Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Taking Yahweh's name in vain is saying something like "God is my witness" or something equally stupid like "I swear to tell the truth so help me God" in court.

Yeshua said in Matthew 5:34-37 (TLB) = "34 But I say: Don’t make any vows! And even to say ‘By heavens!’ is a sacred vow to God, for the heavens are God’s throne. 35 And if you say ‘By the earth!’ it is a sacred vow, for the earth is his footstool. And don’t swear ‘By Jerusalem!’ for Jerusalem is the capital of the great King. 36 Don’t even swear ‘By my head!’ for you can’t turn one hair white or black. 37 Say just a simple ‘Yes, I will’ or ‘No, I won’t.’ Your word is enough. To strengthen your promise with a vow shows that something is wrong."

That's correct, and not too many people know the meaning as you've just explained. But like my latest post, it is off topic.

---

---

@Starhunter

Correct, the scientific method doesn't exclude "God"; but neither does it include the concept. It makes no judgement of the concept at all, except where gods ought to affect reality.  As AronRa said, any time "God" reaches into the material plane, it should pull out its hand dripping with physics.

So let's cut to the chase. I'm sitting here, with zero belief in your - or any - god. What can you give me to alter my position? Can you show me that there's even a 'there' there?

I can give you my point of view, but it would be a tangent to the thread. If Jesus was actually the Son of God as claimed, then wouldn't that be dripping with physics?

What kind of physics would be convincing, other than the fact that God "upholds all things" as the Bible puts it, causing a continuous existence of all material things by his power?

---

In Post #143 you are the one who introduced the subject of "taking God's name in vain".