A Former Atheist

[Theoretical Skeptic]

This is true up to here.
Scientific method was initially to find out the workings of god.
But then it started to conflict with dogma and the bible and the two went there separate ways. 


Evolution is an established fact and the biblical flood is a proven lie.
There are lots of sources that will confirm these statements. Seek and you shall find.


There is no such thing as the supernatural.
No ghosts, no demons, no souls, no fairies, no Elohim, no hob goblins and no gods.
All inventions by primitive societies to explain shit they didn't understand.

This may be the case but you can only go with the most up to date evidence and become more right as the science and equipment improves.
This is a strength of science not a weakness. If there is an error it will be fixed eventually.
Religions will always be wrong. 


You know what fixes these errors, science. If they had been religious pronouncements they would still be believed by the faithful now. Religions by their unchanging nature are always wrong. 


The hygienic laws also include lots of burning of innocent wildlife to purify women after menstruation and other crazy nonsense.
I am unsure of what you mean by the bible explaining the hydrological cycle and suppose it is similar to some of the bulshit scientific claims muslims make for their book.


You know who else thought the world was spherical? ancient greeks.
And the idea that people thought the world was flat.
Not so true as you would think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enOFVFDkTsY 


The thing with science is that it is not about what you can believe but about what you can prove.
I grow tired of religious people trying to drag science down to their level.

What do you mean by prove? Prove each point you made in this thread. Let's see if you can do that. You see, scholars on my side say the soul is immortal, according to the Bible. Ezekiel 18:4 says "the soul that is sinning itself shall die." Easy. Your turn. 

---

Remember, science can't test the supernatural so they have no authority to state a position on it, really. 

Evasive bullshit. When claims of the supernatural are said to intervene with the natural world, science very much has authority and is the ideal method by which to test such claims. Consider Joshua 10:13. We know these events did not happen. Claiming science can have no opinion on supernatural events doesn't make the events any more plausible.

Edit: I also find it curious that you directly attempt to invalidate science's ability to opine in supernatural matters, yet attempted to gain credibility for your position by citing scientists that presumably agree with you.

In discussions like this we tend to be somewhat lazy and over confident. Correct me if I'm wrong. Joshua was there. A witness. He said it stayed daylight for a prolonged period of time. I don't think he knew how this was done, but the impression given was that the sun stopped. You and no person of current science was there. No person including yourself knows whether or not the spirit being known as God exists or not. No one in the history of science at this point can establish with certainty if the standing still of the sun is actually possible. It is all overconfident conjecture. If I had to guess I would guess that the Creator made it seem like the sun had stood still, much like in the Book of Revelation it says the sun will be no more and Jehovah God will be our source of light.  

[abaris]

Joshua was there. A witness.

Says who?

And who's your authority on Joshua even having existed? Outside the bible, that is.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

You took the opportunity to assign viewpoints and accuse someone of doing something he never even alluded to; you are dishonest.

Do you have children and do you celebrate Christmas with them?

I have a 17-year-old son with whom I celebrate Christmas, not as a celebration of the birth of a fictional god, but in honor of the idea "peace on Earth, good will towards men".

The point is, you most likely instilled in your young son some materialistic fantasy based upon mythology, customs and tradition that you knew wasn't true but presented as truth to your impressionable child in order to mislead, and control him and yet you have a big problem with anyone else incorporating these alleged tenets. Atheism is hypocritical, nonsensical, uninformed antiquated polemic pontification. Social and political frustration primarily expressed poorly by failed Christians with a Utopian quasi scientific ideology equally uninformed and hinged upon the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution. And you, I suspect, think that is original and clever. It isn't, so why not be more tolerant of other people's paradigm? 

[Alex K]

You found a handful of scientists that are supposedly critical of evolution, that's very impressive.

[IATIA]

No one in the history of science at this point can establish with certainty if the standing still of the sun is actually possible.

Just call me "No one". The sun cannot stand still.

[TubbyTubby]

What do you mean by prove? Prove each point you made in this thread. Let's see if you can do that. You see, scholars on my side say the soul is immortal, according to the Bible. Ezekiel 18:4 says "the soul that is sinning itself shall die." Easy. Your turn. 

---

Evasive bullshit. When claims of the supernatural are said to intervene with the natural world, science very much has authority and is the ideal method by which to test such claims. Consider Joshua 10:13. We know these events did not happen. Claiming science can have no opinion on supernatural events doesn't make the events any more plausible.

Edit: I also find it curious that you directly attempt to invalidate science's ability to opine in supernatural matters, yet attempted to gain credibility for your position by citing scientists that presumably agree with you.

In discussions like this we tend to be somewhat lazy and over confident. Correct me if I'm wrong. Joshua was there. A witness. He said it stayed daylight for a prolonged period of time. I don't think he knew how this was done, but the impression given was that the sun stopped. You and no person of current science was there. No person including yourself knows whether or not the spirit being known as God exists or not. No one in the history of science at this point can establish with certainty if the standing still of the sun is actually possible. It is all overconfident conjecture. If I had to guess I would guess that the Creator made it seem like the sun had stood still, much like in the Book of Revelation it says the sun will be no more and Jehovah God will be our source of light.  

I would confidently conjecture that you have never not believed in a god (in adult life after indoctrination). Just doesn't cut it for me sorry. Next.

[LastPoet]

You know, I can believe wooters is an ex atheist that got converted by the swedenborgian woo, this one is just claiming that for rethorical purposes.

[LostLocke]

No one in the history of science at this point can establish with certainty if the standing still of the sun is actually possible.

Actually, they can.
If the sun did in fact stand still at that point, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Mainly because, we wouldn't be here to have it.

[Alex K]

No one in the history of science at this point can establish with certainty if the standing still of the sun is actually possible.

Just call me "No one".  The sun cannot stand still.

Wait, aren't we talking earth standing still here? 

[Chas]

So, let's get down to business. Name a few, so that we can admire their credentials. Scientists in many fields, you say. So there have to be many names behind this claim.

Right . . . credentials meaning whether or not they agree with you, eh? This list isn't my own but for the life of me I can't remember the site where I got it. Teachers of the Bible as well as critical of evolution:  

Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, has done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants for the past 30 years, for 21 of those years with the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany. Also an elder in the Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Byron Leon Meadows works at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. He is currently involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather and other planetary phenomena. Also an elder in the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka is a geologist employed by the U.S. Geological Survey of Flagstaff, Arizona. For 30 years doing work in scientific research in various fields of geology including planetary geology. He has had dozens of research articles and geologic maps of Mars published in accredited scientific journals, and is also a JW. 

Paula Kincheloe has several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. In addition to studies in DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways she is also a volunteer Bible instructor for Russian speaking communities as a JW. 

Enrique Hernandez-Lemus is a full time minister with the JW's and also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. His secular work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as gravothermal catastrophe, a mechanism of star growth. He has also worked with the complexity in DNA sequences.

Scientists critical of evolution. 

Eric Bapteste (evolutionary scientist), Joachim Barrande (paleontologist), John Barrow (professor), Dr. Carol Cleland (NASA Astrobiology Institute), Michael Denton (molecular biologist), Henry Gee (zoologist), Malcolm S. Gordon (biologist), Stuart Newman (biologist), Radu Popa (microbiologist), David M. Raup (paleontologist), Michael Rose (biologist), Robert Shapiro (professor of chemistry)

You might get a tiny scrap of respect if you cited your sources.  Like this.

A handful of scientists who are JW compared to thousands who are atheists or non-religious is just not very convincing or even interesting.

---

Would you describe yourself as a creationist, and if so, what kind, YEC or OEC?

I don't like using terminology like that because it can be misleading and restrictive. I know it can also be useful, but still. I believe in the Bible's creation account which I guess you could call OEC Creationist. 

I'm going to introduce a new thread in the Christian forum this evening on that very subject if you would be interested in discussing it further, or just check it out. 

Except you previously stated that you believed the world was 6000 years old. That makes you a Young-Earth Creationist, a YEC.

---

What do you mean by prove? Prove each point you made in this thread. Let's see if you can do that. You see, scholars on my side say the soul is immortal, according to the Bible. Ezekiel 18:4 says "the soul that is sinning itself shall die." Easy. Your turn. 

There is no evidence of the existence of the soul. Your turn.