Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Lol. Good catch Utanity!
Did the police find a pair of medieval shoes in the vicinity?
You seem to be the right age to be invited to become a mod here, too bad for you that you also seem to be a theist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Neutral = atheist.
Sorry, this makes no sense. Atheist means devoid of a belief IN GOD, not just devoid of belief. Without God, the definition loses meaning.
This really isn't that hard, guys. You are just having a hard time with the word 'atheist' because of your notions of what atheists are, when all it is at its most basic is "no belief in god or gods." Neutral. Infants are not capable of holding 'beliefs'.
Thus they are incapable of having any belief to reject. Your definition of atheist as having, "no belief in god or gods" makes no sense without knowledge of beliefs in god or gods. Please see my reply @drafterman above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Therefore if I were to use your logic, we shouldn't allow heterosexuals to raise children because the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.
Are they really? Then those homo pedos are hogging all the limelight, what with the Catholic church, the boys scouts, and what not. Are pedos answering surveys?
Don't think that's how that works.
You don't think that's how WHAT works?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
You imply that this is odd.
You confuse a physical state with a tendency. Children are born small but are born with a tendency to grow larger. Children are born knowing nothing but with a tendency to learn. A child that did not grow or learn would be considered odd, yes.
It is a scientific fact that the human brain is wired toward superstitious thinking....
I have seen no proof of this. The human brain is curious and seeks out explanations for why reality is the way it is. This tendency often leads to false ideas about reality. This is true even for science.
...which lends itself towards theism
No. All initial inquiry can be labeled "superstitious thinking". It is ad-hoc to bunch theism in with "superstitious thinking" to suit your argument. Even science has led us to wrong beliefs about reality. "Superstitious thinking" is wrong thinking. Both science and theism can fall under this banner. It is your bias that makes you equate theism with superstition.
You can't be born neither an atheist nor a theist. There is no middle ground between the two. You are either one or the other.
Not true. Children are BEFORE the determination of theist or atheist, just like Schrödinger's cat, we cannot say whether they are theist or atheist, so they are neither. A person cannot be unconsciously atheist, as atheism requires a knowledge of theism, thus the name "a-theist". Without theism, the definition of atheist makes no sense.
Atheism is not simply an absence of theism, it is a rejection of theism. In newborns, there is no theism, and thus nothing to reject.
I am proposing that theism naturally developed out of the myths and superstitions of ancient humans.
Even science developed out of the myths and superstitions of ancient humans! Both science and theism have had to separate and distinguish themselves from the old myths and superstitions of ancient humans. But all inquiry "lends itself" to superstitious" thinking. It is just easy for your argument to label all theism as "superstitious thinking", but unfortunately for you, that categorization is also wrong.
Left to our own devices, we invent myths and superstitions.
Then it is convenient for your argument that you have already labeled theism as "myths and superstitions"! Getting to conclusions by means other than logic makes for poor arguments.
Try this....
Left to their own devices, a group of people would merely be superstitious and would most likely develop some sort of science as a crude explanatory model of the world (you know, as actually happened in human history).
...Is the above true? of course it is. You are trying to shoe-horn theism into "superstitious thinking" when science also fits the bill!
It is impossible to be completely, 100% rational. No person is, ergo every person has some level of irrational thinking.
You contention has not been about thinking, but "superstitous thinking", which you equate with theism. So please clear this up for me. Is the following a correct representation of your position?
It is impossible to be completely, 100% non-superstitous. No person is, ergo every person has some level of superstitous thinking.
1. If you say the above is true, you then admit that superstition is NOT the exclusive domain of theism, but if you say the above is untrue, then 2. You DO equate theism with superstition.
1 undercuts your current argument, and 2 is obviously an atheist bias.
The propensity for superstitious thinking is innate in us, just like the propensity for language is innate in us.
That is well and good, but you go further and substitute "theism" for superstitious thinking" in your argument. That is a fallacy. A perfect example using your claim above would be if you substituted "English" for language.
The propensity for superstitious thinking is innate in us, just like the propensity for English is innate in us.
Both substitutions render the statement incorrect. Superstitious thinking is not what is innate in us, curiosity is what is innate. Just as English is not what is innate in us, language is what is innate. It is just as illogical to substitute English for language, as it is to substitute theism for superstitious thinking, when talking about "innate qualities" in us.
Calling a baby an atheist rests on the incorrect definition of atheist as "without belief". But without belief in what? "Without belief" becomes comparative, and is thus irrational in a system devoid of theism, which is what a baby is.
For example, calling someone a-moral loses all rationality in a system lacking morality. Lacking morality makes sense only if there exists morality in that system. Babies are born neither atheist or theist. When the child takes up a belief in God, he becomes a theist, when he rejects a belief in God, he becomes an atheist. Before then, he is neither.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Children start out as atheists and are taught theism by existing theists, but I do admit that groups of humans will naturally tend toward theism (or similar religious/superstitious beliefs) as a matter of natural course.
Now we are getting somewhere. Allow me to summerize. You're saying that people are all born atheist, but yet have a natural tendency toward theism. That they have a natural tendency toward the exact opposite of what they are born as!
It seems to me that you are ignoring the simplest explanation. Children are born neither and move one way or the other naturally.
Atheism needs to be reinforced by rational and skeptical thinking.
Does your "group of humans" theory stand up to critical scrutiny? The first theists could not possibly have been in groups. According to you, there were no theist! Unless you are proposing some mass event where whole groups of atheists morphed into theists simultaneously.
If children are born atheist, then you at least imply that is natural, but why would a natural condition of children need to be reinforced by rational and skeptical thinking? As you say they are born atheist, it seems to me it would be theism that would need to be reinforced.
Your implication that theism is not rational is just your bias. Thousands of highly rational and skeptical people have been and are now theists. You seem to be assuming your conclusion right before your premise.
Sorry, but I still think reality contradicts you. Even you acknowledge the natural tendency humans have toward theism. Why would we have a natural tendency towards what was not innate in us?
I am reminded of a scientist who theorized that there can be no innate desire in humanity that does not have a precipitator in nature. In simpler terms, man cannot have a natural desire for what does not exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Since you are proposing the idea of God, just like how I propose the claim of fairies, you must defend this claim.
Neither TS or I have refused to defend our claim. You have refused to defend your claim. You are also proposing an Idea. If you will not defend it, it will be dismissed.
Surely, if I challenged you to a debate about garden fairies, ....
Fairies is a childish trick that we saw through. Let it go. You challenged TS on a debate about the existence of God.
...it would not be good conduct to hand the BoP to you and say "find evidence that these things aren't real". You can't just say "well, you are the one proposing that these aren't real, so you bear the BoP", which is actually exactly what you have done.
If you say they aren't real, there must be a reason for that belief. Surely you know your reasons? If you could not defend your claim that God does not exist, why do I need to defend my claim? You probably should not have made a claim you cannot defend. Though I remember you saying that you could defend your claim.
I can defend a claim that there are no fairies. Even an 8th grader would be able to. Why can't you? The bottom line that will not change is, each person making a positive claim will shoulder the BoP for that claim.
The BoP was not handed to you for my claim, it was handed to you for YOUR claim. I'll defend my claim. You defend yours.
Evidently, you are confused.
Yet you are the one inexplicably babbling about fairies in a conversation about your God claims. Your claim has been dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
The issue at hand is whether or not children start out as atheists, which is a discussion independent of there actually being a creator or not and related arguments.
Agreed. The idea that children start out as atheist is contradicted by the fact that there are theists! Reality contradicts you. I'm not saying that the existence of God refutes your idea, I'm saying the existence of theists refutes your idea. And I'm sure we both agree that theists can exist whether God exists or not.
It is obvious that children do not start out as atheists or theists. And if one proposes that they do all start out as atheists, one must then explain the existence of theists. Not God mind you, just theists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
How does this show abortion is murder?
Is the state executing a mass murderer wrong?
Was an American soldier killing a Nazi in WWII wrong?
Is a man defending his child from a killer by killing the attacker wrong?
Obviously to you, murder is not always wrong. When is it wrong and when is it not wrong? And if there are times murder is not wrong, what is the objective rule that shows murder wrong for abortion but not wrong for the other clear cases of murder?
If you think murder is sometimes not wrong, then calling abortion murder does not necessarily mean abortion is wrong. Your core point here is to call abortion immoral, not just to call it murder, unless you want to call all heads of states, soldiers, prison officials, and self-defense murderers.
Created:
Posted in:
Sure there is. You have a positive claim that God does not exist. You should be able to defend that.
I can certainly defend that claim.
Then what's the problem?
But you are the one proposing the idea that a supernatural God does not exist.
You are confused. There is a difference between proposing an idea and refuting an idea.
No Sir. You are proposing the idea that a supernatural God does not exist, and trying to refute the idea that a supernatural God does exist. We are asking you to defend the idea you are proposing. Like I said....
Those are 2 different things. You defend your claim by presenting logical support for it. You refute his claim by showing how his claim is illogical.
And that's what I will do, given the opportunity.
Then again, what is the problem?
...since religious people are proposing an idea, they will have to back it up with evidence,...
Well, this will always be the case if YOU are the one choosing which idea we discuss. TS wants to also discuss YOUR idea that God does NOT exist.
...or risk being dismissed without evidence.
Your argument is about to be dismissed if you don't present some evidence soon. It looks like TS may have already dismissed you.
Created:
Posted in:
....but I cannot speak to a person who believes murder is right and abortion is right.
Just as I said. If you can only debunk arguments that already accept your moral code, that isn't much of a debunking is it?
Incidently, you believe murder is wrong, do you know WHY it's wrong? Just curious.
OK, let's see you debunk the pro-choice individual who believes murder is wrong, but simply believes that abortion is not murder. How is abortion murder?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Then why don't the both of you share the BoP of your own claims, his being that God exists, and yours being that God does not?
But the problem is that there is nothing for me to defend.
Sure there is. You have a positive claim that God does not exist. You should be able to defend that.
I am not the one proposing the idea of a supernatural God,...
But you are the one proposing the idea that a supernatural God does not exist.
I am simply refuting a claim and defending my position.
Those are 2 different things. You defend your claim by presenting logical support for it. You refute his claim by showing how his claim is illogical.
Take this as an example. If I proposed the idea that there were inaudible, intangible and invisible fairies dancing in my garden bed, who would bear the BoP?
You, because you have made a positive claim. If you proposed the idea that there were not inaudible, intangible and invisible sub-atomic particles in your garden bed, you would still hold the BoP. The trick of choosing fairies, is just that, a trick. Whomever proposes an idea must defend that idea.
Obviously, as I am the one proposing this idea, I will have to defend it.
Then we do not disagree. Your idea here is that God does not exist. Defend that.
You seem to be asking to be on attack, never defense. Why would any sensible person agree to such a rigged debate? Are you afraid of being on defense?
You as a religious folk seem to get very tense and aggressive when being asked to prove your point.
That is your perception, not fact. You seem to be projecting. We are similarly asking you to prove your point. Do you not see that? We object to the unfair condition where you get to attack our claim but never have to defend yours.
Calling me afraid and rigged to deflect your own inability to defend an ideology will hardly get you anywhere.
Neither will you assuming we are trying to deflect and are unable to defend. TS did not refuse to defend, he wanted you to defend also. Of the 2 of you, the one acting afraid and unable to defend his position is you.
And I did not call you afraid, I asked if you were afraid because you seem to be unwilling to defend your claim. If it isn't due to fear, please tell us what is causing your reticence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Fair enough.
But what this tells me is that you can only "debunk" arguments that agree with your moral code in the first place. Against a person who thinks abortion is NOT murder, you have no argument regardless of whether he thinks murder is wrong.
What you call "debunks" are just you stating your opinion which differs from theirs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The arguments seem strange here.
If we accept as true that children are born atheists,....
Then theists must have first come from an atheist convincing a child into theism! Any other option validates theism.
Why and how would an atheist have convinced someone that there was a God? It seems like the idea that children are only what they are trained to be is wrong, or else there would be no theists!
Since atheism is the absence of theism, there can be no atheists if there are no theists. The very fact that theists exist at all, is highly suggestive that God does exist, as it is unlikely that the first theists were made by atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
I can most certainly defend my claim that God is almost certainly not real.
Then why don't the both of you share the BoP of your own claims, his being that God exists, and yours being that God does not?
You seem to be asking to be on attack, never defense. Why would any sensible person agree to such a rigged debate? Are you afraid of being on defense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
He's actually 18 so in theory you'd be wrong
No Sir. He became mod before he was 18.
And he only says he's 18. He may be younger. The fact that he was chosen as a mod implies that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
You said,
Please feel free to add more to the list for me to debunk.
I added one to the list, and you are accusing me of thinking murder is right.
Well we have much bigger issues in hand if you believe murder is right.
You don't know my beliefs. But it was you who asked for more arguments to debunk. The idea that murder is not wrong is an argument. Can I conclude that you cannot debunk it?
This is your thread. You chose the issue. Perhaps you should not have asked for arguments to debunk that you could not debunk?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So while you harangue TS for not remembering an obscure verse in another book, you either lied or completely missed your own story!
To say they did not bat an eyelid is incorrect. They prevented it from happening. Lot was looking out for no 1. The angels prevented needless abuse.
in relation to God reprimanding Lot, can you read or not? HE lost his home, his wife, and his dignity. God has not left a lovely record of Lot. Eventually his children and descendants will be judged to be annihilated for ever.
So did you lie with the "bat an eyelid" comment or are you just not good with detail? I think your error was far worse than TS forgetting one verse. Did you not know that the angels did do something?
You will dodge and run of course. But it pretty hypocritical to be on TS for that tiny overlook when your error/lie is like an elephant in the room.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
As Jesus and I see it, you should have been banned for 10 years at the least!
But unlike you, Jesus knows that 90 days is 3 months not 6 months.
Created:
You didn't insert enough swear words into your sentences. Therefore, I don't find your arguments effective, and more importantly, I don't think you're a cool kid.
Therefore, it is imperative that you read this OP:
Lol!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Lol how did anyone think it would be a good idea to make this kid a mod of a debate site?
He was male, and below 18. He met all their qualifications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
If you really were an atheist - you would defend your position.
I'm most willing to this by refuting any claims you make about the existence of God.
But not by defending any claims you make about the existence of God? Why? Do you hold beliefs you cannot defend?
Created:
Posted in:
I shamed him into changing his ending "syntax"!
The schtick isn't so ironclad after all!
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hi Dee dee,
...with his 6 month vacation, ethang5.
I was gone only 3. But its nice to know that it felt like 6 months to you. You missed me didn't you ya big lug?
Lol!
Created:
And declaring himself the winner? Where might one find provisions for that
In the Sleepy Joe Biden fake mass media play book.
To convince stupid people?
Lol. Democrats find you very convincing.
Nice try, fascist sympathizer.
I don't sympathize with you at all. And when you antifa/BLM guys try this on me in RL, you do it only once.
I wouldn't want to be sympathized with by a fascist sympathizer. That sounds quite horrible.
Lol. The BLM SJW plays the "racist card". What race am I against snowflake?
Race? Where
I have about a dozen videos of BLM thugs calling black police officers "niggers". Should I send you the link for one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Do you believe murder is immoral
You said I should give reasons and you'd debunk them. Can you debunk the one that says murder isn't wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
I am not sure why the Reverend believes that I will to run away from my own thread!
Perhaps he has seen it happen many times.
...this is the kind of nonsense I would expect from someone such as ethang5 to say, not a fully qualified Pastor or Chaplin?
The fact that you think Dee dee is a, "fully qualified Pastor or Chaplin" is the reason you have been caught unexpectedly.
But that said, the Reverends syntax has changed since the return of ethag5
Lol. Dee Dee's syntax never changes.
WAITING! or NEXT! or TIMES UP! or some other silliness like that.
Created:
Posted in:
why did these two men of god not bat an eyelid or say a word in protest at the idea or prospect of these to young virgin daughters being gang raped to save their skin ? And where was god to reprimand Lot?
The angels did not accept Lot's proposal. They reached out and pulled Lot in and then blinded the men in the street. Then they destroyed the entire city.
To say they did not bat an eyelid is incorrect. They prevented it from happening. Lot was looking out for no 1. The angels prevented needless abuse.
in relation to God reprimanding Lot, can you read or not? HE lost his home, his wife, and his dignity. God has not left a lovely record of Lot. Eventually his children and descendants will be judged to be annihilated for ever.
Do you actually realise Stephen that what you have said here? You are telling us that in all your years of study and with all of your claimed qualifications that this question has never once been raised neither by your own peers? You didn't know that to say these two men of god did not bat an eyelid or say a word in protest at the idea or prospect of these to young virgin daughters being gang raped is a lie?
How well we see the errors of others when we are blind to our own!
What does the bible say? We strain at a gnat but swallow a camel!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Exactly. So can we add stealing to the list of things you can find no reason for being wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Please feel free to add more to the list for me to debunk.
There is nothing immoral about killing a fetus.
Created:
...this is the first vote ever taken up against him...
Can the class say clique? I thought it could.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
You, sir, are the pinnacle of maturity.
Thank you sir.
But if I was 15, I'd be the pinnacle of desirability. Oh well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
Yes but notice how I don't personally dislike you like I do with mgtowdemon, I appreciate you on the site, and i don't appreciate him.
All fine and good. But no matter how much you don't appreciate someone, you must still abide by thesites CoC, at least it's supposed to be that way in theory. Also, we should not drag baggage from other threads around.
Question: Do you lack appreciation for him because of a personal reason, or some real thing he's done, or is doing to the site that harms or impedes its function?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Here's the thing though, they aren't.
We've had users leave, yes. but all purportedly for their own personal issues, nothing to do with the site itself... and for every user we've had leave, we get one to replace them.
How much bigger is Dart's active user base now than 2 months after it started?
Dart will keep attacking the symptoms and ignoring the disease. It's hard to explain. The history of debate boards online is well known, but somehow, history keeps repeating itself.
I rest my case.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
He did not halt the vote count. A president in America cannot half the count. But he can petition the court to halt the vote counting process if he believes illegalities have taken place. In your country, is a president able to halt a vote count?
Which provisions allow for the president to halt the vote count?
He did not halt the vote count, he is alleging illegalities in the vote count. A president in America cannot half the count. But he can petition the court to halt the vote counting process if he believes illegalities have taken place. In your country, is a president able to halt a vote count?
I'm sure he will be broken hearted to hear that you have ruled against his suit.
Rather when the courts have ruled against his suits
Why do we need a court when you have already judged his case bogus?
I wouldn't want to be sympathized with by a fascist sympathizer. That sounds quite horrible.
Lol. The BLM SJW plays the "racist card". What race am I against snowflake?
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Like you said it was a debate site. If you don’t like it leave, kid.
But this site loooovvveees kid boys!
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Uh huh.There will not be one because it does not violate the CoC.
According to the other mods, but not according to the CoC. But my bad, I understand the mods go by how they feel, not by the CoC. We have a CoC only because that is what all other sites have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
At least you know who the clique is now.
4) Remember to look for opportunities to use vulgar language. Everyone thinks you're more intelligent if you can use abusive language. You can win an argument on the spot if you are able to shove a bunch of swearwords into your sentence
On this site, "dick" is not a swear word, it's a term of endearment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
But why should the burden be on me? You are the one proposing the idea of this all powerful God, not me.
I think TS is saying you are the one proposing the idea of no all powerful God, not him. You should at least have to defend that claim.
Created:
A. Chris is a mod, he will suffer no consequence
Incorrect. He can, be still be degraded to a non-mod.
Have you ever seen that happen?
B. Chris is a young boy, you have no chance against him before the mods
A young boy is expected to carry out behaviors like this, and if you see a president smoke and drink and is addicted to sex that does not mean said president cannot be a president.
I did not say he could not be a mod. I said the mods do not care what his behavior is, therefore Damon has no chance.
We judge him by all things honest about his MODDING abilities, not light-hearted humor on a thread that wasn't a role model in the first place.
The mods judge others on light-hearted humor on threads that aren't a role model in the first place. I find that hypocritical.
C. This is the kind of moderation you get when the average age of the mod 17
Blamonkey, Ragnar and David are all above 17. This is not only wrong content-wise(as you can see Chris can mod well), but wrong semantic-wise.
It was hyperbole, and the fact that I have to tell you that means you missed the point.
D. This is the kind of moderation you get when the required disposition of the mod needs to be similar to a typical BLM demonstrator. (We've seen the videos)
So you think this is bad.
Attacking people who disagree with you is bad. Yes.
Racist problems exist and acknowledging it is not the same as a "BLM demonstrator".
Would a BLM demonstrator agree with you? But attacking someone and calling him a dick because he disagrees with you is the internet version of a BLM demonstrator attacking someone for wearing MAGA hat. It is the same.
Acknowledging the power of the artillery of the 3rd German Reich doesn't make you a Nazi.
It doesn't make you NOT a nazi either.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Second, fix your profile page so that you have a few liberal friends, the more the better, and the more liberal, the better. Also, list your age and gender. Be male, and the closer you are to 14, the better. You will see things improve for you immediately.
I'm not interested in lying. I'd rather be hated for who I am than liked for who I am not.
Excellent answer! You will be fine.
Created:
Posted in:
I came with curiosity and left knowing the OP had not read the story he's talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Just curious,
But what would THIS debate look like if the burden was fair, equal, and just?
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
I read the thread in its entirety. Nothing you said in your critique of Chris' OP warranted him calling you a "dick". It seems that past history contributed to his initial reaction.
The next two posters also insulted you even more rudely than Chris, on the side of the mod. It is clear in this particular case:
1. Chris behaved in a way unbecoming of a moderator
2. You are correct in your complaint that his treatment of you violated CoC.
I say all the above to prepare you for this, Demon.
A. Chris is a mod, he will suffer no consequence
B. Chris is a young boy, you have no chance against him before the mods
C. This is the kind of moderation you get when the average age of the mod 17
D. This is the kind of moderation you get when the required disposition of the mod needs to be similar to a typical BLM demonstrator. (We've seen the videos)
The other mods don't care, and their clique will gather to insult you knowing they are covered by the mod they are " defending". Leave it alone.
Your only friend on your profile page is "ilikepie", a known conservative. And you list no age on your profile. Bad moves.
Here is unsolicited advice from one who has been a member here since the beginning.
First, forget this incident. Chris says he is willing to suffer any judgement of the other mods because he is well aware there will be none. You will only make enemies.
Second, fix your profile page so that you have a few liberal friends, the more the better, and the more liberal, the better. Also, list your age and gender. Be male, and the closer you are to 14, the better. You will see things improve for you immediately.
Finally, saying what you actually think here will hurt you. So either be willing to pay the price, or stop saying what you think. Expecting fairness here shows a lack of awareness.
Many members agree that your complaint has merit, but know that openly supporting you is pointless. I'm one of the few (remaining) who have decided to pay the cost of saying what he thinks.
Created:
Posted in:
I just hope that this is the end of the pattern of users dropping like flies.
It isn't. Like the islanders who kept cutting down their trees till the island had no trees and became uninhabitable, Dart will keep attacking the symptoms and ignoring the disease. It's hard to explain. The history of debate boards online is well known, but somehow, history keeps repeating itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
When Jesus said we would always have the poor with us, I wonder if His mind went to the future and thought the same thing about trolls?
Its good to see you too.
Created:
-->
@Checkmate
The number doesn't matter. If the claim is that religion is the enemy of science, then even one great religious scientist invalidates that.
But if we go back to the last 500 years, I can name twice as many great scientists who were religious as those who were atheist. Almost every great advance in science you stand on today was accomplished by a theist scientist.
History shows us that being religious is not detrimental to being a good scientist at all. It's just that today, because of the way things have evolved, scientists need grants and peer reviews, so what is researched can be controlled, and results can be controlled. It has become political, and any scientist not towing the atheist PC line is refused grants, given poor peer reviews, and has his theories suppressed and castigated.
And young people, not knowing history, or the current political nature of research science today, think the darth if religious scientists must mean that being religious impedes good science. There are many good religious scientist today, but like being republican, they keep that part of their lives unexposed, least they face the "tolerance" of the liberal left.
But if we go back to the last 500 years, I can name twice as many great scientists who were religious as those who were atheist. Almost every great advance in science you stand on today was accomplished by a theist scientist.
History shows us that being religious is not detrimental to being a good scientist at all. It's just that today, because of the way things have evolved, scientists need grants and peer reviews, so what is researched can be controlled, and results can be controlled. It has become political, and any scientist not towing the atheist PC line is refused grants, given poor peer reviews, and has his theories suppressed and castigated.
And young people, not knowing history, or the current political nature of research science today, think the darth if religious scientists must mean that being religious impedes good science. There are many good religious scientist today, but like being republican, they keep that part of their lives unexposed, least they face the "tolerance" of the liberal left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I really do not see how that argument is actually used since it does not refute God or his existence.
Are you sure? For example, If something else can explain the ground being wet, then it didn't rain.
So I came out of my house the other day and saw my neighbor washing his car with a hose. He smiled at me and said, "I bet you think it's strange of me to wash my car right after a big rain. I told him that his hose adequately explained the wet ground and therefore I know it did not rain.
I learned that bit of brilliant science from atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
"The verses told me" ... "I did it" ... had I not done it. Ethang is not saying the Bible caused him to do something. He is indicating that he read the words - or even that the bible spoke to him. But he responded to those words. And please notice - Ethang5 could have chosen to respond passively. But the BIBLE DID not cause him to do anything. He read the words - he evaluated what they were saying -and HE CHOSE to respond and to believe. If the Bible could cause anything - why did it not simply make him believe "without asking Ethang to do anything".
Thank you Tradesecret. We are in complete agreement.
Can you even read Stephen?
Sometimes I wonder the same thing too.
Created: