Why I Believe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2017, 11:30 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 07:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  Polls of doctors huh? If you claim prayer cures disease, post evidence. There's a wealth of randomized controlled trials proving the efficacy of modern medical techniques. I'll admit my post was bait, and you took it. Please define for me a "miracle" in an unambiguous fashion.

ETA: And find for me ONE person provably "super-naturally" cured - and this means not just "we don't understand how" but "God did it".

Ok everyone just slow down and take a breath and go back thoughtfully to what has been said, after all this is the "thinking" atheist forum so let's reread and "think" through what has been claimed.

In post #386 moromdog states: As much as religion would love to be able to claim the same effectiveness as science, we cure more people wholesale in a week than have been cured by prayer in the last several thousand years.

If one applies logical reading comprehension what is being posited? Science is more effective than prayer in curing people of illnesses. Now apply logic - to compare any two things and state one is more effective than the other one would have to acknowledge this truth - both science and prayer are capable of curing people of illness. Secondly, as so often demanded here, and rightly so, is when a claim is made (science is more effective than prayer at curing people) the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Therefore morondog having made the claim bears the burden of proof to present evidence that prayer is indeed able to cure illness but that it is less effective that science.

That being said note, as previously stated, the proliferance of double standards. A claim is made by morondog, which promotes his agenda/belief that prayer cures illness but is less effective that science and no one challenges the claim yet in post #395 morondog demands that I sudmit evidence that prayer cures people, a claim he made to begin with. Huh? Oh, wait, now we have a back pedal that it was bait. OK ha ha I guess I'm a silly gullible theist.

With playtime over back to the proliferance of double standards. In post #394 I offered a "food for thought" link to the claims of a survey doctors, doctors presumably educated and accredited in their fields by the finest medical institutions of the land who stated "they" have seen "treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous" and then I'm burdened to provide proof of their claim, not my claim, and not only that but that the required evidence be substantiated with proof that "God", who is preemptively deemed not to even exist, preformed the miracle. WTF! Yes I did say that, read that again thinking it through and I don't know what else to say other that logic and reason be damned because I believe what I believe and I'll require evidence with peremeters irrationally designed to challenge my belief be it true or not.

As to the poll,remember I did not present the poll as proof nor evidence but simply as "food for thought" meaning nothing more than to present something that warrants consideration. I agree that as humans all are susceptible to a certain amount of bias. But if it's logical to dismiss something simply because it is presented by those with whom one disagrees then it would hold true and logical for everyone to object anything if it opposes one's position again, be it true on not.

Here's another poll presented as "food for thought": A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009 of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Results of the poll found that - just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Logically what are the options is one to do with this data if it doesn't fit one's beliefs?

One could simply dimiss it because of who conducted the poll and didn't like the results. Not very rational but possible.

One could argue the scientists supporting belief of a deity are doing so irrationally and without basis. If that were true that they were considered this illogical don't you think the American Association for the Advanvement of Science would cease to honor their membership?

One could say that only the 49% are right because as previously posted in this forum,the majority of scientist are atheist, by redifining what majority means.

As atheists I would be interested in how do some of you process the data presented by this poll. Thank you for your comments

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\


As a scientist, I can tell you that I do know religious scientists who are very good scientists. However, they compartmentalize the religion. I have had several discussions with them and most of the ones I have talked to about it admit they compartmentalize. So what? It has no bearing on how rigorous they apply their scientific skills. The AAAS doesn't judge their membership based on non-science. Why don't you actually look up the criteria for the AAS? You will not find a religions question.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
10-04-2017, 11:55 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(10-04-2017 08:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 06:47 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Facepalm It's apparent the more one applies thoughtful consideration of what's being stated the more sees double standards to posit one's view. I feel confident if I stated that prayer cures people I would be bombarded with challenges to prove the claim and statements saying the effects of prayer are unfalsifiable yet am I the only one that questions the above claim? Again Facepalm

Food for thought are these results of a poll of doctors: Perhaps the most surprising result of the survey,” the report notes, “is that a majority of doctors (55 percent) said that they have seen treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous (45 percent do not).
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2004/12/28152/#sfz...Res7K6m.99

The effects of intercessory prayer have been tested and found to be non-existent.

Yikes!!! Now what, first atheists say to depend on doctors and then I find out half of the doctors are delusional because they believe in the miraculous. God I hope I don't get sick. Oh wait there no God Facepalm

Careful Chas, there are some of the brethren here who don't give much credence to Wikipedia
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2017, 12:13 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Ok everyone just slow down and take a breath and go back thoughtfully to what has been said, after all this is the "thinking" atheist forum so let's reread and "think" through what has been claimed.

In post #386 moromdog states: As much as religion would love to be able to claim the same effectiveness as science, we cure more people wholesale in a week than have been cured by prayer in the last several thousand years.

If one applies logical reading comprehension what is being posited? Science is more effective than prayer in curing people of illnesses. Now apply logic - to compare any two things and state one is more effective than the other one would have to acknowledge this truth - both science and prayer are capable of curing people of illness.

Uh, no. Morondog's statement that science cures more people in a week than religion has cured in a thousand years includes the possibility that religion has never cured anybody. In fact, any reasonable reading of his statement would recognize that that was what he meant. You have to be *willfully* blind, if not deliberately deceptive, to interpret this to say that morondog was claiming religion does cure people of illness.

Most of the rest of your argument here is based on this false interpretation, so can be dismissed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like John Derderian's post
10-04-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(10-04-2017 12:15 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  The idea of life after death sounds appealing, it's also nice to think there is someone looking out of our best interests. But primarily, my fear of burning in hell keeps me in Christianity.

I know it isn't logical, I know it is irrational, but nevertheless, it is still powerful.

So apparently you favour the implausible and the irrational over and above the tenets of science? You even acknowledge this, and use it as a basis for why you believe in supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena, and a mythical place called "hell".

Not the best example I've ever seen of clear thinking. Big Grin

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2017, 12:35 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(10-04-2017 06:47 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  ... Food for thought are these results of a poll of doctors: Perhaps the most surprising result of the survey,” the report notes, “is that a majority of doctors (55 percent) said that they have seen treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous (45 percent do not).
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2004/12/28152/#sfz...Res7K6m.99

Only one minor [sic ] issue with your citation to WND:

"WND is a far-right website and publisher founded by Joseph Farah in 1997, and espouses a fundamentalist Christian, creationist world view, with a healthy dose of jingoism. WND's coverage provides multiple sides of the issues: the very conservative viewpoint and the ultra-conservative viewpoint...

While they present themselves as news, WND is a tabloid for radical right-wingers. Their publishing standards are rock-bottom, and they have run stories from extremely questionable sources on many, many occasions. WND are one of the earliest and longest running publishers of Ann Coulter's insipid columns, as well as editorials from such august political analysts as Chuck Norris, Pat Boone and Charlie Daniels. The addition of editorials by disgraced baseball bigot John Rocker, and an obsession with so-called "black mob violence" marked a shift from their less than subtle dog whistles into more overt racism.

The scary thing is, this bilge is actually slightly influential, with made-up bullshit from WND making its way out the mouths of wingnut congressmen and cable TV pundits far too often. Most notably, WND became ground zero for the Birther movement [re Barack Obama] during the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections".

Another of their previous polls posed the question: "What do you make of the recent spree of earthquakes, and gave 10 options. The top result was 35% of respondents who chose the reason as "It's the beginning of the end-time birth pangs, as the Bible puts it."

Laughat

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SYZ's post
10-04-2017, 12:41 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 02:39 PM by mordant.)
RE: Why I Believe
(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  If one applies logical reading comprehension what is being posited? Science is more effective than prayer in curing people of illnesses. Now apply logic - to compare any two things and state one is more effective than the other one would have to acknowledge this truth - both science and prayer are capable of curing people of illness.
Not at all. "Effective" runs the gamut from "not at all" to "totally" effective. If medicine is more effective, that says nothing about HOW effective medicine or prayer are individually. I would suggest that when controlling for all factors to the extent possible, medicine is probably 65% effective and religion, about 5%. And that's still ignoring patient non-compliance / lifestyle issues mitigating against medicine and placebo effects mitigating in favor of religion. In truth, it's probably more like 80% / 0%. Just guessing of course, but I doubt I'm far off. In a perfect world where people would always follow diets and exercise and take their meds, medicine would be quite effective. In a perfect world where people's subjective sense of well-being were not so squishy and influenceable, religion would be unable to take credit for the occasional spontaneous improvement (or, more typically, to take credit on behalf of itself or god, for what medicine actually DID contribute to help a person).

Religion does this all the time. Claims to heal people, when it was doctors or the body itself. Claims to be the inventor and protector of morality it has hijacked from society. Etc.
(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Secondly, as so often demanded here, and rightly so, is when a claim is made (science is more effective than prayer at curing people) the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Therefore morondog having made the claim bears the burden of proof to present evidence that prayer is indeed able to cure illness but that it is less effective that science.
It is no one's job to prove the efficacy of prayer other than the person making the positive claim for its efficacy. The claim of efficacy for medicine is already substantiated. The efficacy of prayer has already been studied, to its detriment, anyway.
(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  With playtime over back to the proliferance of double standards. In post #394 I offered a "food for thought" link to the claims of a survey doctors, doctors presumably educated and accredited in their fields by the finest medical institutions of the land who stated "they" have seen "treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous"
You provided an article from a discredited source that claims there was such a survey but conveniently does not name the source or link to it. So you provided no "food for thought" or "something to consider" at all.
(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  As to the poll,remember I did not present the poll as proof nor evidence but simply as "food for thought" meaning nothing more than to present something that warrants consideration.
And it was considered, and dismissed out of hand, as it should be.
(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Here's another poll presented as "food for thought": A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009 of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Results of the poll found that - just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
At least Pew is a credible source, assuming you're not misrepresenting or cherry picking it. Since I have work to get done I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt that 33% of scientists are some form of theists. Probably not the sort you would agree much with, I'll warrant. But that doesn't surprise or disturb me. Scientists are human, and they are not 100% logically consistent, and compartmentalize like everyone else. All I care about is if they do valid science, not whether they hold personal beliefs that are entirely consistent with it.
(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Logically what are the options is one to do with this data if it doesn't fit one's beliefs?
Change your beliefs if the evidence warrants it or is relevant to it.

But of course it's not relevant to the question of the existence of gods. What x% of scientists allegedly privately think about it has no impact on what's actually the case.
(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  One could simply dimiss it because of who conducted the poll and didn't like the results. Not very rational but possible.
I accept it as interesting information but not relevant to my lack of belief in any deities. To accept is as relevant would be to accept an argument from authority, from popularity, or both. Neither have any influence on whether something is factual.
(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  One could argue the scientists supporting belief of a deity are doing so irrationally and without basis. If that were true that they were considered this illogical don't you think the American Association for the Advanvement of Science would cease to honor their membership?
Only if they have a religious litmus test for membership, which they do not.
(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  One could say that only the 49% are right because as previously posted in this forum,the majority of scientist are atheist, by redifining what majority means.

As atheists I would be interested in how do some of you process the data presented by this poll. Thank you for your comments.
Is this the poll you are talking about?

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scien...nd-belief/

If so, this poll actually concludes that scientists are much less religious than the general public. Here is the associated graphic.
[Image: Scientists-and-Belief-1.gif]
Unlike you what strikes me here are the contrasts:

1) 83% of the general public "believe in God", vs 33% of scientists

2) 4% of the general public believe NEITHER in god, nor a higher power, vs 41% of scientists

3) While more scientists believe in a "higher power", which I would take to be the vague deist non-personal god or absent watch-maker, even this points to scientists strongly tending to have less rather than more specific views about divinity. In other words, they cling only to the general concept, not the specifics, and this has huge consequences for their worldview and how they relate to reality.

So in summation, most scientists do NOT believe in anything resembling the typical fundamentalist / evangelical / inerrantist / Christian apologist god; scientists are about 10 times more likely to disbelieve in ANY form of divinity; and what theistic beliefs they have are what I call the Albert beliefs -- such as held by Albert Einstein or Albert Schweitzer, that is, they are deists or pan(en)theists or have a very Spinoza-eseque non-doctrinaire sense of awe before nature as understood by science. These are not positions you would be comfortable promoting, I'm sure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like mordant's post
10-04-2017, 12:41 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(10-04-2017 11:30 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 10:28 AM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Ok everyone just slow down and take a breath and go back thoughtfully to what has been said, after all this is the "thinking" atheist forum so let's reread and "think" through what has been claimed.

In post #386 moromdog states: As much as religion would love to be able to claim the same effectiveness as science, we cure more people wholesale in a week than have been cured by prayer in the last several thousand years.

If one applies logical reading comprehension what is being posited? Science is more effective than prayer in curing people of illnesses. Now apply logic - to compare any two things and state one is more effective than the other one would have to acknowledge this truth - both science and prayer are capable of curing people of illness. Secondly, as so often demanded here, and rightly so, is when a claim is made (science is more effective than prayer at curing people) the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Therefore morondog having made the claim bears the burden of proof to present evidence that prayer is indeed able to cure illness but that it is less effective that science.

That being said note, as previously stated, the proliferance of double standards. A claim is made by morondog, which promotes his agenda/belief that prayer cures illness but is less effective that science and no one challenges the claim yet in post #395 morondog demands that I sudmit evidence that prayer cures people, a claim he made to begin with. Huh? Oh, wait, now we have a back pedal that it was bait. OK ha ha I guess I'm a silly gullible theist.

With playtime over back to the proliferance of double standards. In post #394 I offered a "food for thought" link to the claims of a survey doctors, doctors presumably educated and accredited in their fields by the finest medical institutions of the land who stated "they" have seen "treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous" and then I'm burdened to provide proof of their claim, not my claim, and not only that but that the required evidence be substantiated with proof that "God", who is preemptively deemed not to even exist, preformed the miracle. WTF! Yes I did say that, read that again thinking it through and I don't know what else to say other that logic and reason be damned because I believe what I believe and I'll require evidence with peremeters irrationally designed to challenge my belief be it true or not.

As to the poll,remember I did not present the poll as proof nor evidence but simply as "food for thought" meaning nothing more than to present something that warrants consideration. I agree that as humans all are susceptible to a certain amount of bias. But if it's logical to dismiss something simply because it is presented by those with whom one disagrees then it would hold true and logical for everyone to object anything if it opposes one's position again, be it true on not.

Here's another poll presented as "food for thought": A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009 of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Results of the poll found that - just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Logically what are the options is one to do with this data if it doesn't fit one's beliefs?

One could simply dimiss it because of who conducted the poll and didn't like the results. Not very rational but possible.

One could argue the scientists supporting belief of a deity are doing so irrationally and without basis. If that were true that they were considered this illogical don't you think the American Association for the Advanvement of Science would cease to honor their membership?

One could say that only the 49% are right because as previously posted in this forum,the majority of scientist are atheist, by redifining what majority means.

As atheists I would be interested in how do some of you process the data presented by this poll. Thank you for your comments

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\


As a scientist, I can tell you that I do know religious scientists who are very good scientists. However, they compartmentalize the religion. I have had several discussions with them and most of the ones I have talked to about it admit they compartmentalize. So what? It has no bearing on how rigorous they apply their scientific skills. The AAAS doesn't judge their membership based on non-science. Why don't you actually look up the criteria for the AAS? You will not find a religions question.

So what? I would answer by asking first did you talk to all of them, the rest may not compartmentalizeson. Secondly if a scientist affirms a faith in a deity yet can objectively still be viewed respectfully to retain his knowledge and ability to rigorously apply their scientific skills yet the majority of the American public who also claim the same belief are viewed as stupid, gullible and misguided who have no evidence of a deity but one that maintains equal footing with FSM, unicorns and pink elephants. This seems to be faulty logic does it not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2017, 12:51 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(10-04-2017 10:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  Pay attention: *you* took exception to *my* claim that science cures people more effectively than religion. *If* religion cures people of disease, *why* do people go to doctors in preference to priests? And I'll wager that you do too, Mr "Double standard".

One question these God-botherers will never answer (and I've asked it of them several times here):

If you were suddenly struck down at home with a heart attack or stroke, what would you immediately do? Fall to your knees in prayer, or phone for an ambulance?

(10-04-2017 10:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  So sure, I claim that science is more effective than religion, show me ONE person whom religion has cured of ANY disease, provably. You'd think you idiots would have found one in all your thousands of years.

Agreed. Not one single, audited case of religious healing since man invented writing. Again, we can ask of God-botherers; if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then why do we still have amputees?

—These are the sorts of questions that the theists (those here) avoid addressing at all costs.

No

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2017, 01:04 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(10-04-2017 12:41 PM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  So what? I would answer by asking first did you talk to all of them, the rest may not compartmentalization.

Nonsense. All the estimated 6,000,000 of them globally? What a stupid rationalisation.

(10-04-2017 12:41 PM)A_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Secondly if a scientist affirms a faith in a deity yet can objectively still be viewed respectfully to retain his knowledge and ability to rigorously apply their scientific skills yet the majority of the American public who also claim the same belief are viewed as stupid, gullible and misguided who have no evidence of a deity but one that maintains equal footing with FSM, unicorns and pink elephants. This seems to be faulty logic does it not?

Nope; not faulty at all. Your claims about an allegedly stupid American public—which view you erroneously attribute to atheists—is nothing more than a distraction in order to avoid addressing the real questions.

The difference with theist scientists is that their religion doesn't get in the way of their dialectic. Non-science-based theism seriously hinders investigation, logic, and rationale, due to the over-arcing acceptance of the paranormal.

BTW, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is nothing more than a piss-take of religion—I'm not even sure why you mention it?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2017, 01:06 PM
RE: Why I Believe
(10-04-2017 12:15 PM)SYZ Wrote:  So apparently you favour the implausible and the irrational over and above the tenets of science? You even acknowledge this, and use it as a basis for why you believe in supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena, and a mythical place called "hell".

Not the best example I've ever seen of clear thinking. Big Grin
You're telling me

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: