We've reached the end of the replies for Nerdfighters again: So here's my response:


No, the answer is that they have no need to be mentioned because they have nothing to do with our salvation, which is the central thrust of what the Bible talks about


Huh? Have you actually read the Bible. There is an entire first half called the old testament! There is nothing to so with our salvation in there at all. The central thrust of what the Bible talks about.? Seriously? Read the Old Testament. Where is there salvation in there??


1. This organisation is limited to the US

2. This "census" was a very limited in time periods

3. This is a survey, not a census. It only covered a fragment of the NAS and then used it as a representative sample. Given the number of Christian scientific organisations (not creationist btw) with large membership numbers, I'd still dispute your findings


You can dispute all you want because it fits your narrow world view. And that’s fine, the fact is most scientists today are atheists either prior to entering the sciences or because of them. These are U.S. findings, but guess what? FACT: The U.S. is the most religious country of ALL the western world! So if most of our scientists are atheists than surely most of the other western world’s scientific and obviously non-scientific people are too.


Sorry, but that's exactly what you did say. See here "but the evidence they seek and find, by default, continues to prove out the concept that God just doesn’t need to have existed or currently exist for all the explanations of how the Universe functions or came into being."


Perhaps English is not your first language. Please re-read the sentence of mine you quoted. Of course there are scientists who believe in God without the evidence to support it (obviously since, as I also said, but you failed to quote, that religious scientist do exist, God does not. So how could I possibly claim there are no religious scientists. I think, as other atheists, that there is a strange dichotomy to be sure, but they do exist as I’ve stated.) The sentence you quoted does not claim that religious scientists do not exist, it claims the truth; that no matter how hard religious scientists look to science to find God they never will because he’s not there. Perhaps you really do need to retake remedial English.


He could be, but he doesn't have to be. Examining the walls and the bricks, examining the building itself, means you won't find the builder, because the builder is not the building. Much the same way that if you examine the universe physically, you won't find God because he built the physical universe. He isn't himself part of it


Oh, I see. You are now claiming knowledge of the numena. How very interesting. Then explain to me, not using any physical analogies whatsoever any evidence for God’s existence. You have just negated your entire argument. You continously claim the Bible is the word of God, but just said he is not part of the physical universe. So how does an entity (that must be (by your “logic”) outside of the universe forever, have men create a book describing it, let alone talking to, for example Moses. In your failed analogy the builder is not part of the building, but yet using a Biblical analogy the walls would be able to talk to and interact with its inhabitants. And this is what you are claiming? A God that is totally outside of all physical existence, and according to you is not a part of it, can somehow communicate with others within the physical universe? How does that work? It is a call to magic. It’s Cartesian dualism all over again. Let’s not bring this up, since Cartesian dualism is rejected by every sane, rational, intelligent philosopher alive today.


I would have thought it was obvious. If you take the scientific principle of "nothing can be said to exist until there is empirical evidence justifying its existence" then you have to ask, where is the empirical evidence in support of that statement. If science says that nothing is true until it is tested by experiment, how did it reach that conclusion? Using science? That's circular logic. How did we know to examine the universe scientifically to find truth? Because of science. Etc. It's circular and illogical.


No, that is your understanding of it. Or perhaps I should say your misunderstanding of it. The scientific method (used by ALL reasonable scientist by the way, not pseudoscientists) was developed to put into practice the laws of logic and reason. For example: People used to think that the stars were static holes in the sky that were illuminated from the other side. Hence Astrology was developed. Science however proved this to be false, utterly. In fact the starts exist in the four dimension space/time; and aren’t even on the same plane as other stars they appear close to in the night sky. Hence science rightly claimed that astrology is false. While it was for a time considered a science it obviously no longer is; it is utterly false. That is how the scientific method works, there is nothing circular about it. It begins with a hypothesis, and if the testing is conclusive, i.e. verifiable, it becomes a theory. Then after a period of time if nothing counters it’s claim and there is no refuting it, it becomes a law (this is an oversimplification of how it really works for your benefit. It doesn’t really work that way, but to keep it simple for you I broke it down.) Basically the scientific method (used worldwide by the way) is in place not only for its own sake, but to stop people from making erroneous claims that something works or exists that really doesn’t. For example anyone can claim that if you by X medication it will cure cancer. Should everyone with cancer run out and purchase this $500,000 pill? Or should we allow it to be studied until it is proven to work as proclaimed? Likewise should we all believe in an invisible being that created everything yet doesn’t live within his/her own creation, or the science that says there is no need to posit God to explain universal phenomena. Personally, I’ll go with science.


As I have said many times, Faith is not based on a lack of evidence. Rather it is based on different evidence to science. Just because it is different, doesn't mean it isn't there


You can say it as many times as you like. Faith is based on lack of evidence. Why would you claim you have faith that you had breakfast this morning. That sentence would make no sense. One does not claim to have faith in something they know to have existed or happened, there is absolutely no need whatsoever to do so. One would simply claim that it happened, not that they have faith that they had breakfast this morning. Your use of the English language seems to suggest that it is not your native tongue.

Of what kind of evidence do you offer then, if you continue to claim there is other evidence then scientific, empirical evidence. Please tell me what other kind of evidence you have, I’m sure the world would greatly benefit from the knowledge of another type of evidence that has no recourse to empirical, scientific evidence. Please share. And yet again, the question remains: If you do indeed have this evidence as you so claim, then again there would be no need to mention faith. If you have the evidence, you don’t need faith. And where is religion without faith. Why does God not simply speak to everyone simultaneously at this very moment to convince them of his existence? Because this wouldn’t give us a choice right? No freewill, correct? Well, I put it to you that with this evidence you claim to have of God’s existence, this also leaves one with no choice, and no freewill. And where does that leave you? Explain.


You are misunderstanding what I mean by interpreted truths. You earlier asked "is all of the Bible true" and I answered "yes, but not in the same way" because there are verses in the Pslams that are meant poetically etc. Because not all the literature is the same style, it will not all be true in the same way. It will all be true, but it will refer to things differently


Wait. So now you are claiming to be God? You and you alone know which verses are intended to have actually happened and which are poetical or allegorical? How do you know which ones, while no one else does? Do you have some special insight that no one else on Earth has? And if they are (as you claim) written in different styles in different times, this is consistent with the idea that it is all a fairy-tale, and not factual. Note I didnt’ claim it proves, merely is consistent with...


I havn't answered because the example you gave was intended as a mockery of religion. If you want a discussion, don't mock. It doesn't get you anywhere. You it seems have not read the article I gave in support of the notion of being able to prove a negative


You have not answered because on this issue I have found the one area that religion cannot dance it’s way around. Not this time. You have not answered because you cannot. Like I said (after having read the article) you cannot prove a negative! I finally found the one area which you cannot touch, I’ve used the circular pseudologic of religion against itself in argument form, and you cannot give any evidence to contradict my claim because there is none. That is how religion works, see. It tells you something exists that you can never hope to prove or disprove, because it’s impossible (like my garden fairies), and you must simply lay down like a good sheep and except it, because your mind has no way of fighting it. Well as an atheist who can think outside the proverbial religious box, I and others like me, have made it out of the box using the scientific method, logic, freethinking, and reason. Things that you unfortunately do not use to your advantage.

Do not hide behind the pretend idea that you haven’t answered because I’m making a mockery of religion, religion makes a mockery of itself, and needs no help from me. You haven’t answered my question, simply because you cannot. Yet will not admit to it (at least on page).


Views: 825

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If you're suggesting that more atrocities are commited without religious cause, on the whole it may be true, but the point is that organized religion is dangerous. I wont go into the details again. But will leave this, since you'll only say your ideolgoy has nothing to do with organized religion (which is sketchy at best).

I agree that a human claiming to speak directly for God without authority to do so is exceptionally dangerous. Hence, as Paul says, we should limit our speech to that which is Biblical alone. God gives no mandates for human government to act in his stead on Earth.

Actually God according to the Bible told people what to do for quite some time, well that is until scientists began questioning the authority of those like Moses who claim to speak for God, and oddly enough there hasn't been a single peep out of Him since then.

Please re-read what I said

I agree that a human claiming to speak directly for God without authority to do so is exceptionally dangerous

And furthermore, I've known many people whom God has spoken into the lives of.

He's never going to tell you. He'll just say reread my post, which if you actually do, you will see that what you originally thought he said, is exactly what he did say, but he'll claim he didn't. He does it to me all the time. He needs to reread his own posts.

The authority of God. Hence, speaking directly for God with authority.

OK. You can stop with the "reread my posts", it reads exactly how I presented it everytime. Want to play that juvenile game, fine: "God gives no mandates for human government to act in his stead on Earth" is exactly what you just wrote, word for word, copy and paste! Well, guess again and read your Bible, God does in fact mandate human behaviour and action quite often in the Old Testament, it's only now he is conveiniently silent! And "I've known many people..." That's the most hypocritical and ridiculous thing I've ever read yet. How do you know these people have? Because they told you? That's very reliable. Because you've seen it? That's empirical, and we can't use that remember. So how do you know these people have experienced God? Because they converted to Christianity? That's nonsense. That's not God speaking to them, it's just people wanting to believe in something because they cannot face the absurdity, meaninglessness and inherent beauty of the universe like atheists without a crutch.

God does in fact mandate human behaviour and action quite often in the Old Testament

Please, again, re-read my post. I'll add emphasis to the part which deals with your point. God gives no mandates for human government to act in his stead on Earth. Of course God gives us mandates for what our behaviour should be. But he never suggests we should ever replace him.

That's empirical, and we can't use that remember.

That isn't what I said. Please stop parodying my argument. I said that empericim is not universal. I did not say that it was not useful. I have said that it is useful for many many things but that it does have limits.

So how do you know these people have experienced God? Because they converted to Christianity?

No. Because of specific experiances in their lives. Experiances where they have recieved providence or wisdom outside the normal bounds.

Get the F@#K out of here. Now I know you really are crazy. I suspected as much from anyone involved in the Chirstian cult, but now you've just proven it. Wisdom outside the normal bounds? Bounds of what? Buddha was wise. Carl Sagan (an atheist) was wise. What kind of wisdom? You are a parody of yourself. And your backpeddling is getting quite overused. God does not give us mandates! Oh wait, yes he does, but only involving our behaviour (like bashing the heads of infants against rocks (READ YOUR BIBLE!)) What a loving God, unlike me who would never do that, but not for replacing him. You are truly a joke. Sure you can throw in "in his stead" but I know what you really meant.

Wisdom outside the normal bounds? Bounds of what?

Bounds of their natural ability etc. People who have no ability in a particular field under normal circumstances, have suddenly developed abilities to do things that they never would have. For example, Moses was not, by any strech, a natural speaker or leader. But God made him one. I've known people in simmilar situations with different fields where God has given people skills beyond and above themselves.

And your backpeddling is getting quite overused. God does not give us mandates! Oh wait, yes he does, but only involving our behaviour

I am not backpedalling. I said quite clearly in the original that God did not give us mandate to be him on earth. Of course, he mandates our behaviour, he tells us how we should behave, but that isn't the same thing.

It's called confidence. It's like the placedo effect, one one thinks/believes God is on their side they are capable of doing more than they would otherwise. This concept is quite easily explainable on scientific/empircial grounds, not on supernatural ones.

So God tells us how to behave in the Old Testament, again like smashing new borns skulls against rocks, or stoning people. And this is somehow a good thing?

And you really are wrong. Esentially what you are saying is that there is a difference between Hilter telling his Nazis to kill certain types of people, but not telling them to act like him. What is the difference. If one is fullfilling God's plan, one is taking over for God and doing his bidding, which is esstentially the same as becoming Him. He just removed himself (if we can temporarily suspend disbelief) from the equation.


Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service