it simply points to any evidence/data based in observation OR Experience. As I have said many times I have experienced God.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical"

Empirical evidence cannot be subjective, meaning if you are attempting to prove the truth of your claim with empirical evidence then the observations and experiences will be empirically true for anyone, Personal experience is not considered empirical evidence.

Source/reference for your defination?

[The Grand Nudger]

Ok then take the Big Bang and show me the sets of the scientific method in it.

Why, would you stop bullshitting us if we did? Doubtful. It would be a waste of effort. You won't even do the science that you want to claim for your stories.....works fine when you want it to, doesn't apply when you don't, and anything you're plainly ignorant of is probably faith - we get it. The only time you power down the gibberish generator is when you don't want to answer for the demonstrable falsehoods of your own damned claims. Then it's just radio silence.

"Show me this, explain that!" -ad infinitum. Howsabout you go figure it out for yourself?