[Dr Laurence Niles]

Originally Posted by Eddj87

Thank you for acknowledging atheists are nice people

Did you miss the scare quotes?

Foreigners never understand sarcasm

YIC

[Eddie James]

Originally Posted by Dr Laurence Niles

Did you miss the scare quotes?

Foreigners never understand sarcasm

YIC

No, I chose to take a leaf out of your book, "understand as written"

[Faith_Machine]

Originally Posted by Eddj87

Thank you for acknowledging atheists are nice people

It's always a mistake to make broad generalizations about entire groups of people, even if those generalizations sound like compliments.

Some atheists are nice. Many aren't. Regardless, the Bible does not exhort us to be "nice," and it tells us that being nice is not enough to keep us from burning in Hell.

Furthermore, some of the greatest heroes of the Bible were demonstrably not "nice."

But they are in Heaven with Jesus right now, because they gave themselves to Him and obeyed His will.

[Eddie James]

Originally Posted by Faith_Machine

It's always a mistake to make broad generalizations about entire groups of people, even if those generalizations sound like compliments.

Some atheists are nice. Many aren't. Regardless, the Bible does not exhort us to be "nice," and it tells us that being nice is not enough to keep us from burning in Hell.

Furthermore, some of the greatest heroes of the Bible were demonstrably not "nice."

But they are in Heaven with Jesus right now, because they gave themselves to Him and obeyed His will.

Sense at last,
well done my sir
I of course wholesomely disagree with what you believe in, but it's the first time any of you have used logic to come to some sort of conclusion,
regardless of how deluded that conclusion

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by Eddj87

But science and it's related fields are so wonderful and amazing, and they don't necessarily negate the existence of God, in fact there are scientists that very religious as well.

A common argument for why religion and science are compatible is that there are scientists who believe in religion and religious people who believe in science. It's like saying that Catholicism and pedophilia are compatible because there are a lot of Catholic priests who are pedophiles. One either believes the Word of God, or believes in science. One or the other.

[Eddie James]

Originally Posted by Mary Etheldreda

A common argument for why religion and science are compatible is that there are scientists who believe in religion and religious people who believe in science. It's like saying that Catholicism and pedophilia are compatible because there are a lot of Catholic priests who are pedophiles. One either believes the Word of God, or believes in science. One or the other.

Umm no it's not lol
I'm not convinced it compatable either, but it is plausible to accept. I myself have seen sense, not that I needed much persuasion, that science and reality is fact, as stated before, you don't have to accept it, or acknowledge it. It remains a fact, until disprove with another fact.
No religion is fact. Because there is no evidence supporting it. Fact,
No biblical txt, prayers or your opinions can change it, it will remain fact, it won't be your truth, but as I said, truth is subjective.
I have digressed here but only because it's a good point.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by Eddj87

It remains a fact, until disprove with another fact.

So... it's not really a fact, it's just assumed to be a fact. In other words, you have faith in this "fact."

Originally Posted by Eddj87

No religion is fact.

You only say this because you accept certain things as evidence. In other words, you tip the scales in your favor, and systematically dismiss whatever doesn't work to your advantage.

[Eddie James]

Originally Posted by Mary Etheldreda

So... it's not really a fact, it's just assumed to be a fact. In other words, you have faith in this "fact."



You only say this because you accept certain things as evidence. In other words, you tip the scales in your favor, and systematically dismiss whatever doesn't work to your advantage.

No i don't have faith in anything, I accept the fact solely based on the evidence supporting it. But regardless of whether I accept it or not, it will remain a fact.
The same is said for you, denying the existence of the facts, is your own prerogative, but it will remain a fact.
The second a theological conjecture is supported with evidence you can then have your own facts. Using the bible as evidence is fine but will not confirm said conjecture as a fact and will never be looked upon with any seriousness by any authority within your secular nation. It's the way of the States
Is it me or was fact said a lot then?

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by Eddj87

...regardless of whether I accept it or not, it will remain a fact....

until...

Originally Posted by Eddj87

until disprove with another fact.

In other words, you assume a thing to be fact until enough scientists convince you another thing is the Real Deal, Not Kidding This Time, Fact. That's not evidence, that's faith in the scientific community.

Originally Posted by Eddj87

Using the bible as evidence is fine but will not confirm said conjecture as a fact and will never be looked upon with any seriousness by any authority within your secular nation.

You're mistaken, dear. It wasn't until 2003 the Supreme Court of the United States reversed formally invalidated sodomy laws with the decision rendered in Lawrence v. Texas. The last fourteen states that upheld the Biblical Law of Sodomy were forced to accept a secular legal decision (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia). This was of course due to homosexual pressure, not moral decency, logical thought, or tradition. That's but one example. Our entire justice system is based on the Biblical concept of free will, a traditional and respectable concept that New Atheist High Priests like Sam Harris openly challenge. The state of Arkansas, the one that boasts the most fertile young women (ie, teens), work to eliminate sexual education programs in public high schools, not based on any objective, secular data, but solely on the Truth found in the Holy Bible (1 Corinthians 7:2).

As former presidential candidate and True Christian Lady™ Sarah Palin explains, "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant - they're quite clear - that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments."

[Eddie James]

Originally Posted by Mary Etheldreda

until...



In other words, you assume a thing to be fact until enough scientists convince you another thing is the Real Deal, Not Kidding This Time, Fact. That's not evidence, that's faith in the scientific community.



You're mistaken, dear. It wasn't until 2003 the Supreme Court of the United States reversed formally invalidated sodomy laws with the decision rendered in Lawrence v. Texas. The last fourteen states that upheld the Biblical Law of Sodomy were forced to accept a secular legal decision (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia). This was of course due to homosexual pressure, not moral decency, logical thought, or tradition. That's but one example. Our entire justice system is based on the Biblical concept of free will, a traditional and respectable concept that New Atheist High Priests like Sam Harris openly challenge. The state of Arkansas, the one that boasts the most fertile young women (ie, teens), work to eliminate sexual education programs in public high schools, not based on any objective, secular data, but solely on the Truth found in the Holy Bible (1 Corinthians 7:2).

As former presidential candidate and True Christian Lady™ Sarah Palin explains, "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant - they're quite clear - that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments."

Wrong, wrong, wrong


Facts rarely change in our day and age, 400 years ago people thought the world was flat, until better science and technology disproved it with better evidence. A fact will remain a fact until it is disproved by another, which is supported by better evidence. That being said, this is a unimaginarily rare event.

I don't practice faith. Relying on science isn't faith, it is a position based on the evidence that they have succeeded before and they shall succeed again.
If a scientist proposed an extraordinary claim, but provided no evidence, I would reject it immediately, I wouldn't believe him solely on the basis he's a scientist, that would be faith, and that's what you guys practice.



Check this out
Our founders created a secular government based on freethinking political philosophies. Our founders' Constitution is a stunning rejection of government under god. Only the Constitution establishes your government, not any other document with pious words, such as the Declaration of Independence, Mayflower Act etc. The Constitution ignores god, except for the date, "in the year of our Lord." "We the People," not god, is the authority for our government. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for national office. The Constitution's first amendment prohibits Congress from passing any laws even "respecting an establishment of religion." During many Constitution ratification sessions in the states, Christians tried to add references to God and Jesus into the Preamble and to remove the "no religious test for office" provision. Their failure demonstrates that even though the Constitution was a heated public issue, it was ratified as written. Our founders and the public knowingly chose a godless Constitution

Conservative Christians argue that the First Amendment language, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," means our founders only meant to prohibit one denomination from becoming the official national religion. The evidence refutes this narrowest of interpretations, aside from the fact that the Constitution must give government such a power, and there is no power to do anything religious in the Constitution. In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1/01/1802), Thomas Jefferson cited "a wall of separation between Church and State" as his reason for denying their request for a national day of fasting. Jefferson's metaphor came from London schoolmaster James Burgh, one of England's leading enlightenment political writers. Burgh's Crito (1767) had the phrase, "build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil." Along with numerous other documents, Jefferson's message clarifies the intention of the amendment.

[Eddie James]

I should mention I'm working with an American engineer, and it turns out he's pretty damn knowledgable about his govern ment, I wrote it from his words, hence the our's and not Your's written in the text, I didn't want you to think I wrote it
Edd

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by Eddj87

Wrong, wrong, wrong

You do realize all you're doing is arguing from a position of personal opinion, right? You don't believe you're accepting these things on faith and so you keep saying you're not. You sound like a child who is sticking his fingers in his ears and shutting his eyes tightly while singing "lalalala I can't hear you!"

Originally Posted by Eddj87

Facts rarely change in our day and age, 400 years ago people thought the world was flat, until better science and technology disproved it with better evidence. A fact will remain a fact until it is disproved by another, which is supported by better evidence.

In other words, it's not a fact because it might be rendered "untrue" as soon as a more popular belief comes along!

Originally Posted by Eddj87

That being said, this is a unimaginarily rare event.

I call shenanigans!

Here is an incomplete list of so called "facts" there were believed to be true until other so-called "facts" became the more popular belief:

• Spontaneous generation - is a principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s).

• Transmutation of species, Lamarckism, inheritance of acquired characteristics - first theories of evolution.

• Maternal impression – the theory that the mother's thoughts created birth defects.

• Miasma theory of disease – the theory that diseases are caused by "bad air. “

• Recapitulation theory – the theory that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"

• Telegony – the theory that an offspring can inherit characteristics from a previous mate of its mother's as well as its actual parents

• Out of Asia theory of human origin

• Luminiferous aether theory

• Hollow Earth theory

• The Open Polar Sea, an ice-free sea once supposed to surround the North Pole

• Rain follows the plow – the theory that human settlement increases rainfall in arid regions

• Theory of the four bodily humours

• Physiognomy

• Phrenology

And these now completely obsolete branches of science:

• Alchemy

• Astrology

• Phrenology

Originally Posted by Eddj87

I don't practice faith. Relying on science isn't faith, it is a position based on the evidence that they have succeeded before and they shall succeed again.
If a scientist proposed an extraordinary claim, but provided no evidence, I would reject it immediately, I wouldn't believe him solely on the basis he's a scientist, that would be faith, and that's what you guys practice.

Science is absolutely a faith, and you keep explaining how, every time you post! I should just let you talk!

Originally Posted by Eddj87

Check this out
Our founders created a secular government based on freethinking political philosophies. Our founders' Constitution is a stunning rejection of government under god. Only the Constitution establishes your government, not any other document with pious words, such as the Declaration of Independence, Mayflower Act etc. The Constitution ignores god, except for the date, "in the year of our Lord." "We the People," not god, is the authority for our government. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for national office. The Constitution's first amendment prohibits Congress from passing any laws even "respecting an establishment of religion." During many Constitution ratification sessions in the states, Christians tried to add references to God and Jesus into the Preamble and to remove the "no religious test for office" provision. Their failure demonstrates that even though the Constitution was a heated public issue, it was ratified as written. Our founders and the public knowingly chose a godless Constitution

Conservative Christians argue that the First Amendment language, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," means our founders only meant to prohibit one denomination from becoming the official national religion. The evidence refutes this narrowest of interpretations, aside from the fact that the Constitution must give government such a power, and there is no power to do anything religious in the Constitution. In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1/01/1802), Thomas Jefferson cited "a wall of separation between Church and State" as his reason for denying their request for a national day of fasting. Jefferson's metaphor came from London schoolmaster James Burgh, one of England's leading enlightenment political writers. Burgh's Crito (1767) had the phrase, "build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil." Along with numerous other documents, Jefferson's message clarifies the intention of the amendment.

Your friend who wrote this was educated in a public school, am I right? He probably thinks it's morally acceptable for sodomy to be legalized in the sacrament of marriage, too. When we Christians are persecuted more blatantly than we are now, when are forced to wear some kind of mark on our clothing to identify our beliefs, when the State removes our children from our homes in order to raise them up as part of the collective, you can thank your friend for promoting and supporting the U.S.S.R. of A. Meanwhile, I will await my Heavenly reward (Matthew 5:10-12).

[RDawkins55]

As Atheists, we do not need to prove Evolution or The Big Bang Theory. A lot of us do, though some Atheists are waiting for an answer which suits them.

The burden of proof is not upon us. It is upon you. However, you rely on a book with a magical burning bush, a flood leaving 8 people alive to repopulate the earth and a talking snake. Doesn't sound like it should be trusted.

I suggest read, The Greatest Show on Earth. By Richard Dawkins.

[Eddie James]

Originally Posted by Mary Etheldreda

You do realize all you're doing is arguing from a position of personal opinion, right? You don't believe you're accepting these things on faith and so you keep saying you're not. You sound like a child who is sticking his fingers in his ears and shutting his eyes tightly while singing "lalalala I can't hear you!"



In other words, it's not a fact because it might be rendered "untrue" as soon as a more popular belief comes along!



I call shenanigans!



Here is an incomplete list of so called "facts" there were believed to be true until other so-called "facts" became the more popular belief:

• Spontaneous generation - is a principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s).

• Transmutation of species, Lamarckism, inheritance of acquired characteristics - first theories of evolution.

• Maternal impression – the theory that the mother's thoughts created birth defects.

• Miasma theory of disease – the theory that diseases are caused by "bad air. “

• Recapitulation theory – the theory that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"

• Telegony – the theory that an offspring can inherit characteristics from a previous mate of its mother's as well as its actual parents

• Out of Asia theory of human origin

• Luminiferous aether theory

• Hollow Earth theory

• The Open Polar Sea, an ice-free sea once supposed to surround the North Pole

• Rain follows the plow – the theory that human settlement increases rainfall in arid regions

• Theory of the four bodily humours

• Physiognomy

• Phrenology

And these now completely obsolete branches of science:

• Alchemy

• Astrology

• Phrenology

Science is absolutely a faith, and you keep explaining how, every time you post! I should just let you talk!





Your friend who wrote this was educated in a public school, am I right? He probably thinks it's morally acceptable for sodomy to be legalized in the sacrament of marriage, too. When we Christians are persecuted more blatantly than we are now, when are forced to wear some kind of mark on our clothing to identify our beliefs, when the State removes our children from our homes in order to raise them up as part of the collective, you can thank your friend for promoting and supporting the U.S.S.R. of A. Meanwhile, I will await my Heavenly reward (Matthew 5:10-12).

You can keep saying science if faith, but I've explained it very logically why it isn't, putting your point across with such blatant ignorance, you are merely giving up, and using any method to not be proved wrong.


Opinion accepted though. The U.S.S.R, no longer exists, impossible to support, but I assume by your increasingly scathing words, you have found little room for manoeuvre when presented with the facts, your country is secular, period.
I'm not a scientist, so this lost is irrelevant to me. But I have noticed its pretty much all medieval theories, and astrology? Hasn't been considered fact for centuries. Pointless list

[Cranky Old Man]

Originally Posted by RDawkins55

As Atheists, we do not need to prove Evolution or The Big Bang Theory.

How convenient...

So you admit Atheists have no idea what they are talking about. No surprises there.

Now please surprise me by saying something we haven't heard before here.

[Eddie James]

Originally Posted by Cranky Old Man

How convenient...

So you admit Atheists have no idea

By that logic, you have been unable to prove the existence of your diety, so does that mean you have no idea about God?
All the facts for the Big Bang and evolution are there, as I've said before, it's up you whether you accept it or not, doesn't change the concluding answer. It's fact.

[Paragon of virtue]

Originally Posted by Eddie James

All the facts for the Big Bang and evolution are there, as I've said before, it's up you whether you accept it or not, doesn't change the concluding answer. It's fact.

You don't realize how ridiculous you sound building your house on the shifting sands of science. Everything is a fact until that fact no longer suits your perverted purpose. For most of my life Pluto was a planet...well, it's not anymore. It seems that every other year coffee switches between being good for us and being bad for us. Homosexuality was incorrectly classified as a mental illness--it never was BTW because it is and always has been an abominable reprobate sin--now it's called a lifestyle choice. The un-Holy cartoon about the drunken, whore monger, Popeye caused a generation of children to eat slimy foul-tasting spinach to get stronger because some scientist accidentally misplaced a decimal point when calculating the nutritional value of spinach. These are examples off of the top of my head, I didn't even have to Google it. Will you really risk your immortal soul on the word of posturing dunderheads who can't even tell us if it's okay to use artificial sweeteners in our lemonade? I subscribe to the wisdom of Romans 3:4 and Matthew 7:24-25 you would be wise to do the same or else end up with this gentleman and all the queers, eviliusitonists, and atheists

[Eddie James]

Originally Posted by Paragon of virtue

You don't realize how ridiculous you sound building your house on the shifting sands of science.


Being in the resounding majority of scientific discovery, hardly make me sound ridiculous, that's your own personal opinion.




Everything is a fact until that fact no longer suits your perverted purpose.


A fact proves a specific purpose, the fact it suites a purpose is mere coincidence


For most of my life Pluto was a planet...well, it's not anymore.


The science for Pluto didn't change, just the the etymology of what constitutes a planet


It seems that every other year coffee switches between being good for us and being bad for us.



All based on amount of consumption. The body has Arsenic in it, and yet in very small doses it will kill you. It's all about moderation. Drinking excessive amounts water will kill you.



Homosexuality was incorrectly classified as a mental illness--it never was BTW because it is and always has been an abominable reprobate sin--now it's called a lifestyle choice.



If it's a choice, why don't you give it a go? Another uninteresting bigoted right wing opinion, based on false interpretations.



The un-Holy cartoon about the drunken, whore monger, Popeye caused a generation of children to eat slimy foul-tasting spinach to get stronger because some scientist accidentally misplaced a decimal point when calculating the nutritional value of spinach.



Spinach is wonderfully proven as being extremely healthy, and it was probably a metaphorical statement for the strength of iron, to which spinach has a high in content of.
But scientist would probably not, try and gain knowledge of the chemical compound, and the health aspect of consumption, of spinach by referring to a cartoon.




These are examples off of the top of my head, I didn't even have to Google it. Will you really risk your immortal soul on the word of posturing dunderheads who can't even tell us if it's okay to use artificial sweeteners in our lemonade? I subscribe to the wisdom of Romans 3:4 and Matthew 7:24-25 you would be wise to do the same or else end up with this gentleman and all the queers, eviliusitonists, and atheists

No such thing as a soul, or a devil, or a sinner. What a waste of money