Science and religion

[jstrodel]

There are hundreds of thousands of books written on theology by people that have significant educational credentials.

What does this prove?

It proves that it is a topic that serious intellectuals, not even just average scientists or researchers but serious world class scientists such as Isaac Newton or today, Francis Collins, still believe in God.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

Let me repeat that again 20 times.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.

It is not on the same level of the tooth fairy. I am not using hyperbole when I say that someone who considers Christianity and the tooth fairy to be on the same evidential status to be a liar.


If you say that Christianity is on the same evidential level as the tooth fairy, you are a liar. And you will go to hell.


Let me make this even more clear:

If you say that Christianity is on the same evidential level as the tooth fairy, you are a liar. And you will go to hell. And I will be happy that you burn, because you are a liar, and you know that you are lying, and you deserve it.

---

The James Randi Foundation is offering $1,000,000. No one willing to take them up on the offer? With a million bucks, you could offer that $100 challenge ten thousand times!

I am considering taking up the offer, but a significant amount of work is involved.

[klatu]

James Randi can keep his millions. But the efficacy theology as a valid human intellectual endeavor is a valid question. And the answer to that question will decide if two thousand years of scholastic exegesis, tradition and the faith of 2 billion 'Christians' are wholly in error? . . . And no longer just a rhetorical question for mud slinging between atheist and religious, we are on the threshold of finding out!

History has its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith and it's on the web. And having studied and now in the process of testing this proof for myself, I can say unequivocally that the origins of this Proof and teaching are not of human intellectual origin. A teaching that is predicated upon confirmation by direct intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power could only have been 'revealed'. As a newbie, I'm not allowed to post links, But anyone can just Google 'The Final Freedoms'.

[pocaracas]

Do you consider the proposition "Human beings consider what it means to be a good person the most important question in life" to be "just words"?

Yes.
Go ask that to a starving person and see how they look at you.

If something is not a biology textbook that tells you to be a doctor and make $200,000, do you think it is worthless?

No, but it takes a lot for me to consider something " the most important question in life".

Concerning martyrs, why would anyone have to "die for god"?
Isn't a god defined as immortal? Let him "die" and come back for himself.
People who sacrifice themselves for an entity which only manifests itself in people's minds... are probably not required on this Earth

Because God does not remove all the sin from the world until God comes back in the next age, meaning the evil in the world has a political manifestation and that is threatening to Christians.

Do you realize that if God dealt with all the evil in the world, necessarily the age would cease to be? Why are you so presumptuous to think that you can tell God when God should end the world.

And why must you be here answering my questions, instead of whatever god that exists and has the power to do so in a much more satisfying way than you could ever aspire to?

Why are people always presuming to talk for this ultimate being?
Why do you claim to know what it thinks?
Why do you claim to know what would happen if it did show itself?
If it has never showed itself, how would you know about it?

[Tonus]

No argument, just propaganda. Obviously this is false assertion. You are just repeating atheist propaganda. There are hundreds of thousands of books written on theology by people that have significant educational credentials. You didn't argue for your position, going from self evident statements to conclusions, you just repeated atheist propaganda.

What I've been doing is turning your own statements back at you. The same reasoning you use to back your claims is abandoned the moment it's used to back a claim you contest. I'm not repeating atheist propaganda, I'm simply repeating jstrodel propaganda.

[jstrodel]

Where have you used the same reasoning against me?

[Tonus]

If you say that Christianity is on the same evidential level as the tooth fairy, you are a liar. And you will go to hell.

Well, you can repeat it 20 times, or 20,000.

Or you could, you know, provide some evidence for god. That six-year-old found a quarter under his pillow. You... hear things.

Now that I think of it, the six-year-old has more evidence.

---

Where have you used the same reasoning against me?

I said I've been turning your own statements back at you. If you find that they're lacking in reason, I certainly won't disagree.

[jstrodel]

Yes.
Go ask that to a starving person and see how they look at you.

A spiritually mature person would prefer to starve rather than to do something seriously evil.

No, but it takes a lot for me to consider something " the most important question in life".

What makes it impossible for you to accept that being a good person is more valuable than other things. Does this reflect on your character?

And why must you be here answering my questions, instead of whatever god that exists and has the power to do so in a much more satisfying way than you could ever aspire to?

Because you won't seek God on his own terms but would prefer to read a book by an atheist who is an drunk like Christopher Hitchens or a womanizer like Bertrand Russel and accept the opinions of carnal men who do not know God's ideas about God instead of seeking God in sanctification and holiness.

Why are people always presuming to talk for this ultimate being?
Why do you claim to know what it thinks?
Why do you claim to know what would happen if it did show itself?
If it has never showed itself, how would you know about it?

Not presuming. I know because God has revealed it to me. It has shown itself. Either I am lying or I am crazy or I am telling the truth.

I promise you that I am telling the truth. God is real. I know that God is real.

---

If you say that Christianity is on the same evidential level as the tooth fairy, you are a liar. And you will go to hell.

Well, you can repeat it 20 times, or 20,000.

Or you could, you know, provide some evidence for god. That six-year-old found a quarter under his pillow. You... hear things.

Now that I think of it, the six-year-old has more evidence.

---

Where have you used the same reasoning against me?

I said I've been turning your own statements back at you. If you find that they're lacking in reason, I certainly won't disagree.

I have provided evidence for Gods existence in other threads. There is tons of evidence., the historical person of Jesus Christ, who fulfilled thousands of years of prophecies testifying to his existence, the coherence and explanatory power of theism through the cosmological, ontological, teleological, and moral arguments for God's existence, which fit together with the historical manifestation of the will of God in Jesus Christ, in the story of the Jewish people one of the most significant groups of people in history and the story of Christianity, who also make up one of the most significant groups of people in history, the miracles in church history, the massive amount of historical evidence that leads people to accept the miracles recorded in scripture, the fact that the early church testified to the reality of Jesus Christ and that people today, such as myself, testify to the reality of Jesus.

I HAVE SEEN MIRACLES. I AM NOT LYING. I HAVE SEEN THE POWER OF GOD. WHY WOULD I LIE? i HAVE SEEN THE SAME THING THEY HAVE. IT IS TRUE. IT IS TRUE.


The most persuasive evidence comes when you seek God yourself and you realize the power that God has to change lives. You see all the lives of people who are Christians whose lives change around and respect the contributions that Christianity has made. You see the value of the wisdom and goodness of Jesus Christ and how Jesus leads people to better lives.

When you really surrender your life to God and listen to God, you will find that that becomes more important to you than anything else. You will see miracles and experience the Holy Spirit.

Your heart is being tested right now, to see whether you will take seriously the possibility that you should change your life and take seriously that you may have not lived the best possible life and that you are guilty, or that you will turn around and repeat a canned response to these various arguments you have probably not spent more than an hour or so thinking about each.

[Something completely different]

A spiritually mature person would prefer to starve rather than to do something seriously evil.

[Ryantology]

James Randi can keep his millions. But the efficacy theology as a valid human intellectual endeavor is a valid question. And the answer to that question will decide if two thousand years of scholastic exegesis, tradition and the faith of 2 billion 'Christians' are wholly in error? . . . And no longer just a rhetorical question for mud slinging between atheist and religious, we are on the threshold of finding out!

History has its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith and it's on the web. And having studied and now in the process of testing this proof for myself, I can say unequivocally that the origins of this Proof and teaching are not of human intellectual origin. A teaching that is predicated upon confirmation by direct intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power could only have been 'revealed'. As a newbie, I'm not allowed to post links, But anyone can just Google 'The Final Freedoms'.

Google showed me that you've been spamming this shit on dozens of forums around the internet for at least seven years under at least two usernames (at the same time, apparently), so I guess I learned that you're a self-aggrandizing idiot.

[pocaracas]

Yes.
Go ask that to a starving person and see how they look at you.

A spiritually mature person would prefer to starve rather than to do something seriously evil.

define "evil".

No, but it takes a lot for me to consider something " the most important question in life".

What makes it impossible for you to accept that being a good person is more valuable than other things. Does this reflect on your character?

I don't know what is more valuable to me, but I'd say my own life is way up there among the most valuable things.
What does that say about my character? you're the philosopher, not me...

And why must you be here answering my questions, instead of whatever god that exists and has the power to do so in a much more satisfying way than you could ever aspire to?

Because you won't seek God on his own terms but would prefer to read a book by an atheist who is an drunk like Christopher Hitchens or a womanizer like Bertrand Russel and accept the opinions of carnal men who do not know God's ideas about God instead of seeking God in sanctification and holiness.

I think you're projecting... I've never read anything by Hitchens nor Russel.

I'll tell you how I'd seek this god of yours. I won't.
Assume I'm apart from the rest of the civilized world, and have no contact with anyone who could provide me with the concept of god.
Knowing evolution to be a fairly accurate representation of the way human life came to be on this planet (considering life came to be on the planet, somehow, and moving from there... say you start at 65 million years ago, right after all the dinos died off), at some point, early humans had no notion of any god. I expect to acquire knowledge of its existence the same way those people did all those years ago.
I will never accept other people's accounts, for they can, and most likely are, false (even if unknowingly).

Why are people always presuming to talk for this ultimate being?
Why do you claim to know what it thinks?
Why do you claim to know what would happen if it did show itself?
If it has never showed itself, how would you know about it?

Not presuming. I know because God has revealed it to me. It has shown itself. Either I am lying or I am crazy or I am telling the truth.

I promise you that I am telling the truth. God is real. I know that God is real.

If you know, then why don't I?
Why doesn't it provide everyone with the same knowledge?...
(what about different religions...) why does it provide this knowledge in different ways so as to produce conflicts among the people?
Or are there several gods, each messing with a section of the population?
Or is there none and they're all the products of the very real "human imagination"?

I wouldn't call you crazy, but then again, I don't know you, besides all the things you write on here... I'd call you deluded, at least.