Example: Human behaviour from today and in the OT proves bible god is not real

[SilentVoice]

11 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

 

You testimony falls into the category of anecdotal evidence, meaning that this is a personal feeling of truth. There is no way for you to demonstrate it is true for anyone else. Here is where I would have a problem, I have someone like you come and tell me that the God of the Bible is real, it feels real to you, you give this God, or really in this circumstance, the Bible the benefit of the doubt. After you, I have someone from another religion come and tell me that they had the exact same experience, but they came to believe that a different religion was true, they felt drawn to it, they believed in it with their whole being. What am I to make of this? As an outsider, how I could I evaluate who is correct? I have cousins who are Mormons who believe as fervently as you do. There are thousands of religions and I could find people in each one who came to their beliefs by the same method you did. I would need a way to objectively determine who had it right. What method do you propose would do that?

 

Is it not possible you were drawn to the Bible because Christianity is the primary religion in the west? Is it not possible that if you grew up somewhere else you may have been drawn to a different religion that was more inline with the cultural norms?

 

I understand the emotional aspect of you conversion. Emotions are normally what drive conversion. I too felt very emotional the first time I reading the NT, like I was reading a divine truth. I used to think I was so right in my beliefs, until I met other Christians. They were just as dedicated to their beliefs as I was to mine, and it made me question whether or not I was saved. How could I know I was saved? Not just feel saved, but know that I was saved. I have other Christians telling me that if I am not living a certain way, evangelizing, going on mission trips, speaking in tongues, eating pork, not obeying the Sabbath, or a host of other doctrines that I am not really saved. How can so many people who find the Bible as the foundation of truth come to so many different conclusions on what the message is.

 

The first chink in the armor came from talking to some Jehovah witnesses. They would come over and we would argue doctrine and go through the Bible and they would cherry pick verses to come to a conclusion on why their doctrine is true. After five sessions of this, one of the guys asked me if it was reasonable that their interpretation was possible. That really hit home, he made a good point. Interpretation of the Bible is a human endeavor. There are no instructions on how to interpret it so everyone draws the same conclusions. To say that you have interpreted it correctly because you have some special knowledge/insight is a bit arrogant. I am humble enough to say that I do not know if my perceived interpretation is true, I do not know a lot of things, and I would be lying to myself if I just kept going forward in my beliefs without questioning how I came to believe them. I want you to consider this, how you understand the Bible could be false. The feelings you attribute to divine guidance could be nothing more than your own personal emotions at play. I know that may seem difficult to believe, but in the context of other people who believe just as much as you do, but disagree on conclusions, it should make you consider that you could be wrong.

 

I understand the point of the scripture quotes you included, but it would be too much here to go into Bible criticism about what critical scholars think of not only those verses, but the books themselves, the authors, dating, etc. Also, I would be stating things that you have never considered and it would just be over your head. Not in the sense that you are ignorant, just that what I would say would require you to think about the Bible differently than you do now.

I do sometimes question my beliefs. Did God fit a few thousand animals and millions of small creatures on a huge boat? I don't think it's relevant to my salvation if I believed it or not. But it's still true because God said it. God can't lie. Other Christians really are the worst, aren't they? LOL. Bullying other people, making you doubt yourself, telling you that you aren't saved, threatening you with hell, etc. That's why I just prefer God and His scripture and enjoy when God blesses me to love people like He loves me. Being kind and patient and gentle is a really nice thing but because I'm weak I often fail.

 

You sound like you never trusted God from the beginning and need to question things like an atheist so when people competing for your attention finally get you to question Jesus, you gave up. But it just goes to show we really are surrounded by vanity. God called you, but you may not be chosen.

 

Would you mind if I pray for you? If you told me your name that would be helpful.

[Steviejay]

9 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

He is Jesus Christ. Salvation, the word made flesh. The anointed one of God, the holy one of Israel, the messiah. None of your replies can change that. Amen.

 

Children of wicked people should have been killed. Unfortunately for God's people they disobeyed and left a bunch of them alive, and then for hundreds of years those same people grieved Israel and God used them as punishment. Just think, once Israel had crossed in to the promised land, they could have literally killed ALL the people that God commanded them to (because they had been judged worthy of death by God). What would have happened? They wouldn't have any neighbours to bother them any more. Peace.

 

Bullshit

 

Drowns around 20 million, probably mostly innocent in a flood then claims he has 8 righteous people on a boat

 

They didn't workout to be very righteous, did they? because more and more murders have been committed since, million in fact

 

This from an ALL KNOWING idiot in the sky

 

You sit there in your nice house, with food etc without the threat of being murderd for the slightest sin or for actually doing nothing wrong by your Mr KNOW IT ALL God....now go back 4 -5 thousand years and try and become one of those in the flood, one of the 70,000 Egyptian 1st born.

 

You have NO EMPATHY for others. None whatsoever as long as I'm alright Jack. Selfish!!!!!

 

You are as GUILTY as they are. the whole jesus story came far too late in time... oh yeh...it's managed to save you from being tortured and murdered by your god so I'm alright Jack cos i live in 2020...but he should of sent Jesus straight after Adam and Eve then all of his totally corrupt and unecessary murders would of been halted by Jesus's blood because this awful insane god KNEW WHAT WAS TO COME, disgusting vile creature...... this terrible plan by an ALL KNOWING god..... man, you can smell the made up story bullshit from these writers a mile off... Better still Mr All Knowing god, put Adam and Eve to sleep after eating a piece of fruit, start again but this time leave all unwanted trees and snakes out of the garden and F***** look after your 2 innocent children properly next time because Mr ALL KNOWING W******* of a god YOU F****** KNEW IT WOULD LEAD TO MURDER, RAPE, SLAVERY, CHILD ABUSE, BURNING INNOCENT WOMEN AS WITCHES, COUNTING NEW BORN BABIES AS WORTHLESS, KEEPING VIRGIN GIRLS FOR YOURSELF and so on and so on and so on

 

UTTER VILE BOOK. GO BACK 4 THOUSAND YEARS AND SEE HOW YOU LIKE IT, GO ON.... easy to sit there and spout your crap... not so easy when it's your daughter being sold into slavery at 12 years of age. most of this was just because you were born or lived in a different tribe. God isn't the Jews chosen people, The jews CHOSE their god!!!

 

No wonder I'm angry. I actually put my feet in these people shoes from the past and then you can see 100 percent that it was unjust and evil from this sadistic maniac you called god

 

Your book characters are F***** evil. end of...... sorry for the rant but worshipping such vile masters makes me feel physically sick inside knowing the hurt it has caused billions of innocent people...... If allah said all people are evil would you believe him, No....so why do you believe the same Abrahamic god of the OT

 

Wake up, Wake up, Wake up and stop wasting other people's time if you have no intention of listening to reason, facts and down right goodness in rejecting such and evil entity as Yahweh and his side kick Jesus

[Hierophant]

13 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

I do sometimes question my beliefs. Did God fit a few thousand animals and millions of small creatures on a huge boat? I don't think it's relevant to my salvation if I believed it or not. But it's still true because God said it. God can't lie. Other Christians really are the worst, aren't they? LOL. Bullying other people, making you doubt yourself, telling you that you aren't saved, threatening you with hell, etc. That's why I just prefer God and His scripture and enjoy when God blesses me to love people like He loves me. Being kind and patient and gentle is a really nice thing but because I'm weak I often fail.

 

You sound like you never trusted God from the beginning and need to question things like an atheist so when people competing for your attention finally get you to question Jesus, you gave up. But it just goes to show we really are surrounded by vanity. God called you, but you may not be chosen.

 

Would you mind if I pray for you? If you told me your name that would be helpful.

 

1 Kings 22: 19-23, God sent a lying spirit. What is the difference between lying yourself or having someone lie on your behalf? You are making an assumption that a God spoke directly to some author and he wrote that story down like a scribe. There is no reason to believe that was the case. We do not know who wrote Exodus. Christians want to attribute the Hebrew Bible to Moses, but obviously he did not write about his own death in Deuteronomy. Not unless there was a seance and he came back to get that last bit in.

 

I did trust God. I was all in and I wanted to know the truth. My sincere desire to know the truth is what eventually led me out of Christianity. I wanted to ensure I was doing God's will and that I was following his guidance exactly. I do not see the point of you praying for me because before I started to explore ideas outside of Christianity, I begged God to reveal his will to me somehow, someway. Nothing ambiguous, nothing that was not unclear, no games, just to tell me exactly what he wanted and let us get on with it. Is that not the desire of God, total submission? If I was willing to sacrifice it all, why would he not honor my sincere and heartfelt request? You are welcome to go to the Bible and cherry pick verses that you think explain the situation, but you are ignoring other verses that speak the opposite. Systematic theology is not cogent. I have yet to hear a systematic approach to the Bible that does not fall apart soon after takeoff. Here I think you raise a good point, if God is predestining people (I was a former Calvinist so I can speak to this theology all you want) then things Jesus says and does in the Bible are just ridiculous. Why condemn people when it is God who is preventing people from getting saved anyway? He is just playing a game with people. When Jesus gets mad at the cities that did not repent and then condemns them, my thought is, if you are predestining people, you are stopping them from repenting! Why would you condemn them for something that is ultimately your doing!? What in the world is he getting at? Do you not see that this line of thought contradicts your theory about Satan ruining the show? If God is calling people to know the truth, then Satan is a joke ~ and whatever Satan is doing does not even matter. God is stopping people from knowing the truth. You may not realize it, but your version of Christianity is a personal truth. You are feeling your way to your own reality.

[TABA]

1 hour ago, TABA said:

 I didn’t just assume things were true because I wanted them to be true.  But with religion,  I didn’t apply the same standard.  

 

58 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

You didn't have to because you belong to Jesus Christ.

If I had been raised in Saudi Arabia and didn’t apply that same standard, I would have believed that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger.  Would that be because I belonged to Allah or because I happened to be born there instead of in the West?

 

1 hour ago, SilentVoice said:

You aren't in this world to impress gentiles or read thousands of books so you can engage in apologetics.

 
I think I have a duty as a human with critical thinking skills to apply those to various claims I encounter, especially those that claim to be about life and death matters. 

[WalterP]

  7 hours ago, WalterP said:

SilentVoice,

 

When scientists investigate the sulphur deposits you've been talking about, what is the only practical methodology that they can all agree upon?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Interesting question. I suppose they could agree on the chemical properties of elements and their compounds in the periodic table. Also they could agree on a step-by-step guide of how to test the samples fairly without tampering or possibility of being tainted, i.e. how to transport them, seal them in containers, analyze them, report their findings in a specific template.

 

I don't think they can agree on the purpose of science. The scientists in the cited published paper set out to disprove supernatural occurrence. That is not a method of observation and testing, it is a personal thing to them. They didn't call their article 'testing if the sulphur is supernatural or natural in origin'.

 

So how can scientists agree? Well they should collect data from around the world, collecting samples of all naturally occurring sulphur and organize them in to groups according to what geological processes made them. They could run every single analytical test they could think of against each sample and compare them side by side. They could then see that the yellowish substances created in nature in volcanoes, geothermal vents or by bacteria were completely different than the samples found. Their conclusion should be 'a mystery to think about' and not 'it was still bacteria, even though it couldn't have been bacteria'.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thank you for this, SV.

 

My bad for not being specific enough.  I apologize for that. 

 

The issue is how science should proceed when the scientists themselves hold to many different and conflicting beliefs about the supernatural.

 

So, here is the question, rephrased.

 

When scientists investigate the sulphur deposits you've been talking about, with regard to the supernatural, what is the only practical methodology that they can all agree upon?

 

I look forward to your answer.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[TABA]

1 hour ago, SilentVoice said:

 

Not sure of your personal testimony of why you felt torn away from Him but His hand is still stretched out.

 

I don’t see that hand stretched out, just as you don’t see the hand of Allah beckoning you to make the Haj to Makkah.  

[Astreja]

5 hours ago, SilentVoice said:

Wait, what? So I'm supposed to ask God to give me cancer, and then for me to have some doctors document it, and then be biblically healed and then submit the evidence on here?

 

Every post I've made you just dismiss and rant against God. Honestly I don't have much hope for you.

 

I'm sitting here laughing at the fact that you have any hope at all of bringing us around to your silly way of thinking.  Yes, literally laughing as I sit here on my morning break at a hospital.

[Steviejay]

15 minutes ago, Astreja said:

5 hours ago, SilentVoice said:

Wait, what? So I'm supposed to ask God to give me cancer, and then for me to have some doctors document it, and then be biblically healed and then submit the evidence on here?

 

Every post I've made you just dismiss and rant against God. Honestly I don't have much hope for you.

 

I'm sitting here laughing at the fact that you have any hope at all of bringing us around to your silly way of thinking.  Yes, literally laughing as I sit here on my morning break at a hospital.

 

That's what SV is on here for. Either to cause trouble or look for doubters to convert. I don't think he stands a chance especially if he's using Jesus as his Magic genie as that guy did nothing for most of us when we did believe!!!! We've got more chance winning the lottery than Jesus bothering to answer any prayers. Someone forgot to tell SV that Jesus is imaginary

[SilentVoice]

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

  7 hours ago, WalterP said:

SilentVoice,

 

When scientists investigate the sulphur deposits you've been talking about, what is the only practical methodology that they can all agree upon?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Interesting question. I suppose they could agree on the chemical properties of elements and their compounds in the periodic table. Also they could agree on a step-by-step guide of how to test the samples fairly without tampering or possibility of being tainted, i.e. how to transport them, seal them in containers, analyze them, report their findings in a specific template.

 

I don't think they can agree on the purpose of science. The scientists in the cited published paper set out to disprove supernatural occurrence. That is not a method of observation and testing, it is a personal thing to them. They didn't call their article 'testing if the sulphur is supernatural or natural in origin'.

 

So how can scientists agree? Well they should collect data from around the world, collecting samples of all naturally occurring sulphur and organize them in to groups according to what geological processes made them. They could run every single analytical test they could think of against each sample and compare them side by side. They could then see that the yellowish substances created in nature in volcanoes, geothermal vents or by bacteria were completely different than the samples found. Their conclusion should be 'a mystery to think about' and not 'it was still bacteria, even though it couldn't have been bacteria'.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thank you for this, SV.

 

My bad for not being specific enough.  I apologize for that. 

 

The issue is how science should proceed when the scientists themselves hold to many different and conflicting beliefs about the supernatural.

 

So, here is the question, rephrased.

 

When scientists investigate the sulphur deposits you've been talking about, with regard to the supernatural, what is the only practical methodology that they can all agree upon?

 

I look forward to your answer.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Well if they didn't believe in the supernatural I guess they could all agree that they can only test what they do know, i.e. the things I specified in my last reply. The methodology of chemical analysis using as many varying samples that they could find. Since they had completely rejected the possibility of a supernatural cause before they even began, they failed to use proper scientific method. Imagine if the greatest scientists in history set out to disprove something and when their results didn't come out as expected, they settled on their original premise.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, they should have had an open mind of its' origin instead of trying determine, before they even started typing their paper, that it was made by the most probably process that they were familiar with. Maybe I should have said that the supernatural doesn't necessarily have to be metaphysical since they could actually hold the samples in their hands to test it.

 

If I'm not giving you the answers that you're looking for can you please be more specific, because honestly I feel like it's difficult to answer your question in a satisfying way. Also thank you for being very polite.

[SilentVoice]

57 minutes ago, Steviejay said:

 

That's what SV is on here for. Either to cause trouble or look for doubters to convert. I don't think he stands a chance especially if he's using Jesus as his Magic genie as that guy did nothing for most of us when we did believe!!!! We've got more chance winning the lottery than Jesus bothering to answer any prayers. Someone forgot to tell SV that Jesus is imaginary

Jesus answered my prayers a few days ago. It was amazing.

[midniterider]

36 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

Jesus answered my prayers a few days ago. It was amazing.

 

Yayyy. Jesus would you like to confirm that? 

[Astreja]

54 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

Jesus answered my prayers a few days ago. It was amazing.

 

Could you be more specific as to what you prayed for?

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, SilentVoice said:

Well if they didn't believe in the supernatural I guess they could all agree that they can only test what they do know, i.e. the things I specified in my last reply. The methodology of chemical analysis using as many varying samples that they could find. Since they had completely rejected the possibility of a supernatural cause before they even began, they failed to use proper scientific method. Imagine if the greatest scientists in history set out to disprove something and when their results didn't come out as expected, they settled on their original premise.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, they should have had an open mind of its' origin instead of trying determine, before they even started typing their paper, that it was made by the most probably process that they were familiar with. Maybe I should have said that the supernatural doesn't necessarily have to be metaphysical since they could actually hold the samples in their hands to test it.

 

If I'm not giving you the answers that you're looking for can you please be more specific, because honestly I feel like it's difficult to answer your question in a satisfying way. Also thank you for being very polite.

 

Not a problem, SV.    Maybe my middle name is 'polite'. 

 

You needn't worry about the difficulty of the questions because we are making progress and that, in of itself, is satisfying.  Anyway, let's carry on.  

 

First, for the sake of further clarification, let me just say that the group of scientists I've been asking about aren't THE particular scientists who published the article about those sulphur deposits.  No.  What I'd like you to do please, is to consider how ANY group of scientists would perform their investigation.  Yes, they'd certainly do as you say and find what they can agree upon.  

 

But, since science is a discipline open to anyone, the people who do it can come from a diversity of backgrounds, different cultures, different creeds and different beliefs.  So, rather than one particular view or belief system dominating the scientific process, it's necessary to level the playing field.  While each participating scientist might privately believe their religion (or lack of it) is the right one, they need to work collectively.  To do this they need to put their private views to one side and adopt a commonly agreed standard.

 

Since they cannot agree about the spiritual and the supernatural (each scientist having different and contradictory beliefs to the others) the only realistic way forward is for all of them to agree that they will keep all religious, spiritual and supernatural matters out their work.  Doing this offends nobody, treats everyone equally and allows people of different faiths to work productively together. 

 

This is, more or less, the basis of professional scientific objectivity. While working with others you respect the beliefs of others as they respect yours, both parties keeping their beliefs private.  Everyone professionally adheres to the collective secular standard of scientific methodology, even if they may privately disagree with its strictly materialistic and naturalistic description of reality.  This standard means that on a professional scientific basis, the supernatural is excluded as a possible explanation for any observed phenomenon.

 

SilentVoice, please note that this professional standard doesn't require anyone to give up their personal and private religious beliefs about the supernatural. 

All that is happening is that because science requires equality and parity between its practitioners, the supernatural is excluded so that people of diverse beliefs can work together.

 

Therefore, the scientific method must necessarily exclude the supernatural. 

 

If that were not the case and one particular belief system dominated, people of other faiths would be unable to practice biology, geology, physics or any of the other sciences.  Or, if a Sikh wished to practice genetics, then he/she would have to recant their faith, in favor of the one dominating the sciences. This would not only be impractical, but also grossly unfair and prejudicial to that person.  Why should they be barred from becoming a genetic scientist because of their beliefs?

 

I hope that you can now see what I mean about science being agnostic about the supernatural, SV.  It's not a matter of prejudice or bias, its a matter of practical necessity.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[Steviejay]

2 hours ago, SilentVoice said:

Jesus answered my prayers a few days ago. It was amazing

 

I'm not even going to ask what he answered because it's just another one of your bullshits. He doesn't answer prayers it's already been scientifically proved and I was in the church for 15 yrs and never saw 1 answered prayer that couldn't be explained. Your neighbors have the same as you in proportion. Car, house, kids, schools, family....you pray... they dont   but they still have the same because praying makes no difference. Illusion of the brain. 

 

Others on here are giving you the softly softly but your just trying to mess with their minds. Im falling for none of it. You know what you're doing

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I've said it before; and I'll say it again: the only thing flat-earthers have to fear, is sphere itself. 

[SilentVoice]

21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I've said it before; and I'll say it again: the only thing flat-earthers have to fear, is sphere itself. 

I used to believe in space, planets, NASA, etc. I don't think it's related to salvation at all. Even godly Christians still buy in to the stupid nonsense that gets tossed at you. Why? The Holy Spirit blesses them, why didn't He share with those people that it's all fake? I guess it's not entirely important, or maybe they received different spiritual gifts like the ability to write books to help people, where as I can see through cartoon illustrations that atheists print out and call photographs. Maybe God feels like it's important for me to know.

 

I just see that it's all tied together. People wouldn't believe the big bang theory as easily (and thus abiogenesis) if they could see the flat Earth. Why would a big bang send out trillions of galaxies and make a flat surface that doesn't move? These ideas can't co-exist. People learning about a flat Earth in school would make them more likely to seek to understand God. That's not what the enemy wants (obviously).

 

Hide the Earth's shape > tell them it's all part of an elaborate meaningless explosion > get them to behave like animals doing what feels good. It's pretty simple when you think about it. But like I said I don't see it as a big deal since predestination might be a thing. I might be predestined to bang my head against the wall trying to explain things to you and you might be predestined to not listen. LOL it's a mystery.

[Steviejay]

27 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

I used to believe in space, planets, NASA, etc. I don't think it's related to salvation at all. Even godly Christians still buy in to the stupid nonsense that gets tossed at you. Why? The Holy Spirit blesses them, why didn't He share with those people that it's all fake? I guess it's not entirely important, or maybe they received different spiritual gifts like the ability to write books to help people, where as I can see through cartoon illustrations that atheists print out and call photographs. Maybe God feels like it's important for me to know.

 

I just see that it's all tied together. People wouldn't believe the big bang theory as easily (and thus abiogenesis) if they could see the flat Earth. Why would a big bang send out trillions of galaxies and make a flat surface that doesn't move? These ideas can't co-exist. People learning about a flat Earth in school would make them more likely to seek to understand God. That's not what the enemy wants (obviously).

 

Hide the Earth's shape > tell them it's all part of an elaborate meaningless explosion > get them to behave like animals doing what feels good. It's pretty simple when you think about it. But like I said I don't see it as a big deal since predestination might be a thing. I might be predestined to bang my head against the wall trying to explain things to you and you might be predestined to not listen. LOL it's a mystery.

 

Let me get this straight

 

You believe that the earth is flat. Am I missing something or is it flat

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Holy shit this is next level.

 

The shape of the earth is not in question. It's one of those "we can be very certain about this" facts of reality. Anyone who thinks the earth is flat is ignorant or stupid, possibly both.

 

SV, Why would God make billions of galaxies, with billions of stars and planets in each, but only put life on one planet? You have problems understanding concepts like the big bang and abiogenesis, yet you don't seem to have clearly thought through all the implications of what we know about our universe and how that ties into the bible God.

[sdelsolray]

4 minutes ago, Steviejay said:

 

Let me get this straight

 

You believe that the earth is flat. Am I missing something or is it flat

 

 

Poster SilentVoice is a nutter.  Consider ignoring him.

[SilentVoice]

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

But, since science is a discipline open to anyone, the people who do it can come from a diversity of backgrounds, different cultures, different creeds and different beliefs.  So, rather than one particular view or belief system dominating the scientific process, it's necessary to level the playing field.  While each participating scientist might privately believe their religion (or lack of it) is the right one, they need to work collectively.  To do this they need to put their private views to one side and adopt a commonly agreed standard.

 

Since they cannot agree about the spiritual and the supernatural (each scientist having different and contradictory beliefs to the others) the only realistic way forward is for all of them to agree that they will keep all religious, spiritual and supernatural matters out their work.  Doing this offends nobody, treats everyone equally and allows people of different faiths to work productively together. 

 

This is, more or less, the basis of professional scientific objectivity. While working with others you respect the beliefs of others as they respect yours, both parties keeping their beliefs private.  Everyone professionally adheres to the collective secular standard of scientific methodology, even if they may privately disagree with its strictly materialistic and naturalistic description of reality.  This standard means that on a professional scientific basis, the supernatural is excluded as a possible explanation for any observed phenomenon.

Yeah you're leading me on to the point I'm trying to make.

 

Let's say you have a Muslim, Christian, Hindu and atheist and they all perfectly study the samples and other samples that I proposed in my earlier reply, they all get together and conclude different things about it.

 

Do Muslims love truth? No they love their religion.

Do Hindus love truth? No they love cows.

Do Christians love truth? Jesus is truth, so yes.

Do atheists love truth? Try convincing me, the apostates here all speak against or doubt Jesus. Yes, I use truth and Jesus interchangeably.

 

How are they supposed to operate together? There are only really 2 types of people, people who love God and people who don't. If 3 of the 4 scientists set out to disprove the Christian God and won't conclude with the possibility of it being true, then they already failed the scientific method, they may as well not have studied at all. They didn't admit that it was unlike any sample found anywhere else. They literally set out to disprove something and when it didn't go as planned they concluded that it was natural. They didn't even bother to include "We do not understand why there was no presence of pyrite". Nothing.

 

You don't even have a problem with their conclusion. You're saying that it's the best working practice to simply pick an explanation contrary to the results, as to 'not offend anyone'. That's not scientific.  What would the earliest scientists supposedly persecuted by the church do if they held that belief? They wouldn't have published any of their beliefs and you'd accuse them of being dishonest Christian scientists LOL!

 

As to the idea of not offending people, I can't agree. I'm not supposed to offend anyone but I have to accept that people are offended by God, so when I stand up for my God and won't renounce Him or the good things He does, I am going to cause offence. There may well be Christian scientists afraid to publish results and conclusions that would have them ejected from the scientific community, but that's their problem. They should put truth above their reputation.

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

Therefore, the scientific method must necessarily exclude the supernatural.

The study should have been "How were the samples formed", their premise (if they were to exclude the supernatural) should have been "they were probably formed like other samples around the world in geological processes". Their conclusion should have been "We cannot explain the formation of these samples due to the purity of its elemental state, nor the reaction with the rocks, most notably the absence of pyrite, nor its unique appearance. There have been no other samples found of this type at the time of publishing on <insert date>"

 

But no. Very dishonest.

[SilentVoice]

9 minutes ago, Steviejay said:

 

Let me get this straight

 

You believe that the earth is flat. Am I missing something or is it flat

 

You know when you watch a boat disappear over the horizon? It's because of a curve, right?

 

No, get a telescope and zoom in on it. It keeps going and going in a straight line.

[Steviejay]

2 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Poster SilentVoice is a nutter.  Consider ignoring him.

 

That's what I've thought for a long time now that he's a nutter. 

 

People, we are wasting our time with this guy. He needs professional help. It doesn't matter what any of us say to the contrary. He's got little voices inside his head

 

He had no credibility with his xtianity but now he's in minus figures with regards to respect being a flat rather

 

One word springs to mind 

 

Unbelievable 

 

[SilentVoice]

8 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Holy shit this is next level.

 

The shape of the earth is not in question. It's one of those "we can be very certain about this" facts of reality. Anyone who thinks the earth is flat is ignorant or stupid, possibly both.

 

SV, Why would God make billions of galaxies, with billions of stars and planets in each, but only put life on one planet? You have problems understanding concepts like the big bang and abiogenesis, yet you don't seem to have clearly thought through all the implications of what we know about our universe and how that ties into the bible God.

I know more about big bang and abiogenesis than you do. I guess that makes you even stupider? I'm getting confused. This is supposed to be the Lion's den. You're supposed to be bullying and devouring me, I'm supposed to be at your mercy but all you can do is hurl insults and claim that I don't know what I'm talking about. You may be suffering from psychosis.

 

Big bang; something (maybe a 'quantum wave fluctuation' causing nothing to explode out of a theoretical realm of potentiality that sent incomprehensible amounts of matter ever-expanding outwards from the size of a pin head in a hot dense state that took billions of years to cool down and form condensed pockets of matter which eventually turned in to stars and planets, and you just happen to live on one of them.

Abiogenesis; life starting from non-life, completely separated from God.

 

Both ideas are stupid and wrong but you'll find out eventually.

[Steviejay]

5 minutes ago, Steviejay said:

nutter

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/tvhVUMF7B4Lx3JzT6  

[Steviejay]

9 minutes ago, Steviejay said:

16 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Poster SilentVoice is a nutter.  Consider ignoring him.

 

 

This is a sight that you'll never see from an eclipse. The guy is definitely a nutter

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/tvhVUMF7B4Lx3JzT6