Scientific Proof That God Is Real! - Page 6
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 70

Thread: Scientific Proof That God Is Real!

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by nosreme View Post
    Very few atheists mock people for being religious. Some do (and that's reprehensible--it's constitutionally protected, after all!), but most don't. What we don't hesitate to mock are some of the things we have huge "issues" with over the ways way too many religious people express and exploit their faith, e.g., leveraging legislative sympathies for tax preferences, exemptions from health, welfare, and worker safety laws; unrelentingly attempting to conform content in education to their views thereby suppressing educational effectiveness and child academic development--even when they consistently lose curriculum battles in court, e.g. Kitzmiller; insisting that it's possible to have voluntary prayer in K-12; opposing women's rights; opposing gay rights; opposing scientific and medical practice and research not consistent with their bible; trashing other religions and indulging in the very ad hominem mockery they complain about when atheists do it; censoring all forms of expression to which they object on religious grounds; insinuating their views into the workplace (including the military) through special treatment regarding dress, appearances, wear of religious symbols, time off for religious activities; unrelentingly insinuating their views into law and policy; protecting those who abuse their religious positions, e.g., predatory sexual crimes; constantly claiming to be persecuted; forever asserting that the only way to be moral is to have their god as a "moral compass;" disingenuously claiming protection of the constitution's free exercise clause while pretending that the establishment clause doesn't exist, is irrelevant, or is subordinate to the free exercise clause; constantly claiming that the US as a nation (apart from why the first pilgrims fled England for abhorrent religious persecution) is "founded on religion" and is a "christian nation"--complete with the usual and predictable fabricated or out-of-context "founding father" quotes; endlessly inserting religious rhetoric into non-off-topic sections of gun and other internet forums and, even if the section used is, like this one, appropriate for non-gun chatter, implying or outright asserting that patriotism is impossible without religion and that the nonreligious therefore aren't patriotic--and then complaining loudly when they are called out on it; etc, etc...
    When I first entered the Army in the early 50s, going to religious services while in basic training was required. Didn't matter what religion you were, we all went for an hour service and that was it. No badgering anyone about their particular religion and we all got along just fine. At no time during my career was I, or anyone else I know, coerced into accepting any religion of any sort. No one I knew or worked for, up to and including general officers ever tried to assert any religious influence on anyone. We all knew there were atheists in the service but it was never an issue and seldom, if ever, even a topic of discussion. The first problems I ever heard about religion was a West Point cadet who sued the Army because they were required to attend church services. He won the case and I later served with him and still never heard anything further about the case. The first I ever heard of real problems over religion in the military was after Mikey Weinstein started his campaign to rid the military of any religious influence or references. Oddly enough, this gentleman is an Air Force Academy graduate and has family that are also graduates. His father is reported to have been a distinguished graduate of the Naval Academy. Coming from such a military family, I can't understand why he has so much hatred for religion, even his own, Judaism. Personally, I feel he has the right to be an atheist and would not deny him that choice. He, on the other hand, seems to want to deny that same privilege to others, even going so far as to sue the military. From the few statistics I have read, atheists are in the minority yet want to dictate to the majority. Sorry, it doesn't work that way for me and I will fight with equal vigor to prevent him, or anyone else from denying me my religious freedoms.

    I have my religious beliefs and cannot be shaken from them. I know atheists are the same but all the bickering we do back and forth does nothing to give the other better credence in their stance. I believe in God, a triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe the Bible has all the answers to any questions I may have. God has been mentioned in all of our laws for millenia. I didn't insert Him into them but they work for me and, obviously, they have worked for many because they haven't been changed much. If an atheist doesn't like them, let him/her go to work to change the laws. If the atheists don't like our religious symbols, don't look at them. I can't say that I particularly like the little beanies Muslims wear or the habibs of their women but that is their right so, more power to them. Out west, an atheist group is trying to have a cross removed from a WWII memorial just because they don't like religious symbols. This memorial was erected for our military personnel. What is wrong with that? I could go on, ad nauseum but that would not remedy our problems and we will never come to a final resolution. If anyone posts an entry on religion, I may or may not join in, depending on what is being discussed. If an atheist posts an entry concerning atheism, I will not join in because I don't have anything to contribute. I definitely would not join in for the purpose of belittling the writer or his opinions. I would go on to another forum looking for something interesting. By posting this, I do not mean to give offense to anyone but, if religion doesn't concern you, why is it necessary to get involved?

  2.   
  3. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    To point out that you are very selective in the religious laws you believe should exist.

    As they say “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
    You have absolutely no idea what religious laws I believe should exist and to say so is a major assumption on your part since you really have no idea what I believe or disbelieve... I merely presented to you religious laws that are on the law books that most everyone regardless of belief system agrees with. You however, started with a position that the religious should keep their laws off the law books. After I presented to you those laws that are on our law books that most believe, you then presented inferences of laws that are religious but not on our law books (which made absolutely no sense in your initial argument). I asked you what your point was and your retort back was the above statement. You sir make no sense, but at least you feel you know what I believe.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  4. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    You have absolutely no idea what religious laws I believe should exist and to say so is a major assumption on your part since you really have no idea what I believe or disbelieve... I merely presented to you religious laws that are on the law books that most everyone regardless of belief system agrees with. You however, started with a position that the religious should keep their laws off the law books. After I presented to you those laws that are on our law books that most believe, you then presented inferences of laws that are religious but not on our law books (which made absolutely no sense in your initial argument). I asked you what your point was and your retort back was the above statement. You sir make no sense, but at least you feel you know what I believe.
    I know execrably what they are, they are fable based. Granted some align with rational man-made laws, and some are over the top stupid (which applies to both fable based and man-made)

    Now the burning bush, stone tablets of folklore. WOW it takes a special level of non-thinking irrational thought to swallow that guff.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  5. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    I know execrably what they are, they are fable based. Granted some align with rational man-made laws, and some are over the top stupid (which applies to both fable based and man-made)

    Now the burning bush, stone tablets of folklore. WOW it takes a special level of non-thinking irrational thought to swallow that guff.
    And this was the original post of which I mention as your initial argument:
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    I have no problem ignoring the blovating purveyors of fable, a.k.a. any religion, their ignorance is sad, but can be ignored; but when the nonsense of ancient fable is written into laws that govern everyone, then we have a big problem.
    Why do you avoid your initial argument? YOU asserted that the religious need to keep their laws off the law books. I presented to you three laws: murder, theft, and perjury; that have religious origins and that are ON the law books to show that some of the religious laws have validity in a society that may or may not agree with all the religious laws. Your comeback, which contradicted your initial point was to come up with religious laws that are not on the law books. I have asked what is the point of bringing those up since they are not on the law books; you have refused to answer that question. Your responses instead have been wild conjecture about what you think I may believe and now a gross mockery of anyone who believes anything from Judeo Christian doctrine. If you could please stick with your initial position, what religious laws are on the law books that you'd like to have removed? I'm going to assume murder, theft, and perjury are not ones that you'd like removed.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  6. #55
    Why all this talk of evidence? The central element of religious faith is faith, the belief that the unexplainable is caused by the un-provable, the "first cause" and it is true because it is true. Faith is by definition belief without the need for or in the absence of evidence, the antithesis of science. There can be no debate over evidence in such a case and to resort to one would seem to diminish faith. Just as "evidence" against can be infinitely regressed back to the "first cause", so evidence for can be interpreted in infinite alternative ways.

    So, is this desire to "prove" the tenets of faith an attempt to convert those who want proof? Shouldn't the faithful simply disdain those who want proof, in fact disdain proof itself?

    Again - I could not care less what others believe as long as me and mine are free to do likewise. But as a long time observer of such arguments, it is perhaps most disturbing how history shows that they devolve into events where people are willing to hasten the path to their preferred afterlife in order to prove their rectitude.

    Is there some inherent conflict between the "Freedom of Religion" and "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"?
    Si vis pacem para bellum

  7. #56
    I don't need some "scientist" to tell me what I know is true. I'll go with the Bible, before any person.

    BIBLE = Book of Instruction Before Leaving Earth

    This is not my home.

  8. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    And this was the original post of which I mention as your initial argument:


    Why do you avoid your initial argument? YOU asserted that the religious need to keep their laws off the law books. I presented to you three laws: murder, theft, and perjury; that have religious origins and that are ON the law books to show that some of the religious laws have validity in a society that may or may not agree with all the religious laws. Your comeback, which contradicted your initial point was to come up with religious laws that are not on the law books. I have asked what is the point of bringing those up since they are not on the law books; you have refused to answer that question. Your responses instead have been wild conjecture about what you think I may believe and now a gross mockery of anyone who believes anything from Judeo Christian doctrine. If you could please stick with your initial position, what religious laws are on the law books that you'd like to have removed? I'm going to assume murder, theft, and perjury are not ones that you'd like removed.

    Actually murder is quite a popular and acceptable practice in the your source of fable based laws. After all the main character in the book of fables you want to derive laws from is documented at having a hand in death of 2,391,421 people, then makes a rule about the taking of life. Yea, that makes sense....................
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  9. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    Actually murder is quite a popular and acceptable practice in the your source of fable based laws. After all the main character in the book of fables you want to derive laws from is documented at having a hand in death of 2,391,421 people, then makes a rule about the taking of life. Yea, that makes sense....................
    You make me laugh... three times I have asked you to just answer a simple question based on the platform that you provided and you refuse. You would rather sit here condemning anyone that has a belief different than yours then actually validate your initial position, which it seems you cannot by your vehement refusal to do so. I am going to assume then, that there is no religious law on our law books that you'd like to have removed and that you are just ranting without evidence. For someone to believe what you say is true they would have to have faith in you. I sir, do not. My faith is with someone much greater. And as "the dark" mentioned earlier, I'm going to define what faith is and why a discussion about it with someone who doesn't have it is futile: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

    Sir, if you aren't assured of the things after this worldly life and don't have conviction about those things, then we aren't even on the same playing field to be having this conversation.

    I tried to use the ball park you chose and discuss the position you have, but instead you wanted to go on tangents and criticize and mock those different from your world view. This is your choice, but it makes for a rather quick end to a discussion that never really got off the ground in the first place. Good luck to you.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  10. #59
    I believe a lot of things, just not 2,000 year old fairy tales.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  11. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    I believe a lot of things, just not 2,000 year old fairy tales.
    Attachment 10363

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast